CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC CARMEN COPPER CORPORATION, CTA EB NO. 2629 Petitioner, (CTA Case No. 9659) -versus- Present: Del Rosario, P.J., Ringpis-Lib an, Manahan, Bacorro-Villena, Modesto-San Pedro, Reyes-Fajardo, Cui-David, Ferrer-Flores, and Angeles, ]]. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated: REVENUE, Respondent. X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN,J: For resolution is the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration"1 received by the Court on August 24, 2023, without respondent's comment thereon despite notice of the Court's Minute Resolution ordering respondent to file comment thereon within five (5) days from notice. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court's Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed D ecision dated September 10, 2020 and the assailed Resolution dated April 20, 2022 are AFFIRMED/ 1 Rollo, CTA EB NO. 2629, pp. 138-156.

Page 2 of3 RESOLl'TIO'-: CT\ EB NO. 2629 SO ORDERED." Petitioner claims that the Court En Bant erred in affirming the Court in Division's Decision and Resolution. The Court En Bane's reiterations of the Decision of the Court in Division must be reconsidered because the Decision was not founded on the provisions of the Tax Code and due process requirements of the Constitution. The Court in Division was mistaken in d1c application of the invoicing requirements to petitioner's zero-rated sales. The Court in Division's manner of comparing the amount in the sales invoices vis-a- vis the amount in the bank remittances is correct only if the taxpayer's customers pay the amount in the invoice exacdy as billed. It has no application in this case, where the transactions were founded even before sales occur and adjustments were made even after shipments of goods and that the customer does not remit the funds in the same amount as billed in the sales invoice. The Court in Division erroneously disallowed all purchases of input taxes on domestic purchases. Lastly, the Court in Division went beyond its JUrisdiction when it ruled on issues not disputed by the parties. After consideration, the Court En Bant resolves to deny the "l\Iotion for Reconsideration." The Court En Bant reviewed the grounds relied upon by petitioner in support of its j'dotion for Reconsideration but finds no cogent reason to grant the same. The Court En Bant notes that petitioner basically rehashed its arguments which were sufficiendy passed upon and discussed by the Court in Division in its Decision and Resolution, and in the assailed En Bant Decision. In the assailed En Bam� Decision, the Court ruled that petitioner Carmen Copper Cmporation is not entitled to its claim for refund because upon evaluation, the amount of Php48,780,741.60 that was granted by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for issuance of Tax Credit Certificate was beyond the amount found by the Court as petitioner's valid excess input value-added tax attributable to its zero-rated sales for the subject period of claim. A claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, IS construed stricdy against the taxpayer.2 The burden of proof to establish the right to refund lies with the taxpayer-claimant who must prove compliance wid1 the statutory requirements of the Tax Code and existing jurisprudence. It must be stressed that among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is precisely to convince the Court that its ruling is erroneous and improper, contrary to law or the evidence.3 If the movant failed to do so, the motion for reconsideration must necessarily f a y 2 CotmNi.JJioner of],J!enwl RCIJfJllle tJi. Mira11! Pagbi!ao Corporation (1\'mP Team Enngr Corpora/ion, G.R. No. 180-:J-:.'>4, January 20, 2016. -' Teodulo j\L Coquilla N. The Ho11. Commi(fion Oil E/ediou.r and .i'vfr. i\'d/1\1. A/!Jare:;_. G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002.

Page 3 of3 RESOLUTION CT\ EB NO. 2629 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. 94 ~ ....-Y'-.__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice ~~/-~- CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice LLENA MARlAR ~ fJtu. F.~-~~~ MARIAN lVY�q:,.. REvfls~FAJARDO Associate Justice {LJAAA~tl LAN~ff.~~I-DAVID Associate Justice Associate Justice HENRJJ.:ANGELES Associate Justice