CTA Case No. 241 (Resolution)

BEPUULIC OT THE PHILIPPINES COURT OR TAX APPEALS MANILA

CONCOHDIA VDA DE MARQURZ LIN LIM YAO TING MARIANO MAROUSZ LIN LIM YAO GO LIN YAO JIAF JOSN MARQUEZ LIM Petitioners,

- vorsua - C.1A.CAB5O.2

TRE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL RRVENUE, Z Hespondent.

RESOLSTIOT

Rospondent Collactor ot Interal tevonaa

raised iy way cr affirtive defonse, the jurisdio- tion cr chis Court to honr and deterwine the peti-

tion for reviav. Upon motioa My te respondent, a

preliminary hearing wms held oa tho questien.

From tho pleadings cr tho perties and the

avidenee co far preeentoi it apponrs tmt on Fobruary 2, 195, the respondent Collector Cf Intermal Mov- onue issued deficiency incone tax assessmants mgainat

the petiticners herein for the years 1+7 to l951 in

claivo, im the total sur or 3,810.59. Ca March 2+ 195+ ie. prior te the ereation of this Court, th

petiticners aent a lottar to the respoodant protos-

ting against the issuaneo or the anid defioiency

asaesuonts and requesting for ito Canoelitian.

This protest was referred to the Provineial Hevenae Agent stationea at Iloilo City for comnant, verifi-

cation and recomondatian but ne aetion as yet ws

56 5 50

BESOLUTTON C.TA. CASE NO. Z

taken at the tima the potitionore, cn Pobeuary 9, 1955 Feitorated their request for tha onneellation of the aforomontioned deficioney ansessnonto. In reply to this last request, rempondent in a letter Cf Septen- bor 7, 1955 informod the petiticners that there vas ao legal justification to alter, amend or modify the

assessnents issuod acainst then and thororore dcuandcl

Iron then tio peymont of th amounts asaesnsd to th

City Treasarer cf Iloilo. .Thore is no evidonco an to when potitioners roceivod this lotter but wo caa fair- ly preaune that at the latest, it was receivod cn Bopt-

enber zl, l955, for on this dny petitionors addrosscd

their protest against the aforenentienod defioiancy

ssonaments.Responient, cn Septamber 6, l955 re coived aaid petitionere'lettor dated Septomber 2l, 1956

which alno containad a roquest for tho defernent of

any action to collect the tax im order to give thn lat-

tor more timm to produce the aaccasary docunants to

shov wty the aoficieney aasasswnta shoula bo vithirawn

and canoelled. This request cr the petitionera vas

also denied I t rospondont on September 30, 1955

tho rolloving dey, Oetobor l, 1955, the respondent

issued a varrant f aistraint mnl levy against tho pro

perties cr the potitionere. The warrant wo addreaaod

to the city Treaourer ot Iloilo with tho instruetion

to execute the ame on or Lefore October 30, 1955 if

the petitioners fail to My the detieleney assesemonts.

551 55

RSSOLUTION C.T.A.CASE NO. 24

-3

Mowever, as cf this momant, it does not appear from the evidenee prasanted at tho prelininary hearing. whether or not the warrant of aintruint and lovy ws gervsd ia faet upon tho petitionnrs, mach lees Gxooutod.

Again thare is no cvidenee as to whau peti- tionera recoivel respondent'a letter of Eaptember 30, 1956 bat ve n reasomhiy assane that 1t n not later than Novomber , 1955.Cn thi lnnt mantioned dato the petitioners cont their laat request for re- consiaoretion to the tespondant, this time cxplair- ing and aiscussing in detail why the decision assesa- ing the defieiency income taxes shoula o reoonei- dorod and withirawn. However, the r eepondent im his letter t Deeemher 28, 1955, maintained tho asseas- ment and he dommod again from the petitioners the Dayment or tho aoae, with the waraing that in the event ? failura to pay the same he vould eons- trained to arder the immediate maeution of the Mar- Taat ot distraint and lsvy against their properties. Exh.g, Motion. Petiticnors reeived the fial letter ef the Tespondant donying the formoris requost for roconsidowatien cn Janusry 2t,1956, after which he presont appoal vs filed with ths Court cn Feb- runry 23,1956.

The only question for resolution in this inei- dent is whether or not the instant petition for rev-

5

55 2

RESOLTION C.7A. CASS NO. 41

iev was filed with this Court within thirty days after the receipt cf the daeisiou ns required by

Soction 1l Cf Republic Aot Mo. ll25.

The potitioners heroin, by their appenl to

this Court, Sesk the revimw ot the defieieney income tax assesanents made by the Colleotor Ct Intarnal Rovonme. The determina tive pronouneement im this Pegard mado after the sffeotivity at Ropublie Aet

To. 1l25 ws respontant*s letter cf Soptemher 7, 19-

55. Honee the 30-day period within which to appeal

tho sane to thin Court choal4 n counted fron the

receipt thercof which is from Septamber 2l, 1955.

Arter dedueting the period betwean Septomber

2i, 1955 and January 24, 1956 during which petitionera request for reconsideration was pending, we find that at the time tho inatant petition for review was filcd

on Fobrury 23,1956, total of thirty five 35 days had alrcady elapsed and the appeal was there- fore filed out of timo.

It is contendod, however, by t he petitioners that the appeel ws seasorably filed in that the 30-day period ahould bo counted from Janusry 2+, 1 56, when petitionera received the letter of the res- pondent datod December 28, 1955.

We find the contantion af the petitioners withont merit. In the case at bar, it io very clear that the aisputed assessxents of the Collco- tor which am presentiy tho subjeet of Judicial review are those ede and isaued on February 24,

5

55 3

C..A.CASR MO. 2 RHSOLUEION

5

195+ and which became appealable to t his Court vhen they were reiterated Ly roegoudent im Mis letter cr

#eptomber 7 1955. Tra ai4 ansasongnts are the

aubatantial and aispositive prt cf the Collectcr*g deciaion which in pov cn appeni. (Vontanllla Vs. oard Tax Appls,t al. 0.Mo.L-73Deo

onhor 19, 1953). the petitionors acks wwhy oot

start counting fro tho dato of origiral notice at

assessent which was cm Pobrery 24,19547 The

reason in covicw. Ropabiie Act o.ll25 waich took

affoot on June 16, 199+ and which crentet this Court

could not M applied retronetively. As cf July 2l,

i95h whem this Coart pproved 1ts rules, th msses-

ments in quastion vore unier roviow Iy respordent

due to petitionerst request for reeonalderation.

Hence it e oniy fron the receipt af reopondantst

letter dated aeptenber 7, l955, that petitioners

could have availod af the momedy ar an appoal to this

Court under Zopublie Act Ho. 1l25.

IN IW OF T OREGOING for lack f Jri

aietion cf this Court, the petition for reviom filed

by the petitioners on February 23, 1956 should bo

as it is hereby eiamissed, with coots against peti- ticners.

SOORDD

nila, Phiiopimes,Deeeber 241956

Presiaing Judge

WE cON

332

5 5 4

C.TA.CASE MO REEOLUTIOS-

GUBS

So Jaage #C

Assooiato Judge ROKAR R. UALT

555 5SS