This document summarizes a tax case between St. Stephen's Association and St. Stephen's Chinese Girls School vs. the Collector of Internal Revenue. The key issues were: [1] Whether the period for appeal begins when the taxpayer receives the initial tax assessment, or when they receive the Collector's decision on their request to reconsider/cancel the assessment. [2] Which of the Collector's letters constituted the "decision" that started the appeal period. The Court ruled that the appeal period begins when the taxpayer receives the Collector's decision on the disputed assessment, not the initial assessment. It found that the Collector's letter stating it was the "final decision" started the appeal period, so the taxpayers' appeal was timely.
Original Description:
Case Digest for St. Stephen's Association v CIR (August 21, 1958)
Specific Issue: Tax Remedies
This document summarizes a tax case between St. Stephen's Association and St. Stephen's Chinese Girls School vs. the Collector of Internal Revenue. The key issues were: [1] Whether the period for appeal begins when the taxpayer receives the initial tax assessment, or when they receive the Collector's decision on their request to reconsider/cancel the assessment. [2] Which of the Collector's letters constituted the "decision" that started the appeal period. The Court ruled that the appeal period begins when the taxpayer receives the Collector's decision on the disputed assessment, not the initial assessment. It found that the Collector's letter stating it was the "final decision" started the appeal period, so the taxpayers' appeal was timely.
This document summarizes a tax case between St. Stephen's Association and St. Stephen's Chinese Girls School vs. the Collector of Internal Revenue. The key issues were: [1] Whether the period for appeal begins when the taxpayer receives the initial tax assessment, or when they receive the Collector's decision on their request to reconsider/cancel the assessment. [2] Which of the Collector's letters constituted the "decision" that started the appeal period. The Court ruled that the appeal period begins when the taxpayer receives the Collector's decision on the disputed assessment, not the initial assessment. It found that the Collector's letter stating it was the "final decision" started the appeal period, so the taxpayers' appeal was timely.
ST. STEPHEN'S ASSOCIATION and ST. STEPHEN'S CHINESE GIRLS SCHOOL vs.
THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
G.R. No. L-11238 August 21, 1958 REYES, J. B. L., J.:
DOCTRINE: Where a taxpayer questions an assessment and asks the Collector to reconsider or cancel the same because he (the taxpayer) believes he is not liable therefor, the assessment becomes a "disputed assessment" that the Collector must decide, and the taxpayer can appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals only upon receipt of the decision of the Collector on the disputed assessment, in accordance with paragraph (1) of section 7, Republic Act No. 1125, conferring appellate jurisdiction upon the Court of Tax Appeals to review "decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessment . . ."
KEYWORD(S): Appeal, Tax Remedies
FACTS: Petitioners wrote the Collector a letter requesting the cancellation and withdrawal of the assessment notice in question on the ground that the amount of P9,252.48 was erroneously entered by the bookkeeper as a donation from the Association to the School, when the truth was that said amount was obtained by the former by means of small contributions from the public and allocated to the School for its maintenance. Then, in a letter dated April 6 1955, the Collector denied the request and insisted that the assessment in question be paid. Consequently, petitioners replied and asked for reconsideration. On July 25, 1955, petitioners received the letter of the Collector dated July 11, 1955, again denying their request that the assessment in question be cancelled and withdrawn, and stating in its last paragraph that:
This decision becomes final thirty days after your receipt hereof unless an appeal is taken to the Court of Tax Appeals within the same period, in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 1125.
Within thirty days from the receipt of the above letter, or on August 13, 1955, petitioners filed a petition for review with the respondent Court of Tax Appeals.
The respondent court promulgated a resolution dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The resolution was premised on the court's findings that the period for petitioners' appeal started to run from their receipt of the assessment notice in question; that said period was interrupted by the filing of petitioners' two requests for the cancellation of the assessment, but started to run again when said requests were denied; and that from November 12, 1954, when petitioners received the assessment notice, to August 13, 1955, when they filed their petition for review, deducting the time when their two requests for cancellation were pending with the respondent Collector, 37 days had elapsed and therefore, their petition was filed out of time and did not confer jurisdiction upon the respondent court. From this resolution of dismissal, petitioners appealed to this Court.
ISSUE: Did the CTA ruled correctly?
RULING: No. Where a taxpayer questions an assessment and asks the Collector to reconsider or cancel the same because he (the taxpayer) believes he is not liable therefor, the assessment becomes a "disputed assessment" that the Collector must decide, and the taxpayer can appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals only upon receipt of the decision of the Collector on the disputed assessment, in accordance with paragraph (1) of section 7, Republic Act No. 1125, conferring appellate jurisdiction upon the Court of Tax Appeals to review "decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessment . . ."
The period for appeal to the respondent court in this case must, therefore, be computed from the time petitioners received the decision of the respondent Collector of Internal Revenue on the disputed assessment, and not from the time they received said assessment. The next question now is: which is the decision of the Collector on the disputed assessment his letter of April 6, 1955, received by petitioners on April 21, 1955, denying their first request for the withdrawal and cancellation of the assessment; or his letter of July 11, 1955, received by petitioners on July 25, 1955, denying their second request that the assessment be cancelled and withdrawn, and stating that:
This decision becomes final thirty days after your receipt hereof unless an appeal is taken to the Court of Tax Appeals within the same period, in accordance with the provision of Republic Act No. 1125.
From the above-quoted statement appearing in his letter of July 11, 1955, it is evident that the respondent Collector himself considered said letter as his final decision in the case, hence his warning that the same would become final in thirty days unless petitioners appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals within the same period. Prior to his letter-decision of July 11, 1955, then, the Collector must have held the matter under advisement and considered his preceding rulings as merely tentative in character, pending his final determination and resolution of the merits of the arguments of fact and law submitted by petitioners in support of their requests for the cancellation and withdrawal of the assessment. This must have been the reason why, in said letter- decision of July 11, 1955, the Collector included an express statement that said decision was to become final in thirty days unless appealed from within the same period; and it must also have been for this reason that, throughout the proceedings in the respondent Collector never claimed that petitioners' appeal was filed out of time, and it was the Tax Court that motu proprio dismissed the petition because it believed it was not filed within the period provided by Republic Act No. 1125.
Petitioners having filed their appeal on the 19th day from the receipt of this decision, their appeal was filed on time and the respondent Court erred in dismissing the same for lack of jurisdiction.