CIR VS.

BASF COATING
(G.R. NO. 198677; NOVEMBER 26, 2014)

FACTS:
2/3 of BC's board members and stockholders decided to dissolve the corporation by cutting its
50-year term of existence (from 1990) short (only until March 31, 2001). Subsequently, BC
moved out of its address in Las Piñas City and transferred to Carmelray Industrial Park,
Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna

On June 26, 2001, BC submitted a notice of dissolution with attached BIR Form 1905 which
refers to an update of information contained in its tax registration. 
Thereafter, a FAN was sent to BC's former address in Las Piñas City. The FAN indicated an
amount of 18 million pesos representing income tax, VAT, WTC, EWT and DST for the taxable
year of 1999.

In 2004, BIR's, issued a First Notice Before Issuance of Warrant of Distraint and Levy (FNB),
which was sent to the residence of one of BC's directors.

BC filed a protest letter citing lack of due process and prescription as grounds.

After 180 days without action on the part of the CIR, BC filed a petition for review with the CTA.
Trial ensued.

The CTA 1D ruled that since the CIR was actually aware of BC's new address and such error in
sending should not be taken against BC. According to the CTA 1D, since there are no valid
notices sent to BC, the subsequent assessments against it are considered void.

CIR filed an MR. It was denied. So, it went to CTA en banc. The CTA En Banc held that CIR's
right to assess respondent for deficiency taxes for the taxable year 1999 has already prescribed
and that the FAN issued to respondent never attained finality because BC did not receive it.

CIR filed an MR. Denied.

ISSUES:
#1: W/N the running of the 3-year prescriptive period to assess was suspended
when BC failed to notify the CIR of its change of address?

No, the 3-year prescriptive period to assess was not suspended in favor of the CIR even if BC
failed notify regarding its change of address.

It is true that, under the Tax Code, the running of the Statute of Limitations shall be suspended
when the taxpayer cannot be located in the address given in the return filed upon which a tax is
being assessed or collected.
In addition, Section 11 of RR 12-85 states that, in case of change of address, the taxpayer is
required to give a written notice thereof to the RDO or the district having jurisdiction over his
former legal residence and/or place of business.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the above-mentioned provisions on the suspension of
the 3-year period to assess apply only if the CIR is not aware of the whereabouts of the taxpayer.

In the present case, the CIR, by all indications, was well aware that BC had moved to its new
address in Calamba, Laguna, as shown by the documents which formed part of respondent's
records with the BIR such as the audit reports of the Revenue Officer, memorandum reports,
and general information sheet.

Moreover, before the FAN was sent to BC's old address, the RDO sent BC a letter regarding the
results of its investigation and an invitation to an information conference. This could not have
been done without being aware of BC's new address. Finally, the PAN was "returned to sender"
before the FAN was sent.
Hence, despite the absence of a formal written notice of Bc's change of address, the fact remains
that petitioner became aware of respondent's new address as shown by documents replete in its
records. As a consequence, the running of the three-year period to assess respondent was not
suspended and has already prescribed.

ISSUE #2:  W/N there was constructive service in BC's case as allowed in RR No.
12-99.

No there is none.

The CIR's reliance on the provisions of Section 3.1.7 of BIR RR No. 12-9944 as well as on the
case of Nava v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue is misplaced, because in the said case, one of
the requirements of a valid assessment notice is that the letter or notice must be properly
addressed. It is not enough that the notice is sent by registered mail as provided under the said
RR.
In the instant case, the FAN was sent to the wrong address. Thus, the CTA is correct in holding
that the FAN never attained finality because BC never received it, either actually or
constructively.

Sec. 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection. -

Except as provided in Section 222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three
(3) years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no
proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be
begun after the expiration of such period: Provided, That in a case where a return is
filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three (3)-year period shall be
counted from the day the return was filed. For purposes of this Section, a return filed
before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such
last day. (emphasis supplied)
Sec. 222. Exceptions as to Period of Limitation of Assessment and Collection of Taxes. -
(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or of failure
to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax
may be filed without assessment, at any time within ten (10) years after the discovery of
the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has become final
and executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal
action for the collection thereof.

(b) If before the expiration of the time prescribed in Section 203 for the assessment of the
tax, both the Commissioner and the taxpayer have agreed in writing to its
assessment after such time, the tax may be assessed within the period agreed
upon.

The period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent written agreement made before the
expiration of the period previously agreed upon.

(c) Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the period of
limitation as prescribed in paragraph (a) hereof may be collected by distraint or
levy or by a proceeding in court within five (5) years following the assessment of
the tax.

(d) Any internal revenue tax, which has been assessed within the period agreed upon as
provided in paragraph (b) hereinabove, may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding
in court within the period agreed upon in writing before the expiration of the five (5) -year
period.

The period so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent written agreements made before the
expiration of the period previously agreed upon.

(e) Provided, however, That nothing in the immediately preceding and paragraph (a) hereof
shall be construed to authorize the examination and investigation or inquiry into any tax return
filed in accordance with the provisions of any tax amnesty law or decree.
Sec. 223. Suspension of Running of Statute of Limitations. - The running of the Statute
of Limitations provided in Sections 203 and 222 on the making of assessment and the beginning
of distraint or levy a proceeding in court for collection, in respect of any deficiency, shall be
suspended for the period during which the Commissioner is prohibited from making the
assessment or beginning distraint or levy or a proceeding in court and for sixty (60) days
thereafter; when the taxpayer requests for a reinvestigation which is granted by the
Commissioner; when the taxpayer cannot be located in the address given by him in the return
filed upon which a tax is being assessed or collected: Provided, that, if the taxpayer informs the
Commissioner of any change in address, the running of the Statute of Limitations will not be
suspended; when the warrant of distraint or levy is duly served upon the taxpayer, his
authorized representative, or a member of his household with sufficient discretion, and no
property could be located; and when the taxpayer is out of the Philippines, (emphasis supplied)

In addition, Section 11 of BIR Revenue Regulation No. 12-85 states:

Sec. 11. Change of Address. - In case of change of address, the taxpayer must give a written
notice thereof to the Revenue District Officer or the district having jurisdiction over his former
legal residence and/or place of business, copy furnished the Revenue District Officer having
jurisdiction over his new legal residence or place of business, the Revenue Computer Center and
the Receivable Accounts Division, BIR, National Office, Quezon City, and in case of failure to do
so, any communication referred to in these regulations previously sent to his former legal
residence or business address as appear in is tax return for the period involved shall be
considered valid and binding for purposes of the period within which to reply.

RR No. 12-9944
If the notice to the taxpayer is served by registered mail, and no response is received from the
taxpayer within the prescribed period from date of the posting thereof in the mail, the same shall be
considered actually or constructively received by the taxpayer.

If the same is personally served on the taxpayer or his duly authorized representative who, however,
refused to acknowledge receipt thereof, the same shall be constructively served on the taxpayer.

Constructive service thereof shall be considered effected by leaving the same in the premises of the
taxpayer and this fact of constructive service is attested to, witnessed and signed by at least two (2)
revenue officers other than the revenue officer who constructively served the same.

The revenue officer who constructively served the same shall make a written reportof this matter
which shall form part of the docket of this case.