COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALAN U. CHAN

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ENBANC COMMISSIONER OF CTA EB NO. 2988 INTERNAL REVENUE, (CTA Case No. 10034) Petitioner, Present: RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J., BACORRO-VILLENA, MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, -versus- REYES-FAJARDO, CUI-DAVID, FERRER-FLORES, ANGELES, TESTON, and CENTENO-DIJAMCO, ]]. ALAN U. CHAN, Respondent. Promulgated: X--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------X RESOLUTION RINGPIS-LIBAN, P.J. : For Resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision promulgated on 11 February 2026) filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) on February 23, 2026 with the taxpayer's Comment / Opposition (To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration) filed by registered mail on April 27, 202~

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2988 (CTA CASE NO. 10034) In its motion, the CIR assails the Court's decision that affirmed the decision and resolution of the court a quo, which in turn cancelled and set aside the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) covering taxable year 2011 for alleged deficiency Income Tax, Value.d- Added Tax and Expanded Withholding Tax assessments and compromise penalties, including interests and surcharges. The motion, however, only repeats the grounds already raised in the petition where it asserts that the Court erred in ruling that (a) the court a quo had jurisdiction over the case; (b) the assessment was invalid because there, in fact, a was a valid Letter of Authority; (c) the CIR's right to assess had prescribed; and, (d) that the taxpayer's right to due process was violated. 1 In the Comment / Opposition (To Petitioner's A1otion for Reconsideration), the taxpayer states that (a) The petition was flied on time with the court a quo, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the letter from the Regional Director; (b) When the audit is continued by a revenue officer not named in the original Letter of Authority (LOA), a new LOA must be issued to vest authority in such an officer; (c) The waiver failed to specify the date of acceptance by the CIR and the acknowledgement of receipt by the taxpayer; and, (d) The defects in the issuance and service of the Final Assessment Notice (FAN) and the FLD, coupled with the absence of a valid Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA), effectively deprived the taxpayer of the opportunity to defend himself. The motion fails to convince the Court and must, therefore, be denied. The four issues reiterated by the motion was decided by the Court when it ruled that (a) The court a quo validly assumed jurisdiction over the case based on Section 7(a)(1) of RA 1125, as amended; (b) An LO_\ is the source of BIR revenue officer's investigatory powers, without which the assessment is void; (c) The court a quo correctly found that the CIR's right to assess was barred by prescription; and, (d) Finally, an assessment that fails to observe the due process requirements is a patent nullity. All told, the CIR failed to raise any new issue that has successfully convinced the Court to modifv or reverse the assailed decision. A motion for reconsideration that merelv reiterates matters alreadv ' ' considered and resolved by the Court deserves denial. In Illuh Asaali · v. Commissioner of Customs, 2 the Supreme Court En Bane denied the motion for reconsideration, which was substantially a rehash of the points previously raised bv the movants. . ~ 1 Compare the issues raised in the petition and the motion, Rollo, pp. 16 and 211-212. 2 G.R. No. L-24170 (Resolution), February 28, 1969.

RESOLUTION CTA EB NO. 2988 (CTA CASE NO. 10034) ACCORDINGLY, the CIR's JV!otion for Reconsideration (Re: Derision promulgated on 11 February 2026) is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Presiding Justice WE CONCUR: ' MARIARO -SAN PEDRO ustice . /'fVJ»>hJ ~ f. ~ .. fa1~~ MARIAN IVY@. REviJi-FAJ~RDO Associate Justice ~ LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice co~d:'i<~- s Associate Justice HENRJ/~NGELES • DEBBIE} Associate Justicc