Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIR v. AZUCENA T. REYES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 163653 2011-07-19	CIR v. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
Even if we were, therefore, to accord precipitate credulity to the CIR's bare assertion that FDC had deducted substantial interest expense from its gross income, there would still be no factual basis for the imputation of theoretical interests on the subject advances and assess deficiency income taxes thereon. More so, when it is borne in mind that, pursuant to Article 1956 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. Considering that taxes, being burdens, are not to be presumed beyond what the applicable statute expressly and clearly declares, [48] the rule is likewise settled that tax statutes must be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer. [49] Accordingly, the general rule of requiring adherence to the letter in construing statutes applies with peculiar strictness to tax laws and the provisions of a taxing act are not to be extended by implication. [50] While it is true that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, it has been held that their assessment and collection should be in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. [51]
	GR No. 185371 2010-12-08	CIR v. METRO STAR SUPERAMA MENDOZA, J.
The case of CIR v. Menguito[16] cited by the CIR in support of its argument that only the non-service of the FAN is fatal to the validity of an assessment, cannot apply to this case because the issue therein was the non-compliance with the provisions of R. R. No. 12-85 which sought to interpret Section 229 of the old tax law. RA No. 8424 has already amended the provision of Section 229 on protesting an assessment. The old requirement of merely notifying the taxpayer of the CIR's findings was changed in 1998 to informing the taxpayer of not only the law, but also of the facts on which an assessment would be made. Otherwise, the assessment itself would be invalid.[17] The regulation then, on the other hand, simply provided that a notice be sent to the respondent in the form prescribed, and that no consequence would ensue for failure to comply with that form.
	GR No. 167560 2008-09-17	CIR v. DOMINADOR MENGUITO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It should be emphasized that the stringent requirement that an assessment notice be satisfactorily proven to have been issued and released or, if receipt thereof is denied, that said assessment notice have been served on the taxpayer,[70] applies only to formal assessments prescribed under Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code, but not to post-reporting notices or pre-assessment notices. The issuance of a valid formal assessment is a substantive prerequisite to tax collection,[71] for it contains not only a computation of tax liabilities but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period, thereby signaling the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer and enabling the latter to determine his remedies therefor. Due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer.[72]
	GR Nos. 167274-75 2008-07-21	CIR v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION TINGA, J,
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Reyes,[14] respondent was not informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment of estate taxes was made pursuant to Section 228 of the 1997 Tax Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8424. She was merely notified of the findings by the Commissioner, who had simply relied upon the old provisions of the law and Revenue Regulation No. 12-85 which was based on the old provision of the law. The Court held that in case of discrepancy between the law as amended and the implementing regulation based on the old law, the former necessarily prevails. The law must still be followed, even though the existing tax regulation at that time provided for a different procedure.[15]
	GR NO. 134062 2007-04-17	CIR v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORONA, J.
In merely notifying BPI of his findings, the CIR relied on the provisions of the former Section 270 prior to its amendment by RA 8424 (also known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997).[23] In CIR v. Reyes,[24] we held that:In the present case, Reyes was not informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment of estate taxes had been made. She was merely notified of the findings by the CIR, who had simply relied upon the provisions of former Section 229 prior to its amendment by [RA] 8424, otherwise known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997.