D. COLLECTION - I. China Banking Corporation v. CIR, GR. No. 172509, February 04, 2015

G.R. No.
172509
CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner,
- versus -
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
February 04, 2015
DOCTRINE: - The act of requesting a reinvestigation alone does not suspend the period. The request
should first be granted, in order to effect suspension
- As a rule, the failure to raise the defense of prescription at the administrative level
prevents the taxpayer from raising it at the appeal stage. This rule, however, is not absolute.
FACTS : Petitioner CBC is a universal bank duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines.
For the taxable years 1982 to 1986, CBC was engaged in transactions involving sales of foreign exchange
to the Central Bank of the Philippines (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas), commonly known as SWAP
transactions. Petitioner did not file tax returns or pay tax on the SWAP transactions for those taxable
years. On 19 April 1989, petitioner CBC received an assessment from the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) finding CBC liable for deficiency DST on the sales of foreign bills of exchange to the Central Bank.
The deficiency DST was worth P 11,383,165.50 for the taxable years of 1982 to 1986.
CBC raised various defenses such as contesting the validity of the assessment, as it did not include the
factual basis therefore, but it didn’t raise the prescription of the action of CIR in its administrative claims.
On 6 December 2001, more than 12 years after the filing of the protest, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (CIR) rendered a decision reiterating the deficiency DST assessment and ordered the payment
thereof plus increments within 30 days from receipt of the Decision. On 18 January 2002, CBC filed a
Petition for Review with the CTA. On 11 March 2002, the CIR filed an Answer with a demand for CBC to
pay the assessed DST.
On 2002 CBC filed a Petition for Review with the CTA but the CTA denied the petition of CBC. The CTA
ruled that the SWAP arrangement should be treated as a telegraphic transfer subject to documentary
stamp tax. Petitioner now appeals to the Supreme Court and raises the argument that the government
has three years from 19 April 1989, the date the former received the assessment of the CIR, to collect
the tax. Within that time frame, however, neither a warrant of distraint or levy was issued, nor a
collection case filed in court.
ISSUE: whether the right of the BIR to collect the assessed DST from CBC is barred by prescription.
 whether the request for reinvestigation suspended the running of the statute of
limitations
 whether raising the defense of prescription on appeal for the first time may prosper
HELD: We grant the Petition on the ground that the right of the BIR to collect the assessed DST is barred
by the statute of limitations. Prescription Has Set In. To recall, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
issued the assessment for deficiency DST on 19 April 1989, when the applicable rule was Section 319(c)
of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended.
In that provision, the time limit for the government to collect the assessed tax is set at three years, to
be reckoned from the date when the BIR mails/releases/sends the assessment notice to the taxpayer.
Further, Section 319(c) states that the assessed tax must be collected by distraint or levy and/or court
proceeding within the three-year period. In this case, the records do not show when the assessment
notice was mailed, released or sent to CBC The attempt of the BIR to collect the tax through its Answer
with a demand for CBC to pay the assessed DST in the CTA on 11 March 2002 did not comply with
Section 319(c) of the 1977 Tax Code, as amended. The demand was made almost thirteen years from
the date from which the prescriptive period is to be reckoned. Thus, the attempt to collect the tax was
made way beyond the three-year prescriptive period.
OTHER ISSUES RESOLVED BY THE COURT
REQUEST FOR REINVESTIGATION
The fact that the taxpayer in this case may have requested a reinvestigation did not toll the running of
the three-year prescriptive period. Section 320 of the 1977 Tax Code states:
“Sec. 320. Suspension of running of statute.—The running of the statute of limitations provided
in Sections 318 or 319 on the making of assessment and the beginning of distraint or levy or a
proceeding in court for collection, in respect of any deficiency, shall be suspended for the period
during which the Commissioner is prohibited from making the assessment or beginning distraint
or levy or a proceeding in court and for sixty days thereafter; when the taxpayer requests for a
re-investigation which is granted by the Commissioner; when the taxpayer cannot be located in
the address given by him in the return filed upon which a tax is being assessed or collected:
Provided, That if the taxpayer informs the Commissioner of any change in address, the running
of the statute of limitations will not be suspended; when the warrant of distraint and levy is duly
served upon the taxpayer, his authorized representative, or a member of his household with
sufficient discretion, and no property could be located; and when the taxpayer is out of the
Philippines.”
The running of the statute of limitations was not suspended by the request for reinvestigation. The
provision is clear. A request for reinvestigation alone will not suspend the statute of limitations. Two
things must concur: there must be a request for reinvestigation and the CIR must have granted it. BPI vs.
CIR emphasized this ruling by stating: “The act of requesting a reinvestigation alone does not suspend
the period. The request should first be granted, in order to effect suspension.”
In the present case, there is no showing from the records that the CIR ever granted the request for
reinvestigation filed by CBC. That being the case, it cannot be said that the running of the three-year
prescriptive period was effectively suspended.
RULE ON USING PRESCRIPTION FOR THE FIRST TIME AS A DEFENSE AT THE APPEAL STAGE
As a rule, the failure to raise the defense of prescription at the administrative level prevents the
taxpayer from raising it at the appeal stage. This rule, however, is not absolute. Sec 1, Rule 9 of the Rules
of Court provides that:
“Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. - Defenses and objections not pleaded either
in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the
action is barred by prior judgment or by the statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the
claim.”
an exception to the rule against raising the defense of prescription for the first time on appeal: the
exception arises when the pleadings or the evidence on record show that the claim is barred by
prescription.
In this case, the fact that the claim of the government is time-barred is a matter of record. As can be
seen from the previous discussion on the determination of the prescription of the right of the
government to claim deficiency DST, the conclusion that prescription has set in was arrived at using the
evidence on record. The date of receipt of the assessment notice was not disputed, and the date of the
attempt to collect was determined by merely checking the records as to when the Answer of the CIR
containing the demand to pay the tax was filed. the law provides an exception to the rule against raising
the defense of prescription for the first time on appeal: the exception arises when the pleadings or the
evidence on record show that the claim is barred by prescription.

D. COLLECTION - I. China Banking Corporation v. CIR, GR. No. 172509, February 04, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. COLLECTION - I. China Banking Corporation v. CIR, GR. No. 172509, February 04, 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. COLLECTION - I. China Banking Corporation v. CIR, GR. No. 172509, February 04, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner,

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

February 04, 2015

OTHER ISSUES RESOLVED BY THE COURT

REQUEST FOR REINVESTIGATION

You might also like