REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Court ofTax Appeals
QUEZON CITY
Third Division
BLOAT AND OGLE, INC., CTA CASE NO. 8682
Petitioner,
Members:
Bautista, Chairperson
- versus - Fa bon-Victorino, and
Ringpis-Liban, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL Promulgated:
REVENUE,
Respondent.
C-,o<...- :..-- /I; t> 7. a- - ·
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
BAUTISTA, J:
For resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration filed
on October 5, 2016; with petitioner's Opposition To Respondent's
Motion for Reconsideration ("Opposition") filed on October 20,2016.
On September 2, 2016, the Court promulgated a Decision1, the
dispositive portion of which states: 2
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. The Formal Letter
of Demand No. 043A-B190-07 dated December 28, 2010, as
well as Assessment Notices for deficiency income tax, value
added tax, expanded withholding tax, improperly
accumulated earnings tax, along with compromise penalties
and surcharges, amounting to Php676,668.43 for taxable year
2007, are hereby CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN/
SO ORDERED.
1 Records, Vol. 2, CTA Case No. 8682, pp. 649-667.
2 Id., pp. 891-892.
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 8682
Page 2of6
In his Motion for Reconsideration, respondent alleges that the
subject assessments have become final, executory and demandable
due to petitioner's failure to file the Petition for Review ("PFR")
within thirty (30) days after the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)
days period provided under Section 228 of the 1997 National Internal
Revenue Code, as amended ('1997 NIRC"), which should be counted
from March 29, 2011, the date when petitioner submitted the
documents in support of its protest.
Respondent maintains that the letter dated June 19,2013 signed
by the Chief of the Collection Division is not the Final Decision on
Disputed Assessment ("FDDA"), but rather, it is just a
communication informing petitioner of the authority of Revenue
Officer Remedios May Roque ("RO Roque") of the Arrears
Management Team to proceed with the collection of outstanding
deficiency taxes through summary remedies; that the demand to pay
in the second paragraph of the letter is but a courtesy to give the
taxpayer the last opportunity to settle their tax obligations
voluntarily; that it cannot be considered as the FDDA since it did not
make any reference to the protest filed by petitioner.
Respondent posits that the requirement of due process was
properly observed; that petitioner was fully apprised of the facts and
the law on which the final assessment was issued; that the final
assessment, demand letter and details of discrepancies were all sent
together to petitioner. Thus, respondent seeks for reconsideration and
prays for the Court to set aside its Decision dated September 2, 2016
and order petitioner to pay the deficiency tax assessments plus 25%
surcharge and 20% annual interest for the late payment.
In its Opposition, petitioner counter-argues that the Motion for
Reconsideration is pro-forma as it did not raise new arguments for
discussion. Petitioner asseverates that it submitted the documents in
support of its administrative protest and these were received by Ms.
Nelia A. Delos Reyes from BIR Revenue Region No. 7; that its witness
attested to this fact and respondent did not objected to this testimony,
neither did he cross-examine the witness in order to refute the claim.
Petitioner asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over the instant
case; that it timely filed the Petition for Review; that the letter dated
{'I
RESOLUTION
CTA CASE NO. 8682
Page 3 of6
June 19, 2013 is the FDDA based on the tenor of the letter, which
demands for the payment, with a warning that should it fail to settle
its liabilities, respondent will enforce collection through
administrative remedies without further notice; and that it was
denied due process by its non-receipt of the preliminary assessment
notice ("PAN").
After a careful review of the grounds raised in the Motion for
Reconsideration and the corresponding Opposition thereto, the Court
finds no new matters or arguments which were not considered in the
Assailed Decision. Respondent failed to raise any new or substantial
matter, or any compelling reason to justify the reversal or
modification of the Court's findings in the Assailed Decision.
Consequently, the Court finds respondent's Motion for
Reconsideration devoid of merit. Nevertheless, the Court will
expound on the issues raised, if only to reinforce the discussion in the
Assailed Decision.
Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC is instructive of the procedure to be
followed in assessments, to wit:
Section 228. Protesting an Assessment. - When the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that
proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the
taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however, That a pre-
assessment notice shall not be required in the following cases:
XXX XXX XXX
The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law
and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the
assessment shall be void. Within a period to be prescribed by
implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be
required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to
respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized
representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings.
XXX XXX XXX3
(
3 Underscoring ours.
RESOLUTION
CT A CASE NO. 8682
Page 4 of 6
Likewise, RR No. 12-994 provides that:
SECTION 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a
Deficiency Tax Assessment. -
3.1 Mode of procedures in the issuance of a
deficiency tax assessment: xxxxx
3.1.2 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN).
- If after review and evaluation by the
Assessment Division or by the
Commissioner or his duly authorized
representative, as the case may be, it is
determined that there exists sufficient basis
to assess the taxpayer for any deficiency tax
or taxes, the said Office shall issue to the
taxpayer, at least by registered mail, a
Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for
the proposed assessment, showing in
detail, the facts and the law, rules and
regulations, or jurisprudence on which the
proposed assessment is based. If the
taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15)
days from date of receipt of the PAN, he
shall be considered in default, in which
case, a formal letter of demand and
assessment notice shall be caused to be
issued by the said Office, calling for
payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax
liability, inclusive of the applicable
penalties. xxxxx
It is of no moment that petitioner was given ample opportunity
to present evidence during the audit. The law clearly state that the
taxpayer should be given the PAN before a final assessment is issued.
The fact remains, that the undated PAN was addressed to petitioner's
old registered address and respondent did not provide proof to
support his claim that the PAN was received by petitioner.
Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that if the taxpayer denies
4Implementing the Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 Governing the
Rules on Assessment of National Internal Revenue Taxes, Civil Penalties and Interest and the
Extra-Judicial Settlement of a Taxpayer's Criminal Violation of the Code Through Payment of a
Suggested Compromise Penalty, dated September 6, 1999, signed by Secretary of Finance
Edgardo B. Espiritu ' ,J
RESOLUTION
CT A CASE NO. 8682
Page 5 of 6
ever having received an assessment from the BIR, it is incumbent
upon the latter to prove by competent evidence that such notice was
indeed received by the addressee. The onus probandi was shifted to
respondent to prove by contrary evidence that the petitioner received
the assessment in the due course of maiLS
In addition, the Supreme Court has already ruled that failure to
strictly comply with the notice requirements prescribed under Section
228 of the 1997 NIRC and RR No. 12-99, is a denial of due process
rendering the assessment issued as void. In the case of CIR vs. Metro
Star Superama, Inc.,6 the Supreme Court held:
XXX XXX XXX
Indeed, Section 228 of the Tax Code clearly requires that
the taxpayer must first be informed that he is liable for
deficiency taxes through the sending of a PAN. He must first
be informed of the facts and the law upon which the
assessment is made. The law imposes a substantive, not
merely a format requirement. To proceed heedlessly with tax
collection without first establishing a valid assessment is
evidently violative of the cardinal principle in administrative
investigations - that taxpayers should be able to present their
case and adduce supporting evidence.
XXX XXX XXX
From the provision quoted above, it is clear that the
sending of a PAN to taxpayer to inform him of the assessment
made is but part of the due process requirement in the
issuance of a deficiency tax assessment, the absence of which
renders nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities.
The use of the word shall in subsection 3.1.2 describes the
mandatory nature of the service of a PAN. The persuasiveness
of the right to due process reaches both substantial and
procedural rights and the failure of the CIR to strictly comply
with the requirements laid down by law and its own rules is a
denial of Metro Star[s] right to due process. Thus, for its
failure to send the PAN stating the facts and the law on which
5Barcelon, Roxas Securities, Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. 150764, August 7, 2006, 498 SCRA 126. (
6 G.R. No. 185371, December 28, 2010, 637 SCRA 633
RESOLUTION
CT A CASE NO. 8682
Page 6 of 6
the assessment was made as required by Section 228 of R.A.
No. 8424, the assessment made by the CIR is void.
XXX XXX XXX
Tax laws are civil in nature. Under our Civil Code, acts
executed against the mandatory provisions of law are void, except
when the law itself authorizes the validity of those acts. Failure to
comply with Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC does not only render the
assessment void, but also finds no validation in any provision in the
NIRC.7
Among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is
addressed, is to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous and
improper, contrary to the law or the evidence.s Thus, having failed to
convince the court, the motion must necessarily fail.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for
Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly,
the Decision dated September 2, 2016 is AFFIRMED and UPHELD.
SO ORDERED.
LOVELL tZ'BAUTISTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
........_...
~· ~-~
MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN
Associate Justice
7 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Azucena T. Reyes, G.R. No. 159694; Azucena T. Reyes vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 163581, January 27, 2006, 382 SCRA 480.
s Guerra Enterprises Company, Inc. vs. Court of First Instance of Lanao del Sur, 32 SCRA 314, 317
(1970).
