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'
More in CTA Decisions
- UNILEVER GLOBAL SERVICES B.V. PHILIPPINES REGIONAL OPERATING HEADQUARTERS (ROHQ) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10385)
- CTA Case No. 1928 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 1928)
- MS. MARY SUSAN R. FORTICH v. MYRNA S. LEONIDA OIC- REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BIR, REVENUE REGION NO. 12(CTA Case No. 9036)
- ASIA UNITED LEASING & FINANCE CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8735)
- HELIX AGGREGATES, INC. (formerly LAFARGEHOLCIM AGGREGATES, INC.) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10852)
- CTA Case No. 1398 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 1398)
- CTA Case No. 5715 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 5715)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GLOBAL BUSINESS POWER CORPORATION(CTA Case No. EB 3107)
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.