TAXATION LAW II | CIR v. FMF Development Corp. G.R. No. 167765, June 30, 2008
CIR v. FMF Development Corp.
G.R. No. 167765, June 30, 2008
FACTS Petitioner contends that the waiver was validly executed mainly because it complied with Section 222 (b) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Petitioner points out that the waiver was in writing, signed by the taxpayer and the Commissioner, and executed within the three-year prescriptive period. Petitioner also argues that the requirements. On the other hand, respondent counters that the waiver is void because it did not comply with RMO No. 20-90. Respondent assails the waiver because (1) it was not signed by the Commissioner despite the fact that the assessment involves an amount of more than P1 million; (2) there is no stated date of acceptance by the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative; and (3) it was not furnished a copy of the BIR-accepted waiver. The basic questions to be resolved therefore are: (1) Is the waiver valid? and (2) Did the three-year period to assess internal revenue taxes already prescribe?
HELD. Yes. If before the expiration of the time prescribed in Section 203 for the assessment of the tax, both the Commissioner and the taxpayer have agreed in writing to its assessment after such time, the tax may be assessed within the period agreed upon. Petitioner cannot rely on its invocation of the rule that the government cannot be estopped by the mistakes of its revenue officers in the enforcement of RMO No. 20-90 because the law on prescription should be interpreted in a way conducive to bringing about the beneficent purpose of affording protection to the taxpayer within the contemplation of the Commission which recommended the approval of the law.