Case 10. Oceanic Wireless Network Inc Vs CIR

Oceanic Wireless Network Inc.
V Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CTA

CASE NO. 6111)
Facts:
Oceanic Wireless is a corporation with principal office located in Legaspi Village,
Makati. In April 1996, petitioner filed its 1995 Annual Corporate Annual Income Tax Return. In
December 1996, petitioner received a letter from the Revenue District Officer authorizing
Revenue Officers to examine the books of accounts and other records for the period January to
December 1995.
In 1999, petitioner executed a Waiver of Defense of Prescription of the NIRC within
which respondent may assess petitioner for deficiency taxes. A preliminary report of tax
assessment was issued and petitioner was requested to attend an informal conference to discuss
the result of the investigation done on the books.
Again, petitioner received another pre-assessment notice this time with Details of
Discrepancies. The company was advised to file a written protest or set up an office conference
to discuss the assessments for deficiency income. Inasmuch as the authority of respondent to
assess was about to prescribe in July 31 1999, demand letters were sent on July 30, 1999.
Petitioner now contends that the assessment notices for taxable year 1995 are void for
having been issued beyond the 3-yr prescriptive period as provided under the NIRC. Since the
tax return was filed in April 1995, respondent has 3 years to assess the petitioner. But the
assessment was done in 1999, hence the action has already prescribed.
Petitioner also questions the validity of the waiver on the ground that it failed to state the
kind and amount of tax required under RMO 20-90.
Respondent argues that petitioner executed a waiver extending the period of the
respondent pursuant to the provisions in the Tax Code.
1.
Issue:
Whether or not the BIRs right to assess has already prescribed.
2.
Whether or not the deficiency assessments are void for failure to state the law and facts to which
the assessments are made.
3.
Whether or not petitioner is liable for deficiency income tax.

Held:
1. No. BIRs right has not yet prescribed and the assessment notices are valid. At the time
of the execution of the waiver, there was no preliminary assessment issued yet against petitioner
where the kind and amount of tax could be referred to. Such details cannot be specified in the
waiver since it was still unascertainable at the time.
Following the rule that the period of respondent to assess was extended up to July 31,
1999 in view of the waiver, the deficiency assessments issued against petitioner on July 30, 1999
are within the period allowed by law.
2. No. The purpose of Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997in
requiring that "(t)he taxpayer be informed of the law and facts on which assessment is made" is
to give the taxpayer the opportunity to refute the findings of the examiner and give a more
accurate and detailed explanation regarding the proposed assessment.
In the case, there was substantial compliance with Sec. 228 of the NIRC because
petitioner was able to protest the assessments intelligently, thereby implying that it had actual
knowledge of the factual and legal bases of the assessments. The fact that petitioner was
furnished the computation and brief explanation of how the assessment for deficiency quarterly
income tax was arrived at, the requirement under Section 228 of the 1997 Tax Code is deemed
complied with. And even if petitioner was not furnished of the detailed computation of the
deficiency quarterly income tax, the same was discussed with petitioner during the informal
conference.
3. Yes. Petitioner having failed to comply with the requirement of the law in disputing an
assessment, the same became final, executory and demandable. Sec. 228 states that:
x x x If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty (180) daysfrom
submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax
Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty (180)day period; otherwise, the decision shall become final, executory and demandable. Undoubtedly, a taxpayer has
sixty (60) days from the filing of the protest to submit the relevant documents to support its protest, otherwise, the
assessment becomes final. Within one hundred eighty(180) days from the submission of the relevant documents, the
respondent should act on the protest. If the respondent rendered his decision within the period or failed to act on it,
the remedy of the taxpayer is to file within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision or from the lapse of one
hundred eighty(180) days, an appeal to this court, otherwise, the assessment will become final, executory and
demandable. x x x
In the case, petitioner failed to submit supporting documents contrary to what was jointly
stipulated by the parties. Hence, the reckoning of the 180-day period would be the day the protest
was filed (August 16, 1999). However, respondent failed to render his decision within 180 days
or until February 12, 2000. The remedy of petitioner was to file within 30 days there from an
appeal with this court which would be until March 14, 2000. But since the Petition for Review
was filed only on May 12, 2000, the same was definitely filed beyond the date prescribed by law.
*Case dismissed for being filed out of time.

Case 10. Oceanic Wireless Network Inc Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 10. Oceanic Wireless Network Inc Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 10. Oceanic Wireless Network Inc Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oceanic Wireless Network Inc.

V Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CTA

Whether or not petitioner is liable for deficiency income tax.

You might also like