Adamson v. Court of Appeals, GR No.

120935, 21 May 2009

CASE SUMMARY: Adamson Management Corp. (AMC) sold common shares of stock to
Adamson and Adamson, Inc. (AAI), for which they paid capital gains tax. The Commissioner
issued a “Notice of Taxpayer” to officers of AMC, informing them of deficiencies on their
payment of CGT and VAT. The first issue in this case is WoN the CIR has already issued an
assessment to the taxpayers. The Court ruled that it did not. The letter admitted by the CIR to
have been issued by it to the DOJ containing the tax liabilities of the Adamson officers cannot
be considered an assessment. An assessment is a written notice and demand made by the BIR
on the taxpayer for the settlement of a due tax liability that is there definitely set and fixed. A
written communication containing a computation by a revenue officer of the tax liability of a
taxpayer and giving him an opportunity to contest or disprove the BIR examiner’s findings is not
an assessment since it is yet indefinite. The second issue in this case is WoN an assessment is
necessary before filing a criminal complaint for tax evasion. The Court ruled that although the
CIR did not issue an assessment to AMC, an assessment is not a prerequisite to the filing of a
criminal complaint for tax evasion. The Court cited Section 269 of the NIRC and stated that
when fraudulent tax returns are involved as in the cases at bar, a proceeding in court after the
collection of such tax may be begun without assessment.

FACTS: Lucas Adamson and Adamson Management Corp. (AMC) sold common shares of
stock in Adamson and Adamson, Inc. (AAI) to APAC Holding Limited (APAC), and paid the
corresponding capital gains tax for the transaction. AMC sold to APAC Philippines, Inc. 0
common shares of stock in AAI. AMC paid the capital gains tax.

The Commissioner issued a “Notice of Taxpayer” to AMC, Lucas G. Adamson, Therese June D.
Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes (president, treasurer, and secretary respectively), informing
them of deficiencies on their payment of CGT and VAT. The Commissioner filed with the DOJ
her Affidavit of Complaint against the 3 for violations of the NIRC, primarily for tax evasion.

ISSUES and RULING:

1. WoN the CIR has already issued an assessment to the taxpayers? NO
 The letter admitted by the CIR to have been issued by it to the DOJ containing the tax
liabilities of the Adamson officers cannot be considered an assessment. The Commissioner
denied that she issued a formal assessment of the tax liability of AMC, Lucas G. Adamson,
Therese June D. Adamson and Sara S. de los Reyes. She admits though that she wrote the
recommendation letter addressed to the Secretary of the DOJ recommending the filing of
criminal complaints against AMC and the aforecited persons for fraudulent returns and tax
evasion.

An assessment is a written notice and demand made by the BIR on the taxpayer for the
settlement of a due tax liability that is there definitely set and fixed. A written communication
containing a computation by a revenue officer of the tax liability of a taxpayer and giving him
an opportunity to contest or disprove the BIR examiner’s findings is not an assessment
since it is yet indefinite.

The recommendation letter is not an assessment based on the ff grounds: (1) It was not
addressed to the taxpayers; (2) There was no demand made on the taxpayers to pay the tax
liability, nor a period for payment set therein; (3) The letter was never mailed or sent to the
taxpayers by the Commissioner.

It served merely as the prima facie basis for filing criminal informations that the taxpayers
had tax violations.

2. WoN an assessment is necessary before filing a criminal complaint for tax evasion? NO.

An assessment is not a prerequisite to the filing of a criminal complaint for tax evasion.

Section 269 of the NIRC (now Section 222 of the Tax Reform Act of 1997) Exceptions as to
period of limitation of assessment and collection of taxes. - (a) 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 after th collection of such tax may be begun without
assessment, at any time withi ten 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 collection
thereof…
When fraudulent tax returns are involved as in the cases at bar, a proceeding in court after
the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment. The gross disparity in the
taxes due and the amounts actually declared by the private respondents constitutes badges
of fraud.

In Ungab v. Cusi, there was no need for precise computation and formal assessment in
order for criminal complaints to be filed.