Case Digest Remedies Part 1

7/25/2019 Case Digest Remedies Part 1

1/23

1. CIR VS HANTEX

Facts:

BIR alleged Hantex misdeclared its imported resins.

BIR used as basis a photocopy of the Consumption Entry (Customs and !rofit and "oss #tatements(#EC.

$he C$% and C% denied both since the photocopy &as not the best e'idence. BIR did not use thetax return &hich is indispensable in tax assessments rather BIR relied on hearsay information of theinformants.

I##E:

)*+ the use of tax returns is indispensable in the computation of the assessments to be made bythe CIR. ( not indispensable, CIR may rely on other information but it must be supported by the beste'idence obtainale.

Held:

#ection - of the +IRC of -/00, as amended, pro'ides that the CIR has the po&er to ma1eassessments and prescribe additional re2uirements for tax administration and enforcement.

%mong such po&ers are those pro'ided in paragraph (b thereof:

(b Failure to submit re2uired returns, statements, reports and other documents. )hen a reportre2uired by la& as a basis for the assessment of any national internal re'enue tax shall not beforthcoming &ithin the time fixed by la& or regulation or when there is reason to believe that anysuch report is false, incomplete or erroneous, the Commissioner shall assess the proper tax on thebest evidence obtainable.

In case a person fails to file a re2uired return or other document at the time prescribed by la&,or willfully or otherwise files a false or fraudulent return or other document, the Commissioner shallmake or amend the return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtainthrough testimony or otherwise, which shall be prima facie correct and sufficient for all legal

purposes.

$his pro'ision applies &hen the CIR underta1es to perform her administrati'e duty of assessing theproper tax against a taxpayer, to ma1e a return in case of a taxpayer3s failure to file one, or to amend

a return already filed in the BIR.

$he best e'idence en'isioned in #ection - includesthe corporate and accounting records of thetaxpayer &ho is the sub4ect of the assessment process, the accounting records of other taxpayersengaged in the same line of business, including their gross profit and net profit sales.

#uch e'idence also includes data, record, paper, document or any e'idence gathered by internalre'enue officers from other taxpayers &ho had personal transactions or from &hom the sub4ecttaxpayer recei'ed any income5 and record, data, document and information secured from


2/23

go'ernment offices or agencies, such as the #EC, the Central Ban1 of the !hilippines, the Bureau ofCustoms, and the $ariff and Customs Commission.

$he la& allo&s the BIR access to all rele'ant or material records and data in the person of thetaxpayer. It places no limit or condition on the type or form of the medium by &hich the recordsub4ect to the order of the BIR is 1ept. $he purpose of the la& is to enable the BIR to get at the

taxpayers records in &hate'er form they may be 1ept. The standard is not the form of the record butwhere it might shed light on the accuracy of the taxpayers return.

In Campbell, Jr. v. Guetersloh, the nited #tates (.#. Court of %ppeals (6th Circuit declared that itis the duty of the Commissioner of Internal Re'enue to in'estigate any circumstance &hich led himto belie'e that the taxpayer had taxable income larger than reported. +ecessarily, this inquiry wouldhave to be outside of the booksbecause they supported the return as filed.

Citing its ruling in enney v. Commissioner, the .#. appellate court declared that &here the recordsof the taxpayer are manifestly inaccurate and incomplete, the Commissioner may loo1 to othersources of information to establish income made by the taxpayer during the years in 2uestion.

)e agree &ith the contention of the petitioner that the best e'idence obtainable may consist ofhearsay e'idence. 7oreo'er, the general rule is that administrati'e agencies such as the BIR are notbound by the technical rules of e'idence. It can accept documents &hich cannot be admitted in a

4udicial proceeding &here the Rules of Court are strictly obser'ed. It can choose to gi'e &eight ordisregard such e'idence, depending on its trust&orthiness.

Ho&e'er, the best e'idence obtainable under #ection - of the -/00 +IRC, as amended, does notinclude mere photocopies of records*documents.

7ere photocopies of the Consumption Entries ha'e no probati'e &eight if offered as proof of thecontents thereof. $he reason for this is that such copies are mere scraps of paper and are of noprobati'e 'alue as basis for any deficiency income or business taxes against a taxpayer.

$he rule is that in the absence of the accounting records of a taxpayer, his tax liability may bedetermined by estimation.

$he petitioner is not re2uired to compute such tax liabilities &ith mathematical exactness.%pproximation in the calculation of the taxes due is 4ustified. $o hold other&ise &ould be tantamountto holding that s1illful concealment is an in'incible barrier to proof. Ho&e'er, the rule does not apply&here the estimation is arri'ed at arbitrarily and capriciously.80/9

%s a general rule, tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith.%ll presumptions are in fa'or of the correctness of a tax assessment. It is to be presumed, ho&e'er,that such assessment &as based on sufficient e'idence.

Ho&e'er, theprima faciecorrectness of a tax assessment ;E# +;$ apply upon proof that anassessment is utterly &ithout foundation, meaning it is arbitrary and capricious. )here the BIR hascome out &ith a na1ed assessment, i.e., &ithout any foundation character, the determination of thetax due is &ithout rational basis

. In such a situation, the .#. Court of %ppeals ruled that the determination of the Commissionercontained in a deficiency notice disappears. !ence, the determination by the CT" must rest on allthe evidence introduced and its ultimate determination must find support in credible evidence.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/136975.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/136975.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/136975.htm#_ftn79


3/23

In the case, $he original copies of the Consumption Entries &ere of prime importance to the BIR.$his is so because such entries are under oath and are presumed to be true and correct underpenalty of falsification or per4ury. %dmissions in the said entries of the importers documents areadmissions against interest and presumpti'ely correct.

In fine, the petitioner acted arbitrarily and capriciously in relying on and gi'ing &eight to the machine

copies of the Consumption Entries in fixing the tax deficiency assessments against the respondent.


4/23

3. CIR VS CA, ATLAS and ATLAS VS CA

Facts:

$he CIR caused the ser'ice of an assessment notice and demand for paymentof deficiency ad 'alorem percentage and fixed taxes against %$"%#.

%$"%# protested the assessment but the same &as denied.

%$"%# ele'ated the case to the #C &here one of the issues raised &as the assessedcontractor3s tax. It claimed that the leasing out of its personal properties &as a mere isolatedtransaction, hence, should not be sub4ected to contractor3s tax.

I##E:

)*+ the assessment against %$"%# for contractor3s tax &as 'alidly made by the CIR.

Held:

$he challenged assessment against %C7C for contractor


5/23

5. CABRERA vs PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF TAYABAS, CATIGBAC

Facts:

$he pro'incial treasurer of $ayabas issued a notice for the sale at public auction of numerousreal properties forfeited for tax delin2uency ?on ecember -6, -/@A at / a. m. and e'ery daythereafter, at the same place and hour until all the properties shall ha'e been sold to the highestbidder.?

$he sale in fa'or of the appellant (C%$IB%C of the land in'ol'ed &as executed on 7ay -, -/@-

$hereafter, B%#I"I% C%BRER%( plaintiff the file a case attac1ing the 'alidity of the tax sale ;+ $HER;+# $H%$

- #he &as not notified thereof5 and

-#he had become the registered o&ner of the land although the land hadremained I+ $HE %##E##7E+$ B;;D under the name of +E7E#I;.

$he court a 2uo ruled I+ F%>;R of the !"%I+$IFF.

Issue:

)*+ the auction sale &as 'alid.

Held.

$his sale is in'alid.

nder the la& (Common&ealth %ct +o. @0A, section 6, the pro'incial treasurer is en4oined to setforth in the notice, among other particulars, the date of the tax sale.

$his mandatory re2uirement &as not satisfied in the present case, becausethe announcement thatthe sale &ould ta1e place on ecember -6, -/@A and e'ery day thereafter, is the same as generaland indefinite as a notice for the sale #within this or next year# or #some time within the month of$ecember.#

In order to enable a taxpayer to protect his rights, he should at least be apprised of the exact dateofthe proceedingby which he is to lose his property.


6/23

6. VELAYO vs OROVE!A, ET AL.

Facts:

Respondents o&ned the sub4ect parcel of land.

$he City treasurer of 7anila sold at public auction to the !etitioner (>E"%; said land afterthe publication of the corresponding notice. $he reason for the saleGGGG there &ere unpaid real estatetaxes thereon.

)hen one of the respondents tried to the real property tax thereon, the cler1 of said citytreasurer ad'ised him of the sale.

$he respondents sent a letter to the city treasurer stating that they had not recei'ed anypre'ious notice or read in the ne&spaper of the public auction5 and it appears that the description inthe deed of sale is different from the description appearing in the $C$ of the sub4ect land.

!etitioner tried to register the property under his name by filing the appropriate action &*c&as opposed by the respondents.

$he court a 2uo fa'ored the respondents.

I##E:

)as the City $reasurer, the proper officer &ho has the authority to distain*le'y and cause thenotice of sale of the sub4ect property

HE":

nder the la& (Republic %ct +o. @A/, the city assessor and collector is the officer charged&ith the function of distraining personal property for the collection of delin2uent real estate taxes. It ishe &ho shall ?ad'ertise the real estate of the delin2uent for sale.?

the officer charged by la& &ith the duty of gi'ing notice of the contemplated sale of properties for taxdelin2uency and of executing the corresponding deed of sale is the City %ssessor and Collector, nottheCity Treasurer.

In the case at bar, the notice of sale at public auction &as gi'en, and the sale &as made, by the citytreasurer, &ho, li1e&ise, executed the certificate of sale and, later on, the deed of sale, although hehad no authority therefor.

%ccordingly, said notice, sale, certificate and deed are insufficient to di'est the ;rdo'e=as of theirtitle to the property in 2uestion.


7/23

". CASTRO VS CIR

Facts:

$he #ec. of Finance created a committee to re'ie& and examine the assessment of &arprofit tax issued against petitioner.

%fter the in'estigation, the committee submitted a report recommending the collection of her&ar profits tax due.

$o enforce collection, CIR caused to be ad'ertised the sale at public auction of the realproperties of the petitioner to satisfy the &ar profits tax assessed against her.

ue to lac1 of bidders, the properties &ere forfeited to the o'ernment in accordance &iththe +IRC.

)hen the case &as ele'ated to the #C, she raised the issue that the sale and forfeiture tothe go'ernment (ue to lac1 of bidders of the properties of her &*c &ere le'ied C;+#$I$$E# aF"" I#CH%RE of her tax liabilities.

I##E:

oes the forfeiture of le'ied properties tantamount to the full discharge of the total amount oftax liabilities

HE":

$he Court did not agree.

$he forfeiture of the property to the +ational o'ernment C%++;$ operate as fulldischarge*satisfaction of the tax claims even beyond the value of the property forfeited.

$HE #%$I#F%C$I;+ is only to the extent of the value of the property forfeited not the fullamount of the tax liabilities.


8/23

#. CIR VS PASCOR

Facts:

CIR filed a criminal complaint against the respondents before the ;J alleging e'asion oftaxes.

!ri'ate respondents filed a re2uest for reconsideration and rein'estigation.

$he CIR denied on the ground that no formal assessment has been issued.

$he matter &as ele'ated to the C$% &here CIR mo'ed to dismiss.

$he C$% denied CIR3s motion and held that the criminal complaint for tax e'asion &asalready an assessment.

$he C% affirmed.

)hen the issue reached the #C, respondents3 contended that the filing of a criminalcomplaint 7#$ be !RECEE by an assessment, in other &ords, there must be an assessmentfirst before a criminal action could be filed.

I##E:

)hether or not an assessment is necessary before criminal charges for tax e'asion may beinstituted.

Held:

$his is incorrect.

because #ection of the +IRC specifically states that in cases&here a false or fraudulent returnis submitted or in cases of failure to file a return such as this case,proceedings in courtmay becommenced without an assessment.

Furthermore, #ection A6 of the same Code clearly mandates that the ci'il and criminal aspects ofthe case may be pursued simultaneously.

In %ngab v. Cusi,petitioner therein sought the dismissal of the criminal Complaints for beingpremature, since his protest to the C$% had not yet been resol'ed. $he Court held that such protestscould not stop or suspend the criminal action which was independent of the resolution of the protestin the CT". $his &as because the CIR had, in such tax e'asion cases, discretion on whether toissue an assessment or to file a criminal caseagainst the taxpayer or to do both.

#ection states that an assessment is not necessary before a criminal charge can be filed. $his isthe general rule. !ri'ate respondents failed to sho& that they are entitled to an exception. 7oreo'er,the criminal charge need only be supported by aprima faciesho&ing of failure to file a re2uiredreturn. $his fact need not be pro'en by an assessment.


9/23

$he issuance of an assessment must be distinguished from the filing of a complaint.

Before an assessment is issued,

a. there is, by practice, a preGassessment notice sent to the taxpayer.

b. $he taxpayer is then gi'en a chance to submit position papers and documents to pro'ethat the assessment is un&arranted.

c. If the commissioner is unsatisfied, an assessment signed by him or her is then sent tothe taxpayer informing the latter specifically and clearly that an assessment has beenmade against him or her.

In contrast, the criminal charge need not go through all these.

-. $he criminal charge is filed directly &ith the ;J.

. $hereafter, the taxpayer is notified that a criminal case had been filed against him, notthat the commissioner has issued an assessment.

&t must be stressed that a criminal complaint is instituted not to demand payment, but to penali'ethe taxpayer for violation of the Tax Code.


10/23

$%d&'&a( A')&*n

+. Una- vs C%s&. GR N*. L/1+1+0/ a2 3, 1+#. +" SCRA #""

Because of his failure to report his income from sale of banana saplings for calendar year -/0, BIRfound sufficient proof to file information for tax e'asion against ngab.

He filed motion to 2uash the informations claiming that its filing is premature since the Commissionerof Internal Re'enue has not yet resol'ed his protests against the assessment of the Re'enue istrict;fficer5 and that he &as denied recourse to the Court of $ax %ppeals.

Issue: Is petitioner


11/23

1. A4's vs B((*s&(*.G.R. N*. L0353/. a2 16, 1+6". 0 SCRA 30

Facts:%rches file income tax return in -/6@. )ithin fi'e years, deficiency income tax and residencetax assessments &ere issued against him.

%s said assessment &as not contested, BIR Re'enue Regional irector &ithout appro'al of CIR filedsuit before municipal court to reco'er the deficiency income tax.

%rches mo'ed to dismiss it on ground of prescription and since complaint &as not appro'ed byRe'enue Commissoner(CIR as re2uired by $ax Code so the court has no 4urisdiction.

7unicipal court denied said motion. It &as affirmed by the CFI.

Issue: oes the lo&er court has 4urisdiction o'er the case

Ruling: es. $he municipal court had 4urisdiction o'er the parties and o'er the sub4ect matter, theamount demanded being less than !6,AAA.AA. - $he suit belo& instituted by the Republic, based onan uncontested assessment, &as one merely for the reco'ery of a sum of money &here the amountdemanded constitutes the 4urisdictional test.

%s for the need to ha'e the CIR appro'al to institute court actions, Finance #ecretary issued7emorandum ;rder +o. >G@ delegating to Regional irector the function to enforce re'enue la&ssuch as appro'al of court actions to be filed. GGK not anymore controllingLLL

11. CIR vs H&7*n.GR N*. 13/3, '8-4 13, 1+++.30 SCRA 5"/

Facts:Hi=on &as issued by BIR in -/M &ith deficiency income tax assessment for year -/M-GM. Hedid not contest it and he &as ser'ed &arrants of distraint and le'y but properties &as not attached.

BIR Region @ filed a complained in R$C !ampanga in -// to collect tax deficiencyo of respondentHi=on.

Complaint &as signed and 'erified by BIR Regional irector.

Hi=on mo'ed to dismiss case on t&o grounds:-complaint filed not upon authority of CIR and prescription. R$C granted the motion

Issue: Could BIR Regional irector file tax collection cases &ithout appro'al of CIR

Ruling: +o. R% M@@ ($ax Code authori=es CIR to delegate po&ers 'ested in him under the Codeli1e po&er to compromise or abate under NA@ (% and (B of this Code, any tax deficiency, po&er toissue rulings of first impression or to re'erse, re'o1e or modify any existing ruling of the Bureau. oneof the exceptions relates to the Commissioner


12/23

Compromises

(). *ampanga +ugar $evelopment vs Court of &ndustrial elations. G.. -o. (()/0. 1ay )2,(223.((4 +C" 3)/

5556 & think this is wrong case talaga. 7etter read the compromise part

Ta9 L&n

13. R:%-(&' vs En4&;%7. G.R. N*. L"#3+1. O')*-4 01, 1+##.166 SCRA 6#

Facts:CIR issued &arrant of distraint in -/M6 on the barges of 7aritime Company due to its failureto pay its deficiency taxes.

Ho&e'er, Enri2ue=, respondent sheriff, le'ied the said barges to satisfy 7aritime


13/23

$he follo&ing claims of creditors &ere filed namely: - separation pay from t&o labor unions and tobacco inspection fees from BIR and customs duties and taxes from Customs.

$he said trial court ruled that the claums of unions &ere preferred o'er that of the taxes due to thego'ernment. It relied on the #ection --A, "abor Code stating that in case of li2uidation of employer


14/23

Ruling: +o. nder the $ax Code, complaint for collection of taxes must be filed &ithin fi'eyears counted from the date of assessment or else it &ould prescribed. In the case at bar, thecommencement of the fi'eGyear period should be counted from %ugust /, -/6M, the date of theletter of demand of CIR to petitioner 7ambulao "umber Company and not the demand of Bureau ofForestry. It is this demand or assessment that is appealable to the Court of $ax %ppeals. $hecomplaint for collection &as filed in the Court of First Instance of 7anila on %ugust 6, -/-, 'ery

much &ithin the fi'eGyear period prescribed by the $ax Code.


15/23

16. R:%-(&' vs A4an)a. GR N*. L1/1/0, a2 3, 1+61 .0 SCRA 1//

Facts: CIR assessed defendants %raneta Co. and 7anila #urety of P on gross receipts for theirbusiness as common carriers tax in 7arch -6, -/@M for taxable year -/@G@M plus surcharge.

$hey re2uest to pay tax liability for six e2ual monthly installments beginning %pril -6, -/@/. It &asgranted by CIR under that they execute a bond &here in case of their failure to pay, the taxobligations remain in full force and effect.

$hey did not pay the said tax so CIR sued them before CFI 7anila for the bond they executed andthey failed to comply in Feb, , -/60. efendants in'o1e prescription (tax assessed in -/@MQ6years under old $ax Code-/6 period so they argued.

Issue: Could appellant %raneta in'o1e prescription under the $ax Code

Ruling: +o. $hey cannot in'o1e prescription under the pro'isions of section - of the +ationalInternal Re'enue Code, because the appellee is suing on the bond executed and filed by them andthe appellantGsurety. $he action to enforce the obligation on the bond executed on -M 7arch -/@/,ha'ing been filed in court by the appellee on February -/60, &as &ithin the prescripti'e period often years (under the Ci'il Code.

+;$E: Court said that this is no& a ci'il case not a tax case that they are filing so the -Ayear prescripti'e period, not the 6 year period under the $ax Code. Cause of action is not the failureto pay tax but failure to comply &ith the bond they executed.

Chec1ed imaampao. %ccording to him. !rescripti'e period is 6 yearsG&ith assessment. -A yearsGno assessment plus intent of taxpayer to e'ade tax.


16/23

1". G.R. N*. L00/+0 S:)8-4 5, 1+6"

BASILAN ESTATES, INC.,'s. CIR

F%C$#:

Basilan Estates is a !hil. Corporation engaged in the coconut industry. ;n 7arch @, -/6@ it filedand paid its income tax returns for -/6.

;n February , -/6/, assessment &as made by CIR against Basilan Estates, Inc., a deficiencyincome tax 6P surtax on unreasonably accumulated profits as of -/6.

Basilan Estates, Inc. filed before the Court of $ax %ppeals a petition for re'ie& of the Commissioner


17/23

-M. G.R. N*. L01551 S:)8-4 3, 1+6+

FERNANE! HERANOS, INC., 's. CIR

$he taxpayer, Fernande= Hermanos, Inc., is a domestic corporation organi=ed for the principalpurpose of engaging in business as an ?in'estment company?.

$he Commissioner of Internal Re'enue assessed against the taxpayer alleged deficiency incometaxes from -/6A to -/6@. #aid assessments &ere the result of alleged discrepancies found upon theexamination and 'erification of the taxpayer


18/23

1+. G.R. N*. L0+/#5 N*v8-4 01, 1+#

COISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,'s. AYALA SECURITIES CORPORATION

F%C$#:

#C earlier affirmed the decision of C$% and held that the assessment made on February -, -/- by

petitioner against respondent corporation (and recei'ed by the latter on 7arch , -/- for its fiscal

year ending #eptember A, -/66 fell under the fi'eGyear prescripti'e period pro'ided in section -

of the +ational Internal Re'enue Code and that the assessment had, therefore, been made after the

expiration of the said fi'eGyear prescripti'e period and &as of no binding force and effect .

Commissioner of Internal Re'enue filed a motion for reconsideration

!etitioner cites the Court of $ax %ppeals< ruling in the earlier case of %nited 9quipment : +upply

Company vs. Commissioner of &nternal evenue In said case, the tax court s2uarely ruled that the

pro'isions of sections - and of the +ational Internal Re'enue Code for prescripti'e periods offi'e 6 and ten (-A years after the filing of the return do not apply to the tax on the taxpayer


19/23


20/23

00. G.R. N*. L056+ A%%s) 03, 1+"/

$OSE B. A!NAR 's. CTA

F%C$#:

$he late 7atias H. %=nar &ho died on 7ay -M, -/6M, predecessor in interest of herein petitioner,during his lifetime as a resident of Cebu City, filed his income tax returns on the cash anddisbursement basis.

Commissioner of Internal Re'enue ha'ing his doubts on the 'eracity of the reported income of oneob'iously &ealthy ascertained the taxpayer


21/23

03. G.R. N*. 160#50 '8-4 16, 0/

PHILIPPINE $OURNALISTS, INC.,'s. COISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

F%C$#:

!etitioner filed an %nnual Income $ax Return on ec. -, -//@ and paid the income tax thereon.

;n %ugust -A, -//6 petitioner3s boo1s of account and other accounting records for internal re'enuetaxes for the period January -, -//@ to ecember -, -//@ &as examined. From the examination,the petitioner &as told that there &ere deficiency taxes.

!etitioner3s Comptroller, "oren=a $olentino, executed a ?)ai'er of the #tatute of "imitation nder the+ational Internal Re'enue Code (+IRC?.6$he document ?&ai'e8d9 the running of the prescripti'eperiod pro'ided by #ections and @ and other rele'ant pro'isions of the +IRC and consent8ed9to the assessment and collection of taxes &hich may be found due after the examination at any timeafter the lapse of the period of limitations fixed by said #ections and @ and other rele'antpro'isions of the +IRC, until the completion of the in'estigation?.

;n ecember /, -//M issued a final assessment of deficiency tax.

!etitioner filed a !etition for Re'ie&-&ith the Court of $ax %ppeals (C$% !etitioner complains thatthe assessment, ha'ing been made beyond the Gyear prescripti'e period, is null and 'oid5

C$% G $he &ai'er executed by the petitioner on #eptember , -//0 &as suffering from legalinfirmities, rendering the same in'alid and ineffecti'e, and the assessment &as timeGbarred.

C% T Re'ersed. Respondent !hil. Journalists is ordered 8to9 pay its assessed tax liability.

I##E: );+ the right to assess has prescribed

HE": $o chec1 if the right has prescribed the 'alidity of the &ai'er must first be examined.

$he &ai'er of the statute of limitations under +IRC is not a &ai'er of the right to in'o1e the defenseof prescription as erroneously held by the Court of %ppeals. $he &ai'er does not mean that thetaxpayer relin2uishes the right to in'o1e prescription une2ui'ocally particularly &here the languageof the document is e2ui'ocal. $he la& on prescription, being a remedial measure, should be liberallyconstrued in order to afford such protection.

)ai'er of #tatute of "imitations, signed by petitioner3s comptroller on #eptember , -//0 is not'alid and binding because:

-. It did not specify a definite agreed date bet&een the BIR and petitioner, &ithin &hich theformer may assess and collect re'enue taxes. $hus, petitioner3s &ai'er became unlimited intime, 'iolating #ection (b of the +IRC.. it &as signed only by a re'enue district officer, not the Commissioner.. $he date of acceptance &hich ma1es it difficult to fix &ith certainty if the &ai'er &asactually agreed before the expiration of the threeGyear prescripti'e period.@. the records sho& that petitioner &as not furnished a copy of the &ai'er.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_162852_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_162852_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_162852_2004.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_162852_2004.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_162852_2004.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/dec2004/gr_162852_2004.html#fnt12


22/23

$he &ai'er document is incomplete and defecti'e and thus the threeGyear prescripti'e period &asnot tolled or extended and continued to run until %pril -0, -//M. Conse2uently, the

%ssessment*emand +o. G-GAAA060G/@ issued on ecember /, -//M &as in'alid because it &asissued beyond the three ( year period.


23/23

0/. G.R. N*. L/1+1+0/ a2 3, 1+#

Case Digest Remedies Part 1

Documents

Transcript of Case Digest Remedies Part 1