Asiatrust Development Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 6209. July 28, 2010.] ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION CASANOVA , J p : This resolves petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (of the Amended Decision dated March 16, 2010) filed on April 23, 2010, seeking the partial reconsideration of this Court's Amended Decision promulgated on March 16, 2010; the dispositive portion of which states as follows: " WHEREFORE , premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED and this Court's Decision dated January 20, 2009 is hereby MODIFIED . Accordingly, the above-captioned case as regards petitioner's liability for deficiency documentary stamp tax is CLOSED and TERMINATED , subject to the provisions of R.A. No. 9480. However, petitioner's liability for deficiency final withholding tax assessment for fiscal year ended June 30, 1998, subject of this litigation, in the amount of P10,183,367.80 is hereby REAFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. " Petitioner avers that its availment of the Abatement Program under Revenue Regulations No. 15-2006 effectively cancelled its deficiency final withholding tax assessment. Petitioner maintains that this Court erred in not giving any probative value to the Certification issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which was offered to prove the following: (a) petitioner paid P4,187,683.27 and P6,097,825.03 at the Development Bank of the Philippines-Quezon Avenue Branch on July 2, 2007; and (b) the payments pertained to the One-Time Administrative Abatement under Revenue Regulations No. 15-2006 as per letter of Revenue District Officer Clavelina S. Nacar dated October 17, 2007 and covered fiscal period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996. On the basis of the foregoing arguments, petitioner prays for the cancellation of its deficiency final withholding tax liability. For this Court to resolve petitioner's Motion , petitioner must first prove that it complied with the Abatement Program requirements under Revenue Regulations No. 15-2006, the pertinent portions of which read: "SECTION 1. Purpose. These regulations prescribe the guidelines for the availment by taxpayers of the opportunity to settle their delinquent accounts or assessments, preliminary and final, disputed or not, by way of application for abatement of all penalties, including surcharge and interest, under Section 204 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997 as another step towards the collection and reduction of the Bureau's Accounts Receivables and pending assessments. SECTION 2. Coverage. The following cases shall be covered hereof: caADSE xxx xxx xxx f.) Civil tax cases being disputed before the Department of Justice and the courts, e.g. , MTC, RTC, CTA, CA and SC including decided cases which are not yet final and executory except those cases where the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) has an interest and/or there is a need to coordinate with the PCGG; xxx xxx xxx SECTION 4. Who May Avail. Any person/taxpayer, natural or juridical, may settle thru this abatement program any delinquent account or assessment which has been released as of June 30, 2006, by paying an amount equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Basic Tax assessed with the Accredited Agent Bank (AAB) of the Revenue District Office (RDO)/Large Taxpayers Service (LTS)/Large Taxpayers District Office (LTDO) that has jurisdiction over the taxpayer. In the absence of an AAB, payment may be made with the Revenue Collection Officer/Deputized Treasurer of the RDO that has jurisdiction over the taxpayer. After payment of the basic tax, the assessment for penalties/surcharge and interest shall be cancelled by the concerned BIR Office following existing rules and procedures. Thereafter, the docket of the case shall be forwarded to the Office of the Commissioner , thru the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Group, for issuance of Termination Letter. " (Emphasis supplied) The effect of compliance with the requirements of the Abatement Program is stated under Section 4 of Revenue Regulations No. 15-2006, viz. : " (A)fter payment of the basic tax, the assessment for penalties/surcharge and interest shall be cancelled by the concerned BIR Office following existing rules and procedures. Thereafter, the docket of the case shall be forwarded to the Office of the Commissioner, thru the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Group, for issuance of Termination Letter. " (Emphasis supplied) It may be gleaned from the foregoing that the effect of compliance with the requirements of the Abatement Program must be evidenced by a Termination Letter. 1 However, based on the records of this case and as admitted by petitioner in the instant Motion , petitioner did not submit to this Court the Termination Letter prescribed under Revenue Regulations No. 15-2006. Moreover, this Court may not consider the Certification submitted by petitioner. Perusal of the said Certification shows that the only period covered by petitioner's payment is fiscal period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996. It did not cover petitioner's liability for deficiency final withholding tax for fiscal year ended June 30, 1998, which is the deficiency tax liability this Court reaffirmed in the assailed Amended Decision . Clearly, petitioner failed to convince this Court that it complied with the requirements of the Abatement Program. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. DCASEc SO ORDERED. (SGD.) CAESAR A. CASANOVA Associate Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, P.J. and Lovell R. Bautista, J., concur. Footnotes 1. Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , CTA Case No. 6950, September 1, 2009.