Petitioner alleges that respondent filed fraudulent tax returns "ith substantial underdeclarations of taxable incoe for the years ) +, ), and ). Respondent argues that the assessent notices "ere invalid for being unnubered. Petitioner appealed to respondent 2ecretary of 5ustice but the latter denied the sae!
Petitioner alleges that respondent filed fraudulent tax returns "ith substantial underdeclarations of taxable incoe for the years ) +, ), and ). Respondent argues that the assessent notices "ere invalid for being unnubered. Petitioner appealed to respondent 2ecretary of 5ustice but the latter denied the sae!
Petitioner alleges that respondent filed fraudulent tax returns "ith substantial underdeclarations of taxable incoe for the years ) +, ), and ). Respondent argues that the assessent notices "ere invalid for being unnubered. Petitioner appealed to respondent 2ecretary of 5ustice but the latter denied the sae!
October 13, 2010 !IR" "I#ISION $ACS AS O %EIIONER Pursuant to Letter of Authority dated August 25, 2000 issued by then (petitioner) conducted a fraud investigation for all internal revenue taxes to ascertain/deterine the tax liabilities of respondent! A criinal coplaint "as instituted by the #ureau of $nternal %evenue (#$%) against L&'('!$t "as discovered that L&'(' filed fraudulent tax returns "ith substantial underdeclarations of taxable incoe for the years )**+, )**, and )***! Assessent notices together "ith a foral letter of deand dated August +, 2002 "ere sent to L&'(' $ACS AS O RES%ON"EN L&'(' argued that petitioner is no" estopped fro further ta-ing any action against it and its corporate officers concerning the taxable years )**+ to )***! .ith the grant of iunity fro audit fro the copany/s availent 0AP, "hich have a feature of a tax anesty, the eleent of fraud is negated the oent the #ureau accepts the offer of coproise or payent of taxes by the taxpayer! $t is also respondent/s contention that the assessent notices "ere invalid for being unnubered! 1n 2epteber 22, 2003, the 'hief 2tate Prosecutor issued a %esolution 2+ finding no sufficient evidence to establish probable cause against respondents L&'(', 'aus and &endo4a! Petitioner appealed to respondent 2ecretary of 5ustice but the latter denied! Petitioner challenged the ruling of respondent 2ecretary via a certiorari petition in the 'A "hich also denied the sae! ISS&ES RAISE '( %EIIONER )! Petitioner contends that the assessent notices are valid despite being unnubered 2! Petitioner also argues that respondents availent of (%AP is not a grant of absolute iunity fro audit and investigation! ISS&ES RAISE '( RES%ON"EN )! Petitioner contends that the assessent notices "ere invalid for being unnubered 2! %espondent also argues that "ith the grant of iunity fro audit fro the copany/s availent of (%AP and 0AP, "hich have a feature of a tax anesty, the eleent of fraud is negated R&LING O$ !E S&%RE)E CO&R )! As to the issue "hether assessent notices "ere invalid for being unnubered, the 2' ruled in favor of petitioner! 6he foral letter of deand calling for payent of the taxpayer/s deficiency tax or taxes shall st*te t+e ,*ct, t+e -*., ru-es */0 re1u-*t2o/s or 3ur2s4ru0e/ce o/ .+2c+ t+e *ssess5e/t 2s b*se0, ot+er.2se t+e ,or5*- -etter o, 0e5*/0 */0 t+e /ot2ce o, *ssess5e/t s+*-- be vo20! 77 As it is, the forality of a control nuber in the assessent notice is not a re8uireent for its validity but rather the contents thereof "hich should infor the taxpayer of the declaration of deficiency tax against said taxpayer! 2! As to the issue "hether respondent/s availent of the 0AP grants it absolute iunity fro audit and investigations, the 2' ruled in favor of petitioner! private respondents cannot invo-e L&'('/s availent of 0AP to foreclose any subse8uent audit of its account boo-s and other accounting records in vie" of the strong finding of underdeclaration in L&'('/s payent of correct incoe tax liability by ore than 309! 6his conclusion finds support in 2ection 2 of %% :o! ,;200) as "hich provides< A taxpayer "ho has availed of the 0AP shall not be audited except upon authori4ation and approval of the 'oissioner of $nternal %evenue "hen there is strong evidence or finding of understateent in the payent of taxpayer/s correct tax liability by ore than thirty percent (309) %ERSONAL EN" NOES #oth the foral letter of deand and the notice of assessent shall be void if the forer failed to state the fact, the la", rules and regulations or =urisprudence on "hich the assessent is based, "hich is a andatory re8uireent under 2ection 22, of the :$%' 2ection 22, of the :$%' provides that the taxpayer shall be infored in "riting of the la" and the facts on "hich the assessent is ade! 1ther"ise, the assessent is void!
National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 182, Utica, New York, and Vicinity, AFL, 228 F.2d 83, 2d Cir. (1955)