Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 174942 2008-03-07	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CIR TINGA, J,
On the first issue, the tax court, applying the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wyeth Suaco Laboratories, Inc.,[4] (Wyeth Suaco case), ruled that BPI's protest and supplemental protest should be considered requests for reinvestigation which tolled the prescriptive period provided by law to collect a tax deficiency by distraint, levy, or court proceeding. It further held, as regards the second issue, that BPI's cabled instructions to its foreign correspondent bank to remit a specific sum in dollars to the Federal Reserve Bank, the same to be credited to the account of the Central Bank, are in the nature of a telegraphic transfer subject to DST under Section 195 of the Tax Code.
	GR NO. 139736 2005-10-17	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CIR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is the position of respondent BIR Commissioner, affirmed by the CTA and the Court of Appeals, that the three-year prescriptive period for collecting on Assessment No. FAS-5-85-89-002054 had not yet prescribed, because the said prescriptive period was suspended, invoking the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Wyeth Suaco Laboratories, Inc.[42] It was in this case in which this Court ruled that the prescriptive period provided by law to make a collection is interrupted once a taxpayer requests for reinvestigation or reconsideration of the assessment.