CIR v. First Express Pawnshop Digest

CIR v. FIRST EXPRESS PAWNSHOP

G.R. Nos.  172054-46,  16 June 2009

Facts:  

In this case, respondent a pawnshop company received the tax assessment on 3 January 2002. On 1 February 2002, respondent submitted its protest and attached the GIS and Balance Sheet as of 31 December 1998. Since petitioner did not act on the protest during the 180-day period,respondent filed a petition before the CTA on 28 August 2002 and contended that petitioner did not consider the supporting documents on the interest expenses and donations which resulted in the deficiency income tax. 

         

Within 60 days from the filing of protest or until 2 April 2002, respondent should submit relevant supporting documents. Respondent, having submitted the supporting documents together with its protest, did not present additional documents anymore.

In a letter dated 12 March 2002, petitioner requested respondent to present proof of payment of DST on subscription. In a letter-reply, respondent stated that it could not produce any proof of DST payment because it was not required to pay DST under the law considering that the deposit on subscription was an advance made by its stockholders for future subscription, and no stock certificates were issued.

Since respondent has not allegedly submitted any relevant supporting documents, petitioner now claims that the assessment has become final, executory and demandable, hence, unappealable. 

Issue: WON assessment has become final

HELD: NO.  The assessment did not become final and unappealable. It cannot be said that respondent failed to submit relevant supporting documents that would render the assessment final because when respondent submitted its protest, respondent attached the GIS and Balance Sheet. Further, petitioner cannot insist on the submission of proof of DST payment because such document does not exist as respondent claims that it is not liable to pay, and has not paid, the DST on the deposit on subscription. After respondent submitted its letter-reply stating that it could not comply with the presentation of the proof of DST payment, no reply was received from petitioner.

The term “relevant supporting documents” should be understood as those documents necessary to support the legal basis in disputing a tax assessment as determined by the taxpayer. The BIR can only inform the taxpayer to submit additional documents. The BIR cannot demand what type of supporting documents should be submitted.  Otherwise, a taxpayer will be at the mercy of the BIR, which may require the production of documents that a taxpayer cannot submit.  Respondent has complied with the requisites in disputing an assessment pursuant to Section 228 of the Tax Code.

Section 228 states that if the protest is not acted upon within 180 days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the inaction may appeal to the CTA within 30 days from the lapse of the 180-day period. Respondent, having submitted its supporting documents on the same day the protest was filed, had until 31 July 2002 to wait for petitioner’s reply to its protest. On 28 August 2002 or within 30 days after the lapse of the 180-day period counted from the filing of the protest as the supporting documents were simultaneously filed, respondent filed a petition before the CTA.  


The Blogger

Hi! I'm a law student from Manila, Philippines.  I did Political Science, then Industrial Relations major in H.R. (postgrad) studies from UP.  I vlog, weightlift, experiment with new makeup looks, try Bollywood and bellydance steps, and rant about my cray life in my YouTube channel.  Once in a blue moon, I create content for another YT channel,  10+ blogs,  20+ FB pages and in HubPages.  Check out my official site.