Skip to decision

Court of Tax Appeals

0

Tang Ho De Li Seng Giap, et al. vs. Geteac vs. « Gase No. 639 Jose Arapas, et al.

CTA Case No. 639 July 20, 1961

| REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

' “COURT OF TAX APPEALS

MANILA


TANG HO DE LI SENG GIAP, JULIA

LEE KAW, SILVIO LEE, JOHN LEE,

PETER LEE, VALERIANA L&E YU,

MARY LEE YJ, WILLIAM LEE, on (

behalf of minor WILLIAM LEE, )

JR. , CECILIA C. LEE, FRANCES

C. LEE, HENRY LEE, on behalf P\

of minors HENRY, JR, EDMOND,

LUCIAN, and VENUS LILIAN, ali

surnamed LEE, RAFAEL TEBHANKEE,

on behalf ef minors MICHAEL

RICHARD, MARIA SYLVIA, RAFAEL

JOSE, MARIA CRISTINA, and LE&O-

POLDO GABRIEL, al1 surnamed

TEEHANKEE , Je LEE, on

behalf of "minors WAYNE, oe

and EILEEN, all surnamed LEE

ANTHONY P. LEE, on behalf cM

ANGELINE


behalf of of minors JANE LEE and

WILSON LEE

Petitioners,

GeTeAc

- versus « GASE NO. 639


JOSE ARAPAS, as Collector


of Internal Revenue

Respondent.


Xe5ueseens nee wseeaewee eae KX


DECISION

This is an appeal from the decision of the res- pendent holding the petitioners liable for the sum of ?1,135.37, allegedly representing “surcharges, inter- ests end penalties” for failure to pay in due time cer- tain donor's and danees' gift texes. However, accord- ing to the decision of respondent of March 10, 1959, the said amount represents “the balance of the donees'* » 166 a

| DECISION «

CeTaAe CASE NO. 6239 . -2- : gift tax as of April 7, 1959. (See page 167, B.I.R. records. )

It is not clear from the pleadings how the sum of 21,135. 37 wes arrived at. However, an examination of the B.I.R. records pertaining te the case shows that the said amount was arrived at as follows:

Denees’ gift tax --~--- - ® 3,117.73 5% surcharge on #1,837.73 ---~ 91, 89 1” interest on °1,837.73 <-.-- 404, D 1% interest on 603.15 6.03 Compromise for late pay- El abeemgmecmainecans WME

Total «--~

Lees amount already paid --... (See page 165, 5.1.R. records ) After trial and the filing by counsel for petition- ers ©f their memorandum, s written manifestation was _ filed by counsel for the Government stating - "1. That the only issue in the above- entitled case is whether the petitioners are still liable to interests, surcharges and penalties, notwithatending the fact that the basic denor's and donee's gift texes have already been paid by them on the due dete thereof;

"2. That the above statement of issue was the result of a wrongful c tion of interests, penalties and su roes by the Tax Audit Branch;

*3. Thet consequently, the respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue caused a reaudit of the assessment involved in the sbove-entitled case;

“4, That as a result thereof, it was found out that there is no legal justifica- tion to further insist on the collection of the assessment herein involved, for which a letter to thet effect was sent to coun- sel for the petitioners, a true ef which is hereto attached as Annex ‘A*;

"5S. Theat in view of the above action the respondent will not file se memorandum in the shove-entitled case inasmuch as the | 167 aed

DECISION «

C.T.A. CASE NO. 639 - 3 ~ issue has become academic.

“WHEREFORE, it is me peng Tp eee ret that the petition for review f petitioners in the ptm tae A mop A. dismissed. * Respondent having admitted that a mistake was com- mitted in the issuance of an assessment against peti- ticners in the sum of P1,135.37, and it appearing that the explanation is satisfactory, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO CRDERED.

Manila, July 20, 1961.

1 ae

Associate Judge

. WE CONCURS -~}™}

Presiding Judge

on 163

Contents