Case Digest (G.R. No. 211449)
Facts:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Transfield Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 211449, January 16, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J. Jr., J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR); respondent is Transfield Philippines, Inc. On May 30, 2007, respondent received four Final Assessment Notices (FANs) assessing a total of P563,168,996.70 for deficiency income tax, Expanded Withholding Tax and VAT (including interest and compromise penalties) for fiscal year July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. Respondent filed a protest with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on June 5, 2007. The BIR issued a First Collection Letter (Aug. 3, 2007) and later a Final Notice Before Seizure (dated Dec. 20, 2007; constructively served Jan. 17, 2008).
On February 29, 2008, respondent availed itself of the tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480 by filing with the Development Bank of the Philippines (an authorized agent bank) the required documents — Notice of Availment, Tax Amnesty Return (BIR Form 2116), Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) as of Dec. 31, 2005, and the Tax Amnesty Payment Form — and paid an amnesty tax of P112,500.00. Respondent also paid P2,000.00 on April 23, 2008 for compromise penalties related to one FAN. Respondent notified the BIR Large Taxpayers District Office (LTDO) on May 5, 2008 that it had availed of the amnesty and furnished copies of the amnesty documents.
The CIR, citing Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 19-2008, wrote respondent on July 10, 2008 that those with delinquent accounts or accounts receivable considered as assets of the BIR/Government are not allowed to avail of the amnesty. On September 8, 2008 the CIR issued a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDAL) to collect the assessed amount; the WDAL was constructively served on September 11, 2008 and respondent’s bank account was placed on hold.
Respondent filed a petition with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division (CTA Case No. 7842) seeking annulment of the WDAL. In an Amended Decision dated February 28, 2012, the CTA First Division held that the CTA has jurisdiction and ruled that respondent had complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9480, thereby becoming immune from the assessed taxes; it declared the WDAL null and void and the assessed liabilities deemed settled. The First Division denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on May 14, 2012.
Petitioner elevated the case to the CTA En Banc (CTA EB Case No. 907). On August 5, 2013, the CTA En Banc affirmed the First Division, holding that the petition was properly filed to challenge the propriety of the WDAL (not as a time-barred appeal of the assessment). The En Banc denied petitio...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Tax Appeals commit reversible error by assuming jurisdiction over respondent’s petition to annul the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy?
- Did the Court of Tax Appeals commit reversible error in ruling that respondent is entitled to the immunities under the tax amnesty program in Republ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)