1) Gonzalo P. Nava filed his 1950 income tax return in May 1951 and was assessed PHP4,952, of which he paid half and owed a balance of PHP2,491.
2) Nava requested to pay the balance using his backpay certificate, which the Commissioner denied, as well as Nava's later request to delay collection.
3) In 1955, the Commissioner issued a revised deficiency assessment of PHP9,421.50, including the unpaid balance and surcharges. However, Nava claimed he did not learn of this until December 1956.
4) The Court ruled the tax assessment had prescribed because the Commissioner provided no evidence the revised assessment was properly issued before May 1956,
1) Gonzalo P. Nava filed his 1950 income tax return in May 1951 and was assessed PHP4,952, of which he paid half and owed a balance of PHP2,491.
2) Nava requested to pay the balance using his backpay certificate, which the Commissioner denied, as well as Nava's later request to delay collection.
3) In 1955, the Commissioner issued a revised deficiency assessment of PHP9,421.50, including the unpaid balance and surcharges. However, Nava claimed he did not learn of this until December 1956.
4) The Court ruled the tax assessment had prescribed because the Commissioner provided no evidence the revised assessment was properly issued before May 1956,
1) Gonzalo P. Nava filed his 1950 income tax return in May 1951 and was assessed PHP4,952, of which he paid half and owed a balance of PHP2,491.
2) Nava requested to pay the balance using his backpay certificate, which the Commissioner denied, as well as Nava's later request to delay collection.
3) In 1955, the Commissioner issued a revised deficiency assessment of PHP9,421.50, including the unpaid balance and surcharges. However, Nava claimed he did not learn of this until December 1956.
4) The Court ruled the tax assessment had prescribed because the Commissioner provided no evidence the revised assessment was properly issued before May 1956,
1) Gonzalo P. Nava filed his 1950 income tax return in May 1951 and was assessed PHP4,952, of which he paid half and owed a balance of PHP2,491.
2) Nava requested to pay the balance using his backpay certificate, which the Commissioner denied, as well as Nava's later request to delay collection.
3) In 1955, the Commissioner issued a revised deficiency assessment of PHP9,421.50, including the unpaid balance and surcharges. However, Nava claimed he did not learn of this until December 1956.
4) The Court ruled the tax assessment had prescribed because the Commissioner provided no evidence the revised assessment was properly issued before May 1956,
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Title: Gonzalo P. Nava, Petitioner, vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Nava vs. CIR G.R. No. L-19470 January 30, 1965 Facts of the Case. 1. Gonzalo P. Nava filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) for the year 1950 on May 15, 1951 and was assessed based on the filed ITR by the respondent on the same date to be in the sum of Php4,952.00; 2. Nava paid half of the tax due, leaving him a balance of Php2,491.00; 3. Nava offered his backpay certificate as payment for the aforementioned balance but the respondent denied Nava’s proposal; 4. Having been denied of his proposal, Nava requested on July 28, 1953 that the respondent delay the collection of the remaining balance until the question of whether or not he may pay the same through his backpay is decided; 5. Respondent likewise denied the abovementioned request through a letter dated January 05, 1954; 6. The letter was followed by two more notices demanding the payment of the balance, the last of which was dated February 22, 1955; 7. Subsequent to the investigation of Nava’s 1950 ITR, the respondent issued a deficiency income tax assessment notice (Exh. “4”) compelling Nava to pay a total of Php9,421.50 not later than April 30, 1955. This amount includes the unpaid balance of Php2,491.00 plus a 50% surcharge; 8. Despite the allegation that several notices of this revised assessment were issued to Nava, the petitioner claimed that he only learned of the same for the first time on December 19, 1956; 9. Nava, in a letter dated January 10, 1957, pointed out that more than six years has elapsed since the original tax return was filed, meanwhile protesting the assessment, and contending the case as a closed issue; 10. Through a registered letter dated March 25, 1957 (Exh. ”5”), the Director demanded that the new assessment be paid; 11. Subsequent to this, Nava requested a reconsideration, and was informed on June 16, 1958 that a reinvestigation would be granted provided he waived the statute of limitations (Exh. “7”), of which was rejected; 12. Consequently, the reconsideration of the assessment was denied by the Collector through a letter dated July 22, 1958 (Exh. “9”); and 13. Nava then filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals on August 08, 1958; with the latter reducing the deficiency to Php3,052.00 and cancelling the 50% surcharge. Issues: 1. Whether the enforcement of the tax assessment has prescribed? Ruling: The tax assessment has already prescribed, since the respondent failed to provide substantial evidence that there was a valid and effective issuance or release of said deficiency income tax assessment notice dated March 30, 1955 and the other supposed demand letters or notices thereafter. Given this and the original assessment on May 15, 1951 of Nava’s 1950 ITR being indisputable, it is plain that the period within which to make a re-assessment has lapsed on May 15, 1956 as provided under Section 331 of the Tax Code. The judicial action to collect any deficiency tax on Nava’s 1950 ITR has already prescribed under Section 332 of the Tax Code, since the Notice of Deficiency Income Tax was effectually made on December 19, 1956 at the earliest.
