TAX1.18 Commissioner v. Metro Star Superama Inc.

FACTS: Same with 2.15

ISSUE: Are the requirements of due process satisfied if only the FAN stating the computation of tax liabilities and a demand to pay
within the prescribed period was sent to the taxpayer?

RULING: No. The law imposes a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement. It is clear that the sending of a PAN to taxpayer to
inform him of the assessment made is but part of the “due process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment,” the
absence of which renders nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities.

TAX2.18 PNZ Marketing v. Commissioner

FACTS: same with 6.10

ISSUE: Whether or not the subject income tax assessment is void for failing to comply with the requirements under Section 228 of the
Tax code requiring that the law and the facts upon which the assessment is made should be clearly stated.

RULING: No. it must be stressed that Section 228 requires the Respondent to inform the taxpayer in writing of the laws and the facts
on which the assessment is made; otherwise the assessment shall be void.
In this case, a perusal of the records indicates a successful attempt on Respondent's part to comply with the rules. The
assessment notice, while vague at first glance is subsequently cured by the demand letter, which shows the legal and factual basis, relied
upon by the Respondent in issuing the assessment. The demand letter, as thus worded contains the reasons why a deficiency income tax
assessment was issued against the Petitioner.

TAX3.18 Puratos Phils, Inc. v. Commissioner

FACTS: Records show that the PAN dated January 9,2013 was received by petitioner on January 24, 2003. On the other hand, FAN
was issued on the same day petitioner received the PAN. Respondent issued the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) dated
April 5, 2004, denying petitioner's protest of the PAN and added that the assessment is already final and executory.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner was denied due process.

HELD: Yes. It is evident that respondent violated the provisions of section 228 of the NIR which give the taxpayer a period of 15 days
within which to reply to the PAN. Clearly, petitioner was denied of its right to due process.

TAX4.18 BPI Data Systems Corp. v. Commissioner

FACTS: Petitioner filed with the CTA a petition for review, seeking the refund in allegedly overpaid creditable taxes withheld in 1987.
It was denied, thus, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.

The Tax Court denied the motion for reconsideration; petitioner was served with a copy of the resolution of denial on 12 July 1994.
The next day, 13 July 1994, observing the requirements of Circular No. 1-91, petitioner filed with the Tax Court a notice of appeal and
with the CA a motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days from 13 July 1994 to file the petition for review.

On 28 July 1994, it filed the petition for review.

The CA ruled that the motion for extension of time to file the petition for review was filed one day late; hence, the Court denied the
petition.

petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining that its motion for extension to file a petition for review was timely filed.
The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: When a party files a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (or of any court, for that matter) on
the fifteenth or last day for filing such a motion, and such motion is denied, must the party file his petition for review on the very same
day he received the notice of denial, or may he file it the following day?

RULING: The following day.

The second paragraph of Section 3, Rule 41, of the Revised Rules of 1964, that reads:
SEC. 3. How appeal is taken x x x.
But where such a motion has been filed during office hours of the last day of the period herein provided, the appeal must be perfected
within the day following that in which the party appealing received notice of the denial of said motion.

TAX5.18 Tupas v. CA

WRONG CASE

TAX7.18 Morales v. Collector

FACTS: petitioner filed with the BIR a copy of the deed of extrajudicial partition of estate his wife. Respondent issued a notice
tentatively assessing the estate and inheritance taxes. Said sums were paid by petitioner.
However, 5 years, 25 days later, respondent issued a new assessment as deficiency estate and inheritance taxes. This was
contradicted by Morales because of prescription of 5 years.
 Respondent rejected the claim of prescription and reiterated his demand for payment which must be paid not later than Jan 19, 1957.
Respondent served on petitioner a warrant of distraint and levy, with the corresponding notices of seizure and sale.
Petitioner requested the cancellation of the warrant of distraint and levy, but respondent denied the request

ISSUE: Whether the reassessment made has already prescribed

RULING: No. The reply of the CIR to a letter of the taxpayer, which reply rejected the contention of the taxpayer, that a reassessment
of his tax liability had prescribed, was a decision that was properly appealable because it was on a “disputed assessment”. It had the
tenor of finality; it required the taxpayer to pay the tax not later on or before a certain date. This insistence on payment indicated
unequivocally a denial of the plea for cancellation of the assessment. When a taxpayer questions an assessment, it becomes “a disputed
assessment. A ruling of the CIR, insisting on the assessment, is an appealable decision.

TAX8.18 Commissioner v. Reyes

FACTS: In 1993, Maria Tancino died leaving behind an estate worth P32M. In 1997, a tax audit was conducted on the estate.
Meanwhile, the NIRC of 1997 was passed. Eventually in 1998, the estate was issued a FAN demanding the estate to pay P14.9 million
in taxes; the estate’s liability was based on the old Tax Code. Reyes, one of the heirs, protested the FAN. The CIR nevertheless issued
a warrant of distraint and/or levy. Reyes offered a compromise and was willing to pay P1 million in taxes. Her offer was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the FAN is valid.

RULING: No. The NIRC of 1997 was already in effect when the FAN was issued. Under Section 228 of the NIRC, taxpayers shall
be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made: otherwise, the assessment shall be void. In the
case at bar, the FAN merely stated the amount of liability to be shouldered by the estate and the law upon which such liability is based.
However, the estate was not informed in writing of the facts on which the assessment of estate taxes had been made.

TAX9.18 Tupaz v. Ulep

FACTS: Petitioner, as corporate officer of El Oro Engravers Corp. was charged with non-payment of deficiency corporate income tax
for the year 1979, which ITR was filed in April 1980. On July 16, 1984, the BIR issued a notice of assessment. Petitioner contends that
the 1984 assessment was made out of time.
Petitioner avers that while 1977 NIRC provide a 5-year period of limitation for the assessment and collection of internal revenue
taxes, BP700, enacted in 1984, reduced the period to 3 years to assess the tax liability, counted from the last day of filing the return or
from the date the return is filed, whichever comes later. Since the tax return was filed in April 1980, the assessment made on 1984 was
beyond the 3-year prescriptive period.

ISSUE: Whether the government’s right to assess has prescribed

RULING: No. BP700 specifically states that the shortened period of 3 years shall apply to assessments and collections of internal
revenue taxes beginning taxable year 1984. Assessments made on or after April 5, 1984 are governed by the 5-year period if the taxes
assessed cover taxable years prior to January 1, 1984.
Internal revenue taxes are self-assessing and no further assessment by the government is required to create the tax liability.