TAX14.7 Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders v.

Department of Finance Secretary

FACTS: Petitioner contends that the Bureau of Food and Drug of the Department of Health and not the BIR is the competent government agency to
determine the proper classification of food products.

RULING: BIR as the government agency charged with the enforcement of the law, the opinion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in the
absence of any showing that it is plainly wrong, is entitled to great weight.

TAX1.8 Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds Corp.

FACTS: Respondent filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas contending the following: (1) the regulation was
issued without following the mandate of the Revised Administrative Code

RULING: The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is
within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

TAX2.8 CIR v. Leal

FACTS: The CIR issued Revenue Memorandum Order(RMO) No. 15-91 imposing 5% lending investors tax on pawnshops based on their gross
income and Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 43-91 subjecting the pawn ticket to the documentary stamp tax as prescribed in Title VII of
the Tax Code.

RULING: The questioned RMO No. 15-91 and RMC No. 43-91 are actually rulings or opinions of the Commissioner implementing the Tax Code on
the taxability of pawnshops. Such rulings of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue are appealable to the CTA

TAX3.8 British American Tobacco Corp. v. Camacho

FACTS: Petitioner filed before the RTC of Makati a petition for injunction on the ground that they discriminate against new brands of cigarettes in
violation of the equal protection and uniformity provisions of the Constitution

RULING: Yes. The jurisdiction of the CTA id defined in RA 1125 which confers on the CTA jurisdiction to resolve tax disputes in general. BUT
does NOT include cases where the constitutionality of a law or rule is challenged which is a judicial power belonging to regular courts.

TAX4.8 United Cadiz Sugar Farmers Association Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Commissioner

Facts: UCSFA-MPC filed an administrative claim for refund with the BIR, asserting that it had been granted tax exemption. It likewise filed a judicial
claim for refund before the CTA division five days later. Both ruled in favor of UCSFA-MPC.

Ruling: Yes. UCSFA-MPC s claim for refund - grounded as it is on payments of advance VAT alleged to have been illegally and erroneously collected
from November 15, 2007 to February 13, 2009 - is governed by Sections 204(C) and 229 of the NIRC.

TAX5.8 Smart Communications v. NTC

FACTS: Petitioners Islacom and Piltel alleged that the NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards
since such jurisdiction belongs to the DTI under the Consumer Act of the Philippines

RULING: Yes, the regular courts have jurisdiction over the constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in the
performance of its quasi-legislative function The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency
contravenes the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.

TAX6.8 Roxas v. CTA

FACTS: The CIR assessed and demanded from Roxas y Cia the payment deficiency income taxes resulted from the inclusion as income of Roxas y
Cia. of the unreported 50% of the net profits for 1953 and 1955 derived from the sale of the Nasugbu farm lands to the tenants.

RULING: No. It should be borne in mind that the sale of the Nasugbu farmlands to the very farmers who tilled them for generations was not only in
consonance with, but more in obedience to the request and pursuant to the policy of our Government to allocate lands to the landless.

TAX7.8 Collector v. Bohol Land Transportation

FATCS: Due to the company's failure to settle said deficiency income taxes, the Collector of Internal Revenue issued warrant of distraint and levy on
the property of the company;

RULING: Yes. For reason of public policy and based on the lifeblood theory, the assessment made by the Commissioner is prima facie presumed
correct. The burden of proof to show the incorrectness or inaccuracy of such assessment or its details lies on the taxpayer, contrary to the usual
presumptions of good faith and innocence. The revenue officers are also presumed to have taken into consideration all the facts to which their attention
was called.
TAX8.8 Collector v. Benipayo

FACTS: Benipayo filed the corresponding protest with the Conference Staff of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. After due hearing, the Conference
Staff submitted to petitioner Collector of Internal Revenue its finding to the effect that the “meager reports of these fieldmen (Examiner de Guia and
the Provincial Revenue Agent of Quezon) are mere presumptions and conclusions, devoid of findings of the fact of the alleged fraudulent practices of
the herein taxpayer”

RULING: An assessment fixes and determines the tax liability of a taxpayer. Hence, assessments should not be based on mere presumptions no matter
how reasonable or logical said presumptions may be. In order to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual facts. The
presumption of correctness of assessment being a mere presumption cannot be made to rest on another presumption.

TAX9.8 CIR v. Filinvest Development Corporation

FACTS: The BIR assessed Filinvest for deficiency income tax by imputing an “arm’s length” interest rate on its advances to affiliates. Filinvest
disputed this by saying that the CIR lacks the authority to impute theoretical interest and that the rule is that interests cannot be demanded in the absence
of a stipulation to the effect.

ISSUE: Whether the CIR can impute theoretical interest on the advances made by Filinvest to its affiliates

RULING: No. Despite the seemingly broad power of the CIR to distribute, apportion and allocate gross income under Section 50 of the Tax Code, the
same does not include the power to impute theoretical interests even with regard to controlled taxpayers’ transactions.

TAX10.8 CIR v. Citicorp Capital Phils.

RULING: There is no provision in the 1997 Tax Code prohibiting the amendment of a return once a claim for refund has been filed. It is prohibited
only if a notice for audit or investigation of such return, statement or declaration has, in the meantime, been actually served upon the taxpayer.

TAX11.8 Director of Forestry v. Munoz

TAX12.8 Calalang v. Williams

FACTS: The National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of July 17, 1940, resolved to recommend to the Director of the Public Works and to the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along the road of manila for a period of one
year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic.

RULING: No, it is an exception to the non-delegation of legislative power.

TAX13.8 Del March v. Philippine Veterans Administration

RULING: The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceeding to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted.
The power cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. Rules that subvert
the statute cannot be sanctioned.

TAX14.8 Commissioner v. Bishop of the Missionary District of the Phil. Islands

FACTS: This is an appeal taken from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals ordering him to refund to
the Bishop of the Missionary District of the Philippines Islands of the Protestant Episcopal in the U.S.A. the sum of P118,847 which the latter had paid
by way of compensating tax.

RULING: Yes. The Secretary of Finance cannot limit or otherwise qualify the enjoyment of this exemption granted under Republic Act No. 1916 in
implementing the law. If, as in the case of St. Luke's Hospital, its funds are devoted exclusively to the Maintenance of the institution, the admission of
pay patients does not detract from the charitable character of a hospital.

TAX1.9 Interprovincial Autobus Co. v. Collector

FACTS: Petitioner-Appellant assails the validity of Department of Finance Regulation No. 26 dated September 16; 1924, which provides:
"Sec. 121. Basis of the tax and affixture of stamps. Bills of lading are exempt from the documentary stamp tax imposed by paragraphs (q), and (r) of
section 1449 of the Administrative Code when the value of the goods shipped is P5 or less.

RULING: NO. the regulation is merely a directive to the tax officers; it does not purport to change or modify the law; it does
not create a liability to the stamp tax when the value of the goods does not appear on the face of the receipt.

TAX2.9 BPI Leasing Corporation v. CA and Commissioner

FACTS: CIR issued RR 19-86. Section 6.2 thereof provided that finance and leasing companies registered under Republic Act 5980 shall be subject
to gross receipt tax of 5%-3%-1% on actual income earned. This means that companies registered under Republic Act 5980, such as BLC, are not liable
for "contractor’s percentage tax"

RULING: BLC attempts to convince the Court that Revenue Regulation 19-86 is legislative rather than interpretative in character and hence, should
retroact to the date of effectivity of the law it seeks to interpret. Administrative issuances may be distinguished according to their nature and substance:
legislative and interpretative.

TAX3.9 Commissioner v. Ledesma

FACTS: Commissioner assessed against the partnership "Hacienda Fortuna" corporate income tax for the calendar year 1949, under Section 24 of the
National Internal Revenue Code. It is the contention of the Commissioner that it is only from the date of the registration of the articles of general co-
partnership in the mercantile register when a co-partnership is exempt from the payment of corporate income tax under Section 24 of the Tax Code.

RULING: The Court of Tax Appeals made a finding that the respondents had actually operated the "Hacienda Fortuna" as a general partnership from
January 1, 1949, and that when its articles of general partnership were registered on July 14, 1949 that registration had the effect of giving the partnership
the status of a registered co-partnership

TAX4.9 Begosa v. Philippine Veterans Administration

Facts: Plaintiff sought the aid of the judiciary to obtain the benefits to which he believed he was entitled under the veterans’ bill of rights. He filed his
claim for disability pension but was erroneously disapproved due to his dishonorable discharge from the army.

Ruling: No. Where a litigation may have adverse consequences on the public treasury, whether in the disbursements of funds or loss of property, the
public official proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity, then the doctrine of non-suitability may appropriately be invoked.

TAX5.9 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. CTA and Commissioner

FACTS: RA 5431 amended Section 24 (b) of the Tax Code increasing the tax rate from 30 % to 35 % and revising the tax basis from “such amount”
referring to rents, etc. to “gross income.” The following was implemented by Circular No. 4-71.
Petitioner requested for a reconsideration and withdrawal of the assessment.

RULING:
No. Sec. 338-A11 (now Sec. 327) of the Tax Code applies in this case. Rulings or circulars promulgated by the CIR have no retroactive application
where to so apply them would be prejudicial to taxpayers. The retroactive application of Memorandum Circular No. 4-71 prejudices ABS-CBN

TAX6.9 Republic v. Marsman Development Co.

FACTS: An investigation was conducted on the business operation and activities of the corporation leading to the discovery that certain taxes were
due (from) it on logs produced from its concession. Three assessments totaling P59,133.78 representing deficiency sales tax, forest charges, surcharges
and penalties are the subject matter of the instant case for collection.

RULING: No. The assessments made by the Commissioner and his authorized agents are presumed correct. The Burden of proof to show the
incorrectness or inaccuracy of such assessments or the details thereof lies on the taxpayer.

TAX7.9 Tan Guan v. CTA and Commissioner

FATCS: A confidential report was submitted to the BIR claiming that the Philippine Surplus Company posted in its book fictitious expenses for the
purpose of avoiding taxes;

RULING: Yes. The burden of proof is on the taxpayer contesting the validity or correctness of an assessment to prove not only that the CIR is wrong
but that the taxpayer is right.

TAX8.9 Collector v. Avelino

TAX9.9 Cyanamid Philippines v. CA

FACTS: CIR assessed on petitioner a deficiency income tax of P119,817 for the year 1981. Cyanamid protested the assessments particularly the 25%
surtax for undue accumulation of earnings.

RULING: Yes. In order to determine whether profits are accumulated for the reasonable needs of the business to avoid the surtax upon the shareholders,
it must be shown that the controlling intention of the taxpayer is manifested at the time of the accumulation, not intentions subsequently, which are
mere afterthoughts.

TAX10.9 Commissioner v. CA and YMCA

FACTS: YMCA has earned income from leasing out a portion of its premises to small shop owners, like restaurants and canteen operators, and also
from parking fees collected from non-members. The CIR said that it should be taxed. It invoked then the fundamental law, that Article VI, Section 28
of par. 3 of the 1987 Constitution, exempts charitable institutions from the payment not only of property taxes but also of income tax from any source.

RULING: It is a basic rule in taxation that the factual findings of the CTA, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal
unless it is shown that the said court committed gross error in the appreciation of facts.

TAX11.9 Fortich v. Corona

TAX12.9 Interprovincial Autobus v. Co. Commissioner

FACTS: A tax was assessed amounted to P7,776.24, which was collected from the deposit of the plaintiff in the Misamis Occidental branch of the
Philippine National Bank. Plaintiff demanded the refund of the amount, and upon refusal of the defendant, plaintiff filed the action.

RULING: The court sustained the use of the doctrine of best evidence obtainable, where the conductors daily report were allowed to be used instead
of the freight tickets by common carrier, for the purpose of computing the documentary stamp tax thereon.

TAX13.9 Holland v. US

FACTS: With the Government using the "net worth" method of proof, petitioners were convicted under 145 of the Internal Revenue Code of a willful
attempt to evade their income taxes for the year 1948.

RULING: An essential condition in such cases is the establishment, with reasonable certainty, of an opening net worth, to serve as a starting point
from which to calculate future increases in the taxpayer's assets.

TAX14.9 Collector v. Avelino

FACTS: A corresponding assessment, made on the networth method, was based upon an investment in the sum of P60,000 made by Enrique Avelino
in the National Livestock Produce Corporation, organized in June 1947. He having filed no income tax return for such year, said amount was considered
as his unreported income therefor.

RULING:
The prima facie correctness of the assessment in question is bolstered up by the undisputed fact that Enrique Avelino has invested P60,000 in the
National Livestock Produce Corporation in 1947. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to establish that said sum had been merely borrowed by him.

TAX1.10 Civil Service Commission v. Lucas

FACTS: Raquel P. Linatok, an assistant information officer at the Agricultural Information Division, Department of Agriculture (DA for brevity),
filed with the office of the Secretary, DA, an affidavit-complaint against respondent Jose J. Lucas, a photographer of the same agency, for misconduct.

RULING: No. due process is that a person must be duly informed of the charges against him. He cannot be convicted of a crime with which he was
not charged.

TAX3.10 Commissioner v. Atlas Consolidated Mining Co.

FACTS: Atlas is a corporation engaged in the mining industry. For the year 1958, the assessment of deficiency income tax of P761,789.12 covers the
disallowance of items claimed by Atlas as deductible from gross income.

HELD: Was ruled by the U.S. Tax Court that expenditures in defense of title of property constitute a part of the cost of the property, and are not
deductible as expense.

TAX4.10 Balmaceda v. Corominas and Co.

Facts: A Complaint with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction" in the CFI of Manila against Secretary Manuel Lim to obtain the issuance of the
corresponding release certificates of its imported goods.

Ruling: No. The reply-letters written by the Producers Incentives Board to respondent-appellee are not licenses or authorities, but mere confirmations
of the commodity classification and price quotations of the firm offers submitted by respondent-appellee.

TAX5.10 Asia International Auctioneers v. CIR

FACTS: Asia International Auctioneers (AIA) is a domestic corporation operating within the Subic Special Economic Zone, received from the
CIR a formal demand letter containing an assessment for deficiency of VAT and excise tax, for auction sales conducted on February 5-8, 2004.

RULING: The Court ruled that the tax amnesty program under RA 9480 may be availed of by any person except those who are disqualified under
Section 8 thereof. The CIR did not assess AIA as a withholding agent that failed to withhold or remit the deficiency VAT and excise tax to BIR.

TAX6.10 PNZ Marketing v. Commissioner

FACTS: Petitioner received formal assessment notice and demand letter from the Commissioner stating therein Petitioner's alleged deficiency income
tax liability for the year 1994 in the total amount of P678,441.00.

RULING: No. In this case, it must be stressed that Section 228 requires the Respondent to inform the taxpayer in writing of the laws and the facts on
which the assessment is made; otherwise the assessment shall be void.

TAX7.10 Artex Development v. NLRC

This is an illegal dismissal case where the court ruled that absence of notice is not a fatal defect because what the law abhors is the absolute absence
of opportunity to be heard. Therefore, omit this case.

TAX8.10 Manuel v. Villalena

Civil case about director of forestry, admin due process and opportunity to be heard

TAX9.10 Standard Chartered Bank v. Commissioner

FACTS: Petitioner is the Philippine branch of Standard Chartered Bank, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of England. It received
respondent’s Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices for alleged deficiencies in Gross Receipts Tax, DST, and Branch Profit Remittance
Tax.

RULING: No. Assessments are prima facie presumed correct and made in good faith. The taxpayer has the duty of proving otherwise. In the absence
of proof of any irregularities in the performance of official duties, an assessment will not be disturbed.

TAX10.10 Dayrit v. Cruz

FACTS: Testate and intestate proceedings for the settlement of the estates of spouses Marta J. Teodoro who died intestate and Don Toribio Teodoro
who died testate were filed by Cecilia Teodoro-Dayrit. The respondent CIR issued deficiency estate and inheritance tax assessments.

RULING: No. In petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned assessments, petitioners requested the CIR for a period of thirty (30)
days within which to submit a position paper that would embody their grounds for reconsideration. However, no position paper was ever filed.

TAX11.10 Cagayan Robina Sugar Milling Co. v. CA

TAX12.10 Delta Motors Co. v. Commissioner

CASE NOT FOUND

TAX13.10 Bonifacio Sy Po v. CTA

FACTS and RULING: Subpoena duces tecum issued against Silver Cup for accounting records. Sy Po did not produce. NBI seized goods of alcohol
products. CIR assessed based on the report for deficiency. Petitioner argued that Tax assesments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in
goof faith. Taxpayer has duty to prove otherwise. Otherwise cannot be disturbed.

TAX14.10 Oceanic Wireless Network v. Commissioner

Mamalateo page 558: Submission of documentary evidence and arguments

FACTS:
Oceanic Wireless Network is a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws.

RULING: No.
Oceanic executed a waiver of the defense of prescription. The waiver is valid and binding, despite that it does not specify the kind of tax and the amount
due as required by RM No 20-90, because at the time it was exceuted, no pre-assessment notice was issued yet. Oceanic cannot invoke such defense.

TAX1.11 Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. v. Commissioner

FACTS: Petitioner HSBC is the owner of 2,000 railroad ties it had acquired from the firm of Pujalte & Co. which the latter assigned to it after it was
unable to pay a large sum of money it then owed to HSBC.

RULING: No, the lien does not follow the property subject to the tax into the hands of a third party when at the time of transfer, no demand for payment
had been made and when the purchaser then had no notice of the existence of the lien.

TAX2.11 Republic v. Peralta

RULING: The claim of the government predicated on a tax lien is superior to the claim of a private litigant predicated on a judgment. The tax claim
must be given preference over any other claim of any other creditor, in respect of any and all properties of the insolvent. There is no merit in the
contention of the National Labor Relations Commission that taxes are absolutely preferred claims only with respect to movable or immovable properties
on which they are due.

TAX3.11 Commissioner v. NLRC and Maritime Co. of the Phil

Facts: On January 12, 1984, the CIR demanded payment from private respondent Maritime Company of the Philippines of deficiency common carrier’s
tax, fixed tax, 6% commercial broker’s tax, documentary stamp tax, income tax and withholding tax totaling P17,284,882.45. The assessment became
final and executory

Held: The court held that it is the government which has preferential lien over the barges under Articles 2241 and 2247 of the Civil Code. Accordingly,
the preferential lien of employees for unpaid wages under Article 110 of the Labor Code applies only to bankruptcy cases where the employer is under
liquidation due to bankruptcy.

TAX4.11 CIR v. Pineda

FACTS: Atanasio Pineda died, survived by his wife, Felicisima Bagtas, and 15 children, the eldest of whom is Manuel B. Pineda, a lawyer. Estate
proceedings were had in the CFI of Manila wherein the surviving widow was appointed administratrix. The estate was divided among and awarded to
the heirs and

Ruling: YES. As a holder of property belonging to the estate, Pineda is liable for the tax up to the amount of the property in his possession. The reason
is that the Government has a lien on the P2,500.00 received by him from the estate as his share in the inheritance, for unpaid income taxes for which
said estate is liable, pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 315 of the Tax Code.

TAX5.11 CIR v. NLRC

FACTS: On January 12, 1984, the CIR demanded payment from private respondent Maritime Company of the Philippines of deficiency common
carrier’s tax, fixed tax, 6% commercial broker’s tax, documentary stamp tax, income tax and withholding tax totaling P17,284,882.45. The
assessment became final and executory

RULING: The court held that it is the government which has preferential lien over the barges under Articles 2241 and 2247 of the Civil Code.
Accordingly, the preferential lien of employees for unpaid wages under Article 110 of the Labor Code applies only to bankruptcy cases where
the employer is under liquidation due to bankruptcy.

TAX6.11 Reliance Procoma, Inc. v. Phil-Asia Tobacco Corp.

FACTS: the Supreme Court issued in the above-entitled case for certiorari and prohibition a restraining order. However, respondent Judge Ludovico
D. Arciaga, Private respondents Reliance Procoma Inc. et al., and Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (hereinafter referred to as PVTA) in
contempt of court because the subsequent order of the respondent judge `is a wanton disregard and/or disobedience to the restraining order'

RULING: Yes. "The term "garnishment" has been defined as a warning to a person in whose hands the effects of another are attached, not to pay the
money or deliver the property or allow withdrawal of deposits of the defendant in his hands to him, but to appear and answer the plaintiff's suit.

TAX7.11 Castro v. Collector

FATCS:

1. Petitioner Maria B. Castro, who is authorized to manage her own property, is a duly licensed merchant who filed a war tax return stating her
net worth;
2. Thereafter, a criminal case was filed against her in violation of Section 4, in connection with Section 8, of the War Profits Tax Law, for
allegedly defrauding the Republic of the Philippines in the total amount of P1,048,687.76;

RULING: No. The remedy by distraint of personal property and levy on realty may be repeated if necessary, until the full amount due, including all
expenses, is collected.

TAX8.11 BPI v. Commissioner

FACTS: On October 20, 1989, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a formal assessment notice (FAN) against the Bank of the Philippine
Islands (BPI). The FAN demanded BPI to pay P28k in taxes

RULING: Under Section 223(c) of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended, it is not essential that the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy be fully executed
so that it can suspend the running of the statute of limitations on the collection of the tax.

TAX9.11 Marcos II v. CA and CIR

FACTS: Bongbong Marcos sought for the reversal of the ruling of the Court of Appeals to grant CIR's petition to levy the properties of the late Pres.
Marcos to cover the payment of his tax delinquencies during the period of his exile in the US.

RULING: Yes. The BIR is authorized to collect estate tax deficiency through the summary remedy of levying upon and sale of real properties of a
decedent, without the cognition and authority of the court sitting in probate over the supposed will of the deceased, because the collection of estate tax
is executive in character.

TAX10.11 Yabes v. Flojo

FACTS: Doroteo Yabes received an assessment notice from the CIR demanding him to pay P15k in taxes. Doroteo filed a protest within the prescribed
period. The protest was initially denied

RULING: No. What may be considered as final decision or assessment of the Commissioner is the filing of the complaint for collection. The records
show that a warrant of distraint and levy was issued.

TAX11.11 Republic v. Lim Tiang Teng sons

TAX12.11 Rovero v. Amparo
TAX13.11 Lim Pin v. Liao Tan

Cannot relate to Tax it’s a case of compromise agreement between parties

TAX14.11 Republic v. Plan

FACTS: The matter involved in the suit before respondent Judge was an assessment in the amount of P13,403.94 by the then Collector of Internal
Revenue, acting through his subordinates, by way of surcharge for logs cut by private respondent in excess of that authorized by his timber license.

RULING: No. Respondent Judge had no power to act in the premises. The appellate jurisdiction as thus conferred is exclusive.

TAX1.12 Commissioner v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.

FACTS: The Commissioner assessed and demanded from the company the payment of documentary stamps for the years 1952-1958, plus compromise
penalties.

Held: No. With respect to the 'compromise penalties' in the total sum of P1,600.00, suffice it to say that penalties cannot be imposed in the absence of
a showing that petitioner consented thereto. A compromise implies agreement.

TAX2.12 Mithi ng Bayan Cooperative Marketing Association v. Araneta

No case found. No citation in the book. The 1961 case available online does not discuss the main point in the book.

RULING: The Commissioner has no power to impose and collect the compromise penalties in the absence of a compromise agreement validly entered
into between the taxpayer and the Commissioner.

TAX3.12 Commissioner v. Guerrero

FACTS: Collector of Internal Revenue made an assessment and demand requiring Guerrero to pay the sum of P4,014.91, representing fixed and
percentage taxes and forest charges, as well as surcharges and penalties, in connection with his aforementioned business transactions with the company.

HELD: Yes, Guerrero is liable for the payment of P120.00 and P50.00 as compromise penalties The Court of Tax Appeals did not sentence Guerrero
to pay the same upon the ground that he had not entered into a compromise agreement with the Government.

TAX4.12 Wonder Mechanical Engineering Corp. v. CTA

Facts: Wonder Corp. was engaged in the business of manufacturing auto spare parts, lamp shades, rice threshers and other articles. It was also engaged
in the business of electroplating and repair of machines. However, it did not pay sales tax on the sale of articles and the percentage tax on its
electroplating and repair business.

Rulling: No. The compromise penalty suggested by respondent Bureau of Internal Revenue, it does not appear that petitioner accepted the imposition
of the compromise amounts. Hence We find no compelling reasons to alter the decision of respondent Court of Tax Appeals that:

TAX5.12 PNOC v. CA

FACTS:
 TirsoSavellano informed the BIR that PNB had failed to withhold the 15% final tax on interest earnings and yields from the money
placements of PNOC, which was violative of P.D. 1931 (which withdrew all tax exemptions of GOCCs)
RULING: Compromise agreement between PNOC and BIR is void for being contrary to law and public policy

TAX6.12 PNB v. CA

FACTS: private respondent Savellano informed the BIR that PNB had failed to withhold the 15% final tax on interest earnings and/or yields from the
money placements of PNOC with the said bank, in violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1931.

RULING: Yes. E.O. No. 44 granted the BIR Commissioner or his duly authorized representatives the power to compromise any disputed assessment
or delinquent account.

TAX7.12 Marcos II v. CA

FATCS:

1. Petitioner Ferdinand R. Marcos II, the eldest son of the decedent, questions the actuations of the respondent CIR in assessing, and collecting
through the summary remedy of Levy on Real Properties, estate and income tax delinquencies upon the estate and properties of his father,
despite the pendency of the proceedings on probate of the will of the late president;

ISSUE: Whether or not the assessments made may be collected by summary remedy of distraint or levy.

RULING: Yes. Failure to question assessment served upon the decedent’s heirs. – Apart from failing to file the required estate tax return, petitioner
and the other Marcos heirs failed to question the assessment served on them as heirs of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, thereby allowing said
assessments to lapse into finality. Said assessments having become final and executory, the same may be collected by summary remedy of distraint or
levy.

TAX8.12 Dayrit v. Cruz

FACTS: Cecilia Teodoro Dayrit (as administrator) along with her siblings heirs of the Sps. Marta and Toribio Teodoro who died testate and intestate
on 1 July 1965 and 30 August 1965, respectively filed this case to question the Collection Suit filed by the Commissioner at the CFI.

RULING: Yes. The Court ruled that the request for reconsideration cannot be considered as a protest against the assessment. The failure of the heirs
to substantiate their claim against the assessment due to the non-submission of their position paper justified the Commissioner’s action in collecting
the tax in the court settlement proceedings.

TAX9.12 Republic v. Ledesma

FACTS: An assessment for income tax deficiency against defendant was released by BIR on Feb. 25, 1957.

RULING: Yes. It should be pointed out that when appellee received the assessment notice issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue on February
25, 1957, all he did was to send a letter requesting a reinvestigation

TAX10.12 Basa v. Republic

FACTS: In a demand letter dated August 31, 1967, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed against Augusto Basa deficiency income taxes.
The taxpayer did not contest the assessments in the Tax Court.

RULING: Yes. The taxpayer’s failure to appeal the decision to the CTA deprived him of the right to question the Commissioner’s authority to collect
the tax within the prescriptive period provided by law.

TAX11.12 Mambulao Lumber Co. v. Republic

TAX12.12 Fernandez Hermanos, Inc. v. Commissioner

F ACTS: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed the petitioner investment corporation of deficiency income taxes for the years 1950 to 1954
and for 1957. There were two conflicting dates of assessment,

RULING: No. It has been held that "a judicial action for the collection of a tax is begun by the filing of a complaint with the proper court of first
instance, or where the assessment is appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, by filing an answer to the taxpayer's petition for review wherein payment
of the tax is prayed for."
TAX13.12 BPI v. Commissioner

FACTS: Petitioner BPI, sold $500,000 in 1985 to the Central Bank for the total amount of $1M .On October 1989, the BIR assessed BPI for tax
deficiency of documentary tax on its aforementioned sales of foreign bills of exchange.

RULING: Under Section 223(c) of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended, it is not essential that the Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy be fully executed
so that it can suspend the running of the statute of limitations on the collection of the tax.

TAX14.12 Yabes v. Flojo

Mamalateo page 582: [XPN] the filing of civil action in the regular court to collect tax which was the subject of a pending protest in the BIR was a
justifiable bases for the taxpayer to appeal to the CTA and to move for a dismissal in the trial [regular] court of the Government’s action to collect the
tax liability under dispute.

FACTS: a letter from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue dated March 27, 1962, demanding payment of the amount of P15,976.81 as commercial
broker's fixed and percentage taxes plus surcharges.

TAX1.13 Republic v. Dorego

FACTS: Notwithstanding repeated demands, the Doregos failed and refused to pay the balance. Hence, on March 25, 1959, the Republic filed a
complaint in the CFI of Iloilo against them, for collection.

RULING: No. another exception relates to an action to collect on the bonds, which is an action separate and distinct from an action to collect taxes.
Art. 1144 of the NCC which provides that action upon written contract be brought within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues, finds a
fitting application in this case.

TAX2.13 Republic v. Hizon

FACTS: On July 18, 1986, the BIR issued to respondent Salud V. Hizon a deficiency income tax assessment covering the fiscal year 1981-1982.
Respondent not having contested the assessment, petitioner BIR, on January 12, 1989, served warrants of distraint and levy to collect the tax deficiency.

RULING: No. No civil or criminal action for the recovery of taxes or the enforcement of any fine, penalty or forfeiture under this Code shall be filed
in court without the approval of the Commissioner.

TAX3.13 Republic v, Domecillo

CA case and cannot be found.

TAX4.13 Gotamco & Sons v. Commissioner

This is a CTA case and I cannot find it 

Ruling from Mamalateo:

Parties who are not included in an assessment made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue cannot be made respondents in an appeal from a particular
assessment, and no judgement can be rendered against such parties because any such judgment would be an encroachment on the prerogative of the
Commissioner to make na assessment and would further violate the rule on due process and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Moreover,
under Sec. 7 of RA 1125, only the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs may be sued before the CTA in appropriate
cases.

TAX5.13 Sunio v. NLRC

TAX6.13 Tan Tiong Bio v. Commissioner

FACTS: On October 19, 1946, the Central Syndicate, a domestic corporation, through its general manager, sent a letter to the Collector of Internal
Revenue advising the latter that it purchased from Dee Hong Lue the entire stock of surplus properties and that as it assumed Dee Hong Lue's obligation
to pay the 3-1/2% sales tax on said surplus goods.

RULING: Yes. It should be stated at the outset that it was petitioners themselves who caused their substitution as parties in the present case, being the
successors-in-interest of the defunct syndicate, when they appealed this case to the Supreme Court.

TAX7.13 Lumanlan v. Cura

FATCS: The creditors of this corporation, filed suit against it in the CFI of Manila praying that a receiver be appointed, as it appeared that the
corporation at that time had no assets except credits against those who had subscribed for shares of stock.

RULING: No. Lumanlan after paying the debt of the corporation to Valenzuela is entitled to credit such amount to his unpaid subscription. Therefore
he no longer have any unpaid subscription. The order of execution upon two parcels of land of Lumanlan must therefore be dismissed.

TAX8.13 People v. Mendez

FACTS: Dr. Joel Mendez was the sole proprietor of 6 different businesses including Mendez Body and Face Salon and Spa. He failed to file an income
tax return on those businesses during the taxable years 2001 to 2003.

RULING: Yes. The elements that must be established are: (1) the accused was a person required to make or file a return, (2) the accused failed to
make or file a return and (3) the failure to make or file the return was willful. A to the 2nd element, he did not file his ITR and no records show of
returns filed.
TAX9.13 People v. Wong Yan Tak

FACTS: Respondent Wong Yan Tak, President of Pic N’ Pac Mart, Inc. (PNPMI), was charged with violation of Section 255, in relation to Sections
253(d) and 256, of the Tax Code. Petitioner, represented by the BIR, alleged that Wong Yan Tak failed to pay the 2002 deficiency VAT liabilities of
PNPMI, despite notices and demands.

RULING: No. When a corporation is charged for violation of the provisions of the Tax Code and is subsequently found liable, the penalty of
imprisonment is lodged upon its responsible officers.

TAX10.13 People v. Tambunting

RULING: For failure of the State Prosecutor to submit the records of preliminary investigation, the CTA dismissed the case without prejudice.

TAX11.13 People v. Rogelio Tan

TAX12.13 People v. Imelda Marcos

CASE not FOUND.

Facts based on the Book: Imelda Marcos was charged by the State of Tax evation for their property while they are exiled at Hawaii.

ISSUE: W/N they are guilty of tax evation?

RULING: NO. The court found that the accused failure to file the return and to pay the estate tax due was not willful, and the prosecution’s scanty
evidence failed to establish the element of criminal intent.

TAX13.13 People v. Renne Samala

RULING: For failure of the State Prosecutor to comply with the order to submit to the CTA the written approval issued by the CIR to file the case and
the records of the preliminary investigation, the case was dismissed, without prejudice.

TAX1.14 Martinez v. CA

The grant of a motion to dismiss must be based upon the judges own personal conviction that there was no case against the accused.