Mambulao vs. RepublicMAMBULAO LUMBER CO. vs. REPUBLIC132 SCRA 1GR No. L-37061, September 5, 1984"Forest charges are internal revenue taxes and the BIR has the sole power and duty to collect them. Thus, an assessment made by the Bureau of Forestry cannot be considered an assessment made by the BIR."

FACTS: The Bureau of Forestry sent a demand letter dated January 15, 1949 to Mambulao Lumber Co. demanding for the payment of forest charges and surcharges. Mambulao protested the assessment. On August 29,1958, the BIR likewise wrote a letter to the company demanding payment, which subsequently requested reinvestigation. The BIR gave the company twenty (20) days from receipt within which to submit the results of its verification of payments. For failure to comply and failure to pay its tax liability despite demands, CIR filed a complaint for collection with CFI-Manila on August 25, 1961. The CFI-Manila and Court of Appeals decided against Mambulao ordering it to pay the tax liability. Petitioner argued that the collection is barred by the statute of limitations under Sections 332 of the NIRC. As stated, the collection should be made within the five (5) year period. From 1949 (date when the Bureau of Forestry assessed and demand payment as forestry charges and surcharges) up to 1961 (date of filing of complaint), it is already more than five years.

ISSUE: Has the period of filing of collection complaint prescribed?

HELD: No. The action for collection is not barred by prescription. The basis of the complaint filed on August 1961 was the demand letter made by the CIR on August 29, 1958 and not the demand letter of the Bureau of Forestry on January 1949. So that the reckoning date of the 5-year period should be from the date of the BIR letter and not that of the Bureau of Forestry. This must be so because forest charges are internal revenue taxes and the BIR has the sole power and duty to collect them.

Fernandos Hermanos vs. CommissionerFERNANDOS HERMANOS, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER29 SCRA 552GR No. No. L-21551, September 30, 1969"The filing of an answer to taxpayer's petition for review is considered as institution of judicial action."

FACTS: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed the petitioner investment corporation of deficiency income taxes for the years 1950 to 1954 and for 1957. There were two conflicting dates of assessment, which are vital to the compliance with the statute of limitations, based on each claim of the petitioner and the respondent; the Commisioner's record of date of assesment is February 27, 1956 while the petitioner believes the demand was made on December 27, 1955 so that, as the petitioner corporation claims, the Commissioner's action to recover its tax liability should be deemed to have prescribed for failure on the part of the Commissioner to file a complaint for collection against it in an appropriate civil action.

ISSUE: Has the action for collection prescribed?

HELD: No. It has been held that "a judicial action for the collection of a tax is begun by the filing of a complaint with the proper court of first instance, or where the assessment is appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, by filing an answer to the taxpayer's petition for review wherein payment of the tax is prayed for." This is but logical for where the taxpayer avails of the right to appeal the tax assessment to the Court of Tax Appeals, the said Court is vested with the authority to pronounce judgment as to the taxpayer's liability to the exclusion of any other court. In the present case, regardless of whether the assessments were made on February 24 and 27, 1956, as claimed by the Commissioner, or on December 27, 1955 as claimed by the taxpayer, the government's right to collect the taxes due has clearly not prescribed, as the taxpayer's appeal or petition for review was filed with the Tax Court on May 4, 1960, with the Commissioner filing on May 20, 1960 his Answer with a prayer for payment of the taxes due, long before the expiration of the five-year period to effect collection by judicial action counted from the date of assessment.

Republic vs. AranetaREPUBLIC vs. ARANETA2 SCRA 144GR No. L-14142, May 30, 1961"Where the tax obligation is secured by a bond, the prescriptive period for the action for the forfeiture of the bond is governed by the Civil Code."

FACTS: The Solicitor General, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, filed before CFI of Manila an action against the defendant Araneta, as principals, and Manila Surety, as surety, to recover the internal revenue taxes including surcharges, the payment of which was guaranteed by a bond executed when the first extrajudicial demand for payment was made. The appellant-taxpayers contend that the appellee's cause of action has prescribed, because the action for recovery of internal revenue taxes and surcharge due brought on 22 February 1957, was not commenced within the period of five years after the assessment dated 15 May 1948 had been made, as provided for in Section 331 of the Tax Code.

ISSUE: Has the action to recover the taxes due from the taxpayer and the surety already prescribed?

HELD: No. The appellant-taxpayers cannot invoke prescription under the provisions of Section 331 of the NIRC because the government is suing on the bond executed and filed by them to guarantee payment in 6 monthly installments of the tax liability due from 1946 to 1948, which is a separate and distinct obligation of the parties thereto. The action to enforce the obligation on the bond executed on March 18, 1949, having been filed in court on February 22, 1957, was within the 10-year prescriptive period to enforce a written contractual obligation, as set by the Civil Code.

Republic vs. AranetaREPUBLIC vs. ARANETA2 SCRA 144GR No. L-14142, May 30, 1961"Where the tax obligation is secured by a bond, the prescriptive period for the action for the forfeiture of the bond is governed by the Civil Code."

FACTS: The Solicitor General, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, filed before CFI of Manila an action against the defendant Araneta, as principals, and Manila Surety, as surety, to recover the internal revenue taxes including surcharges, the payment of which was guaranteed by a bond executed when the first extrajudicial demand for payment was made. The appellant-taxpayers contend that the appellee's cause of action has prescribed, because the action for recovery of internal revenue taxes and surcharge due brought on 22 February 1957, was not commenced within the period of five years after the assessment dated 15 May 1948 had been made, as provided for in Section 331 of the Tax Code.

ISSUE: Has the action to recover the taxes due from the taxpayer and the surety already prescribed?

HELD: No. The appellant-taxpayers cannot invoke prescription under the provisions of Section 331 of the NIRC because the government is suing on the bond executed and filed by them to guarantee payment in 6 monthly installments of the tax liability due from 1946 to 1948, which is a separate and distinct obligation of the parties thereto. The action to enforce the obligation on the bond executed on March 18, 1949, having been filed in court on February 22, 1957, was within the 10-year prescriptive period to enforce a written contractual obligation, as set by the Civil Code.

CIR vs. VillaCIR vs. VILLA22 SCRA 3GR No. L-23988, January 2, 1968"What may be the subject of a judicial review is the decision of the Commissioner on the protest against assessment, not the assessment itself."

FACTS: The spouses Villa filed joint income tax returns for the years 1951 to 1956. The BIR issued assessments for deficiency of income tax for the said years. Without contesting the said assessments with the CIR, they filed a petition for review with the CTA. The CTA took cognizance of the of the appeal and rendered favorable judgment to the spouses. The CIR appealed to the SC questioning the jurisdiction of the CTA.

ISSUE: Is an appeal to the CTA proper in this case? Is the CTA vested with jurisdiction?

HELD: No. The rule is that where a taxpayer questions an assessment and asks the Collector to reconsider or cancel the same because he (the taxpayer) believes he is not liable therefor, the assessment becomes a "disputed assessment" that the Collector must decide, and the taxpayer can appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals only upon receipt of the decision of the Collector on the disputed assessment. Since in the instant case the taxpayer appealed the assessment of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue without previously contesting the same, the appeal was premature and the Court of Tax Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain said appeal. For, as stated, the jurisdiction of the Tax Court is to review by appeal decisions of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments. The Tax Court is a court of special jurisdiction. As such, it can take cognizance only of such matters as are clearly within its jurisdiction.

Marcos II vs. CAMARCOS II vs. CA273 SCRA 47GR No. 120880, June 5, 1997"The approval of the court sitting in probate is not a mandatory requirement in the collection of estate taxes.""In case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed at anytime within 10 years after the omission."

FACTS: Bongbong Marcos sought for the reversal of the ruling of the Court of Appeals to grant CIR's petition to levy the properties of the late Pres. Marcos to cover the payment of his tax delinquencies during the period of his exile in the US. The Marcos family was assessed by the BIR after it failed to file estate tax returns. However the assessment were not protested administratively by Mrs. Marcos and the heirs of the late president so that they became final and unappealable after the period for filing of opposition has prescribed. Marcos contends that the properties could not be levied to cover the tax dues because they are still pending probate with the court, and settlement of tax deficiencies could not be had, unless there is an order by the probate court or until the probate proceedings are terminated. Petitioner also pointed out that applying Memorandum Circular No. 38-68, the BIR's Notices of Levy on the Marcos properties were issued beyond the allowed period, and are therefore null and void.

ISSUE: Are the contentions of Bongbong Marcos correct?

HELD: No. The deficiency income tax assessments and estate tax assessment are already final and unappealable -and-the subsequent levy of real properties is a tax remedy resorted to by the government, sanctioned by Section 213 and 218 of the National Internal Revenue Code. This summary tax remedy is distinct and separate from the other tax remedies (such as Judicial Civil actions and Criminal actions), and is not affected or precluded by the pendency of any other tax remedies instituted by the government. The approval of the court, sitting in probate, or as a settlement tribunal over the deceased's estate is not a mandatory requirement in the collection of estate taxes. On the contrary, under Section 87 of the NIRC, it is the probate or settlement court which is bidden not to authorize the executor or judicial administrator of the decedent's estate to deliver any distributive share to any party interested in the estate, unless it is shown a Certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the estate taxes have been paid. This provision disproves the petitioner's contention that it is the probate court which approves the assessment and collection of the estate tax. On the issue of prescription, the omission to file an estate tax return, and the subsequent failure to contest or appeal the assessment made by the BIR is fatal to the petitioner's cause, as under Sec.223 of the NIRC, in case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed at anytime within 10 years after the omission, and any tax so assessed may be collected by levy upon real property within 3 years (now 5 years) following the assessment of the tax. Since the estate tax assessment had become final and unappealable by the petitioner's default as regards protesting the validity of the said assessment, there is no reason why the BIR cannot continue with the collection of the said tax.