Facts:
Collector of Internal Revenue issued against Ricardo S. Santos, as owner and operator of the Ace Theatre located in San Juan, Rizal, a deficiency assessment of P3,234.26, plus a compromise penalty of P850.00, or a total of P4,084.26. In a letter dated December 10, 1948 appellant requested a reinvestigation of the matter, alleging that the report of Agent Cosare "may have overlooked all the receipts paid by him on the amusement tax basing all from his gross receipts." The reinvestigation was made but the result was that appellee issued an amended assessment dated July 28, 1949 for the slightly bigger total sum of P4,242.04. So, petitioner again asked for another investigation since his books during the original investigation was not presented as the Bureau of Internal Revenue failed to return his books, hence, petitioner failed to show his allegation of inaccuracy in the deficiency assessment. The lower court decided in favor of the government considering that the burden of proof to show that there is inaccuracy concerning deficiency assessment lies with the taxpayer and having failed to prove such inaccuracy, the judgment should properly be against the latter.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner’s failure to prove the inaccuracy of the deficiency assessment due to BIR’s failure to return the books to him should result to the finality of the deficiency assessment
Ruling:
No. It is true — as appellee says in his brief — that a taxpayer who contests the correctness of an assessment has the burden of proving his contention. This, appellant was willing to do but, as already stated, he was deprived of the best means of doing it with the loss of his books. His only error, perhaps, was in not producing secondary evidence of their contents during the hearing before the Conference Staff. In view of the circumstances disclosed by the record, we believe that, in equity, appellant should be given a last opportunity to prove — even with secondary evidence — his contention that, in some respects, the assessment against him is incorrect.
Collector of Internal Revenue issued against Ricardo S. Santos, as owner and operator of the Ace Theatre located in San Juan, Rizal, a deficiency assessment of P3,234.26, plus a compromise penalty of P850.00, or a total of P4,084.26. In a letter dated December 10, 1948 appellant requested a reinvestigation of the matter, alleging that the report of Agent Cosare "may have overlooked all the receipts paid by him on the amusement tax basing all from his gross receipts." The reinvestigation was made but the result was that appellee issued an amended assessment dated July 28, 1949 for the slightly bigger total sum of P4,242.04. So, petitioner again asked for another investigation since his books during the original investigation was not presented as the Bureau of Internal Revenue failed to return his books, hence, petitioner failed to show his allegation of inaccuracy in the deficiency assessment. The lower court decided in favor of the government considering that the burden of proof to show that there is inaccuracy concerning deficiency assessment lies with the taxpayer and having failed to prove such inaccuracy, the judgment should properly be against the latter.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner’s failure to prove the inaccuracy of the deficiency assessment due to BIR’s failure to return the books to him should result to the finality of the deficiency assessment
Ruling:
No. It is true — as appellee says in his brief — that a taxpayer who contests the correctness of an assessment has the burden of proving his contention. This, appellant was willing to do but, as already stated, he was deprived of the best means of doing it with the loss of his books. His only error, perhaps, was in not producing secondary evidence of their contents during the hearing before the Conference Staff. In view of the circumstances disclosed by the record, we believe that, in equity, appellant should be given a last opportunity to prove — even with secondary evidence — his contention that, in some respects, the assessment against him is incorrect.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment