Scribd
Upload
32 views1 page

CIR V Suyoc

The Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company was unable to file its 1941 income tax return on time due to wartime conditions. It filed several amended returns between 1945-1946. In 1947, the Bureau of Internal Revenue assessed taxes based on the 1946 return. Suyoc requested extensions to pay but failed to do so. It then repeatedly asked the BIR to reconsider the assessment. The Supreme Court ruled that Suyoc could not invoke prescription as a defense, as its multiple requests had prevented the BIR from collecting taxes within the standard limitation period. The Court applied estoppel principles, finding that a taxpayer cannot benefit from delays it directly caused through requests for leniency.

Uploaded by

Beya Amaro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
32 views1 page

CIR V Suyoc

The Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company was unable to file its 1941 income tax return on time due to wartime conditions. It filed several amended returns between 1945-1946. In 1947, the Bureau of Internal Revenue assessed taxes based on the 1946 return. Suyoc requested extensions to pay but failed to do so. It then repeatedly asked the BIR to reconsider the assessment. The Supreme Court ruled that Suyoc could not invoke prescription as a defense, as its multiple requests had prevented the BIR from collecting taxes within the standard limitation period. The Court applied estoppel principles, finding that a taxpayer cannot benefit from delays it directly caused through requests for leniency.

Uploaded by

Beya Amaro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

CIR v. Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company|G.R. No.

L-11527| ● CIR refrained from collecting the tax by distraint or levy or by


November 25, 1958| J. Bautista Angelo proceeding in court within the 5-year period from the filing of
the second amended final return due to the several requests of
FACTS: respondent for extension to which petitioner yielded to give it
● Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company, a mining corporation every opportunity to prove its claim regarding the correctness of
operating before the war, was unable to file in 1942 its income the assessment. It is most unfair for Suyoc to now take
tax return for the year 1941 due to the last war. After liberation, advantage of such desistance to elude his deficiency income tax
Congress enacted Commonwealth Act No. 722 which extended liability to the prejudice of the Government invoking the
the filing of tax returns for 1941 up to December 31, 1945. Its technical ground of prescription.
records having been lost or destroyed, the company requested ● He who prevents a thing from being done may not avail himself
the Collector of Internal Revenue to grant it an extension of of the non-performance which he has himself occasioned, for
time to file its return, which was granted until February 15, the law says to him in effect "this is your own act and therefore
1946, and the company was authorized to file its return for 1941 you are not damnified." (R.H. Stearns Co. v. U.S. 78 L Ed.
on the basis of the best evidence obtainable. 6647). Or, as was aptly said, "The tax could have been collected,
● Several returns for the year 1941 were filed by Suyoc. On the but the government withheld action at the specific request of
basis of the second final return filed by the company on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is now estopped and should not be
November 28, 1946, the Collector assessed against it a particular permitted to raise the defense of the statute of limitations."
sum as income tax on February 11, 1947. (Newpoint Co. v. U.S. (Dc-wis), 34 Off. Supp. 588.)
● Company asked for an extension CIR granted only a 3 month ● A mere request for reexamination or reinvestigation of
extension to pay. assessment may not suspend the running of the period of
● The company failed to pay the tax within the period granted to limitation for in such a case there is need of a written agreement
it and so the Collector sent to it a letter on November 28, 1950 to extend the period between the Collector and the taxpayer.
demanding payment of the tax due as assessed, plus surcharge There are cases, however, where a taxpayer may be prevented
and interest up to December 31, 1950. from setting up the defense of prescription even if he has not
● On April 6, 1951, the company asked for a reconsideration and previously waived it in writing as when by his repeated requests
reinvestigation of the assessment, which was granted, the case or positive acts the Government has been, for good reasons,
being assigned to another examiner, but the Collector made persuaded to postpone collection to make himself feel that the
another assessment against the company on April 1952. demand was not unreasonable or that no harassment or injustice
● After several other negotiations conducted at the request of is meant by the Government. And when such situation comes to
respondent last assessment was agreed upon on July 1955. pass there are authorities that hold, based on weighty reasons,
● Suyoc filed a petition for review with the CTA on the that such an attitude or behavior should not be countenanced if
assessment given on July 1955 alleging prescription of the only to protect the interest of the Government.
period of collection.

ISSUE:
1. W/N the period for collection has prescribed - NO

RULING/DOCTRINE:

You might also like