G.R. No. 216161 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc.

Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. ("respondent") is a corporation organized under Philippine laws.
The corporation is engaged in the manufacture, production, sale, and distribution of automotive parts and accessories.

On 16 December 2003, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) against respondent covering deficiency taxes for the taxable year 2001.
On 28 March 2004, the BIR issued a Final Assessment Notice (FAN) amounting to P32,100,613.42.
Respondent filed a request for reconsideration of the FAN on 23 June 2004.
On 8 November 2006, the BIR issued a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) and demanded full payment of the deficiency tax, which was then served on 12 April 2007 through registered mail.

On 19 July 2007, respondent filed an application for the abatement of its tax liabilities under Revenue Regulations No. 13-2001 for the taxable year 2001.
In a letter dated 12 September 2007, the BIR denied the application on the ground that the FDDA had already been issued and had become final and executory due to the failure to appeal within thirty (30) days.
On 19 September 2007, respondent informed the BIR of its payment of a tax deficiency on withholding tax amounting to P736,726.89 and its process of availing the Tax Amnesty Program under Republic Act No. 9480 (RA 9480).
On 21 September 2007, respondent completed its tax amnesty requirements by filing a Notice of Availment, Tax Amnesty Return, and remitting the necessary tax payment to the Development Bank of the Philippines.

In a letter dated 29 January 2008, the BIR again denied respondent’s request and set the deficiency tax at P29,108,767.63, reiterating in a subsequent letter dated 16 July 2008 that the FDDA was final and executory.
On 1 August 2008, respondent filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) challenging the BIR’s position.
The CTA First Division, on 12 November 2012, granted the Petition for Review, setting aside the assessment based on the respondent’s availment of the Tax Amnesty Program under RA 9480, holding that the law covers national internal revenue taxes for taxable years up to 2005 (and prior years) provided all requirements are met.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 3 December 2012, which was denied on 1 March 2013.

On 19 May 2014, the CTA En Banc affirmed that a qualified tax amnesty applicant who has complied with RA 9480 is immune from the payment of taxes and related penalties, clarifying that the finality of the tax assessment did not disqualify respondent from availing the tax amnesty.
The CIR filed another Motion for Reconsideration on 11 June 2014, which was subsequently denied on 5 January 2015.

Republic Act No. 9480, which became law on 24 May 2007, provides for a tax amnesty covering national internal revenue taxes for taxable years 2005 and prior, subject to specific exceptions.
Section 6 of RA 9480 grants immunities and privileges to those who fully comply with its conditions.
Implementing rules such as DOF Department Order No. 29-07 (DO 29-07) set out the procedural requirements for availing the tax amnesty.
The BIR and subsequent cases (e.g., Philippine Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) provide judicial interpretations regarding the effect of full compliance with the Tax Amnesty Program.

Whether respondent, having completed all the requirements under RA 9480 and its implementing rules, is entitled to the benefits and immunities of the Tax Amnesty Program.
Whether the issuance of the FDDA by the BIR, despite being final for administrative purposes, precludes respondent from availing the tax amnesty benefits under the law.
Whether the exceptions provided under Section 8 of RA 9480, particularly the disqualification of “tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the courts,” apply to the FDDA issued by the BIR.