Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
REMEDIES OF TAXPAYERS
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO
COLLECT TAXES
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (Sec.3, 9 & 10, NIRC)
1 CIR + 4 DCIR + 13 ACIR
19 REGIONS + 115 DISTRICT OFFICES
AGENTS OF BIR COMMISSIONER (Sec. 12, NIRC)
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
VALUE ADDED TAX AND EXCISE TAX ON
IMPORTED GOODS
APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT OFFICE
ENERGY TAX
AUTHORIZED AGENT BANKS
NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES
WITHHOLDING AGENTS
POWERS OF BIR
ASSESS AND COLLECT NATIONAL INTERNAL
REVENUE TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES
ENFORCE ALL FORFEITURES, PENALTIES AND
FINES
EXECUTE JUDGMENT IN ALL CASES DECIDED IN
ITS FAVOR BY CTA AND ORDINARY COURTS
EFFECT SUPERVISORY AND POLICE POWERS
CONFERRED BY TAX CODE OR SPECIAL LAWS
(Sec. 2, NIRC)
POWERS OF COMMISSIONER
INTERPRET TAX LAWS AND DECIDE TAX
CASES
EXAMINE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND
ACCOUNTING RECORDS
OBTAIN INFORMATION
SUMMON PERSON LIABLE FOR TAX
TAKE TESTIMONY
CANVASS REGION OR DISTRICT FROM TIME
TO TIME REGARDING PERSONS LIABLE TO
TAX (Sec. 4, NIRC)
POWERS OF COMMISSIONER
EXAMINE RETURNS AND DETERMINE TAX
ASSESS PROPER TAX BASED ON BEST EVIDENCE
OBTAINABLE
CONDUCT INVENTORY TAKING, SURVEILLANCE
AND PRESCRIBE PRESUMPTIVE GROSS SALES OR
RECEIPTS
TERMINATE TAXABLE PERIOD
PRESCRIBE REAL PROPERTY VALUES
ACCREDIT AND REGISTER TAX AGENTS (Sec. 4, NIRC)
INQUIRE INTO BANK DEPOSITS (Sec. 5 & 6(F), NIRC)
ESTOPPEL
ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY TO GOVT
STATE CANNOT BE ESTOPPED BY THE MISTAKE
OR NEGLECT OF ITS AGENTS AND OFFICERS (Central
Azucarera de Tarlac v. CIR; CIR v. Abad)
ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF LAW BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS DO NOT BLOCK SUBSEQUENT CORRECT
APPLICATION OF STATUTES (Visayan Cebu Terminal v. CIR)
ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY TO PRECLUDE
SUBSEQUENT FINDING OF TAXABILITY NOR TO
DEPRIVE GOVT OF ITS RIGHT TO RAISE
DEFENSES EVEN IF RAISED ONLY FOR THE FIRST
TIME ON APPEAL (Phil-American Drug v. CIR; Rodriguez v. CIR)
ESTOPPEL
ESTOPPEL ADMITS OF EXCEPTIONS
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
FAIR PLAY (Hospicio de San Jose v. CIR)
ESTOPPEL APPLIES AGAINST THE
TAXPAYER
PREVIOUS REQUESTS FOR REINVESTI-
GATION HAVE THE EFFECT OF PLACING
TAXPAYER IN ESTOPPEL (CIR v. Suyoc Consolidated
Mining Corp.)
INJUNCTION
NO COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO
GRANT INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN
COLLECTION OF TAXES, EXCEPT
WHEN COLLECTION WILL
JEOPARDIZE INTEREST OF
GOVERNMENT OR TAXPAYER (Sec. 218, NIRC;
R.A. 1125)
WHAT IS AN ASSESSMENT?
NOTICE THAT TAXPAYERS OWES
GOVERNMENT A SUM OF MONEY
CONTAINS COMPUTATION OF TAX LIABILITY
AND A DEMAND FOR PAYMENT OF TAX WITHIN
CERTAIN PERIOD (CIR v. Pascor Realty & Dev Corp)
PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT
TO ESTABLISH TAX LIABILITY WHERE AN
ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED
ASSESSMENT
FORMS OF ASSESSMENT
FORMAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE
LETTER DEMANDING PAYMENT OF ERRONEOUSLY
REFUNDED AMOUNT (Guagua Electric Co v. CIR), or AMOUNT
PAID BY BOUNCING CHECK (Republic v. Limaco & de Guzman)
LETTER FROM REVENUE OFFICER GRANTING
OPPORTUNITY TO DISPROVE FINDINGS (SHOW-CAUSE
LETTER)
FOLLOW-UP LETTER DULY RECEIVED BY
TAXPAYER WITHIN PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD.
(TAXPAYER DENIED RECEIPT OF ORIGINAL DEMAND LETTER AND ASS.
NOTICE) (Republic v. Nielson & Co)
ASSESSMENT
WHEN MUST ASSESSMENT BE MADE? (Sec. 203 & 222, NIRC)
RETURN WAS FILED
NOT FALSE OR FRAUDULENT 3 YRS FROM FILING
FALSE OR FRAUDULENT 10 YRS FROM DATE OF
DISCOVERY OF FILING OF FALSE OR FRAUDULENT
RETURN
NO RETURN WAS FILED
10 YEARS FROM DATE OF DISCOVERY OF OMISSION
IF ASSESSMENT DUE DATE FALLS ON SATURDAY,
GOVERNMENT HAS NEXT BUSINESS DAY WITHIN WHICH TO
ASSESS (CIR v. Western Pacific Corp)
NORMAL YEAR HAS 365 DAYS; LEAP YEAR, 366 DAYS (CIR v.
NAMARCO)
ASSESSMENT
WHEN IS ASSESSMENT DEEMED MADE?
ISSUE DATE OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE IS NOT
RECKONING POINT FOR PRESCRIPTION
DATE ASSESSMENT NOTICE AND DEMAND
LETTER IS RELEASED, MAILED OR SENT TO
TAXPAYER CONSTITUTES ACTUAL ASSESSMENT
(Republic v. Limaco & de Guzman)
PRESUMPTION OF RECEIPT IN REGULAR
COURSE OF MAIL APPLIES, IF IT WAS PROPERLY
ADDRESSED, POSTAGE WAS PREPAID, AND WAS
MAILED. IF ONE ELEMENT IS ABSENT,
PRESUMPTION DOES NOT LIE (Enriquez v. Sunlife of Canada)
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT IS MADE WHEN SENT WITHIN THE
PRESCRIBED PERIOD, EVEN IF RECEIVED BY
TAXPAYER AFTER EXPIRATION OF PRESCRIPTIVE
PERIOD (CIR v. Bautista; Republic v. Tan Kim En)
RELEASE AND MAILING SHOULD BE
SATISFACTORILY PROVED BY GOVT
POST MARK STAMPED ON ENVELOPE RETURN CARD
MERE NOTATIONS ON RECORDS OF BIR OF MAILING, MADE
WITHOUT TAXPAYERS INTERVENTION OR CONTROL, AND
WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE CANNOT SUFFICE
RECEIPT OF 2ND FINAL NOTICE PERSONALLY IS NO PROOF
THAT TAXPAYER RECEIVED 1ST NOTICE BY MAIL (Nava v. CIR)
ASSESSMENT
WHERE TAXPAYER DENIES RECEIPT OF
MAILED DEMAND LETTER, BIR MUST
PROVE RECEIPT BY TAXPAYER (Republic v. Nielson &
Co)
WHERE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR
ASSESSMENT OF TAX, SENDING OF
ASSESSMENT NOTICE AND DEMAND
LETTER DID NOT PRODUCE LEGAL EFFECT
THAT WOULD WARRANT COLLECTION OF
THE TAX (Republic v. Leonor dela Rama)
DIVIDENDS APPLIED ON CONTESTED PERSONAL LOANS
ASSESSMENT
WHO MAY ASSESS?
COMMISSIONER OR REGIONAL DIRECTOR
PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS OF
ASSESSMENT, BEING A MERE
PRESUMPTION, CANNOT BE MADE TO
REST ON ANOTHER PRESUMPTION, NO
MATTER HOW REASONABLE OR LOGICAL
SAID PRESUMPTION MAY BE.
ASSESSMENT MUST BE BASED ON ACTUAL
FACTS (CIR v. Benipayo)
FORMS OF PROTEST
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
REQUEST FOR ITEMIZED INFO ON DISALLOWED ITEMS
(CIR v. Capital Subdivision)
REQUEST FOR REINVESTIGATION
DATE OF RECEIPT OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE
ITEMS ADMITTED OR PROTESTED BY TAXPAYER
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND APPLICABLE LAW, RULES
AND JURISPRUDENCE
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
PRO-FORMA PROTEST LETTER
REQUEST FOR COPY OF COMPUTATION IS NOT A
PROTEST THAT SUSPENDS PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD (CIR v.
Atlas Consolidated Mining)
WHEN TO FILE PROTEST?
30 DAYS FROM DATE OF RECEIPT
PERSONAL DELIVERY
MAIL
IF ASSESSMENT NOTICE AND DEMAND
LETTER ARE NOT RECEIVED OR
IMPROPERLY ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER,
30-DAY PERIOD STARTS FROM DATE OF
RECEIPT OF WDL OR NOTICE FROM RTC
OR SOL GEN
WHERE TO FILE PROTEST?
REGIONAL/DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS
REGIONAL DIRECTORS OFFICE, OR
CHIEF, ASSESSMENT DIVISION
NATIONAL OFFICE ASSESSMENTS
LARGE TAXPAYER CASES
TAX FRAUD CASES
WITHHOLDING TAX CASES
EFFECTS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST
TAXPAYER CANNOT DELAY COLLECTION OF
TAXES BY MERELY ASKING FOR RECONSIDE-
RATION OR CLARIFICATION (Republic v. Marsman Dev. Corp.)
FILING OF REQUEST FOR REINVESTIGATION OF
ASSESSMENT DOES NOT SUSPEND OR INTERRUPT
RUNNING OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD TO COLLECT.
THIS RULING IS LOGICAL; OTHERWISE, THERE IS
NO POINT TO THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT
THE EXTENSION BE IN WRITING (CIR v. Atlas Cons. Mining
Corp)
FORMS OF DENIAL OF
PROTEST
DIRECT
FORMAL DECISION OF DENIAL BY BIR COMMISSIONER
CIR SHOULD STATE IN DENIAL LETTER THAT IT IS ITS
FINAL DECISION (Union Shipping Corp v. CIR)
INDIRECT
FILING OF CIVIL CASE IN RTC WITHOUT RULING FIRST ON
VALID PROTEST TIMELY FILED BY TAXPAYER [Yabes v. Flojo
(1982)]
ISSUANCE OF WDL OR FINAL NOTICE BEFORE SEIZURE
REFERRAL OF CASE TO SOL GEN (Republic v. Lim Tian Teng & Sons)
LETTER REITERATING DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE
PAYMENT OF TAX (CIR v. Ayala Securities Corp)
EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO FILE
TIMELY VALID PROTEST
ASSESSMENT BECOMES FINAL AND
UNAPPEALABLE
ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DISPUTED IN THE
CIVIL ACTION
PRESCRIPTION OF RIGHT TO ASSESS
CANNOT BE RAISED IN COURT
NO INQUIRY CAN BE MADE AS TO THE
MERITS OF THE CASE OR JUSTNESS OF
JUDGMENT RELIED UPON, EXCEPT
JURISDICTION, COLLUSION & FRAUD
PRESCRIPTION
PRESCRIPTION
SELF-ASSESSED TAXES
PURPOSE OF RULE ON PRESCRIPTION
JUST AS GOVT IS INTERESTED IN STABILITY OF ITS
COLLECTIONS, SO ARE TAXPAYERS ENTITLED TO
ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO
FURTHER INVESTIGATION AFTER EXPIRATION OF
REASONABLE TIME
REMEDIAL IN NATURE
LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF TAXPAYER TO
BRING ABOUT BENEFICIENT PURPOSE OF
AFFORDING PROTECTION
PRESCRIPTION
PRESCRIPTION OF GOVERNMENTS RIGHT
TO ASSESS
3 YEARS FROM DATE OF FILING THE RETURN
IF RETURN FILED BEFORE DEADLINE, LAW PRESUMES
RETURN FILED ON LAST DAY FOR FILING RETURN
10 YEARS FROM DATE OF DISCOVERY OF NON-
FILING OR FILING OF FALSE OR FRAUDULENT
RETURN (Sec. 203 & 222, NIRC)
TO COLLECT
5 YEARS FROM DATE OF ASSESSMENT (Sec. 222(c ), NIRC)
10 YEARS (COURT ACTION TO FORFEIT BOND) FROM
TIME RIGHT OF ACTION ACCRUES (Republic v. Dorego)
PRESCRIPTION
PRESCRIPTION TO FILE CRIMINAL ACTION
5 YEARS FROM COMMISSION OF VIOLATION OF LAW.
IF VIOLATION IS NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME, FROM
DISCOVERY THEREOF AND INSTITUTION OF
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR INVESTIGATION AND
PUNISHMENT (Sec. 281, NIRC)
PRESCRIPTION IS INTERRUPTED WHEN
PROCEEDINGS ARE INSTITUTED AGAINST GUILTY
PERSONS AND BEGINS TO RUN AGAIN IF
PROCEEDINGS ARE DISMISSED FOR REASONS NOT
CONSTITUTING JEOPARDY
PRESCRIPTION DOES NOT RUN WHEN OFFENDER IS
ABSENT FROM THE PHILIPPINES
EXCEPTIONS TO STATUTE
OF LIMITATION
BEFORE EXPIRATION OF TIME PRESCRIBED FOR
ASSESSMENT, CIR AND TAXPAYER AGREED IN
WRITING
PERIOD TO ASSESS AGREED UPON MAY BE
EXTENDED BY SUBSEQUENT WRITTEN AGREEMENT
MADE BEFORE EXPIRY DATE
TAX TIMELY ASSESSED MAY BE COLLECTED WITHIN
PERIOD AGREED UPON IN WRITING BEFORE
EXPIRATION OF FIVE YEAR PERIOD
COLLECTION PERIOD MAY BE EXTENDED BY
SUBSEQUENT WRITTEN AGREEMENT MADE BEFORE
EXPIRY DATE (Sec. 222, NIRC)
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS
SUSPENDED
PERIOD DURING WHICH CIR IS PROHIBITED FROM
MAKING ASSESSMENT OR BEGINNING WDL OR
PROCEEDING IN COURT AND FOR 60 DAYS
THEREAFTER
TAXPAYERS REQUEST FOR REINVESTIGATION IS
GRANTED BY CIR
TAXPAYER CANNOT BE LOCATED IN ADDRESS
SHOWN IN HIS TAX RETURN
WDL SERVED AND NO PROPERTY CAN BE
LOCATED
TAXPAYER IS OUT OF THE PHILIPPINES (Sec. 223, NIRC)
PRESCRIPTION
PRESCRIPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE
DUE TO ACTS OR DELAYS OF
TAXPAYER (CIR v. Suyoc Consolidated Mining Co.)
IF TAXPAYER MERELY CONTENDED THAT
AMOUNTS SOUGHT TO BE COLLECTED
WERE NOT FROM ESTATE OF DECEASED
AND GAVE HIS REASONS THEREFOR, THIS
DOES NOT STOP RUNNING OF
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD (CIR v. Solano; CIR v. Pineda)
PRESCRIPTION
TAX CODE (SPECIAL LAW) PROVISIONS
PREVAIL OVER CIVIL CODE (GENERAL
LAW) PROVISIONS ON PRESCRIPTION (CIR v.
Guagua Electric Co.)