NEW YORK BAY PHILIPPINES, INC., v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION NEW YORK BAY PHILIPPINES, INC., CTA CASE NO. 9896 Petitioner, Members: -versus- UY, Chairperson , RINGPIS-LIBAN, and MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated : REVENUE, MAR 1 4 2023 Respondent. ~8 ; ~.., � -~ X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION UY, J.: For resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Amended Decision dated September 12, 2022) filed via registered mail on October 12, 2022, with petitioner's Comment (Re: Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated October 11, 2022) filed on November 29, 2022 . In his Motion, respondent prays that the Court's Decision dated January 26, 2022 and the Amended Decision dated September 12, 2022 be reversed and set aside, the dispositive portion of which reads: Decision dated January 26, 2022 "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND OR ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the amount of P12,445,765.78 representing the latter's unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the four quarters of the CY 2016. SO ORDERED ."~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9896 Page 2 of6 Amended Decision dated September 12, 2022 "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. On the other hand, petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated January 26, 2022 is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows: "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND OR ISSUE A TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner in the amount of ~44,226,338.64 representing petitioner's unutilized input VAT attributable to its zero-rated sales for the four quarters of the CY 2016. SO ORDERED." Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration: Respondent maintains his assertion that petitioner failed to submit the complete supporting documents upon submission of its administrative claim for VAT refund, thus failing to comply with the mandatory requirements under Section 112 (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 54- 2014. Allegedly, petitioner did not comply with the invoicing and accounting compliance required by the NIRC. Hence, its application for tax credit or refund should be denied. Respondent further contends that petitioner's claim for refund must fail for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) was not given an opportunity to examine the claim and considering that petitioner has yet to submit the documents required by the BIR at the time pursuant to RMC No. 54-2014 which mandates a taxpayer requesting for refund to be subjected to audit/evaluation.~

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9896 Page 3 of6 Petitioner's Comment on respondent's Motion for Reconsideration: ocMoronntciooltunPssuiaeopntniptysiooninrnteeewtrdhesabunyAbdmemvceiitodnsmedtnephcdeaeltDl.inreegcsiapsiroognnudmtehneatnt tafsarieloergdecinttoeerrsaaplilseyeccifoiincnttfrhianerdyiinntogsstlaaonwrt cfiAsrtooseusrmspatepphpdsooelmetnrNattfdiibeoenneluviigssnsreutthdrr'qpsateohuptdceiaovaulrdreertmtuegsincrrseugisl,nanmgitdopmseoeftntrctCotfiiauotgYilomr,tehn2rtepaehe0netfre1uttsric6ntpiowdaoeouisnttnnoihetptifroeMriteonrfsia-xvleaeracircdrdedghesmfuwdas2eiiin8tlusahe,insndtt2dthdhr0eaaetu1rtoti8nRvBthueIMstRetoiucrCl,gielbzaeRmeNiimtsOdhoiteO.nfinroo5cprNw4obur-omiea2tt.hfs0pVu4i1ltsneA3h4dtTAei.en. qreuqaurtisePirtseestoitfifoConrYetr2h0ea1ls6roe. fuansdserotsf that it was able to comply with all the its excess and input VAT for the four aadprgaemseerrsogntaeipuuytniomniomdnndnLeagedeadtnetrpso.et'nstefrltytthoi,tfaawfiaoadrtianlcimugstcehrhioernet'rgsidpsivtPituVnoreraeAgnsttTuiietvtoiaxaeornhnneptafecutuflotonoaistpdiriStmopneRocaeclreafdttroiuv,imomrintenhiinwtremy1eisr1faetsut2ryohna(isodCtbiu,vene)lexodoaaafnbmpbrtdhaepeiesnmeietasdeNhlideafsIaoRidmtenrCsidthrso.eiosssertfAphud1dloliles9eeno9gcdCn7ueieso,pdnituaoolhtyrsnn'es,t THE COURT'S RULING afaarirgleeucdmoAtneosfntiertdasreisrraaecitsaiaoernnedyfuoinnlf etthwhaeenadCinnodstuthasrotnu'srtbosmautsgaoshntaiotiialnecl,doatnhArsegmiudCmeeonreaudntreittodsfnintDhdeaocttfhiwsairooteunrsel.dpsopwnoadnredrnaetnn'stt StaDaduxedppciriatesioyimAoennsera',sl wtheCesenoutuihmptrlapetavomtertietneinrnthgtrtoehtorgeodaauordgccriehaunflsmgyuenestddhniestosocfaufiusnntspPheeuoic/dtirepittsiaynisnxaaoshrtfyhareseTstoboapteasoeslnndadeiGseletenaedttsrtm,lteAoidmnIrnebeecynq. dutthheir~ eede

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9896 Page4 of6 CCoommmmiissssiioonneerr1oafnIndteZruneall/iRge-Pvheanurren.a2 Asia Pacific Ltd. Phils. ROHQ v. farttohhedleaclmoktwoiefnosnfiIf:srinentcargsatdaitvmpiiidvtoyeinicnicasotlstafreoiamRsft,iMvtwhtehCeitehcl1NSat2hoium0e.p-srdB5ea4IfmRiyl-e2.ed0pPC1eoa4ronri,otudoIrIstruohbacfeehfRltgdeMianrtCsshJautfNtnhrooteehm. e15in14pts,h-rt2ee2a0v0nf1a1til4i4ilnci,nrgaegosareordu,ufslpetthahosieens DFsppd(tteaTAoiaieirognnrchexrencnacsusepuctinnooenmhtmaecnongmeayiex",retapIseprItnltt.a"phcrhoaot8FtOeolsenseifs"ircmhlfiadteiu)fehanaiar.pcpdetegsfliTellpfihoneitacrhdboahon)toneayrteeuttAdmvhnlaadofctianpechoPtfnosfnashberrilm(dyoneseib.aaccVyxedpaelev.a.Aosole,isesitct"mTfnsawtAusaei.tnhmtot"earhgarIsemuenfetluflhothntuhehfespfetuonsnsteAprarrudettvwdiottzhbo/eueamrtheemfmartnxi.dyiricxpnndeihstaigIenbstlntecyetarytthraedrdttoaeeehsartoathdtadittc,itvdsaehithduetoxattiamhhpBtactCmieeaotutjoeuhtlyuanmenoareeCris,sftdidefrstsmthiicniwctainhoeeabatisidgslersffell- (cpdtrsCiEaaapeotrouscnxomorfrcuborpccdmuepnemceeamshdvmepsypiia/aetUsestttositseainlsrspenune/dxtescdogsdass/dli/.nraitouineainionbpgmqnvcsnyepaeudrauF.renoDsinUbordttdrAteeihtrimgntfindbeanadiidaiatsgelnfieselntrstroshadoescgihdLoixcdmistsaoeooponiloftrclaofttsitienuhynocouhrgpemeenbfeurbsmlAtres.tyreothaphhdnitaxoaTdetttdlspslhhhellooe,adeeedpanbc,ey)rdtcueenehtamoampireepmtxratihdipeehnpnrpeclneneaiilcsletdtyaaahstteeirewntmedarirdo/hecsotcncisoeudiclvsoashrnpuesehiucfapmbumoaerloyelrcsalrrelnletntantitthenhthaibbt.odemge"sexeef r' t2a0x1p4a,yBaelarl'scseoadmdopmnleinttheisetdrofaoctriuveemgoecilnnagtism, aitfroeisrtocrelebfuaenrsdtu.h3bamt pitutersduuapnotntothReMfiClingNoo.f 54- the G321 ZG.GRu...RRelN..lioNNg.-ooP2..4h224a401r47m5114a51,42AJ,,usJDliuyaelycP1e5a1m,c52ib,f02iec20r0L28.0.td.20P1h5il.s ROHQ vs. Commissioner ofInternal Revenue,

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9896 Page 5 of6 In this case, records show that petitioner filed its administrative claim for refund of unutilized input VAT (Application for Tax Credits/Refund- 8/R Form No. 1914) for the four quarters of CY 2016 on March 28, 2018,4 together with a Cover Letter indicating the submission of its supporting documents, 5 and accompanied by a Sworn Certification6 stating that it submitted complete documents for purposes of processing its claim for VAT refund for the period of from January 1, 2016 to December 31,2016. Thus, contrary to respondent's argument that he was deprived of an opportunity to examine petitioner's claim since petitioner has yet to submit the documents required by the BIR, petitioner has in fact complied with the mandatory requirements under RMC No. 54-2014, specifically that in its administrative claim for refund, it was able to submit its supporting documents and also file a statement under oath attesting to the completeness of the submitted documents. As to respondent's argument that petitioner did not comply with the invoicing and accounting compliance required by the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the same has no merit. The Court finds no reason to revisit its findings thereon since respondent failed to pinpoint specific evidence, such as official receipts or sales invoices, which the Court should not have favorably considered, or that which the Court erroneously considered as compliant with the invoicing requirements provided under the law, rules, and regulations. Hence, the Court cannot give credence to respondent's bare allegations and general statements without proof to debunk the findings of the Court. Basic is the rule that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof, i.e., mere allegations are not evidence. 7 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. E~.UY Associate Justice 4 Exhibit "P-8", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 536. 5 Exhibit "P-7", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 532 to 534. 6 Exhibit "P-7-a", Docket- Vol. 2, pp. 532 to 534. 7 Mirasol Castillo vs. Republic of the Philippines and Felipe Impas, G.R. No. 214064, February 6, 2017.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 9896 Page 6 of6 WE CONCUR: MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice