CTA Case No. 217 (Decision)
Ut I '\ .... i l l !'..At MAN lLA '� � ' tt on , .. � v rou � T. A. � 0 ~ -f,\lqS\ �-� . dent � .. � -- -- ~ X� � � �.. - I his i 0 on- nt v nfo or executi nt and l Vy tt � .r Rt1�� r r 11 fr the lat T� � �� pe 1tlo r ls avin e yc c:ale t t to 1 � � �. which re�po1 lyc 0 0 �nd d net f~ . dent, r �� wrc ar ~~ �� , peti he stir. h t ��- � to ����� ents ere ur1v n reply ereto, pon ent 1n � it t at r 17, 194 ur 1 the t1 n sou ht � t h� � t . .. ss
.I�x��s1�rn�:Aw-E � 217 - r. .. � pa tnt f �� n o- r ,l 1 n an ppozt ni y to p~ese t h1 alde o �H Ill 0 � � l' re- 11 Wit. a h� July 28, 1 � p h ... � reinv � 1 1 il , l 1, n fr elnv of t at or �� � � � On 16, on-
� 217 - ... c X or e yea .1 p.l.u lea in- :r Ol' l n 1 i() f.n 1 �� any cti t �� 1 � 0 t e �� � � rr t ry ' l , rea I 1 tr nt ot pe 1 nY 7. 0 he � The dt 1 } � r / � y thf.l ina et tion � 0 n 1llary �c i on, 1 � o rt. ppeal . 90
� 217 - 1125 ch i t our c n n r in. tr .rlly, p�t t on v r th ppli n it of pr � � ill civil act on, th of raise in t � 1 ion 1 on of 0 v i cl t 1� 0 1 c ni c � t pon n in r peet to fir u � Th y 1' ay 1 u t l ctor f Int r ev mae ln y y � h c:onec ne� 0 y r1 1 1 ty of t h a y e p r of h oll ctor h X in tr t1v y or y j 1 ct1 � � ith c p cr p r0 t t c 11 ct on of put d � y q t on th uthor ty of th Col- r o co l c In h c t r, vo r y tr in j rth r coil ct on th r 1n y ly h C1rC � nc r. lly. 0 th pr th o eoll ct tl � n h r1 ht o t t h. � e 1 1 o lo t . H th c1 of th t of &ees in t t x not n c 5 ily involv t 91
- ..I l! -~ - c.r.. s � 217 � � � ltan rc: � of t .to collect. Th \: uallv one, y )( ci t '" x� Th , I bS � t to he t 0 for ��� 1 31 0 T pv that the ����� 1th f f1ve (5) , . %'1 f t 11 an under ��ctto 2 (c) .... 0 0 y - � eff.ctea wtt 1 i v ( r - nt. 11 ... - eo fc cr y1 � ly, � r 0 t nj r c in wl c 0 X th� c- a.r ~ l tf:ir I tv ' ct>r t v�l y at t c ll ct the s n� ct h 1 �t cy n ~x . � '� I~ 92
� 217 - 6- th1a co t on 14 of Republic ct � r ort n to t ����� n pp tly 11 y ny t f 1 ations 0 t x, � ������ nt h r � n r d .. l y t ct on 7 of 1 c:t , n� t xclua!v c cl ec 1 pute t 1 c ~on h erci � � t �1 y of ft ln res f van ea the t 1 � � Internal ev 93
� T. ;, � "'0. 217 .. 7- feet t at tax is 111 gal , uncons tutional , in!c- cu:ra � 0 on f� lly a ' r that th~ colloc- w!.ll caus r nd un on cionahl� pr ju 1c to th t p y r, oll tor ot rn rn 1 i ou p t!tion r the t x nd au qu .tly f tl 1 1 or �t r - fu in t n ' y to 0 n xt n pro o on hi point y our ~upr Co rt. utf!cc t o y th�t hil n er ct on v of th 0 � \0 c ur Y r tr in th coll ction of nt nal v nu x, th1 rule h n cd! - ":i ct on l l o pu c ct o. l 0 h ch uthor z ourt 0 1 coll ct on of &UC X nd cireum n �' t or in. h o rt, in h c o of h ~oll t r of nt �J rt of r x pp 1 � � L- 2, r 1 � l. 56 ( ff� c. r. e o. � y ' 9 } t ld: }0
� 217 -a- Yioualy, er a ct on l l of \ pu 1125, 1n r 1 tlon to s tion l t er o , 0\11 ' / n pet1 �on o a t er njo!n t1o of the � the rr y pres- c~1pt1o , if s ch � � 1 e. I I t a pe ition r J. � 0 11 � tax � ns for he ye � in � aa la , t � a uld ha � fi , 1� 0 c 1 , l an arch 1, l 7, a p 1vely. In v1 of e tion.r ' allure, in rnal rev nu ex ners 11 � corr � 1 return or pe 1 '1 n in vy o. e.r� on not havin be n � �� 1n �� ax 0 (a � ��� ' ion, Fe ~ r:y 11 ov � � 1 rr n o 1atra1nt n 1 y an voi , t h a vt � 1u ontr � - x <.;o ti n o 1 t1 1{ ) 0 h -I e 1 ita 95 x'1
��� � .17 -- he auth r y f th Coll to f 1 v nu to ef 11 c io f fie n y nco t X I y a ary tratlv proc only th hr"�v��r p od ro h h - tu n 0 l hv b 11 � ( %n r � �oll tor, In hi ca po y ft r ' 19 inc for h v� ly. n pon p t tio t h nd 1 � for h eoll c- nx � et n t o eoll e y QWlUUU<LI, tho of d tr of nt ~n 1 v v. l o oll � A. y �t 11 t r � J. c; ... ulu t � nt o ion l(d n � :t 1 y r 11 vy � :J5 0 t he 2, 47. tX plu ~~ r dh on ly 96
~) 7 q
More in CTA Decisions
- CTA Case No. 4004 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 4004)
- GOLDEN HARVEST GLOBAL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 7503)
- CTA Case No. 3213 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 3213)
- BANK OF COMMERCE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 6668)
- CTA Case No. 1962 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 1962)
- SAL OPPENHEIM JR. & CIE KOMMANDITGESELLSCHAFT AUF AKTIEN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 906)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VISAYAS GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC.(CTA Case No. EB 282)
- PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10352)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.