Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 120935 -

LUCAS G. ADAMSON, THERESE JUNE D. ADAMSON, AND SARA S. DE LOS REYES, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS PRESIDENT, TREASURER AND SECRETARY OF ADAMSON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, IN HER CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

Cited Laws

RA 547RA 286RA 402RA 1125RA 17RA 602RA 1125,RA 9282RA 8424,RA 877
Share:

Decision

Ruling

Accordingly, an affidavit, which was executed by revenue officers stating the tax liabilities of a taxpayer and attached to a criminal complaint for tax evasion, cannot be deemed an assessment that can be questioned before the Court of Tax Appeals. Neither the NIRC nor the revenue regulations governing the protest of assessments [12] provide a specific definition or form of an assessment. However, the NIRC defines the specific functions and effects of an assessment. To consider the affidavit attached to the Complaint as a proper assessment is to subvert the nature of an assessment and to set a bad precedent that will prejudice innocent taxpayers. True, as pointed out by the private respondents, an assessment informs the taxpayer that he or she has tax liabilities. But not all documents coming from the BIR containing a computation of the tax liability can be deemed assessments. To start with, an assessment must be sent to and received by a taxpayer, and must demand payment of the taxes described therein within a specific period. Thus, the NIRC imposes a 25 percent penalty, in addition to the tax due, in case the taxpayer fails to pay the deficiency tax within the time prescribed for its payment in the notice of assessment. Likewise, an interest of 20 percent per annum, or such higher rate as may be prescribed by rules and regulations, is to be collected from the date prescribed for its payment until the full payment. [13] The issuance of an assessment is vital in determining the period of limitation regarding its proper issuance and the period within which to protest it. Section 203 [14] of the NIRC provides that internal revenue taxes must be assessed within three years from the last day within which to file the return. Section 222, [15] on the other hand, specifies a period of ten years in case a fraudulent return with intent to evade was submitted or in case of failure to file a return. Also, Section 228 [16] of the same law states that said assessment may be protested only within thirty days from receipt thereof. Necessarily, the taxpayer must be certain that a specific document constitutes an assessment. Otherwise, confusion would arise regarding the period within which to make an assessment or to protest the same, or whether interest and penalty may accrue thereon. It should also be stressed that the said document is a notice duly sent to the taxpayer. Indeed, an assessment is deemed made only when the collector of internal revenue releases, mails or sends such notice to the taxpayer. [17] In the present case, the revenue officers' Affidavit merely contained a computation of respondents' tax liability. It did not state a demand or a period for payment. Worse, it was addressed to the justice secretary, not to the taxpayers. Respondents maintain that an assessment, in relation to taxation, is simply understood to mean: "A notice to the effect that the amount therein stated is due as tax and a demand for payment thereof." [18] "Fixes the liabil