Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 236 views

    CIR v. Tulio (Digest by Madz)

    Uploaded by

    madzarella
    This case involves a dispute over taxes owed by Tulio for the years 1986 and 1987. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued assessments against Tulio for deficiencies but Tulio failed to pay. CIR filed a collection case in court in 1997. Tulio argued the case was filed beyond the three-year statute of limitations. The court held that since Tulio failed to file tax returns, the ten-year statute of limitations for omissions applied, not the three-year period. CIR discovered the omission in 1989 so the 1997 case was timely. The assessments also became final when Tulio failed to protest within 30 days, so CIR could enforce collection in court.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CIR v. Tulio (Digest by Madz)

    Uploaded by

    madzarella
    236 views3 pages
    This case involves a dispute over taxes owed by Tulio for the years 1986 and 1987. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued assessments against Tulio for deficiencies but Tulio failed to pay. CIR filed a collection case in court in 1997. Tulio argued the case was filed beyond the three-year statute of limitations. The court held that since Tulio failed to file tax returns, the ten-year statute of limitations for omissions applied, not the three-year period. CIR discovered the omission in 1989 so the 1997 case was timely. The assessments also became final when Tulio failed to protest within 30 days, so CIR could enforce collection in court.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over taxes owed by Tulio for the years 1986 and 1987. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued assessments against Tulio for deficiencies but Tulio failed to pay. CIR filed a collection case in court in 1997. Tulio argued the case was filed beyond the three-year statute of limitations. The court held that since Tulio failed to file tax returns, the ten-year statute of limitations for omissions applied, not the three-year period. CIR discovered the omission in 1989 so the 1997 case was timely. The assessments also became final when Tulio failed to protest within 30 days, so CIR could enforce collection in court.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    236 views3 pages

    CIR v. Tulio (Digest by Madz)

    Uploaded by

    madzarella
    This case involves a dispute over taxes owed by Tulio for the years 1986 and 1987. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued assessments against Tulio for deficiencies but Tulio failed to pay. CIR filed a collection case in court in 1997. Tulio argued the case was filed beyond the three-year statute of limitations. The court held that since Tulio failed to file tax returns, the ten-year statute of limitations for omissions applied, not the three-year period. CIR discovered the omission in 1989 so the 1997 case was timely. The assessments also became final when Tulio failed to protest within 30 days, so CIR could enforce collection in court.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    CIR v.

    Tulio

    G.R. No. 139858 October 25, 2005

    Facts: On February 28, 1991, Arturo Tulio, respondent taxpayer,

    received from CIR a demand letter with two final assessment

    notices requesting payment of his deficiency percentage taxes for

    the taxable years 1986 and 1987; taxpayer failed to act on the

    assessment notices. On October 15, 1991, to enforce the

    collection of the taxes, CIR issued a warrant of distraint and/or

    levy against Tulio. However, he has no properties which can be

    placed under distraint and/or levy. On 3 different dates, CIR sent

    letters to taxpayer giving him the last opportunity to settle his

    deficiency tax liabilities; But the latter was obstinate. Thus, on

    October 29, 1997, petitioner filed with the RTC of Baguio City a

    civil action for the collection of the deficiency percentage

    taxes. Taxpayer filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the

    complaint was filed beyond the three-year prescriptive period

    provided by Section 203 of the NIRC.

    Issue: whether the complaint in the said civil case may be

    dismissed on the ground of prescription.


    Held: RTC erroneously applied Section 203 of the NIRC providing

    for the three-year prescriptive period from the filing of the tax

    return within which internal revenue taxes shall be assessed. As

    shown by the records, respondent failed to file a tax return for

    1986 and 1987. Such case is covered by Section 223 (now 222)

    of the NIRC providing for a ten-year prescriptive period from the

    discovery of the omission to file a tax return within which a

    proceeding in court may be filed. On September 14, 1989,

    petitioner found respondent’s omission to file a tax return.

    Hence, the running of the ten-year prescriptive period within

    which to assess and collect the taxes due from respondent

    commenced on that date. The two final assessment notices were

    issued on February 28, 1991, well within the prescriptive period of

    three (3) years. When respondent failed to question or protest

    the deficiency assessments thirty (30) days therefrom, or until

    March 30, 1991, the same became final and executory. Thereby

    the RTC had jurisdiction over this case, not the CTA for it is the

    ordinary courts which can entertain BIR money claims based on

    assessments that have become final and executory. Since the

    estate tax assessment had become final and unappealable, there


    is now no reason why petitioner should not enforce its authority to

    collect respondent’s deficiency percentage taxes for 1986 and

    1987.

    You might also like