Case Digest (G.R. No. 260261)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Robiegie Corporation, G.R. No. 260261, October 03, 2022, Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court. The petition by the Republic (through the Bureau of Internal Revenue, BIR) sought review of CTA rulings quashing assessments against Robiegie Corporation; the CTA Decision dated December 2, 2021 and the CTA Resolution dated April 8, 2022 are assailed.Robiegie Corporation is a drugstore operator whose books for taxable year 2008 were the subject of BIR examination. On July 27, 2009 the BIR issued LOA No. 00037842 (the July 2009 LOA) naming Revenue Officer (RO) Jose Francisco David, Jr. under Group Supervisor Felix M. Roy to examine Robiegie’s 2008 records. On January 28, 2010 Memorandum Referral No. 031-0006-10 reassigned the investigation to RO Cecille D. Dy under Group Supervisor Jessica O. Bernales; the LOA and First Notice for Presentation of Books were served on Robiegie at its business address.
Following RO Dy’s investigation a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) issued August 18, 2011, and on September 19, 2011 the BIR issued a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Final Assessment Notices (FANs) for a total deficiency of P10,804,991.21 (income tax, VAT, EWT, compromise penalty). After unsuccessful collection efforts, the Republic filed a complaint for collection of the assessed deficiency taxes before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on June 23, 2017.
The CTA (Second Division) dismissed the Republic’s complaint, finding the assessments void because RO Dy (and the reviewing RO Leonardo) were not authorized by a valid LOA and the reassignment was effected only by a memorandum referral signed by a Revenue District Officer who lacked authority to issue LOAs. The Republic moved for reconsideration arguing BIR memoranda and RMO issuances permit reassignment without issuing a new LOA and warning that strict LOA construction would hamper tax collection. The Second Division denied reconsideration. The CTA en banc affirmed, holding that an LOA is the statutory mode for delegating the CIR’s investigatory power, that reassignment requires issuance of a new LOA (subject to delegated authority), and that Section 17 of the NIRC and the cited RMOs do not permit dispensing with a new LOA when a different RO actually conducts the audit.
The Republic filed a petition ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did RO Cecille D. Dy (and the reviewing RO) have authority to investigate and assess Robiegie absent a new LOA issued in their names?
- Can the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s reassignment power under Section 17 of the NIRC be invoked to dispense with the statutory LOA requirement when a taxpayer investigation is transferred to another RO?
- Is the Court’s prior ruling in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sony Philippines, Inc. applicable to the present...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)