JLT ASIA HOLDINGS B.V. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION JLT ASIA HOLDINGS B.V., CTA CASE NO. 10806 Petitioner, Members: -versus- BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, and CUI-DAVID, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated: INTERNAL REVENUE, SEP Z 0 ZOZ4 Respondent. ){- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RESOLUTION CUI-DAVID, J.: Before this Court is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 16 May 2024) filed on June 3, 2024, without petitioner's comment. Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Decision promulgated by the Court on May 16, 2024, which granted petitioner's claim for refund. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review is GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is ORDERED TO REFUND petitioner the amount of P18,446,009.15, representing the CGT it erroneously paid on March 10, 2020 in connection with the sale of its common shares in JLT PH to MPI on March 2, 2020. SO ORDERED. In his Motion for Reconsideration, respondent asserts that petitioner's non-filing of a ta){ treaty relief application (TTRA) precludes the application of preferential treaty rates; thus, respondent contends that the sale of shares is subject to capital gains ta){ under Section 28(B)(5)(C) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended. ~

RESOLUTION CTA Case No . 10806 JLT Asia Holdings B.V. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue X------- ----- -- --- -- ------- ----- ------------- ---- --- ---- ---------------- -------- -- ---------'X At the onset, We note that an examination of respondent's Motion for Reconsideration shows that the arguments raised are mere reiterations of the arguments that have been thoroughly considered, resolved, and passed upon by this Court in the assailed Decision. It is well-settled that a motion for reconsideration containing a mere reiteration or rehash of grounds and arguments that have already been considered, weighed, passed upon, and resolved by the court before the Decision sought to be reconsidered is rendered does not need a new judicial determination. 1 Therefore, there is no necessity to discuss and rule again on these grounds since this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant already set forth in the judgment.2 ' In Shangri-La International Hotel Management v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc., 3 the Supreme Court pronounced that it is incumbent upon the movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions are contrary to law, to wit: "The bulk of the aforementioned grounds is a mere rehash of movant's previous arguments. While DGCI is correct in stating that a motion for reconsideration, by its very nature, may tend to dwell on issues already resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered and that this should not be an obstacle for a reconsideration, the hard reality is that movant has failed to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the desired course of action. Considering that the grounds presently raised' have been sufficiently considered, if not squarely addressed, in the subject Decision, it behooves movant to convince the Court that certain findings or conclusions in the Decision are contrary to law. As it is, however, the instant motion does not raise any new or substantial legitimate ground or reason to justify the reconsideration sought." 1 People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751 (Resol ution), January 7, 2013 citing People v. Larrafiaga, G. R. Nos. 138874-75, Jul y 2 1, 2005 ; Madeleine Mendoza-Ong v. Han. Sandiganbayan, eta!. , G. R. Nos. 146368-69 (Reso lution), October 18, 2004. 2 People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751 (Reso lution), January 7, 20 13 citing People v. Larrafiaga, G. R. Nos. 138874-75, July 2 1, 2005 and Ortigas Land Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Velasco, G.R. No. 109645 (Resolution), March 4, 1996. 3 Shangri-la International Hotel Manage ment, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc. , G.R. No. 159938 (Resolution), January 22, 2007.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10806 JLT Asia Holdings B.V. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x-------------------- -------- ------- --------- ----------------------------------------------x Accordingly, We reiterate that a TIRA is unnecessary for a taxpayer to avail of the benefits or the reliefs provided under a tax treaty executed by the Philippines with a foreign country. Furthermore) respondent's contention is inconsistent with the release of the Certificate of Entitlement to Treaty Benefit on September 15, 2022, by the Bureau of Internal Revenue - International Tax Affairs Division (BIR-ITAD). WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 16 May 2024) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. /fU#1MM LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice !CONCUR: \ 0-VILLENA