TAXATION NUMBER VIII ESSAY PART 2012 BAR EXAMS

In the examination conducted by the revenue officials against the
corporate taxpayer in 2010, the BIR issued a final assessment notice and
demand letter which states: "It is requested that the above deficiency tax
be paid immediately upon receipt hereof, inclusive of penalties incident to
delinquency. This is our final decision based on investigation. If you
disagree, you may appeal this final decision within thirty (30) days from
receipt hereof, otherwise said deficiency tax assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.'' The assessment . was immediately
appealed by the taxpayer to the Court of Tax Appeals, without filing its
protest against the assessment and without a denial thereof by the BIR. If
you were the judge, would you deny the petition for review filed by the
taxpayer and consider the case as prematurely filed? Explain your answer.

(5°/o)

ALLIED BANKING G.R. No. 175097
CORPORATION,
versus -

COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,

February 5, 2010

Issue



Hence, the present recourse, where petitioner raises the lone issue of whether the Formal Letter of Demand dated July 16, 2004 can be construed as a final decision of the CIR appealable to the CTA under RA 9282.



Our Ruling



The petition is meritorious.



Section 7 of RA 9282 expressly provides that the CTA exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal decisions of the CIR in cases involving disputed assessments





The CTA, being a court of special jurisdiction, can take cognizance only of

matters that are clearly within its jurisdiction.[21] Section 7 of RA 9282 provides:



Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. — The CTA shall exercise:



(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:



(1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;



(2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial; (Emphasis supplied)



x x x x



The word “decisions” in the above quoted provision of RA 9282 has been interpreted to mean the decisions of the CIR on the protest of the taxpayer against the assessments.[22] Corollary thereto, Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) provides for the procedure for protesting an assessment. It states:



SECTION 228. Protesting of Assessment. – When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however, That a preassessment notice shall not be required in the following cases:

(a) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the result of mathematical error in the computation of the tax as appearing on the face of the return; or



(b) When a discrepancy has been determined between the tax withheld and the amount actually remitted by the withholding agent; or



(c) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a refund or tax credit of excess creditable withholding tax for a taxable period was determined to have carried over and automatically applied the same amount claimed against the estimated tax liabilities for the taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding taxable year; or



(d) When the excise tax due on excisable articles has not been paid; or



(e) When an article locally purchased or imported by an exempt person, such as, but not limited to, vehicles, capital equipment, machineries and spare parts, has been sold, traded or transferred to non-exempt persons.



The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void.



Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings.



Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final.



If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)-day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable.



In the instant case, petitioner timely filed a protest after receiving the PAN. In response thereto, the BIR issued a Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices. Pursuant to Section 228 of the NIRC, the proper recourse of petitioner was to dispute the assessments by filing an administrative protest within 30 days from receipt thereof. Petitioner, however, did not protest the final assessment notices. Instead, it filed a Petition for Review with the CTA. Thus, if we strictly apply the rules, the dismissal of the Petition for Review by the CTA was proper.



The case is an exception to the

rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies





However, a careful reading of the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices leads us to agree with petitioner that the instant case is an exception to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, i.e., estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned.



In the case of Vda. De Tan v. Veterans Backpay Commission,[23] the respondent contended that before filing a petition with the court, petitioner should have first exhausted all administrative remedies by appealing to the Office of the President. However, we ruled that respondent was estopped from invoking the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies considering that in its Resolution, it said, “The opinions promulgated by the Secretary of Justice are advisory in nature, which may either be accepted or ignored by the office seeking the opinion, and any aggrieved party has the court for recourse”. The statement of the respondent in said case led the petitioner to conclude that only a final judicial ruling in her favor would be accepted by the Commission.



Similarly, in this case, we find the CIR estopped from claiming that the filing of the Petition for Review was premature because petitioner failed to exhaust all administrative remedies.



The Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices reads:



Based on your letter-protest dated May 26, 2004, you alleged the following:



1. That the said assessment has already prescribed in accordance with the provisions of Section 203 of the Tax Code.



2. That since the exemption of FCDUs from all taxes found in the Old Tax Code has been deleted, the wording of Section 28(A)(7)(b) discloses that there are no other taxes imposable upon FCDUs aside from the 10% Final Income Tax.

Contrary to your allegation, the assessments covering GRT and DST for taxable year 2001 has not prescribed for [sic] simply because no returns were filed, thus, the three year prescriptive period has not lapsed.



With the implementation of the CTRP, the phrase “exempt from all taxes” was deleted. Please refer to Section 27(D)(3) and 28(A)(7) of the new Tax Code. Accordingly, you were assessed for deficiency gross receipts tax on onshore income from foreign currency transactions in accordance with the rates provided under Section 121 of the said Tax Code. Likewise, deficiency documentary stamp taxes was [sic] also assessed on Loan Agreements, Bills Purchased, Certificate of Deposits and related transactions pursuant to Sections 180 and 181 of NIRC, as amended.



The 25% surcharge and 20% interest have been imposed pursuant to the provision of Section 248(A) and 249(b), respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.



It is requested that the above deficiency tax be paid immediately upon receipt hereof, inclusive of penalties incident to delinquency. This is our final decision based on investigation. If you disagree, you may appeal this final decision within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, otherwise said deficiency tax assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.[24] (Emphasis supplied)



It appears from the foregoing demand letter that the CIR has already made a final decision on the matter and that the remedy of petitioner is to appeal the final decision within 30 days.



In Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[25] we considered the language used and the tenor of the letter sent to the taxpayer as the final decision of the CIR.



In this case, records show that petitioner disputed the PAN but not the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices. Nevertheless, we cannot blame petitioner for not filing a protest against the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices since the language used and the tenor of the demand letter indicate that it is the final decision of the respondent on the matter. We have time and again reminded the CIR to indicate, in a clear and unequivocal language, whether his action on a disputed assessment constitutes his final determination thereon in order for the taxpayer concerned to determine when his or her right to appeal to the tax court accrues.[26] Viewed in the light of the foregoing, respondent is now estopped from claiming that he did not intend the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices to be a final decision.



Moreover, we cannot ignore the fact that in the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices, respondent used the word “appeal” instead of “protest”, “reinvestigation”, or “reconsideration”. Although there was no direct reference for petitioner to bring the matter directly to the CTA, it cannot be denied that the word “appeal” under prevailing tax laws refers to the filing of a Petition for Review with the CTA. As aptly pointed out by petitioner, under Section 228 of the NIRC, the terms “protest”, “reinvestigation” and “reconsideration” refer to the administrative remedies a taxpayer may take before the CIR, while the term “appeal” refers to the remedy available to the taxpayer before the CTA. Section 9 of RA 9282, amending Section 11 of RA 1125,[27] likewise uses the term “appeal” when referring to the action a taxpayer must take when adversely affected by a decision, ruling, or inaction of the CIR. As we see it then, petitioner in appealing the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices to the CTA merely took the cue from respondent. Besides, any doubt in the interpretation or use of the word “appeal” in the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices should be resolved in favor of petitioner, and not the respondent who caused the confusion.



To be clear, we are not disregarding the rules of procedure under Section 228 of the NIRC, as implemented by Section 3 of BIR Revenue Regulations No. 12-99.[28] It is the Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice that must be administratively protested or disputed within 30 days, and not the PAN. Neither are we deviating from our pronouncement in St. Stephen’s Chinese Girl’s School v. Collector of Internal Revenue,[29] that the counting of the 30 days within which to institute an appeal in the CTA commences from the date of receipt of the decision of the CIR on the disputed assessment, not from the date the assessment was issued.



What we are saying in this particular case is that, the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices which was not administratively protested by the petitioner can be considered a final decision of the CIR appealable to the CTA because the words used, specifically the words “final decision” and “appeal”, taken together led petitioner to believe that the Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment Notices was in fact the final decision of the CIR on the letter-protest it filed and that the available remedy was to appeal the same to the CTA.

CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT NOTICE THAT TRIGGERED THE PREMATURE FILING OF An APPEAL WITH THE CTA INSTEAD OF FILING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROTEST WITH THE BIR WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE FAN.



It is requested that the above deficiency tax be paid immediately upon receipt hereof, inclusive of penalties incident to delinquency. This is our FINAL decision based on investigation. If you disagree, you may appeal this final decision within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, otherwise said deficiency tax assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.[24] (Emphasis supplied)


[b]COMMENTS FROM THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING THE ABOVEMENTIONED CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE FAN
It appears from the foregoing demand letter that the CIR has already made a final decision on the matter and that the remedy of petitioner is to appeal(WITH THE CTA) the final decision within 30 days.

[u]



sabi ng supreme court dito sa allied banking case na ito :
1. The key to effective communication is clarity.
2. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) as well as his duly authorized representative
must indicate clearly and unequivocally to the taxpayer whether an action constitutes a final determination on a disputed assessment.[1]

Words must be carefully chosen in order to avoid any confusion that could adversely affect the rights and interest of the taxpayer. [b][u]

GOING BACK SA CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS S FAN, KASALANAN DAW NG BIR ITO KASI:

1. IYONG NAKASTATE SA FAN is final decision na iyong FAN. FINAL DECISION na daw. so anong use if mag file pa ng administrative protest with the BIR if mismong ang BIR na nagsabi na FINAL DECISION NA IYON. kaya dito, sinabi ng supreme court, estopped na ang BIR na magraise ang issue ng violation of exhaustion of administrative remedies (administrative protest s fan) kasi hindi sila nag gamit ng clear words at ang masama pa nito is sinabi pa talaga na final decision na iyon.

ang ikalawa na PALPAK na word ginamit is YOU MAY APPEAL pa talaga. hindi na lang sinabi na you may file a protest or you may file a request for reinvestigation/reconsideration. APPEAL pa talaga ang ginamit. so if ikaw ang taxpayer , first thing na magpasok sa isip mo is APPEAL TO CTA agad.

** dahil sa palpak at malabo na wordings na ginamit s FAN, nagpayag ang supreme court na kahit mali iyong pagfile ng APPEAL TO CTA , exception lang ang case na ito. papayagan na lang ang taxpayer kasi KASALANAN ng BIR mismo in the first place. kahit walang admin protest, ok na lang.

****pero applicable lang ito sa case na ito dahil sa wordings na palpak sa FAN

In the examination conducted by the revenue officials against the
corporate taxpayer in 2010, the SIR issued a final assessment notice and
demand letter which states: "It is requested that the above deficiency tax
be paid immediately upon receipt hereof, inclusive of penalties incident to
delinquency. This is our final decision based on investigation. If you
disagree, you may appeal this final decision within thirty (30) days from
receipt hereof, otherwise said deficiency tax assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.'' The assessment . was immediately
appealed by the taxpayer to the Court of Tax Appeals, without filing its
protest against the assessment and without a denial thereof by the BIR. If
you were the judge, would you deny the petition for review filed by the
taxpayer and consider the case as prematurely filed? Explain your answer.

(5°/o) [u]

SO ANG ANSWER IS BASED S CASE NG ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION.

NO. hindi mo i deny ang mali na pagfile ng APPEAL TO the CTA kasi hindi prematurely filed ito.

state the general rule - ano iyong dapat na procedure. pan-fan- admin protest against the FAN filed with the BIR before me recourse s CTA.
pero exception ang case na ito kasi palpak ang wordings s FAN. NA DAHIL S UNCLEAR WORDS dito na ginamit sa FAN, ESTOPPED NA ANG BIR KAYA WALA NANG EXHAUSTION OF ADMIN REMEDIES. KAYA PUWEDE IYONG RECOURSE NA GINAMIT NI TAXPAYER DITO DAHIL S CASE NI ALLIED BANKING CORP NA APPEAL AGAD SA CTA even if walang administrative protest with the bir. PERO very rare case lang ito. exception to the general rule.

Support your answer with an explanation based s case ni allied banking corporation.

I answered this question in the following manner:

If I were the judge I will deny the petition because only decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is subject to review by the Court of Tax Appeal. Here, the subject assessment and demand letter was issued only by the BIR Official (SIR) and not by the CIR. Hence, the petition is premature. As such, if I were the judge I will deny the petition.

COMMENT on the answer of itrade66

Section 6- POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE ASSESSMENTS AND PRESCRIBE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

(A) After a return has been filed as required under the provisions of this Code, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative (for example: Regional Directors) may authorize the examination of any taxpayer and the assessment of the correct amount of tax

HENCE, ANY decision of the duly authorized representative of the CIR are considered valid on its own. AFter the filing of the Administrative protest to the said duly authorized representative and within 180 days, the said duly authorized representative failed to act , the taxpayer may file an appeal with the CTA even if he was not able to elevate his administrative protest with the Commissioner.

There is nothing in the TAX code which will require the taxpayer to elevate his administrative protest to the Commissioner.

However, there is also nothing in the TAx Code which will prevent a taxpayer from elevating his administrative protest to the Commissioner. But the taxpayer must first wait for the adverse decision of the REgional Director on his administrative protest before the taxpayer can elevate his administrative protest to the Commissioner.

According to the book of Hector de Leon,
" if the taxpayer elevates his protest to the Commissioner within 30 days from date of receipt of the final decision of the Commissioner's duly authorized representative (Regional Director), the said representative's decision shall not be considered final, executory and demandable, in which case, the protest shall be decided by the Commissioner."

" if the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative fails to act on the taxpayer's protest within 180 days from the date of submission, by the taxpayer, of the required documents in support of protest, the taxpayer may appeal to the court of tax appeals within 30 days from the lapse of the said 180 day period. otherwise, the assessment shall become final, executory and demandable."




In actual practice, the said appeal to the Commissioner as a matter of administrative recourse, is not practicable for some because of the 180 day rule. In usual cases, even at the level of the Regional Director, The regional director is already hardpressed to render a decision within the 180 day period. However, if such adverse decision of the Regional Director was issued before the said expiration, and assuming the taxpayer was able to elevate the administrative protest to the level of the CIR, the CIR is not required by law to act on the said protest. After the expiration of the 180 days and 30 days to appeal, the assessment will become final. The only action that may be rendered by the CIR in this case is to remand the case of the taxpayer to the Regional Level for the execution of a the said assessment which has already become final. That being said, the inaction of the CIR within 180 days from such filing will render the assessment final and executory unless if within 30 days after the lapse of the 180 day period, the taxpayer was able to file an appeal with the CTA.



[b]It is also worthwhile to note that the 180 day rule is too short a period. Even at the level of the REgional Director, he is already hardpressed to render a decision because in matters of reinvestigation (not reconsideration), the BIR, through the field officers or the revenue officers, is actually making another audit in light of the newly-discovered evidence that the taxpayer presented to the BIR. Thus, if the revenue officers in the district offices cannot submit their report within the required time, the taxpayer must be on the constant watch of the 180 day period. There may be administrative actions or sanctions against negligent revenue officers but if there is an inaction on the part of the Regional Director because of the irresponsibility of the Revenue officers or any employees of the BIR for that matter, the taxpayer will be faulted for such inaction because the TAX code places the responsibility on the Taxpayer to be always on the look out for the expiration of the 180 day period.

PROPER PROCEDURE

1st PAN
2nd FAN
3rd AFTER FAN, SUCH FAN may be protested administratively by filing a
a. request for reconsideration
b. request for reinvestigation
within 30 days from receipt of the assessment in such form.....xxxx.

within 60 days from filing of such protest, all relevant
supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the
assessment shall become final.

( as you can notice, after FAN, you must first exhaust all administrative remedies by filing a request for reinvestigation or reconsideration. under normal circumstances , you are not allowed to appeal to the CTA if you have not filed an administrative protest with the BIR. otherwise, the said appeal will be premature and dismissable.

4th TAKE NOTE: IF THERE IS NO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FROM THE BIR ON YOUR PROTEST, YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO SEEK COURT INTERVENTION BY FILING AN APPEAL WITH THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS. SEE SECTION 228 OF THE TAX CODE.

SECTION 228 PROVIDES THAT:
"- IF THE protest is denied in whole or in part
- or is not accted upon within 180 days (by the BIR) from
submission of documents (take note of the 30 days plus 60 days period),
the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction
may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within 30 days from
receipt of the decision or from lapse of the 180 days period.
otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable."[u]

in other words, you cannot file a judicial appeal with the CTA if you will not file an administrative protest to the FAN. if you file a direct appeal with the CTA without the administrative protest, your improper appeal will be dismissed for premature filing of appeal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

but in the case of ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION versus COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,G.R. No. 175097 (2010 case), allied banking corporation filed a direct appeal with the CTA without filing the administative protest because the FAN issued by the BIR AGAINST allied bank was palpak daw.

to reiterate my earlier postings, ito daw ang nakasulat sa FAN.

It is requested that the above deficiency tax be paid immediately upon
receipt hereof, inclusive of penalties incident to delinquency. This
is our FINAL decision based on investigation. If you disagree, you may
appeal this final decision within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof,
otherwise said deficiency tax assessment shall become final, executory
and demandable.[24] (Emphasis supplied)


[b]COMMENTS FROM THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING THE ABOVEMENTIONED CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE FAN
It appears from the foregoing demand letter that the CIR has already made a final decision on the matter and that the remedy of petitioner is to appeal(WITH THE CTA) the final decision within 30 days.


OING BACK SA CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS S FAN, KASALANAN DAW NG BIR ITO KASI:

1. IYONG NAKASTATE SA FAN is final decision na iyong FAN. FINAL DECISION na daw. so anong use if mag file pa ng administrative protest with the BIR if mismong ang BIR na nagsabi na FINAL DECISION NA IYON. kaya dito, sinabi ng supreme court, estopped na ang BIR na magraise ang issue ng violation of exhaustion of administrative remedies (administrative protest s fan) kasi hindi sila nag gamit ng clear words at ang masama pa nito is sinabi pa talaga na final decision na iyon.

ang ikalawa na PALPAK na word ginamit is YOU MAY APPEAL pa talaga. hindi na lang sinabi na you may file a protest or you may file a request for reinvestigation/reconsideration. APPEAL pa talaga ang ginamit. so if ikaw ang taxpayer , first thing na magpasok sa isip mo is APPEAL TO CTA agad.

** dahil sa palpak at malabo na wordings na ginamit s FAN, nagpayag ang supreme court na kahit mali iyong pagfile ng APPEAL TO CTA , exception lang ang case na ito. papayagan na lang ang taxpayer kasi KASALANAN ng BIR mismo in the first place. kahit walang admin protest, ok na lang.

****pero applicable lang ito sa case nI ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION ANG EXCEPTION NA ito dahil sa wordings na palpak sa FAN.

**** SINCE ANG CASE AT BAR NA BINIGAY NG 2012 BAR EXAMINER SA TAXATION IS PAREHO SA CASE NG ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION VS. CIR, ito rin ang dapat isagot natin. na exception ito sa general rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies.

kaya if you were the judge, you should not deny the petition for review kasi the case was not prematurely filed. formulate your answer based sa postings ko.

CASE DIGEST COURTESY OF UBERDIGEST.


Taxation – Exception to the Rules of Procedure Regarding Protest and Appeal

In April 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a preliminary assessment notice (PAN) to Allied Banking Corporation (ABC) demanding payment of P50 million in taxes. ABC then filed a protest in May 2004. In July 2004, the BIR issued a formal assessment notice (FAN). The FAN included a formal demand as well as this phrase:

xxx

This is our final decision based on investigation. If you disagree, you may appeal this final decision within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, otherwise said deficiency tax assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.

ABC then appealed the FAN with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) then filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that ABC did not exhaust all administrative remedies for failing to file a protest against the FAN.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CIR is correct.

HELD: No. It is true that a FAN is not appealable with the CTA. However, this case holds an exception. The wordings of the FAN issued by the CIR made it appear that the FAN is actually the CIR’s final decision. It even advised ABC to file an appeal instead of filing a protest. ABC cannot therefore be faulted for filing an appeal with the CTA instead of filing a protest with the CIR. The CIR as well as his duly authorized representative must indicate clearly and unequivocally to the taxpayer whether an action constitutes a final determination on a disputed assessment. Words must be carefully chosen in order to avoid any confusion that could adversely affect the rights and interest of the taxpayer.



Read full text

taxconsultantdavao wrote:
in other words, you cannot file a judicial appeal with the CTA if you will not file an administrative protest to the FAN. if you file a direct appeal with the CTA without the administrative protest, your improper appeal will be dismissed for premature filing of appeal for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

but in the case of ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION versus COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,G.R. No. 175097 (2010 case), allied banking corporation filed a direct appeal with the CTA without filing the administative protest because  the FAN issued by the BIR AGAINST allied bank was palpak daw.

to reiterate my earlier postings, ito daw ang nakasulat sa FAN.

      It is requested that the above deficiency tax be paid immediately upon
      receipt hereof, inclusive of penalties incident to delinquency. This
      is our FINAL decision based on investigation. If you disagree, you may
      appeal this final decision within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof,
      otherwise said deficiency tax assessment shall become final, executory
       and demandable.[24] (Emphasis supplied)


COMMENTS FROM THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING THE ABOVEMENTIONED CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE FAN
It appears from the foregoing demand letter that the CIR has already made a final decision on the matter and that the remedy of petitioner is to appeal(WITH THE CTA) the final decision within 30 days.


OING BACK SA CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS S FAN, KASALANAN DAW NG BIR ITO KASI:

1. IYONG NAKASTATE SA FAN is final decision na iyong FAN. FINAL DECISION na daw. so anong use if mag file pa ng administrative protest with the BIR if mismong ang BIR na nagsabi na FINAL DECISION NA IYON. kaya dito, sinabi ng supreme court, estopped na ang BIR na magraise ang issue ng violation of exhaustion of administrative remedies (administrative protest s fan) kasi hindi sila nag gamit ng clear words at ang masama pa nito is sinabi pa talaga na final decision na iyon.

ang ikalawa na PALPAK na word ginamit is YOU MAY APPEAL pa talaga. hindi na lang sinabi na you may file a protest or you may file a request for reinvestigation/reconsideration. APPEAL pa talaga ang ginamit. so if ikaw ang taxpayer , first thing na magpasok sa isip mo is APPEAL TO CTA agad.

** dahil sa palpak at malabo na wordings na ginamit s FAN, nagpayag ang supreme court na kahit mali iyong pagfile ng APPEAL TO CTA , exception lang ang case na ito. papayagan na lang ang taxpayer kasi KASALANAN ng BIR mismo in the first place. kahit walang admin protest, ok na lang.

****pero applicable lang ito sa case nI ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION ANG EXCEPTION NA ito dahil sa wordings na palpak sa FAN.

**** SINCE ANG CASE AT BAR NA BINIGAY NG 2012 BAR EXAMINER SA TAXATION  IS PAREHO SA CASE NG ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION VS. CIR, ito rin ang dapat isagot natin. na exception ito sa general rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies.

kaya if you were the judge, you should not deny the petition for review kasi the case was not prematurely filed. formulate your answer based sa postings ko.

wow! i wonder how will you compress that answer with so little time.

what to do if PAN dated on Nov 23,2012 then im about to file protest july 1,2013 do i still able to protest the bir demands even the assesment is to much to my actual income

pan was issued last november 23, 2012

filed protest only last july 1, 2013.

magtatanong lang po ako sir.

1. ano po ang date ng final assessment notice niyo, ng details of discrepancy at final letter of demand mo? kasi within 30 days, dapat nagfile ka ng administrative protest (request for reconsideration or request for reinvestigation ). otherwise, kahit anong mali pa ng assessment ng bir, if di ka nagfile ng protest, magiging final iyan, no matter how erroneous may that final assessment may be.

2. after filing that protest, kung request for reconsideration, you need not submit additional supporting evidence kasi iyong nasubmit mo dati, ok na iyon. pina reconsider mo lang ang decision nila based on your arguments.

pero pag request for reinvestigation, you are submitting additional evidences para sa arguments mo. and you have 60 days to submit your documents from the time na pagfile mo ng administrative protest . otherwise , kung hindi ka makasubmit ng documents within the 60 day period, mag final ang assessment notice after the expiration of the said 60 day period.

kung nasubmit mo naman ang mga documents within that 60 day period or nagrequest ka ng request for reconsideration, at within 180 days from the filing of the said admin protest, wala silang action, that is considered as a denial of your request, and you have 30 days from the 180 days inaction na magfile ng case sa court of tax appeals.


so paki tingin lang sa files mo. anong date ng final assessment notice mo at ng final letter of demand mo at kung me details of discrepancy ba binigay.

tingnan mo din anong taxable year iyang pan mo. at me waiver ka ba na ineexecute.