CIR v. Sony Philippines, Inc., G.R. No.

178697, 17 November 2010

FACTS:
 The CIR issued a Letter of Authority; authorizing certain revenue officers to examine the
books of Sony regarding revenue taxes for the “period of 1997 and unverified previous
years”.
 The CIR made a final assessment finding Sony liable for 11 million as Deficiency VAT,
2 million deficiency in EWT, deficiency in VAT on Royalties at 400 thousand, penalty
on last remittance of Final Withholding Tax at 2.2 million, and a penalty on the last
remittance on income payments at 10 thousands. The total is around 15.8 million pesos.
 Sony brought the assessment to the CTA, which disallowed the deficiency VAT
assessment because the subsidized advertising expense paid by Sony, which was covered
by a VAT invoice is an input VAT credit. The CTA also modified the EWT deficiency
but upheld all else.

ISSUE/S: W/N Sony is liable for the 11 million VAT deficiency – NO

RULING:
 First of all, the LOA authorizing the examination was improper because the VAT
assessment was based on the fiscal year ending March 1998. The LOA states “period of
1997 and unverified previous years;” because of such, the valuation made after 1997
cannot be included in the final assessment. In fact, a revenue memorandum order clearly
prohibits the use of LOA’s covering an unverified period of years.
 Under the Tax Code, an advertising expense duly covered by a VAT invoice is a
legitimate expense. It is not contested that Sony incurred and paid for advertising
services. The main contention of the CIR is that since Sony International Singapore
reimbursed Sony’s advertising expense, the latter ever incurred said expense and as such
not entitled to a tax credit. The Court here ruled that since Sony itself paid for the
services, the question of where the money comes from is inconsequential.
 The CIR further claims that the reimbursement made by SIS to Sony should be subject to
income tax as well as VAT. The Court agrees with the income tax portion but not with
regard to VAT. VAT is levied and collected on every sale, barter or exchange of goods or
properties. Since there was no service, sale, or barter then no VAT shall be collected. The
services rendered by the advertising companies, paid for by Sony using SIS dole-out,
were for Sony and not SIS.

Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 222743, 5 April 2017

FACTS:
 Medicard was ordered by the CTA to pay CIR VAT deficiency at 220 million pesos plus
20% interest per annum from January 25, 2007.
 Finding some discrepancies between Medicard’s Income Tax Returns and VAT Returns,
the CIR informed Medicard and issued a Letter Notice.
 A PAN was issued against MEDICARD for deficiency VAT.
 A FAN was received by MEDICARD on January 4, 2008 for alleged deficiency VAT for
taxable year 2006 in the total amount of Pl 96,614,476.69,10 inclusive of penalties.
  Medicard raised the issue of lack of Letter of Authority on the part of the revenue officer
who conducted the examination. The CIR, on the other hand, posits that the LN is enough
compliance with the LOA requirement, arguing that the use of computers to detect
discrepancies dispenses with the requirement of LOA.

ISSUE/S: W/N the Letter Notice was enough compliance with the LOA requirement – NO

RULING:
 An LOA is the authority given to the appropriate revenue officer assigned to perform
assessment functions. It empowers or enables said revenue officer to examine the books
of account and other accounting records of a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting the
correct amount of tax.
 Unless authorized by the CIR himself or by his duly authorized representative, through an
LOA, an examination of the taxpayer cannot ordinarily be undertaken.
 The Court cannot convert the LN into the LOA required under the law even if the same
was issued by the CIR himself. Under RR No. 12-2002, LN is issued to a person found to
have underreported sales/receipts per data generated under the RELIEF system. Upon
receipt of the LN, a taxpayer may avail of the BIR's Voluntary Assessment and
Abatement Program. If a taxpayer fails or refuses to avail of the said program, the BIR
may avail of administrative and criminal remedies, particularly closure, criminal action,
or audit and investigation. Since the law specifically requires an LOA and RMO No. 32-
2005 requires the conversion of the previously issued LN to an LOA, the absence thereof
cannot be simply swept under the rug, as the CIR would have it.
 The following are the differences between an LOA and LN: (1) an LOA addressed to a
revenue officer is specifically required under the NIRC before an examination of a
taxpayer may be had while an LN is not found in the NIRC and is only for the purpose of
notifying the taxpayer that a discrepancy is found based on the BIR's RELIEF System;
(2) an LOA is valid only for 30 days from date of issue while an LN has no such
limitation; (3) an LOA gives the revenue officer only a period of 10days from receipt of
LOA to conduct his examination of the taxpayer whereas an LN does not contain such a
limitation.

Fitness by Design, Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. 177982, 17 October 2008.

FACTS:
 In 2004, CIR assessed Fitness by Design Inc. for deficiency Income Taxes for the year of
1995 for P 10,647, 529.69. In 2005, CIR issued a warrant of distraint and levy against
petitioner which prompted petitioner to file a Petition for Review before the CTA where
he alleged his defense of prescription based on Sec. 203 of the Tax Code.
 CIR assailed that the Tax Return filed by Fitness by Design was false and fraudulent for
deliberately failing to declare its true sales of P 7,156,336.08 and failure to file a VAT
return for it.
 Since Fitness by Design failed to file a protest, it is subject to either distraint or levy.
Moreover, it cited Sec. 222 (a) of 1997 Tax Code where false and fraudulent return with
intent to evade tax or failure to file a return prescribe 10 years after the discovery of the
falsity, fraud or omission.
  On the same year, BIR filed a criminal complaint before the DOJ against the officers and
accountant of Ftiness by Design for violation of the Tax Code.
 During the preliminary hearing on the issue of prescription, petitioner's former
bookkeeper attested that his former colleague, CPA Sablan, illegally took custody of
accounting records and turned them over to the BIR. Petitioner then requested a subpoena
ad testificandum for Sablan who failed to appear.
 CTA denied the motion for issuance of subpoena and disallowed the submission of
written interrogatories to Sablan who is NOT a party to the case nor was his testimony
relevant. Furthermore, Sablan’s testimony may be obtained even without a subpoena.

ISSUE: W/N the BIR can use Sablan’s testimony without consent from Fitness by Design –
YES

RULING:
 Petitioner’s lack of consent does not imply that the BIR obtained them illegally or that
the information received is false or malicious. Nor does the lack of consent preclude the
BIR from assessing deficiency taxes on petitioner based on the documents.
 Section 5 of the Tax Code provides: In ascertaining the correctness of any return, or in
making a return when none has been made, or in determining the liability of any person
for any internal revenue tax, or in collecting any such liability, or in evaluating tax
compliance, the Commissioner is authorized: (A) To examine any book, paper, record or
other data which may be relevant or material to such query; (B) To obtain on a regular
basis from any person other than the person whose internal revenue tax liability is subject
to audit or investigation, or from any office or officer of the national and local
governments, government agencies and instrumentalities, including the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas and government-owned and –controlled corporations, any information such
as, but not limited to, costs and volume of production, receipts or sales and gross incomes
of taxpayers, and the names, addresses, and financial statements of corporations, mutual
fund companies, insurance companies, regional operating headquarters of multinational
companies, joint accounts, associations, joint ventures or consortia and registered
partnerships and their members; (C) To summon the person liable for tax or required to
file a return, or any officer or employee of such person, or any person having possession,
custody, or care of the books of accounts and other accounting records containing entries
relating to the business of the person liable for tax, or any other person, to appear before
the Commissioner or his duly authorized representatives at a time and place specified in
the summons and to produce such books, papers, records, or other data, and to give
testimony; (D) To take such testimony of the person concerned, under oath, as may be
relevant or material to such inquiry; and (E) To cause revenue officers and employees to
make a canvass from time to time of any revenue district or region and inquire after and
concerning all persons therein who may be liable to pay any internal revenue tax, and all
persons owning or having the care, management or possession of any object with respect
to which a tax is imposed.

Sy Po v. CTA and CIR, G.R. No. 81446, 18 August 1988

FACTS:
  Po Bien Sing, the sole proprietor of Silver Cup Wine Factory (SCWF), engaged in the
business of manufacture and sale of compounded liquors. On the basis of a denunciation
against SCWF allegedly "for tax evasion amounting to millions of pesos, Secretary of
Finance directed the Finance-BIR-NBI team to investigate.
 On the basis of the team's report of investigation, CIR assessed Mr. Po Bien Sing
deficiency income tax for 1966 to 1970 in the amount of P7,154,685.16 and for
deficiency specific tax for January 2,1964 to January 19, 1972 in the amount of
P5,595,003.68.
 The BIR recommended the reiteration of the assessments in view of the taxpayer's
persistent failure to present the books of accounts for examination.

ISSUE: W/N the assessments have a valid and legal basis – YES

RULING:
 The rule on the "best evidence obtainable" applies when a tax report required by law for
the purpose of assessment is not available or when the tax report is incomplete or
fraudulent.
 The persistent failure of the late Po Bien Sing and the herein petitioner to present their
books of accounts for examination for the taxable years involved left the CIR no other
legal option except to resort to the power conferred upon him under Section 16 of the Tax
Code.
 Tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith. The
taxpayer has the duty to prove otherwise. In the absence of proof of any irregularities in
the performance of duties, an assessment duly made by a BIR examiner and approved by
his superior officers will not be disturbed. All presumptions are in favor of the
correctness of tax assessments.

CIR v. Hantex Trading Co., Inc., G.R. No. 136975, 31 March 2005

FACTS:
 Hantex Trading is a corporation engaged in the sale of plastic products. It imports
synthetic resin and other chemicals for the manufacture of its products. For this purpose,
it is required to file an Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration with the Bureau of
Customs under the Tariff and Customs Code.
 In 1989, Vicente Amoto, the Acting Chief Of Counter-Intelligence Division of the
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), received confidential
information that Hantex imported synthetic resin amounting to P115M but only declared
P45M.
 The Commissioner of EIIB issued a Mission Order for the audit and investigation of the
importations of Hantex for the year 1987.
 The President and General Manager refused to comply with the subpoena issued on the
ground that its books of accounts and records for importation of synthetic resin and
calcium bicarbonate had been investigated repeatedly by the BIR on prior occasions.
 An investigation was conducted by EIBB relying on the certified copies of Hantex’s
Profit and Loss Statement for 1987 and 1988 on file with the SEC, the machine copies of
 the Consumption Entries submitted by the informer, and excerpts from the entries
certified by the Collection Division of the Bureau of Customs.
 It was found that for 1987, Hantex had importations totaling more or less P105M,
unreported sales in the amount of P63M, and an income tax liability of P41,916,937.78,
inclusive of penalties, charges, and interests.

ISSUE: W/N the assessment against Hantex for deficiency income tax and sales tax for its 1987
importations is based on competent evidence – YES

RULING:
 Section 16 of the Tax Code provides that the CIR has the power to make assessments and
prescribe additional requirements for tax administration and enforcement. Paragraph (b)
of the Section provides that, “when a report required by law as a basis for the assessment
of any national internal revenue tax shall not be forthcoming within the time fixed by law
or regulation or when there is reason to believe that any such report is false, incomplete,
or erroneous, the Commissioner shall assess the proper tax on the best evidence
obtainable”.
 The best evidence referred to in this Section includes corporate and accounting records of
the taxpayer, corporate and accounting records of other taxpayers who are engaged in the
same line of business, including their gross profit and net profit sales.
 It also includes any data, record, paper, document, or any evidence gathered by BIR
examiners from other taxpayers who had personal transactions or from whom the subject
taxpayer received any income, or secured from government offices or agencies.

CIR v. Embroidery & Garments Industries Phils., G.R. No. 96262, 22 March 1999

FACTS:
 On September 1964, on the basis of a sworn report of an informer, the CFI of Manila and
Bulacan issued search warrants for the seizure of certain documents from the officers of
respondent in Manila and Bulacan.
 On January 1966, petitioner assessed respondent the sum of P436,846.44, inclusive of
75% surcharge and penalty as advance sales tax for the years 1959 to 1961.
 On March 1966, petitioner assessed respondent of deficiency income tax in the sum of
P4,799,641.95, inclusive of surcharge and interests for the years 1960 and 1961.
 On December 1970, petitioner issued a revised assessment requiring respondent to to pay
the amount of P2,756,241.68 inclusive of surcharge and interest as deficiency income tax
for the years 1959 to 1961.
 Respondent protested the assessments, but the protest was denied. Respondent filed a
motion for reconsideration, which was granted upon its execution of a waiver of the
statute of limitations.

ISSUE: W/N respondent is liable for deficiency income tax and advance sales tax – NO

RULING:
 The issues raised are factual and must be resolved on the basis of the evidence adduced
before the court. The case tarried too long in the tax court. In the meantime, the star
 witness had died, and the needed originals of documentary evidence could no longer be
located.
 Appeal via certiorari from a decision of the CA to the SC may raise only questions of
law, which must be distinctly set forth. Findings of fact of the CA and of the tax court are
final, binding and conclusive upon the parties and the Supreme Court, which will not be
reviewed or disturbed on appeal unless these findings are not supported by evidence.
 However, there are recognized exceptions: (1) when the conclusion is grounded entirely
on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial
courts; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals overlooked certain relevant facts
not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on
the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. This case does
not come within any of the exceptions.

CIR v. Pascor Realty, G.R. No. 128315, 29 June 1999

FACTS:
 By virtue of a Letter of Authority, then BIR Commissioner Ong and other authorized
revenue officers examined the books of accounts and accounting records of Pascor Realty
and Development Corp. (PRDC), which resulted in a recommendation for the issuance of
an assessment (P7.5M for 1986 and P3M for 1987).
 CIR filed a criminal complaint for tax evasion before the DOJ against PRDC, its
President and Treasurer. The latter filed a request for reconsideration/reinvestigation.
 CIR denied such request and Pascor elevated the CIR’s decision to the CTA.
 CIR filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that CTA has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter since no formal assessment has been issued against PRDC.
 The CTA denied the Motion stating that the criminal case for tax evasion is already an
assessment.
 The amount and kind of tax due and the covered period are sufficient details for an
assessment.
 CA agreed with the decision of the CTA.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the revenue officers’ Affidavit-Report attached to the criminal Complaint filed
with the Department of Justice constituted an assessment that could be questioned before
the Court of Tax Appeals

RULING:
 Neither the NIRC nor the RRs define the word “assessment.” However, the specific
functions and effects of an assessment are defined in the NIRC.
  To consider the affidavit attached to the complaint as a proper assessment is to subvert
the nature of an assessment and set a bad precedent that will prejudice innocent
taxpayers.
 An assessment informs the taxpayer that he has a tax liability. It must be sent to and
received by a taxpayer and must demand payment of the taxes within a specific period.
 The issuance of an assessment is vital in determining the period of limitation regarding its
proper issuance and the period within which to protest it. It also signals the time when
penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer.
 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 for tax evasion. Clearly, it was not meant to be a notice of the tax due and a
demand to the private respondents for payment thereof.
 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, not to issue an assessment.
 What private respondents received was a notice from the DOJ that a criminal case for tax
evasion had been filed against them, not a notice that the Bureau of Internal Revenue had
made an assessment.

CIR v. Philippine Global Communications, Inc., G.R. No. 167146, 31 October 2006

FACTS:
 Philippine Global Communications filed its Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year
1990 on April 15, 1991. On April 13, 1992, CIR issued a Letter of Authority authorizing
BIR officials to examine the books and other accounting records of Philippine Global. In
connection with the investigation, BIR sent a letter requesting the company to present
certain documents but the latter failed to do so.
 On April 21, 1994, Philippine Global received a Preliminary Assessment Notice dated
April 13, 1994 for deficiency income tax of P118M inclusive of surcharge, interest and
compromise penalty.
 The next day, April 22, 1994, it received a Formal Assessment Notice with Assessment
Notice for deficiency income tax of the same amount.
 Philippine Global filed two formal protest letters against the Assessment Notice. One on
May 6, 1994 and another on May 23, 1994.
 On October 16, 2002, more than 8 years after the assessment was issued, its counsel
received the CIR decision denying the protest and affirming the assessment notice in toto.
 On November 15, 2002, it filed a petition for review with CTA. CTA ruled in favor of
Philippine Global ruling on the primary issue of prescription. It stated that the protest
letters filed by Philippine Global cannot constitute a request for reinvestigation, hence,
they cannot toll the running of the prescriptive period to collect the assessed deficiency
income tax. Since more than 3 years had lapsed from the issuance of the Assessment
Notice, CIR’s right to collect has prescribed.
 CIR argues that it has not yet prescribed as it granted the requests for reinvestigation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the right of CIR to collect the deficiency income tax has been barred by
prescription – YES

RULING:
 The assessment was issued on April 13, 1994 since Philippine Global did not dispute
CIR’s claim. Therefore, BIR had until April 13, 1997 to collect the deficiency income
tax. However, as there was no Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy served on Philippine
Global nor any judicial proceedings initiated by BIR, the earliest attempt of the BIR to
collect was when it filed its Answer in the CTA case which was several years beyond the
3-year prescriptive period. Thus, the CIR’s right to collect had already prescribed.
 Prescription in the assessment and in the collection of taxes is provided by the legislature
for the benefit of both the Government and the taxpayer; for the Government, for the
purpose of expediting the collection of taxes, so that the agency charged may not tarry
too long or indefinitely to the prejudice of the interests of the Government which needs
taxes to run it; and for the taxpayer so that within a reasonable time after filing his return,
he may know the amount of the assessment he is required to pay, whether or not such
assessment is well founded and reasonable so that he may either pay or contest its
validity in court. It would surely be prejudicial to the interest of the taxpayer for the
government to unduly delay the assessment and collection because by the time the
collecting agency finally gets around to making the assessment or collection, the taxpayer
may have then lost his papers and books to support his claim. And what is more, the tax
is in the meantime accumulating interest which the taxpayer eventually has to pay.
 The law on prescription should be liberally construed in order to protect tax payers and
that, as a corollary, the exceptions to the law on prescription should be strictly construed.

CIR v. Phoenix Assurance Co., Ltd., G.R. Nos. L-19127 and 19903, 20 May 1965

FACTS:
 Phoenix is a foreign insurance corporation organized under the laws of Great Britain. It is
licensed to do business in the Philippines. On April 1953, Phoenix filed its Philippine
income tax return for 1952, declaring therein a deduction from gross income as part of
the head office expenses incurred for its Philippine business.
 On August 1955, it amended its income tax return for 1952 by excluding from its gross
income the amount representing reinsurance premiums ceded to foreign reinsurers further
eliminating deductions corresponding to the ceded premiums.
 CIR disallowed a portion of the deduction. In 1958, BIR released the assessment for
deficiency income tax for the years 1952 against Phoenix. The latter protested, but the
protest was denied.
 CTA ruled that the right of CIR to assess deficiency income tax for 1952 has already
prescribed.

ISSUE: W/N the right of CIR to assess deficiency income tax against Phoenix for 1952 has
already prescribed -- NO

RULING:
  The changes and alterations embodied in the amended income tax return consisted of the
exclusion of reinsurance premiums received from domestic insurance companies by
Phoenix London head office, reinsurance premiums ceded to foreign reinsurers not doing
business in the Philippines and various items of deduction attributable to such excluded
reinsurance premiums thereby substantially modifying the original return.
 Considering that the deficiency assessment was based on the amended return which is
substantially different from the original return, the period of limitation of the right to
issue the same should be counted from the filing of the amended income tax return. From
August 30, 1955, when the amended return was filed, to July 24, 1958, when the
deficiency assessment was issued, less than five years elapsed. The right of the
Commissioner to assess the deficiency tax on such amended return has not prescribed.

CIR v. BF Goodrich Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 104171, 24 February 1999

FACTS:
• BF Goodrich was an American-owned and controlled corporation. As a condition for
approving the manufacture by BF Goodrich of tires and other rubber products, the
Central Bank of the Philippines required that it should develop a rubber plantation.
• In compliance with the requirement, BF purchased from the Philippine Government in
1961 certain parcels of land under the public land act and the parity amendment of the
1935 constitution and developed a rubber plantation. More than a decade later, the justice
secretary rendered an opinion that upon the expiration of the parity amendment, the
ownership rights of Americans over public agricultural lands, including the right to
dispose or sell their real estate would be lost.
• On the basis of such an opinion, BF sold to Siltown Realty Philippines its rubber
plantation land for 500k payable in installments. In accordance with their agreement,
Siltown Realty leased the parcels of land to BF for a period of 25 years, with an extension
of another 25 years at BF's option.
• Based on BIR's letter of authority, the books and accounts of BF were examined for the
purpose of determining its tax liability. It was assessed for deficiency income tax in the
amount of 6k which it duly paid.
• Subsequently, the BIR also issued letters of authority for examining Siltown's business,
income and tax liabilities. On the basis of the examinations, the BIR commissioner issued
against BF an assessment for deficiency in donor's tax in the amount of 1 million in
relation to the previous sale of the rubber plantation land.
• The BIR deemed the consideration for the sale insufficient and the difference between the
fair market value and the actual purchase price a taxable donation.
• BF contested the assessment. the CTA found in favor of the BIR.
• the CA reversed the CTA stating that there is no first assessment done, nor was it done
within the 5 year period stated in Section 331. The assessment must be based on the
grounds provided in Section 337 and not section 15. Section 337 has specific terms of
fraud, irregularity and mistake.

ISSUE: W/N CIR's right to assess deficiency donors tax has prescribed – YES

RULING:
  Section 331 provides that internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within 5 years after the
return was filed, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such
taxes shall be begun after expiration of such period. Applying the provision, it is clear
that the October 16, 1960 and the March 1981 assessments were issued by the BIR
beyond the 5-year limitation.
 Exception: in the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade a tax or of a
failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court fo the collection
of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time within ten years after
discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission

CIR insists that BF committed falsity when it sold the property for a price lesser than its
declared fair market value. However, this fact alone did not constitute a false return which
contains wrong information due to mistake, carelessness or ignorance. It is possible that real
property may be sold for less than adequate consideration for bona fide business purposes.

Butuan Sawmill, Inc. v. CTA, G.R. No. L-2060, 28 February 1966

FACTS:
 In the years of 1952-1953, Butuan Sawmill sold logs to Japanese Firms at prices FOB,
which included costs of loading, wharfage stevedoring and other costs in the Philippines.
 Butan Sawmill was paid through irrevocable Letters of Credit; payable through the
Philippine National Bank.
 In 1957, it was found that petitioner did not file its sales tax return and neither did it pay
the corresponding tax.
 Petitioner then was made liable to pay around 40k pesos and was lowered to 38.9k upon
reinvestigation.
 Petitioner now claims that although it did not file its Sales tax return for the period of
1951-1953, it did however submit its Income tax return where the transaction was
declared. Due to this, petitioner claims that it has substantially complied with the law and
as such, the prescriptive period of 5 years should apply rather than the 10 year period
from discovery as required in Sec 332 (a) of the Tax Code.

ISSUE: W/N the assessment was made within the prescriptive period – YES

RULING:
 It is undisputed that the petitioner failed to file a return on the disputed sales as required
by law and that such failure was discovered on in 1957.
 The Court ruled that the filing of an income tax return cannot be made to compensate the
failure to file the specific tax return required by law. As such, it is deemed that the
petitioner had not submitted any sales tax return at all, which the petitioner did fail to do.
Since there was no filing, Sec 332 (a) should be made to apply; the prescriptive period
being 10 years from the discovery.