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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    CIR vs. CTA, 203 SCRA 72

    Uploaded by

    SURITA, FLOR DE MAE P
    The CIR challenged CTA resolutions that cancelled QLDI's deficiency tax assessment and enjoined the CIR from collecting the assessed taxes. The CTA ruled that the CIR's right to collect the taxes from 2010 had prescribed because collection letters were issued more than 5 years after the assessment. The Supreme Court upheld the CTA's rulings, finding that the CTA had jurisdiction over the case and that the CIR filed the wrong remedy in directly appealing to the Supreme Court instead of first appealing to the CTA En Banc. The Court also affirmed that the CTA may issue injunctions to restrain tax collection when prescription has occurred.

    Copyright:

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

    CIR vs. CTA, 203 SCRA 72

    Uploaded by

    SURITA, FLOR DE MAE P
    49 views1 page
    The CIR challenged CTA resolutions that cancelled QLDI's deficiency tax assessment and enjoined the CIR from collecting the assessed taxes. The CTA ruled that the CIR's right to collect the taxes from 2010 had prescribed because collection letters were issued more than 5 years after the assessment. The Supreme Court upheld the CTA's rulings, finding that the CTA had jurisdiction over the case and that the CIR filed the wrong remedy in directly appealing to the Supreme Court instead of first appealing to the CTA En Banc. The Court also affirmed that the CTA may issue injunctions to restrain tax collection when prescription has occurred.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The CIR challenged CTA resolutions that cancelled QLDI's deficiency tax assessment and enjoined the CIR from collecting the assessed taxes. The CTA ruled that the CIR's right to collect the taxes from 2010 had prescribed because collection letters were issued more than 5 years after the assessment. The Supreme Court upheld the CTA's rulings, finding that the CTA had jurisdiction over the case and that the CIR filed the wrong remedy in directly appealing to the Supreme Court instead of first appealing to the CTA En Banc. The Court also affirmed that the CTA may issue injunctions to restrain tax collection when prescription has occurred.

    Copyright:

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

    CIR vs. CTA, 203 SCRA 72

    Uploaded by

    SURITA, FLOR DE MAE P
    The CIR challenged CTA resolutions that cancelled QLDI's deficiency tax assessment and enjoined the CIR from collecting the assessed taxes. The CTA ruled that the CIR's right to collect the taxes from 2010 had prescribed because collection letters were issued more than 5 years after the assessment. The Supreme Court upheld the CTA's rulings, finding that the CTA had jurisdiction over the case and that the CIR filed the wrong remedy in directly appealing to the Supreme Court instead of first appealing to the CTA En Banc. The Court also affirmed that the CTA may issue injunctions to restrain tax collection when prescription has occurred.

    Copyright:

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

    Name: Surita, Flor De Mae P.

    G.R. No. 258947. March 29, 2022

    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF TAX


    APPEALS SECOND DIVISION AND QL DEVELOPMENT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

    Facts:
    The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) challenges the Resolutions in Court of Tax Appeals
    (CTA) which cancelled QLDI's deficiency tax assessment for the year 2010 due to prescription
    and enjoined the CIR from collecting the assessed deficiency taxes.
    In 2012, a Letter of Authority (LOA) was issued to QLDI, covering the deficiency taxes. Then the
    Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) was served, and QLDI replied to it. Subsequently, the
    Formal Assessment Notice (FAN) was issued, however QLDI failed to file a protest within the
    required 30-day period. The CIR then issued a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA),
    which QLDI received to which the latter requested reconsideration but it was denied by the CIR,
    and ordered QLDI to pay the deficiency taxes and compromise penalty.
    QLDI then filed a Petition for Review with the CTA Division, challenging the CIR's decision.
    QLDI filed a Motion for Early Resolution of the Issue of Prescription of Collection of Taxes,
    alleging that the CIR's right to collect taxes had already prescribed.

    Issue/s:
    Whether or not the CIR's right to collect taxes had already prescribed. (YES)

    Ruling:
    The Court ruled in favor of QLDI and upheld the Resolutions of the CTA Division. The CIR
    availed itself of the wrong remedy by filing a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition directly with
    the Supreme Court. It held that the CTA En Banc has jurisdiction over a final judgment or order
    but not over an interlocutory order issued by the CTA Division. The CIR's proper remedy on the
    adverse Resolutions of the CTA Division was to file an appeal by way of a petition for review with
    the CTA En Banc. Thus, the CIR's filing of the instant Petition before this Court assailing the twin
    Resolutions issued by the CTA Division is erroneous. Nonetheless, even if the Court were to
    disregard the impropriety of the remedy resorted to by the CIR, the Petition would still be
    dismissed.
    The Court likewise ruled that the CTA had jurisdiction over the case, as it extends to "other
    matters" arising under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), not just limited to disputed
    assessments and refunds. The CIR's right to collect taxes had prescribed. The CTA Division
    held that when an assessment is timely issued, the CIR has five years within which to collect the
    assessed tax. Considering that the collection letters were issued beyond five years, the CIR's right
    to collect from QLDI the assessed deficiency taxes had already prescribed.
    Finally, the Court held that the CTA may enjoin the collection of taxes if such collection will
    jeopardize the interest of the government or the taxpayer. In this regard, the Court ruled that the
    CTA has ample authority to issue injunctive writs to restrain the collection of tax, especially in
    cases where prescription has set in.

    You might also like