COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FPIP PROPERTY DEVELOPERS AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2235 (CTA CASE NO. 8980) INTERNAL REVENUE, Present: Petitioner, -versus- DEL ROSARJO, P.J, CASTANEDA, JR., UY, RINGPIS-LIBAN, MANAHAN, BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, REYES-FAJARDO, and CUI-DAVID, JJ FPIP PROPERTY Promulgated: DEVELOPERS AND APR 2 0 2022 MANAGEMENT Respondent. CORPORATION, .....2flk. a:~/-.-. x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x RESOLUTION CASTANEDA, JR., J. : For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 17 November 2021 ), which denied his petition for lack of merit, and respondent's Comment/Opposition (to the Motion for Reconsideration dated December 7, 2021 ). Petitioner has raised no new matter for the reconsideration of the Court and merely reiterates the position that the taxpayer was not denied due process because it was able to participate in the administrative proceedings and present its side1 and that it was clearly informed of the identity ofthe revenue officers who will continue the investigation or audit.2 ~ 1 Rollo, pp. 135- 136. 2 Rollo, pp. 136- 140.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2235 (CTA Case No. 8980) Page 2 of3 Petitioner concedes that a Referral Memorandum, which was issued by Chief of the Regular Large Taxpayers Audit Division 1, by itself, cannot be proof ofthe authority ofthe revenue officers named therein but insists that the same taken together with the Letter of Authority (LOA), issued by Commissioner Joel L. Tan-Torres, would suffice to prove that the revenue officers who continued the audit/investigation were empowered to do so. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. McDonald's Philippines Realty Corp} the Supreme Court clearly states that the use of Referral Memorandum directing the continuation of audit or investigation by an unauthorized revenue officer usurps the functions of the LOA. More specifically, as the facts of this case bear out, the "practice of reassigning or transferring revenue officers, who are the original authorized officers named in the LOA, and subsequently substituting them with new revenue officers who do not have a separate LOA issued in their names, is in effect a usurpation of the statutory power of the CIR or his duly authorized representative." Accordingly, there is no compelling reason for the Court to modify or reverse its decision. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated November 17, 2021) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Q~~ c ar<>-L~ .<2. JUANITO C. CASTANED~ JR. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ER~.UY f/0..~ _..,.---<.___ Associate Justice MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LffiAN Associate Justice 3 G.R. No. 242670, May 10,2021.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 2235 (CTA Case No. 8980) Page 3 of3 ~~�7~ OOHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice - JEAN MARIE VILLENA A(ss.orlate Justice M~AR9IA.N 1wvvxf.i..rRE-Y~~S=rF< ~J� ~ /aunt!MI( Associate Justice LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice