Title
Supreme Court
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Maxicare Healthcare Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 261065
Decision Date
Jul 10, 2023
Maxicare contested a P419M VAT deficiency assessment, claiming CIR violated due process by issuing FDDA before the 60-day period to submit documents. SC upheld CTA, voiding assessments.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 261065)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background
    • Maxicare Healthcare Corporation is a domestic corporation organized to operate a prepaid group practice health care delivery system (health maintenance organization).
    • On August 28, 2014, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued Letter of Authority No. 126-2014-00000060, authorizing the examination of Maxicare’s books and records for all internal revenue taxes for the period January 1 to December 31, 2012.
  • Assessment Notices and Administrative Protests
    • On August 25, 2015, CIR issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) assessing Maxicare for deficiency VAT of ₱618,251,527.72 (inclusive of penalties and surcharges); Maxicare filed a protest on September 10, 2015.
    • On October 8, 2015, CIR issued a Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FLD/FAN) assessing deficiency VAT of ₱419,774,484.21; Maxicare protested by letter dated November 6, 2015, expressly requesting a reinvestigation and committing to submit supporting documents within 60 days.
  • Final Decision on Disputed Assessment and CTA First Division Proceedings
    • On December 9, 2015, CIR issued the Final Decision on the Disputed Assessment (FDDA), received by Maxicare on December 21, 2015.
    • On January 20, 2016, Maxicare filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division (CTA Case No. 9246).
  • CTA First Division and En Banc Rulings
    • On January 16, 2020, the CTA First Division withdrew and set aside the FDDA, and cancelled the FLD/FAN, holding that CIR violated Maxicare’s due process rights by issuing the FDDA before the 60-day period to submit reinvestigation documents had lapsed.
    • On July 21, 2020, the CTA First Division denied CIR’s motion for reconsideration.
    • CIR elevated the case to the CTA En Banc, which on November 25, 2021, affirmed the First Division; its April 26, 2022 resolution denied CIR’s motion for reconsideration.
    • CIR filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Main Issue
    • Whether the CTA En Banc erred in ruling that CIR violated Maxicare’s right to procedural due process—by issuing the FDDA before the 60-day reinvestigation period under Section 228 of the NIRC, as implemented by RR No. 12-99, had expired—thereby rendering the FLD/FAN and FDDA void.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.