Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 399 views

    CIR v. Suyoc Mines

    Uploaded by

    Patricia Sulit
    The CIR refrained from collecting taxes from Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company for over 5 years due to several requests from the company for extensions to prove the correctness of its tax assessments. The company cannot now claim the defense of prescription after persuading the CIR to postpone collection through its repeated requests. One who prevents something from being done cannot benefit from their own prevention. The company is estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CIR v. Suyoc Mines

    Uploaded by

    Patricia Sulit
    399 views1 page
    The CIR refrained from collecting taxes from Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company for over 5 years due to several requests from the company for extensions to prove the correctness of its tax assessments. The company cannot now claim the defense of prescription after persuading the CIR to postpone collection through its repeated requests. One who prevents something from being done cannot benefit from their own prevention. The company is estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense.

    Original Description:

    SPIT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The CIR refrained from collecting taxes from Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company for over 5 years due to several requests from the company for extensions to prove the correctness of its tax assessments. The company cannot now claim the defense of prescription after persuading the CIR to postpone collection through its repeated requests. One who prevents something from being done cannot benefit from their own prevention. The company is estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    399 views1 page

    CIR v. Suyoc Mines

    Uploaded by

    Patricia Sulit
    The CIR refrained from collecting taxes from Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company for over 5 years due to several requests from the company for extensions to prove the correctness of its tax assessments. The company cannot now claim the defense of prescription after persuading the CIR to postpone collection through its repeated requests. One who prevents something from being done cannot benefit from their own prevention. The company is estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CIR v. Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company|G.R. No.

    L-11527| ● CIR refrained from collecting the tax by distraint or levy or by


    November 25, 1958| J. Bautista Angelo proceeding in court within the 5-year period from the filing of the
    second amended final return due to the several requests of
    FACTS: respondent for extension to which petitioner yielded to give it
    ● Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company, a mining corporation every opportunity to prove its claim regarding the correctness of
    operating before the war, was unable to file in 1942 its income tax the assessment. It is most unfair for Suyoc to now take advantage
    return for the year 1941 due to the last war. After liberation, of such desistance to elude his deficiency income tax liability to
    Congress enacted Commonwealth Act No. 722 which extended the prejudice of the Government invoking the technical ground
    the filing of tax returns for 1941 up to December 31, 1945. Its of prescription.
    records having been lost or destroyed, the company requested the ● He who prevents a thing from being done may not avail himself
    Collector of Internal Revenue to grant it an extension of time to of the non-performance which he has himself occasioned, for the
    file its return, which was granted until February 15, 1946, and the law says to him in effect "this is your own act and therefore you
    company was authorized to file its return for 1941 on the basis of are not damnified." (R.H. Stearns Co. v. U.S. 78 L Ed. 6647). Or,
    the best evidence obtainable. as was aptly said, "The tax could have been collected, but the
    ● Several returns for the year 1941 were filed by Suyoc. On the basis government withheld action at the specific request of the plaintiff.
    of the second final return filed by the company on November 28, The plaintiff is now estopped and should not be permitted to raise
    1946, the Collector assessed against it a particular sum as income the defense of the statute of limitations." (Newpoint Co. v. U.S.
    tax on February 11, 1947. (Dc-wis), 34 Off. Supp. 588.)
    ● Company asked for an extension CIR granted only a 3 month ● A mere request for reexamination or reinvestigation of
    extension to pay. assessment may not suspend the running of the period of
    ● The company failed to pay the tax within the period granted to it limitation for in such a case there is need of a written agreement
    and so the Collector sent to it a letter on November 28, 1950 to extend the period between the Collector and the taxpayer.
    demanding payment of the tax due as assessed, plus surcharge and There are cases, however, where a taxpayer may be prevented
    interest up to December 31, 1950. from setting up the defense of prescription even if he has not
    ● On April 6, 1951, the company asked for a reconsideration and previously waived it in writing as when by his repeated requests
    reinvestigation of the assessment, which was granted, the case or positive acts the Government has been, for good reasons,
    being assigned to another examiner, but the Collector made persuaded to postpone collection to make himself feel that the
    another assessment against the company on April 1952. demand was not unreasonable or that no harassment or injustice
    ● After several other negotiations conducted at the request of is meant by the Government. And when such situation comes to
    respondent last assessment was agreed upon on July 1955. pass there are authorities that hold, based on weighty reasons, that
    ● Suyoc filed a petition for review with the CTA on the assessment such an attitude or behavior should not be countenanced if only
    given on July 1955 alleging prescription of the period of to protect the interest of the Government.
    collection.

    ISSUE:
    1. W/N the period for collection has prescribed - NO

    RULING/DOCTRINE:

    You might also like