TAX8.13 People v.

Mendez

FACTS: Dr. Joel Mendez was the sole proprietor of 6 different businesses. He failed to file an income tax return on those businesses
during the taxable years 2001 to 2003. A complaint was filed against him for failure to file an ITR, petitioner admitted that he has
been operating as a single proprietor under numerous trade names in Quezon, Makati, Dagupan and San Fernando. But he countered
that these businesses were registered only in 2003, and thus were not yet in existence.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner can be held liable for violation of the tax code for Failure to supply correct information.

RULING: Yes. The elements that must be established are: (1) the accused was a person required to make or file a return, (2) the
accused failed to make or file a return and (3) the failure to make or file the return was willful. As to the 2nd element, he did not file
his ITR and no records show of returns filed. As to the 3 rd element, although the accused did not earn any income in 2002, his
purchases and expenditures prove that he has knowledge that he has substantial income which was used on such, and his denial of
income connotes his attempt to conceal said income by not filing his ITR and the habitual failure to file his ITR for 2001 and 2002
shows the willfulness of his non-filing for 2002.

TAX9.13 People v. Wong Yan Tak

FACTS: The CTA found Wong Yan Tak guilty of violating Section 255 of the Tax Code for his wilful failure to pay the deficiency
VAT liability of PNPMI. It also ordered Wong Yan Tak to pay the BIR the corporation’s 2002 deficiency VAT.
On reconsideration, the CTA ruled that the deficiency VAT liability should be collected from PNPMI and not from Wong
Yan Tak, and cancelled its order insofar as the civil liability is concerned. The BIR filed a Petition for Review with the CTA en
banc and asked that the amended decision be set aside and the original decision ordering Wong Yan Tak to pay the deficiency VAT
liabilities of PNPMI be reinstated.

ISSUE: Whether Wong Yan Tak, as president of PNPMI, should be held civilly liable for the 2002 deficiency VAT assessed on
PNPMI

RULING: No. Because of the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the corporate obligation of PNPMI is not the debt of
Wong Yan Tak.

TAX10.13 People v. Tambunting

RULING: For failure of the State Prosecutor to submit the records of preliminary investigation, the CTA dismissed the case without
prejudice.

TAX11.13 People v. Rogelio Tan

Facts: Accused is President of Jadewell (parking spaces). A Letter of Authority was issued against Jadewell but allegedly unheeded.
Consequently, summons and/or subpoena was issued but still accused failed to present and submit the required books of accounts
for investigations. Thus, prosecution claims that the foregoing demonstrate willful failure to supply the correct and accurate info
required in the ITR of Jadewell.
Accused deny receiving the LOA and notices. Rather, a certain Via Aguas was established to receive these documents
but was refuted by the accused to be related to Jadewell alleging that she was connected with Yale, a company which shares the
same office space with Jadewell.

Issue: Whether accused knowingly and willfully failed to supply correct and accurate information in Jadewell's ITR

Held: Yes. The accused, as President, should at the very least have been aware of who is authorized to sign Jadewell's ITR and
other tax filings. Accused could not even explain how a certain Via Aguas was able to sign some tax returns and payment forms
despite the allegation that she was not an employee. Knowing all these, accused did not even inquire as to whether the information
contained therein is true and accurate. This deliberate avoidance on the part of the accused leads the Court to conclude that the
supply of false and incorrect information was willful and done with the knowledge of the accused.

TAX12.13 People v. Imelda Marcos

See book.

TAX13.13 People v. Renne Samala

RULING: For failure of the State Prosecutor to comply with the order to submit to the CTA the written approval issued by the
CIR to file the case and the records of the preliminary investigation, the case was dismissed, without prejudice.

TAX14.13 Commissioner v. La Suerte Cigar and Cigarette Factory

See book.