TRAVEL WAREHOUSE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY Second Division TRAVEL WAREHOUSE, INC., CTA CASE N0.10098 Petitioner, Members: -versus- RINGPIS-LIBAN, Chairperson, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, and FERRER-FLORES, JJ COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, OC T0 Z20Z4 Respondent. X ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: For the Court's resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 12 July 2024) , filed on August 1, 2024, with petitioner's Comment [Re: Motion for Reconsideration dated 30 Julu 2024], filed via registered mail on August 19, 2024. Respondent assails the Court' s Decision, dated July 12, 2024, which granted petitioner' s Petition for Review. The Motion lacks merit. In the Motion, respondent raises general arguments in support of his position but completely ignores the specific reasoning used by the Court in reaching the questioned ruling. Thus, respondent avers that a substantial underdeclaration of sales or income is enough to justify using the 10-year period for assessing but completely ignores how Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc., 1 which required the presence of willful intent before applying the extended 10-year prescriptive period, was the operative jurisprudence during the relevant period. He claims that a new Letter of Authority was not required to authorize Revenue Officer Josephine C. Cortuna' s participation in the assessment but remains tellingly silent on Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. McDonald 's Philippines Realty Corp} which definitively refuted that interpretation of the law. He insists that the!" G.R. No. 213943 , March 22, 2017. G.R. No . 242670, May I0, 202 1.

RESOLUTION CTA CASE NO. 10098 Page 2of2 - . ::.- Preliminary Assessment Notice was duly served to petitioner but has nothing to' counter the Court's use of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Yumex Philippines Corporation3 and review of Revenue Regulations ("RR") No. 12- 99, as amended by RR No. 18-13, to distinguish between mailing and receiving assessment notices and to emphasize the importance of a taxpayer's actual receipt of such notices. In short, respondent fails to address any of the actual reasons given by this Court for Our ruling. We consequently need neither dwell on respondent' s generic arguments nor give serious consideration to his prayer. The reasons delineated in the assailed Decision still stand, valid and unrefuted. ACCORDINGLY, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Decision dated 12 July 2024), filed on August 1, 2024, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. MARlAR WE CONCUR: ~- ~ ,--- MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ON LEAVE CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES Associate Justice G.R. No. 222476, May 5, 2021.