The document discusses a Dean's Circle event at the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law in 2019. It provides details about the event such as mandatory attendance periods and jurisdictional requirements. The summary also notes that this was an annual event held in 2019 to recognize accomplishments in the Faculty of Civil Law.
The document discusses a Dean's Circle event at the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law in 2019. It provides details about the event such as mandatory attendance periods and jurisdictional requirements. The summary also notes that this was an annual event held in 2019 to recognize accomplishments in the Faculty of Civil Law.
The document discusses a Dean's Circle event at the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law in 2019. It provides details about the event such as mandatory attendance periods and jurisdictional requirements. The summary also notes that this was an annual event held in 2019 to recognize accomplishments in the Faculty of Civil Law.
The document discusses a Dean's Circle event at the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law in 2019. It provides details about the event such as mandatory attendance periods and jurisdictional requirements. The summary also notes that this was an annual event held in 2019 to recognize accomplishments in the Faculty of Civil Law.
However, BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 cannot be given retroactive effect for four reasons: first, it is admittedly an erroneous interpretation of the law; second, prior to its issuance, the BIR held that the 120-day period was mandatory and jurisdictional, which is the correct interpretation of the law; third, prior to its issuance, no taxpayer can claim that it was misled by the BIR into filing a judicial claim prematurely; and fourth, a claim for tax refund or credit, like a claim for tax exemption, is strictly construed against the taxpayer.
San Roque, therefore, cannot benefit from BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 because it filed its judicial claim prematurely on 10 April 2003, before the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 on 10 December 2003. To repeat, San Roque cannot claim that it was misled by the BIR into filing its judicial claim prematurely because BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was issued only after San Roque filed its judicial claim. At the time San Roque filed its judicial claim, the law as applied and administered by the BIR was that the Commissioner had 120 days to act on administrative claims. This was in fact the position of the BIR prior to the issuance of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03. Indeed, San Roque never claimed the benefit of BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 or RMC 49-03, whether in this Court, the CTA, or before the Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER,
-versus- BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 134062, FIRST DIVISION, April 17, 2007, CORONA, J.
Admittedly, the CIR did not inform BPI in writing of the law and facts on which the assessments of the deficiency taxes were made. He merely notified BPI of his findings, consisting only of the computation of the tax liabilities and a demand for payment thereof within 30 days after receipt.
In merely notifying BPI of his findings, the CIR relied on the provisions of the former Section 270 prior to its amendment by RA 8424 (also known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997). Accordingly, when the assessments were made pursuant to the former Section 270, the only requirement was for the CIR to "notify" or inform the taxpayer of his "findings." Nothing in the old law required a written statement to the taxpayer of the law and facts on which the assessments were based. The Court cannot read into the law what obviously was not intended by Congress. That would be judicial legislation, nothing less.
FACTS:
In two notices dated October 28, 1988, CIR assessed respondent BPI’s deficiency percentage and documentary stamp taxes for the year 1986 in the total amount of ₱129,488,656.63.
In a letter dated December 10, 1988, BPI, through counsel, replied that “the deficiency assessments are no assessments at all. The taxpayer is not informed, even in the vaguest terms, why it is being assessed a deficiency. The very purpose of a deficiency assessment is to inform taxpayer why he has incurred a deficiency so that he can make an intelligent decision on whether to pay or to protest the assessment. This is all the more so when the assessment involves astronomical amounts, as in this case. We therefore request that the examiner concerned be required to state, even in the briefest form, why he believes the taxpayer has a deficiency documentary and percentage taxes, and as to the percentage tax, it is important that the taxpayer be informed also as to what particular percentage tax the assessment refers to xxxx.”
BPI received a letter from CIR dated May 8, 1991 stating that: “although in all respects, your letter failed to qualify as a protest under Revenue Regulations No. 12-85 and therefore not deserving of any rejoinder by this office as no valid issue was raised against the validity of our assessment… still we obliged to explain the basis of the assessments”
BPI requested a reconsideration of the assessments stated in the CIR’s May 8, 1991 letter which was denied. BPI filed a petition for review in the CTA.
CTA dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction since the subject assessments had become final and unappealable. The CTA ruled that BPI failed to protest on and it denied reconsideration in a
En Banc G.R. No. 166387 January 19, 2009 Commissioner OF Internal REVENUE, Petitioners, Enron Subic Powercorporation, Respondents. Resolution Corona, J.
