CTA Case No. 130 (Decision)

\ BLIC I LIP >I! p I.S Cv T EL C S , et1t1o r, - v r us - C��� C E o. 130 T L "' CTOR 0 I L R E, R s ond nt. X ECI I 0 hi i n app 1 from the decision of th Cell ctor (now Co s 0 r) of Int r 1 R v ss ssi t fro petition r d fiei ncy 1 for th r 1948 and 1949, in the un of 5 , 577. 25, inclu- iv of urch r st, d co promise p - n lti s for f ilur to 11 r turns nd f or la p y e t of the t � P titioner, on July 1, 1948, purch s d p reel of 1 nd , to th r ith improv me ts th r - o which co si t of four- tory dupl x apartm nt nown a th "Co odor t nts 11 , forth sum of 180,000.00. Upo 1 v ti tion by r spend ent , it wa di cov r d th t p titio. r did not fil 1 co e t retur rom 1945 to 1954. In conse- uenc th reot, r spond nt fil re urns for h r for the y ar 1948 19 9. nd on the basis of th consid ra ion of 18 ' 00. o, r spo 't 0 . - q ,_ :, .... �~_, r -. 364

Cae - 2. - y 2 , 1954, a ss d ag ins pe tition r 1 co t xes for th year 8n 1949 1 th 1,723 . 27 , res- p c tiv ly , or in th tot 1 48, 286 . 91, 1 - c l 1v of 50, sure r s istr t iv 1- t 1 s for f ilur to f11 r t rn � ( h. 3, p.13 BIR rec. ) n Jun 24 , 19 4 , p t ition r aisput d th a s e t , r u ting th t h r tax ca b h ard �b tor th Co fere ,c ~ taff of the ur au of I - er 1 R v nu � ( p . 14 B r c.) fter due e rin b for t h Conf r c t f of titio r�s t x c s , re on nt,o pril 18, 1955, asses fro etitio r the total a o t of J5 , 577. 2J , co put d a foll ows : n.... . fici ncy incom t due ���� 6, 523 . 64 IJ U II 1 ' 68~ 27 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �,.:408 ,2:. 31 2,410.31 sure onthly 1 ter st fro J e 30, 1954 o pril 30, 1955 �������� 4,820. 63 Co promise or f ilure to file r turns for 1948 nd 1949 t 40. � �������������������� Co pr omis for 1 t nt of 80. 00 the tax �������������� ������� � � ~~~~-:; L o . D ����������������� ~~~==== h.4 , pp . 73-74 BIR rec.) Th tot 1 11 ed d fici ncy inco tax du in th oun of 46 , 523 . 64 a 1,683.27 ul 1 tead of 48 , 206 . 31 erro ously 1 - die t d in th r r oin asses n �

.ci ion - 3- H 11 C C o. 130. ro thi~ fi 1 sse , p titio r p.... p ed to thi ourt, 11J in , 1n h r petitio for ie , � t r pon nt � ri ht to coll ct th tax 1 qu stion by ary m thod ha lread res- rib 1 ccord ~ with S ction 51( ) of the 1 - tion 1 I t rL 1 R ven Cod J t t the assess- t1 out b is 1n 1 1n fact as it ol 1y on the olUlt of 180 , � o hieh i not i oo rne by her. 1t r p t1t1oner or h r coun el app r d duri � the sch ul d henr on ugus 27, 1 62 . Whr pon, o motion o COUI 1 for respon nt , th Court ord r d h .r 0 roc ed with th pr s n- tatio 0 h r vid nc � s 0 d t�s CO' s 1 pre- s nt d 0 1 d c 1 e t ry vi e c , fte w ic th ca w s ::;u itt d for d ci ion. Th. Vi nc of pet ... tlon r had bli~h d utfie ie tly and d - u t ly th f c s heretofor st t d. On th b sis of th pl.adin s n t e f cts e t bl1 h d daring th he r , the is ues ar : 1. 'h h r or ot petitio .r is liabl for defloie cy inco t es in the to 1 55, 577.25, 1nclu 1ve of surchar , r of i p lti st, and c o pr o for r 11~ ur to f11 r tur ('! n for 1 t y e t of the t � 2 . Wheth r or not the co11 ctio of the t es h v pre cribed . titio er f 11 d to p ar d pr e~ent vid- c or proof in pport of er lle tions 1 her � 366 �

Dec i io - 4- ~1 il c C se o. 130. pe ition for revi � nc , co orm~bly to the doctri e of the pr s ption in f vor of the cor- r ctn ss o:f t s ss nt (Int r-provincial Auto- bus Co., Inc. vs Coll. of Int. R v., G�� No . J n. 31, 1956; Coll ctor v � hol Land Tr n port - tion Co., G.R. os. L-13099 13462, pr11 29, 1960), w r constr in to u t 1 th deficiency i co t X s ss� ent g inst titlon r 1 c1udin p 1- ti s, xc pt with r s ct to th 11 g co promise , respon nt havi no uthor1ty to po e co pro 1 p n lti s without h conse t of the t - p yer co c rn d. IN I W 0 ~I F lEG ~~G, the d e ision or th Co11 ctor (now Commissioner) of I.ter 1 \ I ue .~h r by ffirm d , xcept with r p ct to th compro is alti s. It p rin that pct1- tion r 1s lr ady d d, h r st ve, or h r succ s- ors in i.v.t r st, 1 hereby ord er d to pay to th o issioner o Inter 1 R v nu , ithin 30 d ys fro th date thi d cisio b co es fi 1, th o t of 8 ,206. 91 defici ncy i com t or the y rs 19 8 1949 , p u 5% urch r 1 o t hly 1nt r st fro un 30, 195 til th t re p id, subject to th 1 it tions pres- rib d in ec ion 51 of the tic 1 Internal R v u Cod , me d d. petitioner. Wi th costs against .3 6 7 367 ~ �

c is ion - 5- 11 c o. 130. SO 0 E ani , s pt b r 26 , 1962. --- ,I 368 �