COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LINDBERG SUBIC, INC.

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City En Bane COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB No. 1195 REVENUE, . (CTA Case No. 8524) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, PJ, -versus- CASTANEDA, JR., LINDBERG SUBIC, INC., Respondent. BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, and RINGPIS-LIBAN, ].]. Promulgated: JAN 15 2016 / .�a.>~A-L. )(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ - - - -)( RESOLUTION CASANOVA,].: Submitted for resolution is petitioner-Commissioner of Internal Revenue's (CIR) Motion for Reconsideration filed, thru registered mail, on September 10, 2015, with respondent-Lindberg Subic, Inc.'s Comment (to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 10 September 2015) filed on November 13,2015. Petitioner-CIR seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision (the "Assailed Decision") dated August 20, 2015, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the Assailed Decision dated February 11, 2014 and Assailed Resolution dated June 19, 2014 of the CTA First Division,~

DECISION CTA EB NO. 1195 (CTA Case No. 8524) the Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the February 11, 2014 Decision and June 19, 2014 Resolution of the CTA First Division are hereby both AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED." In her Motion, petitioner-CIR maintains that the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue should not be applied in the instant case as the same is not on all fours with the present case; thus, there exists no basis for the application of the principle therein. Respondent-Lindberg, on the other hand, argues that petitioner's motion merely rehashes its allegation that the Deutsche Bank case is inapplicable to the present case because the same is not on all fours with the present case; that the issue has already been exhaustively considered and ruled upon by the Honorable Court; that, the Deutsche Bank case applies to the case at bar; and, that petitioner's argument is not substantiated and lacks any support that the Deutsche Bank case should not apply in the case at bar. We have carefully perused the Motion for Reconsideration and find no valid or compelling reason to grant the same. As correctly observed by respondent-Lindberg, the arguments in the Motion are mere rehash of petitioner-CIR's previous arguments. The Motion does not raise any new, cogent or substantial ground to warrant reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated August 20, 2015. WHEREFORE, petitioner-CIR's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. # CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice

DECISION CTA EB NO. 1195 (CTA Case No. 8524) WE CONCUR: OSARIO Presiding Justice r;;;!.C.~-_9.. LOVE~TISTA JUA~ITO C. CASTANil>~; JR. Associate Justice Associate Justice ER~P.UY Associate Justice c.tJJ:.N. Mh:~ .. 6~ ~c",~A CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Associate Justice ~-~~~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice