CIR versus - HAMBRECHT

G.R. No. 169225

November 17, 2010
IR!T "I#I!I$N
ACT! A! T$ %ETITI$NER
On February 18, 1993 (BIR) received a letter from respondent, informin it of t!e
c!ane of business address of t!e latter" On #ovember $, 1993, respondent
received a tracer letter or follo%&up letter demandin for payment of alleed
deficiency income and e'panded %it!!oldin ta'es for t!e ta'able year 1989 On
(ecember 3, 1993, respondent, filed its protest letter aainst t!e alleed deficiency
ta' assessments for 1989
ACT! A! T$ RE!%$N"ENT
On #ovember ), *++1, nearly ei!t (8) years later, respondent,s received a letter
advisin respondent t!at petitioner !ad rendered a final decision denyin its protest
on t!e round t!at t!e protest aainst t!e disputed ta' assessment %as alleedly
filed beyond t!e 3+&day relementary period" On (ecember -, *++1, respondent
filed a .etition for Revie% before t!e t!en /ourt of 0a' 1ppeals
/01 Oriinal (ivision !eld t!at t!e assessment !ad become final and unappealable
for failure of respondent to file a protest %it!in t!e 3+&day period provided by la%"
2o%ever, t!e /01 (a) !eld t!at t!e /IR failed to collect t!e assessed ta'es %it!in
t!e prescriptive period3 4ndaunted, t!e /IR filed a .etition for Revie% %it! t!e
/01 En Banc but t!is %as denied
I!!&E RAI!E" B' %ETITI$NER
1" .etitioner arues t!at t!e /01 !as no 5urisdiction to rule t!at t!e
overnment,s ri!t to collect t!e ta' !as prescribed"
*" .etitioner arues t!at t!e ri!t to collect t!e ta' deficiency it assessed on
respondent is not barred by prescription since t!e prescriptive period t!ereof
%as alleedly suspended by respondent,s re6uest for reinvestiation"
I!!&E RAI!E" B' RE!%$N"ENT
1" Respondent arues t!at t!e /01 !as 5urisdiction to rule t!at t!e
overnment,s ri!t to collect t!e ta' !as prescribed"
*" Respondent arues t!at t!e period to collect t!e assessment !as prescribed
because t!e prescriptive period %as never suspended"
R&(ING $ THE !&%REME C$&RT
1" 4nder 7ection ) of R1 11*8, t!e appellate 5urisdiction of t!e /01 includes
9o)*er m+))ers, +r-s-./ u.0er )*e NIRC or o)*er 1+2 +s 3+r) o4 1+2
+0m-.-s)ere0 b5 )*e BIR" 0!e issue of prescription of t!e BIR,s ri!t to
collect ta'es may be considered as covered by t!e term :ot!er matters: over
%!ic! t!e /01 !as appellate 5urisdiction"
0o be sure, t!e fact t!at an assessment !as become final for failure of t!e
ta'payer to file a protest %it!in t!e time allo%ed only means t!at t!e validity
or correctness of t!e assessment may no loner be 6uestioned on appeal"
2o%ever, t!e validity of t!e assessment itself is a separate and distinct issue
from t!e issue of %!et!er t!e ri!t of t!e /IR to collect t!e validly assessed
ta' !as prescribed" 0!is issue of prescription, bein a matter provided for by
t!e #IR/, is %ell %it!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!e /01 to decide"
*" 4nder 7ection **3 of t!e #IR/, t%o re6uisites must concur before t!e period
to enforce collection may be suspended; (a) t!at t!e ta'payer re6uests for
reinvestiation, and (b) t!at petitioner rants suc! re6uest"
/onse6uently, t!e mere filin of a protest letter %!ic! is not ranted does not
operate to suspend t!e runnin of t!e period to collect ta'es" In t!e case at
bar, t!e records s!o% t!at respondent filed a re6uest for reinvestiation on
(ecember 3, 1993, !o%ever, t!ere is no indication t!at petitioner acted upon
respondent,s protest"