Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • School of Ants: North Camarines vs. CIR

    Transféré par

    Mary Jean C. Borja
    1 vues2 pages
    The petitioner sold logs to a company that agreed to pay the sales taxes, but failed to do so. The tax authority then required the petitioner to pay the unpaid taxes. The petitioner filed two requests for reconsideration that were denied and then filed an appeal, but it was 33 days after receiving the initial demand for payment, exceeding the 30-day limit. The petitioner argued the 30-day period should count from when the second reconsideration request was denied, not the initial payment demand date. The court held that this argument was untenable and would allow taxpayers to delay tax assessments indefinitely, which would be detrimental to the government.

    Description originale:

    Reviewer

    Titre original

    Insurance

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The petitioner sold logs to a company that agreed to pay the sales taxes, but failed to do so. The tax authority then required the petitioner to pay the unpaid taxes. The petitioner filed two requests for reconsideration that were denied and then filed an appeal, but it was 33 days after receiving the initial demand for payment, exceeding the 30-day limit. The petitioner argued the 30-day period should count from when the second reconsideration request was denied, not the initial payment demand date. The court held that this argument was untenable and would allow taxpayers to delay tax assessments indefinitely, which would be detrimental to the government.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    1 vues2 pages

    School of Ants: North Camarines vs. CIR

    Transféré par

    Mary Jean C. Borja
    The petitioner sold logs to a company that agreed to pay the sales taxes, but failed to do so. The tax authority then required the petitioner to pay the unpaid taxes. The petitioner filed two requests for reconsideration that were denied and then filed an appeal, but it was 33 days after receiving the initial demand for payment, exceeding the 30-day limit. The petitioner argued the 30-day period should count from when the second reconsideration request was denied, not the initial payment demand date. The court held that this argument was untenable and would allow taxpayers to delay tax assessments indefinitely, which would be detrimental to the government.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 2

    School of Ants

    Sunday, July 8, 2012

    North Camarines vs. CIR


    NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER CO., INC. v. CIR
    GR No. L-12353, September 30, 1960
    109 PHIL 511
    FACTS: The petitioner sold more than 2M boardfeet of logs to General
    Lumber Co. with the agreement that the
    latter would pay the sales taxes. The CIR, upon consultation officially
    advised the parties that the bureau
    interposes no objection so long as the tax due shall be covered by a
    surety. General Lumber complied, but later
    failed, with the surety, to pay the tax liabilities, and so the respondent
    collector required the petitioner to pay
    thru a letter dated August 30, 1955. Twice did the petitioner filed a
    request for reconsideration before finally
    submitting the denied request for appeal before the Court of Tax Appeals.
    The CTA dismissed the appeal as it
    was clearly filed out of time. The petitioner had consumed thirty-three
    days from the receipt of the demand,
    before filing the appeal. Petitioner argued that in computing the 30-day
    period in perfecting the appeal the letter
    of the respondent Collector dated January 30, 1956, denying the second
    request for reconsideration, should be
    considered as the final decision contemplated in Section 7, and not the
    letter of demand dated August 30,
    1955.
    ISSUE: Is the contention of the petitioner tenable?
    HELD: No. This contention is untenable. We cannot countenance that
    theory that would make the
    commencement of the statutory 30-day period solely dependent on the
    will of the taxpayer and place the latter
    in a position to put off indefinitely and at his convenience the finality of a
    tax assessment. Such an absurd
    procedure would be detrimental to the interest of the Government, for
    "taxes are the lifeblood of the
    government, and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious
    need."

    cLutz Mac at 10:42 PM


    Share

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    ‹ Home ›
    View web version

    Powered by Blogger.

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi