CTA Case No. 4180

DECISION -

Notice, requiring petitioner ho pay deficiency documentary stamp tax ag follows:

Documentary Stamp Tax Due

Therean

While petitioner avers that priar ta the assesameant , it hac filed a request for reconsideration ane reinvestiqatian of A Fo gen assessment Natice af respandent dated October 4, 1°85 propasing an amendment, among others, for defirmiency documentary stamp tay in the amount of atooon for I9G2, ite subsequent prot adimat the aforementianed assesament July 22, LOS? ag af May 1987 has not vet heen acted upanm by ’ reepandent before the petition for review was filed with thie Courk an July 24, 1987.

Obviaue. vy, hecause- ma deci mo has as yet heen rendered by respondent on the protest of petitioner against the assessment of May 29, 1987, there could be mo apr clable decision cognizable by this Court.

(F lease Bee Candyman. Incorporated ‘VS. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue s CTA Case No, 1872, dJanuary 20, 1970.) Under Gectian 7(1) of ‘ Republic Oct No, 1425, what is reviewable hy this ~ ’ Court on appeal is the decision of the Commissioner ef Internal Revenue on a disputed assesement and nat the as. :ssment itself. Thus, it has been helds The law canferring jurisdiction. an the Court of Tax Appeals is found in Section tT wt Republic Act aly, Aa the pertinent part of which states:

The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercige exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal as herein provided — "(L) Decisions of the Collector (now Commissioner) of

Internal Revenue in Cases

invalving disputed assessments, refunds crt internal revenue Lares, fees ar other charqes, penalties imposed in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part af law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;"

The word “decisians" in paragraph 1, Section 7 of Republic Act, 1125, quoted above, has been interpreted to mean the decisions af the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on the protest of the taxpayer against the assessments. Definitely, said . 404

DECISION —

LTA CASE NO. 4180 item lf, Iles rqrigeber tibyed bias Cece eo del my wis eves anu Taye

Purser by Dare

fram ite cook mitre bo prep smear ds, prec liable srr oof hes maui tices cud deeset a FOR p cp ro SMES DLE? Mages sh oven me aris Lbs Rearct

PY

Appeals within thirty days after the receipt of. such decision or ruling." (Emphasis supplied) Note that the law uses‘ the word "decisions", not "assessments", thus further indicating the legislative intention to subject to judicial review the decision of the Commissioner’ on the protest against an assessment but not the assessment itself.

Since in the instant case the taxpayer appealed fram the assessment of the Commissioner of ' Internal Revenue without previously cantesting the same, the appeal was premature and the Court of Tax Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain said appeal For, as stated, the jurisdiction of the Tax Court is to review by appeal decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue an disputed assessments. The Tax Court ais a court of special jurisdiction. As such, it can take cognizance only of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction. (Commissioner af Internal Revenue vs. Leanardo SS. Villa and the Court of Tax Appeals, L-235988, January &, 1968, 22 SCRA 3; Ferfecta V. Fernandez vs. Cammissioner of Internal Revenue, C.T.A.

TAT

Case No, T4322, February 25, 1985.

Under Section 319-A (naw Section 270) af the National Internal Revenue Code, an assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the assessments atherwise, it becomes final and unappealable. And if the protest is denied in whole or in part, the _- @ taxpayer adversely affected by the decision on the ~ 406

DECISTON

spe om ere cy Eh cb ies piuchese hy Y i thak a cle muy HOON PP YP ES .

ELE COP

and the, Courdh oom Vax Appeals chad] hreset amie Lew hhyves my Fura cpl ies bhes rat epbeary omy di daes ree niricbery dh Cernig hore oot pee toi hk hearer Chana Banking

AMANTE FILLER

Presiding Judge

WE CONCUR:

CERTIFICATIAN

to hereby certify that this decisian was reached after due consultation among the membera of the Court oof Tax Appeals an accordance with Gectioan is, Arbiele VITT of the Conskitubion,

AMANTE FALLER

Fresidirfg Judge

Court..of Tax Appeals