Legal Chyme - page 6

FACTS: Upon finding some discrepancies between petitioner’s Income Tax Returns (ITR) and VAT Returns, the CIR informed MEDICARD and issued a Letter Notice (LN) dated 20 September 2007. Subsequently, the CIR also issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) against petitioner for deficiency VAT. On 04 January 2008, petitioner received CIR’s FAN dated 10 December 2007 for alleged deficiency VAT for taxable year 2006 inclusive of penalties. ISSUE(S): Whether or not an examination of a taxpayer can be undertaken without a Letter of Authority (LOA). HELD: NO. An LOA is premised on the fact that the examination of a taxpayer who…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Basilan Estates, Inc. filed on 24 March 1954 its income tax returns for 1953. On 26 February 1959, the BIR assessed it a deficiency income tax and 25% surtax on unreasonably accumulated profits for 1953. Upon non-payment of the assessed amount, a warrant of distraint and levy the execution of which was held and a constructive embargo was imposed instead. Its request for reinvestigation was not given course for failure to waive the period of prescription, and the company was served notice on 02 December 1960 that the warrant of distraint and levy would be executed. The corporation filed…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent, in a letter dated 19 April 1961, protested against the assessment issued by petitioner in a letter dated 21 February 1961 on its retained and accumulated surplus pertaining to the taxable year 1955 and sought reconsideration thereof. On 21 February 1963, respondent received a letter dated 18 February 1963 from petitioner calling the attention of the respondent to its outstanding and unpaid tax and thereby requesting for the payment of the same within five (5) days from receipt of the said letter. Believing the aforesaid letter to be a denial of its protest, respondent corporation filed a petition…

Keep Reading

FACTS:Respondent received the following notices issued by the BIR relative to the latter’s conduct of an investigation of the former’s internal revenue taxes for taxable year 2005: (1) an undated Notice of Informal Conference; (2) a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) dated 28 May 2008; and (3) a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD)/Formal Assessment Notice (FAN); and (4) a copy of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) after respondent filed on 25 July 2008 its protest against the FLD/FAN. Respondent on 29 July 2010 assailed the validity of the FDDA in a petition for review before the…

Keep Reading

FACTS:After being informed through the sworn statement of private respondent of the failure of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to withhold the 15% final tax on interest earnings and/or yields from the money placements of petitioner with the said bank, the BIR conducted its audit and investigation of petitioner’s internal revenue tax liabilities. Subsequently, the BIR in a letter dated 08 August 1986 requested petitioner to settle its liability for taxes on the interests earned by its money placements with PNB and which PNB did not withhold. Petitioner repeatedly made an offer to compromise its tax liability all of which were…

Keep Reading

FACTS:On 09 June 2004, respondent received a copy of the Final Assessment Notice (FAN) dated 17 March 2004 issued by petitioner. Said notice assessed that respondent had a tax deficiency, providing a tabular computation of the internal revenue tax liabilities of the year 1995. It also states: The complete details covering the aforementioned discrepancies established during the investigation of this case are shown in the accompanying Annex 1 of this Notice. The 50% surcharge and 20% interest have been imposed pursuant of Sections 248 and 249(B) of the NIRC, as amended. Please note, however, that the interest and the total…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 02 February 2001, petitioner filed an administrative claim for refund with BIR, alleging that the amount representing the 5% final tax on the gross sales of its properties and some of its installed machineries and equipment was erroneously paid. Respondent did not act on said claim, prompting petitioner to file a petition for review before the CTA on 09 September 2002. The CTA Second Division denied petitioner’s claim for refund, instead assessing 6% capital gains tax on the sale of equipment, machineries, and buildings. ISSUE(S): Whether or not CTA has the power to make an assessment at the…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 30 September 2004, respondent filed a claim for refund/credit of input VAT for the period 01 July 2002 to 30 September 2002 with the petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue. On the same date, respondent filed a Petition for Review with the CTA for the refund/credit of the same input VAT. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent’s administrative and judicial claims for tax refund/credit were filed within the two-year prescriptive period. HELD: NO. The administrative and the judicial claims were simultaneously filed on 30 September 2004. Obviously, respondent did not wait for the decision of the CIR or the lapse…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner corporation, a VAT-registered taxpayer, filed with the BIR its VAT return for the first quarter of 1992. It alleged that it likewise filed with the BIR the corresponding application for the refund/credit of its input VAT on its purchases of capital goods and on its  zero-rated sales. When its application for refund/credit remained unresolved by the BIR, petitioner corporation filed on 20 April 1994 its petition for Review with the CTA. A review of the records reveal that petitioner corporation’s application for refund/credit of its input VAT for the first quarter of 1992 was not only unsigned by…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 06 October 2005, respondent filed with the BIR an application for the refund or credit of accumulated unutilized creditable input taxes. It filed on 21 July 2006 a Petition for Review with the CTA, claiming inaction on the part of the CIR. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent’s judicial claim for refund or tax credit was timely filed. HELD: NO. The taxpayer can file an appeal in one of two ways: (1) file the judicial claim within thirty days after the Commissioner denies the claim within the 120-day period; or (2) file the judicial claim within thirty days from…

Keep Reading