Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Western Guaranty Corporation

DECISION

UY, J.:

Before this Court is the Petition for Review¹ filed on February 26, 2021 by petitioner, Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), against respondent, Western Guaranty Corporation (WGC), praying that the Decision² dated July 24, 2020 and Resolution³ dated January 21 , 2021 , rendered by the First Division of this Court in CTA Case No. 9338, entitled, "Western Guaranty Corporation, Petitioner vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent" be reversed and set aside and another one be rendered ordering respondent to pay petitioner the assessed deficiency value-added tax (VAT), expanded ~ withholding tax (EWT), final withholding VAT (FWVAT), and (fV

documentary stamp tax (DST). The dispositive portions thereof respectively read as follows: Decision dated July 24, 2020: "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant

Petition

for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The assessment issued by respondent against petitioner for TY 2011 covering the compromise penalty is CANCELLED and SET ASIDE while the assessments for deficiency VAT and DST and penalties on deficiency EWT and FWVAT are UPHELD. Accordingly, petitioner is ORDERED TO PAY respondent the amount of P82,121,697.84 representing:

(1) the basic deficiency VAT and DST for TY 2011, inclusive of the 25% surcharge, 20% deficiency interest and 20% delinquency interest imposed under Sections 248 (A) (3), 249 (B) and (C) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, respectively; and, (2) the 25% surcharge on the basic deficiency EWT and FWVAT for TY 2011, inclusive of the 20% delinquency interest imposed under Section 249 (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, computed until December 31, 2017, less the payments that have been made by petitioner, as shown below:

--· - ·--~- ---·-:----------· ·--- ~--···--·-·-··--·····-

VAT

EWT

FWVAT

DST

Total

Basic tax 1"15,456,297.06

I"

.

I"

- 1"14, 160,478.66 1"29,616 775.72

Surcharge (25%)

3,864,074.27 861,573.20 11,145.91 3,540,119.67 --~_8,276,913 05_ Deficiency interest ..

--·-·---- ~---- ..........

VAT-

26-Jan-2012 to

29-Dec-2015

(1"15,456,297.06 12,144,838.35 .

.

12,144,838.35

X 20%

x 1,434/365 days) ---~ ·-· ----- - ·····- - --~ ------- --------~

VAT-

30-Dec-2015 to

31-Mar-2016

~--- [(1'15,456,297 .06 762,156 51 .

- .

762,156.51 - 500,000.00) x20% x 93/365 days] -----[---~--- ------ -----f-----.-- ···-· 1---·---- --·

EWT-

I

16-Jan-2012 to

18-May-2015

..

- (1"3,446,292.80 2,301,934.75 2,301,934.75 x20% x 1,219/365 days) ____ , ____ ---- ---~

EWT-

19-May-2015 to

29-Jun-2015

[(1"3,446,292.80- 14,873.59 14,873.59 I~ [(P14, 160,478.66 2,800,000) x 20% x 42/365 days] a ae ;

FWVAT —

11-Jan-2012 to

06-May-2015

(P44 583.63 x 20% x 1,212/365 days 29,608.42 29,608.42

DST —

06-Jan-2012 to

30-Jul-2015

(P14,160,478.66 x 20% x 1,302/365 days)

DST —

31-Jul-2015 to

27-Aug-2015

+ ———___f.—_____ _______.._._ 10,102,434 64 10,102,434.64 [(P14, 160,478.66 — 1,000,000.00) x 20% x 28/365 days]

DST —

28-Aug-2015 to

30-Sep-2015

201,914.19 ~_——$__4~ 201,914.19 [(P14,160,478.66 — 1,000,000.00 — 3,000,000.00) x 20% x 34/365 days

DST —

01-Oct-2015 to

30-Oct-2015

[(F?14,160,478.66 ~ 1,000,000.00 — 3,000,000.00 — 2,000 ,000.00) x 20% x 30/365 days 189,291.11 | 189,291.11

DST —

31-Oct-2015 to

27-Nov-2015

[(P14,160,478.66 — 1,000,000.00 — 3,000,000.00 — 2,000,000.00 — §00,000.00) x 20% x 28/365 days

DST —

28-Nov-2015 to

31-Mar-2016

117,530.63 134,144.85 | 134,144.85 | 117,530.63 | - 1,000,000.00 — 3,000,000.00 — 2,000,000.00 ~ 500,000.00 — 1,000,000.00) x 20% x 125/365 days Total amount due as of March 31, 2016 32,227,366.19 3,178,381 .54 Deficiency interest

VAT — 01-Apr-

2016 to 31-Dec-

2017 [(P 15,456 ,297.06 — 500,000.00) x 20% x 640/365 days §,244,948.01 40,754.33 28,902,110.92 456,197.17).

-~956.197.17 | 64,348,612.98

DST —

01-Apr-2016 to

31-Dec-2017

— 1,000,000.00 ~ 3,000,000.00 — 2,000,000.00 — 500,000.00 — 1,000,000.00) x 20% x 640/365 days

Delinquency

interest

VAT —

01-Apr-2016 to

31-Dec-2017

(P32,227 366.19 x 20% x 640/365 days

EWT —

01-Apr-2016 to

31-Dec-2017

11,301,651.70 | [P3,178,381.54 — 2,209,418.31) x 20% x 640/365 days

FWVAT —

01-Apr-2016 to

31-Dec-2017

L

[(P40,754.33 ~ 28,702.94) x 20% x 640/365 days

DST —

01-Apr-2016 to

31-Dec-2017

[(P28, 902,110.92 — 1,000,000.00) x 20% x 640/365 days] Deficiency tax due as of December 31, 2017 + 339,800.80 | 2,335, 729.50 2,335,729.50 9,784,849.86 | 41,022,690.28 14,301,651.70 339,800.80 | 4,226.24 {od "9. 784,849.86 93,359,819.09

Less: Payments

made on the following dates

29-Jun-2015

06-May-2015

29-Dec-2015 500,000.00

30-Jul-2015 _

27-Aug-2015

30-Oct-2015

Total payments made_

30-Sep-2015 -

27-Nov-2015

500,000.00

Remaining

amount due as of December 31, 2017 P48.273,965.90 2,209,418.31 P1,308,764.03 - ~_____500,000.00 | - | 2,209,418.31 | - 28,702.94 1,000,000.00 | _1,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 | 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 | - [__1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 | 28,702.94 8,500,000.00 41,238,121.25 P16,277.63 | 32,522,690.28 | P82,121,697.84 In addition, petitioner is liable to pay delinquency interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the total amount due as of March 31, 2016 less payments made before March 31, 2016 totaling P53,110,491.73, 7) summarized below, computed from January 1, 2018 until full payment thereof pursuant to Section 249 (C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended by Republic Act No. 10963, also known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion

(TRAIN)

Law, and as implemented by

Revenue

Regulations No. 21-2018.

VAT

EWT

FWVAT

DST

Total

Total amount 1"32,227,366.19 1"3,178,381.54 1"40,754.33 1"28,902,110.92 1"64,348,612.98 due as of March 31, 2016

Less:

500,000.00 2,209,418.31 28,702.94 8,500,000.00 11,238,121.25

Payments

made before March 31, 2016 Base amount 1"31,727,366.19 1"968,963.23 1"12,051.39 1"20,402,110.92 1"53,110,491.73 of12% delinquency interest -- ·-~--------- . ------------ -- ------~------~--- ----

THE PARTIES

Petitioner is the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), with office address at the BIR, Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.

Respondent WGC is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, with principal office at Suite 508 BPI Office Condominium, Plaza Cervantes, Binondo, Manila, Philippines.

THE FACTS

The CIR issued the Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 125-2013- 000001 03/SN eLA2011 00007176 dated May 29, 2013, authorizing Revenue Officer Agnes Sison and Group Supervisor Edenny Linga/t'O of the BIR's Large Taxpayers Regular Audit Division 2, to examine WGC's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes, for the period covering January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.

On October 22, 2014,

WGC

received the

Preliminary

Assessment Notice (PAN) dated October 21, 2014, finding due from WGC deficiency income tax (IT), VAT, EWT, withholding tax on compensation (WTC), FWVAT and DST, including interests and compromise penalties, for taxable year 2011, in the total amount of 1"82,543,396.96, broken down as follows: Income tax 1"24,503,517.64

VAT

24,211,553.48 Percentage tax 10,263.14

EWT

5,597,482.91 --~--

WTC

5,823,444.04

FVAT

78,367.01

DST

22,318,768.74

Grand Total

_!82,543,396.96 ~- On November 5, 2014, WGC filed a letter rebutting the findings stated in the PAN.

Subsequently, on March 10, 2015, WGC received the CIR's Final Assessment Notice (FAN) dated March 5, 2015 with attached Assessment Notices and Details of Discrepancies, all dated March 5, 2015, assessing WGC with deficiency IT, VAT, percentage tax, EWT, FWVAT, and DST, including interests and compromise penalties, for taxable year 2011, in the total amount of 1"68,415,353.83, computed as follows:

Income tax ---1-~J4,Q~Q._1§_~_1_Z_ ----

VAT

25,305,31_Qj7_ Percentage tax --~_§,654.QJ_

EWT

~- 5,655, 711._:1_1~

FWVAT

81,786.57 , ___ --~~··-

DST

23,323,724.40 .

J!!:and Total P68,415,353.83 On March 16, 2015, WGC filed a Request for Reconsideration/Alii Reinvestigation to the said FAN.

/' U

On March 29, 2016, WGC received the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) with Details of Discrepancies and Audit Results/Assessment Notices, all dated March 18, 2016, finding WGC liable for deficiency VAT and DST, compromise penalty, interests and surcharges for EWT and FWVAT for taxable year 2011 in the total amount of P53,434,094.30, broken down as follows:

_YJSL_

.~ .. ___ .. -1-~31 ,74~2~.QJ 4 _

DST

I 20,687,133.33

EWT

989,144.86

FWVAT

12,025.37

Grand Total

P53,434,094.30 The IT and percentage tax were not anymore included in the abovementioned FDDA because of the adjustments made by the CIR and WGC, respectively.

WGC also made a series of partial payments on several deficiency taxes in the FAN. Thereafter, WGC filed a Petition for Review before the Court in Division on April 28, 2016 docketed as CTA Case No. 9338 entitled "Western Guaranty Corporation, petitioner, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent.". In his Answer in CTA Case No. 9338 filed on June 20, 2016, the CIR interposed the following special and affirmative defenses: 1) The formal assessment notice is valid for having informed WGC of the factual and legal bases of the assessment; 2) The CIR substantially complied with the requirements for assessment as provided in Section 228 of the Tax Code; 3) WGC was given ample opportunity to challenge the assessments in its protests against the PAN, FAN, and FDDA;

4) With regard to the assessed EWT and FWVAT, WGC already paid the assessed taxes. Only the interests and surcharges for delinquency are due from WGC; 5) WGC is estopped from contesting the assessment for EWT and FVAT; and 6) The assessment issued against WGC is valid and lawful. After the pre-trial conference in CT A Case No. 9338 on October 11, 2016, and by agreement of the parties, they filed their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JFSI) on November 10, 2016. In t~

Pre-Trial Order dated December 14, 2016, the Court approved and adopted the said JFSI, and deemed the Pre-Trial terminated. During trial, WGC presented its lone witness, Johnson Kwan, WGC's Vice-President.

On March 28, 2018, WGC filed its Formal Offer of Evidence while the CIR filed his Comment Re: Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence on April 23, 2018. In the Resolution dated May 25, 2018, the Court admitted WGC's exhibits, but denied admission of the following exhibits, to wit:

1. Exhibits "P-3," and "P-5," for failure to identify the same during trial;

2 Exhibits "P-6 " "P-7 " "P-8 " and "P-9 " for failure to • ' 1 ,

J

submit the duly marked exhibits; and

3. Exhibits "P-10," and "P-11," for failure to present the originals for comparison.

On August 7, 2018, the CIR presented his sole witness, Revenue Officer Agnes I. Sison. The CIR then filed his Formal Offer of Evidence on August 17, 2018.

On December 19, 2018, WGC filed its Comment on Respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence. In the Resolution dated January 30, 2019, the Court in Division admitted the CIR's exhibits. Subsequently, counsel for WGC manifested on May 2, 2019 that he would no longer present any rebuttal evidence and would rest his case. Accordingly, the Court in Division gave the parties a period of thirty (30) days or until June 1, 2019, within which to file their respective memorandum.

The CIR filed his Memorandum on June 3, 2019, while WGC's Memorandum for the Petitioner was filed on June 24, 2019. In the Resolution dated July 3, 2019, CTA Case No. 9338 was submitted for decision.

In the assailed Decision4 dated July 24, 2020, the Court in Division partially granted the Petition for Review. The assessment issued against WGC for TY 2011 covering the compromise penalty was cancelled and set aside, but the assessments for deficiency VAT and DST and penalties on deficiency EWT and FWVAT were uphe~

WGC filed its Motion for Reconsideration on August 24, 2020, with the CIR's Opposition (To Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 24 August 2020) on September 28, 2020. Meanwhile, the CIR filed his Motion for Partial Reconsideration Re: Decision dated 24 July 2020 on August 18, 2020, without WGC's Comment. In the assailed Resolution5 dated January 21, 2021, the Court in Division denied both parties' respective Motions for lack of merit. Undaunted, the CIR filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on February 10,2021.6 In the Minute Resolution 7 dated February 11, 2021, the subject Motion was granted and the CIR was given a final and non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from February 12, 2021, or until February 27, 2021, within which to file his Petition for Review. Thereafter, the CIR filed the instant Petition for Revie,.J3 on February 26, 2021 praying that the assailed Decision dated June 30, 2020 be reversed and set aside and another one be rendered ordering WGC to pay petitioner the assessed deficiency VAT, EWT, FWVAT and DST, including compromise penalty for taxable yar 2011. On March 16, 2021, WGC was directed to file its comment to the instant Petition for Review, within ten (10) days from noticeB WGC, however, failed to file its comment, as per Records Verification 10 dated June 14, 2021. Thereafter, the instant Petition for Review was submitted for Decision on June 23, 2021. 11 Hence, this decision.

THE ISSUE

The CIR raises a sole ground in the instant Petition for Review, to wit:

"WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE

COURT ERRED WHEN IT CANCELLED AND SEU

ASIDE THE COMPROMISE PENALTY FOR TAXABLE

YEAR 2011."12 Petitioner's argument:

The CIR contends that the Court in Division erred when it cancelled and set aside the compromise penalty for taxable year 2011.

According to petitioner, the imposition of the compromise penalty is legally mandated pursuant to Section 249 of the Tax Code. Moreover, in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Filinvest Development Corporation13 (or the Filinvest case) the Honorable Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of surcharge, interest, and even the compromise penalty, viz: " x x x The imposition of deficiency interest is justified under Sec. 249 (a) and (b) of the NIRC which authorizes the assessment of the same 'at the rate of twenty percent (20%), or such higher rate as may be prescribed by regulations', from the date prescribed for the payment of the unpaid amount of tax until full payment. The imposition of the compromise penalty is, in turn, warranted under Sec. 250 of the NIRC which prescribes the imposition thereof 'in case of each failure to file an information or return, statement or list, or keep any record or supply any information required' on the date prescribed therefor." Hence, petitioner submits that the imposition of the compromise penalty is legal and warranted by the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, in the instant case.

THE COURT EN BANG'S RULING

The instant Petition for Review lacks merit. WGC cannot be held liable for the compromise penalty. The CIR avers that WGC should be held liable for compromise penalties, citing Section 249 of the Tax Code, and the Filinvest cas~

We disagree.

A compromise penalty is a penalty imposed for violation of the provisions of the Tax Code. 14 In other words, a compromise penalty is paid by the taxpayer, in order to avoid prosecution for violations of the Tax Code.

The nature of a compromise penalty is explained in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Armando L. Abad, 15 to wit: "(A) compromise implies agreement. One party cannot impose it upon the other. If an offer of compromise is rejected by the taxpayer, as in this case, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should file a criminal action if he believes that the taxpayer is criminally liable for violation of the tax law as the only way to enforce a penalty. As penalty can be imposed only on a finding of criminal liability." (Emphasis supplied.) From the foregoing, two (2) things are made clear: (a) there can be no compromise if there is no agreement between the parties; and

(b) a compromise penalty can only be imposed on a finding of criminal liability.

Accordingly, it is a well-settled rule that a compromise penalty cannot be imposed or collected without the agreement or conformity of the taxpayer. 16 A compromise, after all, by its nature, is mutual in essence. 17 It cannot be imposed without a predicate agreement. Thus, the fact that the taxpayer protested the assessment could only signify that there was no agreement to speak of. 18 In fact, the imposition of compromise penalties without the conformity of the taxpayer is considered illegal and unauthorized. 19 ~ 14 The Philippine International Fair, Inc. vs. The Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. L-12928 & L-12932, March 31, 1962. 15 G.R. No. L-19627, June 27, 1968. 16 Wonder Mechanical Engineering Corporation. etc., vs. Court ()/'Tax Appeals. et a/., G.R. No. L-22805 & L-27858, June 30, 1975; 17 Dr. Felisa L. Vda. De San Agustin, eta/, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. G.R. No. 138485, September 10,2001. 18 Manila Bankers' Life Insurance Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 199729-30 and 199732-33, February 27, 2019. 19 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Lianga Bay Logging Co, Inc. and the CTA, G.R. No. L-35266, January 21,1991.

Applying the foregoing jurisprudential principles to this case, this Court agrees with the factual findings of the Court in Division that there is no showing that WGC ever consented to the compromise penalty.

As a matter of fact, the point that WGC consistently protested the subject assessments meant that there was never any agreement to speak of.

In the absence of proof that WGC expressly consented or gave its conformity to the collection or payment of compromise penalties, there would be no basis for the imposition of compromise penalties in this case.

Hence, the imposition of compromise penalties was correctly deleted by the Court in Division, as the imposition thereof is illegal, unauthorized, and done without WGC's conformity. Anent petitioner's reliance on the Filinvest case, this Court finds the same to be misguided. In the said case, the Supreme Court did not squarely pass upon the issue of whether or not compromise penalties can be imposed, even without the consent of the taxpayer. Considering that the propriety of the imposition of compromise penalties was not raised as an issue in the Filinvest case, the same cannot be considered as a binding precedent with regard to the issue at hand.

In the case of Procter and Gamble Asia Pte Ltd. v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 20 it was held that the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply when the Court does not make a categorical ruling on an issue expressly raised by the parties: "The basic rule is that past decisions of this Court be followed in the adjudication of cases. However, for a ruling of this Court to come within this rule (known as stare decisis), the Court must categorically rule on an issue expressly raised by the parties; it must be a ruling on an issue directly raised. When the court resolves an issue merely sub silentio, stare decisis does not apply on the issue touched upon.

In fact, the same argument was struck down by this court in San Roque-Taganito. There, we held that, "[a]ny issue, whether raised or not by the parties, but not passed upon by the court, does not have any value as a _til\ precedent."

r \1

At this juncture, this Court notes that the CIR's own issuances, from 1986 until the most recent one in 2018, are all consistent in recognizing that compromise penalties are in fact, consensual in nature, and may not therefore be imposed or exacted on the taxpayer, to wit:

BIR Issuance

Subject

Pertinent portion/s "Com12romise 12enalties are onll£ amounts suggested bl£ the BIR in

BIR Memorandum

Surcharge, settlement of criminal liabilitll for No. 016-2018 Interest, and violations committed bl£ tax!;!al£ers, dated

Compromise

the payment of which is consensual in March 15, 2018

Penalty on

nature, and mal£ not therefore be

Amended

im12osed or exacted on the tax12al£er.

Returns

Thus, in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the suggested compromise penalty, the violation shall be referred to the appropriate office for criminal action."

Circularizing

BIR Memorandum No. 016-2018 was

Memorandum

circularized and all internal revenue

Revenue

No. 016-2018 officials and employees were enjoined

Memorandum

dated March 15, to be guided accordingly.

Circular No.

2018 Regarding

021-18 dated

the Imposition of

April 2, 2018 Surcharge,

Interest and

Compromise

Penalty for Filing of an Amended

Tax Return

"x x x the Schedule of Compromise

Revenue

Clarifying the

Penalties specified in RMO No. 19-

Memorandum

Imposition of

2007, are only amounts suggested bl£ Circular No.

Penalties and the Bureau of Internal Revenue in

054-18 dated

Interest on the

settlement of criminal liabilitll for May 29, 2018

Filing of an

violations committed bl£ tax12al£ers,

Amended Return

the payment of which are consensual in nature, and mall not therefore be imoosed or exacted on the taxpayer."

Computation of the "A

compromise in extra-judicial Civil Penalties, settlement of the taxpayer's criminal

Revenue

Consisting of

liability for his violation is consensual

Memorandum

Surcharge and

in character, hence, mal£ not be Circular No.46- Interest, Incident to im12osed on the tax12aller without his 99 dated June

Deficiency or

consent. The BIR mal£ onll£ suggest 18, 1999

Delinquency

settlement of the taxpayer's liability

Internal Revenue

through a compromise."

Taxes, Pursuant to __ ~

Section 248 and

249 of the National

Internal Revenue

Code, as Amended by R.A No. 8424; and

Suggested

Compromise

Penalty in Extra-

Judicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's

Criminal Liability

Incident to his

Violation of Certain

Provision of the

Code, or any of its

Implementing

Revenue

Regulations,

Pursuant to

Section 204

thereof

The Revised

Revenue

Consolidated

Memorandum

Schedule of

Order No. 007-15

Compromise

dated

Penalties for

January 22, 2015

Violations of the

National Internal

Revenue Code

Revenue

The Consolidated

Memorandum

Revised Schedule

Order No. 19-07

of Compromise

dated

Penalties for

August 8, 2007

Violations of the

National Internal

Revenue Code

-·

Amendments to

Revenue the Provisions of a

Memorandum

"Revised Schedule Order No. 01-90

of Compromise

dated November

Penalties" for

28, 1989

Internal Revenue

Violations as

Prescribed in RMO

26-86 -·

Adoption and

Revenue

Implementation of

I

"5. Since comgromise genalties are onl:i amounts suaaested in settlement of criminal liabilit:i, and ma:i not therefore be imgosed or exacted on the taxga:ier, the violation shall be referred to the appropriate office for criminal action in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the suggested compromise penalty." "5. Since comgromise genalties are onl:i amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liabilit:i, and ma:i not therefore be im12osed or exacted on the tax12a:ier, the violation shall be referred to the appropriate office for criminal action in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the suggested com[:>romise f>enalt~ " "Since com12romise 12enalties are onl:i amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liabilit:i, and ma:i not therefore be im12osed or exacted on the tax12a:ier in the event that a taxpayer refuses to pay the suggested compromise penalty, the violation shall be referred for criminal action as heretofore mentioned."

"Since com12romise 12enalties are onl:i amounts suggested in settlement of criminal liabilit:i, and ma:i not 7ft) Page 15 ofl6

Memorandum

Order No. 26-86 dated August 18, 1986

a "Revised

therefore be im12osed or exacted on

Schedule of

the tax12ayer (Collector v. UST, supra;

Compromise

also Collector v. Bautista, 105 Phil.

Penalties" for

1326; Phil. lnt'l. Fair v. Collector, 4

Internal Revenue

SCRA 774), x x x."

Violations

Accordingly, in the absence of any legal basis to support petitioner's contention that compromise penalties should be imposed, even in the absence of the taxpayer's acquiescence, this Court upholds the cancellation of the same. In view of the foregoing disquisition, this Court finds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the findings of the court a quo in the assailed Decision and Resolution.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated July 24, 2020 and the Resolution dated January 21, 2021 rendered by the First Division of this Court in CTA Case No. 9338 are hereby AFFIRMED.

WE CONCUR:

Presiding Justice

ER~.UY

Associate Justice

S2.cr......c-z:- c. Q.r.....;,-.,t,. . Q, J«A.NITO C. CASTANED,If,~ JR.

Associate Justice

fb.~ ..(__

A

MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN

Associate Justice

Page\6ofl6 t:a~Ju-.t' f. ~ ... Jv..

~

CATHERINE~MANAHAN

Associate Justice

~ m:coRl~S..·V.ILLENA

MARIA

~~t~.r~ MARIAN IVY F.(p{EYES-~AJAriDO

Associate Justice

!:wMdD?.' LANEE S. CUI-DA~D

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ROMAN G. DELROSARIO

Presiding Justice