Title
Supreme Court
Philippine Journalists, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. 162852
Decision Date
Dec 16, 2004
PJI contested BIR's P111M tax assessment, claiming waiver of statute of limitations was invalid due to procedural defects. SC ruled waiver invalid, assessment time-barred, and warrant void.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 162852)

Petitioner

Philippine Journalists, Inc., a media organization assessed for deficiency taxes for the year 1994.

Respondent

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

Key Dates

• Calendar year ended December 31, 1994: PJI files its annual income tax return.
• August 10, 1995: Letter of Authority issued.
• September 22, 1997: Waiver of Statute of Limitations executed by PJI’s Comptroller.
• July 2, 1998: Audit report recommending assessment of P136,952,408.97.
• December 9, 1998: Assessment/Demand No. 33-1-000757-94 issued for P111,291,214.46.
• March 16 & November 10, 1999: Collection letters issued.
• March 28, 2000: Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy No. 33-06-046 served.
• May 14, 2002: Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) decision nullifying assessment and warrant.
• August 5, 2003: Court of Appeals (CA) decision reversing CTA.
• March 31, 2004: CA denies motion for reconsideration.
• December 16, 2004: Supreme Court renders final decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision after 1990)
• National Internal Revenue Code, Sections 203 and 222 (prescriptive periods)
• Revenue Memorandum Order No. 20-90 (formal requisites for waivers of the statute of limitations)
• Republic Act No. 1125, Section 7(1) (jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals)

Facts

PJI declared a 1994 net income of P30,877,387.00, paid P10,247,384.00 after credits, and submitted to BIR examination upon Letter of Authority No. 87120. The BIR alleged deficiency taxes totaling P127,980,433.20. PJI executed an undated, unlimited waiver of prescription on September 22, 1997. The BIR Audit Report of July 2, 1998 recommended P136,952,408.97 deficiency. Assessment/Demand No. 33-1-000757-94 (December 9, 1998) fixed liability at P111,291,214.46. After preliminary and final collection notices in 1999 and a warrant of distraint in March 2000, PJI filed for review before the CTA.

Court of Tax Appeals Decision

On May 14, 2002, the CTA held that:

  1. Assessment notices were validly received.
  2. The waiver was invalid for lacking a definite expiry date, date of BIR acceptance, and a copy furnished to the taxpayer, in violation of RMO No. 20-90.
  3. Assessment and levy were time-barred and void.
    The CTA granted PJI’s petition and canceled the assessments and warrant.

Court of Appeals Decision

On August 5, 2003, the CA reversed the CTA, ruling that:

  1. The CTA lacked jurisdiction because PJI appealed mere assessment notices, not a denial of reconsideration.
  2. Formal defects in the waiver under RMO No. 20-90 were immaterial; the document evidenced clear agreement and acceptance.
  3. A waiver need not specify an expiry date when it constitutes an outright renunciation of prescription.
  4. Assessments became final and executory after reglementary periods lapsed without protest.

Jurisdictional Issue

Under RA 1125, Section 7(1), the CTA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions “involving disputed assessments” or “other matters arising under” the NIRC. The Supreme Court affirmed CTA jurisdiction to determine the validity of distraint warrants and statute-of-limitations waivers even absent a formal reconsideration denial.

Waiver Formalities under RMO No. 20-90

RMO No. 20-90 mandates strict compliance:
• Use of prescribed form without deviation.
• Insertion of a definite post-prescription expiry date.
• Indication of BIR’s date of acceptance.
• Execution in three copies, one furnished to the taxpayer.
• Signature by the Commissioner for cases e



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.