2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW

Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

CIR’s right to collect taxes

In cases of assessments issued within the three-year ordinary period, the CIR has another three
years within which to collect taxes. On the other hand, the five-year period for collection of taxes
only applies to assessments issued within the extraordinary period of 10 years in cases of false
or fraudulent return or failure to file a return. Here, given that the subject assessment was issued
within the three-year ordinary prescriptive period to assess, the CIR had another three years to
initiate the collection of taxes by distraint or levy or court proceeding. Accordingly, since the
FAN/FLD was mailed on December 12, 2014, the CIR had another three years reckoned from said
date, or until December 12, 2017, to enforce collection of the assessed deficiency taxes. Verily,
prescription had already set in when the CIR initiated its collection efforts only in 2020. The Court
also notes that regardless of which period to apply, i.e., five years as determined by the CTA
Division or three years, the CIR's collection efforts were, as they are, barred by prescription.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals Second Division, G.R. No. 258947,
March 29, 2022

Tax amnesty refers to the absolute waiver by a sovereign of its right to collect taxes and power
to impose penalties on persons or entities guilty of violating a tax law.

Tax amnesty aims to grant a general reprieve to tax evaders who wish to come clean by giving
them an opportunity to straighten out their records." Simply put, it partakes of an absolute
relinquishment by the government of its right to collect what is due it and to give tax evaders
who wish to relent a chance to start with a clean slate.

A tax amnesty, much like a tax exemption, is never favored or presumed in law. The grant of a
tax amnesty, similar to a tax exemption, must be construed strictly against the taxpayer and
liberally in favor of the taxing authority. Here, the Court finds that the tax amnesty under RA 9480
does not extend to CEDCO with respect to its existing withholding tax liabilities, as explicitly
provided in the said law.

However, with respect to the deficiency taxes pertaining to CEDCO's income tax and VAT for
taxable years for 2000 and 2001, the Court finds that CEDCO is entitled or qualified to avail of the
tax amnesty considering that it had submitted the necessary documents and complied with the
requirements under RA 9480, which the BIR does not dispute. Bureau of Internal Revenue v.
Cagang, G.R. No. 230104, March 16, 2022

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

The CTA has authority to enjoin the collection of taxes; requirements.

While an injunction is not available to restrain the collection of taxes, this rule admits of exception
under Section 11 of RA 1125, as amended by RA 9282, which allows the suspension of collection
of taxes if, in the Court's opinion, the collection may jeopardize the interest of the government
and/or the taxpayer, viz.: SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. — xxx
That when in the opinion of the Court the collection by the aforementioned government agencies
may jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the taxpayer the Court [at] any stage of
the proceeding may suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit the
amount claimed or to file a surety bond for not more than double the amount with the Court.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals Second Division, G.R. No. 258947,
March 29, 2022

The failure in proving an administrative claim for a CWT refund/credit does not preclude the
judicial claim of the same.

Cases before the CTA are litigated de novo where party litigants should prove every minute
aspect of their cases. Thus, what is vital in the determination of a judicial claim for a tax
credit/refund of CWT is the evidence presented before the CTA, regardless of the body of
evidence found in the administrative claim. The independence of the judicial claim for a tax
credit/refund CWT from its administrative counterpart is implied in the NIRC, which allows the
filing of both claims contemporaneously within the two-year prescriptive period. Sections 204 (C)
and 229 of the NIRC. The said provisions require both administrative and judicial claims to be
filed within the same two-year prescriptive period. With reference to Section 229 of the NIRC,
the only requirement for a judicial claim of tax credit/refund to be maintained is that a claim of
refund or credit has been filed before the CIR; there is no mention in the law that the claim before
the CIR should be acted upon first before a judicial claim may be filed. Clearly, the legislative
intent is to treat the judicial claim as independent and separate action from the administrative
claim; provided that the latter must be filed in order for the former to be maintained.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 211348,
February 23, 2022

A Suspension Order is issued only relative to an existing tax liability based on a disputed tax
assessment, decision, ruling or inaction mandating the payment of taxes.

The wording of Section 11 of the CTA Law is clear in requiring the existence of a "tax liability"
before a Suspension Order may be availed of. However, more than just proof of an issued

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

assessment, the said assessment must be properly assailed and elevated to the CTA for it to
acquire jurisdiction to issue any and all kind of ancillary remedies in favor of the taxpayer, e.g., a
Suspension Order. This is a necessary consequence of the CTA's jurisdiction as outlined in Section
7 of the CTA Law. The CTA only has appellate jurisdiction over the CIR or COC's decision or
inaction on disputed assessments, or original and appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases for
final and executory assessments. In other words, the object of the CTA's appellate jurisdiction
should be a final assessment coupled with a formal demand to pay the taxes by the government
and not a mere preliminary assessment, or worse, an inchoate future assessment. With no such
final assessment and formal demand, there is no proper object of an appeal and, hence, there is
nothing to trigger the CTA's appellate jurisdiction.

In this case, the tax liabilities anent the subsequent alkylate importations were not covered by
disputed assessments nor a final and executory assessment, but at most, only preliminary
assessments. Considering that a Suspension Order is a mere ancillary remedy to the CTA's
appellate jurisdiction, the tax court could not have validly issued the said order over PSPC's
subsequent alkylate importations which are either covered by preliminary assessments that were
not properly elevated to the CTA or future assessments based on an anticipation of a similar
demand by the tax authority in this case. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax
Appeals (First Division), G.R. Nos. 210501, 211294 & 212490, March 15, 2021

The CTA has jurisdiction to review and nullify the rulings of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue.

Under Section 7 (a) (1) of Republic Act No. 1125, or An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, as
amended by Republic Act No. 9282, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's rulings on "other
matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue" are appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals. This Court underscored
that the grant of appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Tax Appeals includes the power necessary
to exercise it effectively. Deemed included in its jurisdiction is the authority to resolve petitions
for certiorari against interlocutory orders of the Regional Trial Court in local tax cases.
Furthermore, a split jurisdiction between the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals is
"anathema to the orderly administration of justice" and could not have been the legislative
intent. Cargill Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 203346,
September 9, 2020

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

CTA En Banc has jurisdiction over a final judgment or order but not over an interlocutory order
issued by the CTA Division.

CTA Resolutions which cancelled the assessment against QLDI on the basis of prescription and
enjoined the CIR from collecting the deficiency taxes for taxable year 2010, are final judgments
or orders. The CIR's proper remedy on the adverse Resolutions of the CTA Division was to file an
appeal by way of a petition for review with the CTA En Banc. Thus, the CIR's filing of the instant
Petition before Supreme Court assailing the twin Resolutions issued by the CTA Division is
erroneous. It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous remedy is a cause for
the outright dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has been repeatedly stressed that a
petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. This is due to the nature of a Rule 65
petition which lies only where there is "no appeal," and "no plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law." Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals Second
Division, G.R. No. 258947, March 29, 2022

CTA has jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regulation or
administrative issuance.

The CTA, and not the RTC, that has the jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality and validity of
revenue issuances by the CIR. Thus, the RTC should not have acted upon the petition and should
have dismissed the same for lack of jurisdiction. Department of Finance v. Asia United Bank,
G.R. Nos. 240163 & 240168-69 , December 1, 2021

An offense under the Tax Code is considered discovered only after the manner of commission
and the nature and extent of fraud has been definitely ascertained.

This occurs when the BIR renders its final decision and requires the taxpayer to pay the deficiency
tax. The CTA determined that the FLD and the FAN for taxable years 1999 and 2000 were served
on Chiat Corp. on February 7, 2005. Chiat Corp. did not file a protest, resulting in the finality,
demandability, and executory nature of the assessment for deficiency taxes. Counting 30 days
from the service of the FLD and the FAN, the violations were considered discovered on March 9,
2005. The BIR's revenue officers filed their joint affidavit in the DOJ for preliminary investigation
on May 26, 2005. However, the original Information was only filed in court on April 23, 2014,
which exceeded the five-year prescriptive period. Therefore, the action had prescribed. The
Court observed that the Public Prosecutor did not appeal or move for reconsideration of the
CTA's decision; thus rendering it final and executory. Sze v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
210238, January 6, 2020

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

The requirement of revalidating an LOA that is unserved, as opposed to revalidating it after

service, in connection with the 120-day rule.

A Letter of Authority must be served or presented to the taxpayer within 30 days from its date
of issue; otherwise, it becomes null and void unless revalidated. The taxpayer has all the right to
refuse its service if presented beyond the 30-day period depending on the policy set by top
management. The rules clearly impose a 30-day expiration period for service. Upon expiration,
the LOA becomes wholly unenforceable, inasmuch as it cannot be served without revalidation
upon the taxpayer who, in turn, has the right to refuse the same.

On the other hand, failure to comply with the 120-day rule does not void LOA ab initio. The
expiration of the 120-day period merely renders an LOA unenforceable, inasmuch as the revenue
officer must first seek ratification of his expired authority to audit to be able to validly continue
investigation beyond the first 120 days. Without revalidation, the LOA shall be considered void
and the assigned revenue officer is "prohibited from further investigation and contact with the
taxpayer." The revalidation requirement here is aimed at reconfirming the revenue officer's
authority and extending the period of audit. It contemplates a served LOA and an on-going audit
investigation. Stated differently, the revenue officer was already authorized to commence an
audit only that he was unable to conclude it within 120 days. AFP General Insurance Corp. v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 222133, November 4, 2020

The power of the Court of Tax Appeals to exercise its appellate jurisdiction does not preclude it
from considering evidence that was not presented in the administrative claim in the Bureau of
Internal Revenue.

The Court of Tax Appeals is not limited by the evidence presented in the administrative claim in
the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The claimant may present new and additional evidence to the
Court of Tax Appeals to support its case for tax refund Furthermore, considering that the refund
claim will be litigated anew in the Court of Tax Appeals, the latter may consider all pieces of
evidence formally offered by PAL, whether or not they were submitted in the administrative
level. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 206079-80 &
206309, January 17, 2018

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

The CTA has jurisdiction on judicial claim for tax refund or credit without awaiting for the
decision of the CIR nearing the two-year prescription period.

The two-year period in filing a claim for tax refund is crucial. While the law provides that the two-
year period is counted from the date of payment of the tax, jurisprudence, however, clarified
that the two-year prescriptive period to claim a refund actually commences to run, at the earliest,
on the date of the filing of the adjusted final tax return because this is where the figures of the
gross receipts and deductions have been audited and adjusted, reflective of the results of the
operations of a business enterprise. Under the circumstances, if respondent awaited for the
commissioner to act on its administrative claim (before resort to the Court), chances are, the
two-year prescriptive period will lapse effectively resulting to the loss of respondent's right to
seek judicial recourse and worse, its right to recover the taxes it erroneously paid to the
government. Hence, respondent's immediate resort to the Court is justified. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Univation Motor Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 231581, April 10, 2019

The irrevocability rule in claiming for the refund of its excess and/or unutilized creditable
withholding tax.

The irrevocability rule is enunciated in Section 76 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC):
Once the option to carry over and apply the excess quarterly income tax against income tax due
for the taxable years of the succeeding taxable years has been made, such option shall be
considered irrevocable for that taxable period and no application for cash refund or issuance of
a tax credit certificate shall be allowed therefor. Hence, the controlling factor for the operation
of the irrevocability rule is that the taxpayer chose an option; and once it had already done so, it
could no longer make another one. Consequently, after the taxpayer opts to carry-over its excess
tax credit to the following taxable period, the question of whether or not it actually gets to apply
said tax credit is irrelevant. Section 76 of the NIRC of 1997 is explicit in stating that once the
option to carry over has been made, "no application for tax refund or issuance of a tax credit
certificate shall be allowed therefor. Rhombus Energy, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
G.R. No. 206362, August 1, 2018

Secretary of Justice’s jurisdiction over tax disputes between the government and government-
owned and controlled corporations.

This case involves a dispute between PSALM and NPC, which are both wholly government owned
corporations, and the BIR, a government office, over the imposition of VAT on the sale of the two
power plants. There is no question that original jurisdiction is with the CIR, who issues the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

preliminary and the final tax assessments. However, if the government entity disputes the tax
assessment, the dispute is already between the BIR (represented by the CIR) and another
government entity, in this case, the petitioner PSALM. Under Presidential Decree No. 242 (PD
242), all disputes and claims solely between government agencies and offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be administratively settled or adjudicated
by the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor General, or the Government Corporate Counsel,
depending on the issues and government agencies involved. Thus, under PD 242, it is mandatory
that disputes and claims "solely" between government agencies and offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, involving only questions of law, be submitted to
and settled or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 198146, August 8,
2017

The CTA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the COMELEC and
the BIR on the deficiency tax assessment; PD No. 242 does not apply.

PD No. 242 is not the law applicable for the settlement or adjudication of disputes, claims, and
controversies between a constitutional office, like the COMELEC, and a government office,
agency, or bureau, such as the BIR. Section 1 of PD No. 242 specifically excluded constitutional
offices or agencies in its coverage. The exclusion is reiterated in the Department of Justice
Administrative Order No. 121 implementing PD No. 242. Furthermore, Chapter 14, Book IV of EO
No. 292, which incorporated the dispute resolution procedure in PD No. 242, states that the
manner of settling or adjudicating disputes, claims, or controversies provided therein shall "not
apply" to the constitutional commissions. Accordingly, the COMELEC, being a constitutional
office independent from the three branches of the government, is not required to go through the
procedure prescribed in PD No. 242 and EO No. 292. Since the issue here is the disputed
assessment for deficiency basic EWT for the year 2008 against the COMELEC, arising from its
failure to withhold the tax on income payments made to Smartmatic and Avante under the lease
contracts, the CTA has the exclusive appellate jurisdiction to take cognizance of the COMELEC's
petition. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 244155 &
247508, May 11, 2021

Civil action filed to question the FDDA is not deemed instituted with the criminal case for tax
evasion.

Rule 111, Section 1 (a) of the Rules of Court provides that what is deemed instituted with the
criminal action is only the action to recover civil liability arising from the crime. Civil liability

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

arising from a different source of obligation, such as when the obligation is created by law, such
civil liability is not deemed instituted with the criminal action. It is well-settled that the taxpayer's
obligation to pay the tax is an obligation that is created by law and does not arise from the offense
of tax evasion, as such, the same is not deemed instituted in the criminal case. Gaw, Jr. v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 222837, July 23, 2018

Functions and Effects of a PAN vis a vis a FAN.

A PAN merely informs the taxpayer of the initial findings of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. It
contains the proposed assessment, and the facts, law, rules, and regulations or jurisprudence on
which the proposed assessment is based. It does not contain a demand for payment but usually
requires the taxpayer to reply within 15 days from receipt. Otherwise, the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue will finalize an assessment and issue a FAN. The PAN is a part of due process. It
gives both the taxpayer and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the opportunity to settle the
case at the earliest possible time without the need for the issuance of a FAN.

On the other hand, a FAN contains not only a computation of tax liabilities but also a demand for
payment within a prescribed period. As soon as it is served, an obligation arises on the part of
the taxpayer concerned to pay the amount assessed and demanded. It also signals the time when
penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer. Thus, the National Internal Revenue
Code imposes a 25% penalty, in addition to the tax due, in case the taxpayer fails to pay the
deficiency tax within the time prescribed for its payment in the notice of assessment. Likewise,
an interest of 20% per annum, or such higher rate as may be prescribed by rules and regulations,
is to be collected from the date prescribed for payment until the amount is fully paid. Failure to
file an administrative protest within 30 days from receipt of the FAN will render the assessment
final, executory, and demandable. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Transitions Optical
Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 227544, November 22, 2017

A void FDDA does not ipso facto render the assessment void.

An assessment becomes a disputed assessment after a taxpayer has filed its protest to the
assessment in the administrative level. Thereafter, the CIR either issues a decision on the
disputed assessment or fails to act on it and is, therefore, considered denied. The taxpayer may
then appeal the decision on the disputed assessment or the inaction of the CIR. As such, the FDDA
is not the only means that the final tax liability of a taxpayer is fixed, which may then be appealed
by the taxpayer. Under the law, inaction on the part of the CIR may likewise result in the finality
of a taxpayer's tax liability as it is deemed a denial of the protest filed by the latter, which may

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

also be appealed before the CTA. Clearly, a decision of the CIR on a disputed assessment differs
from the assessment itself. Hence, the invalidity of one does not necessarily result to the
invalidity of the other — unless the law or regulations otherwise provide. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue v. Liquigaz Philippines Corp., G.R. Nos. 215534 & 215557, April 18, 2016

A claimant for refund under Section 229 of the Tax Code must first file an administrative claim
for refund before the CIR, prior to filing a judicial claim before the CTA.

Notably, both the administrative and judicial claims for refund should be filed within the two (2)-
year prescriptive period indicated therein, and that the claimant is allowed to file the latter even
without waiting for the resolution of the former in order to prevent the forfeiture of its claim
through prescription. In this regard, case law states that "the primary purpose of filing an
administrative claim [is] to serve as a notice of warning to the CIR that court action would follow
unless the tax or penalty alleged to have been collected erroneously or illegally is refunded. To
clarify, Section 229 of the Tax Code — then Section 306 of the old Tax Code — however does not
mean that the taxpayer must await the final resolution of its administrative claim for refund,
since doing so would be tantamount to the taxpayer's forfeiture of its right to seek judicial
recourse should the two (2)-year prescriptive period expire without the appropriate judicial claim
being filed. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
182582, April 17, 2017

Reassignment or transfer of a revenue officer requires the issuance of a new or amended LOA
for the substitute or replacement revenue officer to continue the audit or investigation.

The memorandum of assignment, referral memorandum, or such other equivalent internal

document of the BIR directing the reassignment or transfer of revenue officers, is typically signed
by the revenue district officer or other subordinate official, and not signed or issued by the CIR
or his duly authorized representative under Sections 6, 10 (c) and 13 of the NIRC. Hence, the
issuance of such memorandum of assignment, and its subsequent use as a proof of authority to
continue the audit or investigation, is in effect supplanting the functions of the LOA, since it seeks
to exercise a power that belongs exclusively to the CIR himself or his duly authorized
representatives. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. McDonald's Philippines Realty Corp., G.R.
No. 242670, May 10, 2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

Appeal will not suspend the collection of tax; Exception

Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282, embodies the rule that an appeal to
the CTA from the decision of the CIR will not suspend the payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of
any property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law.
When, in the view of the CTA, the collection may jeopardize the interest of the Government
and/or the taxpayer, it may suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit
the amount claimed or to file a surety bond. Whenever it is determined by the courts that the
method employed by the Collector of Internal Revenue in the collection of tax is not sanctioned
by law, the bond requirement under Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125 should be dispensed with. The
purpose of the rule is not only to prevent jeopardizing the interest of the taxpayer, but more
importantly, to prevent the absurd situation wherein the court would declare "that the collection
by the summary methods of distraint and levy was violative of law, and then, in the same breath
require the petitioner to deposit or file a bond as a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of
injunction." Spouses Pacquiao v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 213394, April 6, 2016

The CTA En Banc may take cognizance of the COMELEC's petition for review even without a
prior reconsideration of the CTA Division's Amended Decision.

The CTA have prohibited the filing of a second motion for reconsideration. Under Section 7, Rule
15 of the RRCTA, in relation to Section 2, Rule 52 of the Revised Rules of Court, a second motion
for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, and therefore, does not have any legal effect. It will
not toll the running of the period to appeal. In the instant case, the Amended Decision of the CTA
Division is not a "new" decision, but a reiteration of the Decision dated August 2, 2016. It was not
based on a re-evaluation or re-examination of documentary exhibits presented by the parties.
The CTA Division, without any modification, repeated in toto its discussion and ruling in the
original decision that: (1) the COMELEC is liable for the deficiency basic EWT for its failure to
withhold EWT on lease contract payments to Smartmatic and Avante; and (2) the COMELEC is
not liable for deficiency interest since the liability is imposed on the responsible officer charged
with the withholding and remittance of the tax. However, since the dispositive portion of the
decision ordered the COMELEC to pay the entire amount of P49,082,867.69 (deficiency basic EWT
plus deficiency interest), the CTA Division reflected in the Amended Decision the COMELEC's
correct liability of P30,645,542.62 without the deficiency interest as discussed in the body of the
original Decision. Indeed, the Amended Decision is a mere clarification, a correction at best, of
the amount due from the COMELEC. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. Nos. 244155 & 247508, May 11, 2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

Compromise & Abatement

The taxpayer may compromise a tax liability by: (a) paying 40% of the basic assessed tax on the
ground of doubtful validity of an assessment; or (b) paying 10% of the basic assessed tax on the
ground of financial incapacity. A criminal violation that has already been filed in court or a
criminal violation involving fraud cannot be the subject of a compromise between the BIR and
the taxpayer. (Sec. 204(A) of the NIRC)

The CIR may abate or cancel a tax liability when: (a) the tax or any portion thereof appears to be
unjustly or excessively assessed; or (b) the administration and collections costs involved do not
justify the collection of the amount due. The CIR has the sole power or authority to abate taxes.
(Sec. 204(B)and Sec. 7(c) of the NIRC)

Based on the guidelines of RR No. 15-2006, the last step in the tax abatement process is the
issuance of the termination letter. The presentation of the termination letter is essential as it
proves that the taxpayer's application for tax abatement has been approved. Thus, without a
termination letter, a tax assessment cannot be considered closed and terminated. Asiatrust
Development Bank, Inc. vs. CIR, GR No. 201530, April 19, 2017

If the taxpayer elevates his protest to the Commissioner within thirty (30) days from date of
receipt of the final decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative, the latter's
decision shall not be considered final, executory and demandable, in which case, the protest
shall be decided by the Commissioner.

The Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (of the CIRs duly authorized representative) cannot
be considered as the decision appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals under Section 7 (a) (1) of
Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. This interpretation will render nugatory the remedy of
appeal to the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the denial of protest issued by
his or her duly authorized representative, a remedy which was properly and timely availed of by
petitioner. Subsection 3.1.5 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 is clear that if the protest is
elevated to the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, "the latter's decision shall not be
considered final, executory and demandable, in which case, the protest shall be decided by the
Commissioner." The Final Decision on Disputed Assessment was timely elevated to the
Commissioner; hence, it never became final, executory, and demandable. Light Rail Transit
Authority v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 231238, June 20, 2022

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 12
 2023 BAR REVIEW TAXATION LAW
Handout No. 40
TAX REMEDIES

The CTA, not the CA, has jurisdiction over tax collection cases decided by the RTC.

Similarly, Section 3, Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended, states:
Sec. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Divisions. — The Court in Divisions shall
exercise Exclusive jurisdiction over tax collections cases, to wit: 2. Appellate jurisdiction over
appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection
cases originally decided by them within their respective territorial jurisdiction.

Verily, the foregoing provisions explicitly provide that the CTA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over tax collection cases originally decided by the RTC. In the instant case, the CA has no
jurisdiction over respondent's appeal; hence, it cannot perform any action on the same except
to order its dismissal pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the act of
the CA in referring respondent's wrongful appeal before it to the CTA under the guise of
furthering the interests of substantial justice is blatantly erroneous, and thus, stands to be
corrected. In Anderson v. Ho, the Court held that the invocation of substantial justice is not a
magic wand that would readily dispel the application of procedural rules. Mitsubishi Motors
Phils. Corp. v. Bureau of Customs, G.R. No. 209830, June 17, 2015

Mere appeal to the CTA contesting the validity of an assessment does not suspend collection of
the deficiency taxes.

The taxpayer should file a motion to suspend collection on the ground that collection will
jeopardize the interests of the taxpayer. If granted, the CTA will require the taxpayer to post a
cash bond in an amount equivalent to the basic assessed tax or a surety bond equivalent to not
more than double the basic assessed tax. The bond requirement should be dispensed with if: (a)
prescription has set or (b) whenever it is determined by the courts that the method employed by
the Commissioner in the collection of tax is not sanctioned by law. Spouses Pacquiao vs. The CTA,
GR No. 213394, April 6, 2016

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 12