CTA Case No. 4772 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY INTERTROD ftARITIKE, INC., Petitioner, - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4772 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - -X RES 0 L UT I 0 H Be�ore this Court �or resolution is the issue o� its jurisdiction as provided for under Sec. 7 o� R.A. 1125 as amended, which reads: "Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The Court o� Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided - <1> Decisions of the Commissioner o� Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, re�unds o� internal revenue taxes, �ees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part o� law administered by the Bureau o� Internal Revenue; XXX XXX XXX. " Petitioner, a corporation duly organized and licensed to do business under Philippine laws, received on June 19, 1991 three <3> letters from

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4772. -2- respondent Commissioner o� Internal Revenue concerning assessments �or alleged de�iciency income taxes totalling P4, 275, 349. 27 �or the taxable year 1987. The corporation timely protested the above assessments in a letter dated July 11, 1991. On February 3, 1992, petitioner received another letter �rom respondent requesting the �ormer to pay the de�iciency income taxes. Petitioner replied in a letter dated February 14, 1992 in�orming the respondent o� its protest and requesting that they "await the resolution o� the Commissioner o� our protest. " <Letter to B.I.R. dated February 14, 1992, C.T.A. Records, p.14> On March 20, 1992, petitioner received an urgent letter �rom respondent dated March 5, 1992 signed by the Chie� o� the Accounts Receivable/ Billing Division stating that: "xxx<W>e appeal to your high sense o� \ �ealty to our country and help it recover I economically by paying your tax lability within ten <10> days �rom your receipt hereo� xxx. I� you �ail to do so, we have no other recourse but en�orce the Collection thereo� thru the issuance o� the Warrants o� Distraint and Levy and/or institute judicial action against you �or the purpose. " <Letter to Intertrod Maritime, Inc., C.T.A. Records, p. 19> Petitioner thus �iled this petition �or review be�ore this Court claiming that the "last letter

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4772. - 3- constitutes as an implied but clear denial by respondent of the protest which was filed by herein petitioner." <Petition, C.T.A Records, p. 3 > In his answer, respondent questioned this Court's jurisdiction to take cognizance o� the case claiming that: "xxx <T>here is yet no 'decision' o� respondent on the disputed assessments which is appealable before this Court pursuant to Section 7 ( 1 > of Republic Act No. 1125. The petition is premature xxx The urgent notice of respondent dated .March 5, 1992 xxx is but a demand �or collection and not a decision on the protest." <Answer, C.T.A. Records, p. 29) Under the statute above-cited, the cause of action accrues from the time the Commissioner issues his �inal decision on the protest made by taxpayer disputing the assessment. The Supreme Court had on several occasions, defined what establishes final decision of the Commissioner which is appealable before this Court. It should always be indicated in clear and unequivocal language that the Commissioner's action on an assessment questioned by a taxpayer constitutes his final determination on the disputed assessment. On that basis, a taxpayer would not grope in the dark and speculate as to when to seek refuge before this Court. <Commissioner of Internal

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4772. -4- Revenue v. Union Shipping Corp., 185 SCRA 547; Surigao Electric Co., Inc. v. C.T.A., 57 SCRA 523> In raising the issue o� jurisdiction as his de:fense, respondent correctly noted that: "xxx <T>he :final decision o� the Commissioner xxx shall be in a :form o� a letter speci:fically stating that it is the :final decision which is a decision on the merits. However, the petitioner here has :filed his petition :for review in this Honorable Court, upon a receipt o� an urgent letter :from one department o� the Bureau which is the Accounts Receivable and Billing Division, so in that case, we have put an issue on the propriety o� :filing the case." <Tsn, June 23, 1993) Considering that the urgent letter o� the respondent dated March 5, 1992 is not his :final decision on the petitioner's protest, this Court hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS this case :for lack o:f jurisdiction without prejudice to :filing o:f another petition on the part o� petitioner upon receipt o:f respondent's :final decision on the matter. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, July 29, 1993. 0~~~ ~0 D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge ~p4 /~ RAftON 0. DE'{~ A K. GRUBA Associate Judge Associate Jud e