Key take-away from your Readings:

Extent of the Power of the Congress:

Any post-enactment congressional measure such as this should be limited to scrutiny and
investigation. In particular, congressional oversight must be confined to the following:
(1) scrutiny based primarily on Congress’ power of appropriation and the budget hearings
conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before
and be heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their departments and
its power of confirmation and
(2) investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of
Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the
Constitution. Legislative vetoes fall in this class.
Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative agency to
present the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress which, by itself or
through a committee formed by it, retains a "right" or "power" to approve or disapprove such
regulations before they take effect. As such, a legislative veto in the form of a congressional
oversight committee is in the form of an inward-turning delegation designed to attach a
congressional leash (other than through scrutiny and investigation) to an agency to which
Congress has by law initially delegated broad powers. It radically changes the design or structure
of the Constitution’s diagram of power as it entrusts to Congress a direct role in enforcing,
applying or implementing its own laws.
Congress has two options when enacting legislation to define national policy within the broad
horizons of its legislative competence, namely:
(a) It can itself formulate the details or
(b) it can assign to the executive branch the responsibility for making necessary managerial
decisions in conformity with those standards. In this case, the law must be complete in all
its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. Thus, what
is left for the executive branch or the concerned administrative agency when it formulates
rules and regulations implementing the law is to fill up details (supplementary rule-
making) or ascertain facts necessary to bring the law into actual operation (contingent
rule-making).
Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the
law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to respect. Such
rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have been
written in the statute itself. As such, they have the force and effect of law and enjoy the
presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with finality in an
appropriate case by a competent court. Congress, in the guise of assuming the role of an overseer,
may not pass upon their legality by subjecting them to its stamp of approval without disturbing
the calculated balance of powers established by the Constitution. In exercising discretion to
approve or disapprove the IRR based on a determination of whether or not they conformed
with the provisions of RA 9335, Congress arrogated judicial power unto itself, a power
exclusively vested in this Court by the Constitution.
Section 246 of the NIRC was discussed in Tax 1. All you need to do is read the cases in your
syllabus.

The determination of the function performed by the CIR is important in order to determine the
appropriate appellate body. If the function performed falls under the power to interpret tax laws,
the taxpayer aggrieved by the ruling of the CIR can request the SOF to review the ruling by filing
a request for review, which must be in writing and under oath. The request must be filed within
30 days from the receipt of the ruling. If the function performed falls under the power to decide
D-R-O-P cases, the taxpayer aggrieved by the ruling of the CIR can request the CTA to review the
decision by filing a petition for review within 30 days from the receipt of the decision.

Important case to read: COURAGE vs CIR

Without a valid Letter of Authority, the FAN is void.

Without a “verified” information of the informer, the assessment is a naked assessment.

There are additional requirements for the fixing of real property values under the TRAIN Law.

There are non-delegable functions. This will include the promise to compromise and abate.

For you to understand these, you should have read the pertinent provisions of NIRC and cases
indicated in your syllabus.

A naked assessment is a void assessment.

The following are the requirements of a valid assessment:

1. It must contain the facts, laws, jurisprudence, rules and regulations upon which the
assessment is based. (several cases)
2. It must be addressed to the taxpayer. (Pascor)
3. It must be sent to the taxpayer. (Pascor)
4. It must contain a demand to pay the tax. (Fitness by Design)
5. It must contain a due date. (Fitness by Design)
6. It must contain a definite amount of liability (Fitness by Design)
7. It must be preceded by a valid PAN (Metro Start Superama)
8. It must be preceded by a LOA (Medicard)
9. It must be preceded by a NIC (Revenue Regulations)

3 years to assess and 3 years to collect; 3 years to collect without assessment (Sec 203)
10 years to assess and 5 years to collect; 10 years to collect without assessment (Sec 222)

Date of Acceptance need not be indicated in the Waiver but the CIR must accept the Waiver
within the regular 3-year period to assess. (RMO 14-2016)
Only a request for REINVESTIGATION, which is GRANTED by the CIR, will toll the running of
the prescriptive period.

The CTA can acquire jurisdiction over disputed assessments. Thus, if the taxpayer did not file a
protest within the period prescribed by law, the assessment becomes final and the taxpayer loses
the right to challenge the validity of assessment (including the issue on prescription: CIR vs.
Gonzales). However, if the government did not collect the tax within the prescriptive period
(notwithstanding the finality of the assessment), the taxpayer can file a petition before the CTA.
It will fall under other matters (Hambrecht).

Administrative appeal applies when there is a decision issued by the RD. In cases of inaction,
administrative appeal is not available.
The filing of an MR/MNT before the CTA division is mandatory before elevating the case to the
CTA en banc. The filing of an MR/MNT before CIR prior to the filing of a petition before the
CTA division is NOT mandatory. It will not toll the running of the period to file a petition.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal:

"1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments,
refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other
matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue;
"2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments,
refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other
matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period
of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;
"3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally
decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;
"4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees
or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or
other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws
administered by the Bureau of Customs;
"5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided
by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
"6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for
review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government
under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
"7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product,
commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,
commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302,
respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under Republic Act No.
8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:

"a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax
cases originally decided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction.
"b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts
in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective
jurisdiction.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:

"a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax
collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
"b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts
in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their
respective jurisdiction

Exclusive ORIGINAL jurisdiction

Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National
Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or felonies
mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount o taxes and fees, exclusive of charges
and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified
amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be
appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the
criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and
penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same
proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with
it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately
from the criminal action will be recognized.

Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments
for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection cases where the
principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.

No suspension of collection of tax, except as herein prescribed. - No appeal taken to the Court shall
suspend the payment, levy, distraint, or sale of any property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction
of tax liability as provided under existing laws

Exceptions will apply only when the case falls within the circumstance enumerated in the case of
Pacquiao and Tridharma.
Refunds under 229– the act of the taxpayer will determine his option.

Reckoning date will depend on the type of tax subject of refund.

Income Tax subject to CWT – from filing of the final adjustment return

FWT – date of remittance (MTC case: In the case at bar, it is undisputed that Metrobank's final
withholding tax liability in March 2001 was remitted to the BIR on April 25, 2001. As such, it only
had until April 25, 2003 to file its administrative and judicial claims for refund. However, while
Metrobank's administrative claim was filed on December 27, 2002, its corresponding judicial
claim was only filed on September 10, 2003. Therefore, Metrobank's claim for refund had clearly
prescribed.

End