III.

REMEDIES GOVERNMENT

AVAILABLE

TO

THE

detract from the fact that the assessment had long become demandable. Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the period of limitation aboveprescribed may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court within 5 years following the assessment of the tax. (Art.222) CIR vs. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc. (GR No. 169225 November 17, 2010) The jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) over other matters is found in number 1 of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. Under this provision, the CTA exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) or other law as part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The term other matters is limited only by the qualifying phrase that follows it. The appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which involve decisions of the CIR on matters relating to assessments or refunds. It covers other cases that arise out of the NIRC or related laws administered by the BIR. The issue of whether or not the BIRs right to collect taxes had already prescribed is a subject matter falling under the NIRC. In connection therewith, the NIRC also states that the collection of taxes is one of the duties of the BIR. Thus, from the foregoing, the issue of prescription of the BIRs right to collect taxes may be considered as covered by the term other matters over which the CTA has appellate jurisdiction. 1

a) to make deficiency assessments within 3 or 10 years b) to enforce deficiency assessments and collect taxes within 5 years (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) to effect distraint of personal property to effect levy on real property to pursue judicial proceeding to collect to compromise, abate, or cancel taxes to enforce tax liens to enforce statutory penal provisions

A. PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD TO COLLECT Sec. 222, NIRC Republic vs. Hizon (GR No. 130430. December 13, 1997) Sec. 229 of the NIRC mandates that a request for reconsideration must be made within 30 days from the taxpayer's receipt of the tax deficiency assessment, otherwise the assessment becomes final, unappealable and, therefore, demandable. The notice of assessment for respondent's tax deficiency was issued by petitioner on July 18, 1986. On the other hand, respondent made her request for reconsideration thereof only on November 3, 1992, without stating when she received the notice of tax assessment. Hence, her request for reconsideration did not suspend the running of the prescriptive period provided under Sec. 223(c). Although the Commissioner acted on her request by eventually denying it on August 11, 1994, this is of no moment and does not

B. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES / SUMMARY REMEDIES Secs. 205-217 1. Distraint of personal property Secs. 205-207, 217, 208-209, 210, 212, NIRC Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 5-01 dated February 19, 2001 SECTION 1. When to Issue Notice or Warrant of Constructive Distraint on the Property of a Taxpayer. In order to safeguard the interest of the government, the Commissioner may place under constructive distraint the personal or movable property/ies of a.) a delinquent taxpayer, or b.) any taxpayer who, in his opinion, is retiring from any business subject to tax, or intending to leave the Philippines, or intending to remove his property/ies from the Philippines, or intending to hide or conceal his property/ies, or intending to perform any act tending to obstruct the proceedings for collecting the tax due or which may be due from him. SECTION 2. Specific Cases When a Notice or Warrant of Constructive Distraint over the Property/ies of a Taxpayer may be Issued. a.) When a taxpayer who applies for retirement from business has a huge amount of assessment pending with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). An assessment is huge if the amount thereof is equal to or bigger than the networth or equity of the taxpayer; b.) When a taxpayer who is under tax investigation has a record of leaving the Philippines at least twice a year, unless such

trips are justified and/or connected with his business, profession or employment; c.) When a taxpayer, other than a banking institution, who is under tax investigation has a record of transferring his bank deposits and other valuable personal property/ies from the Philippines to any foreign country; d.) When the taxpayer uses aliases in bank accounts, other than the name for which he is legally and/or popularly known; TSacAE e.) When the taxpayer keeps bank deposits and owns other property/ies under the name of other persons, whether or not related to him, and the same are not under any lawful fiduciary or trust capacity; f.) When a taxpayer's big amount of undeclared income is known to the public or to the BIR by credible means and there is a strong reason to believe that the taxpayer, in the natural course of events, will have a great tendency to hide or conceal his property/ies. For this purpose, the term "big amount of undeclared income" means an amount exceeding thirty percent (30%) of the gross sales, gross receipts or gross revenue declared per return; g.) When the BIR receives information or complaint pertaining to undeclared income in an amount exceeding 30% of gross sales, gross receipts or gross revenue declared per return of a particular taxpayer and there is enough reason to believe that the said information is correct as when the complaint or information is supported by substantial and credible evidence. SECTION 3. Persons Who May Conduct the Constructive Distraint. In general, it is only the Commissioner who may decide whether a 2

notice of constructive distraint on the personal property of any taxpayer may be issued. However, the Commissioner may delegate this power by specific orders since this power is not one of those which cannot be delegated as enunciated in Section 7 of the Tax Code of 1997. Thus, pursuant to aforesaid section, this power can be delegated to any subordinate official with the rank equivalent to a Division Chief or higher. 2. Levy of Real Property Secs. 205-207, 217, 208-209, 213-214, NIRC 3. Forfeiture Sec. 215, NIRC Castro vs. CIR (GR No. L-12174, April 26, 1962)

between forfeitures to the Government and sales to third persons, and we are satisfied that no distinction was intended and that none is warranted.
4. TAX LIEN Sec. 219, NIRC Republic vs. Enriquez (166 SCRA 608) BIR Warrant of Distraint prevails over the writ of execution by the RTC. It is well settled that the claim of the government prevails on a tax lien superior to the claim of a private litigant predicated on a judgment. The tax lien attached not only from the service of warrant of distraint but from the time the tax became due and payable. In the case, the Distraint was made by the Commissioner long before the writ of execution was issued by the RTC. There is no question that at the time of the writ of execution, the 2 barges were no longer properties of Maritime. The power of the court in execution of judgments extends only to properties unquestionable belonging to the judgment debtor. Execution sale affect the rights of the judgment debtor only, and the purchaser in an auction sale acquires only such right as the judgment debtor had at the time of sale. CIR vs. NLRC (238 SCRA 42)

SEC. 328. Forfeiture to Government for Want of Bidder. - In case there is no bidder for real property exposed for sale as herein above provided or if the highest bid is for an amount insufficient to pay the taxes, penalties, and costs, the provincial or city treasurer shall declare the property forfeited to the Government in satisfaction of the claim in question and within two days thereafter shall make a return of his proceedings and the forfeiture, which shall be spread upon the records of his office. That the satisfaction prescribed in section 328 of the Revenue Code was intended to mean only a discharge pro tanto is confirmed by the provisions of section 330 of the Revenue Code to the effect that "remedy by distraint of personal property and levy on realty may be repeated if necessary until the full amount due including all expenses, is collected". This section makes no distinction
3

Under Articles 2241 No. 1, 2242 No. 1, and 2246-2249 of the Civil Code, this tax claim must be given preference over any other claim of any other creditor, in respect of any and all properties of the insolvent. Article 110 of the Labor Code does not purport to create a lien in favor of workers or employees for unpaid wages either upon all

of the properties or upon any particular property owned by their employer. Claims for unpaid wages do not therefore fall at all within the category of specially preferred claims established under Articles 2241 and 2242 of the Civil Code, except to the extent that such claims for unpaid wages are already covered by Article 2241, number 6: "claims for laborer's wages, on the goods manufactured or the work done," or by Article 2242, number 3: "claims of laborers and other workers engaged in the construction, reconstruction or repair of buildings, canals and other works, upon said buildings, canals or other works." To the extent that claims for unpaid wages fall outside the scope of Article 2241, number 6 and 2242, number 3, they would come with the ambit of the category of ordinary preferred credits under Article 2244. Art. 110 of the Labor Code applies only in case of bankruptcy or judicial liquidation of the employer.
Hong Kong Shanghai Bank vs. Rafferty (39 SCRA 145)

The general rule of the Civil Law may be different. Possession of movables is not necessary to the validity of a lien, whether created by contract or by act of law. Such lien will attach upon movable property, even in the hands of a bona fide purchaser without notice. The law of taxation establishes principles which generally, although not exactly, conform to the law of liens. The tax lien does not establish itself upon property which has been transferred to an innocent purchaser prior to demand.
5. NO INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN COLLECTION OF TAXES Sec. 218, NIRC Rule 10, Revised Rules of the CTA, AM No. 0511-07-CTA dated November 22, 2005, as amended on September 16, 2008 RULE 10 SUSPENSION OF COLLECTION OF TAX SECTION 1. No suspension of collection of tax, except as herein prescribed. - No appeal taken to the Court shall suspend the payment, levy, distraint, or sale of any property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction of tax liability as provided under existing laws, except as hereinafter prescribed. Revenue Memorandum Order No. 42-10 dated May 4, 2010. Angeles City v. Angeles Electric Corporation, GR No. 166134, 29 June 2010 The ruling of the Supreme Court was that the prohibition on the issuance of a writ of injunction to enjoin the collection of taxes 4

A lien in its modern-acceptation is understood to denote a legal claim or charge on property, either real or personal, as security for the payment of some debt or obligation. Its meaning is more extensive than the jus retentionis (derecho de retencion) of the civil law.Unless the statute is otherwise, the rule is that a valid lien created on real or personal estate is enforceable against property in the hands of any person, other than a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, who subsequently acquires the estate.

applied only to national internal revenue taxes, not to local taxes. Section 218 of the 1997 Tax Code does not have a counterpart provision in the 1991 Local Government Code. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the RTCs decision in ordering the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Angeles City and its City Treasurer from levying, selling, and disposing the properties of Angeles Electric Corporation. However, the High Court likewise noted that injunctions enjoining the collection of local taxes are frowned upon. C. JUDICIAL REMEDIES Sec. 205 Secs. 220-221, NIRC Republic vs. Hizon (GR No. 130430 December 13, 1997) Sec. 221 of the NIRC provides: Form and mode of proceeding in actions arising under this Code. Civil and criminal actions and proceedings instituted in behalf of the Government under the authority of this Code or other law enforced by the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall be brought in the name of the Government of the Philippines and shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal, or the Solicitor General, or by the legal officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue deputized by the Secretary of Justice, but no civil and criminal actions for the recovery of taxes or the enforcement of any fine, penalty or forfeiture under this Code shall be begun without the approval of the Commissioner. (Emphasis supplied) To implement this provision Revenue Administrative Order No. 5-83 of the BIR provides in pertinent portions: 5

The following civil and criminal cases are to be handled by Special Attorneys and Special Counsels assigned in the Legal Branches of Revenue Regions: .... II. Civil Cases 1. Complaints for collection on cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Region . . . . In all the abovementioned cases, the Regional Director is authorized to sign all pleadings filed in connection therewith which, otherwise, requires the signature of the Commissioner. .... Revenue Administrative Order No. 10-95 specifically authorizes the Litigation and Prosecution Section of the Legal Division of regional district offices to institute the necessary civil and criminal actions for tax collection. As the complaint filed in this case was signed by the BIRs Chief of Legal Division for Region 4 and verified by the Regional Director, there was, therefore, compliance with the law. However, the lower court refused to recognize RAO No. 10-95 and, by implication, RAO No. 583. It held: [M]emorand[a], circulars and orders emanating from bureaus and agencies whether in the purely public or quasi-public corporations are mere guidelines for the internal functioning of the said offices. They are not laws which courts can take judicial notice of. As such, they have no binding effect upon the courts for such memorand[a] and circulars are not the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines . . . .[5]

This is erroneous. The rule is that as long as administrative issuances relate solely to carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they are valid and have the force of law.[6] The governing statutory provision in this case is 4(d) of the NIRC which provides: Specific provisions to be contained in regulations. - The regulations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue shall, among other things, contain provisions specifying, prescribing, or defining: .... (d) The conditions to be observed by revenue officers, provincial fiscals and other officials respecting the institution and conduct of legal actions and proceedings. RAO Nos. 5-83 and 10-95 are in harmony with this statutory mandate. As amended by R.A. No. 8424, the NIRC is now even more categorical. Sec. 7 of the present Code authorizes the BIR Commissioner to delegate the powers vested in him under the pertinent provisions of the Code to any subordinate official with the rank equivalent to a division chief or higher, except the following: (a) The power to recommend the promulgation of rules and regulations by the Secretary of Finance; (b) The power to issue rulings of first impression or to reverse, revoke or modify any existing ruling of the Bureau; (c) The power to compromise or abate under 204(A) and (B) of this Code, any tax deficiency: Provided, however, that assessments issued by the Regional Offices involving basic deficiency taxes of five hundred thousand pesos 6

(P500,000.00) or less, and minor criminal violations as may be determined by rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner, discovered by regional and district officials, may be compromised by a regional evaluation board which shall be composed of the Regional Director as Chairman, the Assistant Regional Director, heads of the Legal, Assessment and Collection Divisions and the Revenue District Officer having jurisdiction over the taxpayer, as members; and (d) The power to assign or reassign internal revenue officers to establishments where articles subject to excise tax are produced or kept. None of the exceptions relates to the Commissioners power to approve the filing of tax collection cases. Mambulao Lumber vs. Republic (132 SCRA 1)

And the weight of authority is to the effect that internal revenue taxes, such as the forest charges in question, can be the subject of setoff or compensation. A claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand, contract or judgment as is allowed to be setoff under the statutes of set-off, which are construed uniformly, in the light of public policy, to exclude the remedy in an action or any indebtedness of the state or municipality to one who is liable to the state or municipality for taxes. Neither are they a proper subject of recoupment since they do not arise out of the contract or transaction sued on. The general rule, based on grounds of public policy is well-settled that no set-off is admissible against demands for taxes levied for general or local governmental purposes. The reason on which the general rule is

based, is that taxes are not in the nature of contracts between the party and party but grow out of a duty to, and are the positive acts of the government, to the making and enforcing of which, the personal consent of individual taxpayers is not required. ... If the taxpayer can properly refuse to pay his tax when called upon by the Collector, because he has a claim against the governmental body which is not included in the tax levy, it is plain that some legitimate and necessary expenditure must be curtailed. If the taxpayer's claim is disputed, the collection of the tax must await and abide the result of a lawsuit, and meanwhile the financial affairs of the government will be thrown into great confusion.
Fernandez Hermanos vs. CIR (GR No. L-21551, September 30, 1969) It has been held that "a judicial action for the collection of a tax is begun by the filing of a complaint with the proper court of first instance, or where the assessment is appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, by filing an answer to the taxpayer's petition for review wherein payment of the tax is prayed for." This is but logical for where the taxpayer avails of the right to appeal the tax assessment to the Court of Tax Appeals, the said Court is vested with the authority to pronounce judgment as to the taxpayer's liability to the exclusion of any other court. In the present case, regardless of whether the assessments were made on February 24 and 27, 1956, as claimed by the Commissioner, or on December 27, 1955 as claimed by the taxpayer, the government's right to collect the taxes due has clearly not prescribed, as the taxpayer's appeal or petition for review was filed with the Tax Court on May 4, 1960, with the Commissioner filing on May 7

20, 1960 his Answer with a prayer for payment of the taxes due, long before the expiration of the five-year period to effect collection by judicial action counted from the date of assessment.

PNOC vs. CIR (GR No. 109976, April 26, 2005) At issue in this case was the validity of the compromise agreement executed by PNOC pursuant to EO No. 44. Under said law, the CIR was authorized to compromise delinquent accounts arising, among others, from a selfassessed tax. According to the Supreme Court, PNOC could not avail of the benefits of EO No. 44 because, for one, its tax liability was not a self-assessed tax. The High Court differentiated a selfassessed tax and a BIR-assessed tax in this sense: where tax liabilities are self-assessed, the compromise payment shall be based on the tax return filed by the taxpayer; on the other hand, where the BIR already issued an assessment, the compromise payment shall be computed based on the tax due on the assessment notice. IV. STATUTORY OFFENSES AND PENALTIES A. Civil Penalties / Surcharge / Interest Secs. 247-251, NIRC RR No. 12-99 SECTION 4.Civil Penalties. 4.1Twenty-Five Percent (25%) Surcharge. There shall be imposed, in addition to the basic taxrequired to be paid, a penalty equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) thereof, in any the following cases: 4.1.1Failure to file any return and pay the tax due thereon as required under the provisions of thisCode or rules and regulations on the date prescribed; or

4.1.2Unless otherwise authorized by the Commissioner, filing a return with an internal revenue officer other than those with whom the return is required to be filed; or 4.1.3Failure to pay the deficiency tax within the time prescribed for its payment in the notice of assessment; or 4.1.4Failure to pay the full or part of the amount of tax shown on any return required to be filed under the provisions of this Code or rules and regulations, or the full amount of tax due for which no return is required to be filed, on or before the date prescribed for its payment. cdasia4.2Fifty Percent (50%) Surcharge: 4.2.1In case of willful neglect to file the return within the period prescribed by the Code, or in case a false or fraudulent return is willfully made, the penalty to be imposed shall be fifty percent (50%) of the tax or of the deficiency tax, in case any payment has been made on the basis of such return before the discovery of the falsity or fraud: Provided, That a substantial under declaration of taxable sales, receipts or income, or a substantial overstatement of deductions, as determined by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, shall constitute prima facie evidence of a false or fraudulent return: Provided, further, That failure to report sales, receipts or income in an amount exceeding thirty percent(30%) of that declared per return, and a claim of deductions in an amount exceeding thirty percent(30%) of actual deductions, shall render the taxpayer liable for substantial under declaration of sales, receipts or income or for overstatement of deductions, as mentioned herein: Provided, further, that the term "willful neglect to file the return within the period prescribed by the Code" shall not apply in case the taxpayer, without notice from the Commissioner or his authorized representative, voluntarily files the said return, in which case, only 25% surcharge shall be imposed for late 8

filing and late payment of the tax in lieu of the above 50% surcharge. Conversely, the 50% surcharge shall be imposed in case the taxpayer files the return only after prior notice in writing from the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative. 4.2.2Section 6 (A) of the Code provides that any tax return filed by a taxpayer "may be modified, changed or amended" by the taxpayer "within three (3) years from date of such filing" provided, however, that "no notice for audit or investigation of such return, statement or declaration has, in the meantime, been actually served upon the taxpayer." Thus, if upon investigation, it is determined that the taxpayer's originally filed tax return is false or fraudulent, such taxpayer shall remain liable to the50% civil penalty regardless that the taxpayer has filed his amended tax return, if the said amended tax return, however, has been filed only after issuance of the Letter of Authority for the investigation of the taxpayers tax return or such amendment has been made in the course of the said investigation. 1. Applicable Interest Rate 2. How to compute interest 3. Rules on interest SEC. 249. Interest. (A) In General. There shall be assessed and collected on any unpaid amount of tax, interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per annum, or such higher rate as may be prescribed by rules and regulations, from the date prescribed for payment until the amount is fully paid. (B) Deficiency Interest. Any deficiency in the tax due, as the term is defined in this Code, shall be subject to the interest prescribed in Subsection (A) hereof, which interest shall be assessed and collected from the date prescribed for its payment until the full payment thereof. (C) Delinquency Interest. In case of failure to pay:

(1) The amount of the tax due on any return to be filed, or (2) The amount of the tax due for which no return is required, or (3) A deficiency tax, or any surcharge or interest thereon on the due date appearing in the notice and demand of the Commissioner, there shall be assessed and collected on the unpaid amount, interest at the rate prescribed in Subsection (A) hereof until the amount is fully paid, which interest shall form part of the tax. (D) Interest on Extended Payment. If any person required to pay the tax is qualified and elects to pay the tax on installment under the provisions of this Code, but fails to pay the tax or any installment hereof, or any part of such amount or installment on or before the date prescribed for its payment, or where the Commissioner has authorized an extension of time within which to pay a tax or a deficiency tax or any part thereof, there shall be assessed and collected interest at the rate hereinabove prescribed on the tax or deficiency tax or any part thereof unpaid from the date of notice and demand until it is paid. BPI vs. CIR (GR No. 137002, July 27, 2006) ISSUE: whether the delinquency interest of 20% per annum, as provided under Section 249(c)(3) of the NIRC, is applicable in this case. This doctrine is consistent with the earlier decisions of this Court justifying the imposition of additional charges and interests incident to delinquency by explaining that the nature of additional charges is compensatory and not a penalty. The above legal provision makes no distinctions nor does it establish exceptions. It directs the collection of the surcharge and interest at the stated rate upon any sum or sums due and unpaid after the dates prescribed in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of the Act for the payment of the amounts due. The provision therefore is mandatory in case of delinquency. This is 9

justified because the intention of the law is precisely to discourage delay in the payment of taxes due to the State and, in this sense, the surcharge and interest charged are not penal but compensatory in nature they are compensation to the State for the delay in payment, or for the concomitant use of the funds by the taxpayer beyond the date he is supposed to have paid them to the State. 4. Deficiency vs. Delinquency Tax Following the mandate of Section 249(A), the interest penalty that may be imposed on any unpaid tax is only up to a maximum rate of 20 percent, absent any rules and regulations that require imposition of higher interest rate. Of late, however, the Court of Tax Appeals en banc in its decision in CTA EB Case 821 came up with a situation where there is a possibility of imposing a 40-percent interest even in the absence of any rules and regulations authorizing the same. In ruling how the 20-percent penalty interest is applied, the court made a distinction between a deficiency interest and a delinquency interest as provided in the Tax Code. 20-percent deficiency 20-percent interest delinquency interest Is to be computed from the date prescribed for the payment of deficiency tax until its full payment. Is to be computed from the due date prescribed under the Assessment Notice until its full payment

Applying the decision of the tax court, the imposition of the 20-percent delinquency interest creates a scenario where a 40-percent interest is imposed as the imposition of the 20percent deficiency interest can actually be imposed simultaneously with the imposition of the 20-percent delinquency interest.

5. Surcharge: 25% or 50% Sec. 248, NIRC Castro vs. CIR (GR No. L-12174, April 26, 1962)
As to the 50% surcharge, the very United States Supreme Court that rendered the Coffey decision has subsequently pointed out that additions of this kind to the main tax are not penalties but civil administrative sanctions, provided primarily as a safeguard for the protection of the state revenue and to reimburse the government for the heavy expense of investigation and the loss resulting from the taxpayer's fraud.

payments by punishing evasions or neglect of duty in respect thereof. If penalties could be condoned for flimsy reasons, the law imposing penalties for delinquencies would be rendered nugatory, and the maintenance of the Government and its multifarious activities will be adversely affected. NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE; COLLECTION OF PENALTY AND INTEREST IN CASE OF DELINQUENCY, MANDATORY. We have likewise explained that it is mandatory to collect penalty and interest at the stated rate in case of delinquency. The intention of the law is to discourage delay in the payment of taxes due the Government and, in this sense, the penalty and interest are not penal but compensatory for the concomitant use of the funds by the taxpayer beyond the date when he is supposed to have paid them to the Government.

a. False vs. Fraudulent return b. Fraud Assessment c. Mandatory imposition of penalties Phil. Refining Co. vs. CA (GR No. 118794 dated May 8, 1996) FAILURE TO PAY WITHIN 30 DAYS RENDERS TAXPAYER LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF 25% SURCHARGE AND 20% INTEREST. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the deficiency tax assessment in this case, which was the subject of the demand letter of respondent Commissioner dated April 11, 1989, should have been paid within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. By reason of petitioners default thereon, the delinquency penalties of 25% surcharge and interest of 20% accrued from April 11, 1989. The fact that petitioner appealed the assessment to the CTA and that the same was modified does not relieve petitioner of the penalties incident to delinquency. The reduced amount of P237,381.25 is but a part of the original assessment of P1,892,584.00. TAX LAWS IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR DELINQUENCIES, INTENDED TO HASTEN PAYMENT OF TAXES. Tax laws imposing penalties for delinquencies, so we have long held, are intended to hasten tax 10

d. When penalties may be waived Lhuillier Pawnshop vs. CIR (GR No. 166786 dated September 11, 2006) SC resolved LPs MR and deleted the surcharges and all the interests imposed thereon, considering the divergent ruling of the BIR on DST.