8/12/2019 31. CIR vs Hambrecht & Quis Phils - CD

1/2

CIR versus - HAMBRECHTG.R. No. 169225November 17, 2010IR!T "I#I!I$N

ACT! A! T$ %ETITI$NER

On February 18, 1993(BIR) received a letter from respondent, informin it of t!ec!ane of business address of t!e latter" On #ovember $, 1993, respondentreceived a tracer letter or follo%&up letter demandin for payment of alleeddeficiency income and e'panded %it!!oldin ta'es for t!e ta'able year 1989 Onecember 3, 1993, respondent, filedits protest letter aainst t!e alleed deficiencyta' assessments for 1989

ACT! A! T$ RE!%$N"ENT

On #ovember , *++1, nearly ei!t (8) years later, respondents receiveda letter

advisin respondent t!at petitioner !ad rendered a final decision denyin its proteston t!e round t!at t!e protest aainst t!e disputed ta' assessment %as alleedlyfiled beyond t!e 3+&day relementary period" On ecember -, *++1, respondentfiled a .etition for Revie%before t!e t!en /ourt of 0a' ppeals

/0 Oriinal ivision !eld t!att!e assessment !ad become final and unappealablefor failure of respondent to file a protest %it!in t!e 3+&day period provided by la%"2o%ever, t!e /0 (a) !eld t!at t!e /IR failed to collect t!e assessed ta'es %it!int!e prescriptive period 4ndaunted, t!e /IR filed a .etition for Revie% %it! t!e/0 En Bancbut t!is %as denied

I!!&E RAI!E" B' %ETITI$NER

1" .etitioner arues t!at t!e /0 !as no 5urisdiction to rule t!at t!eovernments ri!t to collect t!e ta' !as prescribed"

*" .etitioner arues t!at t!e ri!t to collect t!e ta' deficiency it assessed onrespondent is not barred by prescription since t!e prescriptive period t!ereof%as alleedly suspended by respondents re6uest for reinvestiation"

I!!&E RAI!E" B' RE!%$N"ENT

1" Respondent arues t!at t!e /0 !as 5urisdiction to rule t!at t!eovernments ri!t to collect t!e ta' !as prescribed"

*" Respondent arues t!at t!e period to collect t!e assessment !as prescribedbecause t!e prescriptive period %as never suspended"

R&(ING $ THE !&%REME C$&RT

1" 4nder 7ection of R 11*, t!e appellate 5urisdiction of t!e /0 includeso)*er m+))ers +rs/ uer )*e NIRC or o)*er + +s 3+r) o4 ++ms)ere b )*e BIR" 0!e issue of prescription of t!e BIRs ri!t to

8/12/2019 31. CIR vs Hambrecht & Quis Phils - CD

2/2

collect ta'es may be considered as covered by t!e term :ot!er matters: over%!ic! t!e /0 !as appellate 5urisdiction"

0o be sure, t!e fact t!at an assessment !as become final for failure of t!eta'payer to file a protest %it!in t!e time allo%ed only means t!at t!e validityor correctness of t!e assessment may no loner be 6uestioned on appeal"2o%ever, t!e validity of t!e assessment itself is a separate and distinct issuefrom t!e issue of %!et!er t!e ri!t of t!e /IR to collect t!e validly assessedta' !as prescribed" 0!is issue of prescription, bein a matter provided for byt!e #IR/, is %ell %it!in t!e 5urisdiction of t!e /0 to decide"

*" 4nder 7ection **3 of t!e #IR/, t%o re6uisites must concur before t!e periodto enforce collection may be suspended; (a) t!at t!e ta'payer re6uests forreinvestiation, and (b) t!at petitioner rants suc! re6uest"

/onse6uently, t!e mere filin of a protest letter %!ic! is not ranted does notoperate to suspend t!e runnin of t!e period to collect ta'es" In t!e case atbar, t!e records s!o% t!at respondent filed a re6uest for reinvestiation onecember 3, 1993, !o%ever, t!ere is no indication t!at petitioner acted uponrespondents protest"