[WHILE A WAIVER MAY HAVE BEEN DEFICIENT IN FORMALITIES, THE TAXPAYER'S BELATED ACTION ON QUESTIONING ITS VALIDITY TILTS THE SCALES IN FAVOR OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES] [NO TAXPAYER MAY BE ALLOWED TO EXECUTE HAPHAZARD WAIVERS DELIBERATELY, GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS THAT THE WAIVERS ARE EFFECTIVE, AND LEAD THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD HAS BEEN EXTENDED, ONLY TO DENY THE VALIDITY THEREOF WHEN IT BECOMES UNFAVORABLE TO HIM]

Petitioner Asian Transmission Corporation filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Decision denying the earlier Petition for Review on Certiorari. The core issue lies on the validity of eight (8) Waivers of the Defense of Prescription under the Statute of Limitations of the Tax Code executed successively by the Petitioner.  In the decision sought to be reconsidered, the Court recounted the defects found in the Waivers, to wit: (1) the notarization of the Waivers was not in accordance with the Rules on Notarial Practice; (2) several Waivers clearly failed to indicate the date of acceptance by the BIR; (3) the Waivers were not signed by the proper revenue officer; and (4) the Waivers failed to specify the type of tax and the amount of tax due. Petitioner argued that the Court focused solely on the 1^st defect which had been attributed to it and failed to address the issues arising from the three (3) other defects which had been attributed to the BIR. Petitioner likewise argued that the principles of “in pari delicto” do not apply with respect to the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th defects. In ruling, the Court held that the taxpayer’s contributory fault or negligence coupled with estoppel will render effective an otherwise flawed waiver, regardless of the physical number of mistakes attributable to a party. Here, Petitioner issued eight (8) successive Waivers over the course of four (4) years. The Waivers had always been marred by defects and, yet the Petitioner continued to correspond with the tax authorities and allowed them to proceed with their investigation, as extended by the Waivers in question. The Petitioner acquiesced to the BIR’s extended investigation and failed to assail the Waivers’ validity at the earliest opportunity gives rise to estoppel. Petitioner's belated attempt to cast doubt over the Waivers' validity could only be interpreted as a mere afterthought to resist possible tax liability. Consequently, the Motion for Reconsideration was DENIED. [ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.R. NO. 230861, FEBRUARY 14, 2022, UPLOADED MAY 13, 2022]

DOWNLOAD FULL TEXT

[ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF FORUM SHOPPING IS THE IDENTITY OF RELIEFS BETWEEN THE TWO PROCEEDINGS] [IF NO RES JUDICATA WOULD RESULT FROM THE RESOLUTION OF ONE OR OTHER PROCEEDING, THERE IS NO FORUM SHOPPING]

Petitioner Commissioner of Customs filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)’s earlier Decision and Resolution. Previously, Petitioner refused to release the imported rice shipment to Respondent Jade Bros. Farm and Livestock, Inc. as the latter supposedly had no import permit from the National Food Authority (NFA). From this controversy stemmed two (2) parallel proceedings: one, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and another before the Petitioner’s Bureau of Customs. Petitioner argued that the Respondent engaged in forum shopping by filing the Petition for Review before the CTA Division, despite the pendency of the Civil Case before the RTC. In ruling, the Court first discussed the elements of forum shopping and found that Respondent did not commit forum shopping. No identity of reliefs between the two (2) proceedings exists. To begin with, the Civil Case is a proceeding for declaratory relief, for which Respondent questioned the legal basis for the District Collector’s imposition of an import permit. In contrast, Respondent’s Petition before the CTA Division was precipitated by the District Collector’s impending auction of its imported rice shipments. Consequently, no res judicata would result from the resolution of one or the other proceeding. Assuming the RTC adjudged the Petitioners to be without legal basis in requiring permits to import rice shipments, the District Collector's actions regarding the public auction would still have been beyond the scope of resolution. On the other hand, even if the CTA Division had ruled on the legality of the Respondent's rice imports, the legality of the NFA issuances relied on by Petitioners would still be pending before the RTC. Thus, Respondent did not commit forum shopping. Consequently, the Petition was DENIED. Since the rice shipments imported by Respondent have already been auctioned, Petitioner was ORDERED TO RELEASE to Respondent the proceeds of the auction sale. [THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. JADE BROS. FARM AND LIVESTOCK, INC., G.R. NO. 246343, NOVEMBER 18, 2021, UPLOADED MAY 12, 2022]

DOWNLOAD FULL TEXT