Surigao vs CTA 57 SCRA 523

Facts:
Petitioner Surigao Electric Co., grantee of a legislative electric franchise, contested a warrant of distraint
and levy to enforce the collection from "Mainit Electric" of a deficiency franchise tax plus surcharge.
Thereafter the Commissioner, by letter dated April 2, 1961, advised the petitioner to take up the matter
with the General Auditing Office, enclosing a copy of the 4th Indorsement of the Auditor General dated
November 23, 1960. This indorsement indicated that the petitioner's liability for deficiency franchise tax
for the period from September 1947 to June 1959 was P21,156.06, excluding surcharge. Subsequently, in
a letter to the Auditor General dated August 2, 1962, the petitioner asked for reconsideration of the
assessment, admitting liability only for the 2% franchise tax in accordance with its legislative franchise
and not at the higher rate of 5% imposed by Sec. 259 of the NIRC, which latter rate the Auditor General
used as basis in computing the petitioner's deficiency franchise tax. An exchange of correspondence
between the petitioner, on the one hand, and the Commissioner and the Auditor General, on the other,
ensued, all on the matter of the petitioner's liability for deficiency franchise tax. The controversy
culminated in a revised assessment dated April 29, 1963 in the amount of P11,533.53, representing the
petitioner's deficiency franchise-tax and surcharges thereon for the period from April 1, 1956 to June 30,
1959. The petitioner then requested a recomputation of the revised assessment in a letter to the
Commissioner dated June 6, 1963. The Commissioner, however, in a letter dated June 28, 1963 denied
the request for recomputation.

Petitioner appealed to the CTA which was subsequently dismised on the ground that the appeal was filed
beyond the thirty-day period of appeal provided by Sec. 11 of Republic Act 1125.

Issue:
WON the petitioner's appeal to the CTA was time-barred.

Ruling:
YES. To sustain the petitioner's contention that the Commissioner's letter of June 28, 1963 denying its
request for further amendment of the revised assessment constitutes the ruling appealable to the tax court
and that the thirty-day period should, therefore, be counted from July 16, 1963, the day it received the
June 28, 1963 letter, would, in effect, leave solely to the petitioner's will the determination of the
commencement of the statutory thirty-day period, and place the petitioner — and for that matter, any
taxpayer — in a position, to delay at will and on convenience the finality of a tax assessment. This absurd
interpretation espoused by the petitioner would result in grave detriment to the interests of the
Government, considering that taxes constitute its life-blood and their prompt and certain availability is an
imperative need.
Silkair vs CIR CA GR SP No. 82902, September 13, 2004

Facts:
Silkair, an online international air carrier, filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) a written
application for the refund of P4,567,450.79 excise taxes it claimed to have paid on its purchases of jet fuel
from Petron Corporation from January to June 2000. As the BIR had not yet acted on the application,
Silkair filed a Petition for Review before the CTA. Opposing the petition, respondent CIR alleged that
petitioner failed to prove that the sale of the petroleum products was directly made from a domestic oil
company to the international carrier.

CTA denied Silkair’s petition on the ground that as the excise tax was imposed on Petron Corporation as
the manufacturer of petroleum products, any claim for refund should be filed by the latter; and where the
burden of tax is shifted to the purchaser, the amount passed on to it is no longer a tax but becomes an
added cost of the goods purchased. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether Silkair may claim for the refund of excise taxes erroneously paid.

Held:
NO. As the excise tax was imposed on Petron Corporation as the manufacturer of petroleum products,
any claim for refund should be filed by the latter; and where the burden of tax is shifted to the purchaser,
the amount passed on to it is no longer a tax but becomes an added cost of the goods purchased.

Therefore, the right to claim for the refund of excise taxes paid on petroleum products lies with Petron
Corporation who paid and remitted the excise tax to the BIR. Respondent, on the other hand, may only
claim from Petron the reimbursement of the tax burden shifted to the former by the latter. The excise tax
partaking the nature of an indirect tax, is clearly the liability of the manufacturer or seller who has the
option whether or not to shift the burden of the tax to the purchaser. Where the burden of the tax is shifted
to the purchaser, the amount passed on to it is no longer a tax but becomes an added cost on the goods
purchased which constitutes a part of the purchase price. In sum, the incidence of taxation or the person
statutorily liable to pay the tax falls on Petron though the impact of taxation or the burden of taxation falls
on another person, which in this case is petitioner Silkair.
Republic vs Enriquez 166 SCRA 608

Facts:
Enriquez, respondent deputy sheriff, levied on 2 barges belonging to Maritime Company of the
Philippines pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the RTC of Manila in favor of the plaintiff Genstar
Containers. Accordingly, respondent sheriff scheduled a public auction sale of the levied barges. The CIR
then wrote to respondent sheriff, registering an adverse claim, informing the latter that the barges,
particularly Barge MCP-1 and Barge MCP-4, were among properties previously distrained and seized by
the petitioner Republic, through the CIR, to satisfy various deficiency taxes of said company.
Nevertheless, respondent sold at public auction the 2 barges and issued the corresponding sheriffs
certificate of sale to the highest bidder, which was the levying creditor. Petitioner prayed that respondent
be ordered to desist and refrain from further proceedings in connection with the execution and that
respondent's notice of levy be declared null and void.

CA dismissed the petition, hence, this appeal.

Issue:
WON the writ of execution issued by the RTC and the levy on execution and auction sale of the barges in
question is valid and should be given effectivity.

Ruling:
NO. It is settled that the claim of the government predicated on a tax lien is superior to the claim of a
private litigant predicated on a judgment. The tax lien attaches not only from the service of the warrant of
distraint of personal property but from the time the tax became due and payable. Besides, the distraint on
the subject properties of Maritime Company as well as the notice of their seizure were made by petitioner,
through the CIR, long before the writ of execution was issued by the RTC. There is no question then that
at the time the writ of execution was issued, the 2 barges were no longer properties of the Maritime.
Estate of Fidel Reyes vs CIR CTA Case No. 6747 January 16, 2006

Facts:
The estates of spouses Fidel and Teresita Reyes availed of the Voluntary Assessment Program of
the BIR. The heirs even declared property that were no longer part of the estates; hence, this negated any
deceitful intention to defraud the government of revenues. The CTA, however, declared that the estates
filed false returns after taking into account that: 1) despite having reported conjugal and paraphernal
property, the estate of Fidel failed to declare basic deficiency estate tax worth P497,789.12; 2) instead of
the vanishing deductions claimed of P10,680,355.43, the estate of Teresita may only claim vanishing
deductions of P663,027.01; the failure to include correctly the deductions actually incurred by the
taxpayer lowered the deficiency estate tax; and 3) the estate of Y did not report basic deficiency estate tax
of P664,661.27.

Ruling:
While there are no indicia of fraud, the filing of a false return is sufficient to warrant assessment of ten 10
years from date of discovery of the falsity.
Roxas y Cia vs CTA 23 SCRA 276

Facts:
Don Pedro Roxas and Dona Carmen Ayala, Spanish subjects, transmitted to their grandchildren by
hereditary succession several properties. To manage the above-mentioned properties, said children,
namely, Antonio Roxas, Eduardo Roxas and Jose Roxas, formed a partnership called Roxas y Compania.
At the conclusion of the WW2, the tenants who have all been tilling the lands in Nasugbu for generations
expressed their desire to purchase from Roxas y Cia. the parcels which they actually occupied. For its
part, the Government, in consonance with the constitutional mandate to acquire big landed estates and
apportion them among landless tenants-farmers, persuaded the Roxas brothers to part with their
landholdings. Conferences were held with the farmers in the early part of 1948 and finally the Roxas
brothers agreed to sell 13,500 hectares to the Government for distribution to actual occupants for a price
of P2,079,048.47 plus P300,000.00 for survey and subdivision expenses. It turned out however that the
Government did not have funds to cover the purchase price, and so a special arrangement was made for
the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation to advance to Roxas y Cia. the amount of P1,500,000.00 as loan.
Collateral for such loan were the lands proposed to be sold to the farmers. Under the arrangement, Roxas
y Cia. allowed the farmers to buy the lands for the same price but by installment, and contracted with the
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation to pay its loan from the proceeds of the yearly amortizations paid by
the farmers.

The CIR demanded from Roxas y Cia the payment of deficiency income taxes resulting from the
inclusion as income of Roxas y Cia. of the unreported 50% of the net profits for 1953 and 1955 derived
from the sale of the Nasugbu farm lands to the tenants, and the disallowance of deductions from gross
income of various business expenses and contributions claimed by Roxas y Cia. and the Roxas brothers.
For the reason that Roxas y Cia. subdivided its Nasugbu farm lands and sold them to the farmers on
installment, the Commissioner considered the partnership as engaged in the business of real estate, hence,
100% of the profits derived therefrom was taxed. The Roxas brothers protested the assessment but
inasmuch as said protest was denied, they instituted an appeal in the CTA which sustained the
assessment. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Is Roxas y Cia. liable for the payment of deficiency income for the sale of Nasugbu farmlands?

Ruling:
NO. The proposition of the CIR cannot be favorably accepted in this isolated transaction with its peculiar
circumstances in spite of the fact that there were hundreds of vendees. Although they paid for their
respective holdings in installment for a period of 10 years, it would nevertheless not make the vendor
Roxas y Cia. a real estate dealer during the 10-year amortization period. It should be borne in mind that
the sale of the Nasugbu farm lands to the very farmers who tilled them for generations was not only in
consonance with, but more in obedience to the request and pursuant to the policy of our Government to
allocate lands to the landless. It was the bounden duty of the Government to pay the agreed compensation
after it had persuaded Roxas y Cia. to sell its haciendas, and to subsequently subdivide them among the
farmers at very reasonable terms and prices. However, the Government could not comply with its duty for
lack of funds. Obligingly, Roxas y Cia. shouldered the Government's burden, went out of its way and sold
lands directly to the farmers in the same way and under the same terms as would have been the case had
the Government done it itself. For this magnanimous act, the municipal council of Nasugbu passed a
resolution expressing the people's gratitude.

In fine, Roxas y Cia. cannot be considered a real estate dealer for the sale in question. Hence, pursuant to
Section 34 of the Tax Code the lands sold to the farmers are capital assets, and the gain derived from the
sale thereof is capital gain, taxable only to the extent of 50%.
CIR vs Reyes and Reyes vs CIR GR Nos. 159694, 163581

Facts:
Decedent Tancinco left a 1,292 square-meter residential lot and an old house thereon. The heirs of the
decedent received a final estate tax assessment notice and a demand letter, both dated April 22, 1998, for
the amount of P14,912,205.47, inclusive of surcharge and interest. The CIR issued a preliminary
collection letter to Reyes, followed by a Final Notice Before Seizure. Subsequently, a Warrant of
Distraint and/or Levy was served upon the estate. Reyes initially protested the notice of levy but then the
heirs proposed a compromise settlement of P1,000,000.00. The CIR rejected Reyes’s offer, pointing out
that since the estate tax is a charge on the estate and not on the heirs, the latter’s financial incapacity is
immaterial as, in fact, the gross value of the estate amounting to P32,420,360.00 is more than sufficient to
settle the tax liability. As the estate failed to pay its tax liability within the deadline, BIR notified Reyes
that the subject property would be sold at public auction on August 8, 2000. Reyes filed a protest with the
BIR Appellate Division. Assailing the scheduled auction sale, she asserted that the assessment, letter of
demand, and the whole tax proceedings against the estate are void ab initio. She offered to file the
corresponding estate tax return and pay the correct amount of tax without surcharge or interest.

Issue:
WON the assessment in this case can be used as a basis for the perfection of a tax compromise against
the.

Ruling:
NO. The 2nd paragraph of Sec. 228 of NIRC is clear and mandatory insofar as taxpayers shall be informed
in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made, otherwise the assessment shall be
void. RA 8424 has already amended the provisions of Sec. 229 of NIRC on protesting an assessment. The
old requirement of merely notifying the taxpayer of the CIR’s findings was changed in 1998 of informing
the taxpayer of not only the law, but also of the facts on which an assessment would be made, otherwise,
the assessment itself would be invalid. Being invalid, the assessment canot be in turn be used as a basis
for the perfection of a tax compromise.

Hence, it is premature to declare the compromise on the tax liability of the estate perfected and
consummated considering that the tax assessment is void. While administrative agencies, like the BIR,
were not bound by procedural requirements, they were still required by law and equity to observe
substantive due process. The reason behind this requirement, said the CA, was to ensure that taxpayers
would be duly apprised of -- and could effectively protest -- the basis of tax assessments against them.7
Since the assessment and the demand were void, the proceedings emanating from them were likewise
void, and any order emanating from them could never attain finality.
RCBC vs CIR 522 SCRA 144

Facts:
RCBC received a Formal Letter of Demand dated May 25, 2001 from the respondent CIR for its tax
liabilities particularly for Gross Onshore Tax in the amount of P53,998,428.29 and Documentary Stamp
Tax for its Special Savings Placements in the amount of P46,717,952.76, for the taxable year
1997.Petitioner filed a protest letter/request for reconsideration/reinvestigation pursuant to Section 228 of
the NIRC. As the protest was not acted upon by the respondent, petitioner filed a petition for review with
the CTA for the cancellation of the assessments. Respondent filed a motion to resolve first the issue of
CTA’s jurisdiction, which was granted by the CTA in a Resolution dated September 10, 2003.8 The
petition for review was dismissed because it was filed beyond the 30-day period following the lapse of
180 days from petitioner’s submission of documents in support of its protest, as provided under Section
228 of the NIRC and Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125, otherwise known as the Law Creating the Court of
Tax Appeals. Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the CTA En Banc from
the dismissal of its petition for review. Consequently, the September 10, 2003 Resolution became final
and executory on October 1, 2003 and Entry of Judgment was made on December 1, 2003.9

Thereafter, respondent sent a Demand Letter to petitioner for the payment of the deficiency tax
assessments. On February 20, 2004, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment on the ground of
excusable negligence of its counsel’s secretary who allegedly misfiled and lost the September 10, 2003
Resolution. The CTA Second Division set the case for hearing on April 2, 200411 during which
petitioner’s counsel was present.12 Respondent filed an Opposition13 while petitioner submitted its
Manifestation and Counter-Motion. On May 3, 2004, the CTA Second Division rendered a Resolution15
denying petitioner’s Petition for Relief from Judgment. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
denied in a Resolution dated November 5, 2004,16 hence it filed a petition for review with the CTA En
Banc, docketed as C.T.A. EB No. 50, which affirmed the assailed Resolutions of the CTA Second
Division in a Decision dated June 7, 2005.

Ruling:
As provided in Sec. 228, the failure of the taxpayer to appeal from an assessment on time rendered the
assessment final, executory and demandable. RCBC is precluded from disputing the correctness of the
assessment. While the right to appeal a decision of the Commissioner of CTA is merely a statutory
remedy, nevertheless the requirement that it must be brought within 30 days is jurisdictional. If a statutory
remedy provides as a condition precedent that the action to enforce it must be commenced within a
prescribed time, such requirement is jurisdictional and failure to comply therewith may be raised in a
MTD.
CIR vs Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. 148 SCRA 315

Facts:
From January, 1952 to 1958, private respondent Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. entered into various
insurance contracts involving casualty, fire and marine risks, for which the corresponding insurance
policies were issued. From January, 1952 to 1956, documentary stamps were bought and affixed to the
monthly statements of policies issues; and from 1957 to 1958 documentary stamps were bought and
affixed to the corresponding pages of the policy register, instead of on the insurance policies issued.

In 1959, respondent company discovered that its monthly statements of business and policy register were
lost and reported such to the NBI and the CIR. The CIR through its examiner, after conducting an
investigation of said loss, ascertained that respondent company failed to affix the required documentary
stamps to the insurance policies issued by it and failed to preserve its accounting records within the time
prescribed by Sec. of the Revenue Code by using loose leaf forms as registers of documentary stamps
without written authority from the CIR. As a consequence of these findings, petitioner assessed and
demanded from petitioner the payment of documentary stamp taxes for the years 1952 to 1958 in the total
amount of P 79,806.87 and plus compromise penalties, a total of P 81,406.87.

Issue:
WON the CIR may impose and require the payment of the subject stamp tax for the documents in
question.

Ruling:
NO. There is no justification for the government which has already realized the revenue which is the
object of the imposition of subject stamp tax, to require the payment of the same tax for the same
documents. Enshrined in our basic legal principles is the time honored doctrine that no person shall
unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. It goes without saying that the government is not
exempted from the application of this doctrine.

While there appears to be no question that the purpose of imposing documentary stamp taxes is to raise
revenue, however, the corresponding amount has already been paid by respondent and has actually
become part of the revenue of the government. In the same manner, evidence was shown to prove that the
affixture of the stamps on documents not authorized by law is not attended by bad faith as the practice
was adopted from the authority granted to one of respondent's general agents.
Mambulao Lumber vs Republic 4 SCRA 622

Facts:
Mambulao Lumber Company agreed to an installment plan, whereby Mambulao Lumber obligated itself
to pay such obligation in 12 equal monthly installments. To secure the installment payments, Mambulao
Lumber and Mambulao Insurance and Surety Corporation executed a surety bond in favor of the
Republic. Mambulao Lumber defaulted in the payment of its obligation. Thus, the Republic proceeded
against the surety bond. Mambulao Lumber sought the dismissal of the case against it on the ground of
prescription, arguing that under Sec. 331, in relation to Sec. 183(A), of the NIRC (NIRC), internal
revenue taxes must be assessed within five (5) years from the filing of the corresponding return.

Issue:
WON Mambulao was liable for deficiency sales tax to the Republic.

Ruling:
YES. The NIRC was inapplicable to the case and that the Republic had ten (10) years from default of
payment within which to collect the indebtedness of MLC. We explained that an action based upon a
surety bond cannot be considered a tax collection case. Rather, such action would properly be a case
based on a contract.
FMF Dev. Corp vs CIR CTA Case No. 6153 March 20, 2003

Facts:
FMF filed its Corporate Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year 1995 and declared a loss of Php
2,826,541. The BIR then sent FMF pre-assessment notices informing it of its alleged tax liabilities. FMF
filed a protest against these notices with the BIR and requested for a reinvestigation. FMF was advised of
the informal conference set on February 2, 1999 to allow it to present evidence to dispute the BIR
assessments. Subsequently, FMF President Enrique Fernandez executed a waiver of the three-year
prescriptive period for the BIR to assess internal revenue taxes, hence extending the assessment period
until October 31, 1999. The waiver was accepted and signed by Revenue District Officer Zambarrano.
On October 18, 1999, FMF received amended pre-assessment notices dated October 6, 1999 from the
BIR. FMF immediately filed a protest on November 3, 1999 but on the same day, it received BIR’s
Demand Letter and Assessment Notice No. 33-1-00487-95 dated October 25, 1999 reflecting FMF’s
alleged deficiency taxes and accrued interests

FMF filed a letter of protest on the assessment invoking, inter alia, the defense of prescription by reason
of the invalidity of the waiver. In its reply, the BIR insisted that the waiver is valid because it was signed
by the RDO, a duly authorized representative of petitioner. It also ordered FMF to immediately settle its
tax liabilities; otherwise, judicial action will be taken. Treating this as BIR’s final decision, FMF filed a
petition for review with the CTA challenging the validity of the assessment.

Issue:
WON the waiver extended the three-year prescriptive period within which the BIR can make a valid
assessment.

Held:
NO. The waiver did not extend the three-year prescriptive period within which the BIR can make a valid
assessment because it did not comply with the procedures laid down in Revenue Memorandum Order
(RMO) No. 20-90. First, the waiver did not state the dates of execution and acceptance of the waiver, by
the taxpayer and the BIR, respectively; thus, it cannot be determined with certainty if the waiver was
executed and accepted within the prescribed period. Second, evidence was shown that FMF was not
furnished a copy of the waiver signed by RDO Zambarrano. Third, the since the case involves an amount
of more than P1 million, and the period to assess is not yet about to prescribe, the waiver should have
been signed by the CIR, and not a mere RDO.
United International Pictures vs CIR CTA Case No. 5884 June 5, 2002

Facts:
This case involves a disputed assessment issued against petitioner for deficiency internal revenue taxes in
the aggregate amount of P13,137,261.29, inclusive of interests and surcharges, covering the taxable year
ended December 31, 1994. Petitioner United International Pictures filed its corporate income tax return
for the calendar year ended December 31, 1994. In August 9, 1995, Letter of Authority No. 89422 was
issued by the Revenue District Officer of Revenue District No. 34, authorizing the examination of the
1994 books of accounts and other accounting records of petitioner for all internal revenue taxes for the
period January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994. For failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the
said subpoena, a criminal complaint was filed. A memorandum report was made by the revenue officer
in-charge recommending the issuance of the final assessment notice and the collection of petitioner's
deficiency internal revenue taxes based on the best evidence obtainable. On August 19, 1998, petitioner
received from the respondent a Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) for the former's internal revenue
liabilities for 1994 to which petitioner protested on the ground that the issuance of the PCL without prior
assessment notice has no legal basis and that the assessment notice is invalid for its failure to comply with
Section 228 of the Tax Code, i.e., the assessment notice does not state the facts and the law upon which
the assessment was made.

Issue:
WON the assessment notice was validly filed?

Ruling:
NO. After a meticulous examination of the transmittal letter and related documents, we find that said
transmittal letter does not clearly indicate that what was actually mailed were the formal or final
assessment notices with appurtenant demand letters. As a matter of fact, we note that except for VAT
deficiency assessment, the amounts listed in the transmittal record are quite different from the amounts
indicated in the formal assessment notices. For in reality, the amounts pertain to the amounts mentioned
in the pre-assessment notices as petitioner's tax liabilities excluding interest charges.

It appearing that no final assessment notice was sent or that petitioner did not receive any final assessment
notice, it follows that the same could not become final and demandable.
Prulife vs CIR CTA Case No. 6774

Facts:
The instant Petition for Review seeks the cancellation of the assessment issued by the CIR against Prulife
of UK Insurance Corp. for deficiency premium and documentary stamp taxes and compromise penalties
in the aggregate amount of P5,756,316.21 for taxable year 1999. On January 24, 2003, respondent issued
Assessment/Demand Notices No. 34-99 3 finding the Prulife liable for the payment of deficiency
premium tax and documentary stamp tax. Petitioner protested but lacked the relevant documents in
support of its protest insofar as the premium tax assessment is concerned.

Issue:
WON Prulife may contest the premium tax assessment?

Ruling:
NO. The effect of Prulife’s lack of supporting documents submitted is that, it lost its chance to further
contest the premium tax assessment. The finality of the assessment simply means that where the taxpayer
decides to forgo with the opportunity to present the documents in support of its claim within 60 days from
the filing of its protest, it merely lost its chance to further contest the assessment.

Its non-compliance with the submission of the necessary documents would either mean that Prulife 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 Prulife failed to comply thus it can no longer give justification with
regard to its objections as to the correctness of the assessment notices. The necessity of the submission of
the supporting documents lies on Prulife. It cannot be left to the discretion of the CIR for in doing so
would leave Prulife’s case at the mercy of the whims of the CIR. It is for Prulife to decide whether or not
supporting documents are necessary to support its protest for it is the best position, being the affected
party to the assessment to determine which documents are necessary and essential to garner a favourable
decision from CIR. The mere claim of Prulife that its cash collection did not comprise entirely of
premiums collected cannot be given credence. Prulife should have presented supporting documents to
prove such claim. Since Prulife failed to present a scintilla of evidence to that effect, CTA sustains CIR’s
basis of such collections. Assessments should not be based on presumption no matter how logical the
presumption might be. In order to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on
actual facts.
Wintelecom vs CIR CTA First Division Case No. 7056 February 20, 2008

Facts:
Wintelecom seeks to cancel the assessment notices issued by the CIR holding the former liable in the
aggregate amount of P553,344,468.98 allegedly representing deficiency taxes for the taxable years 2001
and 2000, namely: income tax, value-added tax (VAT), withholding tax on compensation, expanded
withholding tax and fringe benefits tax. By virtue of a subpoena duces tecum, copies of petitioner's
invoices and other documents were taken by the BIR examiners when they concluded an audit. For this
reason, petitioner's counsel requested the BIR to return the documents of petitioner pertaining to taxable
years 2000 and 2001 since they support petitioner's factual arguments in its protest on respondent's Final
Assessment Notice. In a letter dated May 31, 2004, 10 Mr. Rolando Balbino, the BIR Group Supervisor
handling the subject assessments, replied that the request of petitioner's counsel was referred to the BIR
Legal Service for appropriate action. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that Assistant Commissioner
Milagros Regalado of the BIR Legal Service, in a Memorandum dated June 7, 2004, 11 denied the
request of petitioner's counsel. Due to the decision of the BIR Legal Service not to make the subject
records available to petitioner, the latter merely adopted its previous contention in its letter dated July 31,
2003 when it filed its protest 12 on the Final Assessment Notice.

Issue:
Whether or not the subject assessments from the BIR are null and void considering that petitioner's
constitutional rights were violated when it was prevented from sufficiently contesting the assessments
after respondent deliberately withheld from the petitioner the documentary evidence it submitted to
respondent during investigation.

Ruling:
NO. Respondent's failure to return the documents to petitioner would not make the assessment conducted
by the BIR null and void. The presumption of regularity in the official function of government officials is
not defeated by a mere allegation that petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to fully contest the
subject assessments. Petitioner was given the chance to present its position before this Court with the
option to require respondent to bring the alleged documentary evidence. Respondent could not be
considered at fault for petitioner's negligence in failing to retain copies of the subject documentary
evidence. In fact, petitioner's lone witness admitted that it was her mistake that she did not make an
inventory of the documents that the BIR took from their office. Notwithstanding the absence of these
documents, petitioner was able to rebut the findings of the BIR. Thus, petitioner was not deprived of its
right as it was able to protest the same administratively and file the case before this Court. More
importantly, the constitutional rights to public records and of information are not violated in this
particular case considering that the subject documentary evidence came from petitioner itself. This shows
that the non-return of documents would not limit the validity of the assessment made by the BIR. Hence,
it will not render the assessment null and void.
NCH Phil. Inc. Vs CIR CTA Case No. 6840, April 4, 2007

Facts:
Petitioner is appealing the Decision on Disputed Assessment, dated November 24, 2003, rendered by
Revenue District Officer Emperio which denied petitioner's protest against the BIR's fiscal year ended
February 1998 deficiency income tax, value-added tax and withholding tax, and praying for the
cancellation and withdrawal of the assessments of deficiency income tax, expanded withholding tax,
value-added tax and documentary stamp tax in the total amount of P5,131,655.66, as per respondent's
"Amended Formal Letter of Demand" dated February 16, 2004, all assessments covering the fiscal year
ended February 28, 1998. The protest was filed on the ground that aforesaid assessment notices for lack
of factual and legal bases.

Issue:
Which decision was appealable to the CTA?

Ruling:
Respondent's Decision on Disputed Assessment dated November 24, 2003 is the final "decision” that
should be appealed to the CTA within 30 days from receipt, otherwise the same shall become final,
executory and demandable. Respondent himself acknowledged in his Decision on Disputed Assessment
dated November 24, 2003 that it is his final decision.

Hence, respondent's Decision on Disputed Assessment dated November 24, 2003 is the one appealable to
this Court. Consequently, this Court has acquired exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the case when
petitioner appealed on December 23, 2003 with this Court, respondent's said Decision on Disputed
Assessment. Thereafter, respondent lost jurisdiction over the assessed deficiencies covered by said
Decision in view of the fact that petitioner has already perfected its appeal. The respondent has no more
authority to issue the Amendment to the Formal Letter of Demand on February 16, 2004 covering the
same taxable year and the same type of taxes. Hence, said Amendment to the Formal Letter of Demand is
null and void and is no longer binding to petitioner, as petitioner has already appealed said Decision on
Disputed Assessment of respondent to this Court.