Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CIR
(G.R. No. 148380, December 9, 2005) | MCACB
Facts:
The controversy in this case started when the petitioner received
from the BIR deficiency tax assessments for the year 1984.
When the petitioner filed a protest and requested for a
reconsideration or cancellation of the same, the Chief of the
Accounts Receivable and Billing Division of the BIR National
Office reiterated the tax assessments and requested the
petitioner to pay within 10 days, while denied its request for
reinvestigation. Upon the petitioners failure to pay the subject
tax assessments within the prescribed period, the Asst.
Commissioner for Collection, acting for the CIR, issued the
corresponding warrants of distraints and/or levy and
garnishment. This prodded the petitioner to file a Petition for
Review with the CTA to contest the issuance of the warrants and
to enforce the collection of the tax assessments.
The CTA, however, dismissed the petition, declaring that it was
filed beyond the 30-day period reckoned from the time it received
the demand letter on January 24, 1991 by the Chief of the BIR
Accounts Receivable and Billing Division.
Issue:
Is the demand letter for tax deficiency assessments issued and
signed by a subordinate officer who was acting in behalf of the
CIR deemed final and executor and subject to an appeal to the
CTA?
Ruling:
Yes. Firstly, a demand letter for payment of delinquent taxes
may be considered a decision on a disputed or protested
assessment. The determination on whether or not a demand
letter is final is conditioned upon the language used or the tenor
of the letter being sent to the taxpayer. In this case, the demand