CIR vs. Engring Eq and Supply Company

8/3/2019 CIR vs. Engring Eq and Supply Company

1/12


2/12


3/12


4/12


5/12


6/12


7/12


8/12


9/12


10/12


11/12


12/12

III chanrobles virtual law library

Lastly the question of prescription of the tax assessmenthas been put in issue. Engineering contends that it wasnot guilty of tax fraud in effecting the importations and,therefore, Section 332(a) prescribing ten years isinapplicable, claiming that the pertinent prescriptiveperiod is five years from the date the questionedimportations were made. A review of the record howeverreveals that Engineering did file a tax return ordeclaration with the Bureau of Customs before it paidthe advance sales tax of 7%. And the declaration filedreveals that it did in fact misdeclare its importations.Section 332 of the Tax Code which provides:

Section 332. - Exceptions as to period of limitation ofassessment and collection of taxes. - chanrobles virtuallaw library

(a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent

to evade tax or of a failure to file a return, the tax maybe assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collectionof such tax may be begun without assessment at anytime within ten years after the discovery of the falsity,fraud or omission.

is applicable, considering the preponderance of evidenceof fraud with the intent to evade the higher rate ofpercentage tax due from Engineering. The, tax

assessment was made within the period prescribed bylaw and prescription had not set in against theGovernment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanroblesvirtual law library

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmedwith the modification that Engineering is hereby alsomade liable to pay the 50% fraudsurcharge.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual

law library

SO ORDERED.

Makalintal, C.J., Castro, Makasiar and Martin, JJ.,concur.

CIR vs. Engring Eq and Supply Company

Documents

Transcript of CIR vs. Engring Eq and Supply Company