Facts:
Lopez filed his ITR and was assessed by the BIR demanding payment of P200k. Lopez requested for reconsideration which resulted in a reduction of the assessment to P20k. Without settling his liability, Lopez askedfor another reinvestigation. BIR assessed an additional P6k deficiency income tax. Again, Lopez did not pay andask for another reinvestigation. BIR acceded to his request provided he executed a waiver of statute of limitations.Lopez executed an unconditional waiver imposing a deadline (Dec 1957) within which the government should finishits reinvestigation. BIR ignored the deadline imposed and instead issued an assessment on March 1960. Due to non-payment, BIR filed a collection suit before the CFI. Lopez filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription. CFIgranted the motion to dismiss.
Issue:
Whether or not the deadline is binding and operative, and ultimately,whether or not the action to collect has already prescribed
Ruling:
No. The action has not yet prescribed since under the NIRC the government has 5-year prescriptiveperiod within which it may sue to collect an assessed tax to be counted from the last revised assessmentresulting from the reinvestigation AND the time employed in reinvestigation should be deducted from the total period of limitation. Regarding the December 1957 deadline, SC seriously doubts that the CIR could validlyagree to reduce the prescriptive period to less than what was granted by law to the detriment of the State, since itdiminishes the opportunities of collecting taxes due to the Republic.
Lopez filed his ITR and was assessed by the BIR demanding payment of P200k. Lopez requested for reconsideration which resulted in a reduction of the assessment to P20k. Without settling his liability, Lopez askedfor another reinvestigation. BIR assessed an additional P6k deficiency income tax. Again, Lopez did not pay andask for another reinvestigation. BIR acceded to his request provided he executed a waiver of statute of limitations.Lopez executed an unconditional waiver imposing a deadline (Dec 1957) within which the government should finishits reinvestigation. BIR ignored the deadline imposed and instead issued an assessment on March 1960. Due to non-payment, BIR filed a collection suit before the CFI. Lopez filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription. CFIgranted the motion to dismiss.
Issue:
Whether or not the deadline is binding and operative, and ultimately,whether or not the action to collect has already prescribed
Ruling:
No. The action has not yet prescribed since under the NIRC the government has 5-year prescriptiveperiod within which it may sue to collect an assessed tax to be counted from the last revised assessmentresulting from the reinvestigation AND the time employed in reinvestigation should be deducted from the total period of limitation. Regarding the December 1957 deadline, SC seriously doubts that the CIR could validlyagree to reduce the prescriptive period to less than what was granted by law to the detriment of the State, since itdiminishes the opportunities of collecting taxes due to the Republic.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment