Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Mary Anne
    This case involves a dispute over alleged deficiency income and withholding taxes for 1989 between the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc. Hambrecht & Quist argued that the CIR's right to collect the taxes had prescribed. The Court held that the issue of whether the CIR's right to collect the taxes had prescribed was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals to decide, as prescription is a matter provided for by the National Internal Revenue Code. While the tax assessment may be final, prescription of the right to collect is a separate issue from the validity of the assessment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Mary Anne
    74 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over alleged deficiency income and withholding taxes for 1989 between the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc. Hambrecht & Quist argued that the CIR's right to collect the taxes had prescribed. The Court held that the issue of whether the CIR's right to collect the taxes had prescribed was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals to decide, as prescription is a matter provided for by the National Internal Revenue Code. While the tax assessment may be final, prescription of the right to collect is a separate issue from the validity of the assessment.

    Original Description:

    digested CIR V HAMBREDTH

    Original Title

    CIR vs Hambredth

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over alleged deficiency income and withholding taxes for 1989 between the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc. Hambrecht & Quist argued that the CIR's right to collect the taxes had prescribed. The Court held that the issue of whether the CIR's right to collect the taxes had prescribed was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals to decide, as prescription is a matter provided for by the National Internal Revenue Code. While the tax assessment may be final, prescription of the right to collect is a separate issue from the validity of the assessment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views1 page

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Mary Anne
    This case involves a dispute over alleged deficiency income and withholding taxes for 1989 between the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) and Hambrecht & Quist Philippines, Inc. Hambrecht & Quist argued that the CIR's right to collect the taxes had prescribed. The Court held that the issue of whether the CIR's right to collect the taxes had prescribed was within the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals to decide, as prescription is a matter provided for by the National Internal Revenue Code. While the tax assessment may be final, prescription of the right to collect is a separate issue from the validity of the assessment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs.

    HAMBRECHT & QUIST PHILIPPINES, INC.

    GR. No. 169225 November 17, 2010

    FACTS: HAMBRECHT AND QUIST PHILIPPINES INCORPORATED is


    located in Makati City, Philippines. Company is working in Financial Activity
    business activities. In a letter dated February 15, 1993, respondent informed
    the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), its change of business address from the
    2nd Floor Corinthian Plaza, Paseo de Roxas, Makati City to the 22nd Floor
    PCIB Tower II, Makati Avenue corner H.V. De la Costa Streets, Makati City.

    Respondent was accused of an alleged deficiency income and expanded


    withholding taxes for the taxable year 1989 amounting to ₱ 2,936,560.87.
    respondent, through its external auditors, filed its protest letter against the
    alleged deficiency tax assessments for 1989 as indicated in the said tracer
    letter dated October 11, 1993.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the BIR’s right to collect taxes had already prescribed

    HELD: The issue of prescription of the BIR’s right to collect taxes may be
    considered as covered by the term "other matters" over which the CTA has
    appellate jurisdiction. Furthermore, the phraseology of Section 7, number (1),
    denotes an intent to view the CTA’s jurisdiction over disputed assessments
    and over "other matters" arising under the NIRC or other laws administered
    by the BIR as separate and independent of each other.

    The fact that an assessment has become final for failure of the
    taxpayer to file a protest within the time allowed only means that the validity
    or correctness of the assessment may no longer be questioned on appeal.
    However, the validity of the assessment itself is a m,kk njmband distinct issue
    from the issue of whether the right of the CIR to collect the validly assessed
    tax has prescribed. This issue of prescription, being a matter provided for by
    the NIRC, is well within the jurisdiction of the CTA to decide.

    You might also like