Case Doctrines

Philippine  The Waiver of Statute of Limitations signed by PJI is not valid and
Journalist binding because it does not conform with the provisions of RMO No.
Inc., vs. CIR 20-90.
 It did not specify a definite agreed date between the BIR and
petitioner, within which the former may assess and collect revenue
taxes. It was also defective as it was signed only by a revenue district
officer, not the Commissioner, as mandated by the NIRC and RMO
No. 20-90.
 The waiver is not a unilateral act by the taxpayer or the BIR, but is a
bilateral agreement between two parties to extend the period to a
date certain and thus the conformity of the BIR must be made by
either the Commissioner or the Revenue District Officer.
CIR vs.  An assessment notice issued after the three-year prescriptive period
Kudos Metal is no longer valid and effective.
Corporation  The waivers were executed without the notarized written authority of
the accountant to sign the waiver in behalf of Kudos. The waivers also
failed to indicate the date of acceptance. The fact of receipt by the
respondent of its file copy was not indicated in the original copies of
the waivers
CIR vs. CA  Section 319 of the Tax code is clear and explicit that the waiver of the
and five-year prescriptive period must be in writing and signed by both the
Carnation BIR Commissioner and the taxpayer.
 The three waivers signed by Carnation do not bear the written
consent of the BIR Commissioner as required by law. Thus, such
waivers are invalid and without any binding effect on Carnation since
there was no consent by the CIR.
RCBC vs.  RCBC, by partially paying the revised assessments issued within the
CIR extended period as provided for in the questioned waivers, impliedly
admitted the validity of those waivers.
 The SC held that had RCBC truly believed that the waivers were
invalid and that the assessments were issued beyond the prescriptive
period, it should not have paid the reduced amount of taxes in the
revised assessment.
 The SC considered RCBC’s subsequent action to have effectively
belied its insistence that the waivers are invalid. Thus, the SC held
that RCBC is estopped from questioning the validity of the waivers.
 The principle of estoppel was made applicable in this case because
there were already payments made after the execution of the waiver
hence it amounts to an implied admission that there is nothing wrong
with the waiver.
 Lesson: How to file a protest and make payments but should be made
under protest in order that the rule of estoppel will not apply against
the taxpayer.
CIR vs.  Although respondent paid the deficiency WTC and FWT
Standard assessments, it did not waive the defense of prescription as regards
Charter the remaining tax deficiencies, it being on record that respondent
continued to raise the issue of prescription in its Pre-Trial Brief, Joint
Stipulations of Facts and Issues, direct testimonies of its witness, and
Memorandum.
  The payment of the deficiency WTC and FWT was made together
with the reiteration in the petition for the cancellation of the
assessment notices on the alleged deficiency income tax, final
income tax - FCDU, and EWT.
CIR vs.  The statute of limitations on assessment and collection of national
United internal revenue taxes was shortened from five years to three years
Salvage and by virtue of Batas Pambansa Blg. 700.
Towage  CIR has three years from the date of actual filing of the tax return to
Phils. assess a national internal revenue tax or to commence court
proceedings for the collection thereof without an assessment.
 However, when it validly issues an assessment within the 3-year
period, it has another three years within which to collect the tax due
by distraint, levy, or court proceeding.
 The assessment of the tax is deemed made and the three 3-year
period for collection of the assessed tax begins to run on the date the
assessment notice had been released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer.
CIR vs. GJM  When an assessment is made within the prescriptive period, receipt
Philippines by the taxpayer may or may not be within said period. However, such
Mftg., Inc rule does not dispense with the requirement that the taxpayer should
actually receive the assessment notice, even beyond the prescriptive
period.
 GJM denies ever having received any FAN. If the taxpayer denies
having received an assessment from the BIR, it then becomes
incumbent upon the latter to prove by competent evidence that such
notice was indeed received by the addressee. The onus probandi has
shifted to the BIR.
 The BIR's failure to prove GJM's receipt of the assessment leads to
no other conclusion but that no assessment was issued.
Consequently, the government's right to issue an assessment for the
said period has already prescribed.
 There has to be proof that the assessment was received by the
taxpayer. If there is no proof, then it is deemed as if no assessment
has been issued at all.
 FAN was considered void for not having sent within the prescriptive
period
Republic vs.  For the ten-year period under Section 222 (a) to apply, it is not
GMCC enough that fraud is alleged in the complaint, it must be established
United by clear and convincing evidence. The BIR, having failed to discharge
Developmen the burden of proving fraud, cannot invoke Section 222 (a).
t Corp.  It is necessary that there is proof that there was an intent to evade the
tax. It is not sufficient that there is a case filed with fraudulent return.
The intent to evade must be established as well.
 Having settled that the case falls under Section 203 of the Tax Code,
the three-year prescriptive period should be applied. In GMCC's case,
the last day prescribed by law for filing its 1998 tax return was April
15, 1999. BIR had three years or until 2002 to make an assessment.
Since the Preliminary Assessment was made only on December 8,
2003, the period to assess the tax had already prescribed. A reading
of Section 203 will show that it prohibits two acts after the expiration
of the three-year period. First, an assessment for the collection of the
 taxes in the return, and second, initiating a court proceeding on the
basis of such return.
 When it concerns fraudulent cases, it must likewise be proven.
 Notwithstanding the fact that the Court made reference to the
issuance of the PAN, always remember that it is the FAN which must
be issued within the 3 year prescriptive period
CIR vs.  The Waivers of Statute of Limitations, being defective and invalid, did
Systems not extend the CIR's period to issue the subject assessments. Thus,
Technology the right of the government to assess or collect the alleged deficiency
Inc,. taxes is already barred by prescription. Section 203 of the NIRC limits
the CIR's period to assess and collect internal revenue taxes to three
years counted from the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the
return or from the day the return was filed, whichever comes later.
Assessments issued after the expiration of such period are no longer
valid and effective.
