COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GULF AIR COMPANY PHILIPPINE BRANCH

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONE R OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 2439 REVEN UE, (CTA Case No. 9334) Petitioner, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.J., -versus- UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLEN A, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. GULF AIR COMPANY Promul$ated: PH ILIPPINE BRANCH, JUL 9 1 LU-..t Re sp o n d e n t. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, J.: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 12 April2022)"1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") flied on April21, 2022, without Respondent's comment thereon. 2 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration prays for the reversal and setting aside of the Decision promulgated on April 12, 2022, and that a new judgment be rendered denying the entire claim for refund. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision3 promulgated by this Court on April 12, 2022 reads: Rollo, pp. 104-110. 2 !d., Records Verification Report dated June 09, 2022 stating that Respondent failed to file its comment on Petitioner's " Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 12 April 2022)", p. 121. 3 !d., pp. 86-103.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2439 (CTA Case No. 9334) "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision dated July 10, 2020 and the Resolution dated January 29, 2021 of the First Division in the case docketed as CTA Case No. 9334 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."4 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner contends that the Court in Division erred in ruling that there was overpayment of income tax on the Gross Philippine Billings (GPB) when Respondent paid one and one-half percent (1.5%) special tax rate under Article 8 of the Philippines-Bahrain Tax Treaty, instead of not paying any income tax as a result of the tax exemption under Republic Act ("RA") No. 10378. According to Petitioner, Philippine Airlines, Inc. ("PAL") is not operating in the home country of Respondent. The parent company of Respondent and PAL merely entered into a Code Share and Block Space Agreement. Hence, Respondent cannot claim an exemption from payment of income tax under Section 28(A)(3) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended by RA No. 10378. Likewise, Petitioner argues that Respondent failed to show that Philippine carriers are actually enjoying the income tax exemption in the home country of Respondent. Revenue Regulation No. 15-2013 is explicit that reciprocity requires that Philippine carriers operating in the Home Country of an international carrier are actually enjoying the income tax exemption. We resolve to deny Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. The arguments raised by the CIR in his motion are mere recapitulation of the arguments he has raised in his Petition for Review ftled with this Court. 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 overturn the Assailed Decision. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 12 April 2022)" is DENIED for lack of merit. 4 Id., Decision dated April 12, 2022, p. 102.

RESOLUTION rA..,. -1- t(_,~--- r-� ~ erA EB NO. 2439 (erA Case No. 9334) Page 3 of 3 MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ERL~.UY (On Leave) Associate Justice CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice ( JEAN !Vlftn.J.Jji J1'J.vwESTO-SAN PEDRO ~&wrJ;~-~ tfluu'Jf)Jl; MARIAN I~'-'� REYEd-FAJMmO LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice Associate Justice