City Treasurer of Manila v. Philippine beverage Partners Inc. G.R. No. 233556, September 11, 2019  A taxpayer facing an assessment issued by the local treasurer may protest it and alternatively: (1) appeal the assessment in court, or (2) pay the tax, and thereafter, seek a refund.  The issuance of a notice of assessment is mandatory before the local treasurer may collect deficiency taxes from the taxpayer. Sec. Drilon v. Mayor Lim,  G.R. NO. 112497, August 4, 1994, Manila Tax Ordinance  Lower courts have jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of laws, this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. City of Manila, GR No. 156252, June 27, 2006  (validity of Manila Tax Ordinance) Failure to follow the procedure in enactment of tax measures renders the same null and void; Respon-...

City of Manila v. Cosmos Bottling Corporation,  G.R. No. 196681, 27 June 2018  FACTS Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8011, which amended Ordinance No. 7794, were failed to comply with the required publication for three (3) consecutive days. Whether they are valid. HELD. NO. Ordinance Nos. 7988 and 8011, which amended Ordinance No. 7794, were null and void for failure to comply with the required publication for three (3) consecutive days and thus cannot be the basis for the collection of business taxes. Lawyal (@lawyalstudent)

City Treasurer of Manila v. Philippine beverage Partners Inc.  G.R. No. 233556, September 11, 2019  A taxpayer facing an assessment issued by the local treasurer may protest it and alternatively: (1) appeal the assessment in court, or (2) pay the tax, and thereafter, seek a refund.  The issuance of a notice of assessment is mandatory before the local treasurer may collect deficiency taxes from the taxpayer. Lawyal (@lawyalstudent)

British American Tobacco v. Camacho,  562 SCRA 511 (2008)  FACTS T his petition for review assails the validity of: (1) Section 145 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as recodified by Republic Act (RA) 8424; (2) RA 9334, which further amended Section 145 of the NIRC on January 1, 2005; (3) Revenue Regulations Nos. 1-97, 9-2003, and 22-2003; and (4) Revenue Memorandum Order No. 6-2003. Petitioner argues that the said provisions are violative of the equal protection and uniformity clauses of the Constitution. Whether the CTA has jurisdiction. HELD no. Where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a law, or a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The petition for injunction filed by petitioner before the RTC is a direct attack on the constitutionality of Section 145(C) of the NIRC, as amended, and the validity of its...

CIR v. Azucena Reyes, G.R. No. 159694, January 27, 2006  FACTS In the present case, Reyes was not informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment of estate taxes had been made. She was merely notified of the findings by the CIR, who had simply relied upon the provisions of former Section 229 prior to its amendment by Republic Act (RA) No. 8424, otherwise known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997. Whether the assessment against the estate is valid. HELD Under the present provisions of the Tax Code and pursuant to elementary due process, t axpayers must be informed in writing of the law and the facts upon which a tax assessment is based; otherwise, the assessment is void. Being invalid, the assessment cannot in turn be used as a basis for the perfection of a tax compromise.  Lawyal (@lawyalstudent)

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 t...

CIR v. Enron Subic Power Corp.  G.R. No. 166387, January 19, 2009  FACTS [the CIR] merely issued a formal assessment and indicated therein the supposed tax, surcharge, interest and compromise penalty due thereon. The Revenue Officers of the [the CIR] in the issuance of the Final Assessment Notice did not provide Enron with the written bases of the law and facts on which the subject assessment is based. [The CIR] did not bother to explain how it arrived at such an assessment. Moreso, he failed to mention the specific provision of the Tax Code or rules and regulations which were not complied with by Enron. Whether the assessment in question was void. HELD. No. A taxpayer must be informed in writing of the legal and factual bases of the tax assessment made against him. The law requires that the legal and factual bases of the assessment be stated in the formal letter of demand and assessment notice. Here, in view of the absence of a fair opportunity for Enron to be inform...

BPI v. CIR,  G.R. No. 174942, MARCH 7, 2008 FACTS The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) seeks a review of the Decision dated 15 August 2006 and the Resolution dated 5 October 2006, both of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA or tax court), which ruled that BPI is liable for the deficiency documentary stamp tax (DST) on its cabled instructions to its foreign correspondent bank and that prescription had not yet set in against the government. As applied to the present case, the CIR had three (3) years from the time he issued assessment notices to BPI on 7 April 1989 or until 6 April 1992 within which to collect the deficiency DST. However, it was only on 9 August 2002 that the CIR ordered BPI to pay the deficiency. The OSG cites the case of Collector of Internal Revenue v. Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company, et al. 7 (Suyoc case) in support of its argument that BPI is already estopped from raising the defense of prescription in view of its repeated requests for reinvestigation which ...

RCBC v. CIR,  G.R. No. 168498, April 24, 2007 FACTS Petitioner reiterates its claim that its former counsel’s failure to file petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals within the period set by Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC) was excusable. It alleges that the counsel’s secretary misplaced the Resolution hence the counsel was not aware of its issuance and that it had become final and executory.  In the instant case, the Commissioner failed to act on the disputed assessment within 180 days from date of submission of documents. Thus, petitioner opted to file a petition for review before the Court of Tax Appeals. Unfortunately, the petition for review was filed out of time, i.e., it was filed more than 30 days after the lapse of the 180-day period. Consequently, it was dismissed by the Court of Tax Appeals for late filing. Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration or make an appeal; Whether the the disputed assessment have bec...

CIR v. Phil. Global Communications,  G.R. No. 167146, October 31, 2006 Facts The CTA ruled on the primary issue of prescription and found it unnecessary to decide the issues on the validity and propriety of the assessment. It decided that the protest letters filed by the respondent cannot constitute a request for reinvestigation, hence, they cannot toll the running of the prescriptive period to collect the assessed deficiency income tax. Thus, since more than three years had lapsed from the time Assessment Notice No. 000688-80-7333 was issued in 1994, the CIR’s right to collect the same has prescribed in conformity with Section 269 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 (Tax Code of 1977). In this case, was presumably issued on 14 April 1994 since the respondent did not dispute the CIR’s claim. Therefore, the BIR had until 13 April 1997. However, as there was no Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy served on the respondents nor any judicial proceedings initiated by the BIR,...

Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. CIR,  G.R. NO. 162852, December 16, 2004 FACTS The first assigned error relates to the jurisdiction of the CTA over the issues in this case. The Court of Appeals ruled that only decisions of the BIR denying a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation may be appealed to the CTA. Since the petitioner did not file a request for reinvestigation or reconsideration within thirty (30) days, the assessment notices became final and unappealable. The petitioner now argue that the case was brought to the CTA because the warrant of distraint or levy was illegally issued and that no assessment was issued because it was based on an invalid waiver of the statutes of limitations. Whether the CTA has jurisdiction to determine if the warrant of distraint and levy issued by the BIR. HELD YES. Appellate jurisdiction of the CTA is not limited to cases which involve decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on matters relating to assessments or refunds; ...

San Agustin v. CIR,  G.R. no. 138485, September 10, 2001 Facts petitioner submits that The filing of a claim for refund [is] not essential before the filing of the petition for review. Held Petitioner correct. To hold that the taxpayer has lost the right to appeal from the ruling on the disputed assessment but must prosecute his appeal under Section 306 of the Tax Code, which requires a taxpayer to file a claim for refund of the taxes paid as a condition precedent to his right to appeal, would in effect require of him to go through a useless and needless ceremony that would only delay the disposition of the case—the law should not be interpreted as to result in absurdities. Lawyal (@lawyalstudent)

CIR v. Pascor Realty & Development Corp.,  G.R. no. 128315, June 29, 1999 Facts On March 1, 1995, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed a criminal complaint before the Department of Justice against the PRDC, its President Rogelio A. Dio, and its Treasurer Virginia S. Dio, alleging evasion of taxes in the total amount of P10,513,671.00. Private respondents PRDC, et al. filed an Urgent Request for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation disputing the tax assessment and tax liability. On March 23, 1995, private respondents received a subpoena from the DOJ in connection with the criminal complaint filed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (BIR) against them. In a letter dated May 17, 1995, the CIR denied the urgent request for reconsideration/reinvestigation of the private respondents on the ground that no formal assessment has as yet been issued by the Commissioner. Private respondents then elevated the Decision of the CIR dated May 17, 1995 to the Court of Tax Appeals on a pe...