CTA Case No. 3748 (Decision)

- .:. C.T.A. CASE NO. 3748 FIRST LEGAS PI REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X- � � - � � - - - � � - X 0 ECI S I 0 N This case w s consider ed subm itted for decision on the basis of the p1ead1ngs�~nd records , upon motton of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, after petitioner F1rst Legaspi Realty Corporation, or couns e l, failed to appear at the hearing on Sept mber 17, 1986 to ~ rosecute 1t s action, desp it e proper notice thereof. Wh i le petitioner was given ample time w1th1n which to file 1ts memorandum, no memoran dum was filed by 1t. The background facts are not disputed. As alleged 1n the pet1t1 on for revie w nd dm1tted by respondent: Petitioner 1s a corporation duly ortantzed and existing und e r the laws of the Ph111pp1nes, with pr1nc1pa1 off ices at 4th Floor, Planters Developatnt

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3 748 - 2- Bank Building, 149 Legaspi St., Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila, while respond ent is the duly appointed Commissio~e~ of Internal Revenue of the Philippines with offices at the BIR Building, Diliman. Quezon City, where he may be served with summons. Respondent may, likewise be served with summons through the Solicitor General at his official address. During the taxable year from January 1, 1976. to December 31, 1976, petitioner filed its quarterly and final corporate income tax returns and. paid the proper taxes thereon. During th e taxable year fro m J� .a. n uary 1, 1976 to December 31, 1976, petitioner fil ed i t s quarterly returns for income tax w1thh ~Jd at sou r ce and r emitted to the Bure au of Inter nal Rev en ue the proper withholding taxes . Petitioner received an assessment notice and covering letter dated March 22, 1982 requesting payment of the amount of P24,953.16 as deficiency income tax for the year 1976. The above captioned assessment was arrived at by respondent through the following computation: '\ ') \...~

DE CI SION CTA CASE NO. 37 48 - 3- Net i ncome per re turn . . �� � . . . �� . . Pl0,414 .79 Adjustmen t s: Rental i ncome {undec l ar ed ) P20, 100. 00 Interes t expense (over c l ai med} . . . . . � . � 32 , 730.37 Profe ssi ona l fees (unsu p- porte d and prior yea r' s expense ) � . . � . . � . 8, 840.00 Light an d wa te r (Prior year ' s expense ) 4, 080.90 Repairs and ma in te nance (- do-) 1, 021.6 7 Leaseho l d i mproveme nt s (-do-) 3, 517 . 67 70 , 290.61 Net i ncome pe r investi gation . � . . P80 . 7o5 .4o = == = ~ = z:::ra::r::t: Tax due thereon . . . . . . . . � . . P20 ,17fi.35 -� 2, 603 7Q Less : Tax already assessed . . . . . 17, 572 .65 Def i ciency ta . . . . . ~ . . . � . Add: Interest at 42% . . . . 7, 380 .51 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND CO LLECT IBLE ~~~~ ~ ~~=~ ~ From th e cov er i ng �l e t te r , it cou ld be g l eane d that the def ic iency 1 n co m~ ta x charged again st pet i ti oner is due t o the di ~n llo wa n ce o f the fo llo wing deducti ons: { a ) Ren t a l inc ome ( b ) In t 0r e st expe nse ( c ) Pr o fe ss i ona l fe es ( d ) Li ght and wat e r (e) Repa i rs and ma i ntenance (f) Lea s eho ld i mpro ve ments . . On April 1 , 1982, peti tioner requested respondent to reco nsider th e ass essmen t and to withdra w an d cancel the demand f or payment.

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 37 48 - 4- On Augus t 18, -19. 8 3, a warr a nt of di straint and levy was served on pe titione r . On September 27, 1983, pe t itioner sought reconsiderati on and lifting of the Wa r rant of Distraint and Levy. On Febru a r y 20, 1 984 , peti t ion e r received letter of respondent de nying t he re ques t and the protest stating that t hi s act i on cons ti tutes tr e fin al decision on the matter. Henc e , t he pr ese nt appeal . The basi c questi on for determ i nat ion is wh e ther or not petitione r i s lia bl e fo r-� th e def iciericy income tax for the year 1976 i n t he amou nt of P24 , 9 53 .1 6 . In as king t hat the petition f or r ev iew be dismiss e d an d judgment be re nd ered or�de r ing pe titioner First Legaspi Realty Corpor ati on to pay the def iciency income tax i ques t io n , r es pond e nt co ntends: (p. 71. CTA records.) Dur in g th e proc ee din g_ of t hi s case petition e r fai le d to sub mi t an d offer its document ary evidence in support of its claimed deductions for the year in question. Neither did petitioner file its me morandum 1n support of its case. r~ore, it failed to presE!ht evidence dis puting the finding$ � of respondent � s Revenue Examin e r that the amount of P59,1 0 0.00 received by petitioner as rent deposit is not consider e d income . No evidence VJ

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3748 ... 5 - was l1k e\11ise shovm that. the int ere st expense it claime d as deduction was not exc~ss1ve. On the cla1m for professio n al fe es , expenses for li ght and water, repairs and maintenanc e and l easeho ld expenset, petitioner fail ed to present recei~ts o r . vouchers evidencin g expenses thus so incurre d. Moreover, petitioner, on several occasions h~d shown lack of interest in pur-suing 1 ts p t~t it1on for rev1e "' filed \<lith this llonora le Court. Its faflure to present any evide nce show in g the fncorrectness of the ass.stment is fat~l consider1ng that the assl;lssment ma d~~ by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 1$ correct unless controverted (So hol _and Tr ansportation Co . vs. Co mm i ss ionr.r of Int e rnn l Rev en ue, l-13099 and L-1 2462, pril 29, 1~50. 107 Ph il . 16R). We a.g re-e �. The Court recognizes that the b 1rden of proof 1s on th e taxp~yer con t estinq the va li dit y or corrPctness of en asse~S f!l ~nt. to nt�ove not 11n l_y that the Commissionf!r of Int~rnal Reventtf!' is wr ong but that he (t axpayer) is ri gh t. (lino Gut ierrez vs. Collector of Intern a l Revenue, CTA Case No. 504 , January 28. 1952; see lllso Tan Guan vs. Cour�t of Tax 1\ppeals , L-23676. Ap r 11 2 7 , 191 ., ., 19 $ CRA 9(l 3 � } And if the taxpay er fails to present . evidence or proof in suppo rt of h,s alleg ations tn ~1s peti fon ~or revi w. or to pros cute his action, cS in thiS c~se. tonform!bly to the doctr1 ne of the presu~pt1on 1n fevor of the correctn ss 6Eb

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3748 - 6� of the tax assessment (Interprovincial Autobus Co., I nc . vs. Co ll e ctor of Internal Revenue, L-6741, January 31 , 1956, 98 Phil. 290; Col l ector of Interna l Revenue vs. Bohol land Transportation Co., L-13099 and L-1346j, Apr 11 29, 1960, 107 Ph1 1 . 965 ), the Cour t of Tax Appeals 'fill mer e l y sust a in the a ssessment agains-t --the taxp"y.:r. (Caresosa vs. Bureau of Int e rnal Revenue, CTA Ca se No. 3713, January 25 , 1 985 , ce rtiorari den ie d in G.R. No . l- 7 0 7 5 8 , Aug � 3 0 , 1 9 8 !i . ) Since no Pvidence was pres ented by pet it1one r to substantiate the errors that are claimed to have been committ ed by the Commissio ner of Interna l Revenue 1n making the assess ment in qu~s ti on , this Court has no o ther a l ternative than to resort to the 1e g a 1 t r ui s m t h a t " a 11 pres umP.t i ons are 1n fa vor of t he c orrectn e ss of tax assess ments." The bu rd en of proof 1s on the -\a xraye r to show the contr ary . Petitioner utterly failed to do. This action f in ds support i n , the fol l owing autho r ities: (See Collec t or of I nterna l Revenue vs . Boh ol la nd transporta t i on Co .; Boh ol Land Transportat i on Co . vs . Coll ecto r of Inte rn al Revenue, l-1 3099 & l - 134 62 , Apr il 29 , 1960 , 107 Ph11. 96 5.)

DEC I S I 0 tl - CTA CASE NO . 3 / 48 - 7- " All presumptions are in favor of the correctne ss of tax assessments. The good faith of tax assessors and the validity of their actions are presumed . They wil l be presamed to have tak e n into conside ration a ll the fa cts to which their attention was called. No presum ption can be indulged that all of the public officials of the state in the various cou ntie s who have to do w1tn the assessment of property for taxation wil 1 knowingly viol ate the duti es imposed upon them by law. "As a logical outgrowth of the pres umpti on in. favor of the validity of assessmen ts, when such assessments are assailed, U1e burden of proof is upon the co mp l a ini ng party. It is incu mbe nt upon the property owner cl ea rl y to s hnw that the ~ss essmen t was er""roneou s . 1n order to relieve himself from it. (51 Am. Jur. pages 620- 621}." (interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc . vs. Coll ector of Inter nal Revenue, 98 Phil. , 290; 52 Off. Gaz. 127 791.} "Hh en an i mr>o rt er challenges by legal steps th e correctness o f the asse ss me nt of a duty by the Collector of Customs, the questio n to be decid ed i s no t wh e ther th e Co ll ector was wrong but whether the importer was righ t , the� burden be ing on the latter to establ ish the correctness of his own contention... (Behn, Mayer & Co. vs. Collecto r of Customs, 26 Phil., 647.) "That the determination of the tax defic1enc y by the Government has prima facie validi ty ' and the burden re.sts upon th e taxpayer to overco me th1s presu mp tion and to show to the satisfaction of the Tax Court th at the determ1 nat ion was not correct.~~"� (Perez v s � Co u r t o f Tax Appe ai s , e t a1 � , G� R� No � L-10507, May 30~ 1958.}"

DE CISION - CTA CASE NO. 3748 - 8- Even more , under s e c t i on 3 of Rul e 17, Rules of Court, if plai nt iff ( pet iti one r her ei n ) fails t o appear at the t1 me of the t r i a 1 , or to p r ose cu te h i s ac t'i on for an unre a s onab l e l eng th of t i me, whi c h ac tually happ e ne d in t h i s case, the actio n may be di sm iss ed upon motion of t he de f endant ( responden.t} or upon th e court's own mo ti on . This d ismissal shal l have th e eff e ct of a n adjudicat i on upon the merits, un l ess otherwi se p r ovided by court. �� Pa renthe t i ca l ly , it may be s t ated that the general r u l es p r ovided i n the Rules of Co ur t go vern proc e.cd ings i n the Court of Tax Appeals . The rul e s pro mu l gated by the Cou r t of Ta x Ap pea l s ar e m� re ly su pp l e ~ entary . (P e rez vs. Araneta , Ac co r d in gly , petitioner First Legaspi Rea l ty Corporation i s ordered t o pay to r espon de nt Commissioner o f I nt erna l Re ven ue the a 1oun t of P24,953.16 as def icienc y in come tax for the y ear 197 6 , plus surch a r ges and in te r est in c id ent to de li nq uency pursuant to t he provisions of Secti on 51(e)(2)(3) of the applicable National In t ern a l Re venu e Code , as amended.

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3748 . - 9- WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed at pPtit i on e r's cos t s. SO ORDER ED. Quezon Cit y , Metro Manila, October 28, 1988. WE CONCUR: ~ '--- CON S~ ROAQUI N A~soci ate ~Judge ~~ Associat e J11 dge

�, 0 Ecr S I 0 fl - CTA CJ\SE NO. :1 / 'l n - ]. {) - C: E �R T I F T C l\ T I '�' l'l aft er due con s ulta t ion amonq t he mcmh rs of the Court o f Til x 1\ p f1 f~ a 1 s �; n a c c o r d a nc e vii t h S<> c: t i o n 3 , Ar t i c 1e VI t I 'J f t 11r.; Cn n s t i t u t i o n . ceo