COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PLASTIC CONTAINER PACKAGING CORPORATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL CTA EB NO. 3039 REVEN UE, (CT.A Case No. 10095) Petitio ner, Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J., BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, -versus - REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, ANGELES, TESTON, and CENTEN O-DIJAMCO, JJ. PLASTIC CONTAINER Promulgated: PACKAGING CORPORATION, Respondent. 2(- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, _l: This resolves Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration o n the D ecision dated April 22, 2026" 1 ("Motion for Reconsideration") f.tled on May 11, 2026, with Respondent's "Comment (Re: Motion for Reconsideration of the D ecision dated April 22, 2026)"2 ("Comment") flied via accredited courier on June 23, 2026. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration prays for the reversal and setting aside of the D ecisio n dated Niay 23, 2024 promulgated in CTA Case N o . 10095, the Resolution issued on November 07, 2024 in CTA Case N o . 10095, and the Court En Bant!s Decision3 dated April 22, 2026. 1 Docket, pp. 145-154. 2 Id., pp. 157-169. 3 /d., pp. 130-142.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3039 (CTA Case No. 10095) The dispositive portion of the Decision promulgated by this Court on /1.pril22, 2026 reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review filed by petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 23, 2024 and the Resolution dated November 7, 2024 of this Court's Special First Division in CTA Case No. 10095 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED." 4 In his !\lotion for Reconsideration, Petitioner contends that the Final Assessment Notices and Formal Letter of Demand (F1\N/FLD) for the taxpayer's delinquent taxes were issued within the prescriptive period since the period to assess respondent's deficiency taxes has not yet prescribed. According to petitioner, it is only in the execution of the waiver of the period to collect that the amount of taxes must be specified, and not on the waiver of the period to assess. Tlus is because during the assessment stage, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BUt) is still in the process of examining and determining the tax liability of the taxpayer. Additionally, respondent is estopped from questioning the validity of its waiver, for it allowed the BIR to rely on it without raising any objection against its validity. Petitioner also claims that there is no violation of Respondent's t~ght to due process. Petitioner maintains that the Preliminary I\ssessment Notice (PAN) and FAN/FLD were duly served and received. Respondent was notified of the assessment and was given ample time and opportunity to protest the assessment. On the other hand, Respondent, in its Comment, asserts that Petitioner is mistaken in its belief that the waiver of the period to assess need not specify the particular taxes to be assessed nor the amount thereof as it may simply state "all internal revenue taxes". Respondent emphasizes that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that logically, there can be no agreement if the kind and amount of taxes to be assessed or collected were not indicated. Respondent likewise avers that Petitioner should have provided the rationale as to why the deficiency assessments were retained. Since there was no explanation, following Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Avon Products l'vfanttfactl!n.n£, there was violation of the taxpayer's right to due process. 4 ld., Decision dated April 22, 2026, p. 141. 5 G.R. Nos. 201398-99, October 3, 2018.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3039 (CTA Case No. 10095) \X'e resolve to deny Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of ment. The arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion are mere recapitulation of the arguments raised in his Petition for Review filed with this Court. In addition, these issues have been amply considered, weighed, and resolved in the Assailed Decision. Thus, We shall not belabor, in this Resolution, to repeat the disquisitions made therein. In sum, the Court En Bane finds no cogent reason to overturn the assailed Decision dated /1.pril 22, 2026 which affirmed the Decision dated May 23, 2024 and Resolution dated November 07, 2024 of the CTA Special First Division. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner's "Motion for Reconsideration on the Decision dated April 22, 2026" is DENIED for lack of ment. SO ORDERED. ~. ~ )--__ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate ] us rice WE CONCUR: ~ ~ r. ~ -fq..,'a..~ MARIAN IVY fJ. REYEif..FAJAR'DO Associate Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 3039 (CTA Case No. 10095) HENRY~GELES Associate Justice DEBBIE Jnn..n I. CENTENO-DIJAMCO Associate Justice