Title
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Transfield Philippines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 211449
Decision Date
Jan 16, 2019
Transfield availed tax amnesty under R.A. No. 9480, settling P563M liabilities. CIR disqualified it under RMC 19-2008, but SC upheld amnesty, invalidating distraint/levy, ruling law prevails over regulations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211449)

Key Dates

– May 30, 2007: Issuance of Final Assessment Notices (FANs) covering FY July 1, 2001–June 30, 2002
– June 5, 2007: Protest filed by respondent with the BIR
– August 28, 2007: Receipt of First Collection Letter
– December 20, 2007 (served Jan 17, 2008): Final Notice Before Seizure
– February 29, 2008: Availment of Tax Amnesty under R.A. 9480
– April 23, 2008: Amnesty‐related payment of P2,000 for compromise penalties
– July 10, 2008: BIR Letter relying on RMC 19-2008 disqualifying respondent
– September 8, 2008: Issuance of Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDAL)
– February 28, 2012: CTA First Division Amended Decision
– May 14, 2012: CTA First Division Resolution denying reconsideration
– August 5, 2013: CTA En Banc Decision affirming Amended Decision
– February 19, 2014: CTA En Banc Resolution denying reconsideration
– January 16, 2019: Supreme Court Decision

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision)
– National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC)
– Republic Act No. 9480 (Tax Amnesty for taxable year 2005 and prior)
– Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 19-2008 (BIR implementation circular)
– DOF Department Order No. 29-07 (implementing rules for R.A. 9480)

Factual Background

Transfield Philippines was assessed P563,168,996.70 in deficiency income tax, EWT, VAT and penalties for FY 2001–2002 via four FANs. After filing a protest, the BIR issued collection letters, a Final Notice Before Seizure, and ultimately a WDAL. Before enforcement, Transfield availed itself of the 2005-and-prior tax amnesty under R.A. 9480 by filing the required forms (Notice of Availment, Tax Amnesty Return, SALN, Payment Form) and paying P112,500 in amnesty tax. The BIR then claimed disqualification under RMC 19-2008 and proceeded with distraint.

Tax Amnesty Under R.A. 9480

Section 1 authorizes a general amnesty covering national internal revenue taxes for 2005 and prior years unpaid as of December 31, 2005. Section 6 grants immunity from tax liabilities—including assessments, interests, penalties, and related civil/criminal/admin sanctions—upon full compliance. DO 29-07 prescribes the method of availment: filing Notice of Availment, SALN as of December 31, 2005, Tax Amnesty Return, and paying the amnesty tax, after which immunity is deemed effective.

Proceedings Before the Court of Tax Appeals

CTA First Division Ruling

On February 28, 2012, the CTA First Division held that it had jurisdiction over R.A. 9480 issues and declared the WDAL null and void. It found that Transfield had complied with all amnesty requirements, thereby extinguishing the underlying liabilities. The Division rejected the BIR’s reliance on RMC 19-2008 as exceeding the statute’s exceptions enumerated in Section 8. Reconsideration was denied on May 14, 2012.

CTA En Banc Ruling

On August 5, 2013, the CTA En Banc affirmed the First Division. It maintained that jurisdiction existed to review the validity of the WDAL and the amnesty immunity. It reiterated that Transfield properly availed itself and that RMC 19-2008 could not expand exceptions beyond those in R.A. 9480. Reconsideration was denied on February 19, 2014.

Issues on Review

  1. Whether the CTA erred in assuming jurisdiction over the petition.
  2. Whether Transfield was entitled to immunity under R.A. 9480 despite the BIR’s reliance on RMC 19-2008.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

I. Nature and Effect of Tax Amnesty

A tax amnesty is a sovereign pardon extinguishing liabilities, to be strictly construed against taxpayers but liberally in favor of the revenue authority. Under R.A. 9480, full compliance with filing and payment requirements triggers immediate immunity from all covered national internal revenue taxes and related penalties for years up to 2005.

II. Invalidity of RMC 19-2008 Exception

The CIR argued that RMC 19-2008 disqua

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.