REPUBLIC O F THE PHILIPPINES

Court of Tax Appeals

QUEZON CITY

Third Division
DEREK ARTHUR P. RAMSAY, CTA Case N o. 8456
Petitioner,
Present:

Bautista, Chairperson
-versus- Fabon-Victorino, and
Ringpis-Liban, IL

COMMISSIONER OF Promulgated:
INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent. SEP 17 2015
x-------------------------------------------------~~---~q~-~~~~-----------------x
DECISION
BA UTI STA, I.:

The Petition for Review filed on April 11, 2012, pursuant to

Section 7(a)(1)1 of Republic Act ("RA") No. 1125/ as amended by RA
No. 92823 and RA No. 9503,4 seeks for the Court to render judgment
setting aside the Preliminary Assessment Notice, Formal Letter of
Demand, and Final Letter and to declare the assessment notices void.s

THE PART IES6

' Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. -The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by ap peal, as herein provided.
(1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed
assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or
other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue.
2 An Act C reating the Court of Tax Appeals, as amended.

3 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), Elevating its Rank to the
Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging its Mem bership, Amending for
the Purpose Certa in Sections of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, Otherwise Known as the Law
Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and for Other Purposes.
4 An Act Enlarging the Organizational Structure of the Court of Tax Appeals, Amending for the

Purpose Certain Sections of the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and for Other Purposes.
s Records, pp. 6-116, with Annexes.
6 Id., Petition for Review, p .9. I
/ ) ____,
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 2 of 24

Petitioner Dereck Arthur P. Ramsay is a Filipino, of legal age, and

with address located at Unit 424 Blanco Center, 119 Leviste St., Salcedo
Village, Makati City. He may be served with notices, pleadings, orders,
judgments, and other processes through his counsel, Mendoza
Navarro-Mendoza & Partners Law Offices at Unit 205 Amberland
Plaza, Julia Vargas Avenue & Jade Dive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City?

On the other hand, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue

("Commissioner") is the chief of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
("BIR"), the government agency officially responsible for the
assessment and collection of all national internal revenue taxes, fees and
charges and the enforcement of all forfeitures, penalties and fines
connected with such taxes. She may be served with summons, notices,
and other legal processes at 4th Floor, BIR National Office Building,
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On August 10, 2011, the Assistant Commissioner of Enforcement

Service of the BIR, Mr. James H. Roldan (" ASCOM") issued a
Preliminary Assessment Notice ("PAN") informing petitioner of its
deficiency income tax in the total amount of Php11,849,428.66 and
Value Added Tax ("VAT") in the total amount of Php6,381,069.80 for
the taxable years 2006 to 2009, and compromise penalty in the total of
Php125,000.00.s

On November 10, 2011, petitioner filed his Protest and alleged

that he did not receive any Letter of Authority ("LOA"); that he filed his
return, but late; and that he paid his income tax due for the taxable
years 2006 to 2009 with surcharge and penalties on October 19, 2010.9

On January 4, 2014, a Formal Letter of Demand ("FLD")lO with the

attached Details of Discrepancies11 was issued by ASCOM informing
petitioner again of his deficiency income tax and VAT for the taxable
years 2006 to 2009, and compromise penalty. 12
7 Records, Petition for Review, p. 14.

s Id., Annex" A," pp. 30-31.

'Id., Annex "B," pp. 35-39.
1o Id., Annex "C," pp. 41-43.
11 Id., pp. 44-45.
12 Id., Annex "C," pp. 43.
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 3 of 24

On February 20, 2012, a Final Demand Letter13 was issued by the

Chief, National Investigation Division of the BIR, Mr. Sixto C. Dy, Jr.,
stating that petitioner received a copy of the FLD with the attached
Details of Discrepancies on January 17, 2012, and that he was
demanding payment for the aforesaid deficiency internal revenue taxes.

On February 21, 2012, petitioner filed a Protest Letter to the FLD

stating that no notice of assessment was issued, therefore the issuance
of the FLD was illegal.14

On February 27, 2012, ASCOM wrote a letter addressed to the

counsels of petitioner alleging that the assessment had become final and
executory as he failed to file his protest within thirty (30) days from
receipt of the FLD on January 27, 2012.15

On April 11, 2012, unheeding the demands of respondent,

petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review.1 6

On June 18, 2012, respondent filed her Answer,17 interposing the

following Special and Affirmative Defenses:

"On the basis of the foregoing allegations and in further

support of the Specific Denials herein set forth, respondent
respectfully alleges as her defense that:

The Honorable Court has

no jurisdiction over the
present petition.

5. With all due respect, it is the position of the respondent that

the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the present
petition since the assessment has become final, executory and
demandable.

6. At the outset, petitioner received the Preliminary

Assessment Notice on 20 September 2011 and admittedly filed
a protest thereto only on 10 November 2011. Thus, petitioner
(~
13 Id., Annex "F," pp. 55-57.
14 Records, Annex "0," pp. 46-48.
15 I d., Annex "G," pp. 56-57.
16 Id., pp. 6-27.
17 Id., pp. 130-144.
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 4 of24

is already in default when he filed his protest to the

Preliminary Assessment Notice.

7. Section 3.1.2 of the Revenue Regulation 12-99

implementing the provisions of the National Internal Revenue
Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, governing assessment
states that:

'If after review and evaluation by the

Assessment Division or by the Commissioner or
his duly authorized representative, as the case
may be, it is determined that there exists
sufficient basis to assess the taxpayer for any
deficiency tax or taxes, the said Office shall issue
to the taxpayer, at least by registered mail, a
Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for the
proposed assessment, showing in detail, the facts
and the law, rules and regulations, or
jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment
is based (see illustration in Annex A hereof). If
the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15)
days from date of receipt of the PAN, he shall be
considered in default, in which case, a formal
letter of demand and assessment notice shall be
caused to be issued by the said Office, calling
for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax
liability, inclusive of the applicable penalties.'
(Emphasis supplied).

8. Accordingly, a Formal Letter of Demand with Assessment

Notices and Details of Discrepancies was issued by respondent
on 4 January 2012 and received by petitioner on 17 January
2012. Petitioner has thirty (30) days from receipt thereof to file
a protest. However, again petitioner belatedly filed his protest
thereto making the assessment final, executory and
demandable.

9. Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC)

of 1997, as amended provides for the period within which to
protest the decision of respondent assessing taxpayer for
deficiency taxes. The same is hereby quoted for ready
reference:

Section 228 of the 1997 Tax Code-

Decision
CfA Case No. 8456
Page 5 of 24

'Such assessment may be protested

administratively by filing a request for
reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty
(30) days from receipt of the assessment in such
form and manner as may be prescribed by
implementing rules and regulations. Within
sixty (60) days from filing of the protest all
relevant supporting documents shall have been
submitted, otherwise, the assessment shall
become final.' (Emphasis supplied).

10. Relative therewith Section 3.1.5 of the Revenue

Regulation 12-99 implementing the provisions of the NIRC of
1997, as amended, governing assessment further states that:

'A taxpayer or his duly authorized

representative may protest administratively
against the aforesaid formal letter of demand
and assessment notice within thirty (30) days
from date of receipt thereof.'

'If the taxpayer fails to file a valid protest

against the formal letter of demand and
assessment notice within thirty (30) days from
date of receipt thereof, the assessment shall
become final, executory and demandable.'
(Emphasis supplied).

11. Moreover, Paragraph 2 of Section 3.1.5 of Revenue

Regulation 12-99 provides -

'The taxpayer shall state the facts, the applicable

law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on
which his protest is based, otherwise, his protest
shall be considered void without force and effect.
X X X'(Emphasis supplied).

12. More so, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. First

Express Pawnshop Company, Inc. the Supreme Court held
that Section 228 of the NIRC and Section 3.1.5 of Revenue
Regulation 12-99 provides the remedy to dispute a tax
assessment within a certain period of time. It states that an
assessment may be protested by filing a request for
reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from ;-----/
receipt of the assessment by the taxpayer.
Decision
CfA Case No. 8456
Page 6 of 24

13. In the instant case, petitioner received the Formal Letter of

Demand on 17 January 2012 and filed his protest thereto only
on 21 February 2012. Besides, the aforementioned protest
letter cannot and should not be considered a protest letter as
required by the NIRC of 1997, as amended and Revenue
Regulation 12-99 since the contents thereof did not conform to
the requirements of the revenue regulation. It failed to state
the facts, law or jurisprudence as required by the
implementing rules. It is nothing but a mere scrap of paper,
devoid of any substantiation with facts or law. Consequently,
the protest is considered void.

14. Further, since the said letter was filed beyond the thirty
(30)-day reglementary period to file protest and the contents
thereof did not conform with the requirements of the revenue
regulation for it failed to state the facts, law or jurisprudence
as required by the implementing rules, hence, it should be
considered void and without force and effect.

15. At the same time, the issues presented are a mere rehash of
petitioner's previous arguments in the protest to the
Preliminary Assessment Notice, all of which have been
considered and found without merit by respondent.

16. In light of the foregoing, there is no need to issue a Final

Decision on Disputed Assessment since the Formal Letter of
Demand with Notices and Details of Discrepancies had
already attained finality and rs now executory and
demandable.

17. Nonetheless, respondent accorded due process to

petitioner by issuing a letter dated 27 February 2012 informing
him that the said letter should be considered as the final
decision of respondent denying his protest on the Preliminary
Assessment Notice and Formal Letter of Demand.

18. In the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Liam Tian

Teng Sons & Co., Inc. the Court held that when petitioner
failed to file an administrative protest on the formal letter of
demand with the corresponding assessment notices, the
assessments did not become disputed assessments as subject
to the Court's Review under RA No. 9282. Since there is no
disputed assessment the Honorable Court did not acquire
jurisdiction in the case at bar. ~
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 7 of 24

The Assessment on
Deficiency Income Tax,
Value Added Tax was
issued in accordance with
law, rules and
jurisprudence.

19. The assessment for the taxable years 2006 to 2009

deficiency Income Tax and Value-Added Tax in the aggregate
amount of Twenty Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Two
Hundred Ninety-Eight and 40/100 Pesos (Php20,250,298.40)
was issued in accordance with law, rules and jurisprudence.

20. Under Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, a valid assessment

is accomplished following the stages of Notice of Informal
Conference, Preliminary Assessment Notice and Final
Assessment Notice. The procedure prescribed under RR. No.
12-99 have been complied with by respondent as can be
deduced from the following narration of facts.

21. Foremost, petitioner received the Letter of Authority No.

211-2010-00000237 dated 8 October 2010 on 9 October 2010,
authorizing the revenue examiners named therein to examine
the books of accounts and other accounting records of
petitioner for all internal revenue taxes for the period 1
January 2006 to 31 December 2009.

22. Request for presentation of records were issued and duly

received by petitioner on 8 October 2010 and 8 December 2010,
respectively. And in view of the failure of petitioner to comply
with the requirements for tax investigation a subpoena duces
tecum was issued against him.

23. A Notice of Informal Conference was received by

petitioner on 3 May 2011 informing petitioner of its findings
and giving the latter the opportunity to offer explanation,
present objections and submit documentary evidence to refute
the said findings.

24. The Preliminary Assessment Notice with Details of

Discrepancy dated 10 August 2011 was issued to petitioner
and received on 20 September 2011. Subsequently, the Formal
Letter of Demand with Notices and Details of Discrepancies
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
PageS of 24

dated 17 January 2012 was issued to the petitioner as well. On

27 February 2012, respondent issued final decision on the
disputed assessment.

25. Admittedly, petitioner filed a protest to the Preliminary

Assessment Notice as well as to the Formal Letter of Demand
with Notices and Details of Discrepancies. Hence, there is no
denying that petitioner was informed of the factual and legal
bases of the deficiency assessment.

26. The fact that petitioner filed protest means that it was
informed of the findings of the Revenue Officer. The protest
although erroneous and self-serving was accomplished with
meticulous details trying in vain to overthrow the findings of
deficiency income tax and VAT assessment.

27. Also without merit is the contention of petitioner that

neither he nor his authorized representative received any of
the correspondences from respondent. As can be gleaned from
the records, the same person by the name of Lalaine Paraoan
acknowledged the receipt of each letter and/ or issuances of
the respondent by affixing her signature therein and
specifying the date of receipt. Lalaine Paraoan is said to be the
receptionist/ secretary of petitioner. Clearly, petitioner cannot
deny such fact of receipt.

28. Further, respondent humbly disagrees with petitioner's

position that his counsel has the sole authority to receive any
letter and/ or issuances from respondent. In fact, the Special
Power of Attorney issued by petitioner only include[s] the
following:

1) To execute, authenticate, negotiate, execute

and/ or sign for or in my behalf any eligible
documents required therein by (sic) Bureau of
Internal Revenue;

2) To represent, enter into compromise

agreement or any legal appearances in my behalf
with (sic) Bureau of Internal Revenue.

29. Nowhere in the Special Power of Attorney states that

petitioner's counsel has the sole authority to recetve
correspondences from respondent. Therefore, the fact of
/
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 9 of 24

receipt of each letter and/ or issuances from respondent by

Lalaine Paraoan is valid and can stand in court. Because how
can petitioner reply or file protest if he has not received or
been apprised of all the correspondences in relation to the
assessment of his deficiency income tax and VAT.

30. In view of the foregoing, petitioner is liable to pay the

assessed deficiency taxes. The examiner's assessment should
be given full weight and credit, in the absence of proof
submitted by petitioner to the contrary. This is in line with the
High Court's ruling in several cases wherein the Court said
that tax assessments by tax examiners are prima facie
presumed correct and made in good faith. The taxpayer has
the duty to prove otherwise. In the absence of proof of any
irregularities in the performance of duties, an assessment
duly made by a Bureau of Internal Revenue examiner and
approved by his superior officers will not be disturbed. All
presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax
assessments. The case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.
Construction Resources of Asia, Inc., where the Court cited 51
Am. Jur. Pp. 620-621, states the principle in detail, thus:

All presumptions are in favor of the correctness

of tax assessments. The good faith of tax
assessors and the validity of their actions are
presumed. They will be presumed to have taken
into consideration all the facts to which their
attention was called. No presumption can be
indulged that all of the public officials of the
State in the various countries who have to do
with the assessment of property for taxation will
knowingly violate the duties imposed upon them
by law.

31. In another case decided by the Supreme Court, the

Honorable Court espouses:

We agree with the contention of the petitioner

that, as a general rule, tax assessments by tax
examiners are presumed correct and made in
good faith. All presumptions are in favor of the
correctness of a tax assessment. It is to be
presumed, however, that such assessment was
based on sufficient evidence. Upon th(L_,
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 10 of 24

introduction of the assessment in evidence, a

prima facie case of liability on the part of the
taxpayer is made. If a taxpayer files a petition
for review in the CT A and assails the
assessment, the prima facie presumption is that
the assessment made by the BIR is correct, and
that in preparing the same, the BIR personnel
regularly performed their duties. This rule for
tax initiated suits is premised on several factors
other than the normal evidentiary rule imposing
proof obligation on the petitioner-taxpayer: the
presumption of administrative regularity; the
likelihood that the taxpayer will have access to
the relevant information; and the desirability of
bolstering the record-keeping requirements of
the NIRC. (Emphasis supplied).

32. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to overcome the

presumption of correctness of the respondent's assessment.

Petitioner has the

obligation to pay the
corresponding taxes for all
the income he received
during taxable years 2006 to
2009.

33. Petitioner's argument that he is not liable to pay the

income ta~ and VAT for taxable years 2006 to 2009 does not
hold water. For the entire income petitioner received from his
career as a Professional Actor and a Commercial Model
during taxable years 2006 to 2009 he has the obligation to pay
the corresponding taxes.

34. Under Section 32(A) of the National Internal Revenue

Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, all income derived from
whatever source form part of the gross income is subject to
tax.

35. Moreover, for failure to file Annual Income Tax Returns for
taxable years 2006 to 2009, no optional standard deduction
was accorded to the taxpayer. It was only on 19 October 2010
or after the service of the Letter of Authority that he filed his
Annual Income Tax Returns for taxable years 2006 to 2009.
The act of belated filing of the aforementioned returns runs r--
1
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 11 of 24

counter to the provision of Section 6(A) of the NIRC of 1997, as

amended, which reads as follows:

XXX ... XXX ... XXX

'Any return, statement or declaration filed in any

office authorized to receive the same shall not be
withdrawn; Provided, That within three (3) years
from the date of such filing, the same may be
modified, changed or amended: Provided,
further, That no notice for audit or investigation
of such return, statement or declaration has, in
the meantime, been actually served upon the
taxpayer.'

36. Having filed the Annual Income Tax Returns after the
service of the Letter of Authority, the availment of the optional
standard deduction under Section 34(L) of the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, was
disregarded.

37. Likewise, petitioner is liable to pay VAT pursuant to

Section 105 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which provides:

38. The phrase 'sale or exchange of services' is defined by

Section 108 of the NIRC, as amended, as 'performance of all
kinds of services for others for a fee, remuneration or
consideration.' It includes 'similar services regardless of
whether or not the performance thereof calls for the exercise
or use of the physical or mental faculties.'

39. Hence, it is immaterial whether the primary purpose of

the service is to pursue a hobby, without realizing profit, for
purposes of determining liability for VAT or services
rendered. As long as the person provides services for a fee,
remuneration or consideration, then the service rendered is
subject to VAT.

40. The disallowance of the input taxes corresponding to

petitioners purchases was due to his failure to submit
supporting documents showing that the purchases were made
from VAT-registered persons and that their issuance of the
VAT invoice or official receipt was in accordance with Section
,-----
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 12 of 24

113 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as

amended.

41. It is worthy to note that petitioner failed to file his VAT

returns for taxable years 2006 and 2007 while his 2008 and
2009 Quarterly VAT returns were filed only 2 March 2011,
again, after the service of the Letter of Authority.

42. In view of the foregoing, petitioner is liable to pay the

deficiency assessment on VAT.

43. To our mind, petitioner has not pointed out any provision
or item in the assessment notice which bears a trace of falsity.
His averments were based on conjectures, surmises and
speculations. These cannot supply the basis for the charge of
impropriety in the assessments made.

44. Considering that the assessment against petitioner is

deemed final, executory and demandable it is already
considered as an account receivable and asset of the
government. Thus, petitioner is liable to pay its deficiency
income tax and VAT assessments for taxable years 2006 to
2009.

45. At any rate, it is worthy to stress that the power to tax, an

inherent prerogative, has to be availed of to assure the
performance of vital state functions. It is the source of the bulk
of public funds. To paraphrase a recent decision, a tax being
the lifeblood of the government, its prompt and certain
availability is of the essence. The state will be deprived of the
taxes validly due it and the public will suffer if taxpayers will
not be held liable for the proper taxes assessed against them.

46. Well-settled is the principle that taxes are imposed for the
support of the government in return for the general advantage
and protection which the government affords to taxpayers and
their property. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government. It is
imperative that the power to impose them to be clothed with
the implied authority to devise ways and means to accomplish
their collection in the most effective manner. Without this
implied power the end of government may falter or fail.
I
/
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 13 of 24

On July 12, 2012, a pre-trial conference was set. 18 Respondent filed

her "Respondent's Pre-trial Briefl 9" on July 5, 2012, while petitioner
filed his "Pre-trial Brief20" on July 6, 2012.

After the termination of the pre-trial, the parties were granted a

period of fifteen days to file their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues. 21

On August 17, 2012, the parties filed their Joint Stipulation of

Facts and Issues.22

On May 21, 2013, petitioner presented Exhibits" A" to "X-1" in his

"Formal Offer of Evidence,23" while, respondent presented Exhibits "R-
1" to "R-30-A" in her "Respondent's Formal Offer of Documentary
Evidence.24"

In a Resolution dated August 5, 2013 25 and January 17, 2014,26

the Court admitted petitioner's Exhibits "B-2, D,D-1, E, E-1, H, H-1,
H-2, H-3, H-4, H-5, H-6, H-7, H-8, H-9, I, I-1, I-2, I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, J, J-
1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-6, J-7, J-8, J-9, K, K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, K-5, K-6, K-7, K-8,
K-9, K-10, K-11, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, S, T, V,V-1, W, W-1." On the
other hand, in a Resolution dated July 1, 2014,27 the Court admitted
all of respondent's exhibits.

After the presentation of both parties evidence, the case was

submitted for decision after the parties filed their respective
memoranda within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice to file
the same. 28

Petitioner filed his "Memorandum for the Petitioner" on

August 26, 2014, 29 while respondent filed her "Memorandum" on
September 10, 2014.

18 Records, p. 148.
19 Id., pp.159-165.
2o Id., pp167-175.
21 Id., Resolution dated August 6, 2012, p. 185.
n Id., pp. 186-190.
23 Id., pp. 394-404.
24 Id., pp. 826-846.
25 Id., p. 662.
" Id., p. 760.
27 Id., p. 865.
28 Id., p. 865.

29 Id., pp. 877-921.

Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 14 of 24

Hence, this Decision.

ISSUES

As stipulated upon by the parties, the issues for the Court's

consideration are:3o

1. WHETHER PETITIONER RECEIVED HIS COPY OF THE

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 10
AUGUST 2011, THE FORMAL LETTER OF DEMAND
DATED 4 JANUARY 2012, AND/OR THE FINAL
DEMAND LETTER DATED 20 FEBRUARY 2012;

2. WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A FINAL

ASSESSMENT NOTICE;

3. WHETHER PETITIONER'S PROTEST TO THE

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT NOTICE AND THE
FORMAL LETTER OF DEMAND/FINAL ASSESSMENT
NOTICE WAS TIMELY FILED;

4. WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT HAS BECOME FINAL

AND EXECUTORY;

5. WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT ACQUIRED

JURISDICTION OVER THE PRESENT PETITION;

6. WHETHER RESPONDENT COMPLIED WITH THE DUE

PROCESS REQUIREMENT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE
TAX CODE WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUANCE OF A
DEFICIENCY TAX ASSESSMENT;

7. WHETHER PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR THE TOTAL

TAX DEFICIENCY AMOUNT OF TWENTY MILLION TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
NINETY-EIGHT PESOS AND FORTY CENTAVOS
(PHP20,250,298.40) FOR THE YEARS 2006,2007,2008, AND
2009, AS WELL AS THE CORRESPONDING PENALTY
AND DEFICIENCY AND DELINQUENCY INTEREST,
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 288 AND 249 OF THE TAX
CODE. -~
/
30 Records, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues, pp. 188-189.
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 15 of 24

Petitioner's Arguments:

Petitioner alleges that he did not receive a FAN as the FLD dated
January 4, 2012 was not accompanied by any FAN. He further avers
that neither he nor his authorized representative received any Letters
and Notices as the said documents were sent to Unit 424 Blanco Center,
119 Leviste St., Salcedo Village, Makati City, which is not his address
stated in his Income Tax Return ("ITR"), and not the address of his
authorized representative, Atty. Epifania N. Mendoza, CPA. 31

He further argues that he already made payment of his income

tax deficiency as shown in his Annual ITRs for the years 2006 to 2009
therefore, he cannot be assessed for the same.32

Respondent's Counter-Arguments:

Respondent argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the

Petition for Review as the FLD with assessment notices have become
final, executory and demandable when petitioner failed to timely file a
protest thereon.

Furthermore, she avers that the address of petitioner in the BIR

records is the one located at Unit 408 Cattleya Condominium, Salcedo
Street, Legaspi Village, Makati, therefore when she sent the Notices to
the said address, it was deemed received by petitioner.

Finally, she avers that there was compliance with the due process
requirement prescribed in Section 228 of the NIRC and Revenue
Regulations ("RR") No. 12-99 as the PAN on deficiency income tax and
VAT, FLD were issued in accordance with law, rules and jurisprudence.

RULING OF THE COURT

From the foregoing issues, it is primordial to resolve the issue of

whether petitioner was denied due process when respondent only sent
the FLD with attached Details of Discrepancies pursuant to Section 228
of the NIRC as implemented by Section 3 of RR No. 12-99.

31Records, Petition for Review, pp. 14-19.

32Jd., pp. 20-27.
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 16 of24

Section 228 of the NIRC and Section 3 of RR No. 12-99 provide:

SEC. 228. Protesting of Assessment. - When the

Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds
that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the
taxpayer of his findings: Provided, however, that a pre-
assessment notice shall not be required in the following cases:

XXX XXX XXX

The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law

and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the
assessment shall be void.

XXX XXX XXX

Section 3. Due Process Requirement in the Issuance of a

Deficiency Tax Assessment. -

3.1 Mode of procedures in the issuance of a deficiency tax

assessment:

XXX XXX XXX

3.1.2 Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN). - If after

review and evaluation by the Assessment Division or by the
Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, as the
case may be, it is determined that there exists sufficient basis
to assess the taxpayer for any deficiency tax or taxes, the said
Office shall issue to the taxpayer, at least by registered mail,
a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) for the proposed
assessment, showing in detail, the facts and the law, rules
and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the proposed
assessment is based (see illustration in ANNEX A hereof). If
the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15) days from
date of receipt of the PAN, he shall be considered in default,
in which case, a formal letter of demand and assessment
notice shall be caused to be issued by the said Office, calling
for payment of the taxpayer's deficiency tax liability,
inclusive of the applicable penalties.
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 17 of 24

XXX XXX XXX

3.1.4 Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice. -

The formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be
issued by the Commissioner or his duly authorized
representative. The letter of demand calling for payment of
the taxpayer's deficiency tax or taxes shall state the facts, the
law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the
assessment is based, otherwise, the formal letter of demand
and assessment notice shall be void (see illustration in
ANNEX B hereof). The same shall be sent to the taxpayer
only by registered mail or by personal delivery. If sent by
personal delivery, the taxpayer or his duly authorized
representative shall acknowledge receipt thereof in the
duplicate copy of the letter of demand, showing the
following: (a) his name; (b) signature; (c) designation and
authority to act for and in behalf of the taxpayer, if
acknowledged received by a person other than the taxpayer
himself; and (d) date of receipt thereof." (Emphasis supplied)

Interpreting the foregoing, the case of Commissioner of Internal

Revenue vs. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc.,33 is a case in point
where the Supreme Court has held that procedures provided in Section
228 of the NIRC and Section 3 of RR No. 12-99 are mandatory; non-
compliance therewith renders the assessment void, to wit:

"Indeed, Section 228 of the Tax Code provides that the

taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the law and the
facts on which the assessment is made. Otherwise, the
assessment is void. To implement the aforesaid provision,
Revenue Regulation No. 12-99 was enacted by the BIR, of
which Section 3.1.4 thereof reads:

3.1.4. Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice.

-The formal letter of demand and assessment notice shall be
issued by the Commissioner or his duly authorized
representative. The letter of demand calling for payment of
the taxpayer's deficiency tax or taxes shall state the facts, the
law, rules and regulations, or jurisprudence on which the
assessment is based, otherwise, the formal letter of demand
and assessment notice shall be void. The same shall be sent

33 G.R. No. 197515, July 2, 2014. /

Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 18 of24

to the taxpayer only by registered mail or by personal

delivery. x x x

It is clear from the foregoing that a taxpayer must be

informed in writing of the legal and factual bases of the tax
assessment made against him. The use of the word 'shall' in
these legal provisions indicates the mandatory nature of the
requirements laid down therein.

xxx xxx xxx. Any short-cuts to the prescribed content of

the assessment or the process thereof should not be
countenanced, in consonance with the ruling in the case of
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Enron Subic Power
Corporation, the Supreme Court has held that it is mandatory
to wit:

The CIR insists that an examination of the facts shows

that Emon was properly apprised of its tax deficiency.
During the pre-assessment stage, the CIR advised Emon's
representative of the tax deficiency, informed it of the
proposed tax deficiency assessment through a preliminary
five-day letter and furnished Emon a copy of the audit
working paper allegedly showing in detail the legal and
factual bases of the assessment. The CIR argues that these
steps sufficed to inform Emon of the laws and facts on
which the deficiency tax assessment was based.

We disagree. The advice of tax deficiency, given by the

CIR to an employee of Emon, as well as the preliminary five-
day letter, were not valid substitutes for the mandatory
notice in writing of the legal and factual bases of the
assessment. These steps were mere perfunctory discharges
of the CIR's duties incorrectly assessing a taxpayer. The
requirement for issuing a preliminary or final notice, as the
case may be, informing a taxpayer of the existence of a
deficiency tax assessment is markedly different from the
requirement of what such notice must contain. Just because
the CIR issued an advice, a preliminary letter during the pre-
assessment stage and a final notice, in the order required by
law, does not necessarily mean that Emon was informed of
the law and facts on which the deficiency tax assessment
was made.
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 19 of 24

The law requires that the legal and factual bases of the
assessment be stated in the formal letter of demand and
assessment notice. Thus, such cannot be presumed.
Otherwise, the express provisions of Article 228 of the NIRC
and RR No. 12-99 would be rendered nugatory. The alleged
'factual bases'in the advice, preliminary letter and 'audit
working papers' did not suffice. There was no going around
the mandate of the law that the legal and factual bases of the
assessment be stated in writing in the formal letter of
demand accompanying the assessment notice." (Emphasis
supplied).

From the foregoing, it is clear that it is a requirement of due

process that not only a FLD be sent to a taxpayer but it must include an
assessment notice.

An assessment notice has been described by the Supreme Court in

the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pascor Realty and
Development Corporation, Rogelio A. Dio and Virginia 5. Dio,34 as a "notice
to the effect that the amount therein stated is due as tax and a demand
for payment thereof."

To determine whether an assessment notice was sent, the FLD

dated January 4, 2012 with the attached Details of Discrepancies3s are
herein reproduced:

January 4, 2012
FORMAL LETTER OF DEMAND

Mr. Derek P. Ramsay

Unit 408 Cattleya Condominium
Salcedo St. Legaspi Village, Makati

Sir:

Please be informed that after investigation there has been found

due from you deficiency internal revenue taxes for taxable years 2006
to 2009 as shown hereunder:

INCOME TAX
2006 2007 2008 2009
Gross Taxable Income 4,311,247.34 4,806,197.33 7,833,098.74 17,179,723.00
Less: Personal 20,000.00 20,000.00 35,000.00 50,000.00
Exemption

34 G.R. No. 128315 June 29, 1999,309 SCRA 402.

35 BIR Records, CTA Case No. 8456, pp. 333-337.
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 20 of 24

Total Taxable Inc. 4,291,247.34 4,786,197.33 7,798,098.74 17,129,723.00

Basic Income Tax Due 1,338,199.15 1,496,583.15 2,460,391.60 5,446,511.36
Surcharge 669,099.58 748,291.58 1,230,195.80 2,723,255.68
Interest up to 1,282,088.45 1,134,514.78 1,373,070.74 1,950,232.32
02/08/12
Total Deficiency 3,289,387.18 3,379,389.51 5,043,802.78 10,076,046.01
Income Tax Due
Less:Tax 1,508,605.73 1,867,150.65 2,154,164.79 3,527,064.16
Paid/Withheld
Total Deficiency 1,780,781.45 1,512,238.86 2,909,493.35 6,592,935.20
Income Tax still due

TOTAL INCOME TAX DUE P12,795,448.86

VALUE ADDED TAX

2006 2007 2008 2009
Taxable Income *4,311,247.34 4,806,197.33 7,833,098.74 17,179,723.00
VAT Due 510,164.12 576,743.68 939,971.85 2,061,566. 76
Surcharge 255,082.06 288,371.84 469,985.93 1,030,783.38
Interest 02/08/12 514,005.65 461,829.23 564,690.90 826,179.06
TotalVATDue 1,279,251.83 1,326,944.75 1,974,648.68 3,918,529.20
Less: Tax Paid 514,600.12 1,270,092.86
Deficiency VAT 1,272,987.02 1,326,944.75 1,460,048.56 2,648,436.34
*11.833333 vat
rate

TOTAL VALUE ADDED TAX DUE P6,714,681.48

SUMMARY:

TOTAL INCOME TAX DUE P12,795,448.86

TOTAL VALUE ADDED TAX DUE 6,714,681.48

TOTAL DEFICIENCY TAXES DUE Pl9,510,130.34

COMPROMISE PENALTY
P25,000.00
NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS
NON FILING OF RETURNS 100,000.00

TOTAL COMPROMISE PENALTIES Pl25,000.00

Please note that the interest and the total amount due will have to be adjusted if
paid beyond February 8, 2012.

The complete details covering the aforementioned discrepancies

established during the investigation of this case are shown in the
accompanying ANNEX A of this Preliminary Assessment Notice.

The 50% surcharge has been imposed pursuant to the provisions of

Section 248(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended by
R.A. No. 8424, for willful failure to file the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 tax
returns within the period prescribed by the law.

The 20% interest per annum has been imposed pursuant to the
provision of Section 249(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code.
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 21 of 24

In view thereof, you are hereby requested to pay your aforesaid

deficiency tax liabilities through the duly authorized bank in which you are
emolled within the time shown in the enclosed assessment notice.

Very truly yours,

KIM S. JACINTO-HEN ARES

Commissioner of Internal Revenue

By:

JAMES H. ROLDAN
Assistant Commissioner
Enforcement Service

ANNEX "A"

Mr. Derek Arthur P. Ramsay

Unit 408 Cattleya Condominium
Salcedo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City

DETAILS OF DISCREPANCIES

Non-filing of Income Tax and VAT Returns and non-payment of

Income Tax and Valued Added Tax at the times required by law and revenue
regulations as punishable under Sec. 255 of the NIRC of 1997.

Income Tax

Under Section 32(A) of the Tax Code all income derived from
whatever source form part of the Gross income and are subject to Income Tax.

Value Added Tax

Section 108 of the Tax Code prescribes that all gross receipts from the
sale or exchange of services rendered are subject to 12% Value Added Tax
(VAT).

The 50% surcharge was imposed for willful neglect to file the 2006 to
2009 tax returns as provided under Sec. 248 (B) of the National Internal
Revenue Code of 1977, as amended by Republic Act No. 8424.

The 20% interest per annum has been imposed pursuant to the
provision of Sec 249(B) of the tax code.

Compromise Penalties

Corresponding compromise penalties for failure to maintain books of

accounts as provided under Sec. 232 of the NIRC, as amended and non-filing
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 22 of 24

of VAT returns as provided under Sec. 255 of the tax code were imposed
pursuant to RMO 19-2007 dated August 8, 2007.

JAMES H. ROLDAN
Assistant Commissioner
Enforcement Group

From the foregoing, it is clear that what were stated in the FLD
dated January 4, 2012 with the attached Details of Discrepancies were:
1. computations and tabulations of the alleged deficiency taxes due,
together with interest, surcharge, penalty, and their respective basis in
law for taxable years 2006 to 2009; 2. a request to pay the deficiency
internal revenue tax liabilities through the duly authorized agent
bank in which he is enrolled within the time shown in the enclosed
assessment notice; and 3. a note that the interest and total amount
due shall be adjusted if paid beyond February 8, 2012.36"

These statements do not amount to an assessment notice as there

was no mention of a definite time when payment was due and
demandable. 37

In the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star

Superama, Inc.3 8 it has been held that due process is satisfied if the FAN
states the computation of tax liabilities and a demand to pay within the
prescribed period was sent to the taxpayer.

In the present case, since there was no demand to pay within a

specified period of time to be found in the FLD and the attached Details
of Discrepancies, the issuance of the same did not amount to a FAN.

Therefore, the FLD together with the attached Details of

Discrepancies are void for being non-compliant with the mandatory
requirements of Section 228 of the NIRC and Section 3 of the RR No. 12-
99.

"'BIR Records, CTA Case No. 8456, pp. 333-337.

' 7 Records, Exhibit "C," pp. 41-45.
38
G.R. No. 185371 December 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 633.
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 23 of 24

Considering the foregoing, the Court need not discuss petitioner's

failure to receive any of the Notices, for it is well-settled that a void
assessment bears no fruit.3 9

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby

GRANTED. Accordingly, the Formal Letter of Demand dated
January 4, 2012, demanding the payment of deficiency income and
VAT assessment in the total amount of P18,230,498.46 for the period
covering taxable years 2006 to 2009, which 1s void, 1s hereby
CANCELLED and WITHDRAWN.

SO ORDERED.

LOVELL . BAUTISTA
Ass ciate Justice
hairperson

WE CONCUR:

;'

.A 4_ .4' .......
~- 7~
ABON-VICTORINO MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court's Division.

LOV L R. BAUTISTA
Associate Justice
Chairperson

39 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Azucena T. Reyes, G.R. No. 159694 & G.R. No. 163581 January 27,
2006, 382 SCRA 480.
Decision
CTA Case No. 8456
Page 24 of24

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

u Q
Presiding Justice