CTA Case No. 63 (Resolution)

R' ~ U.: : , ; OF Tim PHILIPPINES c.. vl!HT OF TAX APP�ALS MAN[LA SllviEON K. PF.ICE, in her capacity C. T. A. C SE NO . 63 as ~dministratrix of the Estate of\ . S . Price , Petitioner, I ,I - versus - I THS COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL Rh""'VBNUE. , Respondent . x- - - - - - - - - - - - -x RESOLUTION In his 1Tetition For Extension Of Time For The Submittal Of The Petition For Review 11 i th I>iemoramumtt , dated March 17, 1955, counsel for the petitioner prays that he be given , for reasons stated therein , an extension of ninety (90) days from March 17 , 1955 , within which to file his petition for review and his memorandum in the above-entitled case. The records of this case show that on January 17, 1955, the petitione:r filed with this Court a notice of appeal , ap- pealing the decision rendered by the r espondent dated Novem- ber 23 , 1954, assessing against the estate of~ . S . Price the sum of P36 , 897 . 47 as estate and inheritance taxes . The case was docketed in this Court on January 17 , 1955, as G.T�� Case No . 63 . Since the appeal did not conform with the Rules and Regulations of the defunct Board of Tax ppeals , which were adopted by this Court in the interim for the guidance and ob- servance of party liti ':ants , pending the approval by this Court of its own rules and r egulations (Court of Tax ppeals Order of July 21 , 1954) , the petitioner was furnished with a copy of said interim rules and r egulations , together with a copy of Republic Act No . 1125, with a notice that she should 1'1

RE OLUTION - C. T�� CbS: NO . 63 - 2- file a petition for review in accordance �with the lmv . Over tYio months have elapsed since then, and the petitioner , instead of complying with the requirements as prescribed by Republic ct Nd . 1125 and the Rules and Regulations of this C0urt, filed a petition for extension of time to submit her petition for revie and memorandum . In ppendix tt tt of the " etition for Extension of Time for the Submittal of the etition for R<:vievJ with v1emorandum11 , �we notice that on ~arch 17, 1955, the petitioner filed with the respondent a motion for reconsideration of his decision of J.~ov- ember 23, 1954, which decision is precisely th one that she appealed to this Court . fuile the petitioner claims that the present action was filed in order to preserve her right to file an appeal '~ith this Court vithin 30 days from the receipt of the decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue, it is apparent that the intention is not to remove her case to this Court by means of a perfected appeal . nd if this Court were to enter- tain the present appeal nov , it v�ould be hearing and deciding a case which is still pendin~ decision before the Collector of Internal Revenue by virtue of petitioner ' s request for reconsi- deration of ~:arch 17 , 1955 . '!'here being no final decision of the Collector of Internal Revenue , it is obvious therefore that there is no decision to appeal to this Court . 1Efi.EFORE , this casE' must be , and the same is , hereby dismissed , with costs against the petitioner. S.O ORDERED � 1 anila, Iliarch 30 , 1955 . ~~~ Presiding Judge