Scribd
Upload
98 views1 page

Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. vs. Cir (G.R. No. 148380, December 9, 2005) - MCACB Facts

1) The petitioner received tax deficiency assessments from BIR for 1984 taxes and protested, but the BIR chief denied reconsideration and demanded payment within 10 days. 2) When the petitioner did not pay, the assistant commissioner issued warrants to collect, so petitioner appealed to CTA. 3) The CTA dismissed as the appeal was filed beyond the 30 days from the chief's demand letter, which was deemed a final determination despite being issued by a subordinate, as the NIRC allows the commissioner's authorized representatives to assess taxes. 4) The petitioner failed to timely appeal the chief's letter to the CTA, which constituted the BIR's final disposition of the protest, so the CTA properly dismissed

Uploaded by

Ella Qui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
98 views1 page

Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. vs. Cir (G.R. No. 148380, December 9, 2005) - MCACB Facts

1) The petitioner received tax deficiency assessments from BIR for 1984 taxes and protested, but the BIR chief denied reconsideration and demanded payment within 10 days. 2) When the petitioner did not pay, the assistant commissioner issued warrants to collect, so petitioner appealed to CTA. 3) The CTA dismissed as the appeal was filed beyond the 30 days from the chief's demand letter, which was deemed a final determination despite being issued by a subordinate, as the NIRC allows the commissioner's authorized representatives to assess taxes. 4) The petitioner failed to timely appeal the chief's letter to the CTA, which constituted the BIR's final disposition of the protest, so the CTA properly dismissed

Uploaded by

Ella Qui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK, INC. vs.

CIR letter received by the petitioner signified a character of finality for


(G.R. No. 148380, December 9, 2005) | MCACB it clearly indicates its firm stand against the reconsideration of
the assessment when it indicated that “failure to do so (to pay)
Facts: would result in the issuance of a warrant of distraint and levy to
enforce its collection without further notice.”
The controversy in this case started when the petitioner received
from the BIR deficiency tax assessments for the year 1984. Secondly, the letter attained finality despite the fact that it was
When the petitioner filed a protest and requested for a issued and signed by the Chief of the Accounts Receivable and
reconsideration or cancellation of the same, the Chief of the Billing Division instead of the CIR. This is because the act of the
Accounts Receivable and Billing Division of the BIR National said Chief does not fall under the exceptions provided in Sec. 7
Office reiterated the tax assessments and requested the of the NIRC, which constitutes actions of the CIR that are non-
petitioner to pay within 10 days, while denied its request for delegable. Further, Sec. 6 of the NIRC expressly provides that
reinvestigation. Upon the petitioner’s failure to pay the subject the “Commissioner or his duly authorized representative may
tax assessments within the prescribed period, the Asst. authorize the examination of any taxpayer and the assessment
Commissioner for Collection, acting for the CIR, issued the of the correct amount of tax.…”
corresponding warrants of distraints and/or levy and
garnishment. This prodded the petitioner to file a Petition for Lastly, the petitioner failed to avail of its right to bring the matter
Review with the CTA to contest the issuance of the warrants and before the CTA within the reglementary period upon the receipt
to enforce the collection of the tax assessments. of the demand letter reiterating the assessed delinquent taxes
and denying its request for reconsideration which constituted the
The CTA, however, dismissed the petition, declaring that it was final determination by the BIR on petitioner’s protest. Being a
filed beyond the 30-day period reckoned from the time it received final disposition by the said agency, the same would have been a
the demand letter on January 24, 1991 by the Chief of the BIR proper subject for appeal to the CTA.
Accounts Receivable and Billing Division.

Issue:

Is the demand letter for tax deficiency assessments issued and


signed by a subordinate officer who was acting in behalf of the
CIR deemed final and executor and subject to an appeal to the
CTA?

Ruling:

Yes. Firstly, a demand letter for payment of delinquent taxes


may be considered a decision on a disputed or protested
assessment. The determination on whether or not a demand
letter is final is conditioned upon the language used or the tenor
of the letter being sent to the taxpayer. In this case, the demand

You might also like