JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CIR
CTA Case No. 9147, March 12, 2020.
CTA Second Division
Bacorro-Villena, J.:
Lessons Applicable: filed out of time
Laws Applicable: Section 3.1.5 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99, implementing Section 228 of NIRC
FACTS:
• May 14, 2010: CIR issued a Letter of Authority (LOA) No. LOA-127-2020-00000012.
• April 2, 2012: JG Summit Holdings, Inc. (JGSHI) executed a Waiver of the Defense of Prescription (1st WDP) extending CIR right to assess until December 31, 2012
• December 31, 2013: JGSHI executed a 2nd WDP extending CIR right to assess until December 31, 2013.
• January 16, 2013: JGSHI executed a 3rd WDP extending CIR right to assess until June 30, 2014.
• November 4, 2013: JGSHI received a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) adjusting its tax liabilities to P5,840,180,957.23.
• February 27, 2014: Final Assessment Notice (FAN) and Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) for deficiency taxes amounting to P6,001,075,046.14.
• March 12, 2014: JGSHI filed its protest to the FLD with a request for investigation.
• December 5, 2014: JGSHI received Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) amounting to P6,546,206,763.32.
• December 22, 2014: JGSHI filed a request for reconsideration with CIR
• August 20, 2015: CIR denied JGSHI’s request through the assailed Revised Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (RFDDA)
• September 18, 2015: JGSHI’s filed a Petition for against the RFDDA
ISSUES: W/N the 30-day reglementary period for filing an appeal with the Court should begin to run from its receipt of RFDDA.
HELD: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
• NO. With the procedure of appeal already clearly laid down, a resort to a request for reconsideration (with the CIR) did not then toll the running of the reglementary period within which petitioner’s appeal must be elevated to this Court. In relying on the possibility that CIR might reconsider her previous decision, it waived its remedy of appeal before this Court.
• PAGCOR v. CIR (G.R. No. 208731, January 27, 2016): Following the verba legis doctrine, the law must be applied exactly as worded since it is clear, plain, and unequivocal.15 A textual reading of Section 3.1.5 gives a protesting taxpayer like PAGCOR only three options xxx To further clarify the three options: A whole or partial denial by the CIR's authorized representative may be appealed to the CIR or the CTA. A whole or partial denial by the CIR may be appealed to the CTA. The CIR or the CIR's authorized representative's failure to act may be appealed to the CTA. There is no mention of an appeal to the CIR from the failure to act by the CIR's authorized representative.
• Wordings of the CIR’s denial of its request could not amend or alter what is provided in the law (i.e. If you disagree, you may appeal this final decision…) - To note, same wordings in the FDDA and RFDDA.
