Court of Tax Appeals
0CTA Case No. 4276
“Co :
REPUBLIC OF THE FPHILIFPFINES
COURT OF TAX AFFEALS
QUEZON CITY
LEILANI C. DIAZ,
Pekaitiarer
SRY EL C.7.A. CASE NO. 4276
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
REVENUE REGION NO. 11-8; /
and/or CRISPIN G. APOLINAR, i| y r| ail
Rec oorelen kh .
Dp & f£& r S Xr oO ni
cndent Coamnlaetoarner oof Tokernal Pevernie.
ina omotien filecd oom Gucgmeb ia, 28, seals the
dismiegaloof the petitien for revden on the grove
of lack af diuetesecdackion., We contends that the
ape d tr thie CASE as uur bervab )e 3 Lye es the
hae onokbt been cdigputed or protested
pureuant he Sechionm 2198 af the National Internal
Meventiie Cocke ag amended by Fregidential Decres Neo.
L775, January (4, (Sls hence, there could nok he
any decieion that may be appealable toa this Court
\
as cantenplated an Section 744) of Republic et Ne.
Piea.
DECISION —-
CTA CASE NO. 4276
We agree with or rorcdenk.
The perkinent facts as alleged in the petition
for rey Lon discle
that petitioner is the
surviving wife, and together with her minor’ sean,
are the hedres of Danmatla €. O04
az who 4d intestate
in Daveaag City on February 7, L984, leaving amang
other prape ct les. a parcel af Larne LAMpPRrLSsin|
hectare
in Talandang, Davao City, per TOT
Cin
oneal Of fi
3, the EBIPF
LieR, through Crispin Apalinar as Jevying officer,
the afo
cramentionec parcel of Jand to enforce
S@akate han! pur par tec Ly AE
aca irs t the
stake oof the cde
gasech aim the sum af FAIS, Of S,08,
with notice to seli the same at public auc
CH »
LORR
had ple with the ETR Reqional (ffice
dieR threouwgh Crispin Apalimar for a reconsiderakion
ae recall] of the
dzure oof the preaperty, ma
for or
ECHL
mneideration of the aforementionedc
ament was however made with respondent hefore
La tioner appe
aled ta this Court an May 30, 1989.
Ohviously, the a
mesmenk not having heen
pure te ened ce corn
ited. there could not be a
DECISION
CTA CASE NO.
decrisday oan appealed hea Incorporated Revenue, CTA Fhilippine American vs. The Hon.
Cace No.
of Republic this Court Comm (33 1 cyes pe ae: Amery ts Thy thes dan per tines Maou esc Lu (now Fressy eerpuies rel arising Reverie af of The Sec kon
ADOVE «
= 7O1, Court
IV EMULE
word 4276 smerny k that be May Cau t.
this (Fle Candyman WS. The of Internal 19703; The Commissioner Case No. 1872, January @O, Life Insurance Company, Inc.
Commissioner af Internal Revenue, CTA June ©, 1984, } Under Section 7 (1) Ack Mea, Ls what ds reviewable by on appeal ig the decision af the af FR Internal avenue oan a disputed Thugs, ot has heen heles law of of part arr ferrcina FY pI:
public which jurd ales 3 ies t aon foie) lie ar an the oa cg 7 of Fr gy vu Faw The exercise review by Pe ELON shal d ok be proavideacd cof 2 YE ies whe 1 here ary "CL) Der Comma ar o¢ SMa ks « fezons of the Collector aner of Internal S$ 2nvolving cdigputec rea fiurrds of internal LAXES » fee a ct her penaltie an thereto, matters wader the National Internal Code oor other law or part law administered by the Bureau Internal Revenue! s or imposed aor other moa Atlan Lang in’ paragraph yubbiec Ack LAS interpreted to "de af beer i, 2 Qhioted mean the 7 has 10 of the Comma 11S CLUS (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Leonardo S. Villa and the Court of Tax Appeals, &-23998, - January 2, 1968, GORA Se} £4 5% Under Section S1Se-A Cnoaw Sectianm BYO) of the National Internal Revenue Cade, an ag ame@nk may be pratested administratively by failing A request core iceratioan on reanvestiqation within thirty (20) days from receipt of the assessment:
Qtherwd.
Lt becomes final and wunappeatable. And if the prate is denied in whole or oan part, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision an the pret may apneal to the Court af Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days fram receipt of the said SLOW ober.
Eg thre cle Lon shall become final, @xecutory and demandabie.
Tt La thus clear heyore doubt that the Ler ory the recy for srecongideratian oar reinvestiqation ais the decigian on the disputed ament which if appealable to this Court.
amenmt is not formally contested or protested administratively, as what happened ain «che case at bar, the taxpayer has no right ta appeal, 11
.....
~) .....
IN V lEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for review filed in this case is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction at petiti oner' s costs. ' ...
SO ORDERED.
Que zon City, Metro Ma nila, Jaqnuary 27, 1989. I . ROAQUIN AMANTE F;
F't···r-:.,~5 .idir J C E R T I F I C A T I 0 N h(·:~ lr'E·'b y C:t.~r t.i. 'fy that thi s dr·~c.i.~:;;:i. on reached a'fter d u e cons ultation among t he members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance wit h Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitu tion. F'r- t.~sidinq ,Juclqe Court of Tax Appeals 12