20 BPI vs. CIR (GR No. 139736, October 17, 2005)
20 BPI vs. CIR (GR No. 139736, October 17, 2005)
20 BPI vs. CIR (GR No. 139736, October 17, 2005)
*
G.R. No. 139736. October 17, 2005.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
206
207
208
209
210
211
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 17, 2005 211
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
1
1999, which reversed and set aside the Decision of2 the
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), dated 02 February 1999, and
which reinstated Assessment No. FAS-5-85-89-002054
requiring petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) to
pay the amount of P28,020.00 as deficiency documentary
stamp tax (DST) for the taxable year 1985, inclusive of the
compromise penalty.
There is hardly any controversy as to the factual
antecedents of this Petition.
Petitioner BPI is a commercial banking corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines.
On two separate occasions, particularly on 06 June 1985
and 14 June 1985, it sold United States (US) $500,000.00
to the Central Bank of the Philippines (Central Bank), for
the total sales amount of US$1,000,000.00.
On 10 October 1989, the Bureau of Internal Revenue
3
(BIR) issued Assessment No. FAS-5-85-89-002054, finding
petitioner BPI liable for deficiency DST on its afore-
mentioned sales of foreign bills of exchange to the Central
Bank, computed as follows—
_______________
213
VOL. 473, OCTOBER 17, 2005 213
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue
Sir:
4 Id., p. 33.
214
_______________
5 Id., p. 34.
6 BIR Records, p. 28.
7 Id., pp. 28-29.
215
_______________
8 CTA Rollo, pp. 35-36.
9 Id., pp. 1-4.
10 Id., pp. 21-25.
216
217
Section 320 (now 223) of the Tax Code, clearly states that a
request for reinvestigation which is granted by the Commissioner,
shall suspend the prescriptive period to collect. The underscored
portion above does not mean that the Commissioner will cancel
the subject assessment but should be construed as when the same
was entertained by the Commissioner by not issuing any warrant
of distraint or levy on the properties of the taxpayer or any action
prejudicial to the latter unless and until the request for
reinvestigation is finally given due course. Taking into
consideration this provision of law and the aforementioned ruling
of the Supreme Court in Wyeth Suaco which specifically and
categorically states that a protest could be considered as a request
for reinvestigation, We11 rule that prescription has not set in
against the government.
_______________
218
_______________
219
_______________
15 Batas Pambansa Blg. 700 (approved on 05 April 1984) amended the Tax Code
of 1977 by shortening the period of limitations on assessment and collection of
national internal revenue taxes from the original five years to three years. The
shorter three-year prescriptive period shall apply to assessments made on or after
05 April 1984 covering taxable years beginning 01 January 1984.
220
period shall be counted from the day the return was filed. For the
purposes of this section, a return filed before the last day
prescribed by law16 for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed
on such last day.
_______________
221
_______________
(b) If before the expiration of the time prescribed in Section [203] for
the assessment of the tax, both the Commissioner and the
taxpayer have agreed in writing to its assessment after such time,
the tax may be assessed within the period agreed upon. The period
so agreed upon may be extended by subsequent written agreement
made before the expiration of the period previously agreed upon.
(c) Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the
period of limitation as prescribed in paragraph (a) hereof may be
collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court within five
(5) years following the assessment of the tax.
(d) Any internal revenue tax, which has been assessed within the
period agreed upon as provided in paragraph (b) hereinabove, may
be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court within
the period agreed upon in writing before the expiration of the five
(5)-year period. The period so agreed upon may be extended by
subsequent written agreements made before the expiration of the
period previously agreed upon.
(e) Provided, however, That nothing in the immediately preceding
Section and paragraph (a) hereof shall be con
222
_______________
strued to authorize the examination and investigation or inquiry into
any tax return filed in accordance with the provisions of any tax amnesty
law or decree.
18 Reproduced as Section 223 of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended.
19 Now a five-year period, under Section 222(c) of the Tax Code of 1997,
as amended, supra, note 17.
223
224
_______________
4
225
II
_______________
226
_______________
26 Currently Sections 222 and 223 of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended.
227
_______________
228
229
_______________
230
PROTEST TO ASSESSMENT
_______________
232
_______________
233
_______________
234
_______________
235
III
_______________
236
_______________
237
_______________
238
_______________
239
240
_______________
241
_______________
242
IV
Conclusion
——o0o——