Commissioner OF Internal REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LIQUIGAZ Philippines Corporation, Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.
LIQUIGAZ
PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Respondent.
When may a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) be declared void, and in
the event that the FDD A is found void, what would be its effect on the tax
assessment?
Liquigaz Philippines Corporation (Liquigaz) received a copy of Letter of Authority

(LOA) No. 00067824, dated July 4, 2006, issued by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (CIR), authorizing the investigation of all internal revenue taxes for taxable
year 2005.
On April 9, 2008, Liquigaz received an undated letter purporting to be a Notice of

Informal Conference (NIC), as well as the detailed computation of its supposed tax
liability. On May 28, 2008, it received a copy of the Preliminary Assessment Notice
(PAN), dated May 20, 2008, together with the attached details of discrepancies for
the calendar year ending December 31, 2005.6 Upon investigation, Liquigaz was
initially assessed with deficiency withholding tax liabilities, inclusive of interest.
Thereafter, on June 25, 2008, it received a Formal Letter of Demand7 (FLD)/Formal

Assessment Notice (FAN), together with its attached details of discrepancies, for the
calendar year ending December 31, 2005.
On July 25, 2008, Liquigaz filed its protest against the FLD/FAN and subsequently
submitted its supporting documents on September 23, 2008.
As reflected in the FDDA, the CIR still found Liquigaz liable for deficiency withholding
tax liabilities, inclusive of interest.
Consequently, on July 29, 2010, Liquigaz filed its Petition for Review before the CTA
Division assailing the validity of the FDDA issued by the CIR.
The CTA Division Ruling
In its November 22, 2012 Decision, the CTA Division partially granted Liquigaz's
petition cancelling the EWT and FBT assessments but affirmed with modification the
WTC assessment. It ruled that the portion of the FDDA relating to the EWT and the
FBT assessment was void pursuant to Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue
Code (NIRC) of 1997, as implemented by Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99.
The CTA Division noted that unlike the PAN and the FLD/FAN, the FDDA issued did
not provide the details thereof, hence, Liquigaz had no way of knowing what items
were considered by the CIR in arriving at the deficiency assessments. This was
especially true because the FDDA reflected a different amount from what was stated
in the FLD/FAN. The CTA Division explained that though the legal bases for the EWT
and FBT assessment were stated in the FDDA, the taxpayer was not notified of the
factual bases thereof, as required in Section 228 of the NIRC.
On the other hand, it upheld the WTC assessment against Liquigaz. It noted that the
factual bases used in the FLD and the FDDA with regard thereto were the same as
the difference in the amount merely resulted from the use of a different tax rate.
The CTA Division agreed with Liquigaz that the tax rate of 25.40% was more
appropriate because it represents the effective tax compensation paid, computed
based on the total withholding tax on compensation paid and the total taxable
compensation income for the taxable year 2005. It did not give credence to
Liquigaz's explanation that the salaries account included accrued bonus, 13th month
pay, de minimis benefits and other benefits and contributions which were not subject
to withholding tax on compensation. The CTA Division relied on the report prepared
by Antonio O. Maceda, Jr., the court-commissioned independent accountant, which
found that Liquigaz was unable to substantiate the discrepancy found by the CIR on
its withholding tax liability on compensation. The dispositive portion of the CTA
Division decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly,

the assessments for deficiency expanded withholding tax in the amount of
P3,479,426.75 and fringe benefits tax in the amount of P14,392,572.51 issued by
respondent against petitioner for taxable year 2005, both inclusive of interest and
compromise penalty is hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN for being void.
However, the assessment for deficiency withholding tax on compensation for taxable
year 2005 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.

Commissioner OF Internal REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LIQUIGAZ Philippines Corporation, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commissioner OF Internal REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LIQUIGAZ Philippines Corporation, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commissioner OF Internal REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LIQUIGAZ Philippines Corporation, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.

Liquigaz Philippines Corporation (Liquigaz) received a copy of Letter of Authority

On April 9, 2008, Liquigaz received an undated letter purporting to be a Notice of

Thereafter, on June 25, 2008, it received a Formal Letter of Demand7 (FLD)/Formal

The CTA Division Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly,

You might also like