BDO vs.

Republic

Facts:

Under Section 4 of the NIRC, an interpretative ruling can be issued by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue.

Issue: Explain how this ruling can be assailed?

Held:

The matter can be brought to the Secretary of Finance. The power to interpret the provisions of
this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Commissioner,
subject to review by the Secretary of Finance

Philippine American Life vs. Secretary of Finance

Facts:

Secretary of Finance rendered decision in the exercise of its power of review under Sec. 4 of the NIRC

Issue: How can the decision of the Secretary of Finance be assailed?

Held:

The decision can be brought to the Court of Tax Appeals. Under Section 7(a)(1) of RA 1125,
decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of
internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising
under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Even though the provision suggests that it only covers rulings of the Commissioner, it is held to be
sufficient enough to include appeals from the Secretary’s review under Section 4 of the NIRC. To leave
undetermined the mode of appeal from the Secretary of Finance would be an injustice to taxpayers
prejudiced by his adverse rulings.

Team Energy vs. CIR

Facts:

Team Energy complied with the previous rulings of CIR but CIR reversed its decision when Team
Energy is claiming for refund. Hence,CIR asserts the necessity of submission of the quarterly return of
the respondent to prove its entitlement to the refund pursuant to Sec 76 of NIRC

Issue: Should the taxpayer acting in good faith be made to suffer for adhering to rulings subsequently
reversed by the CIR?
Held:

No. Any revocation, modification or reversal of any of the rules or regulations or any of the
rulings or circulars promulgated by the CIR shall not be given retroactive application if the revocation,
modification or reversal will be prejudicial to taxpayers, who relied thereon in good faith

BDO vs. Republic, January 13, 2015

Facts:

Petitioners argued that assessment made by the BIR were already prescribed

Issue: When can the three-year prescriptive period under Section 203 of the 1997 National Internal
Revenue Code to assess and collect internal revenue taxes be extended?

Held:

The three (3)-year prescriptive period under is extended to 10 years in cases of (a) fraudulent
returns; (b) false returns with intent to evade tax; and (c) failure to file a return, to be computed from
the time of discovery of the falsity, fraud, or omission.

CIR vs Metro Star Superama, December 8, 2010

Facts:

BIR did no issue PAN

Issue: May the BIR dispense with PAN?

Held:

No. Except as provided under Section 228, NIRC, the absence of PAN is fatal in the assessment of
a taxpayer. It is a due process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment and cannot be
dispense with.

In the following cases, PAN is not required:

(a) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the result of mathematical error in the computation of the
tax as appearing on the face of the return; or

(b) When a discrepancy has been determined between the tax withheld and the amount actually
remitted by the withholding agent; or
(c) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a refund or tax credit of excess creditable withholding tax for a
taxable period was determined to have carried over and automatically applied the same amount
claimed against the estimated tax liabilities for the taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding taxable
year; or

(d) When the excise tax due on exciseable articles has not been paid; or

(e) When the article locally purchased or imported by an exempt person, such as, but not limited to,
vehicles, capital equipment, machineries and spare parts, has been sold, traded or transferred to non-
exempt persons.

CIR vs. United Salvage and Towage, July 2, 2014

Facts:

The BIR issued a FAN against a taxpayer for deficiency taxes. Only the resulting interest,
surcharge and penalty were provided with legal basis.

Issue: Is the assessment valid?

Held:

No. Section 228 of NIRC provides that the taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the law and
the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment is void

Fishwealth Canning vs. CIR, January 21, 2010

Facts:

After Court of Tax Appeals issued a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment, Petitioner filed a
Letter of Reconsideration with the CIR instead of appealing the same to the Court of Tax Appeals within
30 days

Issue: Can a taxpayer file a motion for reconsideration of the denial of the administrative protest?

Held:

Yes. A motion for reconsideration, however, does not toll the 30-day period to appeal to the
CTA.
 Lascona Land vs. CIR, March 5, 2012

Facts:

the protest is not acted upon by the CIR,

Issue: what are the options of the taxpayer?

Held:

The taxpayer has two options:

(1) file a petition for review with the CTA within 30 days after the expiration of the 180-day period; or

(2) await the final decision of the Commissioner on the disputed assessments and appeal such final
decision to the CTA within 30 days after receipt of a copy of such decision. These options are mutually
exclusive and resort to one bars the application of the other.

Allied Banking vs. CIR

Facts:

In the examination conducted by the revenue officials against the corporate taxpayer in 2010,
the BIR issued a final assessment notice and demand letter which states: "It is requested that the above
deficiency tax be paid immediately upon receipt hereof, inclusive of penalties incident to delinquency.
This is our final decision based on investigation. If you disagree, you may appeal this final decision within
thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, otherwise said deficiency tax assessment shall become final,
executory and demandable." The assessment was immediately appealed by the taxpayer to the Court of
Tax Appeals, without filing its protest against the assessment and without a denial thereof by the BIR.

Issue: If you were the judge, would your deny the petition for review filed by the taxpayer and consider
the case as prematurely filed?

Held:

No. It is an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies when the language
used and the tenor of the FAN and demand letter led the taxpayer to believe that such was the final
decision of the CIR on a previously disputed assessment. Any doubt in the interpretation in the words
used in the FAN should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer, and not the CIR who caused the confusion.

BPI vs. CIR,

Facts:

BPI, through its counsel, filed a protest letter6 requesting for the reinvestigation and/or
reconsideration of the assessment for lack of legal and factual bases
Issue: Distinguish request for reconsideration from request for reinvestigation.

Held:

A request for reconsideration refers to a plea for a re-evaluation of an assessment on the basis
of existing records without need of additional evidence. It may involve both a question of fact or of law
or both. A request for reinvestigation refers to a plea for re-evaluation of an assessment on the basis of
newly-discovered or additional evidence that a taxpayer intends to present in the reinvestigation. It may
also involve a question of fact or law or both. As reinvestigation will take more time than a
reconsideration, this justifies why the former can suspend the running of the statute of limitations on
collection of the assessed tax, while the latter cannot.

Commissioner of Customs vs. Marina Sales

Facts:

Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration before the CTA Division, the taxpayer immediately
appealed the case to the CTA En Banc.

Issue: Did the CTA En Banc acquire jurisdiction over the petition?

Held:

No. Under Revised Rules of Court of Tax Appeals, filing of MR is mandatory, not merely
directory. The litigant must sufficiently show that it sought prior reconsideration or moved for a new
trial with the concerned CTA division

City of Manila vs. Cuerdo, February 4, 2014

Facts:

The CA ruled that since appellate jurisdiction over private respondents’ complaint for tax refund,
which was filed with the RTC, is vested in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), pursuant to its expanded
jurisdiction

Issue: Does the CTA have certiorari powers?

Held:

Yes. Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law and that judicial power includes the duty of
the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction (GADALEJ) on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
CTA, being a lower court established by law, thus has the power to determine whether or not there has
been GADALEJ, which is the essence of certiorari.

Angeles City vs. Angeles City Electric Corporation

Facts:

RTC issues writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Angeles City and its City Treasurer from
levying, selling, and disposing the properties of AEC

Issue: May the CTA validly enjoin the collection of taxes?

Held:

As a rule, no court has the authority to issue an injunction to restrain the collection of taxes of
any national internal revenue tax. The CTA may, however, at any stage of the proceedings, suspend or
restrain the collection of taxes when in its opinion the collection of the tax may jeopardize the interest
of the government and/or taxpayer. In this case, the taxpayer is required either to deposit the amount
claimed or to file a surety bond for not more than double the amount. The said provision applies only to
national internal revenue taxes. Thus, the general prohibition on injunction against the collection of
taxes does not apply to local taxes. The Local Government Code does not specifically prohibit an
injunction enjoining the collection of taxes