CIR v Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc.; G.R. No. 213943; 22 Mar 2017

in Legal Chyme by

BIR in a letter dated 30 June 2006 and received by respondent on 10 August 2006 invited the latter to reconcile the deficiencies in its VAT returns for taxable year 2004. In connection thereto, respondent executed three waivers of the statute of limitation, consenting to the assessment and/or collection of taxes for 2004 which may be found before or after the lapse of the period of limitations fixed by the NIRC.

The first waiver was executed on 21 March 2007 and received on 23 March 2007. The second was executed on 05 June 2007 and accepted on 08 June 2007. The third was executed on 12 December 2007 and accepted on 20 December 2007.

The first and second waivers were executed in three copies, but the office accepting were not provided with their respective third copies, as these were still attached to the docket of the case. The third waiver was not executed in three copies.

Whether or not the three-year prescriptive period was extended.

NO. The failure to provide the office accepting the waiver with the third copy violates RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01. therefore, the first waiver was not properly executed and thus could not have extended the three-year prescriptive period to assess and collect taxes for the year 2004. To make matters worse, the CIR committed the same error in the execution of the second waver. The third waiver still failed to extend the prescriptive period because it was not executed in three copies.

The defects in the waivers resulted to the non-extension of the period to assess or collect taxes, and made the assessments issued by the BIR beyond the three-year prescriptive period void.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


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