Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Respondent is a duly organized domestic
corporation. On January 26, 2001, the
regional director Legazpi City issued a
letter of authority for the revenue officer to
examine respondents books of accounts
and other accounting records for taxable
year 1999. Respondent failed to comply for
requests for presentation of records and a
subpoena duce tecum, thus the
investigation proceeded based on the best
evidence obtainable for the issuance of
assessment notice.
1
ISSUE:
2
March 7, 2008
Facts:
Respondent, through its Revenue Service
Chief, issued to the petitioner a preassessment notice (PAN) dated November
26, 1986.
Petitioner, in a letter dated November 29,
1986, requested for the details of the
amounts alleged as 1982-1986 deficiency
taxes mentioned in the November 26, 1986
PAN.
On April 7, 1
P24,587,174.63, respectively, for the years
1982 to 1986.
On April 20, 1989, petitioner filed a protest
on the demand/assessment notices.
4
Ace
Moog Controls Corporation vs. CIR
By: Gwapo
FACTS:
As culled from the records of the case, it is
not disputed that on January 8, 2003,
petitioner received the Formal Letter of
Demand with the Assessment Notices,
assessing it for deficiency income and final
withholding taxes for the period covering
October 1998 to September 1999 in the
total amount of P 38,604,536.94, inclusive
of surcharges and interest. On February 7,
2003, a Letter of Protest addressed to the
Revenue Regional Director, Jaime Q.
Concepcion, of BIR Revenue Region No. 2 of
the Cordillera Administrative Region was
subsequently filed by herein petitioner. On
April 4, 2003, petitioner submitted its
supporting documents, as evidenced by a
copy of the transmittal letter addressed to
herein respondent. On May 9, 2003, a letter
from Regional Director Jaime Q.
Concepcion, denying with finality
petitioner's protest letter dated February 7,
2003, was received by petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction
over the case?
HELD:
No. A decision on the protest has to be
rendered by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue before this Court may acquire
jurisdiction to act on the case. Also, as
specifically mentioned under Section 228 of
the Tax Code, when the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue fails to act on the protest
of the taxpayer after the lapse of one
hundred eighty (180) days from the
submission of its supporting documents,
the taxpayer may elevate the appeal to
this Court.
It is a fundamental and mandatory rule in
law that an aggrieved taxpayer must first
RIZAL COMMERCIAL
BANKING CORPORATION
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. 168498, 24 April 2007, J.
Ynares-Santiago (Third Division)
By: Enna Fleur Trivilegio
The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) is a
court of special jurisdiction and can only
take cognizance of such matters as are clearly
within its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the
CTA has been expanded to include not only
decisions or rulings but inaction as well of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The
decisions, rulings or inaction of the
Commissioner are necessary in order to vest
the CTA with jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal, provided it is filed within the period
provided for by Section 3(a) (2), Rule 4 of the
Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals. In
case the Commissioner failed to act on the
disputed assessment within the 180-day period
from the date of submission of documents, a
taxpayer can either: (1) file a petition for
review with the CTA within 30 days after the
expiration of the 180-day period fixed by law
for the Commissioner to act on the disputed
assessments; or (2) await the final decision of
the Commissioner on the disputed
assessments and appeal such final decision to
the CTA within 30 days after the receipt of a
copy of such decision. The 30-day period within
which to file an appeal is jurisdictional and
failure to comply therewith would bar the
appeal and deprive the CTA of its jurisdiction to
entertain and determine the correctness of the
assessments. Such period is not merely directory
but mandatory and it is beyond the power of
the courts to extend the same. Moreover, these
options are mutually exclusive and resort to one
bars the application of the other.
ISSUE:
HELD:
FACTS:
This case stemmed from an
assessment issued against petitioner for
deficiency value-added tax and expanded
withholding tax for the taxable year 1997
in the aggregate amount of P2,165,373.93,
inclusive of surcharge, interests and
compromise penalties. Petitioner is a
corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the Philippines with office
address at corner Washington and Figueroa
Streets, Silay City, Negros Occidental. It is
engaged, among others, in the business of
developing and leasing private agricultural
lands and planting, cultivating and selling
products of such lands. On January 24,
2001, petitioner received Notice of
Assessment Nos. 00007-2001 and 000082001 from the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR), together with the corresponding
demand letter, all dated January 10, 2001.
As of October 17, 2001, however,
respondent had not yet resolved/decided
petitioner's protest. Consequently, to
prevent the assessment notices from
becoming "final, executory and
demandable" pursuant to Section 228 of
the 1997 NIRC, petitioner filed the instant
petition on November 16, 2001.
ISSUES:
The petitioner and the respondent
stipulated the issues to be resolved by this
court, to wit:
(1) Whether or not the right of the
government to assess deficiency VAT and
EWT for taxable year 1997 has already
prescribed;
10
RULING:
As to the first issue:
Only the assessment for deficiency VAT for
the last quarterof 1997 and the assessment
for deficiency expanded withholding tax for
December of 1997 were issued within the
period allowed by law.
The assessments made on January 16,
2001 for deficiency VAT covering the
taxable year 1997 had already prescribed
with respect to the first, second and third
quarters thereof.
The assessment was issued on January 10,
2001, said issuance was within the threeyear prescriptive period. As regards the
EWT assessment, the same was issued
within the period allowed by law for
respondent had until March 1, 2001 within
which to assess pursuant to Section 5l (c)
of the 1993 Tax Code.
Pursuant to Section 203 in relation to
Section 110 of the Tax Code and Section 2
of Revenue Regulations No. 5-93, the
period to assess commences after the last
day prescribed by law for the filing of the
return. In the case of VAT, it is twenty (20)
days following the close of each taxable
quarter. Hence, if the return was filed
earlier than the last day allowed by law, the
period to assess shall still be counted from
the last day prescribed for filing of the
return. However, if the return was filed
beyond the period prescribed by law, the
three-year period shall be counted from the
day the return wasfiled. Under then Section
110 of the Tax Code, as implemented by
COMMISSIONER
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE
vs.
KUDOS
METAL
CORPORATION- Waiver of the Statute
of Limitations
FACTS:
CIR assessed Kudos Metal Corporation for
taxable year 1998. A Waiver of the Statute
of Limitations was executed on December
2001. The CTA issued a Resolution
canceling the assessment notices issued
against Petitioner for having been issued
beyond the prescriptive period as the
waiver purportedly failed to (a) have the
valid officer execute the same (i.e., only
the Assistant Commissioner signed it and
not the CIR); (b) the date of acceptance
was not indicated; (c) the fact of receipt by
the taxpayer was not indicated in the
original copy.
ISSUE:
As to the third and last issue:
The question of propriety of the imposition
of compromise penalty,the same becomes
moot and academic in view of the findings
that the assessments were issued out of
time and were void for failure to inform
petitioner of the law and facts on which
they were made.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,
the assessments issued against petitioner
for deficiency VAT and EWT in the total
amount of P2, 165,373.93 covering the
year 1997 are hereby CANCELLED and SET
ASIDE.
HELD:
YES. The requirements for a valid waiver as
laid down in RMO 20-90 and RDAO No. 5-01
are mandatory to give effect to Section 222
of the Tax Code. Specifically, the flaws in
the waiver executed by Kudos Metal were
as follows: (a) there was no notarized
written authority in favor of the signatory
for the company; (b) there is no stated date
of acceptance by the Commissioner or his
representative; and (c) the fact of the
12
15