Case Digest (G.R. No. 179115) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 695 Phil. 852 (2012), the petitioner, Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. (AIA), a corporation operating in the Subic Special Economic Zone and engaged in importing and auctioning used vehicles and heavy equipment, received on August 25, 2004, a Formal Letter of Demand dated July 9, 2004, assessing deficiency value-added tax (VAT) of ₱102,535,520.00 and excise tax of ₱4,334,715.00, inclusive of penalties and interest, for auctions held on February 5–8, 2004. AIA avers it mailed a protest letter dated August 29, 2004 via registered mail on August 30, submitted additional supporting documents on September 24 and November 22, 2004, and, upon inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on June 20, 2005. The CIR moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending that AIA’s protest was filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed by ... Case Digest (G.R. No. 179115) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Assessment and Administrative Protest
- Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. (AIA), a corporation operating in the Subic Special Economic Zone, imports and auctions used motor vehicles and heavy equipment.
- On July 9, 2004, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued a Formal Letter of Demand received by AIA on August 25, 2004, assessing deficiency value‐added tax (VAT) of ₱102,535,520.00 and excise tax of ₱4,334,715.00 (total ₱106,870,235.00) for auction sales on February 5–8, 2004.
- AIA claims to have filed a protest letter dated August 29, 2004 (mailed August 30), and later submitted supporting documents on September 24 and November 22, 2004. The CIR did not act on the protest.
- Proceedings Before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)
- AIA filed a petition for review with the CTA on June 20, 2005; the CIR filed its Answer on July 26, 2005. On March 8, 2006, the CIR moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, alleging AIA’s protest was untimely under Section 228 of the Tax Code. The CIR denied receipt of the August 29 letter, claiming receipt only on September 27, 2004.
- In opposition, AIA submitted:
- The protest letter with Registry Receipt No. 3824;
- A November 15, 2005 postal certification that Letter No. 3824 was dispatched September 1, 2004;
- A July 5, 2006 postal certification that Letter No. 3824 was delivered to the BIR Records Section on September 8, 2004;
- A certified photocopy of the BIR’s Receipt of Important Communication Delivered; plus witness testimony.
- The CTA First Division, in Resolutions dated November 20, 2006 and February 22, 2007, granted the CIR’s motion to dismiss, finding AIA’s evidence insufficient. The CTA En Banc, in a Decision dated August 3, 2007, affirmed the dismissal.
- Supreme Court Proceedings and Tax Amnesty
- On January 30, 2008, AIA filed a Manifestation and Motion with Leave to Defer Further Proceedings, declaring it had availed of the Tax Amnesty Program under Republic Act (RA) 9480.
- On February 13, 2008, AIA submitted a Certification of Qualification from the BIR dated February 5, 2008, confirming its qualification for tax amnesty for taxable years 2005 and prior pursuant to RA 9480.
Issues:
- What is the effect of AIA’s availment of the Tax Amnesty Program under RA 9480 on the instant petition?
- Is AIA disqualified from securing the RA 9480 amnesty under Section 8(a) as a “withholding agent”?
- Does RA 9399, the SEZ amnesty, preclude AIA from availing RA 9480?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)