CTA Case No. 4817 (Resolution)

. RI:.PlJBLIC Of TI-l- J:'IHLII'PTf'.IF.S COURT OF rnx OPPE~LS !Wf.: lON C t: TY I�IAHf:)BEI=i:, H�IC., - V<"!' sue: - CONI�IIBt110NEf;: 01- .I !TrF'NAl r~EVENLJC, x----- F:'e �� pnndentb ............ - - X f<' E S 0 L 'u T I 0 1'1 e <":\ VO"f' bell. �1 1\101:, 1.\J t m Cld e l n <:> p<-:>n <-Ol\ 'l't' on J.: l'lllf.'l"i'Y 7 '! Lhe U'f'<:>ttnd of lack of ju�r� d�i.i t:u:n-." 1-1~? cont ncl s th t . ui 1� J n �l:;h :i <? C\Se :i. i ne-e �the c:\SSP sm. Ht h � \ l o t h ~n d.t puted or' rot~,'l:ed, hence, N.'ilt. (Jf\ 1. Ild;e rn.:d. R~?v � n!..IP Code, a amend(�d. 186

R Ol.UT 0 17 C l A ~A ~ N -2 - pe it'oner 'ece ved WO , SP. m nt Not~ce bh da d M ch 30, 19q2, r u ring to p y th amount p B. 2 . 90, s de ici ncy ncom X nd he mount 0 P172,7 � 54, d :fi ~ency per n x. Whil i on r ha pr or 0 nl smen ip d nd h ld conf nc s h h BIR R on 0 .:ficials a .si n d 0 h X n tio f ~~count in onn c ion w h the p -As e men N ic o� r pond n d d F bru ry 18, 1992, ndin p ym n d ic enc:y ncom and perc n e �or 1988, h wever h i no h ro t con mpl t d y law ut th prot 0 equ st or rec n d r ion on th afo:r nt on fin s en wh~ch ws nev don p t ione PP 1 d to th' Court on Tun 4, 19 2. Obviously, he ss s m n no h v ng b en ro es d or con th r auld no a d cis on m nts th may PP 1 d to . on h d puted th:.t. Court. ction 7<1 0 R publ c Ac No. 112 wh t s rev w ble by hlS Cou on a p al is th c d s~on 0 th 0 s ion r of nt- rnal Rt..,V nue on sput d s nd no th ssessm nt n h ld: . ts 1 Tlu , i Th 1 w sdic on on h �r X CntiJ 0 ound n s c on 7 18 '7

18

r-~ESCJLUT l OH CH~ CI:)SE l'lfl.. '*lH "7 ..� '� ... because ~e <the taxpaye~) believe~ he 1~ not liable ~.:h (;~�r-c�?. f o �r .1 t~h e '" lr>l!;f-~s �;m~ n t bel~()fllf~b i-\ 'cl:i.t.;put'-"d .,,�-s(~f.>!:,flll-~nt:' th.:1l; l~ht:.. ~ollecto~ must d~cide, and the taxp~.y<�~'f' Ci�\.n <'!pper.\] l:;o thf:~ Ct:Ju-rt: C\ f T c\ x A p p E� ,;~. :1 s <::. n 1 y u p n n .,, (�� .. e i p t, of the-~ dec:i."dnn n'l' -\::hp Cnll1'"c1�,cn' on l:;he d:t.~pu���.>d "'"�~:;e�:,sn\en�,,1 xxx'' U~mphaSJ"' qtppl:i.Pd) The samr.~ :L1Y f.H�p-t'�ta �icn; findc: ~=ur. por-�t in Secti.oli 11 of leputd'ic net- :IJP:::,, t.o.Jh.ich ~:; tc:\ t;r~s: "f\r�!C.. :1.1.. Who m-:~y appF�.:1.l ~ "~ fi'<�?.ct of appl:')i:ll.. Any p<:~�pson, ,:\ c; SGC .1. a l.J on C"J'f' CCJ I' p<:H' \ L �i ( Jrl ,:td ve�~�~:;(=> 1 y .-,, f �f f7~C' tf:~d by <:t d E'C :i .,. :ion o .,, �r \ �- l j n rJ r.J f t; h P f' t:l l l e:� �� -t; o �r <n n tJJ r ' 0 Com hi j s 1. ( )')I'~ I ) :r nt:f:>'f�na] r~evenU<.-"., +:he C<:ll'lecti) r () f Ctt.� I',UifiS o �r� y c.-\ 11 p r 1 v �i n r i o-r� r 1 t y ft o a r d o 'I' f:use~:;stnE'lYt; 0 p p<-:�;,\1 ~; may f �i 1 t:! '" n �-\ p p~?<:\1 �i n th <-:~ Ccl\.n't Cl f Tax A p ~~f.:~ a 1 , vn .,.. h i n '1: h l �r �t y d "' y s e~ f t E! �r \;h 1�::> 'i'E' ( f.! l p t; Cl f ">I\ <::-11 c! t~C :i. ~; i 0 n ()'i' �r� u 1 i n g .. 11 ( Em ph as :i. s s u p p l :i !~~ d ) �,w l'IOtl-? 1,;1 ��:1. �{, "hf~ l t h e . lt.t:;f:~S WUi'd "de~J l<:>ns" no Assf~S cmen t::. " ? �thvs i ll f� l; h 0' ., i Hcl 'i c~at;i ftf;J leql'".;l��t:iv~ i ntP n t; :i on tt1 subj�?.i~t t o t;IH~ �iud it~'i.<:\1 r�evi e"'' l"h:> det~isic�n Clf tiH�: Co mm :i ~� <:; 1 <l l'H0 �r on an asssesEmPnt bvt not the assessment itself. S i n <' e :i n t-11 <�" i. n s t i:\ n e a<;; f~' l~ hE) t ''' x p ~' y f? T� appealed from the as~essMPnt of the Commtssion0r of IntePna1 Revenue without P'I'I':!Vic,u~:;ly cnntest::i.n~t thf? ~>amf~'., t;h(-;� appe<'�l n w,'l .. p�r�em "-\;Ll"I'E: .;.nd . �he COII'i'+� of Ta )( ppE�,���l s h<�d nn ju�t�'isd:tct:i.on t;o Pn~.<'�'�,~i�;din said "' p p <�::> '"' 1 � F o �r ~ i:\ ~; ~:; t; "' �t; "':� cl ., t h e j Ll 'I' :i s cl i t' on o f t h "'-' T '" x Co u �r- t ;i. � b , l t �,~ e v P ,,1 b >' "' p p P , 1 dc;~cit:;ic;nc. o�1 tht:� Con.mii"�!;;�i.or�f�'1~ o f Ird;t~rn;,,,l h:(~V(~��,\ttf~' on d :i. !:1 pu�t;ed C:l.f.'.s"�e�r.~;msents. The T c\ x C��lu�rt :if::.'" c:m.n"-t; nf !!;p<-:~c:t.:~l ju�risd:tct::inn. ~~�- ��ut~h, �1.t Cc\n take <:�c!t]n:iz.:tn<"(;~ only of F. tt� h m'" �t; -t e �r ~:;. i:\ s i-\ �r� e c J P r:�. '1' J y '"' :i. t h j n :i t <:; 18 9

RESOLUTIO~I CTA CASE NO. 481 7 ��- 5 -� ju~isdiction. <Commissione~ o f Inte~nal Revenue vs. Leona~do S. Villa and the Cou~t of Tax Appeal s , 22 SCRA 3, [1968J; Pe~fecto V. Fe�rnandez vs. Comm:it:;sione�r of Inte�rnal Revenue, C.T.A. Case No. 3432, Feb~ua~y 25, l. 98;3.) Uncle~ Section 229 of the National I nte�rna 1 Revenue Code, i:\S amended, an assessment may be p~otested administ~atively by f i l i n g a ~equest fo~ �reconside�r.:\tion o�1' ~ei nvesti gation in such fo�rm and manne�r as may be p�resc�r i bed by impl~menting �rE'! g u 1 ,3. �t ions w:i thin 1;h i �rty ( 30) days f �rom "l'ece :i. pt of the assessment; the i:\ssessm~:'!nt shall become final and unappealable. It is thus clea~ beyond doubt that the decision on t h e ~equest fo~ ~econside~ation o~ ~einvestigation :i !:> the decision on th<-:1 disputed i:\S!:>essment; which is appealable 1;<J this Cou�rt. It follows that; if the as!:>essm~en�ts a�re not fo�rmally cc>ntested o�1' p �rotestt~d administ~atively, as what happened in the case at ba~~ the taxpaye~ has no ~ight to appeal. l�lcl�reClVe�l', g~anting fo~ pu~poses of a~guments that; the final as!:>essment is the cn1e .:'lppealable , t;he I �rec V rd !:>how!-:> that t;he subject pet:i. tion fo�r �peview was f i 1 E~ d beyond the th i �rty ( 30) day pe�f'i od p�resc�f'i bed unde~ Section 11 of R. A. 1125. The final assessment I was; �N~ceived by Petit;ionE'!�r in ~~p�1�il 8, 1992 <:md the ~- instant petition was filed only on June 4, 1992. 190

� RESOLUTION CTA CASE NOM 4817 - f., - FOREGOING, the petition foT �,-eview filed in this case js he1�eby DISI'IISSED fo�r la.t:: k of .ju�d sd iction at pet:i.-t:ione�r' s <::oats. SO Of<DU< .. D. / Quezon City Met~o Manila~ Ma~ch 8, 1993. / � ~lQ~~ ERN~STO D. ACOSTA GRUBA Judge 191