This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that, in a number of cases, this Court has explained that the statute of limitations on the collection of taxes primarily benefits the taxpayer. In these cases, the Court exemplified the detrimental effects that the delay in the assessment and collection of taxes inflicts upon the taxpayers. Thus, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Global Communication, Inc.,[32] this Court echoed Justice Montemayor's disquisition in his dissenting opinion in Collector of Internal Revenue v. Suyoc Consolidated Mining Company,[33] regarding the potential loss to the taxpayer if the assessment and collection of taxes are not promptly made, thus: Prescription in the assessment and in the collection of taxes is provided by the Legislature for the benefit of both the Government and the taxpayer; for the Government for the purpose of expediting the collection of taxes, so that the agency charged with the assessment and collection may not tarry too long or indefinitely to the prejudice of the interests of the Government, which needs taxes to run it; and for the taxpayer so that within a reasonable time after filing his return, he may know the amount of the assessment he is required to pay, whether or not such assessment is well founded and reasonable so that he may either pay the amount of the assessment or contest its validity in court x x x. It would surely be prejudicial to the interest of the taxpayer for the Government collecting agency to unduly delay the assessment and the collection because by the time the collecting agency finally gets around to making the assessment or making the collection, the taxpayer may then have lost his papers and books to support his claim and contest that of the Government, and what is more, the tax is in the meantime accumulating interest which the taxpayer eventually has to pay.[34] | |||||
|
2014-07-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| If the pleadings or the evidence on record show that the claim is barred by prescription, the court is mandated to dismiss the claim even if prescription is not raised as a defense. In Heirs of Valientes v. Ramas,[16] we ruled that the CA may motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of prescription despite failure to raise this ground on appeal. The court is imbued with sufficient discretion to review matters, not otherwise assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case.[17] More so, when the provisions on prescription were enacted to benefit and protect taxpayers from investigation after a reasonable period of time.[18] | |||||