OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK, INC. vs. CIR
Firstly, a demand letter for payment of delinquent taxes
(G.R. No. 148380, December 9, 2005) | MCACB
Facts:
The controversy in this case started when the petitioner received
from the BIR deficiency tax assessments for the year 1984.
When the petitioner filed a protest and requested for a
reconsideration or cancellation of the same, the Chief of the
Accounts Receivable and Billing Division of the BIR National
Office reiterated the tax assessments and requested the
petitioner to pay within 10 days, while denied its request for
reinvestigation. Upon the petitioners failure to pay the subject
tax assessments within the prescribed period, the Asst.
Commissioner for Collection, acting for the CIR, issued the
corresponding warrants of distraints and/or levy and
garnishment. This prodded the petitioner to file a Petition for
Review with the CTA to contest the issuance of the warrants and
to enforce the collection of the tax assessments.
The CTA, however, dismissed the petition, declaring that it was
filed beyond the 30-day period reckoned from the time it received
the demand letter on January 24, 1991 by the Chief of the BIR
Accounts Receivable and Billing Division.
Issue:
Is the demand letter for tax deficiency assessments issued and
signed by a subordinate officer who was acting in behalf of the
CIR deemed final and executor and subject to an appeal to the
CTA?
Ruling:
Yes.
may be considered a decision on a disputed or protested
assessment. The determination on whether or not a demand
letter is final is conditioned upon the language used or the tenor
of the letter being sent to the taxpayer. In this case, the demand
letter received by the petitioner signified a character of finality for
it clearly indicates its firm stand against the reconsideration of
the assessment when it indicated that failure to do so (to pay)
would result in the issuance of a warrant of distraint and levy to
enforce its collection without further notice.
Secondly, the letter attained finality despite the fact that it was
issued and signed by the Chief of the Accounts Receivable and
Billing Division instead of the CIR. This is because the act of the
said Chief does not fall under the exceptions provided in Sec. 7
of the NIRC, which constitutes actions of the CIR that are non-
delegable. Further, Sec. 6 of the NIRC expressly provides that
the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative may
authorize the examination of any taxpayer and the assessment
of the correct amount of tax.
Lastly, the petitioner failed to avail of its right to bring the matter
before the CTA within the reglementary period upon the receipt
of the demand letter reiterating the assessed delinquent taxes
and denying its request for reconsideration which constituted the
final determination by the BIR on petitioners protest. Being a
final disposition by the said agency, the same would have been a
proper subject for appeal to the CTA.