Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CIR Vs Phil Global Communication

    Uploaded by

    Horeb Felix
    15 views1 page
    The CIR assessed a deficiency tax against the respondent in 1994. The respondent protested this assessment. In 2002, the CIR issued a final decision denying the protest. However, the assessment was issued in 1994, so the BIR only had until 1997 to collect the tax based on the three-year prescriptive period. As the BIR did not take any action to collect the tax until answering the case in court years later, their right to collect the tax was barred by prescription. The court ruled in favor of the respondent.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CIR vs Phil Global Communication

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The CIR assessed a deficiency tax against the respondent in 1994. The respondent protested this assessment. In 2002, the CIR issued a final decision denying the protest. However, the assessment was issued in 1994, so the BIR only had until 1997 to collect the tax based on the three-year prescriptive period. As the BIR did not take any action to collect the tax until answering the case in court years later, their right to collect the tax was barred by prescription. The court ruled in favor of the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views1 page

    CIR Vs Phil Global Communication

    Uploaded by

    Horeb Felix
    The CIR assessed a deficiency tax against the respondent in 1994. The respondent protested this assessment. In 2002, the CIR issued a final decision denying the protest. However, the assessment was issued in 1994, so the BIR only had until 1997 to collect the tax based on the three-year prescriptive period. As the BIR did not take any action to collect the tax until answering the case in court years later, their right to collect the tax was barred by prescription. The court ruled in favor of the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CIR vs. Phil. Global Communication, Inc., G.R. No.

    167146, October 31, 2006

    FACTS:

    Respondent was pre-assessed for a deficiency tax for the year 1990. In 1994, final assessment was sent to respondent and through
    counsel, respondent sent protest letter to CIR. In 2002, after 8 long years, respondent received from CIR a final decision denying
    the respondent’s protest and affirming said assessment. CTA ruled on prescription and ordered CIR to withdraw and cancel
    assessment previously issued against petitioner.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not CIR’s right to collect alleged deficiency tax is barred by prescription

    RULING:

    Yes. The assessment, in this case, was presumably issued on April 14, 1994 since the respondent did not dispute the CIR’s claim.
    Therefore, the BIR had until April 13, 1997. However, there was no Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy served on the respondents
    nor any judicial proceedings initiated by the BIR, the earliest attempt of the BIR to collect the tax due based on this assessment
    was when it filed its Answer, which was several years beyond the three-year prescriptive period. Thus, the CIR is now prescribed
    from collecting the assessed tax.

    The law prescribed a period of three years from the date the return was actually filed or from the last date prescribed by law for
    the filing of such return, whichever came later, within which the BIR may assess a national revenue tax. However, the law
    increased the prescriptive period to assess or to begin a court proceeding for the collection without an assessment to ten years
    when a false or fraudulent return was fled with the intent of evading the tax or when no return was filed at all.

    In such cases, the ten-year period began to run only from the date of discovery by the BIR of the falsity, fraud or omission. If the
    BIR issued this assessment within the three-year or the ten-year period, whichever was applicable, the law provided another three
    years after the assessment for the collection of the tax due thereon through the administrative process of distraint and/or levy or
    through judicial proceedings. The three-year period of collection of the assessed tax began to run on the date the assessment
    notice had been released, mailed or sent by the BIR.

    You might also like