R&Public of the Fuilippiny Court of Tax Appeals Curls City “Perfecto V. FERNANDE2 vs. = Commissioner of Internal Revenue, /

I

f.t<:Pll3tTC OF 1:1!£ i' UH.JPPI~)~:;..

COUR1' OF TAX li PPEAJ...S

()r; 1&1.tl~ can

r pERFECTO V. FERNANDEZ 1

Pet itioner,

-

versus -

C.T.A.

CA~ E NO. 3432

COHMISSIONE.R OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Hespondent.

X -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

~ -

-

X

D E C I .S I 0 N

Respondent Commissioner of Internal

Revenue, in a motion filed on April 30, 1982,

seeks the dismi~sal oi petitioner's appeal on

the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

He con-

tends that the appeal is premature since it

is taken from a mere assessment and not a

decision on a disputed assessment as provided

in Section 7(1) of Republic Act No. 1125.

We agree with the proposition of respon-

dent.

The facts alleged in the petition for

review of petitioner clearly show that on

February 17, 1982, he received by mail a closed

envelope containing two ~ep a rate As sessment

Notices (both numbered Ol-30-05-1079 U0-76-82)

requiring him to pay deficiency income tax,

interest and compromise ~enalty, as follows:

(a)

(b)

(c)

Tax Due

Interest

Compromise

-

1'7,375~00

-

f·3-097.50

~-

-

t·

50.00

49

DECl!.>ION -

CTA CASE NO . 3432

-

2 -

Without . fil!ng a protest or request for

reconsideration thereof with respondent

Commissioner of Internal Hevenue. he apf,ealed

to this Court on March 17, 1982.

Obviously. the appeal is taken from a

mere assessment, not from a decision of the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue on a dis-

puted assessment.

Under

~; ection 7 ( 1) of

Republic Act No. 1125. what should be reviewed

by this Court on a~peol is the Cor1rnissicner• s

decision on a disputed assessment and not the

assessment itself. Thus:

"Sec. 7.

Jurisdiction. -

The

Court of Tax ' ':)pee:ds shall exe r cise

exclusive appellate jurisdiction to

review by appeal as herein provided -

(1)

Decisions of the Com-

missioner of I 0 ternal Revenue in

cases involving disputed dssess-

ments. refunds of internal revenue

taxes. fees or other charges.

penalties imposed in relation there-

to. or other matt0rs arising under

the ~aticnal Internal Revenue Code

or other law or part of the law

administered by the Bureau of

I nte rna 1 !-<.,_,v enue; (under lin .i.ng

supplied.)

On all fours with the case at bar on this

point. by reason of the close similarity of

the factual settings. the exact provision o f

the l aw involved and the same issue liti g ~ted,

is Commissioner of Internal ~~v~nue vs. Leonardo

L>~ o

v

/

DBCI:JION

CTA Ci•.SE t!C. 34 32

-

3 -

s. Villa and T he Court of ~ ax Appeals, L- 23968,

January 2, 1968, 22

~i CRJ\ 3, wherein the Cupreme

Court .resolved t.he same p roblem now brought

before us in this ~rocePcinc; in the fo llo\1\'ing

wise :

The law conferring jurisd iction

on the ~ourt of Tax Appeals is found

in ~ ec t ion 7 of Hef ubl ic .-1ct 112 5 0

the pertinent part of which s t ates:

"Sec. 7.

Jurisdiction. -

T-re Court of l'ax .'-..l;peals shall

exercise exclusive a ppellate

jurisdiction to review by

appeal as herein provided -

11 (1) Decisions of the

Collector (no w Con~iss i one r)

of Internal Rpvenue in cases

involving disputed asnessnents,

refunds of internal revenue

taxes, fet•s or ottler <;h.Jr '-.;e s .

penalties imposed i n relation

the-reto • or ot~ hf~ r ra<.1t ters

arising under the llational

Internal HPvenue ~ode or

other law or part of law

ad.rr. ini~t e rE1d b y the t·ur eau

of Internal Hevenue:

11

The \vord "decisions" in parag raph 1,

Section 7 of i~epubl ic ,~,ct 112 5 , li llOted

above, has been interpreted to mean

the decis i ons of t he Com1i'i ::>sior.er oi

Internal Revenue on the protest of

the taxpayer aiJainst the assessments.

Definitely. said word does not siq-

nify the asses sment itself.

.:P. (; uote

\-.'hat thi s Court snid aptly in a vre-

vious case:

"In

1~hf.• first place.~

believe ~he respondent court

erred in holdinG that the

flssessment in t:uestion is th e

51

I

·;;;,

DECI SION -

CTA CASE NO. 3432

-

4 -

resnondent Co l lector's

decision or ruling a p 2e al-

able to it, and that con-

set.LUently, the period of

thirty days prescribed by

section 11 of H.epubl ic Act

1125 within which petitioner

should hdve d H Jea led to the

respondent court must be

counted from it3 receipt of

said assessment.

Where a

taxpayer q ueDtions an aDs ess-

ment and asks the Collector

to reconsider or cancel t h e

same because he (the taxpciyer)

believes he is no t

liabl~

therefor, the assessment

becomes a 'Jis nuted assess-

ment• that the - Collector must

decide, and the t a x? ayer c a n

appeal to the Court of Tax

Appea l s only upon receipt

of the decision of the Col-

lector on the dis?uted assess-

ment, x

x

x" (Emphasis

supplied)

The same interp retation finds

support in Section 11 of Hepublic

Kct 1125, which stotes:

".Sec. 11.

¥-Jho may u npen l:

effect of ar:peal. -

Any person,

association or corp cr~tion

adversely affected by a deci s ion

or ruling of the Coll ecto r

(now

Commissioner) o f lnte rnRl

~ evenue,

the Collector of Lustc ffis o r any

provincial or city Board of

A s s e s sm~ nt Ap~ e a ls ma y f il e an

ap~eal in the Court of Tax

/'.ppeals wi t h in thirty days 2 fter

the receipt of such decision or

ruling."

( t. rn ~ .· Lasis su pt--li ed)

Note that the law usPs Lhe word

"decisions", not "asses sments", thus

further indicating t h e l eq i sl<it i v.=-

intention to subject to judicial

review the decision OL

th ~ Com-

missioner on the r r otest a gainst

Dl!!Cl~ICN

CTA

CA~ E NC. 3432

-

5 -

an assessmen t but not the assess-

ment itself.

~ 1nce in the i nstant case

the tax~ayer ap~e 0 led from the

a s sE·ssment cf the Conlin i s ~ ioner

of 1 0 ternal Revenue without

previous ly contesting the same,

the appeal was premature and the

Court of Tax A ~ p ~ a ls had no juris-

diction to entertain said appeal.

For, as stated,

th~ jurisdictio n

of the Tax Court is to review by

a~pea l decisions of t he Co m mi s s Jc ~e r

of Internal Heven ue o n disputed

assessments .

T1;e '1'."l:X Cour t is a

court of s pecial jurisdiction.

As

such, it can

ta~e co g ni~ance only

of such mutters as are clearly

within its jurisdiction.

It is worth noting that under ~ ection

319-A of the National Internal Rpve nue Code,

as inserted by 1 residential D~c ree No . 1773,

January 16., 198 1 , an assessrnen_.!=; may bo pro-

tested administratively by filing a

~e ~ uest

for reconsideration or reinvestigution within

thirty (30) d.J.ys from r c ceipt of the assess-

or in part, the t 2x pRyer aJvPrsel y 21fected

by the decision o n

th •~ prote.s t may

r.J i '! 'ei:l l

to the Court of Tax ,\ppec. l s with in

t~~- l irty

otherwise, the decision s h<,ll t • . _: c o m,~ f i n;,l,

executory 0 nn de 1· and <J bl,.., .

53

. ,

J

-