267.

Sambrano v CTA

FACTS: Respondent Collector of Internal Revenue served on petitioner Santiago Sambrano a

revised assessment of his alleged income, percentage and 'residence tax liabilities for the tax
years 1945 to 1948. Sambrano executed a chattel mortgage on 67 of his TPU buses to secure
the payment of his tax obligations. Sambrano later on contended that the assessment made by
the CIR to him was made after the period in the law allowing assessments has expired.

ISSUE: Whether the assessments are void

RULING: NO. The filing of a chattel mortgage to secure the tax obligation is tantamount to a
written waiver of the statute of limitations
268. Republic v Lopez

FACTS: Lopez filed his ITR and was assessed by the BIR demanding payment of P200k++.
Lopez requested for reconsideration which resulted in a reduction of the assessment to P20k++.
Without settling his liability, Lopez asked for another reinvestigation. BIR assessed an additional
P6k++ deficiency income tax. Again, Lopez did not pay and ask for another reinvestigation. BIR
acceded to his request provided he executed a waiver of statute of limitations. Lopez executed
an unconditional waiver imposing a deadline (Dec 1957) within which the government should
finish its reinvestigation. BIR ignored the deadline imposed and instead issued an assessment
on March 1960. Due to non-payment, BIR filed a collection suit before the CFI. Lopez filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription. CFI granted the motion to dismiss. The issue is
whether or not the deadline is binding and operative, and ultimately, whether or not the action to
collect has already prescribed.
ISSUE: Whether the action to collect had prescribed

RULING: NO. It has not yet prescribed since under the NIRC the government has 5-year
prescriptive period within which it may sue to collect an assessed tax to be counted from
the last revised assessment resulting from the reinvestigation AND the time employed in
reinvestigation should be deducted from the total period of limitation. Regarding the
December 1957 deadline, SC seriously doubts that the CIR could validly agree to reduce the
prescriptive period to less than what was granted by law to the detriment of the State, since it
diminishes the opportunities of collecting taxes due to the Republic.
 269. Commissioner v Carnation

FACTS: Carnation Phils. Inc. filed its Corporation Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year
ending September 30, 1981; and its Manufacturers/Producers Percentage Tax Return for the
quarter ending September 30, 1981. 
Carnation, through its Senior Vice President Jaime O. Lardizabal, signed three separate
"waivers of the Statute of Limitations Under the National Internal Revenue Code" wherein it
waives the running of the prescriptive period provided for in sections 318 and 319 and other
related provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code and consents to the assessment and
collection of the taxes which may be found due after reinvestigation and reconsideration at any
time before or after the lapse of the period of limitations fixed by said sections 318 and 319 and
other relevant provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, but not after (13 April 1987 for
the earlier-executed waiver, or June 14, 1987 for the later waiver, or July 30, 1987 for the
subsequent waiver, as the case may be). However, the taxpayer (petitioner herein) does not
waive any prescription already accrued in its favor.
The waivers were not signed by the BIR Commissioner or any of his agents.

ISSUE: Whether the 3 waivers signed by private respondent are valid and binding as to toll the
prescriptive period for assessment
RULING: WAIVERS HAVE NO BINDING EFFECT FOR LACK OF CONSENT ON THE PART
OF THE BIR COMMISSIONER. Section 219 is clear and explicit that the waiver must be in
writing and signed by both the CIR and the taxpayer.
 270. RCBC v Commissioner

FACTS: RCBC received the final assessment notice on July 5, 2001. It filed a protest on July
20, 2001. As the protest was not acted upon, it filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA) on April 30, 2002, or more than 30 days after the lapse of the 180-day period
reckoned from the submission of complete documents. The CTA dismissed the Petition for lack
of jurisdiction since the appeal was filed out of time.

ISSUE: Whether the action to protest the assessment judicially prescribed? 

RULING: YES. The assessment has become final. The jurisdiction of the CTA has been
expanded to include not only decision but also inactions and both are jurisdictional such that
failure to observe either is fatal.

However, if there has been inaction, the taxpayer can choose between (1) file a Petition with the
CTA within 30 days from the lapse of the 180-day period OR (2) await the final decision of the
CIR and appeal such decision to the CTA within 30 days after receipt of the decision. These
options are mutually exclusive and resort to one bars the application of the other. Thus, if
petitioner belatedly filed an action based on inaction, it can not subsequently file another petition
once the decision comes out.
 271.Philippine Bank v Commissioner

FACTS: Petitioner received from the BIR assessment notices all issued on July 27, 1993 and
demanding payment from Petitioner for alleged deficiency income tax and onshore tax.
Petitioner protested the aforesaid assessments and requested that the same be reconsidered
and/or withdraw, this was denied. Petitioner presented additional evidence consisting of
Waivers of the Defense of Prescription under the Statute of Limitations of the NIRC however,
the Court denied the admission of such.

ISSUE: Whether the Court erred in not admitting the waivers

RULING: NO. To be valid, the waivers must be signed by revenue official who is duly
authorized which is not the case herein
272. Luzon Packaging v Commissioner (CTA case can’t be found)
273. Solid Cement v Commissioner (700) ( CTA case can’t be found)
 274. Afisco Insurance Corp v CA

Facts: AFISCO and 40 other non-life insurance companies entered into a Quota Share
Reinsurance Treaties with Munich, a non-resident foreign insurance corporation. The treaties
required petitioners to form a pool, to which AFISCO and the others complied. It was assessed
by the commissioner of Internal Revenue deficiency corporate taxes. A protest was filed but
denied by the CIR.

Petitioners argue that the government’s right to assess and collect the subject Information
Return was filed by the pool on April 14, 1976. On the basis of this return, the BIR telephoned
petitioners on November 11, 1981 to give them notice of its letter of assessment dated March
27, 1981. Thus, the petitioners contend that the five-year prescriptive period then provided in
the NIRC had already lapsed, and that the internal revenue commissioner was already barred
by prescription from making an assessment.

ISSUE: Whether the action has prescribed

Held: NO. The prescriptive period was totaled under the Section 333 of the NIRC, because the
taxpayer cannot be located at the address given in the information return filed and for which
reason there was delay in sending the assessment. Further, the law clearly states that the
prescriptive period will be suspended only if the taxpayer informs the CIR of
any change in the address.