You are on page 1of 14

ADVANCE

November

TAXATION
14,

2015

1. If prescription has already set-in,


will tax laws be construed strictly
against the government or the
taxpayer? When prescription is not
applied? In construction of tax
provisions
(research)
2. Construction of tax exemptions
3. Mirador filed its 2008, filed April 15,
2009. Take note of deadline of filing.
Income tax overpayment of 1million,
choice to carryover for automatic
deduction for payment of succeeding
tax liabilities. April 15, 2010, it filed
annual tax return for 2009 reflecting a
taxable loss and overpayment for 500k,
income tax overpayment of 1million.
2009 return claim for refund P1500000.
- can only claim 500k as refund because
once choice is made, cannot change
anymore. Since it opted to carryover
the overpayment of P1 million for the
year 2009, it cannot change its choice
anymore.
Section 76: Once the option to carryover and apply the excess quarterly
income tax against income tax due
for the taxable quarters of the
succeeding taxable years has been
made,
such
option
shall
be
considered
irrevocable
for that
taxable period and no application
for cash refund or issuance of a tax
credit certificate shall be allowed
therefor.
4. On march 10, 2010, preliminary
assessment notice (pan) dated march 1,
2010. Defficiency income tax for 2008.
Prescription not yet set in. Failed to
protest the pan. Final assessment
notice april 30, 2010. Fan received may
10, 2010. May 25, 2010, filed protest.
Commissiner denied because of final
and executory, because failed to
protest the pan. Commissiner correct?
In PAN, not mandatory to respond. But
fan, if failed to file protest within 30
days, commissioner may deny protest if
filed
after
that
period.
RR
18-2013
for
5. Mutual fund company, investor
realized
gain
from
redemption.
Exempt?
True, sec. 32, NIRC, part of exclusions
from
gross
income
6. If there is no constitutional grant
on impost taxes, can government still
collect
impost
taxess?
Yes.
Inherent
power
7. License tax by city government,
license tax by bir. Based on same
income. Double taxation? No. Different
taxing authority. Take note of the
elements.

Elements of direct double taxation:


- the same property or subject matter
is taxed twice when it should be taxed
only
once
- both taxes are levied for the same
purpose
- imposed by the same taxing authority:
within the same jurisdiction, during the
same taxing period and covering the
same kind or character of tax
8. Is it correct to say that in this
jurisdiction, the power to tax includes
the
power
to
destroy?
Cite Justice Holmes: as long as the
court exists. But not absolute. There
are instances when government involve
the power to destroy, by imposing
police power of the government. If
purpose is other than to raise revenue
but to aid in the exercise of police
power.
9. Manager provided with apartment
for the benefit of the employer.
Depreciation expense a deductible
expense? Yes, fringe benefit. Not
taxable on the part of the branch
manager because it was given primarily
for the benefit of the employer.
10. P donated to his son his house and
lot with express provision that P retains
usufruct up to the time of his death.
Part
of
estate
of
P?
Yes. Section 85, NIRC on transfer in
contemplation of death. If donation
will take effect only at the time of
death.
11. If taxpayer is engaged on sale of
practices, what kind of taxes under the
NIRC
is
he
liable?
Income tax, Business tax (VAT and
percentage tax, depending on the
threshold)
12. ABC cooperative registered with
CDA, exempted from VAT. Purchased
tractor from S found out that VAt was
added on purchase price. ABC
demanded that VAT be deducted. ABC
correct?
No. VAT already part of purchase price.
Thus, ABC cannot demand for
deduction of VAT from purchase price
because as an indirect tax, it can be
shifted to the buyer. Exemption of ABC
cannot be extended to X as seller.
GR: burden of taxation can be shifted
XCPTN: liability to pay cannot be
shifted
13. In vatable transaction, if there is a
sale, what do you call the vat
attributable
thereto?
Output
tax
for
sale
Input
tax
for
purchase
How do you compute the tax payable?
Output
minus
input
14. No. 12. On the part of ABC, how
should ABC treat the VAT added to
purchase
price?

Part of the cost of the tractor


15. How should the sale of real
property classified as capital asset be
taxed?
Capital
gains
tax

2.
Claim
for
refund
Government
1.
2. To make assessment to collect
correct
amount
of
taxes

Assignment
for
next
meeting:
Continue
on
review
RR 18-2013 on assessment amending...
Governs procedural due process of
making
assessment
Sec. 85 on exemptions - whether
usufruct retained is to be included in
gross
estate
Construction of tax laws, exemptions
and
prescription
Deadlines of filing of income tax
returns, percentage tax and VAT
Other actual bar questions (not graded)

In
registering,
there
must
be
classification as individual employee or
corporation
Once registered, tax obligation will be
determined whether to VAT, percentage
or
income
tax.
If estimate sales for the next year does
not exceed 1919500, percentage unless
taxpayer opt to be subjected to VAT
EWithholding tax or compensation
Final percentage tax applicable to....
Not
subject
to
VAT
Point of registration - tax tie
Then filing of tax returns follow
After filing, BIR has the authority to
evaluate the returns filed, whether
correct on its face or there are errors
on the face of the return, taxpayer
assessed immediately wihout need of
LOA
or
PAN
Can the taxpayer file income tax return
based on his own computation?
Taxes under the NIRC are considered
self-assessing taxes. It is the taxpayer
who will determine the tax to be filed
and paid, as a rule. Also means that
there is no need for BIR in order to
create a liability for tax of the
taxpayer. Exception: Sec. 6D of nirc
(authority
to
terminate
taxable
period); sec56B (assessment and
payment
of
defficiency
tax)
Liability and payment is presumed to
be correct and valid unless determined
by
BIR
as
otherwise.
If taxpayer do not know his correct
taxes to be paid, he should hire
accountant
or
lawyer.
How could BIR confirm correctness of
tX
dues
and
payments?
Section 6A, power of BIR to examine
returns
Can
withdraw?
No, but it can be change, amended or
modified, within 3 years from date of
filing. Provided further that for the
meantime, there is no notice of audit
or investigation of such return has been
made
by
BIR.
Is BIR mandated to examine all the
returns
filed?
No. The power to examine include the
power
not
to
examine.
If taxpayer fail to file and pay the tax,
but taxpayer is engaged in business,
can
bir
examine?
By filing a return in behalf of the
taxpayer, based on info gathered, after
then
examinatin
may
proceed.
Issuance of LOA - authorizing an agent
of BIR to conduct examinatin of

November
21,
2015
Section 76 applicable to individuals?
Yes. The options, as well as the
irrevocability are applicable. Form
1706(?)
sec.
25-56
Constructions:
If the law is clear and express, no room
for
construction
In case there is ambiguity, construction
of tax laws are construed strictly
sgainst the government and in favor of
the taxpayer. Exception: exemptions,
liberally in favor of the government
because they go against the lifeblood
doctrine.
GR: tax laws are construed strictly in
favor
of
the
taxpayer
Burdens are not to be imposed beyond
what the statutes clearly declare
XCPTN: see page 14 of UST
On
prescriptionIn favor of the taxpayer since only
remedial in nature. Phil Journalist v.
CIR
12/16/2004
GR
162852
A limitation on the part of the tax
administrator as to time of making
audit or subject taxpayer to their
power
Tax providing for prescription is usually
express
or
clear.
Whether house and transferred but
usufruct retained, included in the gross
estate?
As provided in Sec.85 of NIRC, still
included in the gross estate. As to
donor's tax, no qualification. If asked,
just determine if transfer is full and
adequate condieration in money or
money's
worth
DST within 5th days from execution of
document
of
t
CGT 30 days after the notarization
REGISTRATION WITH THE BUREAU
Tax
remedies:
1.
Protest
on
the
assessment

taxpayer's books of accounts. Must be


signed by the RD. If large taxpayer,
signed by the commissioner or deputy
comm
Date that should be in the LOA includes
the name of the Revenue Officer. If
not, taxpayer can refuse to be
examined. If LOA has erasures,
considered as void. If not served within
30 days from isssuance, void. But
revised. If served beyond 30 days, still
valid.
Should contain type of taxes to be
investigated. Shall specifically state the
period of time covered by the
examination.
After issuance of LOA, served to
taxpayer.
Start
of
process
of
investigation, protest, assessment.
Can taxpayer raise an issue that he did
not keep a record of his transactions?
No. It is a requirement that every
taxpayer engaged on business to keep
books of his transactions. Sec. 235 and
Sec.232
Preservation:
Sec.
235
When is the time considered as
discovery
of
fraudulent
act?
The moment the taxpayer is notified
that the Bureau has discovered the
fraudulent
act
Section
235:
exceptions
If taxpayer refuses to submit, BIR shall
request for issuance of subpoena duces
tecum.
Sec.266
If still refuses to submit or cannot
submit because of not keeping records,
taxpayer will be assessed based on best
evidence
rule.
Consequences: subject to criminal
prosecution or failure to obey summons
Criminal liabilities: by prosecutor
Civil
Liabilities:
by
BIR
Examples
of
best
evidence:
1. Disallowance of expenses, based on
2. If there is a data from third-party
(information)
3. If there is a record of surveillance as
taken
before
4. Based on the records of the BIR
5.
Benchmarking
Assignments: 203, 222, RR 12-99 as
amended by 18-2013 and their
difference; phil journalist case, GR
178087 cir v kodus metal, petron case
gr 185568, ketco gr 179961, power corp
179632;
section203
November
28,
2015
1. In 2010, a letter of authority for
examination for 2009. Deficiency tax
assessed paid by mr abcede. In 2011,
another loa, for 2009 income tax,
based on fraud. Mr abcede constested
alleging that books can only be

subjected
to
examination
and
insoection once in a taxable year.
Correct?
No. Article 235: GR: only once.
Exceptions include fraud, irregularity or
mistakes, as determined by the
commissioner.
The 5 exceptions pertain only to
income tax. Final withholding tax,
creditable withholding tax, under
category
of
income
tax.
2. Recall option to carryover excess
payments shall be irrevocable for both
individual
and
corporate.
3. Overview of registration and
issuance
of
loa
Starting
point:
loa
issuance
4. Power to make assessment and
prescribe additional reqs for tax admin
and sec 6 of nirc. Once return is filed,
cannot be withdrawn but can be
amended within 3 years provided no
notice of audit or investigation. To
commence from date of filing.
5. Power to investigate include power
not
to
investigate.
CIR v. Raul Gonzales. Taxpayer failed to
submit docs for investigation. Subpoena
duces ticum. Criminal case for failure
to obey. Tax evasion another case.
Defense was litis pendencia. Failure to
obey summon dependent upon result of
tax
evasion
case.
Tenable?
Held: different basis of criminal cases.
Both cases can be filed simultaneously.
Result of one case not dependent on
the result of the other case. Litis
pendencia not tenable as defense.
Philippine Journalist v. CIR (recited)
Income tax return for 1994. Filed on
time. RD issued LOA. Asked BIR to
instead extend period of prescription so
the corp will make a waiver of
prescription. BIR issued assessment dec
9,1998. Final notice nov 10, 1999.
Warrant of distraint march 20, 2000.
Petitioner contended prescription to
assess/examine has prescribed. Was loa
timely and validly issued? Aug 10,1995.
What were the type of taxes involved in
this case? Income tax, withholding tax,
vat. Three years prescriptive period
from date of filing or last date of
filing. Income tax return - April 15,
1995. Last date to assess should be
april
1998.
VAT
Take note of different dates of
deadlines
because
of,prescriptive
periods.
What were the reasons of cta in
nullifying the Loa? Invalid loa because
no date, waiver did not constitute that
petitioner received waiver and date not
indicated. PJI not furnished copy of the
waiver. SC: BIR cannot assess anymore

petitioner
because
not
within
prescriptive period. Because waiver
was
invalid.
Ma'am: aug 10, 1995 loa to assess 1994.
PJI executed a waiver. Basta read the
case
:D
Issuance of warrant equivalent to
denial
CTA: in favor of PJI but PJI is
petitioner. Why? Rule 45; Because
during this time, decision of CTA is still
to be reviewed by CA, which reversed
the
decision
of
the
CTA.
CA: jurisdiction. BIR said that CTA has
no jurisdiction to entertain. RA 1155.
Old jurisdiction law of CTA. In reversing
CTA, only decisions of BIR denying may
be appealed to the CTA. Mere
assessment becoming final are not
appealable.
Should
not
have
entertained the petitin at all. Waiver
was valid, no need to provide for
definite
period
of
investigation.
SC: on jurisdiction-CTA not limited to
matters relating to assessment or
refund only. RA 1125 covers other
cases. Warrant of distraint or levy is
covered
under
other
matters.
In reversing CA, the waiver is not a
waiver of the right to invoke defense of
prescription, what is being waived is
the right to... The execution of the
waiver pertain only to the period of
making an assessment, the three year
period to make assessment, but not the
prescription
itself.
A waiver of the statute of limitation is
a derogation of...must be carefully and
strictly construed against the party
claiming the validity of the waiver. Not
a waiver to invoke defense of
prescription, but only the period of
three years, which can be extended
within a certain period by reason of the
waiver. NIRC. Law on prescription
liberally construed in favor of the
taxpayer. Waiver is a bilateral act, to
be valid must be acts of two parties.
Basta lengthy discussion on the
decisions of CTA, CA and SC

CTA division: rigt of govt has already


prescribed.
CTA En banc: affirmed Division. Why did
not pass through CA? Changed
jurisdiction.
RA
9282
CTA decision now appealable to the SC.
SC: affirmed. SEc 203 collection and
assessment within three years from
date of filing or actual date, whichever
is later. Although accountant executed
waiver,
not in accordance with
REvenue circular. Defective waiver,
invalid.
Estoppel raised by BIR, it was the
taxpayer who caused the delay in
issuing the assessment. SC said this is
assessment case, estoppel cannot be
applied in this case. This is an issue of
prescription to make assessment. BIR
ha sno right to blame taxpayer because
it has the right to make assessment
based on best evidence rule. Moreover,
taxpayer did not perform any positive
act that will cause delay to issuance of
assessment.
Basically
the
same
with
PJI.

CIR
v.
Kudos
metal
Prescriptive period and when to assess
taxes.
Respondent filed annual itr for 1998.
LOA three notices of presentatin of
records. Failed to comply. BIR issued
subpoena duces ticum, acknowledged
by president. 12/2001 accountant
executed waiver on defense of
prescription.
Another
waiver...
PAN issued, then formal letter of
demand. Assessment issued on 2003.
Not issued on time. Respondent
challenged issuance of assessment,
filed protest. BIR decided and required
payment
of
income
tax,
VAT.

KETCO

CIR
v.
Petron
Petron is a transferee of tax credit
certificate. Used to pay excise taxes.
1995-1998 used TCC. Jan 13,2002
assessment for deficiency tax payment,
BIR alleged that TCCs were fraudulently
procured from dept of finance. Filed a
protest
instead
of
submitting
documents. Warrant of distraint and
levy.
CTA division: ordered petron to pay
CTA
enbanc:
reversed
division
SC: CTA enbanc was correct, petron in
good
faith
in
using
TCCs.
BIR contended that it cannot be
estopped by errors committed by its
agents. Petron had no participation in
the fraudulent procurement of TCCs.
Although govt is not estopped for errors
of its agents, if it works injustice to the
taxpayer, not applicable. BIR failed to
prove that petron connived in the
procurement of fraudulent TCCs.
ans

South

corp

Section
203
Three year prescriptive period for bir
to make assessment from date of filing
or deadline, whichever comes later.
March 31, 2014 filed ITR for 2013. Was
the return filed on time? Yes. Because
deadline is april 15, 2014. When would
be the last date for BIR to make an
assessment? April 17, 2017. Same
whether individual or corporation
(adopting
calendar
year)
Discovery should have been made
within the three year period (erroneous
daw)

The period to make assessment is


within
three
years
from...no
proceeding in court... Can there be an
instance wherein a collection case
Collection case is civil. No proceeding
in court without assessment for the
collection of such taxes shall be
begun.. The BIR cannot file a collection
case without making an assessment. If
before three years, can bir file
collection cases without issuing an
assessment? Page 1146 of casasola
Assignment for next meeting dec 5,
2015: RR 18-2013 relate to RR 12-99
and section 228, 229, 230, question
above, gr 139858 cir v , 124557-558
conso
case
of
adamson
December
5,
2015
Differentiate RR 18-2013 and RR 121999
Notice for Informal Conference - N/A Shortened period for assailing the
assessment
PAN shall be issued by the Regional
Office
Whoever issues the LOA will be the one
who should issue the Preliminary
Assessment
Notice
Defficiency
tax
Delinquency interest if taxpayer still
fails
to
pay
Taxpayer has now two options: either
to file appeal before the commissioner
requesting for reconsideration but not
allowed for reinvestigation; or appeal
directly with CTA 30 days from receipt
of
decision
Modes of services: old rule only 2 ways
(personal and by mail); new rule four
modes
(personal,
Can the taxpayer appeal to the
commissioner
requesting
for
reconsideration in case of inaction of
protest by authirized representative?
No because there is no decision at all
rendered by authorized representative
of
commissioner.
Options
of
tAxpayers
Important amendment: eliminatin of
informal
conference
Amendments1. Elimination of issuance of notice for
informal
conference.
Investigating
office shall submit recommendation for
issuance
2. Specification of modes of protest:
reconsideration and reinvestigation
Request for reinvestigation one of the
exceptions mentined in sec235 for
review
of
books
3. Inaction on the part of BIR within
180 days: 2 options either to wait or
elevate. Option to wait not found in 121999

4. PAN: old, TP disagree with PAN, BIR


shall evaluate the disagreement or
reply. New, whether reply or not, FAN
and FLD will be issued. Reply to PAN is
not mandatory. FAN shall be issued
within 15 days from date TP replied to
the PAN. If no reply, within 15 days
from expiration of 15 days within which
the TP must reply. What is imprtant is
protest
to
the
FAN.
FAN shall be accompanied by FLD
5. Modes of service now have Four
6.
Delinquency
interest
1. BIR issued PAN aug 2015 for 2012
income tax deficiency. Aug 11 received
by tp. Aug 20 reply. BIR did not act. FAN
and FLD issued 9/7/2015. 9/8/2015.
Should
TP
file
s
protest?
Yes. If failed to file protest, FAN will
become FED. Tax will then become a
delinquent
tax.
If TP was able to file protest on time
but
BIR
did
not
act:
Would answer be the same if instead of
commissioner, it was the regional
director
who
did
not
act?
2.
Taxpayer
requested
for
reconsideration sept 8, 2014. BIR comm
issued FDDA denying protest on nov12,
2014. Receipt nov 13, 2014. Bir
commissioner did not respond on the
letter.
Motion for reconsideration filed before
the comm does not toll the period for
presscription
3. How about if only the authorized
representative issued FDDA? Can be
appealed to the BIR comm. Because
FDDA
Can there be delinquent taxes without
assessment? Yes. For self-assessed
returns
Section
203
Under
Section
205
Can there be a collection case filed
within three years without assessment?
Section
222:
exceptions
If return containing tax liability as
assessed by taxpayer himself, but
taxpayer did not pay, the amount of tax
is considered delinquent. BIR can file
either civil or criminal case. If beyond
three years, can BIR file an action in
court? Integrate section 203 and 205. If
an amount of tax was self assessed but
TP
failed
to
pay.
Adamson

Case:

Section 228: Protesting of Assessment


Next meeting: Section 228, take note
of last paragraph, relate to case of
Lascina Land v CIR 171251, 203, 222,

223, 91b, 92, fishwealth v CIR 179343,


139736 in the book of casasola (old
decision).
December
Midterm exam:

12,
January

16,

2015
2016

Section 228: Only requirement for


procedural due pricess is PAn thus
informal
conference
eliminated
PAN
not
required1. Mathematical error- return and
payment voluntary act of taxpayer,
under self-assessment method. If there
are any mistake resulting to any lesser
tax deficiency or tax payable, the
taxpayer need not be notified. BIR will
automatically issue FAN with FLD.
Case: A filed itr, tax payable 25k.
Additional 2 children, 75k exemption. Is
there an assessment to be issued? Is
that
mistake
be
considered
a
mathematical? Yes. Thus BIR can issue
immediately the FAN without PAN. The
mistake is apparent in the return
itself.
Case: For 2013 taxable year, X filed VAt
returns and total gross sales is
10million. When he filed ITR, 8million
was declared. DO found mistake and
forwarded it to assessment office.
Isssued immediately FLD and FAN.
Correct? Is there a mathematical error?
Is the error apparent in the return? 2
returns are involved in this case, thus
error was not apparent. There is still a
need to compare and investigate. Thus,
PAN
must
be
issued
first.
2. Discrepancy between amount
withheld and the amount actually
remitted by the withholding agent. The
BIR will compare the computation of
salaries and taxes withheld to the final
computation of income tax due.
3. Automatically applied the creditable
withholding tax, despite opting to
claim
refund.
Creditable withholding tax - excess of
what was supposed to be withheld,
which can be applied in the payment of
tax due of the recipient at the end of
the year. Rental (5), professional
(10/15).
Withholding agent is the payor; the
recipient of income is the one entitled
to the creditable income tax withheld
How could relate to 76c be related?
Because option to carry over or refund
is irrevocable. Thus, taxpayer can still
be assessed and issued with FAN even if
the refund has not yet been paid. Once
there is a double-claim (refund and
carriedover).
If lessee shoulders the tax, he is not
mandated to submit the creditable tax
certificate to the lessor. Because lessee
cannot
claim
expense
without

withholding
the
related
tax.
If tax payor is exempt from income tax,
lessee not required to withhold tax, as
long as therenis a certificate of
exemption.
4. Excise tax on excisable articles have
not been paid (alcohol, tobacco)
Mineral products: sand and gravel
subject to 2% excise tax. The possessor
of sand and gravel is the one who will
prove that excise tax have been paid.
Must be paid upon extraction of
mineral
products.
5. Article locally purchased or imported
by an exempt person, has been sold,
traded or transferred to non-exempt
person.
Ex: cooperative (exempt taxpayer),
imported tractor. Excise and VAT is not
collected
from
them.
But
the
cooperative must be the actual user of
the tractor. If found in the possession
of a taxable person, the excise tax and
VAt shall be assessed against the nonexempt
persons.
What are the important things that a
valid
assessment
contain?
1.
Date
of
issuance
2.
Details
of
tax
deficiency
computation
3. Statement of facts snd the law, rules
and
regulations
4. Name and signature of the BIR
officisl authorized to issue the
assessment
RD
or
CIR
5. Demand to pay the deficiency taxes
as assessed within the prescribed
period.
TP shall respond within 15 days. Then
issue FAN. Even if there is a response,
BIR shall issue FAN and FLD within 15
days from receipt of response.
FAN
and
FLD
assessment
If the assessment is protested, it will
become a disputed assessment. Then
BIR will issue FDDA. If after lapse of
180 days and BIR did not issue FDDA,
taxpayer may go to court within 30
days after lapse of 180 days.
When the protest contains a question of
fact, it pertains to doubt or truth or
falsity of the fact as alleged by the BIR
in the assessment. Or suffiecency or
insufficiency
of
evidence
where
assessment
is
based.
Question of law- doubt as to
application of law as to certain
statements
of
fact
Ex: assessment issued subjecting DST
on advances made to subsidiary
entities, contending that it is in the
nature of a loan, what type of protest:
question of law or fact? Question of
law. There is no question as to
sufficiency of evidence of the fact of
advances.

But there is doubt as to interpretation


of BIR as to DST of advances.
If assessment consists of disallowance
of losses due to typhoon sendong, what
kind of protest? Question of fact
because there is no issue whether the
losses wi ll be allowed or not. The only
question is the failure of the taxpayer
to prove the fact of losses.
Assessment becomes FED when TP fails
to file protest within 30 days from
receipt
of
assessment.
Protest must attack the assessment.
There must be a basis for the protest
made.
When TP failed to submit the required
documents within 60 days from protest
reauesting for reinvestigation, FED.
If protest denied, and TP failed to
appeal
to
the
CTA,
FED.
If sustained by CTA, to SC.
Last paragraph of 228: there must be a
decision, if not appealed before the
CTA within 30 days after lapse of 180
days.
Lascona
v.
CIR
Is it mandatory for taxpayer to appeal
the
FDDA
to
the
CTA?
No because it is the option the
taxpayer whether to appeal or not to
appeal the inaction of the BIR.
Can the inaction be considered as final
decision
of
denial?
No because of option to await
Can
inaction
within
180
days
tantamount to denial of protest?
It depends. If taxpayer opts to bring
the case to CTA, then considered final.
But henopts to wait, then not final
decision.
Under
18-2013.
How did SC oppose the contention that
inaction...?
CIR should be reminded that TP shall
not be left in quandary...TP must be
informed of the CIR's decision so that
TP will know what to do. Such
interpretation will condone inaction on
the
part
of
the
BIR.
Sec. 228 are remedies of taxpayers
Fishwealth
v.
CIR
Does the letter of reconsideration toll
the
running
of
period?
No. But even if it has tolled the 30 day
period, and upon receipt of collection
letter (equivalent to denial of protest),
taxpayer still failed to appeal within
time.
Dismissal of failure to obey summons
does not in any way affect the...
Assignment: section 203, 222, 91, 92
GR 2750927 allied bank v cir, gr14380
oceanic v cir, gr 185371 cir ., 166787,
130430,
157064
barcelon

December
19,
2015
Section 203: Period of Assessment,
relate
to
Section
228:
When should the three year period
start
to
be
counted?
After the last day of filing prescribed
by law or actual filing of return if filed
after deadline, whichever is later
Even if the Taxpayer replied to the PAN,
there
shall
still
be
a
FAN
No proceeding in court... After three
year period, assessment must be made
first
Instances when BIR can file collection
without
assessment:
1. Self-assessed taxes, when the
amount to be paid was not paid or not
fully paid. (when there is no need for
reevaluatin or recomputation) - unpaid
amount can be questioned in court
without assessment, but must be filed
within
three
years.
2. Second installment payment for
income tax of individual taxpayer not
paid on or before July 15, BIR can file a
collection case for the balance
Self assessing system is different from a
mathematical error. There must first be
a recomputation. Defficiency not
apparent on the face of the return.
If error is not apparent, not exception
to
PAN
Exception to 203: section 222
1. False or fraudulent return with
intent to evade tax or failure to file a
return
Difference between false or fraudulent
and
failure
to
file
BIR can file collection case even
without assessment, 10 years after
discovery of falsity, fraud or omission
Fraud
assessment
vs
ordinary
assessment
1. FA, imposition of penalty is 50%, in
OA,
only
25%
(Section
228b)
Presumption of fraud: substantial
underdeclaration
taxable
sales,
receipts or income (more than 30% of
that declared) and a claim of
deductions in an amount exceeding 30%
of
actual
deductions
Taxable
sales
Take note what denominator to use
(gross sales, gross income, argue)
Section 222(b): a case of extension,
execution of waiver for extension of
time within which the BIR and taxpayer
agree to extend the period when BIR
may
assess
(
under
normal
circumstances).
No
extension/agreement
for
false,
fraudulent
or
failure
Another extension may be agreed upon
before the expiration of agreed
extension; may be agreed a number of
times
Section 222(c): period to file collection

case
5
years
Administratively- warrant of distraint
or
levy
Judicially - filing a collection case
If BIR decided to issue assessment in
case of fraud, but later on decided to
file a collection case in court after 5
years,
decide.
Not allowed because under letter c is in
defense
only
of
the
taxpayer.
Section 222(d): 5 years from issuance of
assessment; agreement of extension to
collect must be made within the
expiration of the first five year period
to
collect
Section 223: Suspension of Running of
Statute
of
Limitations
1. When CIR is prohibited to make
assesement - ex is when an executive
order is issued prohibiting him
2. Request for reinvestigation that is
granted. If not granted, or there was
inaction, running is not tolled 3. Taxpayer cannot be located in the
address given by him in the return,
except when the BIR is informed of the
change
of
address
4. When warrant of distraint or levy is
duly served to taxpayer but no
properties
could
be
located
5. When taxpayer is out of the
Philippines
6. Payment of estate tax (sec91b) reason for extension is that there is
undue hardship on the part of the
estate to pay the tax , may be
extended
up
to
5
years
Differentiate
from
extension
Section 92: direction for commissioner
to make assessment within three years.
Mustbe, if possible, within 1 year from
application or filing of return,
whichever
is
later
FAN - three years - collection
Requirement of valid waiver: in writing;
determinate period to make the
assessment
(pascor
case)
In case there is an assessment issued,
and protest was filed, disputed
assessment. If decided, taxpayer may
go to court within 30 days from receipt
of decision. In case of inaction, go to
court or wait for the decision
Allied
Banking
v.
CIR
Can a final letter of demand be
construed to be the final decision on
disputed
assessment?
RR 18-2013, FDDA. Only when FDDa is
issued can the CTA take cognizance of a
case
on
disputed
assessment
GR: taxpayer may or may not respond
to the PAN. Even if he responds, FAN
may be issued, without making any
discussion
on
the
reply.
Whether or not a final demand letter

can be considered as the disputed


assessment
Cite Allied Bank case as exception. GR,
not a final decision as contemplated
under the NIRC. However, in Allied...
Confusion
as
to
the
wordings
In this case (decided before 18-2013):
PAN was issued. Reply was made,
raising issues and contentions. BIR
issued the PAN with discussions on the
issues
raised
by
taxpayer.
Oceanic
v.
CIR
Would an adverse decision issued and
sugned by chief of ARBD can be
considered
final
and
executory?
If the decision is rendered by
authorized
representative,
the
taxpayer
may
file
motion
for
reconsideration to the CIR (18-2013).
But may still file a petition for review
with
the
Court.
Yes. Just a confirmation of the decision
of the court in Allied Banking Case
Take
note
of
Section
7
CIR
v.
Metrostar
Due
process
compliance
There must be issuance of PAN. The 15day preliminary notice cannot be
considered because it was issued by the
revenue district office. PAN is issued by
the regional director. Issuance of PAN is
substantial
due
process.
CIR
v.
Enron
A mere advise of deficiency is not
equivalent
to
FAN
Exception:
Samar
Electric
Coop
GR193100,
12/20/2014
Assigment: Republic v Hizon, Barcelon
v. CIR, Samar case, sec205-221
January
9,
2016
Topics left for finals: CTA jurisdiction,
refunds,
additional
penalties
Samar
I
v.
CIR
Exception the rule on providing for the
factual and legal bases of the
assessment.
GR: Enron that factual bases, etc shall
be
written
in
the
FAN
In
this
case,
the
series
of
correspondence was sufficient to
comply with the requirement of the
law
Barcelon
v.
CIR
Issue as to the receipt of the FAN
For BIR to establish issuance of
assessment:
1. Show proof that the assessment was
mailed in the form of registry return
signed by taxpayer's representative.
RR 18-2013 modes of service once

proven, could establish the disputable


presumption of receipt of the
assessment
by
the
taxpayer.
Republic
v.
Hizon
Assessment has long become final,
executory and demandable, no more
judicial remedy available to the
taxpayer. BIR has 3 (now 5) years to file
collection case. But filed only on 1997.
Judicial remedy to collect has already
prescribed
but
still
had
the
administrative remedy to execute the
warrants of distraint and levy which
were timely served to the taxpayer.
It is the FAN that should be protested.
The date of service is the time of
commencement.
FAN is different from FDDA. Series of
event: assessment, issuance of FAN,
protest filed by taxpayer, FDDA as
decision
on
the
protest
If FDDA is issued by a representative,
additional remedy for TP to request a
reconsideration to the CIR. If by the CIR
himself,
no more
administrative
remedy but judicial to the CTA.
Period to file a petition is 30 days from
receipt of FDDA or lapse of 180 days of
inaction.
Government's
Remedies
in
the
Collection
of
Taxes
Civil
Remedies
Sec. 205: refers to delinquent taxes
1. Distraint of personal properties
and/or levy upon real properties
(administrative
remedies)
2. Civil action and criminal action
- may be filed simultaneously
- collection case must be filed within
3/5 years from assessment or 10 years
In cases of false, fraudulent or failure,
if BIR issues assessment, collection case
must be filed within 5 years.
BIR can file a criminal case for the
collection of tax but must be partnered
with a criminal act such as tax evasion
under sec254 (to evade payment of tax)
After criminal case is decided, the CIR
shall
readjust
the
assessment
Administrative
remedies:
1. Distraint of personal property, 207
and 206 (there is actual taking)
2. Garnishment of bank deposits
3. Levy of real property - annotating in
the certificate of title the tax lien of
the
govt
It is the Comm who must approve the
filing
If delegated, delegation must be
expressed
or
in
writing
Stockholders may not be held liable to
answer for the tax delinquency except
when the property has passed to the SH
applying the piercing the veil of

separate
corporate
entity
In constructive distraint of property, no
actual
taking
To safeguard the interest of the govt,
the
comm
may
place
under
constructive distraint the property of
delinquent taxpayer or any taxpayer
who ij the opinion of the comm is:
retiring from the business, intending to
leave the phils, remove his property
therefrom, or hide or conceal property,
or any act tending to obstruct the
proceeedings for collecting the tax due
or which may be due from him (206)
If the taxpayer retires with huge
amount
of
assessment
pending,
constructive
distraint
Leaves the country at least twice
unless justified to be business or job
related
Transfers of huge amount to other
countries
Use of aliases in bank accounts
When taxpayer has underdeclared more
than
30%
of
his
income
When there is information that
Taxpayer
tries
to
evade
Alfredo Azarcon v. SB GR 116033
A private person signed the receipt of a
certain dump truck belonging to
another taxpayer. Owner surreptitiously
withdrew the dump truck. BIR filed
criminal case of malversation against
Azarcon.
Issue: can mr hizon be considered
agent
of
BIR?
Can he be obligated to preserve the
property
intact
and
...
Held:
The SB has no jurisdiction because the
accused in signing the warrant is not to
be considered as a public officer or
employee because his appointment as
custodian is not equivalent to being
appointed as employee of BIR. Agent
only for the purpose of preserving the
property
under
distraint.
Section 207: Summary Remedies
A. RDO may implement if tax assessed
is
1m
or
less
If more, the CIr or authorized
representative
B.
Levy
on
Real
Property
Request for certificate of landholdings
from
the
assessor's
office
In levy, what is important is the
annotation
in
the
certificate
Case: inaction of BIR with the protest.
If warrant of distraint or levy sent to
taxpayer, can be considered as denial
of
the
protest.
Sec. 208: Procedure for Distraint and
Garnishment
Sec. 209 - 212: Sale of property

distrained and disposition of proceeds


Mangandam case: strict compliance on
advertisement of the sale of proerty
distraint
Notice of exact time of sale
Further
distraint
or
levy
May be repeated to satisfy all amounts
due
including
expenses
Sec. 218: Injunction not Available to
Restrain
Collection
of
Tax
Exception: CTA has authority to issue
injunction
Sec. 219: Nature and Extent of Tax Lien
Notice of tax lien becomes effective
upon registration with the registry of
deeds
Claim for unpaid tax is preferred over
unpaid wages if the taxpayer is not
declared bankrupt. But if he is
considered bankrupt, LC shall apply.
Wages will be preferred over tax. CIR v.
NLRC
If tax lien arises from tax on property,
shall attach to properties, regardless of
owners or transfer of ownership.
Sec.
220-224
read!!!
Filing of civil or criminal case to be
approved by the Commissioner unless
delegated
Coverage for midterms: until last
discussion.
Assignment: for january 30, 2016
Sec. 204, sec6f, 7c, 290, 112a, 58d
GR
187485
cir
v
san
roque
196993
taganito
v
cir
197156
philex
v
cir
193301
194637
184823,
183421
cir
v
aichi
RA
54-2014,
10/
For
finals:
152532
RA
9282
173176
santos
v
people
154993
lepanto
175723
city
of
manila
204429
smart
January
30,
2016
Section 204: Authority of Commissioner
to compromise, abate or refund or
credit
taxes
Difference
of
abatement
and
compromise
Compromise is a bilateral act, which
may
result
to
reduction.
Abatement is the reduction or
cancellation, unilateral act of the CIR
Is the power of the commissioner to
compromise
absolute?
No. Of basic tax is more than 1 million
or the amount offered as settlement is
less than the prescribed rates, must be
subject
to
approval
of
NEB.
Basis
must
exist.

Commissioner cannot compromise the


amount of tax already settled in court
because he is merely an agent of the
government.
Assessment issued by regional offices
may be comprmised by the reginal
evaluatin board, amount is not more
than 500,000 basic tax (approval by
REB)
RR 9-2013: in granting or accepting the
compromise offered by the tp, approval
of the majority member of the NEB,
assessment of more than 1 million. But
always with the concurrence of the
commissioner.
If the 2 deputy commissioners approve,
2 disapprove, commissioner confirm
with approval, is the compromise
application
approved?
Concurrence of the commissioner is
absolute.
So
yes,
approve.
Sandiganbayan v. Bienvenido Tan
152532
SMC was assessed for ad valorem tax.
Compromise,
accepted
by
the
commissioner.
SC: although the pleadings refer to the
act as compromise, and the amount
involved is more than 1 million, there
must be approval of the NEB thus
majority is required. In this case, there
was
unilateral
act.
It is actually an abatement. Cir did not
grant offer of compromise, but
exercised the power to abate.
RR
30-2002
Governs
compromise
The
following
cases
may
be
compromised:
1.
Delinquent
accounts
2. Cases under administrative protest
3. Civil tax cases being disouted before
the courts, there mjst be approval of
court
4. Criminal cases not yet filed in court,
and
those
not
involving
fraud
5.
See
casasola
Why estate tAx cases if based in
financial
incpacity
cannot
be
compromised?
Because there is no estate tax if there
is
no
property.
Compromise1. Reasonable doubt as to the validity
of the claim against the taxlayer exists
What are the circumstances that render
the
assessment
doubtful?
When in the conduct of the audit, there
is jeopardy assessment (without benefit
of a complete or partial audit).
In best evidence obtainable, no
complete
or
partial
audit.
2.
Financial
incapacity
Requirements:
Financial incapacity, cases (casasola)

memorize!!!
Additional requirements for this reason
1. Waiver of secrecy of bank deposits
Percentages: 40/10 of basic tax due
NEB compsed of commissioner and four
deputy commissioners, always with the
concurrence of the commissioner.
Abatement unilaterla act. Tax must be
excessive, arbirptrary or unjust, or
collection does not justify the cost of
collection.
RA 10021: where commissioner can
inquire in to the bank acount. If there
is request for information from foreign
tax
authority.
Section
3
Power
to
refund
Difference of refund and credit
In case the refund is granted, cash.
Section 294(c) credit or refund taxes
If chosen was carryover, not considered
as
written
claim
for
refund.
If credit or refund was chosen,
considered as written claim for credit
or
refund.
When the taxpayer writes the
commissioner to claim fprefund or
credit. Particular form to be filled-up
other
than
the
return
itself.
One of the requirements for claiming
return or refund, there must be actual
oayment of the tax. Prescriptive period
is
2
years
after
payment.
Any request for conversion into refund
of unutilized tax credit may be allowed
subject
to
sec112
Four instances wherein a claim for
credit/refund may be availed 229
1. Erroneous oayment or receipt
Illegal
payment
or
receipt
Unauhtorized imposition of payemtn
Destructioon of internal revenue
stamps
Section 112A Zero Rated or Effectively
Zero-rated
Sales
Compare zero-rated and exempt
Sales duly accounted for by the BSP
PEZA. Sales considered export sales.
What is the difference between 112
and
204?
Prescriptive period, no actual payment.
Sec 112a not applicable to 204
Section
58D
Creditable withholding tax (when
taxpayer may claim for refund without
actual
payment)
Six circumstances when tax refund may
be
made:
Erroneous
Illegal
Unauthirized
Doc
stamps

Sec112a
Sec58d
Section
204:
Written application for claim for refund
Why is it that there is a need to file for
written claim when the law says that if
overpayment appears in the return, it
is already considered a written claim?
Section 229 so that the taxpayer may
still resort to judicial remedies if his
claim is not acted upon by the
commissioner
If the taxpayer fails to elevate the case
to the cta within 2 years, just hope
that the commissioner will grant the
claim for refund. Commissioner may
still refund the excess payment even
beyond the 2 year period, based on the
return
showing
overpayment.
Aichi
Case
Claim for refund of input vat
Section
294c
and
sec229
are
inapplicable
to
tsec112a
CTA
ordered
CIR
to
refund.
Administrative claim must precede the
judicial
filing
There is no prohibition, but see above.
As a lawyer, take note of the date of
filing
Sections 204 and 229 are not applicable
in case sec112 since claim fir refund is
based
on
input
tax.
Claim for refund should be filed in the
CIR,
under
sec112c
If the commissioner decides within 120
days,
taxpayer
may
elevate.
SC: premature filing of judicial claim.
After the decision of Sc, can the
taxpayer still act on the claim for
refund?
Yes, because the CTA did not acquire
jurisdiction.
Was the 120-day period suspended by
the filing of the case with the CTA? Can
aichi still file another judicial claim,
and resort to judicial remedy?
No definite answer yet. May answer
based on construction of refunds
against
the
taxpayer.
May also answer that the judicial claim
tolled the 120 days. So after decisin of
SC, count 120 days, may still file
another judicial remedy within 30 days
from
decision.
Mam's opinion: refund can no longer be
elevated to the court. Since 120+30 day
requirement
is
jurisdictional.
Is
120-day
orescriptive
period
jurisdictional?
Yes. Under case of San Roque
San
Roque
case
If filed beyond the 2-year period
(admin), considered filed out of time.
But if it is filed within the 2-years, BIR

has 120 days to act on the claim. Thus,


judicial claim may be done beyond the
2-year period. No option to wait for the
actual decision of the CIR denying his
claim for refund. It is not applicable to
erroneous, illegal and unauthorized.
Statutory Offenses and Penalties
Section
247:
additions
to
tax
Section
248:
civil
penalties
Surcharge is a one time penalty.
Interest
is
per
annum.
Section
249:
interest
Section
250-252
Crimes, Other Offenses and Forfeitures
Section
253:
Payment of civil liabilities does not
operate to exonerate the taxpayer
from
criminal
liability
Read until 268. Jurisdiction of CTA
Review
on
the
last
meeting
February
6,
2016
RA
9282
An
Act
Creating
the
CTA
RA 9503: added members from 6 to 9
RA 1125: CTa members are considered
judge
But nows, justices eauivalent to CA
CTA as collegiate court. Decision is
either by divisin or en banc
Requirement for en bacn decision: at
least 5 quorom, must deliberate and
vote in order to issue a ruling
Division: 2 justices required to
deliberate and vote; appealable to en
banc by motion for reconsideration
Section
7:
Jurisdiction
Now has exclusive appellate and
exclusive original jurisdiction, (1125
was
only
appellate)
Pascor
case:
decided
prior
to
amendment
Exclusive J - an absolute, to the
exclusion
of
all
other
courts
Difference between appellate and
original
Yamane
v.
Lepanto
Original jurisdiction is the power of
the
Court
to
take
judicial
cognizance of a case instituted for
judicial action for the first time
under conditions provided by law.
Appellate
jurisdiction
is
the
authority of a Court higher in rank
to re-examine the final order or
judgment of a lower Court which
tried the case now elevated for
judicial
review.
EOJ - combine definition of original and
exclusive - sole or absolute j of the
court to the exclusion of all other
courts involving courts instituted....
(Basta
combine)
EAJ - sole or absolute J of the court

Yamane
v.
Lepanto
City treasurer, business tax assessment.
Protest denied by treasurer. Refers to
taxes under the LGC. Leoanto appealed
before the RTC, decided in favor of
treasurer. Petitn for review under rule
42 (governs review of rtc in the
exercise of its appellate j). CA reversed
RTC. Collection from condo owners not
subject
to
business
tax.
Issue: mode of appeal adopted is
erroneous. RTc did not exercise
appeallte j. Must be rule 41
Held: RTc exercised original j. However,
this was before the effectivity iof 9282.
Now, CTa has appellate j over cases
originally recognized by the RTC
Continue
reading
the
case
SC sustained the CA. In favor of
Lepanto. Assessment dues from condo
owners for safety and maintenance are
not
subject
to
business
tax.
RA
9282:
What are the two instances when CTA
en banc must decide? Remember!!!
1. CBAA decision on the exercise of its
appellate
jurisdiction
involving
assessment and taxation of real
property
originally
decided
by
provincial or city treasurer ( real
property as assessed by the assessor of
the city or municipality having j over
the
real
properties).
If the taxpayer disagrees, pay under
protest. LBAA- Provincial BAA/City BAA
(EOJ
--->
central
BAA
----->
If property is located in a composite
city
or
municipality,
PBAA
If
independent
city,
CBAA
(?)
Then to Central BAA - appellate
jurisdiction
Decision of CBAA in the exercise of its
appellate j is brought before the CTA
en banc. Can their decision be subject
to
motion
for
reconsideration?
2. Decisions, ruling or orders of the RTc
in the exercise of their appellate
jurisdiction. Example, collection case
amounting to 300k, falls under
jurisdiction of mtc. Can be appealed to
the
RTC.
If ruling of RTc in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction, appeal to CTA
division
Remember what decisions may be
subject to motion for reconsideration.
How should the appeal be made or on
what mode of appeal should be
brought?
Rule 42 of the rules of civil procedure:
petitin for review with the .cta in
division. Within 30 days. If petition
brought under rule 42, use 30 days as
provided
in
9282.
1. Of the CIR, COC, RTC of its original,

DTI,
DA,
Finance
Take note that 9282 refers to rule 42 as
to procedure, and not to period.
Be careful on using periods of appeal
(15/30
days
Usually, original to appeallte, 30 days.
From appellate to other motions, 15
days.
For
ordinary
After the decisions rendered by the CTa
en
banc,
what
to
do?
File motion for recon or directly file
with the SC a verified petition
formreview on certiorari under rule 45.
Period to appeal under this rule is 15
days from receipt of notice of
judgment, unless...read rule 45.
Is it mandatory to file a motion a recon
or
new
trial?
No. It is the option of the taxpayer
whether
to
do
so.
Motion for recon on nt but later on
filed a petition for teview with sc,
motion for recon/nt is deemed
abandoned (revised rules of the Cta)
AO
No.
05-11-07
Rule
2.1
Rule
4.2
Why exclusive (in the two cases) AJ of
the
CTA?
Because CTA en banc must decide the
case to the exclusion of all other courts
All the rest of the cases, the original j
must lie either with the RTC or
Read
revised
rules
Amount of tax is necessary to
determine
jurisdiction
of
CTA.
However, assessment is not necessary
to file a criminal case. Reconcile.
If assessment had been issued to the
taxpayer, cannot be increased. If not,
may be increased upon disposition of
criminal case. Bir can file a criminal
case without assessment. But should
determine the amount of tax to
determine the jurisdiction. 1 million
and
more,
CTA
division.
Failure to obey summons, penalty is 2
years imprisonment or fine of 10000.
Mtc
No specified amount - depends upon
the penalty attached to the criminal
violation
Example:
1. FAN 2005 basic amount 350k. 150k.
Total of 500k issued by RD of CDO.
What
to
do
first?
File protest with the RD on or before
feb 4, 2015 because assessment
received on jan 5, 2015. If denied,
motion for recon before the cir or
appeal directly to the cta division.
MR/MNT then en banc. Filed within
within 15 days from mr/mnt to cta en
banc
Protest:
30-30-15

Santos
v.
People
Denial of interloc generally not
appealable and cannot be questioned
by certioari except GADLEJ and inter is
patently erroneous and remedy of
appeal sould not remedy...public
policy... Rule 65 may be availed.
Tax evasion case. Filed with the CTA in
Division. Questined jurisdiction of CTA.
Motion to quash the information. CTA
div denied. Motion for recon denied.
Santos filed motin for extension for
filing
petition
for
review.
CTA en banc denied petition for review.
Has no jurisdiction over interlocutory
orders.
SC: affirmed cta en banc in not
entertaining
mr
for
questioning
decisions
on
interlocutory.
There was no proof of existence of
GADLEJ
in
this
case.
February
13,
2016
Motion for reconsideration is not
mandatory
Case: faustino. GR 141524, 9/2005.
With CTA division before going to CTA
en banc, not mandatory within 15 days.
Then fresh oeriod of 15 days after
decisin on MR to file appeal to CTA en
banc.
Is aggrieved party allowed to go
directly to CTA en banc? Permissive.
Two options either to file directly an
appeal with CTA en banc or file an MR.
If no mr is filed but appeal, done within
15
days.
COC v. Marina Sales GR 183868
11/20/2010
Based on rule 8, 1, petition for review
or
reconsideration
must
be.....mandatory. The word must
clearly indicate the mandatory nature
of filing o MR. Resolution versus
decision.
Basta, mr is mandatory for decisns and
resolutions.
Section 11 aggrieved parrty may file a
MR and no mention as to appeal to the
en
banc.
CTa div to CTA en banc, MR is
mandatory. En banc to SC, not
mandatory because within 15 days from
receipt
of
decision.
203,

228,

222

1. March 18, 2014. FDDA deficiency tax,


400k plus 150k of surcharge and
interest.RD of CDO. April 24, 2014.
warrant of distraint/levy by RD. Did
not mind. RD filed collection case with
MTC. Motion to dismiss, lack of
jurisdiction of MTC of CDO since total
amount
is
550k.
Decide.
RTC, because MTC jurisdiction is 300k is

MTC.
Use
basic
tax.
What if motion is based on BIR RD
should have executed first the WDL
issued to him before filing collection
case?
Deny. BIR can simultaneously exercise
admin and judicial remedies to collect.
Section
205
2. BDO loan 5million, commerical land.
PN annotated before release. ROD
required x to pay doc stamps on pn on
the annotation. Jan 15, 2014 payment.
When loan wa sreleased, 25k was
deducted from amount of loan. Bank
paid same amount to bir. X filed a claim
for refudn due to double payment.
After a year, x did not recieve any reply
for the claim. Petition for review with
MTc of CDO since only 25k. Bir peititon
for lack of jurisdiction. Resolve.
Jurisdiction for refund exclusively lies
with the court of Tax appeals. Grant
motion because mtc cdo has no
jurisdiction.
XYZ corp filed quarter it may 25, 2011,
aug 25, 2011, nov 25, 2011. April 10,
2012, filed final income tax return,
income tax payment of 100k was
reflected. Box indicating amount to be
refunded marked x. April 11, 2014, xyz
filed written clsim for refund with bir
comm. April 14, 2014, petition for
revieww
with
cta.
Bir
mTD
prescription. Xyz said run only starting
april
11,
2014.
Decide.
Section
204
and
229.
Claim for refund 2 years from filing and
payment,
to
commissioner.
GR sec229, within 2 years claim for
refund must be filed with cir.
In case of corporations, GR 117254,
corps to file quarterly with estimated
amounts of tax payments. Reckoning
period of filing starts to run from the
time the corp has determined its tax
liability. Determinatjon of final income
tax liability. Final income tax return.
Because corp filed on april 10, 2012
and filed claim for erefund on april11,
2014. Late for one day. Petition for
review,
late
for
4
days.
Should the commissiner grant the claim
for
refund?
Yes. Even if already prescribed, can

still grant under sec229. The fact that


xyz filed, with appropriate box for
refund has been correctly marked. One
of the exception of 2 year prescriptive
period from actual date of payment.
What if filed after april 15? When would
be
the
reckoning
period?
Counting is at the time of filing
because it is the time when final tax
liability
is
determined.
3. Claim for refund on Feb 17, 2014,
input tax on zero-rated sales for 2012.
Bir did not act. June 17, 2014, client
asked
for
advice.
Has not yet prescribed. As of feb 17,
2014.
Apply
sec112.
192
days,
4. Jurisdiction is determined by the
amount of tax, for criminal case.
5. Assessments, final assessment. Case:
pascor
6. PAN and FAN. Cases when PAN not
required.
7. ABc co vat registered. Dxport sales
of banana chips. 2008 sales, claim for
tax refund march 12, 2010. Bir did not
act. July 1, 2010, abc comp filed an
appeal with cta. Took cognizance
division. Mtd for lack of jurisdiction.
Resolve.
120 days has not yet lapsed. Immature
filing of appeal. But wrong because of
ruling issued as in the case of Aichi.
Where SC said that premature filing is
allowed from period of dec 10, 2003 to
oct 6, 2010. Since filing made on july 1,
2010,
allowed.
GR premature filing will deprive
jurisdiction on CTA. 30 days after lapse
of
120
days
XCPT dec 10, 2003 to oct 6, 2010
8. Decision on protest of an authorized
officer, optin to mr with commissioner
or directly to the cta. M reinv available
only on the first time to protest.
9. If elevated to cir, M recon only, no
reinv.
10. Prescription. Execution of waiver on
the right of pres does not mean
taxpayer relinquished taxpayers right
to invoke prescription. Waiver must be
very
clear.
11. On exceptional cases. Failure to
file, fraudulent, 10 years.