Query: Will failure of the taxpayer to submit supporting documents within 60 days from the date

of protest prejudice further remedies including appeals with the CTA?

Answer: It depends on the relevance of the supporting documents submitted by the taxpayer. RR
18-2013 defines what constitutes relevant supporting documents i.e. those documents
necessary to support the legal and factual bases in disputing a tax assessment as determined by
the taxpayer. The amendment introduced by RMO No. 26-2016 merely emphasizes that no
other documents shall be accepted after the 60-day period, but makes no particular mention
regarding what or who will determine the relevance of the supporting documents. The RMO
likewise highlights that the protest shall be evaluated exclusively based on the documents
submitted within said period. To conclude, the Commission and the higher courts could only
admit into the records documents submitted within the 60-day period.
Below is a matrix of the provisions of BIR Revenue Memorandum Order No. 26-2016 (dated 13
June 2016) as compared with BIR Revenue Regulation No. 018-2013 dated 28 November 2013.
New Rule

Previous Rule

(RMO No. 26-2016)

(RR 12-99, as amended by RR 18-2013)

3. Formal Letter of Demand and Final

Assessment Notice (FLD)/(FAN) shall be
issued fifteen (15) days from date of receipt
by the taxpayer of the PAN, whether the
same was protested or not.

Sec. 2. If the taxpayer fails to respond within

fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the
PAN, he shall be considered in default, in
which case, a Formal Letter of Demand and
Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) shall be
issued calling for payment of the taxpayer's
deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the
applicable penalties.
N.B. No period provided for issuance of
FLD/FAN if the taxpayer fails to file a reply.
If the taxpayer, within fifteen (15) days from
date of receipt of the PAN, responds that he/it
disagrees with the findings of deficiency tax
or taxes, an FLD/FAN shall be issued within
fifteen (15) days from filing/submission of
the taxpayers response, calling for payment
of the taxpayer's deficiency tax liability,
inclusive of the applicable penalties.

7. If a request for Reinvestigation was made,

the taxpayer shall submit all the relevant
supporting document in support of his/her/its
protest within sixty (60) days from the date of

Sec. 3.1.4. For requests for reinvestigation,

the taxpayer shall submit all relevant
supporting documents in support of his
protest within sixty (60) days from date of

the filing of the taxpayers letter of protest.

Evaluation of the protest shall be based
exclusively on the documents submitted
within this period, and no further documents
shall be accepted after the expiration of the
said period. The assessment shall
become final and executory in the event the
taxpayer fails to submit the relevant
supporting documents within sixty (60)
days period, and a Collection Letter and
other collection remedies such as but not
limited to garnishment, warrant and levy shall
be issued against the taxpayer.

filing of his letter of protest, otherwise, the

assessment shall become final. The term
relevant supporting documents refer to
those documents necessary to support the
legal and factual bases in disputing a tax
assessment as determined by the taxpayer.
The sixty (60)-day period for the submission
of all relevant supporting documents shall not
apply to requests for reconsideration.
Furthermore, the term the assessment shall
become final shall mean the taxpayer is
barred from disputing the correctness of
the issued assessment by introduction of
newly discovered or additional evidence.
N.B. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
First Express Pawnshop Company, G.R. Nos.
172045-46, June 16, 2009, the Supreme Court
has held that it is the taxpayer, not the BIR,
who determines what relevant supporting
documents to submit as the basis of its claim.
The BIR can only inform the taxpayer to
submit additional documents. The BIR cannot
demand what type of supporting documents
should be submitted.

15. An assessment shall become final, Same as above

executory and demandable due to:
(b) Failure of the taxpayer to
submit all relevant documents in
support of his protest by way of
request for reinvestigation within
sixty (60) days from the date of
filing thereof.
9. All protest shall be considered request for
reconsideration unless said protest clearly
indicates
that
the
request
is
for
reinvestigation.

3.1.4. The taxpayer shall state in his protest

(i) the nature of protest whether
reconsideration
or
reinvestigation,
specifying newly discovered or additional
evidence he intends to present if it is a request
for reinvestigation, (ii) date of the assessment
notice, and (iii) the applicable law, rules and
regulations, or jurisprudence on which his
protest is based, otherwise, his protest shall be

considered void and without force and effect.

N.B. There is no language in RR 12-99, as
amended by RR 18-2013 which states that
failure to indicate that the protest is a request
for reinvestigation will merit automatic
treatment of the protest as a request for
reconsideration.

The following jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and the CTA further elucidate on the
foregoing discussion.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK PHILIPPINE BRANCHES v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
Case No.: CTA Case No. 5696
Date: 16 Aug 2001
The requirement on the submission of all the relevant supporting documents within the sixty-day
period from filing of the protest is directory.
xxx that the relevant supporting documents mentioned in the law refers to
such documents which the taxpayer feels would be necessary to support his
protest and not what the Respondent Commissioner feels should be submitted,
otherwise, Petitioner taxpayer would always be at the mercy of the BIR which
may require production of such documents which taxpayer could not produce.
xxx
Moreover, when the protest was filed within the sixty-day period to file relevant supporting
documents, Respondent did not require the particular documents which it needed in order that
the protest may be given its preferential attention. It merely allowed the prescriptive period of
sixty (60) days to lapse without taking any action on the protest.
As stated earlier, the determination of relevant supporting documents initially rests upon the
one who filed the protest, in this case, the Petitioner. However, in cases where the BIR finds that
additional documents must be submitted, it should have informed the taxpayer-protester to
submit whatever documents are lacking in order that a complete determination of the propriety of
the assessment may be had. Thus, Respondent has been remiss in informing the Petitioner of any
other additional supporting documents to be submitted which fact should not unduly prejudice
Petitioners protest.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION

Case No.: CTA EB No. 114 (CTA Case No. 6557)
Date: 22 Feb 2007
The submission of relevant supporting documents lies in the sound discretion of the respondent,
which it considers will be necessary to its protest. As aptly ruled by this Court in the case of
Standard Chartered Bank-Philippine Branches v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:
As stated earlier, the determination of relevant supporting
documents initially rests upon the one who filed the protest, in this case, the
Petitioner. However, in cases where the BIR finds that additional documents must
be submitted, it should have informed the taxpayer-protester to submit whatever
documents are lacking in order that a complete determination of the propriety of
the assessment may be had. Thus, Respondent has been remiss in informing the
Petitioner of any other additional supporting documents to be submitted which
fact should not unduly prejudice Petitioners protest.
xxx In other words, the finality of the assessment, as worded in the
provision of law, simply means that where the taxpayer decides to forego with its
opportunity to present the documents in support of its claim within sixty (60) days
from the filing its protest, it merely lost its chance to further contest the
assessment.
Effectively, its non-compliance with the submission of the necessary documents would either
mean that the petitioner no longer wishes to further submit any document for the reason that its
protest letter filed was more than enough to support its claim, or that the petitioner failed to
comply, thus it can no longer giver justification with regard to its objections as to the correctness
of the assessment notices.
Nonetheless, the necessity of the submission of the supporting documents lies on the petitioner. It
cannot be left to the discretion of the respondent for in doing so would leave the petitioners case
at the mercy of the whims of the respondent. In other words, it is for the petitioner to decide
whether or not supporting documents are necessary to support its protest, for it is in the best
position, being the affected party to the assessment, to determine which documents are necessary
and essential to garner a favorable decision from the respondent.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FIRST EXPRESS PAWNSHOP
COMPANY, INC.
Case Nos: G.R. No. 172045-46 (Supreme Court)
Date: 16 June 2009
Section 228 of the Tax Code provides the remedy to dispute a tax assessment within a certain
period of time. It states that an assessment may be protested by filing a request for
reconsideration or reinvestigation within 30 days from receipt of the assessment by the taxpayer.

Within 60 days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been
submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final.
The term relevant supporting documents should be understood as those
documents necessary to support the legal basis in disputing a tax assessment as
determined by the taxpayer. The BIR can only inform the taxpayer to submit
additional documents. The BIR cannot demand what type of supporting
documents should be submitted. Otherwise, a taxpayer will be at the mercy of the
BIR, which may require the production of documents that a taxpayer cannot
submit.
Caveat:
In this case, the respondents attached documents together with the protest to satisfy claim about
the deposit on subscription that they are claiming. What they were not able to submit are the
proof of payment of DST. However, they were also claiming that they were not liable to pay DST.
Hence, they cannot submit proof of the same.
ITW TEXWIPE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
-versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
June 17, 2009, CTA Case NO. 7357
The Petition for Review Was Filed on Time, Thus, the Court Has Jurisdiction.
The parties have agreed to set forth as issue petitioner's failure to submit
supporting documents within sixty (60) days after it filed its protest with
respondent. Respondent, thus, alleges that the filing of the instant petition for
review is premature.
The issue on the timely filing of the instant petition for review has already been the
subject of respondent's Motion to Dismiss dated March 9, 2006 to which the Court
already resolved in Its Resolution dated July 6, 2006, to wit:
It has been held that non-submission of supporting documents within sixty (60)
days from the filing of the protest does not make the necessary notice issued final
and executory. The requirement under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue
Code of 1997 merely requires the taxpayer to submit all the documents in support
of its protest without, however, compelling it to submit in cases where it feels that
no such documents are necessary, To force a taxpayer in submitting the documents,
which it feels are not important to its case, would in effect place the taxpayer at the
mercy of examiners of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, who may abuse such
authority and prevent the early resolution of the taxpayer's protest. In putting the
phrase "the assessment shall become final" is interpreted as no longer giving the

taxpayer the opportunity to present or defend its protest after the lapse of the sixty
956)) day period considering that after the same, the respondent is obligated to
resolve the protest within one hundred eighty (180) days. As regards the argument
of respondent that the instant petition for review is premature for there is yet no
final decision rendered by the Commissioner on the protest of petitioner, this Court
disagrees. The requisite for the validity of an administrative decision of the
respondent on a disputed assessment which may be appealable to this Court are as
follows:
statement of the facts, the applicable law, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on
which such decision is based, otherwise, the decision shall be void; and that the
same is his final decision on the protest.
Verily, the final decision which is appealable to this Court must be one which has
been decided by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative. Only a
final decision or inaction of the respondent on a disputed assessment may be the
subject of an appeal to this Court. Based on the above, a perusal of the Preliminary
Collection Letter dated September 5, 2005 issued by the Revenue District Officer of
the Revenue District Office No. 57 shows that it was issued as a consequence of the
protest letter admittedly filed by the Acting Revenue Regional Director Merlinda I.
Ordoyan of Revenue Region No. 9. Thus, the issuance of the preliminary collection
letter is tantamount to an outright denial of the protest filed by the intention of the
respondent to resort to the summary remedies of collection as provided for by law
in case of non-settlement of the taxes due within (1 0) days from the receipt of the
said collection letter. In effect, the preliminary collection letter is the final decision
of the respondent, through Acting Revenue Regional Director, on the protest of the
petitioner, which is appealable to this Court.