TAX1.29 Republic v.

Aquias

FACTS:
1. June 12, 1954- BIR assessed deficiency percentage taxes for the years 1952-1953.
2. August 9, 1954- Aquias requested a reinvestigation which was granted September 2, 1954.
3. During the reinvestigation, neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared.
4. November 21, 1960- the BIR issued a WDL but was not executed due to the fact that the defendant's counsel requested
that the same be lifted on the ground that the plaintiff's right to collect taxes thru civil remedies either by distraint and
levy or by judicial action has prescribed and if not, a reinvestigation be conducted.
5. BIR denied the defendant's request and reiterated its demand for payment. The demand nor the final decision of the
plaintiff were not contested. However, defendant did not pay.

ISSUE: Whether the present action for collection of the deficiency taxes had prescribed when it was filed on May 2, 1962.

RULING: No. The assessment was made on June 12, 1954. The suit for collection was filed on May 2, 1962 or 7 years, 10 months
and 20 days. From this, however, should be deducted the period during which prescription was interrupted. The interruption
began on September 2, 1954, when the appellant's request for reinvestigation was granted, since the grant in effect tied
the hands of the appellee from filing the action.

TAX2.29 BPI v. Commissioner

FACTS: same with 12.19

ISSUE: Whether BPI’s protest constitutes a request for reinvestigation which could have suspended the running of the period to
collect.

RULING: No. BPI’s protest did not constitute a request for reinvestigation which could have suspended the running of the period
to collect. Even if it was considered as a request for reinvestigation, it may only be validly suspend the running of the period,
when it has been granted by the CIR. Such grant need not be express, but may be implied from the acts of the Commissioner or
his authorized representative in response to the request for reinvestigation.

TAX3.29 People v. Duque

- NOT TAX RELATED

TAX4.29 Lim et al v. CA

Facts:
1. Spouses Lim were engaged in the dealership of various household appliances. The NBI conducted a raid seized business
and accounting records which served as bases for an investigation undertaken by the BIR.
2. It was found out that the ITRs filed by the spouses Lim for 1958 and 1959 were false or fraudulent. Acting Commissioner
assessed deficiency income taxes.
3. Spouses requested a re-investigation. BIR expressed willingness on the following conditions: (1) written waiver of the
defense of prescription; (2) depositing ½ of the assessment and securing the other ½ with a surety bond. Spouses Lim
refused to comply.
4. The final notice and demand was served. BIR referred the matter to the Manila’s Fiscal’s Office for investigation and
prosecution. 4 criminal informations were filed against petitioners for violation of NIRC.
5. RTC Manila found petitioners guilty. CA affirmed RTC.

Issue: When does the prescriptive period for the filing of criminal action begin to run.

Ruling: From the day of the commission of the violation of law, or the discovery thereof. There must be a judicial proceeding for
the investigation and punishment of the crime in addition to the fact of discovery before the 5-year prescriptive period begins to
run. The referral of the case to the public prosecutor for preliminary investigation constitutes the “institution of judicial
proceedings” contemplated by the law.

TAX5.29 Aguinaldo Industries Corp v. CIR

***Cannot relate the facts to prescription***

If the nature of the crime is such that it could only be committed after service of notice and demand for payment of the deficiency
taxes upon the taxpayer, like failure to file return and to supply accurate information, the prescriptive period shall be counted
from the date when the final notice and demand is served on the taxpayer. This is so because prior to the receipt of the letter-
assessment, no violation has yet been committed by the taxpayer. The crime committed only after its receipt coupled with the
willful refusal to pay the taxes due within the allotted time.

TAX6.29 Tupaz v. Ulep

FACTS: same with 12.18

ISSUE: Whether the government’s right to assess has prescribed

RULING: No. see book page 707