CTA Case No. 278 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF; THE HILIF H1ES COURT <F TAX il.PPE LS V NILA RICHP...PJ) 1 ~ LILE , 1-'etitioner , - versus - COLL.t:C ~ O F LYSlu~ 1 � BEVE�UE , espondent . x- - - - - - - - - -x . lE SOLU T IOI This is in connection vii th the un otion To Dismissu filed by the respondent on J anua ry 25 , 1957 , on the ground tha t this Court has no juris- diction to hear and aetermine the i ns tant case o The f ollo\ving facts , briefly stated , have been preliminarily established . espondent , in his letter da ted October '24 , 1955 (E:xh . 11 ln , Ho- t ion , p . 66 BIR rec . ) , demanded f rom the pe ti- tion8r the t otal amount of i2 9 , 465 . 11 as sales tax prescribed under Sec t ion 186 i ncludinh sur- cha r ge and pena l ty f or the lOl&.tio of Section 183 in relation vO Section 209 of the ~ati onal Internal evenue Code . The t ax involved h erein is f or the ma ufacture ana ~ale of quick lime and hycrated lime by pe;titio ler , corr e sponciing t o the 1st quarter of 1951 to the 1st quarter of 1 9~2 . Thi& l ett e r of dema1d , addressed to pe ti- t ioner, was hovrever re turnea ur:.o pened t o r espon- dent by a ce rtain Garvin C. Alcos of the Lilestone & Company , Inc ., on the ~:,r ou 1C:.. that petitioner -, I 17

RESOLUTION C. T.A. CASE NO . 278 ' - 2- herein was tpen abroad (Exh . nA'' , Motion , p . 68 , Bir~ rec . ) . 'J.'he s ame letter was transmitted to\ and received by petitioner on December 7, 1955 (par . 10 , Petit ion for . Review; Exh . " B" , Hotion) . Counsel f or petitioner in a letter dated December 15 , 1955 (Exh . "B" , No"Cion , p . 74 , BIR rec . ) , which ~as received by respondent on Decembe r 16 , 1955 (BIH Stamp on Exh . " B11 ) , r equested as fo llows: " The afores a i d letter wa s deli- vered by one of your agents t o the of - fice of Mr . Li le on December 7, 1955 . Inasmuch as our cli ent is abroad, we request that the running of the period of thirty days referred to in your let- ter be s us pended until af t er l\fr . Lile ' s return to the Philippine s . In case of the dela�� of our client 1 s return , vle shall commun ic a te with him as to the , facts of this . case and formally take up the same with your offi ce . " In reply t o the above request , res,ponderit in h:b letter of Januar y 9, 1956 (Exh . 11Cu , 1�1otion , p . 85 , BIR rec . ) said: tt~vi th reference to your letter da ted Dece~be r 15, 19 ?5, concei'ruim.g the i nternal r evenue case of your clien t , Mr . Richard L. Lile, I have t he honor to inform ;-,--ou that , consi- dering the reason advanced therein, your client is hereby granted until Febr uar y 29 , 1956 , vlithin which t o pay the s um of �-29 , 465 . 11 demanded i n our letter dated Oc tober ~4 , 1955 . ~In v i ew thereof , it is re- ques ted that you advice Hr . Lile to pay the said sum of i-29 , 465 . 11 on or before Feb~uary 29 , 1956 , in ord er chat this CE.se may be clos ed �11 HO\vever by a letter dated January 6 , 1956 (Exh . n2 n, iiotion , p . 76 BI:-: nee . ) received by respo:n.dent on the same date ( BL, Stamp on 11xh o 171 115

HESOLUT ION ~ C. '.r . li. CASE N-.' . 278 3 u2n), petitioner requested for the \vi thdrawal or co'-t.mtermanding of the assessment , whi ch re- " quest was reiterated in a letter dated F'ebruary 10 , 1956 . This request was denied by res pondent in his letter dated harch 26 , 1956 (Exh . n3u , I Motion , p . 99 , BIR rec . ) , and received by peti- ti011.er on Hay 7, 1956 (p . 5, Petition for Re- view) . Upon said denial , tne instant petition f or review was f iled by petitioner before this Court on J une 4 , 1956 . The sole issue to be resolved in t his in- cident is whether or not the petition for review herein v1as filed within the 30-- day period pres- cribed by section 11 of Republic Act No . 1125. ;i'here is no ques t ion that ~~ the dec is ion of res pondent Collector of Internal Revenue that should be appealed to this Court is the asse ss- ment in his letter of demand a ated October 24 , 1955. HovJever , petitione r maintains tm t the decision of res pondent dated October 24 , 1955 was modified b y respondent in h:Ls answer to the pet:L t:Lon for r ev:L e\v due to an alle ged change in the capaci t .>: of petitioner . It is contended that respondent , in his Answer , admitted the allega- tion that peti t ioner v1as i.ue rel~/ an officer and :: stockholc\.er of the Li me Products l�lfg . Inc . o.nd at .the same t ime explained that t he demand for the payment was made on petitioner in h is capa- 1 1""! ') j A.; �.

I RESOLUT TON C . ~ . A. C~BE NO ~ 278 l;- - city as president and manager of the s a id c orp6 oration o. Ac c ordi ng, ly , as alleged , this expl ana - tion modified -che letter of d emand of October 24- , 1955 . We cannot agree with peti t ioncc; r that res- poncle n t 1 s let te r of Oc t ober 2Lt- , 1955 , Exhibi~ 11 l u , h otioh , assessing and demand i ng from the former the payme~t of the su n of ~29 , 4-65 . 11 a s sales tax , surcha r ge and penalty , v.ras modified by the ansvrer to the petition' for revievl . The respondent did not admit the a ll e ~_ a.t ion in the petition to review (see Pe ti t i on for Rev iew, paragraph 14 (a ) , page 5) t o the effe c t that petitioner v.;as u a former stockholder anc offic er of said corporation ( Lime Products Hfg ., _Inc . ) 11 On the contrary1 i n paragraph 9, page 4- of the Ans\<Ter , petitione r 11 der.i.ies s pe ci f' icall;y the al- l egations co ntai~ed in para ~ raph 14 of -che pet i - tion for being argUL1entative and mere conclusions of fact and l aw . " ;_,_lore over , even assuming arguend o c:;ha t there we.s such a 1.11odificc-.tion of the letter- d ecisi on of Octblbber 24- , 1955 , the Dod ific at ion is not a de cisi on within the con- templ at ion ~f Section 7 of Republic ~ct No . 1125, und.er rhic h this Court is empov.rered to r eviev/ by appea l 11 de cis ions of �c.he Collec cor of Internal hevenue in cases involving disputed assessme1.Lts XXX An asses s me11t has be e n def i ned a s: 17 3

HBSOLU~;ION- C . 'l . A. Ci.S:C NO . 278 ' - 5- 11;l.n assessment of taxes 1 is the act of fixing and de �ce r hlil1i ug t l:ie pro- portion of tax ch2r geable to the dis- ~ lnc ~ i ~ems of pr operty . 1 Webh v . Bidwell , 15 l.firm . 479 , 493 ( Gi l . ~9Lt- , 397 )n IfAn 1 '"-~ ss e ss ment 1 fixes the lie. - bili tJ of ~.-he tax paye r ar..d as c ertains the facts and furnishes Lhe aata for the proper preparation of the tax r olls . Dallas J oi n~ Stock Land Ba~c of Dallas v ~ SG~ ~e , Tex . Civ . app ., 118 , S . W. 2d 94-l , 9LI-2 � 11 tt l A ssessments ~ as the term i s used in the law r e l a tive to tax~tion , :uwans U12 aujustu:ent of tiie shares of the contribution by seueral toward a COJlll!10l1 benef icial objecu according to t~1 e bed~;f:L t :c e cei ved . Ad a.iJS , .. 1e ldrUHl L &nae rson Co . v . C ~y of She1b;vi11e , 7'1 NE 114 , 122 ; 1)4 and . 467 , 87 Am . St . 3ep . 240 , Pa lmer v . Stlliaph , 29 I 1~ . 329�, 333 , 335 . " ( Wor ds ~ Phrases , Vol . 4 , p . 428 ) In fine , as s essment in caxat lon is a deter mine:' tion of hovi J..nucrt .:;he te.~ payer� s ~~ o ~_1cl contr ibute in t axes o I.1.1 �che c<:.. se at bar , che ass ssment :~�or th e basic tax con~aine d in Jhe l et ter - d ecision of Octo- () . r ;~4 , 1955 <,v&. s cons isten t1J l,.aixn;a i ned b;y res - .:_) Ondent . Consequen tly , \'fe __.i nd and. so ho ld chat there W�.s 110 le gal mod ir'ic 2. �~ i on of ~ he . sa~a u.e cision . ;/'Je s.h::. ll now pr oceed t o o.e t er:mir:e VIhet!le r or not the instant pe ti viOl" f or revievJ viaS ..:.' iled. ;;, i tbin the 3 6- day perj_od f rou receipt of �che c..ecision 6;f the Collec~or of Internal Revon~e in pursuance of sec t ion 11 of ~epub lic let ~o . 1125 . ~r oo De c ember 7 , 1955, ~len the pe titioner received the assess - ' . :nen t , co Ja~l.LU:U' J 6 , 1956 , v1her1 the reques t for re - considerat i on \vas rec e ived b.;- the responde r~t , He 1 1-"'j ,, I IJ

EBSOLU'TIOK C. T. A CdSE NO . 278 6- find that the 1)eti tioner c onsumed thirty (3 0 ) suspended from Jc.r:uo.r" 6 , 1956 , \Then ti.e peti - tioner f'iled :-~ is request for vli thdra'l.val or coun- termandin�. of the a.ssessment , b1.;.t _resu.u1ed co run upon h is receipt of the uenial of i is reques~ for re c onsid,er&. .:ion on Hay '7 , 1956 . J?rom ~�:c._y 7 , 1956 , 1.vhen the . petitioner filed the :resent petition for revi ew , he consumed e.nothcr twe:.,t,;,' - eit:ht ( ~28 ) days . Consequently , Ghe peti-c.lor e r consumed a t ot;:;~l of I'ii'ty- eig-h t r- ()) days befdre he filed ( /0 his petition for review. Peti tio r~e r c om:;enas th&.t the thirty- day period vii tnin vh icL to appeE1.::_ -,:;o this Court sbotlld be coun.ted from .uecember lit- , 19) 5, the date Hhen ilis a tton:eys r e, eived t~:e letter- decision of Octo- ber' c":L,-' 195?' . Ue cann.ot sustain tllis lJropos t tion for the reason .:;h, t said letter- decision was E.d- Llittedl;y received by ~::.e ti tioner himself on Decem- ber 7 , 195) (see Peti-cion for 1-\8 vievr , p . L:- anc1 ~x.h . u ' 11 -;. 'o--l� u1�1 ) ~onsequently , the statutor: pe r iod -'-' ' .1.1 L, -� of . thirt".- o_ays s houlct begin from the da te it was received by petitioner . And even assuming a rguendo tHat t he pe riod .of appeal shoul d be r e ckoned f rom Decem ber 14 , 19~15 , Hhen the counsel for petitione r actually received the assessme.1.i.t, the peti tion for review wou+d still have been f iled out of t i me , be- cause in such cas e he would have consumed fifty- one (51) days 9 tr 1 175 I

, .,. hES OLUT I Qlij l'~ 0 . - 7- It is further argued that ~he ti~e to ap- peal Y.l<:.:S suspeLded d--trinL Lhe �0-day period of r.race p�an ted by res Dondent to )eti tioiL r �,�Ji L1.in VIhich to pay t!1e ~:..29 , 465'. 11 and should therefore be discounted for JGrposes 0:' uhe COicfpU ,:;&. tiOii of tlle time uithin tvl1ich tq c:;"p)ea.l . It should be noteci ':.,_-"E. t the e:;. tension 6 rc,.nted v!o.s rcla 1,ed only to tile tir:ie of payr.1ent . ',ie c..rc therefore oi' the opinion� th~t such perio~ of ~ra ce could not be deemed to h~ve tolled the runnint of the statu- tory period of appeal . � review is hereb~ dismis sed for lack of jurisdic- ~ion , with costs a~ainst ~he petitioner . GO UhD.uLED . Cabu City for Eanila , l.pri l l~ , 1957 . ( S CD) ~-::.C~.t' J.A:�. 0 i:i\BLE Presidint Judge \ (S Ci! . ) A'_;�c m::;r:::�o i~ . LUC IL~;O .. ~ssocic., te Judge Ls sociate Jucige ~-~Oh.:.N L . U2!i.IJI did not take 176