ASG Law

Tag: Waiver of Statute of Limitations

  • Tax Assessment Validity: Waivers and Due Dates Under Scrutiny

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals’ decision to cancel deficiency tax assessments issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against First Gas Power Corporation for the taxable years 2000 and 2001. The Court found that the waivers extending the period to assess taxes for 2000 were defective due to the absence of the BIR’s acceptance date, rendering the assessment time-barred. Additionally, the assessments for 2001 were deemed invalid because they lacked a specific payment due date. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in tax assessments and provides clarity on the validity of waivers and assessment notices.

    BIR’s Assessment Overreach: When Waivers Fail and Due Dates Vanish

    This case revolves around the deficiency tax assessments issued by the BIR against First Gas Power Corporation for the taxable years 2000 and 2001. The central issue is whether these assessments were valid, considering the alleged defects in the waivers of the statute of limitations and the absence of a specific payment due date in the assessment notices. The BIR argued that the absence of acceptance dates on the waivers was a mere oversight and that the taxpayer was estopped from questioning their validity. The BIR also contended that a specific due date was not necessary for a valid assessment.

    The Court, however, sided with First Gas, emphasizing the importance of strictly complying with the requirements for executing valid waivers and issuing proper assessment notices. The case highlights the interplay between the government’s power to assess and collect taxes and the taxpayer’s right to due process and protection against prolonged and unscrupulous investigations. The facts reveal that First Gas received a Letter of Authority from the BIR in October 2002, authorizing an examination of its books for the 2000 and 2001 taxable years. Subsequently, preliminary and final assessment notices were issued, leading to a dispute over alleged deficiency income taxes and penalties.

    A critical point of contention was the validity of three waivers purportedly extending the period for the BIR to assess taxes. Section 203 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) generally provides a three-year period for tax assessments. However, Section 222(b) allows for an extension of this period if both the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the taxpayer agree in writing before the expiration of the original period. This extension requires strict compliance with specific guidelines outlined in Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) 20-90 and Revenue Delegation Authority Order (RDAO) 05-01.

    These guidelines mandate that the waiver must be in the prescribed form, signed by the taxpayer or their authorized representative, duly notarized, and signed by the CIR or an authorized revenue official, indicating acceptance and the date thereof. Furthermore, both the execution and acceptance dates must fall before the expiration of the original prescriptive period. In this case, the Court found the waivers to be defective because they lacked the date of acceptance by the BIR. This omission was deemed a fatal flaw, as it made it impossible to determine whether the waivers were validly accepted before the prescriptive period expired.

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that the requirements for executing valid waivers must be strictly followed. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kudos Metal Corporation, the Court emphasized that the date of acceptance by the BIR is crucial for determining whether the waiver was agreed upon before the expiration of the three-year period. The absence of this date creates uncertainty and undermines the integrity of the waiver. Similarly, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Standard Chartered Bank, the Court reiterated that failure to comply with any of the requisites renders the waiver defective and ineffectual.

    The BIR’s argument that the date of notarization could be presumed as the date of acceptance was also rejected by the Court. The CTA correctly pointed out that the notary public serves a different function than the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is authorized to accept waivers. Additionally, the BIR’s representative was not present during the notarization, further weakening the argument that notarization implied acceptance. Due to the invalidity of the waivers, the Court concluded that the BIR’s assessment for the taxable year 2000 was issued beyond the prescriptive period and was therefore void.

    The BIR also argued that First Gas was estopped from questioning the validity of the waivers because it had requested their execution. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing the Kudos Metal case, where it held that the doctrine of estoppel cannot override the statute of limitations on tax assessments. The Court emphasized that the BIR must strictly comply with the procedure for executing valid waivers and cannot use estoppel to cover its own failures. Furthermore, the Court addressed the BIR’s contention that First Gas could not raise the issue of prescription for the first time on appeal.

    Citing Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lancaster Philippines, Inc., the Court affirmed that the CTA has the authority to rule on issues not specifically raised by the parties if necessary for the orderly disposition of the case. This is particularly true when dealing with prescription, as the statute of limitations is designed to protect taxpayers from prolonged investigations.

    Turning to the assessment for the taxable year 2001, the Court found it invalid due to the absence of a specific payment due date. The assessment notices stated that the due date was to be shown in the enclosed assessment notice, but this information was left blank. The Court relied on Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fitness By Design, Inc., which held that a final assessment notice is invalid if it does not contain a definite due date for payment. Without a clear due date, the taxpayer is not properly informed of when the tax liability must be settled, rendering the assessment ineffective.

    The principle of prescription in tax law serves a vital purpose. It provides taxpayers with a sense of security and prevents the government from indefinitely pursuing tax assessments. By setting a time limit on the assessment and collection of taxes, the law encourages efficient tax administration and protects taxpayers from the burden of defending against stale claims. The requirements for waivers of the statute of limitations are designed to ensure that taxpayers knowingly and voluntarily agree to extend the assessment period. Strict compliance with these requirements is essential to prevent abuse and protect taxpayers’ rights.

    The requirement for a specific payment due date in assessment notices is equally important. Taxpayers must be clearly informed of when their tax liabilities are due to avoid penalties and interest. Vague or ambiguous assessment notices can lead to confusion and disputes, undermining the fairness and efficiency of the tax system. By requiring a definite due date, the law ensures that taxpayers have adequate notice and opportunity to comply with their tax obligations. The absence of a due date in the assessment for 2001 was a significant procedural defect that rendered the assessment invalid.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was the validity of deficiency tax assessments issued by the BIR, considering alleged defects in the waivers of the statute of limitations and the absence of a specific payment due date in the assessment notices.
    What is a waiver of the statute of limitations in tax law? A waiver of the statute of limitations is a written agreement between the BIR and the taxpayer to extend the period within which the BIR can assess and collect taxes, beyond the standard three-year period.
    What are the requirements for a valid waiver? For a waiver to be valid, it must be in the prescribed form, signed by the taxpayer or their authorized representative, duly notarized, and signed by the CIR or an authorized revenue official, indicating acceptance and the date thereof, before the expiration of the original prescriptive period.
    Why is the date of acceptance by the BIR important in a waiver? The date of acceptance is crucial because it establishes that the waiver was agreed upon by both parties before the expiration of the original three-year period, ensuring that the extension is valid.
    What happens if a waiver is found to be defective? If a waiver is found to be defective, it does not validly extend the prescriptive period, and the BIR’s assessment may be considered time-barred, rendering it void.
    Is it necessary for an assessment notice to contain a specific payment due date? Yes, an assessment notice must contain a specific payment due date to clearly inform the taxpayer of when their tax liabilities must be settled, ensuring they have adequate notice and opportunity to comply.
    Can the BIR use the doctrine of estoppel to validate a defective waiver? No, the BIR cannot use the doctrine of estoppel to validate a defective waiver, as it must strictly comply with the procedure for executing valid waivers and cannot use estoppel to cover its own failures.
    Can the CTA rule on issues not raised by the parties? Yes, the CTA can rule on issues not specifically raised by the parties if necessary for the orderly disposition of the case, such as the issue of prescription.
    What is the significance of the prescription period in tax assessments? The prescription period provides taxpayers with a sense of security, prevents indefinite tax assessments, encourages efficient tax administration, and protects taxpayers from stale claims.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a reminder to the BIR to strictly adhere to procedural requirements when issuing tax assessments and executing waivers. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in the invalidation of the assessment, protecting taxpayers from unwarranted tax liabilities. This case also underscores the importance for taxpayers to carefully review assessment notices and waivers to ensure their validity.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FIRST GAS POWER CORPORATION, G.R. No. 214933, February 15, 2022

  • Waiver Validity and Taxpayer Estoppel: Balancing BIR Procedures and Taxpayer Conduct

    The Supreme Court in Asian Transmission Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue held that a taxpayer can be estopped from questioning the validity of waivers of the statute of limitations for tax assessments, even if the waivers contain defects attributable to both the taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). This means that if a taxpayer benefits from the extensions granted by the waivers and only questions their validity after an unfavorable assessment, they may be barred from using the waivers’ defects as a defense against tax liability. This decision emphasizes the importance of good faith and timely action in tax matters.

    When Haphazard Waivers Come Back to Haunt: The Case of Asian Transmission Corporation

    This case revolves around Asian Transmission Corporation’s (ATC) challenge to deficiency tax assessments issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). The assessments stemmed from ATC’s alleged deficiency withholding tax on compensation (WTC), expanded withholding tax (EWT), and final withholding tax (FWT) for the taxable year 2002. To allow the BIR to continue its investigation beyond the original prescription period, ATC executed eight successive Waivers of the Defense of Prescription under the Statute of Limitations of the National Internal Revenue Code. However, ATC later questioned the validity of these waivers, arguing they were defective and did not validly extend the assessment period.

    The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether ATC could challenge the validity of these waivers, given their defects and ATC’s conduct throughout the assessment process. The Court had to consider the balance between the BIR’s obligation to follow proper procedures in executing waivers and the taxpayer’s responsibility to act in good faith and raise objections promptly.

    The Waivers in question suffered from several defects. These included improper notarization, failure to indicate the date of acceptance by the BIR, lack of signature by the proper revenue officer, and failure to specify the type and amount of tax due. The Court acknowledged that the BIR had failed to observe the procedures outlined in Revenue Delegation Authority Order No. (RDAO) 05-01 for executing valid waivers. However, the Court also noted that ATC was not entirely blameless, as they were responsible for preparing the waivers before submitting them to the BIR.

    The Court emphasized that ATC benefited from the waivers. The extensions granted by the waivers allowed ATC to continue corresponding with the tax authorities and allowed them to proceed with their investigation. Because of this the Court applied the principles of in pari delicto (in equal fault), unclean hands, and estoppel to prevent ATC from benefiting from its own negligence. The principle of estoppel, in particular, played a crucial role in the Court’s decision.

    “Verily, it has been held that the doctrine of estoppel, as a bar to the statute of limitations protecting a taxpayer from prolonged investigations, must be applied sparingly.”

    The Court noted that ATC only questioned the validity of the waivers after the CIR issued an unfavorable decision on their administrative protest. This belated challenge raised concerns about ATC’s motives, suggesting it was an attempt to avoid tax liability after benefiting from the extended investigation period. This timeline was critical in determining whether the principle of estoppel should apply. To further elaborate, Estoppel arises when a party, through its conduct or representations, leads another party to believe in a particular state of facts, and the other party acts upon that belief to their detriment. In this case, ATC’s continuous execution of waivers and participation in the extended investigation led the BIR to believe that the assessment period had been validly extended.

    The Court also cited previous rulings in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Next Mobile, Inc. and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Transitions Optical Philippines, Inc., where similar circumstances led to the application of estoppel against the taxpayer. These cases highlight the importance of taxpayers raising objections to the validity of waivers at the earliest opportunity. Failure to do so can result in being barred from challenging the waivers later, even if they contain defects.

    The Supreme Court rejected ATC’s argument that the defects attributable to the BIR outnumbered those attributable to ATC. The Court clarified that the validity of a waiver is not determined by a mere plurality of defects. Instead, the Court focused on the taxpayer’s contributory fault or negligence coupled with estoppel. In other words, even if the BIR made more mistakes in the execution of the waivers, ATC’s conduct in benefiting from the extensions and delaying their challenge tipped the scales in favor of the BIR.

    The Court’s decision serves as a reminder to taxpayers to exercise diligence in tax matters and to promptly address any concerns regarding the validity of waivers. Taxpayers cannot execute haphazard waivers, lead the tax authorities to believe they are effective, and then deny their validity when it becomes unfavorable. This would create an environment where taxpayers could easily evade their tax obligations by hiding behind technicalities. The court was emphatic in reinforcing that the principles of equity and fair dealing apply to both taxpayers and the government.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? Whether Asian Transmission Corporation (ATC) could challenge the validity of tax assessment waivers it had previously executed, despite defects in those waivers.
    What were the defects in the waivers? The waivers suffered from defects such as improper notarization, missing dates of acceptance by the BIR, lack of signature by the proper revenue officer, and failure to specify the type and amount of tax due.
    Why did ATC challenge the validity of the waivers? ATC challenged the waivers to argue that the BIR’s assessment was time-barred, as the original period to assess taxes had already expired.
    What is the principle of estoppel? Estoppel prevents a party from denying a fact that they previously asserted, especially if another party has acted in reliance on that assertion to their detriment.
    How did the principle of estoppel apply to this case? The court ruled that ATC was estopped from questioning the waivers because they had benefited from the extended investigation period granted by those waivers and only raised the issue of validity after receiving an unfavorable assessment.
    What is the significance of the phrase “in pari delicto”? “In pari delicto” means “in equal fault.” The court used this principle to suggest that both ATC and the BIR were at fault in the execution of the defective waivers.
    Did the court find the BIR at fault in this case? Yes, the court acknowledged that the BIR had failed to observe the procedures outlined in Revenue Delegation Authority Order No. (RDAO) 05-01 for executing valid waivers.
    What is the main takeaway from this case for taxpayers? Taxpayers should exercise diligence in tax matters, promptly address any concerns regarding the validity of waivers, and cannot benefit from extensions granted by waivers and then deny their validity to evade tax obligations.

    This case illustrates the importance of proper execution and timely challenges in tax matters. Taxpayers should ensure that all waivers are correctly executed and promptly question any irregularities. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that taxpayers cannot exploit technicalities to evade their tax obligations, especially after benefiting from the extended investigation period granted by the waivers. This underscores the need for both the BIR and taxpayers to adhere to established procedures and act in good faith.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Asian Transmission Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 230861, February 14, 2022

  • Understanding the Impact of Invalid Waivers on Tax Assessments and Amnesty in the Philippines

    Invalid Waivers and Tax Amnesty: Key Lessons for Taxpayers

    La Flor Dela Isabela, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 202105, April 28, 2021

    Imagine receiving a hefty tax bill from the government, only to find out years later that the assessment was invalid due to procedural errors. This is not just a hypothetical scenario but the reality for La Flor Dela Isabela, Inc., a company that challenged the validity of tax assessments and waivers issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). The case underscores the critical importance of adhering to legal procedures in tax assessments and the potential benefits of tax amnesty programs. This article delves into the intricacies of the case, providing insights into the legal principles involved and their practical implications for taxpayers in the Philippines.

    Legal Context: Understanding Tax Assessments and Waivers

    In the Philippines, the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) sets the framework for tax assessments and collections. Section 203 of the NIRC stipulates a three-year period for the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to assess and collect internal revenue taxes. However, this period can be extended if both the taxpayer and the CIR agree in writing to a waiver of the statute of limitations, as outlined in Section 222(b) of the NIRC.

    The term “waiver of the statute of limitations” refers to a written agreement between the taxpayer and the BIR to extend the period for assessing and collecting taxes beyond the standard three years. This waiver must comply with specific requirements set forth by the BIR through Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 20-90 and Revenue Delegation Authority Order (RDAO) No. 05-01. These include the waiver being in writing, agreed upon by both parties, executed before the expiration of the original prescriptive period, and specifying a definite period for extension.

    Additionally, the Tax Amnesty Program under Republic Act No. 9480 offers taxpayers relief from unpaid internal revenue taxes for the year 2005 and prior years. This program allows taxpayers to settle their tax liabilities by paying a reduced amnesty tax, thereby extinguishing their tax obligations and related penalties.

    Case Breakdown: La Flor Dela Isabela’s Journey

    La Flor Dela Isabela, Inc. faced a tax assessment from the CIR for the taxable year 1999, which included deficiencies in income tax, value-added tax, withholding tax on compensation, and a compromise penalty. The company executed five waivers to extend the CIR’s period to assess and collect these taxes. However, La Flor contested the validity of these waivers and the subsequent assessments.

    The case progressed through the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), where La Flor’s petition for cancellation of the assessments was initially denied due to procedural delays. The CTA held that La Flor had missed the 30-day window to appeal the CIR’s Final Decision on Disputed Assessments (FDDA).

    Upon reaching the Supreme Court, La Flor’s arguments centered on the invalidity of the waivers and the applicability of the tax amnesty under RA 9480. The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the strict compliance with the requirements for valid waivers. The Court found that the waivers executed by La Flor did not meet these standards due to several defects:

    • The first and fourth waivers lacked the date of acceptance by the CIR or its authorized representative.
    • All waivers were signed by La Flor’s Accounting Manager, without evidence of his authority to do so.
    • The fourth waiver was executed after the expiration of the third waiver, rendering subsequent waivers invalid.

    The Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with waiver requirements, stating, “A waiver of the statute of limitations is a derogation of a taxpayer’s right to security against prolonged and unscrupulous investigations. Thus, it must be carefully and strictly construed.”

    Furthermore, the Court ruled that La Flor’s compliance with the tax amnesty program under RA 9480 extinguished its tax liabilities for the assessed income tax and value-added tax. The Court noted, “Petitioner La Flor’s compliance with the requirements under RA 9480 as implemented by DOF DO No. 29-07 extinguished its tax liabilities, additions, and all appurtenant civil, criminal, or administrative penalties under the NIRC.”

    Practical Implications: Navigating Tax Assessments and Amnesty

    This ruling has significant implications for taxpayers and the BIR. Taxpayers must ensure that any waivers they sign are in strict compliance with BIR regulations to avoid invalidating the assessment period. The decision also reinforces the effectiveness of the tax amnesty program as a means to settle tax liabilities, provided all conditions are met.

    For businesses and individuals, this case serves as a reminder to carefully review and document any agreements with the BIR. It is advisable to seek legal counsel to ensure that all procedural requirements are met, especially when dealing with tax assessments and waivers.

    Key Lessons:

    • Ensure strict compliance with BIR requirements when executing waivers of the statute of limitations.
    • Consider availing of tax amnesty programs to settle outstanding tax liabilities.
    • Seek legal advice to navigate complex tax procedures and protect your rights as a taxpayer.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is a waiver of the statute of limitations in tax assessments?
    A waiver of the statute of limitations is a written agreement between a taxpayer and the BIR to extend the period for assessing and collecting taxes beyond the standard three-year period.

    What are the requirements for a valid waiver?
    A valid waiver must be in writing, agreed upon by both the taxpayer and the CIR, executed before the expiration of the original prescriptive period, and specify a definite period for extension.

    Can a taxpayer still avail of tax amnesty if an assessment has been issued?
    Yes, a taxpayer can avail of tax amnesty under RA 9480 even if an assessment has been issued, provided the assessment is not subject to a final and executory judgment by the courts.

    What happens if a waiver is found to be invalid?
    If a waiver is found to be invalid, the assessment period reverts to the original three-year limit, potentially rendering any assessment issued beyond this period void.

    How can a business protect itself from invalid tax assessments?
    Businesses should ensure strict compliance with BIR regulations when executing waivers and seek legal advice to navigate tax procedures effectively.

    ASG Law specializes in tax law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Understanding Tax Assessment and Collection Prescriptions: A Landmark Supreme Court Decision

    Key Takeaway: The Importance of Timely Tax Assessments and Collections

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 227049, September 16, 2020

    Imagine receiving a tax bill for a debt from decades ago. This was the reality for Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) when the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) attempted to collect taxes assessed in 1991, twenty years later. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the critical importance of adhering to statutory time limits in tax assessments and collections. At the heart of this case was the question of whether the CIR’s right to assess and collect taxes had prescribed, or lapsed, due to delays in enforcement.

    The case revolved around deficiency taxes assessed against Citytrust Banking Corporation, which later merged with BPI. The CIR issued assessment notices in 1991, but it was not until 2011 that it attempted to enforce collection through a warrant of distraint and/or levy. BPI contested the collection, arguing that the CIR’s right to assess and collect had already prescribed.

    Legal Context: Understanding the Statute of Limitations in Taxation

    In the Philippines, the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) sets strict time limits for the assessment and collection of taxes. The general rule under the 1977 Tax Code, which was applicable at the time of the assessments, is that the CIR has three years from the filing of the tax return to assess deficiency taxes. This period can be extended by mutual agreement between the taxpayer and the CIR through a waiver of the statute of limitations. However, such waivers must comply with specific formal requirements, including the signatures of both parties.

    The concept of prescription in tax law serves to protect taxpayers from indefinite liability. As the Supreme Court noted, “[t]he law provides for a statute of limitations on the assessment and collection of internal revenue taxes in order to safeguard the interest of the taxpayer against unreasonable investigation.” This principle is crucial because it prevents the government from indefinitely pursuing tax debts, ensuring fairness and predictability in tax administration.

    For example, if a business files its tax return on April 15, 2023, the CIR typically has until April 15, 2026, to assess any deficiency taxes. If no assessment is made within this period, the right to assess is considered to have prescribed. Similarly, once an assessment is made, the CIR has three years to collect the assessed taxes, either through administrative remedies like distraint and levy or through judicial action.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey from Assessment to Collection

    The saga began in 1986 when Citytrust Banking Corporation faced deficiency tax assessments for various tax types, including income tax, expanded withholding tax, withholding tax on deposit substitutes, real estate dealer’s fixed tax, and penalties for late remittance of withholding tax on compensation. The CIR issued assessment notices on May 6, 1991, after Citytrust had executed three waivers of the statute of limitations.

    Citytrust protested the assessments, and a demand for payment was made in February 1992. However, no further action was taken until 2011, when the CIR issued a warrant of distraint and/or levy against BPI, which had merged with Citytrust in 1996. BPI challenged this action before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), arguing that the CIR’s right to assess and collect had prescribed.

    The CTA ruled in favor of BPI, canceling the warrant and affirming that the assessments and the right to collect had prescribed. The CIR appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the CTA’s decision. The Court’s reasoning was clear:

    – “The CIR did not offer proof that Citytrust received the letter dated February 5, 1992. This failure ‘lead[s] to the conclusion that no assessment was issued.’”
    – “Estoppel does not lie against BPI. It was the tax authorities who had caused the aforementioned defects. The flawed waivers did not extend the prescriptive periods for assessment.”
    – “The CIR could no longer enforce payment for the aforementioned deficiency [taxes], despite having issued the corresponding assessments within the 10-year period. By the time the subject distraint and/or levy was issued in 2011, the CIR’s right to collect any of these taxes had already prescribed.”

    Practical Implications: Navigating Tax Assessments and Collections

    This ruling has significant implications for both taxpayers and the tax authorities. For taxpayers, it reinforces the importance of understanding and asserting their rights under the statute of limitations. If a tax assessment is not made within the prescribed period, taxpayers can confidently challenge any subsequent attempts at collection.

    For the CIR and other tax authorities, the decision serves as a reminder to diligently pursue assessments and collections within the legal time frames. Failure to do so can result in the loss of the right to collect taxes, even if the assessments were initially valid.

    Key Lessons:

    – **Monitor Assessment Periods:** Taxpayers should keep track of the statutory periods for tax assessments and collections to ensure they can challenge any untimely actions.
    – **Ensure Valid Waivers:** If extending the assessment period, ensure that waivers are executed correctly and meet all formal requirements.
    – **Prompt Action on Assessments:** Tax authorities must act promptly to assess and collect taxes to avoid prescription.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    **What is the statute of limitations for tax assessments in the Philippines?**

    The general rule is that the CIR has three years from the filing of the tax return to assess deficiency taxes, unless extended by a valid waiver.

    **Can the statute of limitations for tax assessments be extended?**

    Yes, it can be extended through a mutual agreement between the taxpayer and the CIR, but the waiver must meet specific formal requirements.

    **What happens if the CIR fails to assess taxes within the prescribed period?**

    If the CIR fails to assess within the three-year period (or extended period if a valid waiver is in place), the right to assess is considered to have prescribed, and the taxpayer is no longer liable for the deficiency.

    **What is the prescription period for collecting assessed taxes?**

    Once an assessment is made, the CIR has three years to collect the assessed taxes through administrative or judicial means.

    **What should taxpayers do if they receive a tax assessment after the prescription period?**

    Taxpayers should challenge the assessment by filing a petition with the Court of Tax Appeals, arguing that the CIR’s right to assess has prescribed.

    **How can businesses protect themselves from untimely tax assessments?**

    Businesses should maintain accurate records of their tax filings and any waivers executed with the CIR, and consult with legal professionals to ensure compliance with tax laws.

    ASG Law specializes in tax law and can help you navigate the complexities of tax assessments and collections. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Tax Assessment Prescription: Waivers Must Clearly Define Tax Liabilities for Validity

    The Supreme Court has affirmed that waivers extending the prescriptive period for tax assessments must strictly comply with legal requirements, particularly specifying the nature and amount of the tax involved. This ruling protects taxpayers by ensuring that waivers are clear and unambiguous, preventing indefinite extensions of the tax assessment period. It reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules to safeguard taxpayers’ rights against potential overreach by tax authorities.

    La Flor’s Tax Battle: When Do Waivers Truly Waive Tax Assessment Limits?

    This case, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. La Flor dela Isabela, Inc., revolves around the validity of tax assessments for Expanded Withholding Tax (EWT) and Withholding Tax on Compensation (WTC) for the year 2005. The central issue is whether the waivers executed by La Flor effectively extended the prescriptive period for the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to issue these assessments. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) argued that the waivers were valid, while La Flor contended that they were defective and did not comply with the requirements set forth in Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 20-90, thus rendering the assessments time-barred.

    The factual backdrop involves La Flor, a domestic corporation, which filed monthly returns for EWT and WTC for the calendar year 2005. Subsequently, La Flor executed several waivers purportedly extending the period for the BIR to assess its internal revenue liabilities. The CIR issued Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notices (FANs) on December 17, 2009, covering deficiency taxes for the taxable year 2005. La Flor protested these assessments, leading to a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) issued by the CIR. Aggrieved, La Flor filed a petition for review before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) Division.

    The CTA Division ruled in favor of La Flor, canceling the deficiency tax assessments. It found that the assessments were issued beyond the three-year prescriptive period under Section 203 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). The CTA Division also held that the waivers were ineffective, as they did not comply with RMO No. 20-90, failing to state the nature and amount of the tax to be assessed. The CIR’s subsequent appeal to the CTA En Banc was also dismissed, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court addressed whether Section 203 of the NIRC applies to EWT and WTC assessments. The CIR contended that the prescriptive period does not apply to withholding agents like La Flor because the amount collected is a penalty, not the tax itself. However, the Court clarified that withholding taxes are indeed internal revenue taxes covered by Section 203 of the NIRC. Section 203 states:

    SEC. 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection. — Except as provided in Section 222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period: Provided, That in case where a return is filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three (3)-year period shall be counted from the day the return was filed. For purposes of this Section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on such last day.

    Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that withholding taxes are a method of collecting income tax, with the withholding agent acting as the government’s agent to ensure payment. Two distinct liabilities arise: one for the income earner/payee and another for the withholding agent. As the Court stated in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:

    It is, therefore, indisputable that the withholding agent is merely a tax collector and not a taxpayer… Under the withholding system, however, the agent-payor becomes a payee by fiction of law. His (agent) liability is direct and independent from the taxpayer, because the income tax is still imposed on and due from the latter. The agent is not liable for the tax as no wealth flowed into him — he earned no income. The Tax Code only makes the agent personally liable for the tax arising from the breach of its legal duty to withhold.

    Thus, the Court rejected the CIR’s argument that withholding tax assessments are merely penalties outside the scope of Section 203 of the NIRC. These assessments aim to collect unpaid income taxes, not just penalize the withholding agent. The Court held that a holistic reading of the Tax Code reveals that the tax assessment for withholding tax deficiency is distinct and independent from possible penalties imposed for failure to withhold and remit taxes.

    The CIR also argued that the waivers executed by La Flor extended the prescriptive period, even if Section 203 applied. The CIR contended that the CTA erred in disregarding the waivers because evidence not formally offered may be considered if they form part of the records. However, the Court reiterated that waivers must strictly comply with RMO No. 20-90, which requires the indication of the nature and amount of the tax due. As the Court held in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Systems Technology Institute, Inc., “These requirements are mandatory and must strictly be followed.”

    In the present case, the waivers failed to indicate the specific tax involved and the exact amount of the tax to be assessed or collected. The Court emphasized that these details are material because there can be no true and valid agreement between the taxpayer and the CIR absent this information. Thus, the waivers did not effectively extend the prescriptive period under Section 203 due to their invalidity.

    The Court determined that the assessments against La Flor had prescribed because the waivers were invalid. As the Supreme Court emphasized, compliance with RMO No. 20-90 is not merely directory but mandatory, ensuring that taxpayers are fully aware of the implications of waiving their right to the statute of limitations. This requirement provides taxpayers with a clear understanding of the extent of their waiver, preventing the tax authorities from making indefinite or arbitrary assessments.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the waivers executed by La Flor dela Isabela, Inc. effectively extended the prescriptive period for the CIR to assess deficiency taxes for EWT and WTC. The court focused on the validity of these waivers under RMO No. 20-90.
    What is the prescriptive period for tax assessment under the NIRC? Under Section 203 of the NIRC, the BIR has three years from the last day prescribed by law for filing the return to assess internal revenue taxes. This period can be extended through a valid waiver.
    What are the requirements for a valid waiver of the statute of limitations? A valid waiver must comply with RMO No. 20-90, which requires the waiver to specify the nature of the tax involved, the amount of the tax to be assessed or collected, and the specific date to which the period is extended.
    Why were the waivers in this case deemed invalid? The waivers were deemed invalid because they failed to indicate the specific tax involved and the exact amount of the tax to be assessed or collected, violating the requirements of RMO No. 20-90.
    Does Section 203 of the NIRC apply to withholding tax assessments? Yes, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 203 of the NIRC applies to withholding tax assessments. Withholding taxes are considered internal revenue taxes subject to the prescriptive periods outlined in the NIRC.
    What is the role of a withholding agent? A withholding agent is a payor who acts as the government’s agent for collecting taxes to ensure payment. The withholding agent retains a portion of the amount due to the income earner.
    What is the difference between the liability of the taxpayer and the withholding agent? The taxpayer (payee) is liable for the tax on their income, while the withholding agent is liable for failing to withhold the tax and remit it to the government. Their liabilities are distinct and independent.
    What happens if a withholding agent fails to withhold taxes properly? If a withholding agent fails to deduct the required amount from its payment to the payee, it is liable for deficiency taxes and applicable penalties. This liability is separate from the income tax liability of the payee.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with the requirements for waivers of the statute of limitations in tax assessments. This ensures that taxpayers are protected from indefinite extensions of the assessment period and that the tax authorities adhere to established legal procedures. The ruling provides clarity on the application of Section 203 of the NIRC to withholding tax assessments and reinforces the necessity of specifying the nature and amount of tax in any waiver agreement.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, V. LA FLOR DELA ISABELA, INC., RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 211289, January 14, 2019

  • Tax Assessment: Strict Compliance with Waiver Requirements Prevents Indefinite Government Authority

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) must strictly adhere to the requirements for waiving the statute of limitations on tax assessments. Because the waivers executed by Systems Technology Institute, Inc. (STI) contained critical defects, the BIR’s assessment of deficiency taxes was deemed void due to prescription. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in tax law, protecting taxpayers from indefinite periods of tax investigation and ensuring that the government acts within the bounds of established rules.

    STI vs. CIR: Can Defective Waivers Revive Expired Tax Assessments?

    This case revolves around the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) attempting to collect deficiency income tax, expanded withholding tax (EWT), and value-added tax (VAT) from Systems Technology Institute, Inc. (STI) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003. The CIR issued a Formal Assessment Notice against STI in June 2007, which was beyond the standard three-year prescriptive period for tax assessments. The CIR argued that STI had executed waivers of the statute of limitations, effectively extending the period within which the BIR could issue assessments. STI, however, contended that these waivers were defective and therefore invalid, meaning the BIR’s right to assess had already prescribed. The central legal question is whether these waivers complied with the stringent requirements set by the BIR itself, and if not, whether the assessment was valid.

    The root of the dispute lies in Section 203 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), which generally limits the CIR’s period to assess and collect internal revenue taxes to three years. This period is intended to protect taxpayers from unreasonable and prolonged investigations. However, Section 222(b) of the NIRC provides an exception, allowing both the CIR and the taxpayer to agree in writing to extend this period. This exception is not unfettered; it is governed by specific procedures outlined in Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 20-90 and Revenue Delegation Authority Order (RDAO) No. 05-01. These orders specify the form, content, and execution requirements for valid waivers.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that these requirements are not mere formalities but are mandatory safeguards. Failure to strictly comply with them renders the waiver defective and ineffective in extending the prescriptive period. The Court cited several prior cases where waivers were invalidated for failing to meet these standards. For example, in Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the waiver was deemed invalid because it lacked a specified expiry date, was signed by a revenue district officer instead of the CIR, lacked a date of acceptance, and the taxpayer was not furnished a copy. Similarly, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. FMF Development Corporation, the waiver was defective because there was no proof the taxpayer received a copy, it was signed by a revenue district officer, and it lacked a date of acceptance by the CIR.

    In the present case, the Court identified several critical defects in the waivers executed by STI. First, the assessment period for EWT and VAT had already expired when the first waiver took effect. The Court reiterated that a waiver cannot revive a right that has already been lost due to prescription. Second, the individual who signed the waivers on behalf of STI lacked a notarized written authority from the corporation’s board of directors. RDAO No. 05-01 explicitly requires that the revenue official ensure such written authority exists and is notarized. Lastly, the waivers failed to specify the kind of tax and the amount due. The Court emphasized that a waiver is a bilateral agreement, requiring a clear understanding of what is being waived. Without specifying the tax type and amount, there is no genuine agreement.

    The CIR argued that STI’s request for reinvestigation, which led to a reduced assessment, should estop STI from invoking the defense of prescription. The CIR cited Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, where the taxpayer’s partial payment of a revised assessment was considered an implied admission of the validity of the waivers. However, the Supreme Court distinguished the present case, noting that estoppel in RCBC arose from the act of payment, which was absent here. STI made no payment, and mere reduction of the assessment amount does not constitute an admission of the waiver’s validity.

    Building on this principle, the Court reiterated its stance in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kudos Metal Corporation, stating that the doctrine of estoppel cannot override the statute of limitations when there is a detailed procedure for executing waivers. The BIR cannot use estoppel to excuse its own failure to comply with RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01. Having created the requirements, the BIR must adhere to them. In essence, the Court underscored that procedural rules exist to ensure fairness and transparency in tax assessments, and the BIR must follow its own rules to maintain the integrity of the tax system.

    The practical implication of this decision is significant for taxpayers. It reinforces the importance of carefully reviewing any waiver presented by the BIR and ensuring it strictly complies with all requirements. Taxpayers should verify that the person signing on their behalf has proper authorization, that the waiver specifies the tax type and amount, and that the waiver is executed before the assessment period expires. This decision serves as a reminder to the BIR to diligently follow its own procedures and not to rely on waivers that are not properly executed. Strict compliance with the rules governing waivers is essential to protect taxpayers from indefinite tax investigations and assessments.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the waivers of the statute of limitations executed by STI were valid, thereby extending the BIR’s period to assess deficiency taxes. The Court found the waivers defective, rendering the assessments void due to prescription.
    What is the prescriptive period for tax assessments? Generally, the BIR has three years from the last day prescribed by law for filing the tax return, or from the day the return was filed (whichever is later), to assess internal revenue taxes. This period is outlined in Section 203 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
    What is a waiver of the statute of limitations? A waiver of the statute of limitations is a written agreement between the BIR and the taxpayer, as per Section 222(b) of the NIRC, to extend the period within which the BIR can assess or collect taxes beyond the standard three-year period. This allows the BIR more time to investigate and assess potential tax liabilities.
    What are the key requirements for a valid waiver? Key requirements include that the waiver must be in the proper form, signed by the taxpayer or their duly authorized representative with notarized written authority, duly notarized, signed and accepted by the CIR or authorized revenue official before the expiration of the prescriptive period, and the taxpayer must receive a copy. These requirements are detailed in RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01.
    What happens if a waiver is defective? If a waiver is defective, it is considered invalid and does not extend the BIR’s period to assess or collect taxes. This means that if the BIR issues an assessment after the original three-year prescriptive period, the assessment is void and unenforceable.
    Can the BIR use estoppel to validate a defective waiver? The Supreme Court has ruled that the BIR cannot use the doctrine of estoppel to validate a defective waiver. The BIR must strictly comply with the requirements of RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01, and cannot rely on the taxpayer’s actions to excuse its own failure to follow these rules.
    What was the significance of STI’s request for reinvestigation? While STI requested a reinvestigation, resulting in a reduced assessment, the Court clarified that this act alone did not prevent STI from raising the defense of prescription. Unlike the RCBC case, STI did not make any partial payments, so there was no implied admission of the waiver’s validity.
    What should taxpayers do when presented with a waiver by the BIR? Taxpayers should carefully review the waiver to ensure it strictly complies with all requirements, including proper authorization, specification of tax type and amount, and execution before the assessment period expires. Consulting with a tax attorney is highly recommended.

    This case underscores the necessity of strict adherence to procedural requirements in tax law. It serves as a vital protection for taxpayers against potentially overreaching government actions. By invalidating the tax assessment due to defective waivers, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the BIR must follow its own rules and cannot extend its authority beyond what is legally permissible.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, INC., G.R. No. 220835, July 26, 2017

  • Tax Waivers: When Faulty Agreements Bind Taxpayers – Navigating the Obligations and Implications

    The Supreme Court ruled that even if tax waivers don’t fully comply with procedural rules, they can still be valid if both the taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) are equally at fault. This means that if a taxpayer benefits from a waiver, they can’t later claim it’s invalid to avoid paying taxes, especially when the BIR relied on that waiver in good faith. This decision underscores the importance of fulfilling tax obligations and acting in good faith when dealing with tax authorities.

    Beyond the Fine Print: Can a Broken Tax Deal Still Bind You?

    Imagine a situation where you, as a taxpayer, sign a waiver extending the period for the BIR to assess your taxes. However, the waiver has some technical flaws, like lacking a notarized authority for the signatory. Later, when the BIR assesses you, you try to wriggle out of it by pointing out those very flaws. Can you do that? This was the core question in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Next Mobile, Inc. (G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015), where the Supreme Court tackled the validity of tax waivers that didn’t strictly adhere to established procedures.

    The case revolved around Next Mobile, Inc. (formerly Nextel Communications Phils., Inc.), which filed its Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for the taxable year ending December 31, 2001. Subsequently, the BIR issued a Letter of Authority to examine Next Mobile’s books. Several waivers of the statute of limitations were executed to extend the prescriptive period for assessment. Eventually, the BIR issued a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Assessment Notices demanding payment of deficiency income tax, final withholding tax (FWT), expanded withholding tax (EWT), and other penalties, totaling P313,339,610.42. Next Mobile protested, arguing the assessment was made beyond the prescriptive period.

    The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) initially sided with Next Mobile, declaring the FLD and assessment notices invalid because they were issued beyond the three-year prescriptive period stipulated in Section 203 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). The CTA also found the waivers to be improperly executed according to Revenue Memorandum Order No. 20-90 (RMO 20-90) and Revenue Delegation Authority Order No. 05-01 (RDAO 05-01). However, the Supreme Court reversed the CTA’s decision, finding the waivers to be valid under the specific circumstances of the case.

    At the heart of the matter was Section 203 of the 1997 NIRC, which generally requires the BIR to assess taxes within three years from the filing of the tax return. However, Section 222(b) allows for an extension of this period through a written agreement between the CIR and the taxpayer. This agreement must be executed before the expiration of the original three-year period. Implementing this provision, RMO 20-90 outlines the procedure for properly executing such waivers, emphasizing the need for the agreement to be in a specific form, signed by the taxpayer or their authorized representative, and accepted by the BIR.

    The Supreme Court acknowledged that the waivers in this case were indeed defective. They lacked a notarized board authority for the signatory, the dates of acceptance by the BIR were not indicated, and the receipt of the Second Waiver was not properly documented. Citing precedent cases like Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court reiterated the importance of strictly construing waivers of the statute of limitations, as they represent a derogation of the taxpayer’s right to security against prolonged investigations. The Court, also referencing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. FMF Development Corporation and CIR v. Kudos Metal Corporation, highlighted the specific defects that render waivers invalid, such as the absence of a notarized board resolution, the lack of an acceptance date, and the failure to furnish the taxpayer with a copy of the waiver.

    Despite these deficiencies, the Supreme Court deviated from the general rule due to the unique circumstances of the case. The Court invoked the principle of in pari delicto, which means “in equal fault.” Since both Next Mobile and the BIR were at fault in creating the defective waivers, neither party could seek relief against the other. Next Mobile executed the waivers, albeit defectively, and the BIR accepted them without ensuring proper compliance. To underscore, the court explained:

    Here, to uphold the validity of the Waivers would be consistent with the public policy embodied in the principle that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need.

    Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that parties must come to court with clean hands. Next Mobile, having benefited from the waivers by gaining time to gather documents and negotiate the assessment, could not later challenge their validity to evade tax liability. The court deemed Next Mobile to be estopped from questioning the validity of the waivers. Estoppel prevents a party from denying or asserting anything contrary to that which has been established as the truth. In essence, because Next Mobile acted as if the waivers were valid, they could not later claim otherwise.

    This approach contrasts with the BIR’s conduct, which the Court described as negligent and amounting to malice and bad faith. The BIR failed to enforce its own rules, allowing Next Mobile to submit defective waivers. The court stated, “The BIR’s right to assess and collect taxes should not be jeopardized merely because of the mistakes and lapses of its officers, especially in cases like this where the taxpayer is obviously in bad faith.”

    The Supreme Court, while validating the waivers, did not rule on the merits of the assessment itself. It remanded the case back to the CTA for a determination of whether the BIR’s assessment was indeed correct. This means that while Next Mobile could not escape the extended assessment period, it still had the right to challenge the factual basis of the tax deficiency.

    The Supreme Court clarified that the 10-year prescriptive period for assessing taxes in cases of false or fraudulent returns under Section 222(a) of the NIRC did not apply. The CTA had found no evidence that Next Mobile filed false or fraudulent returns. This distinction is important, as it limits the scope of the exception to the general three-year rule. In cases where there is no evidence of fraud, the assessment must still be made within the original or properly extended period.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether defective tax waivers, which didn’t fully comply with BIR regulations, could still be considered valid and binding on the taxpayer. The court examined if the assessment was made within the allowed period.
    What is a tax waiver in this context? A tax waiver is an agreement between the taxpayer and the BIR to extend the period within which the BIR can assess and collect taxes, beyond the standard three-year period. It must be executed in writing and meet specific requirements.
    Why were the waivers in this case considered defective? The waivers were defective because they lacked a notarized board authority for the signatory, the BIR acceptance dates were missing, and there was no proper documentation of the taxpayer’s receipt of one of the waivers. This did not comply with established revenue orders.
    What does “in pari delicto” mean, and how did it apply here? “In pari delicto” means “in equal fault.” The Supreme Court applied this principle because both the taxpayer and the BIR were responsible for the defects in the waivers. Therefore neither party could claim relief against the other.
    What is the doctrine of estoppel, and why was it relevant? Estoppel prevents a party from denying something they previously implied or asserted, especially if another party acted on that implication. It applied because Next Mobile benefited from the waivers and allowed the BIR to rely on them before challenging their validity.
    Did the Supreme Court rule on whether Next Mobile actually owed the assessed taxes? No, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the tax assessment itself. It remanded the case to the CTA to determine whether the BIR’s assessment of tax deficiency was factually correct.
    What is the prescriptive period for the BIR to assess taxes? Generally, the BIR has three years from the date of filing of the tax return to assess taxes. This period can be extended via a properly executed waiver, or it may be extended to ten years in cases of fraud.
    What was the significance of RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01 in this case? RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01 outline the procedures for properly executing tax waivers. The court examined this in detail to see if the procedures where followed when examining the validity of the issued assessment.

    In conclusion, the Next Mobile case provides a nuanced perspective on the validity of tax waivers. While strict compliance with procedural rules is generally required, the Supreme Court demonstrated that principles of equity and public policy can override technical defects when both parties are at fault and the taxpayer has benefited from the waiver. This ruling serves as a reminder to taxpayers and the BIR alike to act with due diligence and good faith in all tax-related matters.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Commissioner of Internal Revenue, vs. Next Mobile, Inc. (formerly Nextel Communications Phils., Inc.), G.R. No. 212825, December 07, 2015