Implementing Rules and Regulations Pursuant to Republic Act No. 8800

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 7667. January 5, 2011.] UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO. (PHILIPPINE BRANCH) , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . RESOLUTION BAUTISTA , J p : For resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated 18 August 2010) filed on September 8, 2010, seeking reconsideration of this Court's Decision promulgated on August 18, 2010; with petitioner's Comment on Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration filed on October 6, 2010. SETAcC The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision is hereunder quoted, to wit: " WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy dated June 25, 2007 is hereby CANCELLED and SET ASIDE for having been issued pursuant to an invalid assessment. SO ORDERED. " In the Motion for Reconsideration , respondent interposed the following ground: "EXECUTION OF A WAIVER OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER SECTION 222 OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997 (NIRC OF 1997) IS BINDING UPON THE PARTIES UPON SIGNIFYING A MEETING OF THE MINDS." Respondent argues that Section 222 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997 authorizes the taxpayer and the government to extend by mutual agreement the prescriptive periods for the assessment and collection of taxes. Respondent alleges that the waiver was executed by and between Mr. Benjamin Solis, General Manager of petitioner and Revenue District Officer Elenita B. Quimosing, respondent's duly delegated signatory. Respondent further claims that the said waiver was executed on February 4, 2004 and specified the period of extension agreed upon, which was December 31, 2004. Respondent avers that notwithstanding the lack of a definite date of acceptance, it is easy to determine if the waiver was actually agreed upon before the expiration of the three-year prescriptive period. As pointed out by respondent, petitioner's and respondent's authorized representatives duly executed the waiver and acknowledged the same before a notary public. Thus, respondent concludes that the waiver was duly received by petitioner and was duly accepted by respondent on the same date the waiver was executed and acknowledged before a notary public. 1 Respondent asserts, among others, that the right of respondent to assess petitioner for the deficiency Final Withholding Taxes (FWT) has not yet prescribed inasmuch as petitioner's failure to withhold and to file FWT returns merit the imposition of a penalty equal to the amount of the tax not collected and remitted; hence, the period of limitation to assess taxes is not applicable. In its Comment , petitioner counters that respondent merely reiterated the arguments contained in her Answer and Memorandum , which had already been exhaustively passed upon by this Court. Petitioner argues, inter alia , that the waiver is defective, and as such, did not validly extend the prescriptive period for respondent to assess/collect taxes against petitioner. Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration lacks merit. A perusal of the issues and arguments raised by respondent in her Motion for Reconsideration shows that the same were indeed already passed upon and properly addressed in the assailed Decision . In fact, petitioner's allegations are essentially identical and copied from her Answer and Memorandum . WHEREFORE , finding no cogent reason to disturb, reverse or modify the Decision dated August 18, 2010, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. cIHDaE SO ORDERED . (SGD.) LOVELL R. BAUTISTA Associate Justice Ernesto D. Acosta, P.J. and Caesar A. Casanova, J., concur. Footnotes 1. Motion for Reconsideration, docket pp. 561-562.