PHILIPPINE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE OIC-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LARGE TAXPAYERS SERVICE, in their official capacities as officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY THIRD DIVISION PHILIPPINE MINING CTA CASE NO. 9292 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Members: Petitioner: MANAHAN, Chairperson, -versus- REYES-FAJARDO, and ANGELES, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE OIC-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LARGE TAXPAYERS SERVICE, in their official capacities Promulgated: as officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Respondents. SFP 0 1 2025 X- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �..::-...:-::-: _ q ~ l_IP_tl:. rl'1_' _-- -x RESOLUTION MANAHAN, J.: Before this Court 1s petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration filed through: (1) registered mail on June 2, 2025 and received by the Court on June 10, 2025; and (2) electronic mail on J u ne 17, 2025, with respondent's Comm.ent/ Opposition {To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration] personally filed on June 30, 2025 and electronically filed on July 1, 2025. For easy reference, the dispositive portion of the assailed Decision! which is the subject of the instant motion reads, as fo l lo w s : WHEREF ORE, the prese nt Pe tition for Review IS DE NIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED .2 I Docket, Vol. II , pp. 809 -826. 2 ld., p. 825. ~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9292 Petitioner asserts that: (1) it did not receive the Final Assessment Notice (FAN) because the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) sent it to the wrong address; (2) the BIR failed to comply with the due process requirement under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code) and Revenue Regulation (RR) No. 12-99; and (3) t h e BIR's deficiency assessment is bereft of any factual and legal bases. On the other hand, respondents counter that petitioner a dmitted th e receipt of the FAN, among others. After careful consideration, the Court resolves to deny the instant motion. Respondent has no burden to prove that petitioner received the FAN due to its express admission of its receipt Petitioner failed to show that there is reasonable doubt as to the validity of the assessment Petitioner claims that the BIR sent the FAN to its former address at 5/F, PNOC-EDC Bldg. 5, Meritt Road, Fort Bonifacio, Maka ti City. However, as per petitioner's BIR Form 1905 dated September 26, 2008, it had already informed the BIR of the change of its business address at 2904-B PSE Centre West Tower , Exchange Road, Pasig City. Hence, considering that the FAN was sent to a wrong address, the same constitutes a violation of petitioner's right to due process. Furthermore, petitioner relies on the ruling in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Metro Star Superama) Inc., 3 where the Supreme Court said that: xxx if the taxpayer denies ever h avin g received a n assessme n t from the SIR, it is incumbent upon th e latter to prove by competent eviden ce that such notice was indeed received by the a ddressee. The onus probandi was shifted to 3 G.R. No. 185371, December 8, 20 10. 4-"""

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9292 Page 3 of6 respondent to prove by contrary evidence that the Petitioner received the assessment in the due course of m ail. The Court finds petitioner's claims untenable. Again, as p er petitioner's own Exhibit "P-4" ,4 it admitted the receipt of the subj ect FAN on November 26, 20 10, as follows : However, a review of the records shows that petitioner rece ived the assessm ent notice, as per petitioner's letter dated December 1, 2010, showing that petitioner secured a co py of th e PAN on November 26, 20 10, to wit: XXX XXX XXX 1. xxx Furt h er, our staff w a s only able to secure a copy of said FAN t hrough the BIR's a ccount office r 's assista nce when she v isit e d last November 26, 2010 (through Philip Viduya). XXX XXX xxxs The above admission is a judicial admission under Section 4 , Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. It provides: S E C 4 . Judicial admissions. - An a dmiss ion, verbal or written, m ade by a pa rty in the course of the proceedings in th e sam e case, does n ot require proof. The a dmission may be contrad icted on ly by s howing that it was made through pal pable m is ta ke or th at no such a dmission was m a de. Considerin g petitioner's judicial admission, the same "cannot b e n egated unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake. "6 Thus, petitioner is bound by its own eviden ce a dduced during trial. Meanwhile, the ruling in M etro Star Superama 1s inapplicable in this case becau se of p etitioner's judicial admission of the r eceipt of the FAN . In other words, resp ondent h as no burden to prove a fact which h ad already b een judicially admitted by p etitioner. 4 Exhibit "P-4 ", Docket - Vol. I, pp. 264 to 2 6 5. 5 See Note 1, pp. 82 1-822. 6 Amelia C. Elayda v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Pedro Roxas and Leonora T. Roxas, G .R. No. L-4932 7, July 18, 199l. a---

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9292 Consequently, since petitioner's offer of compromise, on the ground of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the assessm ent, is anchored on its receipt of the FAN, the Court still finds that petitioner failed to satisfy the same. As a side note, the Court reiterates that the National Evaluation Board (NEB) of the BIR disapproved petitioner's offer of compromise, which is an essential requirement under Section 2 04(A) of the Tax Code, in relation to Section 6 of RR No. 3 0-2002, as a mended by RR No. 9-2013. Said provisions respectively provide: SEC. 204. Authority of the Commissioner to Compromise, Abate and Refund or Credit Taxes.- XXX XXX XXX Where the basic tax involved exceeds One million pesos (Pl ,000 ,000) or where the settlement offered is less than the prescribed minimum rates, the compromise shall be subject to the approval of the Evaluation Boa rd which s h a ll be composed of the Commissioner and the four (4) Deputy Commissioners." SEC. 6. APPROVAL OF OFFER OF COMPROMISE.- Except for offers of compromise where the approva l is delegated to the REB pursuant to the succeeding paragraph, a ll comprom ise settlements within th e jurisdiction of the National Office (NO) s h all be approved by a majority of all the members of the NEB composed of the Commissioner a nd the four (4) Deputy Commissioners. All decisions of the NEB, granting the request of the taxpayer or favorable to the taxpayer, s hall have the concurrence of the Commissioner. XXX XXX XXX Therefore, the denial of the offer of compromise is still justified for failure of petitioner to obtain the approval of the NEB. Hence , the Court finds no reason to reconsider the assailed Decision. The Court has no power of review over assessments that have become final, executory and demandable ~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9292 Finally, the Court observes that petitioner continues to raise arguments relative to the validity of the assessm ent subject of the compromise of its tax liability under Section 204 of the Tax Code. On this score, Section 228 of the Tax Code pertinently provides: SEC. 228 . Protesting of Assessment. - XXX XXX XXX Such assessment may be protested administ ratively by filing a request for recon sideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment xxx otherwise, the assessment shall become final. (Emphasis supplied} In relation thereto, pertinent prov1s1on of RR No. 12-99 provides: 3.1.5. Disputed Assessment. - xxx XXX XXX XXX 1f th e taxpayer fai ls to file a valid protest against the FLO /FAN within th irty (30) days from date of receipt thereof, the assess me nt s h a ll become final, executory a nd demandable. xxx In this case, records show that petitioner did not protest the FAN. Instead of disputing the same, petitioner opted to file an offer of compromise. Considering that the assessment was undisputed , the same became final , executory and demandable. The Court may not review the same in an action to review the propriety of a denial of a cotnpromise. In other words, an action for compromise under Section 204 is not a substitute r em edy for administrative protest under Section 228 of the Tax Code. As su ch , the Court may no longer review the subject assessment which had become final, executory and demandable. Thus , the Court need not discuss the other matters raised in the instant motion relative to the validity of the assessment. ~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9292 To ~ncapsulate, petitioner failed to show the existence of reasonable doubt as to the validity of the assessment because of its judicial admission of its receipt of the FAN. Meanwhile, considering that petitioner failed to obtain th e approval of the NEB, the Court has more reason to uphold the denial of petitioner's offer of compromise by the BIR. Finally, an offer of compromise is not a substitute for petitioner's lost remedy of administrative protest under Section 228 of the Tax Code, in relation to RR No. 12-99. Hence, the denial of the instant motion is in order. ACCORDINGLY, the present Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. c~�J: CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: r. ~ ~ ~ Co~dtrre~n'rlf:4:'reN)trJ.tJ my (I reit~dle MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice HENRY /J.f}:rfGELES Associate Justice