Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR L-23501, 16, May 1967)
En Banc, Reyes JBL (J): 8 concur
Facts: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, through the Director of Regional District 3, issued a letter dated 18 April 1961, to Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation, assessing against the latter the sum of P5,007.00 as advance sales tax on an automobile which it purchased from a tax-exempt individual, plus P300.00 as compromise penalty, or a total of P5,307.00. Believing itself not liable therefor, the Company, through counsel, disputed the above assessment in a letter dated 15 May 1961, and requested that the same be cancelled and/or withdrawn. Meanwhile, BIR Assistant Regional Director Toledo followed up said assessment with a demand letter dated 21 June 1961, to which the Company replied, calling the former’s attention to its letter of 15 May 1961 which contested the assessment and has not yet been acted upon. The Commissioner denied the company’s request for cancellation and/or withdrawal of the assessment in a letter dated 17 August 1962, which was sent to the Company. The record does not, however, show when the Company received this letter of denial; but, in a letter dated 28 September 1962, which the Commissioner received on 1 October 1962, the Company reiterated its request that the said assessment be cancelled and/or withdrawn. In the meantime, the BIR record of the Company was transmitted, on 24 September 1962 to its Collection Branch for collection by summary remedies; and pursuant thereto, Regional Director Tagle sent directly to the Company (not to its counsel) another demand letter dated 25 September 1962, enclosing therewith a copy of the letter of denial of 17 August 17, 1962. On 18 October 1962, the Compnay answered the letter, and on 23 January 1963, the Company, through its counsel, further moved to reconsider the denial of its original request for cancellation and/or withdrawal of the assessment. On 22 July 1963, the Commissioner again denied the Company’s requests (of 28 September 1961 and 23 January 1963) for reconsideration of the assessment; which letter of denial, the Company received on 12 August 1963.
On 11 September 1963, the Company filed its petition for review in the Tax Court, (CTA Case 1450) disputing the legality of the imposition of advance sales tax on the purchase and subsequent sale of the said automobile. The Commissioner moved to dismiss on ground that the petition was filed beyond the 30-day period fixed in Section 11 of Republic Act 1125. On 8 August 1964, the Tax Court, after finding that petitioner consumed 33 days in filing its petition for review from the date of receipt of the Commissioner’s ruling on the disputed assessment, issued its resolution, sustaining the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss. Not satisfied, the Company appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed resolution; with costs against the Company.
1. Nature of the letters
The Commissioner’s letter-assessment of 18 April 1961 became a “disputed” assessment when the Company requested for the cancellation and/or withdrawal of the same in its letter of 15 May 1961 (St. Stephen’s Association vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 104 Phil., 314). The Commissioner’s letter of 17 August 1962, denying the Company’s request for cancellation constitutes the decision on the “disputed” assessment, which is appealable to the Tax Court as contemplated under Sections 7 and 11 of Republic Act 1125. The Company’s letter of 28 September 1962 which the Commissioner received on 1 October 1962 is a mere pro-forma request for reconsideration of the letter-decision of 17 August 1962 and did not adduce new facts or arguments. The Commissioner’s letter of 22 July 1963 which the Company received on 12 August 1963 is the resolution on the said request for reconsideration (North Camarines Lumber Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, GR L-12353, 30 September 1960).
2. Letter-decision of 17 August 1962 touched upon allegation of 15 May 1961 letter
The contention, that the letter-decision of 17 August 1962 did not touch on its allegation in its preceding letter (of 15 May 1961) that the automobile had passed through three previous non- tax exempt owners before reaching the Company’s hands, is not tenable. The Commissioner’s letter expressly declared that, “According to the findings of our examiners, your client is the first non-tax exempt entity to acquire ownership over the car in question”; and these words directly contradicted and overruled the Company’s pretense.
3. Petition properly dismissed; Period of appeal jurisdictional and non-extendible
Considering that the period to appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to the Tax Court under Republic Act 1125 is jurisdictional and non-extendible, and that a taxpayer may not delay indefinitely a tax assessment by reiterating his original defenses over and over again, without substantial variation, the Tax Court correctly dismissed the petition for review filed by the Company.
Pingback: Taxation Law II – Haystack | Berne's Law Notes