CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA V.

CIR

CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA IS THE PHILIPPINE BRANCH OF A ON RESIDENT

CORPORATION WHICH CARRIES OUT A BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING PEOPLE.

ONE DAY, IT RECEIVED A LATTER OF AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE ITS BOOK OF ACCOUNTS ,

AND AFTER SUCH EXAMINATION, THEY WERE INITEED TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS TO
OPPOSE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSION.

ON THE PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE, CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA STATED THAT IT WILL

SETTLE ALL OF THE TAXES BUT WILL PROTEST THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT AND
COMPENSATION.

AFTER THE CONFERENCE, THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE FOR TAXES
AND WERE STILL HED LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN COMPENSATION.

MICRONESIA FILED AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST, CONTENDING THAT THE SAID

ASSESSMENT HAD NO LEGAL BASIS AND THAT THE ACTION FOR THE COLLECTION HAS
ALREADY PRESCRIBED.

ISSUE: 1.) WHETHER OR NOT THE SAID ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS

2.) WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION FOR THE COLECTION HAS ALREADY PRECRIBED.

HELD:

1.) PRESCRIPTION STARTS ON THE LAST DAY REQUIRED BY LAW FOR THE FILING OF THE
INCOME TAX RETURN, HENCE IN THI CASE, MARCH 1 OF THE NEXT YEAR.

THE REQUEST FOR REINVESTIGATION TOLLS THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD.

HENCE, ONLY SOME OF THE ASSESMENTS WERE NOT PRESCRIBED.

DEFICIENCY FOR WITHOLDING TAX COMPENSATION

FAILURE TO WITHDRAW DUE TO the fact that it is not taxable due to the benefit of
the employer rule.

in the absence of proof of any irregularities an assessment made by the bir examiner
and approved by his superior officers will not be disturbed.
--- Partiaĺy granted assessment from january september are void

october to december are valid

BPI V CIR

factss: bpi is a commercial banking corporation which sold 500k us dollar bills to the
central bank on that same year, the bir assessed that they had a deficiency in
documentary stamp tax which bpi protested.

bpi protested due to the fact that dst on those kinds of transactions were always paid by
the buyer in this case, the central bank who is exempt from such payment.

bir sent a notice of levy to bpi which they protested, however the protest was denied
because while the practice is an accepted custom, since bir is not a party in the said
transaction.

Bir issued a ruling stating that if the dst will be paid by the party issuing or accepting . if
the other party is exempt from payment, then the other party should pay .n

petition for review of cta

prescribed 3 years but cir waited for seven years and nine months to deny the protest
and that the petitioner is not liable for dst.

the cta ruled that the reinvestigation tolls the prescrptive period.

exempt from dst

ca sustained the presciption but held the respondent liable.

issue: whether or not the statute of limitations on assessment prohibits the collection of
tax

held yes protest is different from reinvestigation and does not toll the investigation and
bir after receiving a copy of the protest did not respond to hte same. hence the
assessment was cancelled.

CIR V. BASF.
 respondent was a duly organized corporation filed a letter of dissolution and
submitting the pertinent documents the bir sent them a formal assessment notice of
taxes due: income tax vat witholding tax expanded witholding tax

which the respondent protested due to lack of due process and prescription.

the cta cancelled the assessment due to the fact that cir knew their address and did not
send them the formal assessment notice .

petitioner filed for Mr but was denied.

issue: whether or not it is barred by prescriptio.

held yes.

notice was never final due to the fact that it was never received because cir did not
send it to the address of the respondent.