Case Digests - page 5

FACTS:Petitioner filed on 20 April 1989 a protest on the demand/assessment notices issued against it for deficiency withholding tax at source (Swap Transactions and DST for the years 1982 to 1986. On 09 August 2002, respondent issued a final decision on petitioner’s protest withdrawing and cancelling the deficiency withholding tax assessment, but reiterating the deficiency DST assessment and ordering petitioner to pay its tax liabilities within 30 days from receipt of such order. CTA denied petitioner’s petition for review ruling that BPI’s protest and supplemental protest should be considered requests for reinvestigation which tolled the prescriptive period provided by law to collect…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 09 June 2004, respondent received a copy of the Final Assessment Notice dated 17 March 2004 issued by petitioner notifying the former of its internal revenue tax liabilities for the year 1995. Respondent filed a protest to the said notice pleading prescription. In its Answer, petitioner claimed that its right to assess had not yet prescribed because the 1995 income tax return filed by respondent was false and fraudulent for its alleged intentional failure to reflect its true sales. ISSUE(S): Whether or not fraud may be presumed . HELD: NO. The prescriptive period in making an assessment depends…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent filed before the CTA Division a petition for review of petitioner’s Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) showing deficiency VAT for 2007, where there was a finding of underdeclaration of more than 30% of its declared VAT sales. In its 02 April 2014 Decision, the CTA Division ruled that the VAT assessment had prescribed and consequently deemed invalid because petitioner failed to present evidence regarding its allegation of fraud or falsity in the returns. ISSUE(S): Whether or not a false return may be presumed. HELD: YES. When there is a showing that a taxpayer has substantially underdeclared its…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner in a letter protested against the Final Assessment Notice (FAN) issued against it for deficiency income tax and VAT. Thereafter, it received on 04 August 2005 respondent’s Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) denying the protest, apprising petitioner of its tax liabilities, and requesting the immediate payment thereof. It filed a Letter of Reconsideration on 01 September 2005. After respondent demanded payment of its tax liabilities in a Preliminary Collection Letter, petitioner filed a petition for review before the CTA on 20 October 2005. CTA dismissed the petition for being filed out of time. ISSUE(S): Whether or not a…

Keep Reading

FACTS: After an audit investigation conducted by the BIR, respondent Commissioner issued an assessment for deficiency income tax arising from the disallowance of the item on salaries, bonuses and allowances as part of the deductible business expense since petitioner failed to subject the same to withholding taxes. This assessment was covered by a Formal Assessment Notice dated 01 February 1991 which, respondent alleges, was sent to petitioner through registered mail on 06 February 1991. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent’s right to assess and collect petitioner’s alleged deficiency income tax is barred by prescription. HELD: YES. An assessment is made within…

Keep Reading

FACTS:Petitioner previously issued against respondent a Pre-Assessment Notice and Details of Discrepancies on 12 February 2003, an Assessment Notice indicating a deficiency income tax assessment on 14 April 2003 and a Preliminary Collection Letter requesting GJM to pay said deficiency income tax for the taxable year 1999, the last one addressed to GJM’s former address in Makati. On 18 August 2003, although the BIR sent a Final Notice Before Seizure to respondent’s address in Cavite, the latter claimed that it did not receive the same. On 08 December 2003, GJM received a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy from the BIR.…

Keep Reading