19 CIR V CA (1999)

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.
COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, and CARNATION

PHILIPPINES, INC. (now merged with Nestle Phils. Inc.)
G.R. 115712 | 25 Feb 1999 | Purisima, J. (Nicole)
SYNOPSIS BY SC: In 1982, Carnation Phils., Inc., filed its Corporation Annual Income Tax Return for taxable year ending
September 30, 1981; and its Manufacturers/Producers Percentage Tax Return for the quarter ending September 30, 1981.
On October 13, 1986, March 16, 1987 and May 18, 1987,Carnation, through its Senior Vice President Jaime O.
Lardizabal, signed three separate waivers of the Statute of Limitations under the National Internal Revenue Code. The
waivers were not signed by the BIR Commissioner or any of his agents. On August 5, 1987, Carnation received BIRs
letter of demand asking said corporation to pay their deficiency income tax and deficiency sales tax on undeclared sales,
all for the year 1981. The demand letter was accompanied by assessment notices. Carnation disputed the assessments
and requested a reconsideration and reinvestigation thereof. The protests were denied. Carnation appealed to the Court
of Tax Appeals which nullified the assessments for having been issued beyond the five-year prescriptive period provided
by law. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. Hence, the present petition.
The issue to be resolved by the Court is whether or not the three (3) waivers signed by Carnation are valid and binding as
to toll the running of the prescriptive period for assessment and not bar the Government from issuing subject deficiency
tax assessments.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that the waivers in question reveal that
they are in no wise unequivocal, and therefore necessitates for its binding effect the concurrence of the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. Neither implied consent can be presumed nor can it be contended that the waiver required under
Section 319 of the Tax Code is one which is unilateral nor can it be said that concurrence to such an agreement is a mere
formality because it is the very signatures of both the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, and the taxpayer which give
birth to such a valid agreement.
FACTS:
15 Jan 1982: Carnation Phils Inc. filed (1) Corporation Annual Income Tax Return for TY ending 30 Sept 1981, and (2)
Manufacturers/Producers Percentage Tax Return for qtr ending 30 Sept 1981.
- Signed three separate waivers of the Statute of Limitations under the NIRC wherein it waived the running of the
prescriptive period and consented to the assessment & collection of the taxes which may be found due after
reinvestigation & reconsideration at any time before or after the lapse of the period of limitations fixed by NIRC
Sections 318 & 319 but not after 13 Apr, 14 June, or 30 July 1987. However, it did not waive any prescription
already accrued in its favor.
- The waivers were not signed by the BIR Commissioner or any of his agents.
5 Aug 1987: Carnation received BIRs letter of demand dated 29 July 1987 asking it to pay P1,442,586.56 as deficiency
income tax, P14,152,683.85 as deficiency sales tax and P3,939,913.03 as deficiency sales tax on undeclared sales, all for
the year 1981. This was accompanied by assessment notices.
17 Aug 1987: In a basic protest, Carnation disputed the assessments and requested a reconsideration & reinvestigation
thereof. It later filed a supplemental protest. BIR Commissioner denied the protest.
CTA found the assessments null and void for having been issued beyond the five-year prescriptive period.
ISSUE: W/N the three waivers signed by the R are valid & binding as to toll the running of the prescriptive period for
assessment and not bar the Government from issuing the subject deficiency tax assessments.
HELD: No. NIRC 318 (now 203): SEC 318. Period of Limitations upon assessment and collection. - Except as provided
in the succeeding section, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within five years after the return was filed, and no
proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period.
For the purpose of this section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof shall be considered
as filed on such last day: Provided, That This limitation shall not apply to cases already investigated prior to the approval
of this Code.
CA decision affirming CTA decision established that the subject assessments of 29 July 1987 were issued outside the
statutory prescriptive period. Carnation filed its annual income tax and percentage tax returns for the fiscal year ending 30
Sept 1981 on 15 Jan 1982 and 20 Nov 1981, respectively. In accordance with 318, Rs 1981 income and sales taxes
could have been validly assessed only until 14 Jan 1987 and 19 Nov 1986, respectively. However, Carnations income
and sales taxes were assessed only on 29 July 1987, beyond the five-year prescriptive period.
P BIR: Waivers signed by Carnation were valid although not signed by BIR Commissioner because
(a) when the BIR agents/examiners extended the period to audit and investigate Carnations tax returns, the BIR gave its
implied consent to such waivers;
(b) the signature of the Commissioner is a mere formality and the lack of it does not vitiate the binding effect of the
waivers; and
(c) that a waiver is not a contract but a unilateral act of renouncing ones right to avail of the defense of prescription and
remains binding in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the waiver.
SC: Inaccurate! NIRC 319:
SEC. 319. Exceptions as to period of limitation of assessment and collection of taxes. -- (a) x x x
(b) Where before the expiration of the time prescribed in the preceding section for the assessment of the tax, both the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the taxpayer have consented in writing to its assessment after such time, the tax
may be assessed at any time prior to the expiration of the period agreed upon. The period so agreed upon may be
extended by subsequent agreement in writing made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon.
clear & explicit that waiver of the five-year prescriptive period must be in writing and signed by both the BIR
Commissioner and the taxpayer.
Here, the three waivers signed by Carnation do not bear the written consent of the BIR Commissioner as required
by law. SC agreed with the CTA in holding these waivers to be invalid and without any binding effect on Carnation
for the reason that there was no consent by the Commissioner.
Collector of Internal Revenue v. Solano: The only agreement that could have suspended the running of the prescriptive
period for the collection of the tax in question is, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Tax Appeals, a written agreement
between Solano and the Collector, entered into before the expiration of the of the five-year prescriptive period, extending
the limitation prescribed by law.
No such written agreement concerning the three waivers exists between Carnation and CIR
There is every reason to leave undisturbed the CAs conclusions all doubts as to the correctness of such conclusions
will be resolved in favor of CA.
Philippine Refining Co. vs. Court of Appeals: CTA is a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose
of reviewing tax cases. As a matter of principle, this Court will not set aside the conclusion reached by an agency
such as the Court of Tax Appeals which is, by the very nature of its function, dedicated exclusively to the study
and consideration of tax problems, and has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has
been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority. This point becomes more evident in the case under
consideration where the findings and conclusions of both the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals
appear untainted by any abuse of authority, much less grave abuse of discretion.
Waivers not unequivocal, and therefore necessitates for its binding effect the concurrence of the Commissioner. In fact, in
his reply dated 18 Apr 1995, the Solicitor General, representing the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, admitted that
subject waivers executed by Carnation were for and in consideration of the approval by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue of its request for reinvestigation and/or reconsideration of its internal revenue case involving tax assessments for
the fiscal year ended 30 Sept 1981 which were all pending at the time. On this basis neither implied consent can be
presumed nor can it be contended that the waiver required under Sec. 319 of the Tax Code is one which is unilateral nor
can it be said that concurrence to such an agreement is a mere formality because it is the very signatures of both the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the taxpayer which give birth to such a valid agreement.

19 CIR V CA (1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 CIR V CA (1999)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 CIR V CA (1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v.

COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, and CARNATION

You might also like