CTA Case No. 3181 (Decision)
' . l'lHH yr Of. I'I:I _LH'PI!'l'~If COURT OF ..,.J:Uf.. Ai..PULS :,I:-~� \f C!TY Yr.!TA H;N'l' EaPRlSES Nc .. " Pet i t.iorH"r., - versun ... t � � :: ~(� ~~r.-�w� 1;~ ,._..,~~t'.~t1l-:,..i-� ""' ��n'l;. ,;.4 1J1....'.., H spcmdent., filed on P . bruary lOc 1981 on tho ground of lack 0 pet.i ti one�"" a (J pea .. 1974 it the amount ot P2 3~463.,41~ ~ h i c h letter In a letter dated Decombar 9 , 1980 ~ pe~1 - 1oner prote~tc. tho agsessmeit ~ statinry ~h a~ i t is not awar of any nor -payn�u:.'Hlt <)f such taxes for tho .. (; 0 J . ' .. )
""' 2 - 9. 1980, petitioner appealed to thi s Court o rhe sola i ssue to be resol ved is whether or not this Court has juri sdiction to tako cognizanc0 of petitioner �s appeal~ -~}t:C~, 1 ~ ~~B.�~Cli?J2c ..., i"h<~ C;c>urt o~f T -:~ ~~ "p p(::!!�~i J. e .s h~. 11 t">.X 0 rc i ~H:i eXC l U !5 i VO <�' p pC). -� l~te jucisdic�ion to review b y ap~eal ms herei.n prov:i.d~d ~- ( l) DE:c~:.,..si(Jns of tt~it1 f.~c)llc:~c .t-ort'o of Irrt~ en'h.Jl i:.eveJ:Yt.Je in C2tS1.iiS involv.in<J 91~1~:!..~:.� asse~~m!nts 0 refunds of Intern a l revenue -::;:;t;~:~;-�'fee-8 or~ oth!2�r (:he>r.ges 9 penalti~J!s im- posed ln relation thereto3 or other matters ;.u;..tsin? u.nd<1!!r" the i'dt.j.onal J.ntt.:l:r:rwl R~J.H~I.Hme ~0dc o ~ other law or part of the l aw cdmi- nist e r0d by th~ Bureau of Internal ~ev~nue; {Un0erlin1ng supplied~) :);,;c., 11,. v: ho m <';.1!. �v .::pp>\H'll: .:..-..::.........,.,.-........-~,...~..,.-"""~' ~ffect. ~~ppe;::'il.,,.,. .u,.,... �...,..,.~-x;;.��w,..,.,"u-�.-lt.--~..-.......- '�U:t pcnr:;;;\~nl' �'H~~::oci<.~tion o.r.� c �:.> l:"'poiation ad ~� v c r �J e l y a f f n. c t.l"t d by a ,<;2gs:: i sJ.S!.'1 t:' r: I".!-.LLtG.:,'l t.) f the "'~.) }.ector �" �:>f l ntonl"-i.l .t,~~�t!::mue.., the Coll= ectuz� of customs or any pr~vinc!al or city Goard o f ~ 9sessment Appeals mdy f i le en <:iPf-�'0 'll !n the c:':)lU:'t of Tax t\ppB,-:;ls ;d thin t htrt.y c.�1~~'? a:f.te:.~ the .rec,;;.ipt. of such dec:l.- u'!.-:-,n ry;; ruling., (Ur~dersc0rin9 supp l i,~d.)
DCCr;I0L'l �� Cl ~\ C~\~)~~ l'i-..~ . 3181 ~ass~asments"~ indicating th~ legislative 1nten- of tho Co~tissioner on the protest agai~3t on va~ Leonardo s. Vill ~ et al.~ GeR. Noa L-23988 0 the Commi~sioner of lntern~l Ke venue on the ~ro- .es~ of the ta~paycr again~t the asscssm~nt . tlon f0r re view o f pe~itioner# r~ap~ndent has not prQmaturely filed. this Court cannot teko cogni - zance of pa titioner�s alpe~l. G .s-~ .. t~o .. .L- 8 7 25" ;.. eptember 13. 107d): "xx:x dhar<~ a taxpaye:r '-IUt!H:H:.ioru~ an <HHiE.0"H1l- nt or� de,nand-le�tter <Jn d as~l<s t.he cor:u:r.lr~~d.on~r tt,) r:econ::.ider r;u~ cancel the n-:Hne b(!Ci:.mse he (the t a.xray er-) believes he ~~ no t liable t herefor. the a5sess- rnent ')!" dem;-andfi�l etter becomes e1 di:sp l tt!d or contef': tf.:(\ assess:nent that the Ccmrr.is �- sioner m>_,.:. '� 1ecid �~ and the t .axp ;:1.ye r can
DECl~:> I ()N CT ~ CM ~E NJ. 31 81 C::i.ppe 1 t tht! Court. oi. l'ax Appealu only upon r~ceipt of the decision of the Com- missi r n~r on the d ispute d or contested i.H'S~s n t.ent . The cLcision on the request for reconsideration iB the decision which i~ apDeatable to ~his Court ~ ( st ~ S &ephenQs :.s~oc i ation and r.:t .. ~; t~:.~phengs Chinese (;it�ls' ~~chool vs .. Collecb:tr of tnternal Revenue, 104 H111.. 314 ~ Bagui o ~~ou ntry Club �::;orporat.ion vs$ C~ llac tor of Internal R evenue~ et alo. L-114 19 . A?ril 22 8 1959~ lOS P hil 6 1269. un :) b .; r~ oman Cath�.Jlic ,-.rchbishop of Cebu va. ~ ~llector of Interna l k evenue 0 L- 16683 D January 31g 1 962., 4 ~.> CHI\ 279; Commissione:r of ~nta rna l Havenue vs. Lilie Yusey Gonzalew. L-19495 . Novembcc 24, 1966 8 16 $CRA 7 S7; ~omrnb:s ' oner of Internal Hevftlrme vs .. Vill a 1, L-23988 . January 2" 1968~ 22 :..:;. c~ ,- 1o -\. 4.)�t >OOC xxx. 0 X.>oc Si ne .... in the case at bar petition~::!� o~)pe.:~led from the a ~3sensment or: dcmand -~ le ,._ ter of respo ndent witho u t waiting for h1s dociqicn on 1 ts request for rc,c �:msic:ic r �:ltion or reir.�,n;~s ... ti g5t.io n 1 the a;.:pe:3l was pre rna '.:.ur�e and this C::.)ur t t�tc.;s no jur�isdicti.on t~ :) e l tert.ain said rj �~~) ""d l.a u . zo n City , i�1etro nanila , �.ugust. 31 , l98lo ~~il~;,~~ , �rcslriln'J Judge ,Judg G Id'
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.