Tax case digest

:
1. comm vs josefina leal
2. Comm Internal revenue vs. PASCOR
FACTS:
- The BIR commissioner authorized revenue officers to examine the books of
accounts and other accounting records of Pascor Realty and Development
Corporation and resulted in a recommendation for the issuance of an
assessment in the amounts of P7,498,434.65 and P3,015,236.35 for the years
1986 and 1987, respectively.
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue filed a criminal complaint before the
Department of Justice against the PRDC, its President Rogelio A. Dio, and its
Treasurer Virginia S. Dio, alleging evasion of taxes in the total amount of
P10,513,671 .00.
- Private respondents PRDC, et.al. filed an Urgent Request for
Reconsideration/Reinvestigation disputing the tax assessment and tax
liability.
- the CIR denied the urgent request for reconsideration/reinvestigation of the
private respondents on the ground that no formal assessment of the has as
yet been issued by the Commissioner.
-

Private respondents then elevated the Decision of the CIR to the Court of Tax
Appeals on a petition for review. Then CIR filed a Motion to Dismiss the
petition on the ground that the CTA has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the petition, as there was no formal assessment issued against the
petitioners
- The CTA denied the said motion to dismiss in a Resolution dated January 25,
1996 and ordered the CIR to file an answer within thirty (30) days from
receipt of said resolution. The CIR received the resolution but did not file an
answer nor did move to reconsider the resolution.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the criminal complaint for tax evasion can be construed as an
assessment.
2. Whether or not an assessment is necessary before criminal charges for tax
evasion may be instituted.
3. Whether or not the CTA can take cognizance of the case in the absence of an
assessment.
HELD:
1. Neither the NIRC nor the regulations governing the protest of
assessments provide a specific definition or form of an assessment. An
assessment informs the taxpayer that he or she has tax liabilities. But not all
documents coming from the BIR containing a computation of the tax liability
can be deemed assessments. Even these definitions fail to advance private
respondents' case. That the BIR examiners' Joint Affidavit attached to the
Criminal Complaint contained some details of the tax liabilities of private
respondents does not ipso facto make it an assessment. The purpose of the
Joint Affidavit was merely to support and substantiate the Criminal Complaint

filed her Income Tax Return for 1978. 1979.During the lifetime of the decedent. cannot be deemed an assessment that can be questioned before the Court of Tax Appeals. Accordingly.233. 2. The fact that the Complaint itself was specifically directed and sent to the Department of Justice and not to private respondents shows that the intent of the commissioner was to file a criminal complaint for tax evasion. the BIR sent by registered mail a demand letter and Assessment Notice No. in such tax evasion cases. The return did not indicate that the decedent had died. proceedings in court may be commenced without an assessment. Section 222 of the NIRC specifically states that in cases where a false or fraudulent return is submitted or in cases of failure to file a return such as this case. This fact need not be proven by an assessment 3. discretion on whether to issue an assessment or to file a criminal case against the taxpayer or to do both. Thus. This is the general rule. Juliana Vda. This was because the commissioner of internal revenue had. an affidavit. The decedent died on April 3.The Bureau of Internal Revenue conducted an administrative investigation on the decedent’s tax liability and found a deficiency income tax for the year 1977 in the amount of P318. it was not meant to be a notice of the tax due and a demand to the private respondents for payment thereof. De Gabriel. What private respondents received was a notice from the DOJ that a criminal case for tax evasion had been filed against them. Section 222 of NIRC states that an assessment is not necessary before a criminal charge can be filed. . An assessment contains not only a computation of tax liabilities. NARD-78- . 1982. . The criminal charge need only be supported by a prima facie showing of failure to file a required return.93. Philtrust. Two days after her death. not to issue an assessment. which was executed by revenue officers stating the tax liabilities of a taxpayer and attached to a criminal complaint for tax evasion. Such protests could not stop or suspend the criminal action which was independent of the resolution of the protest in the CTA. Furthermore.for tax evasion. not a notice that the Bureau of Internal Revenue had made an assessment. Section 205 of the same Code clearly mandates that the civil and criminal aspects of the case may be pursued simultaneously. due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer.The court a quo appointed one of the heirs as Special Administrator. To enable the taxpayer to determine his remedies thereon. but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period. on November 18. Estate vda gabriel vs CIR FACTS: . Clearly. The filing of a criminal complaint must be preceded by an assessment is incorrect argument. her business affairs were managed by the Philippine Trust Company (Philtrust). It also signals the time when penalties and protests begin to accrue against the taxpayer.

which was not acted upon because the assessment notice had allegedly become final. No response was made by Philtrust. Mr.2 after finding that there was no notice of its tax assessment on the proper party. 1984 was within the five-year prescriptive period for assessment and collection of taxes under Section 318 of the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). - the court a quo issued an Order denying respondent’s claim against the Estate. which were served upon her heir. The relationship between the decedent and Philtrust was one of agency. ISSUES: 1. Cruz.The Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the respondent. two days after the taxpayer’s death. executory and incontestable. In this instance. contending that service to Philippine Trust Company was sufficient service. 1979 automatically severed the legal relationship between her and Philtrust. Manila" which was the address stated in her 1978 Income Tax Return. - Respondent CIR issued warrants of distraint and levy to enforce collection of the decedent’s deficiency income tax liability. whether Philtrust’s inaction thereon could bind petitioner HELD: The resolution of this case hinges on the legal relationship between Philtrust and the decedent. between Philtrust and petitioner Estate. It was claimed that Philtrust. had "constituted itself as the administrator of the estate of the deceased at least insofar as said return is concerned . and.- 82-00501 addressed to the decedent "c/o Philippine Trust Company. in filing the decedent’s 1978 income tax return. Francisco Gabriel. Under Article 1919 (3) of the Civil Code. Sta.3 - Respondent filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. death of the agent or principal automatically terminates the agency. and that the filing of the claim against the Estate on November 22. The BIR filed its Reply. The BIR was not informed that the decedent had actually passed away. on April 5. - Mr. it filed . assailing the Order of the probate court. and such could not be revived by the mere fact that Philtrust continued to act as her agent when. 1979. Ambrosio filed a formal opposition to the BIR’s Motion for Allowance of Claim based on the ground that there was no proper service of the assessment and that the filing of the aforesaid claim had already prescribed. by extension. Then filed a "Motion for Allowance of Claim and for an Order of Payment of Taxes" with the court a quo. the death of the decedent on April 3. Ambrosio filed a letter of protest with the Litigation Division of the BIR. which is a personal relationship between agent and principal. The court a quo appointed Antonio Ambrosio as the Commissioner and Auditor Tax Consultant of the Estate of the decedent. Whether or not service on Philtrust of the demand letter and Assessment Notice was valid service on petitioner 2.

that the court a quo twice rejected Philtrust’s motion to be thus appointed. 2003 and Entry of Judgment was made on December 1. respondent sent a Demand Letter to petitioner for the payment of the deficiency tax assessments.7 which was granted by the CTA in a Resolution dated September 10.29 and Documentary Stamp Tax for its Special Savings Placements in the amount of P46. 1125. Commissioner of Internal Revenue FACTS: . indeed. as representative of the estate. and. the assessment was served not even on an heir of the Estate. - Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the CTA En Banc from the dismissal of its petition for review. Since there was never any valid notice of this assessment.Petitioner Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation received a Formal Letter of Demand dated May 25. Since the relationship between Philtrust and the decedent was automatically severed at the moment of the Taxpayer’s death. In this case.428. RCBC vs. The petition for review was dismissed because it was filed beyond the 30-day period following the lapse of 180 days from petitioner’s submission of documents in support of its protest. Consequently.952. for the taxable year 1997. Service on Philtrust of the demand letter and Assessment Notice was improperly done. as provided under Section 228 of the NIRC and Section 11 of R.her Income Tax Return for the year 1978.76. who has the legal obligation to pay and discharge all debts of the estate and to perform all orders of the court.A. 2003 Resolution became final and executory on October 1. 2003. executory and incontestable. for failure to make the assessment within the five-year period provided in Section 318 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977. Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment on the ground of excusable negligence of its counsel’s secretary who allegedly misfiled and lost the - . petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA for the cancellation of the assessments - Respondent filed a motion to resolve first the issue of CTA’s jurisdiction. 4.9 Thereafter. 2003. but on a completely disinterested third party. notice must be sent to the administrator of the estate. respondent’s claim against the petitioner Estate is barred. the September 10. otherwise known as the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals. This improper service was clearly not binding on the petitioner. since it is the said administrator. 2001 from the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue for its tax liabilities particularly for Gross Onshore Tax in the amount of P53. When an estate is under administration. and.717. none of Philtrust’s acts or omissions could bind the estate of the Taxpayer. No. It must be noted that Philtrust was never appointed as the administrator of the Estate of the decedent. As the protest was not acted upon by the respondent. it could not have become final. 4 - Petitioner filed a protest letter/request for reconsideration/reinvestigation pursuant to Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC).998.

the assessment shall become final. there is no denial of procedural due process. otherwise. To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court. is accorded. The fact that counsel allegedly had not renewed the employment of his secretary. Assuming ex gratia argumenti that the negligence of petitioner’s counsel is excusable. still the petition must fail. all that a losing party would do to salvage his case would be to invoke neglect or mistake of his counsel as a ground for reversing or setting aside the adverse judgment. Negligence to be "excusable" must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which the rights of an aggrieved party have probably been impaired. one may be heard also through pleadings. Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. in either case. Otherwise. either through oral arguments or pleadings. It is a problem personal to him which should not in any manner interfere with his professional commitments. Whether or not the petitioner has denied due process by denying the opportunity to adduce evidence to establish the factual allegation constituting its alleged excusable negligence HELD: Relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is a legal remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases whereby a party seeks to set aside a judgment rendered against him by a court whenever he was unjustly deprived of a hearing or was prevented from taking an appeal. Then the CTA Second Division set the case for hearing during which petitioner’s counsel was present. Where opportunity to be heard. thereby making the latter no longer attentive or focused on her work. The CTA Second Division rendered a Resolution denying petitioner’s Petition for Relief from Judgment. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest.- September 10. much less unavoidable. petitioner will not fare any better if the case were to be returned to the CTA Second Division since its action for the cancellation of its assessments had already prescribed. Relief cannot be granted on the flimsy excuse that the failure to appeal was due to the neglect of petitioner’s counsel. accident. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied hence it filed a petition for review with the CTA En Banc which affirmed the assailed Resolutions of the CTA Second Division ISSUE: 1. did not relieve him of his responsibilities to his client. or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents. 2003 Resolution. If the protest is denied in whole or in part. Petitioner’s former counsel’s omission could hardly be characterized as excusable. all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted. even if the petition for relief from judgment would be granted. thereby putting no end to litigation. mistake or excusable neglect. because of fraud. As aptly observed by the OSG. the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within (30) days from receipt of the .

While the right to appeal a decision of the Commissioner to the Court of Tax Appeals is merely a statutory remedy. Moreover.CIR conducted an investigation and examination of the books of accounts of Wyeth Suaco. These assessment notices were both received by Wyeth Suaco. (Wyeth Suaco for brevity) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of assorted pharmaceutical and nutritional products .155.Private respondent Wyeth Suaco Laboratories. resulting in its alleged failure to pay the correct amount of advance sales tax. However.86.855. rendered a decision reducing the assessment of the withholding tax at source for 1973 to P1. . resulting in a deficiency withholding tax at source in the aggregate amount of P3.The Bureau of Internal Revenue assessed Wyeth Suaco on the aforesaid tax liabilities in two (2) notices. Wyeth Suaco through its tax consultant SGV &Co. the amount of P61.15. All these resulted in a deficiency sales tax in the amount of P60. or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period.178. such requirement is jurisdictional and failure to comply therewith may be raised in a motion to dismiss.155. Inc. . sent the BIR two (2) letters.112. Wyeth Suaco filed a petition for review in Court of Tax Appeals praying that petitioner be enjoined from enforcing the assessments by reason of prescription and that the assessments be declared null and void for lack of legal and factual basis. admitted liability with respect to the short payment of advance sales tax in the amount of P1. remuneration for technical services and cash dividends. nevertheless the requirement that it must be brought within 30 days is jurisdictional. The report disclosed that Wyeth Suaco was paying royalties to its foreign licensors as well as remuneration for technical services to Wyeth International Laboratories of London.973. it allegedly failed to remit withholding tax at source for the fourth (4th) quarter of 1973 on accrued royalties.21 and compromise penalty in the amount of P300. However.000. Thereafter. protesting the assessments and requesting their cancellation or withdrawal on the ground that said assessments lacked factual or legal basis. 5.994.Thereafter. Wyeth Suaco's contention was that a withholding tax at source on royalties and dividends becomes due and payable only upon their actual payment or remittance. If a statutory remedy provides as a condition precedent that the action to enforce it must be commenced within a prescribed time.00 on its importation of "Mega Polymycin D.00 or a total amount of P61. Wyeth Suaco was also found to have declared cash dividends and these were paid." .said decision.21 as deficiency sales tax remained the same. otherwise the decision shall become final..Petitioner CIR. Wyeth Suaco however. executory and demandable. CIR vs Wyeth suaco lab FACTS: . There was reportedly also a short payment of advance sales tax in its importation of "Mega Polymycin D".21. Wyeth Suaco deducted the cost of non-deductible raw materials. .

After carefully examining the records of the case. These letters of Wyeth Suaco interrupted the running of the five-year prescriptive period to collect the deficiency taxes. 1972 to December 31. among others. in accordance with its request for reinvestigation. it was found that Wyeth Suaco admitted that it was seeking reconsideration of the tax assessments as shown in a letter of James A. pursuant to Section 51 (e) of the Tax Code of 1977.21 as deficiency sales tax for the periods November 1. 1974 until payment thereof pursuant to Section 183 (now Section 193) of the Tax Code. Gump. when Wyeth Suaco thru its tax consultant SGV & Co. HELD: The main thrust of petitioner for the allowance of this petition is that the five-year prescriptive period provided by law to mak a collection by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court has not yet prescribed. rendered a final assessment. It was ascertained that during the investigation. conducted a review and reinvestigation of the assessments.973. - petitioner filed his answer to Wyeth Suaco's petition for review praying. Wyeth Suaco deducted non-deductible raw materials which were not subjected to advance sales tax thereby resulting in its . its President and General Manager. 1973. the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Furthermore. sent the letters protesting the assessments. as amended.155. 1977. and starts to run again when said request is denied. 1972 and January 1. Manufacturing Audit Division. plus 14% annual interest thereon from December 17. The period of prescription of action to collect a taxpayer's deficiency income tax assessment is interrupted when the taxpayer request for a review or reconsideration of said assessment. The final assessment issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue declared the issuance of deficiency sales tax assessments to be legal and valid. that private respondent be declared liable to pay the amount of P61. 1974 to December 16. It was only upon receipt by Wyeth Suaco of this final assessment that the five-year prescriptive period started to run again. - The Court of Tax Appeals rendered a decision enjoining the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from collecting the deficiency taxes ISSUE: 1. 1973 to October 31. and the amount of P1.112. The Bureau of Internal Revenue. Whether or not petitioner's right to collect deficiency withholding tax at source and sales tax liabilities from private respondent is barred by prescription.- petitioner issued a warrant of distrain of personal property and warrant of levy of real property again private respondent to enforce collection of the deficiency taxes.86 as deficiency withholding tax at source for the 4th quarter of 1973 plus 5% surcharge and 14% per annum interest thereon from December 16. after having reviewed the record of Wyeth Suaco.

000.880.000. granting that such paid-in-capital was originally issued.failure to pay the correct amount of sales tax under Section 183. respondent sought payment of withholding tax-at-source in the amount of P300. plus delinquency penalties on the interest payments remitted abroad. construction resources of Asia and CTA FACTS: .00 were issued or delivered. to the stockholders.00 worth of shares pursuant to Sections 222 and 224 of the Tax Code. It entered into a contract with the Malaysian government for the construction of a road at Sabah. In connection therewith.900. petitioner paid the sum of $179." It ruled that the bare statement of the petitioner's examiners that the paid-in-capital of P17.400. . Wyeth Suaco was not able to refute this by submitting supporting documents. 1977 to June 5.00 at 9-1/16% interest per annum. It was also ascertained that petitioner failed to purchase and affix the corresponding documentary and science stamps on the stock certificates issued by it covering P17. Whether or not the liability to pay documentary and science stamps taxes attaches upon the issuance of certificates of stocks or upon delivery thereof.156.700. ISSUE: 1.16. however.720.880.00. petitioner incurred foreign loans in the amount of $3. in relation to Section 186 and 186-B of the Tax Code. 1978. - Petitioner.CIR examiners conducted an investigation and it was ascertained that petitioner failed to file withholding tax return and to withhold 15% tax on interest on foreign loans remitted abroad. . prior to and after amendment by Presidential Decree No.25 to the foreign creditors as interest on its loan.880. 6.000. 69. denied the assessment for documentary and science stamps taxes on the ground that "there is absolutely nothing in the records which will show or indicate that the stock certificates on the paid-in-capital of P17. does not constitute sufficient basis to sustain the imposition of the said taxes in the amount of P89. actually or constructively.46 and respondent demanded payment of petitioner's documentary and science stamps tax liability in the sum of P89. Thus.000. CIR vs. unaccompanied by inadequate evidence. duly registered with the Overseas Construction Board as an overseas contractor.00. The respondent court.00 which was originally issued was not subjected to documentary and science stamps taxes. in a demand letter.Petitioner is a domestic corporation. protested the assessment for withholding tax-at-source - On apeal. the Court of Tax Appeals affirmed the assessment by the petitioner of the withholding tax-at-source for the fourth quarter of 1977 and the first and second quarters of 1978 in the amount of P299.170. For the period from December 7.

as amended. What is taxed is the privilege of issuing shares of stock and. thereby allegedly shortchanging the government of income tax due from 75% of the said dividends.00. for the years 1962-1966. pledged or encumbered. irrespective of whether or not it is in the actual or constructive possession of the stock holder. when a corporation issues a certificate of stock (representing the ownership of stocks in the corporation to fully paid subscription) the certificate of stock can be utilized for the exercise of the attributes of ownership over the stocks mentioned on its face. As a logical out growth of the presumption in favor of the validity of assessments. the burden of proof is upon the complaining party.000. - Maniago filed a petition for mandamus. therefore. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that delivery either actual or constructive.Petitioner CIR caused the investigation of the denunciation after which he found and held that no deficiency corporate income tax was due from the Meralco Securities Corporation on the dividends it received from the Manila Electric Co. is considered issued because it is with value and hence the documentary stamp tax must be paid as imposed by Section 212 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Maniago (substituted in these proceedings by his wife and children) submitted to petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue confidential denunciation against the Meralco Securities Corporation for tax evasion for having paid income tax only on 25 % of the dividends it received from the Manila Electric Co..2. 1968. the dividends or fruits derived there from can be enjoyed. the taxes accrue at the time the shares are issued. and subsequently an amended petition for mandamus. The private respondent never disputed the amount of the documentary and science stamps taxes assessment but only asked that it be given more time to be able to pay them after it had formally transferred in its favor the contributed capital of its stockholders. The delivery of the certificates of stocks to the private respondent's stockholders whether actual or constructive. Whether or not said private respondents issued the certificates of stock covering the paid-in-capital of P17. Meralco vs savellano FACTS: ." In a letter dated April 5.the late Juan G. The stocks can be alienated. The certificate as issued by the corporation. is not necessary. against the . is not essential for the documentary and science stamps taxes to attach. Ordinarily. in the Court of First Instance of Manila.880. This action of the Commissioner was sustained by the Secretary of Finance in a 4th Indorsement. the certificates of stocks only need to be issued but not delivered. It is clear from the Section 224 of NIRC that for the aforestated tax to attach. when such assessments are assailed. the Commissioner informed Maniago of his findings and ruling and therefore denied Maniago's claim for informer's reward on a non-existent deficiency. . The Commissioner accordingly rejected Maniago's contention that the Meralco from whom the dividends were received is "not a domestic corporation liable to tax under this Chapter. and they can be conveyed. 7.

A.612. - The Meralco Securities Corporation (now First Philippine Holdings Corporation) likewise appealed the same decision of respondent judge and in the Court's resolution the two cases were ordered consolidated.00 as deficiency corporate income tax for the period 1962 to 1969 plus interests and surcharges due thereon and to pay 25% thereof to Maniago as informer's reward. he cannot be compelled to impose the alleged tax deficiency assessment against the Meralco Securities Corporation. - Hence. the Meralco Securities Corporation filed its answer. ISSUE: . - The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss. that mandamus win not lie to compel the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to make an assessment and/or effect the collection of taxes upon a taxpayer. Maniago has no right to recover the reward prayed for. arguing that since in matters of issuance and non-issuance of assessments. that since no taxes have actually been recovered and/or collected. since the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is undeniably under the control of the executive department. He further argued that mandamus may not lie against him for that would be tantamount to a usurpation of executive powers.840. the same being cognizable only by the Court of Tax Appeals. that the action is premature. 2338. the Commissioner filed a separate petition with this Court. - On the other hand. praying that the decision of respondent judge and his order be reconsidered for respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and that the issuance or non-issuance of a deficiency assessment is a prerogative of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue not reviewable by mandamus.Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Meralco Securities Corporation to compel the Commissioner to impose the alleged deficiency tax assessment on the Meralco Securities Corporation and to award to him the corresponding informer's reward under the provisions of R. interposing as special and/or affirmative defenses that the petition states no cause of action. that the action of petitioner had already prescribed and that respondent court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter as set forth in the petition. - The respondent judge rendered a decision granting the writ prayed for and ordering the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to assess and collect from the Meralco Securities Corporation the sum of P51. he is clothed under the National Internal Revenue Code and existing rules and regulations with discretionary power in evaluating the facts of a case and since mandamus win not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary power.

even assuming that the right granted the taxpayers affected to question and appeal disputed assessments. fees or other charges. on appeal. It is furthermore a well-recognized rule that mandamus only lies to enforce the performance of a ministerial act or duty and not to control the performance of a discretionary power. 1125. we have held that courts have no power to . 1125. 3 He failed to take such an appeal to the tax court. Mandamus may not be resorted to so as to interfere with the manner in which the discretion shall be exercised or to influence or coerce a particular determination. falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals and not of the Court of First Instance. under section 7 of Republic Act No. 2. The determination of the correctness or incorrectness of a tax assessment to which the taxpayer is not agreeable. Discretion. the most that he could have done was to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals the ruling of petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof pursuant to section 11 of Republic Act No. refunds of internal revenue taxes. enacted June 16. penalties imposed in relation thereto. 1125. Whether or not the respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and that the issuance or non-issuance of a deficiency assessment is a prerogative of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. HELD: 1. Respondent judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case because the subject matter thereof clearly falls within the scope of cases now exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals. 1125. may be availed of by strangers or informers like the late Maniago. Purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts. granted to the Court of Tax Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal.1. 2. for under the provisions of Section 7 of Republic Act No. Likewise. decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments. the Court of Tax Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review. Whether or not the issuance or non-issuance of a deficiency assessment is reviewable by mandamus. The ruling is clearly final and no longer subject to review by the courts." Thus. as thus intended. among others. any decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments and other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. 1954. Section 7 of Republic Act No. means the power or right conferred upon the office by law of acting officially under certain circumstances according to the dictates of his own judgment and conscience and not controlled by the judgment or conscience of others. or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

however. A purely ministerial act or duty in contradiction to a discretional act is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts.000. in a prescribed manner. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed.678.order the Commissioner of Customs to confiscate goods imported in violation of the Import Control Law. 8.00 to P176.00 which petitioner claims to be the cash credit balance appearing petitioner claims to be his book of account 3.07.896. Whether or not the alleged loan of the sum of around P8. nor may courts control the determination of whether or not an applicant for a visa has a non-immigrant status or whether his entry into this country would be contrary to public safety for it is not a simple ministerial function but an exercise of discretion. in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority. ISSUE: 1. 2. such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The Court below. as said forfeiture is subject to the discretion of the said official. and neither was such loss reported in the income tax return of petitioner for the year. but these were returned to petitioner. means a power or right conferred upon them by law of acting officially. submitted some months after the alleged . But said witness declared that they recovery only 100 pieces of plywood and 5 kegs of nails. R.000. city lumber vs dominggo FACTS: .63 representing minor deductions from the alleged expenses.00. "Discretion. nails and GI sheets amounting to P7. and on a cash credit balance of P7.00 in taxes and penalties for it appears that after a reinvestigation of the tax liability of petitioner by the corresponding regional director the latter reviewed the case and reduced the assessment from P5.Petitioner seeks the review of a decision of the Court Tax Appeals. upholding an assessment by respondent on an additional income of P16. 426.902. Whether or not the alleged violation of an order of Commissioner granting Regional Directors authority close tax cases involving deficiency assessments not exceeding P10. Whether or not the respondent court erred in not holding that plywood and GI sheets were actually lost in a fire occuring in the city and in not considering the credit cash balance as a loan secured by petitioner.80. rejected the alleged loss of plywood because said loss was never reported in the books of petitioner.028." when applied to public functionaries. uncontrolled by the judgment or consciences of others. under certain circumstances. Petitioner introduced as a witnesses in his favor the Chief of Police of the City of Dumaguete to testify on the existence of a fire in the city by reason of which the store of petitioner was looted of plywood and kegs of nails. without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. on undisclosed sales of plywood. HELD: 1.A.

. The order in question (Memorandum Order No. 1956) was applicable only to subordinate officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and could not bind the Commissioner himself. or that a loan was ever secured. V-634 dated July 3. Petitioner's book of account failed to show such a loan also. Neither were any receipts or other evidence produced to show that said amount was a loan secured by petitioner. 3. The Commissioner cannot delegate this power to make a final assessment to his subordinate. who has been entrusted by law to make final assessments. 2.loss. The respondent court did commit the error charged. The conduct of petitioner in not reporting said loss in his book of account or in his income tax turn proves that the alleged loss had not been suffered.