CIR v Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc.; G.R. No. 169225; 17 Nov 2010

in Legal Chyme by

FACTS:
On 04 November 1993, respondent received a tracer letter demanding payment of alleged deficiency income and expanded withholding taxes for the taxable year 1989. It filed its protest letter against the deficiency tax assessments on 03 December 1993.¬†On 07 November 2001, respondent received a letter advising it of petitioner’s decision denying its protest on the ground that the protest was filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period prescribed in Section 229 of the NIRC.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not respondent’s request for reinvestigation suspended the prescriptive period to collect deficiency taxes.

HELD:
NO. The mere filing of a protest letter which is not granted does not operate to suspend the running of the period to collect taxes. In the case at bar, the records show that respondent filed a request for reinvestigation on 03 December 1993, however, there is no indication that petitioner acted upon respondent’s protest. There is nothing in the record that would show what action was taken in connection with the protest of the respondent. In fact, it did not hear anything from petitioner relative to its protest, not until eight years later when the final decision was issued. In other words, the request for reinvestigation was not granted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.