Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. McKinsey & Co. (Phils.)

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2540. July 26, 2023.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9807) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. MCKINSEY & CO. (PHILS.) , respondent . RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN , J p : For resolution is the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" 1 filed on February 27, 2023. HTcADC In the instant motion, petitioner avers that the CTA 1st Division disregarded the testimony of Revenue Officer Joey I. Piansay that the BIR Form 1914 Application for Tax Credits/Refunds for taxable year 2015 was filed belatedly on April 16, 2018; that respondent failed to present as evidence the BIR Form No. 1914 with stamp mark as proof of filing the administrative tax refund with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); and that respondent's claim for tax refund for calendar year 2015 was filed beyond the prescriptive period. The Decision that the administrative tax refund for taxable year 2015 was filed on time is erroneous. Hence, respondent's claim for refund should be denied. On April 18, 2023, respondent filed its "Comment to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration." 2 After consideration of the motion submitted, the Court En Banc resolves to deny the "Motion for Reconsideration." The Court En Banc notes that petitioner's motion merely reiterates or amplifies the arguments previously raised in the Petition for Review which were already considered and extensively discussed upon by the Court En Banc in the assailed Decision. In the case of Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd., et al. vs. Developers Group of Companies, Inc. , 3 the Supreme Court denied respondent's Motion for Reconsideration for being a mere reiteration of their previous arguments, and for failure to raise matters substantially plausible or compellingly persuasive to warrant the reversal of the assailed Decision, thus: "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. CAIHTE 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." In view of the foregoing, the Court En Banc will no longer belabor to repeat its discussions in the assailed Decision since it would only result to mere superfluity. WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration" is DENIED for lack of merit . SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, Marian Ivy F. Reyes-Fajardo, Lanee S. Cui-David and Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , CTA EB NO. 2540, pp. 114-119. 2. Ibid. , pp. 125-129. 3. G.R. No. 159938, January 22, 2007.