OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK, INC. vs.

CIR

(G.R. No. 148380, December 9, 2005) | MCACB

Facts:

The controversy in this case started when the petitioner received from the BIR deficiency tax assessments for the year
1984. When the petitioner filed a protest and requested for a reconsideration or cancellation of the same, the Chief of the
Accounts Receivable and Billing Division of the BIR National Office reiterated the tax assessments and requested the
petitioner to pay within 10 days, while denied its request for reinvestigation. Upon the petitioner’s failure to pay the
subject tax assessments within the prescribed period, the Asst. Commissioner for Collection, acting for the CIR, issued the
corresponding warrants of distraints and/or levy and garnishment. This prodded the petitioner to file a Petition for
Review with the CTA to contest the issuance of the warrants and to enforce the collection of the tax assessments.

The CTA, however, dismissed the petition, declaring that it was filed beyond the 30-day period reckoned from the time it
received the demand letter on January 24, 1991 by the Chief of the BIR Accounts Receivable and Billing Division.

Issue:

Is the demand letter for tax deficiency assessments issued and signed by a subordinate officer who was acting in behalf of
the CIR deemed final and executor and subject to an appeal to the CTA?

Ruling:

Yes. Firstly, a demand letter for payment of delinquent taxes may be considered a decision on a disputed or protested
assessment. The determination on whether or not a demand letter is final is conditioned upon the language used or the
tenor of the letter being sent to the taxpayer. In this case, the demand letter received by the petitioner signified a character
of finality for it clearly indicates its firm stand against the reconsideration of the assessment when it indicated that “failure
to do so (to pay) would result in the issuance of a warrant of distraint and levy to enforce its collection without further
notice.”

Secondly, the letter attained finality despite the fact that it was issued and signed by the Chief of the Accounts Receivable
and Billing Division instead of the CIR. This is because the act of the said Chief does not fall under the exceptions provided
in Sec. 7 of the NIRC, which constitutes actions of the CIR that are non-delegable. Further, Sec. 6 of the NIRC expressly
provides that the “Commissioner or his duly authorized representative may authorize the examination of any taxpayer and
the assessment of the correct amount of tax.…”

Lastly, the petitioner failed to avail of its right to bring the matter before the CTA within the reglementary period upon the
receipt of the demand letter reiterating the assessed delinquent taxes and denying its request for reconsideration which
constituted the final determination by the BIR on petitioner’s protest. Being a final disposition by the said agency, the
same would have been a proper subject for appeal to the CTA.