1) The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Tax Appeals' decision reversing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's assessment of deficiency taxes against Metro Star Superama for tax year 1999.
2) The Court found that the CIR failed to follow due process requirements by not sending Metro Star a Preliminary Assessment Notice informing it of the facts and law upon which the assessment was based, as required by law.
3) While taxes are important, the power to tax is limited and citizens have a right to due process under the Constitution. The CIR's failure to comply with legal notice requirements rendered the assessment void.
1) The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Tax Appeals' decision reversing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's assessment of deficiency taxes against Metro Star Superama for tax year 1999.
2) The Court found that the CIR failed to follow due process requirements by not sending Metro Star a Preliminary Assessment Notice informing it of the facts and law upon which the assessment was based, as required by law.
3) While taxes are important, the power to tax is limited and citizens have a right to due process under the Constitution. The CIR's failure to comply with legal notice requirements rendered the assessment void.
1) The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Tax Appeals' decision reversing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's assessment of deficiency taxes against Metro Star Superama for tax year 1999.
2) The Court found that the CIR failed to follow due process requirements by not sending Metro Star a Preliminary Assessment Notice informing it of the facts and law upon which the assessment was based, as required by law.
3) While taxes are important, the power to tax is limited and citizens have a right to due process under the Constitution. The CIR's failure to comply with legal notice requirements rendered the assessment void.
* should be able to present their case and adduce supporting
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, evidence. petitioner, vs. METRO STAR SUPERAMA, INC., Same; Same; The sending of a Preliminary respondent. Assessment Notice (PAN) to taxpayer to inform him of the assessment made is but part of the due process requirement Taxation; Court of Tax Appeals; Appeals; Court will in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment, the absence not lightly set aside the conclusions reached by the Court of of which senders nugatory any assessment made by the tax Tax Appeals (CTA) which by the very nature of its functions authorities.—It is clear that the sending of a PAN to has accordingly developed an exclusive expertise on the taxpayer to inform him of the assessment made is but part resolution unless there has been an abuse or improvident of the “due process requirement in the issuance of a exercise of authority.—The general rule is that the Court deficiency tax assessment,” the absence of which renders will not lightly set aside the conclusions reached by the nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities. The CTA which, by the very nature of its functions, has use of the word “shall” in subsection 3.1.2 describes the accordingly developed an exclusive expertise on the mandatory nature of the service of a PAN. The resolution unless there has been an abuse or improvident persuasiveness of the right to due process reaches both exercise of authority. In Barcelon, Roxas Securities, Inc. substantial and procedural rights and the failure of the CIR (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) v. Commissioner of to strictly comply with the requirements laid down by law Internal Revenue, the Court wrote: Jurisprudence has and its own rules is a denial of Metro Star’s right to due consistently shown that this Court accords the findings of process. Thus, for its failure to send the PAN stating the fact by the CTA with the highest respect. In Sea-Land facts and the law on which the assessment was made as Service Inc. v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 122605, 30 required by Section 228 of R.A. No. 8424, the assessment April 2001, 357 SCRA 441, 445-446], this Court recognizes made by the CIR is void.635 that the Court of Tax Appeals, which by the very nature of its function is dedicated exclusively to the consideration of VOL. 637, DECEMBER 8, 2010 tax problems, has necessarily developed an expertise on the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Sta subject, and its conclusions will not be overturned unless Superama Inc. there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of Same; Same; While taxes are the lifeblood of the authority. Such findings can only be disturbed on appeal if government, the power to tax has its limits in spite of all its they are not supported by substantial evidence or there is a plenitude.—It is an elementary rule enshrined in the 1987 showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the Tax Constitution that no person shall be deprived of property Court. In the absence of any clear and convincing proof to without due process of law. In balancing the scales between the contrary, this Court must presume that the CTA the power of the State to tax and its inherent right to rendered a decision which is valid in every respect. _______________ prosecute perceived transgressors of the law on one side, and the constitutional rights of a citizen to due process of * SECOND DIVISION. law and the equal protection of the laws on the other, the scales must tilt in favor of the individual, for a citizen’s 634 right is amply protected by the Bill of Rights under the Constitution. Thus, while “taxes are the lifeblood of the 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS government,” the power to tax has its limits, in spite of all ANNOTATED its plenitude. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and Superama Inc. resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals. Same; Assessment; If the taxpayer denies ever The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. having received an assessment from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), it is incumbent upon the latter to prove by Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner. competent evidence that such notice was indeed received by Baterina, Baterina, Casals, Lozada & Tiblani for the addressee.—Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding respondent. that if the taxpayer denies ever having received an assessment from the BIR, it is incumbent upon the latter to MENDOZA, J.: prove by competent evidence that such notice was indeed This petition for review on certiorari under Rule received by the addressee. The onus probandi was shifted 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the petitioner to respondent to prove by contrary evidence that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) seeks to Petitioner received the assessment in the due course of mail. reverse and set aside the 1] September 16, 2008 The Supreme Court has consistently held that while a Decision1 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA- mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in the En Banc), in C.T.A. EB No. 306 and 2] its November course of mail, this is merely a disputable presumption 18, 2008 Resolution2 denying petitioner’s motion for subject to controversion and a direct denial thereof shifts reconsideration. the burden to the party favored by the presumption to prove The CTA-En Banc affirmed in toto the decision of that the mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee its Second Division (CTA-Second Division) in CTA (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 351). Same; Same; Section 228 of the Tax Code clearly Case No. 7169 reversing the February 8, 2005 requires that the taxpayer must be informed that he is liable Decision of the CIR which assessed respondent Metro for deficiency taxes through the sending of a Preliminary Star Superama, Inc. (Metro Star) of deficiency value- Assessment Notice (PAN).—Section 228 of the Tax Code added tax and withholding tax for the taxable year clearly requires that the taxpayer must first be informed that 1999. he is liable for deficiency taxes through the sending of a _______________ PAN. He must be informed of the facts and the law upon which the assessment is made. The law imposes a 1 Rollo, pp. 32-75. Penned by Associate Justice Caesar A. substantive, not merely a formal, requirement. To proceed Casanova, with Associate Justices Erlinda P. Uy, Olga Palanca- heedlessly with tax collection without first establishing a Enriquez, concurring and Associate Justices Ernesto D. Acosta and Lovell R. Bautista, dissenting. valid assessment is evidently violative of the cardinal 2 Id., at pp. 88-96. principle in administrative investigations — that taxpayers 636 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDTotal Tax Due P112,8 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama Less: Tax Withheld 111,8 Inc. Deficiency Based on a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues 3 of Withholding Tax 1,0 the parties, the CTA Second Division summarized the Add: 20% Interest 576.51 factual and procedural antecedents of the case, the p.a. pertinent portions of which read: Compromise 200.00 “Petitioner is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Penalty Philippines, x x x. TOTAL P 1,8 On January 26, 2001, the Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 10, Legazpi City, issued Letter of Authority No. *Expanded P1,949,334.2 x 5% 97,4 00006561 for Revenue Officer Daisy G. Justiniana to examine petitioner’s books of accounts and other Withholding Tax 5 accounting records for income tax and other internal Film Rental 10,000.25 x 10% 1,0 revenue taxes for the taxable year 1999. Said Letter of Audit Fee 193,261.20 x 5% 9,6 Authority was revalidated on August 10, 2001 by Regional Rental Expense 41,272.73 x 1% 4 Director Leonardo Sacamos. For petitioner’s failure to comply with several requests Security Service 156,142.01 x 1% ____1,5 for the presentation of records and Subpoena Duces Tecum, Service P 110,1 [the] OIC of BIR Legal Division issued an Indorsement Contractor dated September 26, 2001 informing Revenue District Total Officer of Revenue Region No. 67, Legazpi City to proceed with the investigation based on the best evidence obtainable preparatory to the issuance of assessment notice. SUMMARIES OF On November 8, 2001, Revenue District Officer DEFICIENCIES Socorro O. Ramos-Lafuente issued a Preliminary 15-day VALUE P 291,0 Letter, which petitioner received on November 9, 2001. The said letter stated that a post audit review was held and it ADDED TAX was ascertained that there was deficiency value-added and 1,8 withholding taxes due from petitioner in the amount of P WITHHOLDING 292,874.16. TAX On April 11, 2002, petitioner received a Formal Letter of Demand dated April 3, 2002 from Revenue District No. TOTAL P 292,8 67, Legazpi City, assessing petitioner the amount of Two Hundred Ninety Two Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Subsequently, Revenue District Office No. 67 sent a Four Pesos and Sixteen Centavos (P292,874.16.) for copy of the Final Notice of Seizure dated May 12, 2003, deficiency value-added and withholding taxes for the which petitioner received on May 15, 2003, giving the latter taxable year 1999, computed as follows: last opportunity to settle its deficiency tax liabilities within ASSESSMENT NOTICE NO. 067-99-003-579-072 ten (10) [days] from receipt thereof, otherwise respondent BIR shall be constrained to serve and execute the Warrants VALUE ADDED TAX of Distraint and/or Levy and Garnishment to enforce Gross Sales P1,697,718.90collection. On February 6, 2004, petitioner received from Revenue Output Tax P 154,338.08District Office No. 67 a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy Less: Input Tax _____________No. 67-0029-23 dated May 12, 2003 demanding payment of VAT Payable P 154,338.08deficiency value-added tax and withholding tax payment in Add: 25% Surcharge P 38,584.54 the amount of P292,874.16.638 _______________ 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATE 3 Id., at pp. 308-311. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Supera 637 Inc. On July 30, 2004, petitioner filed with the Office of VOL. 637, DECEMBER 8, 2010 respondent Commissioner a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Section 3.1.5 of Revenue Regulations No. 12- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama 99. Inc. On February 8, 2005, respondent Commissioner, 20% Interest 79,746.4 through its authorized representative, Revenue Regional 9 Director of Revenue Region 10, Legaspi City, issued a Compromise Decision denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner, through counsel received said Decision on Penalty February 18, 2005. Late Payment P16,000.00 x x x.” Failure to File VAT returns 2,400.00 18,400.00 Denying that it received a Preliminary Assessment 136,731.01 Notice (PAN) and claiming that it was not accorded TOTAL P 291,069.09 due process, Metro Star filed a petition for review4 with the CTA. The parties then stipulated on WITHHOLDING the following issues to be decided by the tax court: TAX 1. Whether the respondent complied with the due Compensation process requirement as provided under the Expanded 110,103.92 National Internal Revenue Code and Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 with regard to the 5 Id., at p. 85, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 233 Phil. issuance of a deficiency tax assessment; 359, 364; 149 SCRA 351, 354 (1987). 6 Id., at p. 86. 1.1 Whether petitioner is liable for the 7 Id., at pp. 111-119. respective amounts of P291,069.09 and 8 Id., at pp. 120-122. P1,805.07 as deficiency VAT and 9 Id., at pp. 123-138. withholding tax for the year 1999; 640 1.2. Whether the assessment has become final and executory and demandable for 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATE failure of petitioner to protest the same Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Supera within 30 days from its receipt thereof Inc. on April 11, 2002, pursuant to Section “WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is 228 of the National Internal Revenue hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack Code; of merit. Accordingly, the March 21, 2007 Decision and 2. Whether the deficiency assessments issued by July 27, 2007 Resolution of the CTA Second Division in CTA Case No. 7169 entitled, “Metro Star Superama, Inc., the respondent are void for failure to state the petitioner vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, law and/or facts upon which they are based. respondent” are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. 2.2 Whether petitioner was informed of SO ORDERED.” the law and facts on which the assessment is made in compliance with The motion for reconsideration10 filed by the CIR Section 228 of the National Internal was likewise denied by the CTA-En Banc in its Revenue Code; November 18, 2008 Resolution.11 3. Whether or not petitioner, as owner/operator The CIR, insisting that Metro Star received the of a movie/cinema house, is subject to VAT on PAN, dated January 16, 2002, and that due process sales of services under Section 108(A) of the was served nonetheless because the latter received the National Internal Revenue Code; Final Assessment Notice (FAN), comes now before _______________ this Court with the sole issue of whether or not Metro Star was denied due process. 4 Id., at pp. 97-110. The general rule is that the Court will not lightly 639 set aside the conclusions reached by the CTA which, by the very nature of its functions, has accordingly VOL. 637, DECEMBER 8, 2010 developed an exclusive expertise on the resolution unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama Inc. of authority.12 In Barcelon, Roxas Securities, Inc. (now 4. Whether or not the assessment is based on the known as UBP Securities, Inc.) v. Commissioner of best evidence obtainable pursuant to Section Internal Revenue,13 the Court wrote: “Jurisprudence has consistently shown that this Court 6(b) of the National Internal Revenue Code. accords the findings of fact by the CTA with the highest The CTA-Second Division found merit in the respect. In Sea-Land Service Inc. v. Court of Appeals [G.R. petition of Metro Star and, on March 21, 2007, No. 122605, 30 April 2001, 357 SCRA 441, 445-446], this Court recognizes that the Court of Tax Appeals, which by rendered a decision, the decretal portion of which the very nature of its function is dedicated exclusively to reads: the consideration of tax problems, has necessarily “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for developed an expertise on the subject, and its conclusions Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed will not be overturned unless there has been an abuse or Decision dated February 8, 2005 is hereby REVERSED and improvident exercise of authority. Such findings can only SET ASIDE and respondent is ORDERED TO DESIST be disturbed on appeal if they are not supported by from collecting the subject taxes against petitioner.” substantial evidence or there is a showing of gross error or The CTA-Second Division opined that “[w]hile abuse on the part of the Tax Court. In the absence of any clear and convincing proof there [is] a disputable presumption that a mailed letter _______________ [is] deemed received by the addressee in the ordinary course of mail, a direct denial of the receipt of mail 10 Id., at pp. 139-152. shifts the burden upon the party favored by the 11 Id., at pp. 88-96. 12 Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils), Inc. v. Commissioner of presumption to prove that the mailed letter was indeed Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 157594, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 526. received by the addressee.”5 It also found that there 13 G.R. No. 150764, August 7, 2006, 498 SCRA 126, 135-136. was no clear showing that Metro Star actually 641 received the alleged PAN, dated January 16, 2002. It, accordingly, ruled that the Formal Letter of Demand VOL. 637, DECEMBER 8, 2010 dated April 3, 2002, as well as the Warrant of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Supera Distraint and/or Levy dated May 12, 2003 were void, Inc. as Metro Star was denied due process.6 to the contrary, this Court must presume that the CTA The CIR sought reconsideration7 of the decision of rendered a decision which is valid in every respect.” the CTA-Second Division, but the motion was denied in the latter’s July 24, 2007 Resolution.8 On the matter of service of a tax assessment, a Aggrieved, the CIR filed a petition for further perusal of our ruling in Barcelon is review9 with the CTA-En Banc, but the petition was instructive, viz.: dismissed after a determination that no new matters “Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that if the were raised. The CTA-En Banc disposed: taxpayer denies ever having received an assessment _______________ from the BIR, it is incumbent upon the latter to prove by competent evidence that such notice was indeed received by the addressee. The onus probandi was April 3, 2002, but not the PAN; that he was willing to shifted to respondent to prove by contrary evidence that pay the tax as computed by the CIR; and that he just the Petitioner received the assessment in the due course wanted to clarify some matters with the hope of of mail. The Supreme Court has consistently held that lessening its tax liability. while a mailed letter is deemed received by the addressee in This now leads to the question: Is the failure to the course of mail, this is merely a disputable presumption subject to controversion and a direct denial thereof shifts strictly comply with notice requirements prescribed the burden to the party favored by the presumption to prove under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue that the mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee Code of 1997 and Revenue Regulations (R.R.) No. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 351). Thus as 12-99 tantamount to a denial of due process? held by the Supreme Court in Gonzalo P. Nava vs. Specifically, are the requirements of due process Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 13 SCRA 104, January satisfied if only the FAN stating the computation of 30, 1965: tax liabilities and a demand to pay within the “The facts to be proved to raise this prescribed period was sent to the taxpayer? presumption are (a) that the letter was properly The answer to these questions require an addressed with postage prepaid, and (b) that it examination of Section 228 of the Tax Code which was mailed. Once these facts are proved, the reads: presumption is that the letter was received by the “SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment.—When the addressee as soon as it could have been transmitted Commissioner or his duly authorized representative to him in the ordinary course of the mail. But if one finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first of the said facts fails to appear, the presumption notify the taxpayer of his findings: provided, does not lie. (VI, Moran, Comments on the Rules of 643 Court, 1963 ed, 56-57 citing Enriquez vs. Sunlife Assurance of Canada, 41 Phil. 269).” VOL. 637, DECEMBER 8, 2010 x x x. What is essential to prove the fact of mailing is the registry receipt issued by the Bureau of Posts or the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Supera Registry return card which would have been signed by Inc. the Petitioner or its authorized representative. And if however, that a preassessment notice shall not be required said documents cannot be located, Respondent at the in the following cases: very least, should have submitted to the Court a (a) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the certification issued by the Bureau of Posts and any other result of mathematical error in the computation of the tax as pertinent document which is executed with the appearing on the face of the return; or intervention of the Bureau of Posts. This Court does not (b) When a discrepancy has been determined between put much credence to the self serving documentations made the tax withheld and the amount actually remitted by the by the BIR personnel especially if they are unsupported by withholding agent; or substantial evidence establishing the fact of mailing. Thus: (c) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a refund or “While we have held that an assessment is made tax credit of excess creditable withholding tax for a taxable when sent within the prescribed period, even if period was determined to have carried over and received by the taxpayer after its automatically applied the same amount claimed against the 642 estimated tax liabilities for the taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding taxable year; or 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED (d) When the excise tax due on exciseable articles has Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama not been paid; or Inc. (e) When the article locally purchased or imported by an exempt person, such as, but not limited to, vehicles, expiration (Coll. of Int. Rev. vs. Bautista, L-12250 capital equipment, machineries and spare parts, has been and L-12259, May 27, 1959), this ruling makes it sold, traded or transferred to non-exempt persons. the more imperative that the release, mailing or The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the sending of the notice be clearly and satisfactorily law and the facts on which the assessment is made; proved. Mere notations made without the taxpayer’s otherwise, the assessment shall be void. intervention, notice or control, without adequate Within a period to be prescribed by implementing rules supporting evidence cannot suffice; otherwise, the and regulations, the taxpayer shall be required to respond to taxpayer would be at the mercy of the revenue said notice. If the taxpayer fails to respond, the offices, without adequate protection or defense.” Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall (Nava vs. CIR, 13 SCRA 104, January 30, 1965). issue an assessment based on his findings. x x x. Such assessment may be protested administratively by The failure of the respondent to prove receipt of the filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within assessment by the Petitioner leads to the conclusion that no thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessment in such form assessment was issued. Consequently, the government’s and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules right to issue an assessment for the said period has already and regulations. Within sixty (60) days from filing of the prescribed. (Industrial Textile Manufacturing Co. of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been Phils., Inc. vs. CIR, CTA Case 4885, August 22, 1996).” submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final. (Emphases supplied.) If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not The Court agrees with the CTA that the CIR failed acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) days from to discharge its duty and present any evidence to show submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax that Metro Star indeed received the PAN dated Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said January 16, 2002. It could have simply presented the decision, or from the lapse of one hundred eighty (180)-day registry receipt or the certification from the postmaster period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, that it mailed the PAN, but failed. Neither did it offer executory and demandable.” (Emphasis supplied). any explanation on why it failed to comply with the requirement of service of the PAN. It merely accepted 644 the letter of Metro Star’s chairman dated April 29, 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATE 2002, that stated that he had received the FAN dated Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Supera Inc. to respond within fifteen (15) days from date of Indeed, Section 228 of the Tax Code clearly receipt of the PAN, he shall be considered in default, requires that the taxpayer must first be informed that in which case, a formal letter of demand and he is liable for deficiency taxes through the sending of assessment notice shall be caused to be issued by the a PAN. He must be informed of the facts and the law said Office, calling for payment of the taxpayer’s upon which the assessment is made. The law imposes deficiency tax liability, inclusive of the applicable a substantive, not merely a formal, requirement. To penalties. proceed heedlessly with tax collection without first 3.1.3 Exceptions to Prior Notice of the establishing a valid assessment is evidently violative Assessment.—The notice for informal conference and of the cardinal principle in administrative the preliminary assessment notice shall not be investigations—that taxpayers should be able to required in any of the following cases, in which case, present their case and adduce supporting evidence.14 issuance of the formal assessment notice for the This is confirmed under the provisions R.R. No. payment of the taxpayer’s deficiency tax liability shall 12-99 of the BIR which pertinently provide: be sufficient: “SECTION 3. Due Process Requirement in the (i) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the Issuance of a Deficiency Tax Assessment.— result of mathematical error in the computation 3.1 Mode of procedures in the issuance of a of the tax appearing on the face of the tax deficiency tax assessment: return filed by the taxpayer; or 3.1.1 Notice for informal conference.—The (ii) When a discrepancy has been determined Revenue Officer who audited the taxpayer's records between the tax withheld and the amount shall, among others, state in his report whether or not actually remitted by the withholding agent; or the taxpayer agrees with his findings that the taxpayer (iii) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a is liable for deficiency tax or taxes. If the taxpayer is refund or tax credit of excess creditable not amenable, based on the said Officer’s submitted withholding tax for a taxable period was report of investigation, the taxpayer shall be informed, determined to have carried over and in writing, by the Revenue District Office or by the automatically applied the same amount claimed Special Investigation Division, as the case may be (in against the estimated tax liabilities for the the case Revenue Regional Offices) or by the Chief of taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding Division concerned (in the case of the BIR National taxable year; or Office) of the discrepancy or discrepancies in the (iv) When the excise tax due on excisable articles taxpayer’s payment of his internal revenue taxes, for has not been paid; or the purpose of “Informal Conference,” in order to (v) When an article locally purchased or afford the taxpayer with an opportunity to present his imported by an exempt person, such as, but not side of the case. If the taxpayer fails to respond within limited to, vehicles, capital equipment, fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the notice for machineries and spare parts, has been sold, informal conference, he shall be considered in default, traded or transferred to non-exempt persons. in which case, the Revenue District Officer or the 3.1.4 Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Chief of the Special Investigation Division of the Notice.—The formal letter of demand and assessment Revenue Regional Office, or the Chief of Division in notice shall be issued by the Commissioner or his duly the National Office, as the case may be, shall endorse authorized representative. The letter of demand calling the case with the least possible delay to the for payment of the taxpayer’s deficiency tax or taxes Assessment Division of the Revenue Regional Office shall state the facts, the law, rules and regulations, or or to the Commissioner or his duly authorized jurisprudence on which the assessment is based, 646 representative, as the case may be, for appropriate review and issuance of a deficiency tax assessment, if 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATE warranted. 3.1.2 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN).—If Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Supera after review and evaluation by the Assessment Inc. Division or by the Commissioner or his duly otherwise, the formal letter of demand and assessment _______________ notice shall be void (see illustration in ANNEX B hereof). 14 Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 The same shall be sent to the taxpayer only by (1940). registered mail or by personal delivery. 645 If sent by personal delivery, the taxpayer or his duly authorized representative shall acknowledge VOL. 637, DECEMBER 8, 2010 receipt thereof in the duplicate copy of the letter of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama demand, showing the following: (a) His name; (b) Inc. signature; (c) designation and authority to act for and authorized representative, as the case may be, it is in behalf of the taxpayer, if acknowledged received by determined that there exists sufficient basis to assess a person other than the taxpayer himself; and (d) date the taxpayer for any deficiency tax or taxes, the said of receipt thereof. Office shall issue to the taxpayer, at least by registered x x x.” mail, a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for the From the provision quoted above, it is clear that proposed assessment, showing in detail, the facts and the sending of a PAN to taxpayer to inform him of the the law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on assessment made is but part of the “due process which the proposed assessment is based (see requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax illustration in ANNEX A hereof). If the taxpayer fails assessment,” the absence of which renders nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities. The use of _______________ the word “shall” in subsection 3.1.2 describes the 17 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Azucena T. Reyes, G.R. No. mandatory nature of the service of a PAN. The 159694 & G.R. No. 163581 January 27, 2006, 382 SCRA 480. persuasiveness of the right to due process reaches both 18 Id. 19 Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution. substantial and procedural rights and the failure of the 20 241 Phil. 829; 158 SCRA 9 (1988). CIR to strictly comply with the requirements laid down by law and its own rules is a denial of Metro 648 Star’s right to due process.15 Thus, for its failure to 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATE send the PAN stating the facts and the law on which the assessment was made as required by Section 228 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Supera of R.A. No. 8424, the assessment made by the CIR is Inc. void. one’s hard-earned income to taxing authorities, every The case of CIR v. Menguito16 cited by the CIR in person who is able to must contribute his share in the support of its argument that only the non-service of running of the government. The government for its part is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible the FAN is fatal to the validity of an assessment, benefits intended to improve the lives of the people and cannot apply to this case because the issue therein was enhance their moral and material values. This symbiotic the non-compliance with the provisions of R. R. No. relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the 12-85 which sought to interpret Section 229 of the old erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction tax law. RA No. 8424 has already amended the by those in the seat of power. provision of Section 229 on protesting an assessment. But even as we concede the inevitability and The old requirement of merely notifying the taxpayer indispensability of taxation, it is a requirement in all of the CIR’s findings was changed in 1998 democratic regimes that it be exercised reasonably and to informing the taxpayer of not in accordance with the prescribed procedure. If it is not, _______________ then the taxpayer has a right to complain and the courts will then come to his succor. For all the awesome power of the 15 Tupas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89571, February 6, tax collector, he may still be stopped in his tracks if the 1991, 193 SCRA 597, 600. taxpayer can demonstrate x x x that the law has not been 16 G.R. No. 167560, September 17, 2008, 461 SCRA 565. observed.” (Emphasis supplied). 21
647 WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
VOL. 637, DECEMBER 8, 2010 SO ORDERED. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Inc. Peralta and Abad, JJ., concur. only the law, but also of the facts on which an Petition denied. assessment would be made. Otherwise, the assessment itself would be invalid.17 The regulation then, on the Note.—A post-reporting notice and pre- other hand, simply provided that a notice be sent to assessment notice do not bear the gravity of a formal the respondent in the form prescribed, and that no assessment notice. (Commissioner on Internal consequence would ensue for failure to comply with Revenue vs. Menguito, 565 SCRA 461 [2008] that form. ——o0o—— The Court need not belabor to discuss the matter of Metro Star’s failure to file its protest, for it is well- settled that a void assessment bears no fruit. 18 It is an elementary rule enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. 19 In balancing the scales between the power of the State to tax and its inherent right to prosecute perceived transgressors of the law on one side, and the constitutional rights of a citizen to due process of law and the equal protection of the laws on the other, the scales must tilt in favor of the individual, for a citizen’s right is amply protected by the Bill of Rights under the Constitution. Thus, while “taxes are the lifeblood of the government,” the power to tax has its limits, in spite of all its plenitude. Hence in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Algue, Inc.,20 it was said— “Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. It is therefore necessary to reconcile the apparently conflicting interests of the authorities and the taxpayers so that the real purpose of taxation, which is the promotion of the common good, may be achieved. xxx xxx xxx It is said that taxes are what we pay for civilized society. Without taxes, the government would be paralyzed for the lack of the motive power to activate and operate it. Hence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of
G.R. No. 213394, April 06, 2016 Spouses Emmanuel D. Pacquiao and Jinkee J. Pacquiao, Petitioners, V. The Court of Tax Appeals - First Division and The Commission of Internal Revenue, Respondents