1.) No.

The FDDA should sufficiently inform in itself the taxpayer of the CIR’s decision on
the disputed assessment. Meaning, the legal and factual bases for the decision should
be contained in the decision to fully inform the taxpayer of the basis for its decision.
Hence, in this case since there were no basis on the FDDA itself explaining its decision,
such decision is void.

2.) The FDDA becomes void if it violates due process, that is, that the decision of the CIR is
based on the submitted evidence of the taxpayer and that it used these evidence for
consideration in its decision. The decision itself also has to contain the factual and legal
bases to support its conclusion, otherwise it will be void. The invalidity of the FDDA
however does not void the assessment itself.

3.) A valid protest must be a protest on the Final Assessment Notice not on the PAN. It is
also required that it be filed within the time prescribed by law which is 30 days from the
receipt of the FAN. The protest should state the legal and factual basis for its claims.

A motion for reinvestigation is a protest wherein the taxpayer submits newly-discovered

evidence to dispute the FAN. They are given 60days to submit additional evidence. If the
motion is given due course, it suspends the period of assessment/collection. Meanwhile,
a motion for reconsideration is a protest where the taxpayer asks the BIR to re-evaluate
and re-assess its decision without additional evidence. It does not suspend the period of
assessment/collection.

4.) A.) A valid waiver must be in writing. It also must be executed by the taxpayer or his
duly authorized representative. It must also state expressly the period within which the
period of assessment and collection would be suspended for or a deadline on which the
effectivity of the waiver would last.
B.) Yes. The general rule is that assessment may only be done within 3 years from
the last date of filing of the return or if late, 3 years from the actual filing. The only
exception is when there is a failure to file a return, false return, or fraudulent return
with intent to evade taxes then assessment could be had 10 years from discovery
thereof. In this case, the tax liability was in 2012, the assessment made was only in
2017. There was a lapse of 5 years before the assessment was made, more than what is
allowed by law. The case does not fall within the exception because there was no
mention of false or fraudulent returns. Collection exception without assessment would
not apply as well for the same reasons.

5.) Yes. The Final Notice before Seizure can be deemed a denial of his MR because it in
effect demanded the payment/collection of the tax due per its assessment. Because it is
in effect a denial of its MR, then the taxpayer may appeal the same to the CTA within 30
days of the receipt of the Notice.

6.) The authority of the CIR to compromise tax liabilities are allowed in cases that there is
doubt as to the claim of the government to the disputed assessment by the taxpayer

De Leon, Luis Antonio M. Tax II. 11881526.

 and in cases where there is reasonable ground to believe that the taxpayer would not be
able to pay his tax liabilities. In these cases, the CIR may settle the tax liability up to a
demand of not less than 10% in cases of inability to pay, and not less than 40% if there is
doubt on the claim of the government. Meanwhile, abatement is the cancellation of the
tax liability of the taxpayer because the CIR find that the collection of the tax liability
would not be worth it in relation to time and resources needed to collect.

7.) A.) He should file an administrative protest for his income tax within the
reglementary period from the receipt of the assessment with the BIR. If the BIR
denies or the period within which to decide expires, the taxpayer could appeal to
the CTA.

B.) If the taxpayer will only protest the income tax assessment, the VAT
assessment would become final. The taxpayer can dispute only part of the
assessment issued and since the VAT assessment was not disputed, it becomes
final.

8.) No. While the taxpayer has the option to either administratively appeal to the
CIR or judicially appeal to the CTA, the period for both has already lapsed. Since it
took PAGCOR 7 months to appeal the inaction of the RD, the prescriptive period
to appeal the inaction of the RD has already lapsed. Consequently, the FAN has
already become final.

9.) Yes. The taxpayer’s liability is still allowed to be compromised as long as the
parameters as provided for in the NIRC, its grounds and limits, are existent, even
pending appeal.

10.) Yes. Under the NIRC, the CIR has the authority to compromise tax liabilities up to
not less than 10% in cases of financial inability to pay. In this case, what is being
offered is 50% and the ground for the compromise is due to financial inability.
Hence, it falls within the parameters as provided for in the NIRC and the CIR have
the power to accept such compromise offer.

11.) A.) Yes. Before a judicial claim for refund on tax assessed may be filed with
the CTA, the taxpayer has to file a written claim for refund first with the BIR. In
this case, there is no written claim for refund with the BIR before the Estate
proceeded to the CTA, hence the CTA could not validly take cognizance of the
judicial claim for refund.

B.) Yes. The law requires that there be a categorical written claim for refund
first with the BIR before a judicial claim could be had. The BIR must be given an
opportunity to administratively resolve the issue first before proceeding with the
courts.

De Leon, Luis Antonio M. Tax II. 11881526.

 12.) No. The taxpayer only has 2 years to file a claim for refund administratively and
judicially regardless of any supervening event. Both must be within 2 years from
payment of taxes. In this case, he was 12 days late. Hence the appeal was filed
out of time

13.) Yes. The protest or appeal does not suspend the collection of the BIR of taxes.
The courts can’t even issue an injunction order. As jurisprudence explained,
there is an urgency to collect taxes because it is the lifeblood of our government.
Thus, the garnishment is valid.

14.) Yes. Cities like provinces have authority to impose business taxes with a cap of
0.75% (for the city). They have the power to impose such taxes independently of
professional taxes and other taxes imposed by the NIRC (which does not tax the
same subject matter). Having such express authority to impose such taxes, ABC
Law is liable to pay business tax to the City.

15.) Yes. The City has the authority to impose taxes on the use of city property which
is constructed, funded, and owned by it. So long as the tax is not oppressive and
does not tantamount to confiscation, then the tax on use of the elevators is valid.

16.) The taxes should be paid 30% to the principal office LGU in QC and 70% at the
place of the factory in Marikina. The law states that the sharing should be 30-70
between the principal office and the factory if there is a factory on another LGU.
Further, the sales no matter where made, would be divided between the factory
LGU and the principal office LGU. Hence, 30% of the 10M goes to QC and 70% of
the 10M goes to Marikina.

17.) A.) No. He is already paying his professional tax as a lawyer in Pasig City. He
cannot be imposed with the same professional tax twice by different LGUs.

B.) No. Mr. Santos is already paying the professional fees required for him to
pay on Makati City and Pasig City. He cannot be imposed with the same tax
under two different LGUs.

18.) A.) No. Under the law, there is no requirement that the BIR has to decide
first on the claim for refund before the taxpayer can proceed to the CTA. The
only requirement is that there is a written claim for refund. Also, a case in
jurisprudence allowed the filing of the claim to the CTA without waiting for the
CIR decision and within 4 days from its administrative claim. Thus, ABC Corp., can
validly proceed to the CTA even without waiting for the CIR to decide.

B.) No. The prescriptive period within which to file a claim for refund/tax
credit for VAT starts from the close of the taxable quarter. In this case, the close

De Leon, Luis Antonio M. Tax II. 11881526.

 of the quarter was in second quarter 2011 and the claim was only in 2015. It is
past the 2 year prescriptive period for VAT refund/credit. In addition, in a claim
for refund/credit to the VAT, the taxpayer has to wait for the decision of the CIR
or the expiration of the period of its inaction before he can proceed to the CTA,
he cannot proceed to the CTA directly.

19.) No. A holding company cannot be considered as a contractor as it does not

provide services to another for a fee. They merely hold investment and earn on
their own. As such, the City was incorrect for assessing them for taxes owing by a
contractor.

20.) The ordinance is invalid. Aleco is already paying income taxes on the rental fees
of the poles. LGUs does not have the power to impose taxes on the same subject
that the NIRC has already imposed tax with such as income tax (aside from bank
and banking institutions). In this case, the ordinance seek to impose income tax
for the income earned by Aleco through the rental of the poles which is already
being imposed by income tax by the NIRC. Hence, the ordinance is invalid.

21.) A.) PAN is the preliminary assessment notice which states that factual and
legal basis of the assessment made by the BIR. It is not protest-able, is a
requirement before a FAN can be sent, and should give the taxpayer an
opportunity to explain his contentions on the initial assessment. It is preliminary.
Meanwhile, a FAN is the assessment notice which can be protested to the BIR. It
is based on the evaluation of the reply to the PAN. It is the notice that can be
protested that could lead to a remedy with the CTA.

B.) No. A VAT tax assessment has to follow the procedure set by law. Which
requires a PAN, then the FAN, before collection can be pursued. In this case,
there was no PAN and the tax deficiency assessment included an assessment for
VAT. Hence, given that there was no PAN, then the assessment is void.
Consequently, the warrant of distraint is void as well.

De Leon, Luis Antonio M. Tax II. 11881526.