CTA Case No. 3432 (Decision)

f.t<:Pll3tTC OF 1:1!� i' UH.JPPI~)~:;.. COUR1' OF TAX li PPEAJ...S can ()r; 1&1.tl~ r pERFECTO V. FERNANDEZ 1 Pet itioner, - versus - C.T.A. CA~ E NO. 3432 I COHMISSIONE.R OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Hespondent. X- - - - - - - - ~- - X D E C I .S I 0 N Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in a motion filed on April 30, 1982, seeks the dismi~sal oi petitioner's appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He con- tends that the appeal is premature since it is taken from a mere assessment and not a decision on a disputed assessment as provided in Section 7(1) of Republi c Act No. 1 125. We agree with the proposition of respon- dent. The facts alleged in the petition for review of petitioner clearly show that on February 17, 1982, he received by mail a closed envelope containing two ~ep a rate As sessme nt Notices (both numbere d Ol-30-05-1079 U0-76-82) requiring him to pay deficiency income tax, interest and compromise ~enalty, as follows: (a) Tax Due - 1'7,375~00 (b) Interest - f�3-097.50 ~- (c) Compromise - t� 50.00 49

DECl!.>ION - CTA CASE NO . 3432 - 2- Without . fil!ng a protest or request for reconsideration thereof with respondent Commissioner of Internal Hevenue. he apf,ealed to this Court on March 17, 1982. Obviously. the appeal is taken from a mere assessment, not from a decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on a dis- puted assessment. Under ~; ection 7 ( 1) of Republic Act No. 1125. what should be reviewed by this Court on a~peol is the Co r1rnissicne r� s decision on a disputed assessment and not the assessment itself. Thus: "Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Tax ' ':)pee:ds shall exe r cise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal as herein provided - (1) Decisions of the Com- missioner of I 0 ternal Revenue in cases involving disputed dssess- ments. refunds of internal revenue taxes. fees or other charges. penalties imposed in relation there- to. or other matt0rs arising under the ~aticnal Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of the law administered by the Bureau of I nte rna 1 !-<.,_,v enue; (under lin .i.ng supplied.) On all fours with the case at bar on this point. by reason of the close similarity of the factual settings. the exact provision o f the l aw involv ed and the same issue liti g ~ted, is Commissioner of Internal ~~v~nue vs. Leonardo vL>~ o

DBCI:JION CTA Ci�.SE t!C. 34 32 - 3- s. Villa and T he Court of ~ ax Ap peals, L- 23968, January 2, 1968, 22 ~i CRJ\ 3, wherein the Cupreme / Court .resolved t.he same p roblem now brought before us in this ~rocePcinc; in the fo ll o\1\'ing wise : The law conferring jurisd iction on the ~ourt of Tax Appeals is found in ~ ec t ion 7 of Hef ubl ic .-1ct 112 5 0 the pertinent part of which s t ates: "Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - T-re Court of l'ax .'-..l;peals shall exercise exclusive a ppellate jurisdiction to review by appeal as herein provided - 11 (1) Decisions of the Collector (no w Con~iss i one r) of Internal Rpvenue in cases involving disputed asnessnents, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fet�s or ottler <;h .Jr '-.;e s . penalties imposed i n relation the-reto � or ot~ hf~ r ra<.1t ters arising under the llational Internal HPvenue ~ode or other law or part of law ad.rr. ini~t e rE1d b y the t�ur eau of Internal Hevenue : 11 The \vord "decisions" in parag raph 1, S ection 7 of i~epubl ic ,~,ct 112 5 , li llOted above, has been interpreted to mean the decis i ons of t he Com1i'i ::>sior.er oi Internal Revenue on the protest of the taxpayer aiJainst the assessments. Definitely. said word does not siq- nify the asses sme nt itself. .:P. (; uote \-.'hat thi s Court sni d aptly in a vre- vious case: "In 1~hf.� f i r s t place.~ believe ~he respondent court erred in holdinG that the flssessment in t:uestion is the 51

DECI S ION - CTA CASE NO. 3432 - 4- res n ondent Co l lector's decision or ruling a p2e al- able to it, and that con- I set.LUently, the period of thirty days prescribed by section 11 of H.epubl ic Act 1125 within which petitioner �;;;, should hdve d H Jea led to the respondent court must be counted from it3 receipt of said assessment. Where a taxpayer q ueDtions an aDs es s- ment and asks the Collector to reconsider or cancel t he same because he (the tax pci yer) believes he is n o t liabl~ therefor, the assessment becomes a 'Jis nuted assess- ment� that the - Collector must decide, and the t ax? ayer c a n appeal to the Court of Tax Appea l s only upon receipt of the decision of the Col- lector on the dis?uted assess- ment, x x x" (E mphasis supplied) The same interp retation finds support in Section 11 of Hepublic Kct 1125, which stotes: ".Sec. 11. �-J ho may u npen l: effect of ar:peal. - Any person, association or corp cr~tion adversely affected by a deci s ion or ruling of the Coll e cto r (now Commissioner) o f lnt e rn Rl ~ evenue, the Collector of Lust c ffi s o r any provincial or city Board of A s s e s sm ~ nt Ap~ e a ls ma y f i l e an ap~eal in the Court of T ax /'. ppeals wi t h in thirty days 2 fter the receipt of such decision or ruling." ( t. rn ~.� Lasis su pt-- l i e d) Note that the law usPs Lh e word "decisions", not "asses sments", thus further indicatin g t h e l eq i sl<it i v.=- intention to subject to judicial review the decision OL th ~ Com- missioner on the r r o test a g ainst

., Dl!!Cl~ICN CTA CA~ E NC. 3432 - 5- an assessment but not the assess- ment itself. ~ 1nce in the i nstant case the tax~ayer ap~e 0 led from the a s sE�ssment cf the Conlin i s ~ ioner of 1 0 ternal Revenue without previous ly contesting the same, the appeal was premature and the Co urt of Tax A ~ p ~ a ls ha d no juris- diction to entertain said appeal. For, as st a ted, th~ jurisdicti o n of the Tax Court is to review by a~pea l decisions of t he Co m mi s s Jc ~e r of Internal Heven u e o n disputed assess ments . T1;e '1'."l:X Cour t is a court of s p ecial jurisdiction. As such, i t can ta~e co g ni~ance o nly of such mutters as are clearly within its jurisd iction. It is worth n o ting that under ~ ection 319- A of the National In ter nal Rpv e nue Code, as inserted by 1 residential D~c ree No . 1773, January 16., 198 1 , an assessrnen_.!=; may bo pro- tested administratively by filing a ~e ~ uest for reconsideration or reinvestigution within thirty (30) d.J.ys from r c ceipt of the ass ess- or in part, the t 2x pRyer aJvPrsel y 21fected by the decision o n th �~ prote.s t may r.J i '! 'ei:l l to the Court of Tax ,\ppec. l s wit h in t~~-l irty otherw ise, the decision s h<, ll t � ._: c o m,~ f i n;,l, executory 0 nn de1� and <J bl,.., . 53 J

- DECISION - CTA CA~E NO 3432 - 6- It is thus clear teyond doubt that the decision on the request for reconsider~tion or reinvestigation is the decision on the disp u ted u~ sest:omt:mt 1r1 hi ch io appc ~Jl cih le to this Co4rt. lt follows tha t ii un assess- ment is not formally contested or protested administratively, the tc1xpayer hus no right to appeal. ACCORDINGLY, pe titioner's a p~ eal is hereby aismissed for lack of jurisdiction . SO OfillEHED. 0uezon City, Metro ~ ~nila, February 25, 1983. P residi HJ Judge WE CONCUR: '~Y. ~ Associate Judge