Jurists Last Minute Tips On Taxation Law

JURISTS™ BAR OPS 2022
LAST-MINUTE TIPS ON TAXATION LAW
SYLLABUS
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION

(Part of Political Law)
A. Definition, characteristics and purpose of taxation

B. Power of taxation as distinguished from police power and eminent domain
C. Scope and limitations of taxation
1. Inherent and constitutional limitations of taxation
2. Territoriality principle and situs of taxation
D. Requisites of a valid tax
E. Tax as distinguished from other forms of exactions
F. Kinds of taxes
G. Doctrines in taxation
1. Lifeblood theory
2. Construction and interpretation of tax laws, rules, and regulations
3. Prospectivity of tax laws
4. Imprescriptibility of taxes
5. Double taxation
6. Exemption from taxation
7. Escape from taxation
8. Equitable recoupment
9. Prohibition on compensation and set-off
PROCEDURE IN TAX CASES

(Part of Remedial Law)
A. Tax Remedies under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended
B. Tax Remedies under the Local Government Code of 1991
C. The Court of Tax Appeals (R.A. 1125, as amended, and the Revised Rules of the Court
of Tax Appeals)
1. Jurisdiction
2. Procedures
a. Civil Cases
i. Internal Revenue taxes
ii. Local taxes
iii. Injunction not available to restrain collection;
exceptions
b. Criminal Cases
3. Appeal to the CTA en banc
4. Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court
Jurists Last Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For exclusive use of Jurists Bar reviewees. © 2022 by Jurists Review
Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading, downloading, and storage strictly
prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including the filing of administrative complaints
with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the filing of criminal charges.
Page 1 of 17
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Kinds Of Income And Taxes

Capital Capital All
Gain On Gain On Income
Source of Income Passive
Kinds of Tax Sale Of Sale Of Other
Income
Shares Real Than (A),
Of Stock Property (B), (C)
W/IN W/OUT (A) (B) (C) (D)
CORPORATIONS ( including GCP)
DC ✔ ✔ FWT FWT FWT NIT
RFC ✔ ✖ FWT FWT N/A NIT
NRFC ✔ ✖ GIT/FT FWT N/A GIT/FT
INDIVIDUALS (including estates and trusts)
NIT or
RC ✔ ✔ FWT FWT FWT
8% GIT
NIT or
NRC ✔ ✖ FWT FWT FWT
8% GIT
NIT or
RA ✔ ✖ FWT FWT FWT
8% GIT
NRAETB ✔ ✖ FWT FWT FWT NIT
GIT/FT GIT/FT
NRANETB ✔ ✖ FWT FWT
(25%) (25%)
Type of income Situs of taxation

Salaries, wages, and other Where the services were performed
compensation
Income from service business Where the services were performed
Sale of personal property Where it is sold
Interest income Residence of debtor
Dividend income from domestic Income within the Philippines
corporation
Dividend income from foreign Income is partly within and partly without if 50%
corporation or more of its gross income for the three (3)-year
period ending with the close of its taxable year
preceding the declaration of such dividends or
for such part of such period as the corporation
has been in existence is from sources within the
Philippines;
Income without the Philippines if less than 50%

of its gross income for the three (3)-year period
ending with the close of its taxable year
preceding the declaration of such dividends or
for such part of such period as the corporation
has been in
existence is from sources within the Philippines.
Rent Location of the property
Royalties Where property is used or right is exercised
Sale of real property Location of the property
Question: In In re Estate of Neme Tey, represented by his judicial administratrix, the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue had filed a claim for the payment of unpaid income tax
Page 2 of 17
allegedly due from said estate for the years 2007 to 2016. The judicial administratrix of the
deceased Neme Tey alleged in her answer that the deceased while living had paid all the
taxes for the years above-mentioned, with the exception of the years 2008 and 2009, and
that the claim of the government was for taxes in addition to those already paid. With respect
to the years Tey and 2009, she alleged that due to the amount of the income in 2008, Tey
did not have to pay any tax, and as to the year 2009, that no income tax return had been filed
for said year because Tey was then seriously ill. The court ordered the administratrix to give
preference to the payment to the Government of the Philippines, and held that the payment
of the back taxes for the years concerned were not demandable because the government’s
action has prescribed. Was the court correct?
Suggested answer:
No, the court was not correct.
In a similar case, the Supreme Court has held that the three-year prescription refers to the
discovery of erroneous, false, or, fraudulent returns, and to tax assessments and their
summary collection, but not to their collection through judicial channels. (Estate of Juan de
la Viña v. Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 42669, 29Jan1938)
Here, for 2009, no return was filed. Thus, the prescriptive period did not begin to run yet.
Hence, the court is not correct in saying that the government’s action to collect has
prescribed.
Doctrine of imprescriptibly of taxes -

General Rule: Taxes are imprescriptible
Exception: When provided otherwise by the tax law itself.
Important Point to Consider
The law on prescription, being a remedial measure, should be liberally construed to afford
protection as a corollary, the exceptions to the law on prescription be strictly construed. (CIR
v. CA. G.R. No. 104171, 24Feb1999)
Direct Duplicate Taxation (also called Obnoxious or Objectionable Double Taxation), is

Prohibited in a Strict sense - the objectionable kind or double taxation in its prohibited sense,
since it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Elements:
a. Two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter
b. Levied for the same purpose
c. Imposed by the same taxing authority
i. within the same jurisdiction
ii. during the same taxing period; and
iii. taxes must be of the some kind or character (Nursery Care Corporation, et al. vs.
Acevedo, C.R. No. 180651, July 30, 2014).
Question: The City of Tagay passed a Revenue Code. Sec. 10 of which Imposes Tax on
Distributors, Wholesalers, or Dealers and Sec. 20 Imposes Tax on Retailers. At the same
time, the City of Tagay through the amendment of the Revenue Code required, as a condition
for renewal of business license, the payment of additional local business taxes of "any person
who sells goods and services in the course of trade or businesses". ABC Retail Corp. paid
the aforementioned taxes under protest and filed the corresponding claim for refund. Is there
double taxation that would warrant the claim for refund?
Suggested Answer:
Page 3 of 17
Yes, there is double taxation.
The Laws on Taxation provides that direct duplicate taxation exists when the two taxes are
imposed during the same taxing period by the same taxing jurisdiction and the taxes must
be of the same kind or character.
Here, all the requisites are present. Thus, ABC Retail Corp. is entitled to a tax refund.
(Nursery Care Corp. v. Acevedo, G.R. No. 18065 J, July 30,2014).
PROCEDURE IN TAX CASES
Questions: On September 30, 2004 Company B filed a claim of refund of input vat in relation
to its zero-rated sales from July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002. On the same day, Company
B filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals for the same action.
The BIR disputed the claim and alleged that the same was filed beyond the two-year period
given that 2004 was a leap year and thus the claim should have been filed on September 29,
2004.
The BIR also contends that a prior filing of an administrative claim is a “condition precedent”
before a judicial claim can be filed. Company B contends that the non-observance of the 120-
day period given to the BIR to act on the claim for tax refund) is not fatal because what is
important is that both claims are filed within the two-year prescriptive period.
(a) Did Company B file the claim for refund within the prescriptive period?
(b) Was the filing of the judicial claim premature?
Suggested Answers:
(a)
Yes, Company B filed the claim for refund within the prescriptive period.
The Supreme Court has held that the two-year prescriptive period should be reckoned from
the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made. It further held that a year is
composed of 12 calendar months.
Here, Company B filed claim for tax refund for the period July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002.
Thus it has until September 30, 2004 to file for a refund.
Hence, Company B’s administrative claim was timely filed.
(b)
Yes, filing of the judicial claim was premature.
The Supreme Court has held that the taxpayer must wait until the end of the 120-day period
before it may appeal the BIR’s inaction to the CTA. The appeal must be made within 30 days
from the end of the 120-day period. The 120+30-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional.
Here, Company B filed the Petition for Review with the CTA on the same day that it filed for
the claim for refund with the BIR.
Hence, the 120+30-day period not having been observed, the judicial claim was premature.
(CIR v. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc. G.R. No. 184823 06Oct2010;)
*Note: Under the TRAIN Law it is 90 + 30
Page 4 of 17
Questions: A final assessment notice was issued by the BIR to Company C on June 13,
2011, and received by the taxpayer on June 15, 2011. The taxpayer protested the
assessment on July 31, 2011. The protest was initially given due course, but was eventually
denied by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in a decision dated June 15, 2016.
Company C then filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), but the CTA
dismissed the same on July 30, 2016.
(a) Is the CTA correct in dismissing the petition for review? Explain your answer.
(b) Assume that the CTA's decision dismissing the petition for review has become final.
May the Commissioner legally enforce collection of the delinquent tax? Explain.
Suggested Answers:
(a)
Yes, the CTA is correct in dismissing the petition for review.
The Tax Code provides that a taxpayer should file a protest within 30 days from receipt
of the final assessment notice. It is further provided that failure to file a protest makes the
assessment final and executory.
Here, Company C received the final assessment notice on June 15, 2011. Thus, it has
until July 15, 2011 to file a protest. Company C however, filed a protest on July 31, 2011,
which is already beyond the period allowed by law. Therefore, the assessment became final.
Hence the CTA was correct in dismissing the petition for review as the protest was
filed out of time.
(b)
No, the Commissioner may not legally enforce collection of the delinquent tax.
The Tax Code provides that the BIR may collect the delinquent tax within five (5) years
following the finality of the assessment of the tax.
Here, the assessment of the delinquency tax of Company C became final on July 16,
2011. Therefore, the BIR had until July 16, 2016 to collect the delinquency tax.
Hence, the Commissioner may not legally enforce collection of the delinquent tax
because the period to collect already prescribed.
Question: On March 10, 2017, Company D received a preliminary assessment notice (PAN)
dated January 1, 2017 issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) for deficiency
taxes for taxable year 2015. It failed to protest the PAN. The CIR thereupon issued a final
assessment notice (FAN) with letter of demand on April 30, 2017. The FAN was received by
the company on May 10, 2017. On May 25, 2017, the company filed it protest against the
FAN.
The CIR denied the protest on the ground that the assessment had already become final and
executory, the company having failed to protest the PAN.
Is the CIR correct? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, the CIR is not correct.
Page 5 of 17
The Law on Tax Remedies provide that a protest to the FAN within 30 days from receipt
thereof prevents the assessment from becoming final. It is also stated that it is the FAN that
must be protested, not the PAN.
Here, Company D received the FAN on May 10, 2017, and protested the same on May 25.
2017, which is within the 30-day period required by law to protest a FAN.
Hence the CIR is correct in denying the protest.
Question: On March 27, 2016, the BIR issued a notice of assessment against Company E,
a domestic corporation, informing the latter of its alleged deficiency corporate income tax for
the year 2013. On April 20, 2016, Company E filed a letter protest before the BIR contesting
said assessment and demanding that the same be cancelled or set aside.
However, on May 19, 2017, the BIR informed Company E that the latter’s letter protest was
denied on the ground that the assessment had already become final, executory and
demandable.
The BIR reasoned that its failure to decide the case within 180 days from filing of the letter
protest should have prompted Company E to seek recourse before the Court of Tax Appeals
(CTA) by filing a petition for review within 30 days after the expiration of the 180-day period
as mandated by Section 228 of the Tax Code.
According to the BIR, Company E’s failure to file a petition for review before the CTA
rendered the assessment final, executory and demandable. Is the contention of the BIR
correct? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, the contention of BIR is not correct.
The Supreme Court has held that the right of a taxpayer to consider the inaction of the
Commissioner on the protest within 180 days as an appealable decision is only optional. If,
however, the taxpayer opted to wait until the BIR decides, the failure to file a petition for
review before the CTA will not make the assessment final, executory and demandable.
Here, Company E opted to wait for the decision of the BIR, thus the 30-day period to appeal
will only start upon receipt of the decision of the BIR.
Hence, the contention of the BIR that Company E’s failure to file a petition for review before
the CTA rendered the assessment final, executory and demandable is not correct. (Section
228, NIRC; Lascona Land Co., Inc. vs CIR G.R. No. 171251 March 5, 2012)
Question: The BIR issued in 2017 a final assessment notice and demand letter against F
Corporation covering deficiency income tax for the year 2015 in the amount of P10 million. X
Corporation earlier requested the advice of Atty. Pal Pak on whether or not it should file
a request for reconsideration or request for reinvestigation. Atty. Pal Pak said it does not
matter whether the protest filed against the assessment is a request for reconsideration or a
request for reinvestigation, because it has the same consequences or implications.
Do you agree with the advice of Atty. Pal Pak? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, I do not agree with the advice of Atty. Pal Pak.
The difference between a request for reconsideration and a request for reinvestigation are
as follows:
Page 6 of 17
Request for Reconsideration - plea for evaluation of assessment on the basis of existing
records without need of presentation of additional evidence. It does not suspend the
prescriptive period to collect the deficiency tax.
Request for reinvestigation – plea for evaluation of assessment based on newly discovered
evidence which are to be introduced for examination for the first time. It suspends the
prescriptive period to collect the deficiency tax.
Questions: On April 16, 2017, the G Corporation filed its annual corporate income tax
return for 2016 showing an overpayment/excess of income tax of P1 Million, which is to be
carried over to the succeeding year(s).
On May 15, 2017, G Corporation sought advice from you and said that it contemplates to
file an amended return for 2016, which shows that instead of carryover of the excess
income tax payment, the same shall be considered as a claim for tax refund and the
small box shown as “refund” in the return will be filled up. Within the year, the
corporation will file the formal request for refund for the excess payment.
(a) Will you recommend to the corporation such a course of action and justify that the
amended return is the latest official act of the corporation as to how it may treat
such overpayment of/excess tax or should you consider the option granted to
taxpayers as irrevocable, once previously exercised by it? Explain your answer.
(b) Should the petition for review filed with the CTA on the basis of the amended tax
return be denied by the BIR and the CTA, could the corporation still carry over
such excess payment of income tax in the succeeding years, considering that
there is no prescriptive period provided for in the income tax law with respect to
carry over of excess income tax payments? Explain your answer.
Suggested Answers:
(a)
No, I will not recommend such action to G Corporation.
The Tax Code provides that once the option to carry-over and apply the excess quarterly
income tax against income tax due for the taxable quarters of the succeeding taxable years
has been made such option shall be considered irrevocable for the taxable year period
and no application for tax refund or issuance of tax credit certificate shall be allowed
therefore. (Section 76, NIRC)
Here G Corporation already indicated in their tax return that the overpayment of/excess tax
shall be carried over to the succeeding periods.
Hence I should consider the option chosen by G Corporation as irrevocable, once previously
exercised by it.
(b)
Yes, the corporation could still carry over such excess payment of income tax in the
succeeding years.
In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that carry-over of excess income
tax payments is no longer limited to the succeeding taxable year. Unutilized excess income
tax payments may now be carried over to the succeeding taxable years until fully utilized.
(Belle Corp. v. CIR, G.R. No. 181298, January 10, 2011).
Page 7 of 17
Question: TTT Corp. executed three waivers of Defense of Prescription for the fiscal year
2003 for assessment of its VAT, EWT, and Income Tax. All the three Waivers were received
by the BIR. On June 28, 2007, TTT Corp. received the FLD/FAN. The BIR partially
considered the Protest of TTT when it reduced the assessment in the FDDA. TTT Corp.
appealed the FDDA with the CTA. Both the CTA 2ndDivision and CTA En Banc cancelled the
assessments by reason of Prescription and the 3 waivers executed between TTT Corp. and
the BIR were defective. Would the defective waivers executed by TTT Corp. and BIR estop
the former from raising it as a defense on its appeal?
Suggested Answer:
No, the defective waivers executed by TTT Corp. and BIR would not estop the former from
raising it as a defense on its appeal.
In a case with similar facts, Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of estoppel cannot be
applied as an exception to the statute of limitations on tax assessment where the BIR fails to
strictly follow the detailed procedure on the execution of the waiver under the regulations.
The waivers being invalid, did not interrupt the maximum three-year period for assessing
taxes thus BIR’s right to assess had already prescribed. (CIR vs. Systems Technology, Inc.
GR No. 220835, July 26, 2017)
Question: The BIR issued Preliminary 15-day letter to UUU, Inc. stating the deficiency taxes
due from UUU, Inc. for 1999. Five months later, UUU, Inc. received a Final Assessment
Notice/Final Letter of Demand (FAN/FLD) from the BIR for the same deficiency taxes. After
being served with a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy to enforce the collection of taxes, UUU,
Inc. appealed to the BIR but was denied. Claiming that it did not receive a Preliminary
Assessment Notice (PAN) and was, therefore, not accorded due process, UUU, Inc.
appealed to CTA. The CTA ruled in favor of UUU, Inc. and invalidated the assessments
issued by the BIR. BIR argued that a PAN was mailed, although UUU, Inc. denied receiving
it. The BIR also argued that even assuming that no PAN was issued, UUU, Inc. nevertheless
accorded due process since it was issued a FAN/FLD. Was the FAN/FLD valid even if UUU,
Inc. did not receive the PAN?
Suggested Answer:
No, the FAN/FLD was not valid if UUU, Inc. did not receive the PAN.
In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that PAN is part of the due process
requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment, the absence of which renders
nugatory any assessment made by the tax authorities. The PAN is a substantive and not
merely a formal requirement. (CIR vs. Metro Star Superama, Inc. G.R. No. 185371,
December 8, 2010)
Questions: The BIR sent by registered mail a Final Assessment Notice (FAN) to ABC Corp.
for deficiency tax liabilities for the taxable year 2011. The FAN was sent to ABC Corp.’s
former Las Piñas City address. The BIR also sent a “Notice Before Issuance of Warrant of
Distraint and Levy” to the residence of one of ABC Corp.’s directors in March 2016. BCIPI
protested the FAN on the ground of lack of due process. During trial, it was found out that
BIR was actually aware of ABC Corp.’s new address.
(a) Was there a valid issuance of the FAN by the BIR?
(b) Can the BIR issue a Warrant of Distraint and Levy without first issuing a valid FAN?
Suggested Answers:
(a)
No, there was no valid issuance of the FAN by the BIR.
Page 8 of 17
In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that FAN sent by the BIR to a wrong
address of the taxpayer is not deemed received, cannot attain finality, and therefore not valid.
(b)
No, the BIR cannot issue a Warrant of Distraint and Levy (WDL) without first issuing a valid
FAN.
The Supreme Court has held that to proceed with collection without first establishing a valid
assessment violates the cardinal principle in administrative investigations, which is that the
taxpayer should be able to present its case and adduce supporting evidence.
Here, when the BIR issued the WDL, it already collecting from ABC Corp. However, as there
was no valid FAN, the BIR cannot procced with collection.
Hence, the BIR cannot issue the WDL. (CIR vs. v Basf Coating + Inks Phils., Inc. G.R. No.
198677, 26Nov2014)
Question: In 2020, Pak Yaw failed to include in his 2009 income tax return as well as the
filing of his VAT returns for 2008-2009. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) then
authorized BIR examiners to examine the tax documents of the petitioners from 1995-2009.
Despite the petitioners’ complaints, the investigation was justified as a “fraud investigation”.
After its investigation, the CIR found the petitioners liable for deficiency income tax and non-
payment of VAT liabilities. The BIR then issued the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment
(FDDA) and eventually the Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) demanding the payment of
deficiency taxes.
A petition for review was filed in the CTA arguing against CIR’s allegations that the petitioners
were guilty of fraud, collection of deficiency tax, and CIR’s assessment based on the “best
possible source” instead of actual transaction documents. The petitioners then asked for the
partial reconsideration for the reduction of the amount to be paid. May the CTA issue an
injunctive writ to restrain the collection of tax?
Suggested answer:
Yes, the CTA may issue an injunctive writ to restrain the collection of tax.
In a similar case, the Supreme Court has held that when in the opinion of the Court the
collection by the government may jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the
taxpayer, the Court at any stage of the proceeding may suspend the said collection and
require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond for not more
than double the amount with the Court.
Question: Who may be held criminally liable in case of Tax Code violations by the
corporation?
Suggested answer:
Under Article 253(d) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), when an association,
partnership or corporation commits an act or omission that violates the Tax Code, the penalty
"shall be imposed on the partner, president, general manager, branch manager, treasurer,
officer-in-charge, and the employees responsible for the violation". This means that any of
Page 9 of 17
the persons enumerated may be criminally prosecuted for the corporation or partnership's
criminal act or omission under the code. (Suarez v. People, G.R. No. 253429,06Oct2021)
Additional Note:
Please see below flowchart of the assessment process.
Through the issuance of Notice of Discrepancy, the

taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the
discrepancy or discrepancies in his payments of
internal revenue taxes.
The Discussion of Discrepancy (DOD) shall in no
case extend beyond thirty (30) days from receipt of
NOD. It is during the DOD that the taxpayer is
given the opportunity to present his side of the
case and explain the discrepancy found during the
investigation and submit documents to support the
explanation or argument.
If after being afforded the opportunity to present his
side through the Discussion of Discrepancy, it is
Notice of still found that the taxpayer is still liable for
Discrepancy(NOD) deficiency tax or taxes and the taxpayer does not
address the discrepancy through payment of the
deficiency taxes or the taxpayer does not agree
with the findings, the investigating office, shall
endorse the case to the reviewing office and
approving official in the National Office or the
Revenue Regional Office, for issuance of a
deficiency tax assessment in the form of a
Preliminary Assessment Notice within ten (10)
days from the conclusion of the Discussion.
Failure on the part of Revenue Officers to comply
with the periods indicated herein shall be meted
with penalty as provided by existing laws, rules and
regulations. (RR No. 22-21)
It is a communication issued by the Regional

Assessment Division or by the Commissioner or
his duly authorized representative informing the
taxpayer who has been audited of the findings of
Preliminary the Revenue Officer following the review and
Assessment evaluation of these findings.
Notice
(PAN) It shall be in writing and shall show in detail the
facts and the law, rules and regulations or
jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment
is based; otherwise, the assessment is void.
(Sec. 228, NIRC; RR No.18-13)
Page 10 of 17
It is a declaration or deficiency taxes issued to a
taxpayer who fails to respond to a PAN
within the prescribed period, or whose reply is
found to be without merit.
Final Assessment
Notice
Like the PAN, shall be in writing and shall show in
(FAN)
detail the facts and the law, rules and
regulations or jurisprudence on which the
proposed assessment is based; otherwise, the
assessment is void. (RMC No. 18-13)
It indicates the decision of the Commissioner

Final Decision on of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized
Disputed representative and it shall state the facts and the
Assessment law, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on
(FDDA) which the decision is based; otherwise, it is void.
(RMC No. 18-13)
Page 11 of 17
Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17
Protesting Assessment of Local Tax
Court Jurisdiction Over Tax Collection Cases

Court Original Jurisdiction
MTC Over tax collection cases where the
principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties does
not exceed P300,000 or P400,000 in
Metro Manila.
RTC Over tax collection cases where the
exclusive of charges and penalties
exceeds P300,000 or P400,000 in Metro
Manila; provided it is less than
P1,000,000.
CTA - Division Over tax collection cases where the
exclusive of charges and penalties is
P1,000,000 or more.
Page 14 of 17
Court Jurisdiction Over Criminal Offenses
Court Original Jurisdiction
MTC or RTC Over criminal offenses arising from
violations of the NIRC or TCCP and other
laws administered by the BIR or the BOC,
where the principal amount of taxes and
fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed is less than P1,000,000 or where
there is no specified amount claimed.
CTA - Division Over criminal offenses arising from

violations of the NIRC or TCCP and other
laws administered by the BIR or the BOC,
where the principal amount of taxes and
fees, exclusive of charges and penalties,
claimed is P1,000,000 or more.
Original Jurisdiction – CTA Division

 Criminal offenses arising from violation of the NIRC, TCC and other laws
administered by the BIR or the BOC, if principal tax or fee (exclusive of penalties
and charges) is P1M or more.
 Over tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes,
fees, charges, and penalties, if principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of
penalties and charges is P1M or more.
Appellate Jurisdiction – CTA Division

 Appeals from judgments of the RTC in their original or appellate jurisdiction in the
same criminal offenses decided by them, if principal tax or fee, exclusive of
penalties and charges is less than P1M or where there is no specified amount
claimed.
 Judgments of the RTC in tax collection cases originally decided by them or in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, if principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive
of penalties and charges is less than P1M.
 Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving:
 disputed assessments,
 refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed
in relation thereto, or
 other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law
or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;
 Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving:
 disputed assessments,
 refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in
relations thereto, or
Jurists Last Minute Tips on Taxation Law. For exclusive use of Jurists Bar reviewees. © 2022 by Jurists
Review Center, Inc. Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading, downloading, and storage
strictly prohibited and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including the filing of administrative
complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the filing of criminal charges.
Page 15 of 17
 other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other
laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National
Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case
the inaction shall be deemed a denial;
 Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases
originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate
jurisdiction;
 Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs
duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property
affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters
arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of
Customs;
 Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real
property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
 Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him
automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are
adverse to the Government under Sec. 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;
 Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural
product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of
agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing
duties under Sec. 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and
safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal
the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
Appellate Jurisdiction – CTA En Banc

 Decisions or resolutions on MRs or MNTs of the CTA Division in the exercise of its
exclusive appellate jurisdiction;
 Decisions or resolutions on MRs or MNTs of the CTA Division in the exercise of its
exclusive original jurisdiction;
 Decisions or resolutions on MRs or MNTs of the RTC in the exercise of its
exclusive appellate jurisdiction;
 Decisions of the CBAA in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases
involving assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the
provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
Page 16 of 17
Appeal Procedure in Civil Cases
Appeal Procedure in Criminal Cases
Page 17 of 17

Jurists Last Minute Tips On Taxation Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurists Last Minute Tips On Taxation Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Jurists Last Minute Tips On Taxation Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JURISTS™ BAR OPS 2022

LAST-MINUTE TIPS ON TAXATION LAW

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION

A. Definition, characteristics and purpose of taxation

PROCEDURE IN TAX CASES

Kinds Of Income And Taxes

Type of income Situs of taxation

Income without the Philippines if less than 50%

Question: In In re Estate of Neme Tey, represented by his judicial administratrix, the

No, the court was not correct.

Doctrine of imprescriptibly of taxes -

Direct Duplicate Taxation (also called Obnoxious or Objectionable Double Taxation), is

PROCEDURE IN TAX CASES

Hence, Company B’s administrative claim was timely filed.

Yes, filing of the judicial claim was premature.

*Note: Under the TRAIN Law it is 90 + 30

Yes, the CTA is correct in dismissing the petition for review.

Is the CIR correct? Explain.

No, the CIR is not correct.

Hence the CIR is correct in denying the protest.

No, the contention of BIR is not correct.

Do you agree with the advice of Atty. Pal Pak? Explain.

No, I do not agree with the advice of Atty. Pal Pak.

No, I will not recommend such action to G Corporation.

No, there was no valid issuance of the FAN by the BIR.

Please see below flowchart of the assessment process.

Through the issuance of Notice of Discrepancy, the

It is a communication issued by the Regional

It indicates the decision of the Commissioner

Court Jurisdiction Over Tax Collection Cases

CTA - Division Over criminal offenses arising from

Original Jurisdiction – CTA Division

Appellate Jurisdiction – CTA Division

Appellate Jurisdiction – CTA En Banc

Appeal Procedure in Criminal Cases

You might also like