Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. San Miguel Foods, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1880. January 7, 2020.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9046) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC. (as surviving corporation in a merger involving MONTEREY FOODS CORPORATION) , respondent . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : For resolution is the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated 06 August 2019" 1 received by the Court on September 2, 2019, with respondent's Comment filed on October 17, 2019. 2 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 Decision dated February 12, 2018 and the Resolution dated June 4, 2018 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED. " Petitioner claims that the Court En Banc erred in ruling that there was no violation of due process when the Court in Division granted a relief that was not prayed for by respondent San Miguel Foods, Inc.; that the Court En Banc erred when it cancelled the assessment on the sole ground that the Memorandum of Assignment was signed by a Division Chief allegedly not authorized by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR); and that the Court En Banc erred in ruling that the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Final Assessment Notice (FAN) are void because they failed to demand payment thereof within a specific period. On the other hand, respondent counter-argues that the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration should be denied for utter lack of merit as it is nothing but a mere rehash of the arguments already raised and adequately passed upon by the Court in Division and by the Court En Banc ; that the authority of the revenue officers to conduct the audit resulting to the deficiency tax assessment is necessarily incorporated in the issue of whether or not the deficiency assessments have legal basis; that the revenue officer conducting the audit must be authorized by a valid Letter of Authority; and that the FAN and Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) are inherently void for failing to state a definite demand for payment. After consideration, the Court En Banc resolves to deny the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated 06 August 2019." In assailing the Court En Banc 's Decision, petitioner mainly rehashed his arguments which were sufficiently passed upon and discussed by this Court in the assailed Decision and the Court in Division in its Decision and Resolution. In fine, this Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the previous ruling that the revenue officers who conducted the audit have no authority to continue the audit examination of respondent's accounts. Revenue Officers Maria Gracielle Cecilia F. San Pedro and Group Supervisor Juvy S. De la Pea who conducted the examination of respondent's records may be deemed authorized to do so without need for a new LOA, only if said letter or notice or memorandum was signed by the Assistant Commissioner/Head Revenue Executive Assistant of the Large Taxpayers Service. Even assuming that the LOA was valid, still respondent cannot be held liable for the assessed taxes because the FLD and FAN were void. Both notices failed to demand payment of taxes within a specific period. The FLD states that respondent is requested to pay its deficiency tax liabilities using the BIR Payment Form (BIR Form 0605) through eFPS within the time shown in the enclosed assessment notice. However, the enclosed Details of Discrepancies 3 failed to indicate the specific period when the payment should be made and the portion in the Audit Result/Assessment Notice 4 indicating the "DUE DATE" was left blank. It must be emphasized that the requirement to indicate a fixed and definite period within which a taxpayer must pay the tax deficiencies is essential to the validity of the assessment. In the case of Ferdinand Marcos, et al. vs. Hon. Raul Manglapus, et al. , 5 the Supreme Court emphasized that in all motions for reconsideration, the burden is upon the movant, petitioner herein, to show that there are compelling reasons to reconsider the decision of the Court. In the present case, petitioner was not able to convince the Court En Banc that its ruling is erroneous, improper, contrary to law or evidence. Having failed to do so, the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration must fail. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration Re: Decision dated 06 August 2019" is DENIED for lack of merit . SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Erlinda P. Uy, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , CTA EB NO. 1880, pp. 146-160. 2. Ibid. , pp. 164-198. 3. BIR records, pp. 654-655. 4. Ibid. , pp. 651-653. 5. Marcos vs. Manglapus , G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989.