COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MAXICARE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONE R OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2325 REVEN UE, (CTA Case No. 9246) Petitioner, Present: - versus - DEL ROSARIO, P.J.) CASTANEDA, JR., MAXICARE HEALTHCARE UY, CORPORATION, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, Respondent. BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, and CUI-DAVID ,]].. RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, ,L: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 25 November 2021)"1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") filed on December 15, 2021, with Respondent's "Comment/Opposition (Re: Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration dated 15 December 2021)"2 ("Comment/ Opposition") ftled on March 08, 2022. The Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration prays for the reversal and setting aside of the Decision3 promulgated o n November 25, 2021 ("Assailed Decision"), and for the issuance of a new one be rendered ordering Respondent to pay the amount of Php419,774,484.21 as deficiency Value-Added Tax ("VAT") and Compromise Penalty of Php50,000.00 for taxable year 2012, plus twenty-five percent (25%) surcharge and twenty percent (20%) deficiency and Rollo, pp. 171-176. 2 !d., pp. 180-210. 3 !d., pp. 157-170.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2325 (CTA Case No. 9246) delinquency interest for late payment, pursuant to Section 249(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code ("NIRC") of 1997, as amended, and delinquency interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from January 01,2018 until the amount is fully paid pursuant to Section 249(C) of the NIRC of 1997, in relation to Section 249(A) of the same Code, as amended by the TRAIN Law. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed with the Court En Bane on September 04, 2020 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the January 16, 2020 Decision and July 21,2020 Resolution in CTA Case No. 9246 are AFFIRMED. Consequently, Petitioner is ENJOINED and PROHIBITED from collecting against Respondent the amounts representing the assessed deficiency VAT which was set aside and cancelled by this Court. SO ORDERED."4 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner contends that Respondent's protest to the Formal Letter of Demand ("FLD") was merely a rehash of its Protest to the Preliminary Assessment Notice ("PAN"). Hence, there was nothing new to consider for Petitioner. Likewise, Petitioner avers that even after the case was filed before this Court, Respondent has not showed any new documents or evidence to refute the findings in Petitioner's assessment. On the other hand, Respondent in its Comment/Opposition claims that Petitioner's declaration that Respondent's tax protest was a request for reconsideration and not a request for reinvestigation is a mere afterthought, not worthy of credence. According to Respondent, Petitioner failed to raise the said argument in his Answer or Memorandum before the court a quo, and was raised for the first time in the Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of the First Division. Respondent also asserts that the penultimate paragraph of its Protest to the FLD clearly indicates that it is a request for reinvestigation, and that it will be submitting supporting documents and additional explanations on the assessment items. 4 !d., Decision dated November 25, 2021, pp. 168-169.

RESOLUTION CfA EB NO. 2325 (CfA Case No. 9246} Lastly, Respondent in its Comment/Opposition maintains that Petitioner's lone witness, Revenue Officer Maria Slud J. Madella, admitted in the course of her cross-examination that Respondent filed a request for reinvestigation and that the sixty-day period was part of procedural due process. The court is not persuaded by Petitioner's motion. Petitioner's contentions are mere reiterations of the arguments raised in his "Petition for Review". These issues have been amply considered, weighed and resolved in the Assailed Decision, and will not suffice to warrant the reconsideration of the same. 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 overturn the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 25 November 2021)" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. ~- ~--~- .A-(__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice 2..........-~ C. ~~-..t. . Q JtfANTTO C. CASTANEIJf,jR. Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CfA EB NO. 2325 (CfA Case No. 9246) ERL~.UY e~� T. ~U...c.~��e~...- - Associate Justice CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ..... ------ ORRO-VILLENA ~ 9:wt~~~o-;' ~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID MARIAN I.av F. ~S-FAJARDO Associate Justice Associate Justice