cta_resolution CTA Case No. 88898889 2017-09-11

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 8889 2001. THE SAID PROVISION IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS LEAVING NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION BUT ONLY APPLICATION. II. PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT SECTION 2.3.6 OF RR 13-2001 CONFLICTS WITH SECTION 204(B)(1) OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE ("NIRC"). THERE IS NO CONFLICT CONSIDERING THAT REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF PENALTIES OR INTEREST DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TAXPAYER INCURRED CONTINUOUS HEAVY LOSSES IS UNJUST AND UNFAIR. SECTION 204(B) OF THE TAX CODE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED THE ABATEMENT OF TAXES THAT APPEARS TO BE UNJUSTLY ASSESSED. III. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE ABATEMENT OF SURCHARGES AND COMPROMISE PENALTIES IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF P10,230,248. 71. THE SUFFERING OF CONTINUOUS HEAVY LOSSES BY PETITIONER FROM 2007 TO 2011 IS A CLEAR AND RECOGNIZED GROUND FOR ABATEMENT OF SURCHARGES AND COMPROMISE PENALTIES UNDER REVENUE REGULATIONS NO. 13-2001 OF RESPONDENT. On July 3, 2017, respondent filed his Opposition (To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 29 May 2017) alleging that the Court correctly ruled that (1) there are only two grounds upon which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may exercise his power of abatement; and (2) continuous heavy losses is not one of them. After going over the allegations in petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration as well as the arguments proffered by respondent, the Court finds no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of the assailed Decision of May 8, 2017. The motion has not raised any new or substantial ground to justify a departure from the previous finding and conclusion of the Court. All the arguments raised by petitioner had already been passed upon, amply discussed, and considered by the Court in the assailed Decision.

RESOLUTION CfA Case No. 8889 WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [Of Decision dated 8 May 20137] is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. R. FASON-VICTORINO We concur: ~- .~/.(.1"'- ~ J '-- LOVEL~. BAUTISTA MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Associate Justice

Want an analysis of this document?

Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.