It must be emphasized that a Referral Nos.

D-57-05-08 and D-LOA-

55-07 was issued assigning RO Tanguilig and Group Supervisor Adora M.
Alberto to continue or conduct the audit/verification of all internal
revenue tax liabilities for taxable year 2006 of respondent pursuant to the
earlier LOA issued. Thus, the mandate of the above-cited provision has
been complied with.

As with the LOA subject of this case, all LOAs are issued to the
taxpayer to notify it that examination of its books and accounting records
has been authorized and that it should submit the required documents. In
practice, the initially assigned Revenue Officers are indeed named in the
LOA. However, this is a matter of feasibility and there is no statutory
requirement that the ROs be named in the LOA itself. But because of the
facility it provides, this practice has now been part of the outlines internal
procedure as provided in RMO No. 44-2010 which states:

“The names of the Revenue Officers (ROs) assigned to a

particular case shall be printed on the corresponding
electronic LA. The first name on the space provided shall
be the lead RO.”

Thus, the ROs named in the LOA may not be the same ROs who will
conclude the audit/examination. There are instances where the originally
assigned ROs are not able to continue such audit/examination due to
certain statutorily required reassignments,1 hence, the reassignment of an
LOA in these cases becomes unavoidable.

Surely, the referral of the conduct of audit examination to another

revenue officer did not subvert any right of herein taxpayer, UCPB, whose
examination would still be authorized by a valid LOA. Therefore, the
reassignment to another RO of the earlier issued LOA does not invalidate
the same and the subsequent assessment.

As far as the statute and regulations are concerned, they merely

require that the examination of the ROs be done “pursuant to” an LOA.

1 Section 17 of the NIRC mandates that ROs performing assessment functions must not remain in the
same post for more than three (3) years.
 Black’s Law Dictionary defines “pursuant to” as follows:

“What its PURSUANT TO?

A term meaning to conform to something, or something
that is done in consequence of.”2

Similarly, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

“Definition of pursuant to
: in carrying out : in conformity with:

Examples of pursuant to in a Sentence

Pursuant to the terms of the sale, the owner shall be
solely responsible for damages.”3

From all the definitions and examples, it is patent that all that is
legally required from RO Tanguilig is to “conform to”, “to follow”, or
“abide by the terms of” – LOAs dated September 25, 2007 and July 3, 2009.
And that she did.

There is nothing in the meaning of the term “pursuant to” which

indicates that the name of the RO must be listed in the LOA.

In sum, the reassignment of the LOA and the failure of the

reassigned RO to secure a new LOA does not result in lack of
authority of the RO and invalidity of the assessment.

2 https://thelawdictionary.org/pursuant-to/
3 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pursuant%20to