COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CHEVRON HOLDINGS, INC.,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 1950 REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 8946) Petitioner, -versus- CHEVRON HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent. X-------------------------- X CTA EB NO. 1951 (CTA Case No. 8946) CHEVRON HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., CASTANEDA, JR., UY, -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO,]].. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Promul~ate d : OCT U 8 20~ . _ Resp ondent. -~:. ~,.., X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - ' RES OL U T I ON RINGPIS-LIBAN,L : This resolves the following: 1) "Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated June 3, 2020)"1 ("Motion for Partial Reconsideration") flied /V' 1 Rollo, pp. 207-246. '-...

RESOLUTION CTA EB Nos. 1950 & 1951 (CTA Case No. 8946) by Chevron Holdings, Inc. ("CHI'') on July 01, 2020, with "Opposition (Re: Motion for Partial Reconsideration)"2 flied by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("CIR") on August 17, 2020, seeking to: a. Reconsider and reverse the Decision3 promulgated on June 03, 2020 ("Assailed Decision"); b. Reverse and set aside the March 14, 2018 Decision and September 24, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals First Division ("First Division") in CTA Case No. 8946, insofar as it partially denied Petitioner's claim for refund of its excess and unutilized input value-added tax ("VAT") on purchase of goods and services attributable to zero- rated sales for the third and fourth quarters of 2012; c. Remand the case to the First Division; d. Order the reopening of trial to allow CHI to present its supplemental evidence; and e. Order the CIR to refund or issue in favor of CHI a tax credit certificate (TCC) in the amount of Php32,400,108.14 representing CHI's excess and unutilized input VAT for the third and fourth quarters of 2012; 2) "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 3 June 2020)"4 ("Motion for Reconsideration") flied by the CIR on June 30, 2020 via registered mail, with "Comment (Re: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated June 29, 2020)"5 flied by CHI on August 03, 2020, praying that the Assailed Decision be set aside and another one be rendered denying the entire claim for refund. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court DENIES the instant Petitions for Review for lack of merit. The Decision dated March 14, 2018 and the Resolution dated ~ 2 Id., pp. 291-298. 3 Id., pp. 184-206. 4 Id., pp. 247-257. 5 Id., pp. 278-290.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Nos. 1950 & 1951 (CTA Case No. 8946) September 24, 2018 of the First Division in CTA Case No. 8946 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."6 In its Motion for Partial Reconsideration, CHI claims that its clients are non-resident foreign corporations doing business outside the Philippines; that it properly claimed as input VAT credit for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2012 the input VAT on purchases of capital goods exceeding Php1 Million; that it sufficiently proved the existence of its reported input VAT carry- over from previous year; that claims for refund of erroneously paid taxes, like any other ordinary civil case, necessitate only preponderance of evidence for its approbation; and that it established sufficient grounds to merit the reopening of the case to present supplemental evidence. On the other hand, the CIR maintains in his Motion for Reconsideration that the law requires that only "creditable input taxes" that are "directly attributable" may be refunded, and that CHI fell short of proving the veracity of its claim for refund. We resolve to deny both motions for lack of merit. It appears that the arguments raised by CHI and the CIR in their motions are mere recapitulation of the arguments they have raised in their respective Petitions for Review filed with this Court, which as We have previously pointed out as also a reproduction of their motions for partial reconsideration7 filed with the First Division. Moreover, these issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Thus, to discuss anew the explanation of the Court on these matters is superfluity. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Chevron Holdings, Inc.'s "Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated June 3, 2020)" and Commissioner oflnternal Revenue's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 3 June 2020)" are DENIED both for lack of merit. /V 6 Id., pp. 205. 7 Docket, pp. 3750-3761 and 3762-3787.

RESOLUTION CTA EB Nos. 1950 & 1951 (CTA Case No. 8946) SO ORDERED. ~.~~ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice c. Sl~ ~.-.04J 9._. ERL~P.UY Associate Justice JUANITO C. CASTANEDA, ~R. Associate Justice ~-~-~ ' CATHERINE T. MANAHAN JEAN MARIJ~AC~LLENA Associate Justice