Court of Tax Appeals
0Re Vuartic of the Cailiopines Coukt of T. Feals Que“on Cily¥ Amnaete V. ~ Ramirez, in His ‘‘ Estat Late Don Hale Ta Man Ate € Serine 3 Petits vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue
RE VUARTIC OF THe CAILIOPINES
COUKT OF T*. FEALS
QUE“ON CIlY¥
amnaete v. ~ RAMIREZ, in his ‘‘
Estat late DON HALe ta
man ate €
serine 3
Petits
versus C.T.A. CASE HO, 1488
THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent,
Reeweeweneeneewee &
Vie ECISsSIONR
This refers to a claim for refund in the amount
of 96,374.65, representing transfer taxes and gom-
promise penalty alleged to have been paid erroneously
by petitioner.
It appears that petitioner, in a letter dated
December 8, 1958, notified respondent of the death of
the late Beldomero de Hazafias on November 11, 1958,
in St. Lowis, Missouri, United States of America. On
June 11, 1959, petitioner filed with the Bureau of
Internal Revenue a tentative estate and inheritance
tax return covering the properties left by the said
Baldomero de Hazafias. On June 18, 1959, respondent
issued Estate and Inheritance Tax Assessment No, HA-
58 demanding payment in the amount of 6,374.65, as
estate and inheritance taxes, including a compromise
penalty for alleged lack of notice of death. On July
30, 1959, petitioner paid the amount of P2,7%5.63 as
estate tax, plus 15.00 as compromise penalty, under
Official Reesipt No. 4-606475, and on November 9, 1959,
" 115
DECISION
CAS#.
2 the amount of ¥3,61%.02 was paid as inheritance tax under Official Receipt Mo. A~617682. Om December 16, 1959, petitioner filed with the Burean of Internal Revenue Regionel District No. 3, an amended estate and inheritance tax return, together with « claim for refund. Said re quest for refund was denied by respondent in a letter decision dated July 31, 1963. On Uectober 31, 1963, petitioner filed a request for reconsideration, which was denied by respondent on November 26, 1963. lence, the petition for review which was filed with this Court on January 20, 1964, The issues to be resolved in this case may be stated thus:
1. Whether or not the right of acon of oe 370.65 pow oR and inheritance 3 and omi se penalty has already prescribed,
2. Whether or not the alleged Sootenanaaey s in the respective sums of P1 1-70 and #1%,561.71 may be deducted from the gross estate of the late Baldomero de Nazafias; and ao, whether or not the amount of P145,75%.49, which is allegedly the ve rty of the widow, be in the computation of gross estate of the deceased.
- Respondent Coumissioner contends that petitioner's right to claim for the refund of the amounts paid us taxes and penelty has already prescribed. Petitioner, however, avers the contrary. ie maintains that he became aware of his right to refund only after the receipt from the United States of America of the per-
DECIGION «
CTA CASE MO, 1488 3 tinent dats regarding the estate of the decedent. Hence, his request for refund was made only after receipt of the data and the filing of the amended return.
The record shows that petitioner paid the amount of #2,7%5.63 as estate tex plus #15.00 as compromise penalty, on July 30, 1959, and the amount of 3,614.02 as inherit~ ance tax on November 9, 1999. The instant petition seek- ing the refund of the amounts paid as estate and in- heritance taxes and compromise penalty was filed on Jamuary 20, 1964, far beyond the statutory period of two (2) years provided by law, \vhich reads as follows:
o~xX KX any case, no su or proceeding shall be begun after the expiration of 2 years from the date of payment of the tax or —yx-" “tie eionet Internal Reverme Code, /*s respects the above-quoted eodal provision, it has been held that the taxpayer's failure to comply with the requirement regarding the institution of the action or proceeding in court within 2 years after the payment of the tax is a bar to the recovery of the same, irres- peetive of whether or not « claim for the refund of is still pending action by the latter. | (College of Orel & Dental Surgery v. Coll., G. R. Hos 1=100h6, Jan. 28, 1958; Gibbs v. Collector, G. R. No. L=-13453, Feb. 29, 1960.) In the case at bar, having failed to bring the present action within the statutory period of two (2) years, petitioner's right to recover has already preseribed.
DECISION «
CTA CASE MO, 1488 ly Having reached the conclusion that petitioner's right of action has preseribed, we deem it unnecessary to consider the other issues.
WHRASYORE, the above-entitled case is hereby dismissed, without pronouncement as to cesta.
50 UNDBRED.
@vezon City, July 125 1965.4 RL horeal ROMAN BK, UMALT
Associate Judge
I CONCUR:
D. REYES, OR,
Presi Judge
' 118