Comelec to appeal P1-billion back taxes 

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Thursday said it will file a motion for reconsideration (MR) after the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) ordered it to pay PHP1.1 billion in taxes withheld from employees in 2015, according to a report by Philippine News Agency.

Comelec spokesperson Rex Laudiangco said the MR will be filed based on CTA rules of procedure.

"Given the recent decision on the subject tax case, the Comelec will be seasonably filing a motion for reconsideration with the Honorable Court of Tax Appeals Division iterating our affirmative defenses and justifications to ensure sufficient emphasis and consideration thereof," he told reporters in a Viber message.

The Comelec, however, is yet to receive a copy of the CTA's decision before it files the MR.

"[We will file] within the reglementary period upon our official receipt of the copy. Until now, wala pa kaming nare-receive na (We have not yet received the) copy for Comelec," he told the Philippine News Agency.

Laudiangco said the Comelec shall resort to this action after the CTA affirmed the demand of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on the poll body's liability.

"A petition for review, as well as another motion for reconsideration, may be filed with the Court of Tax Appeals en banc after the initial MR with the Division," he said.

Laudiangco added that "in all cases of this nature, a petition for review on certiorari may be filed with the Supreme Court, as may be appropriate and necessary, and should the situation further warrants."

Earlier, the CTA released its 22-page decision in favor of the BIR's assessment of Comelec's over a billion of pesos liability for deficiency withholding taxes.

The CTA also ruled that records show the Comelec "duly received" the final assessment notice (FAN)/formal letter of demand (FLN) for the PHP1 billion back taxes, both stamped by its Finance Service Department.

The BIR claimed that with the Comelec not issuing a protest 30 days upon the receipt of FAN, finality has been reached.

The latter, however, claimed otherwise, arguing that the FAN was served to unauthorized personnel who was a casual employee.