Samar-I Electric Cooperative

GR No 193100, December 10, 2014

FACTS:
Samar-I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Petitioner) is an electric cooperative, with
principal office at Barangay Carayman,
Calbayog City.
July 13, 1999 and April 17, 2000
Petitioner filed its 1998 and 1999 income tax returns, respectively. Petitioner
filed its 1997, 1998, and 1999 Annual
Information Return of Income Tax Withheld on Compensation, Expanded and Final Wi
thholding Taxes on February 17,
1998, February 1, 1999, and February 4, 2000, in that order.
November 13, 2000 respondent issued a duly signed Letter of Authority (LOA) No.
1998 00023803.
Petitioner cooperated in the audit and investigation conducted by the Special In
vestigation Division of the BIR by
submitting the required documents on December 5, 2000.
October 19, 2001 Respondent sent a Notice for Informal Conference which was rece
ived by petitioner in November 2001; indicating the
allegedly income and withholding tax liabilities of petitioner for 1997 to 1999.
In response, petitioner sent a letter dated November 26, 2001 to respondent main
taining its indifference to the latters
findings and requesting details of the assessment.
December 13, 2001
Petitioner executed a Waiver of the Defense of Prescription under the Statute of
Limitations, good until March 29, 2002.
February 28, 2002 Respondent issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN). The P
AN was received by petitioner on April 9, 2002, which
was protested on April 18, 2002.
July 8, 2002 Respondent dismissed petitioners protest and recommended the issuanc
e of a Final Assessment Notice
September 15, 2002 Petitioner received a demand letter and assessments notices (
Final Assessment Notices) for the alleged 1997, 1998, and
1999 deficiency withholding tax in the amount of [P]3,760,225.69, as well as def
iciency income tax covering the years
1998 to 1999 in the amount of [P]440,545.71, or in the aggregate amount of [P]4,
200,771.40.
April 10, 2003
Final Decision on Disputed Assessment, petitioner was still held liable for the
alleged tax liabilities
DECISION OF LOWER COURT:
(1) CTA First Division - ordered petitioner to pay CIR deficiency withholding ta
x on compensation in the aggregate amount
of P2,690,850.91
ISSUE:
whether the 1997 and 1998 assessments on withholding tax on compensation were is
sued within the prescriptive period
provided by law; and whether the assessments were issued in accordance with Sect
ion 228 of the NIRC of 1997.
RULING:
Yes.
SEC. 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection. Except as provide
d in Section
222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the l
ast day prescribed
by law for the filing of the return, and no proceeding in court without assessme
nt for the collection
of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period: Provided, That
in a case where a
return is filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three (3)-year period s

hall be counted from

the day the return was filed. For purposes of this Section, a return filed befor
e the last day
prescribed by law for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such la
st day.
Section 203 sets the three-year prescriptive period to assess, the following exc
eptions are
provided under Section 222 of the NIRC of 1997, viz.:
SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of Assessment and Collection of
Taxes.
(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of f
ailure to file a return,
the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax
may be filed
without assessment, at any time within ten (10) years after the discovery of the
falsity, fraud or
omission: Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has become final and execut
ory, the fact of
fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal action fo
r the collection thereof.
(b) If before the expiration of the time prescribed in Section 203 for the asses
sment of the tax,
both the Commissioner and the taxpayer have agreed in writing to its assessment
after such time,
the tax may be assessed within the period agreed upon. The period so agreed upon
may be
extended by subsequent written agreement made before the expiration of the perio
d previously

agreed upon.
(c) Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the period of limita
tion as prescribed
in paragraph (a) hereof may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding
in court within five
(5) years following the assessment of the tax.
(d) Any internal revenue tax, which has been assessed within the period agreed u
pon as provided
in paragraph (b) hereinabove, may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proc
eeding in court
within the period agreed upon in writing before the expiration of the five (5)-y
ear period. The
period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent written agreements made befo
re the
expiration of the period previously agreed upon.
(e) Provided, however, That nothing in the immediately preceding Section and par
agraph (a)
hereof shall be construed to authorize the examination and investigation or inqu
iry into any tax
return filed in accordance with the provisions of any tax amnesty law or decree.
(Emphasis
supplied.)
it was petitioners substantial underdeclaration of withholding taxes in the amoun
t of P2,690,850.91 which constituted the
falsity in the subject returns giving respondent the benefit of the period under S
ection 222 of the NIRC of 1997 to
assess the correct amount of tax at any time within ten (10) years after the disc
overy of the falsity, fraud or omission.
the proper and reasonable interpretation of said provision should be that in the
three different cases of
(1) false return,
(2) fraudulent return with intent to evade tax,
(3) failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court
for the collection of such tax may be begun
without assessment, at any time within ten years after the discovery of the (1)
falsity,
(2) fraud,
(3) omission.
There is a difference between false return and fraudulent return cannot be denied. W
hile the
first merely implies deviation from the truth, whether intentional or not, the s
econd implies
intentional or deceitful entry with intent to evade the taxes due.
The ordinary period of prescription of 5 years within which to assess tax liabil
ities under Sec. 331 of the NIRC should be
applicable to normal circumstances, but whenever the government is placed at a d
isadvantage so as to prevent its lawful
agents from proper assessment of tax liabilities due to false returns, fraudulen
t return intended to evade payment of tax or
failure to file returns, the period of ten years provided for in Sec. 332 (a) NI
RC, from the time of the discovery of the falsity,
fraud or omission even seems to be inadequate and should be the one enforced.
SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment. x x x xxx x
The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the
assessment is
made: otherwise, the assessment shall be void.
3.1.4 Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice. The formal letter of demand
and
assessment notice shall be issued by the Commissioner or his duly authorized rep
resentative.

The letter of demand calling for payment of the taxpayers deficiency tax or taxes
shall state the
facts, the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the assessment
is based,
otherwise, the formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be void. The
same shall be
sent to the taxpayer only by registered mail or by personal delivery. x x x
Both Section 228 of the NIRC of 1997 and Section 3.1.4 of RR No. 12-99 clearly r
equire the written details on the nature,
factual and legal bases of the subject deficiency tax assessments.
Considering the foregoing exchange of correspondence and documents between the p
arties, we find that the requirement
of Section 228 was substantially complied with. Respondent had fully informed pe
titioner in writing of the factual and legal
bases of the deficiency taxes assessment, which enabled the latter to file an "e
ffective" protest, much unlike the
taxpayer s situation in Enron. Petitioner s right to due process was thus not vi
olated.