The Court of Tax Appeals has dominated that the Commission on Elections is liable to pay over P1 billion in deficiency withholding tax, together with curiosity, for 2015.
In a 22-page choice, the CTA junked Comelec’s Petition for Review of the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) December 2019 ruling affirming its March 2019 Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA).
The FDDA indicated that the BIR was liable to pay at the least P1 billion deficiency withholding tax on compensation (WTC), expanded withholding tax (EWT) and withholding tax on authorities cash funds, inclusive of curiosity for taxable 12 months 2015.
The CTA stated that based mostly on the information, the Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/Formal Letter of Demand (FLN) connected to the Comelec’s Petition for Review exhibiting the P1-billion withholding tax dues was duly acquired by the Comelec’s Finance Service Department as a result of the FAN and FLD each had the rubber stamp of the stated workplace.
The CTA stated that even when the courtroom accepted the Comelec’s reasoning that the one that acquired the discover was an informal worker, the CTA stated the ballot physique failed to supply proof that the individual had no authority to obtain paperwork for the Comelec.
“Truth to tell, Jai Conde’s status as a mere casual employee or an employee on a Job Order basis has nothing to do with Jai Conde’s authority to receive the FLD /FAN,” the CTA said.
“What is glaring is that Jai Conde was stationed in petitioner’s Finance Service Department, yet there is nothing on record which would show that the authority of said Department to receive the FLD/FAN was raised or questioned by petitioner [Comelec],” it added.
The courtroom stated that the Comelec didn’t elevate the difficulty of the propriety of BIR’s service of FLD/FAN in Comelec’s Protest Letters dated February 19, 2019, and February 28, 2019, and that the Comelec even apologized for the delay in responding to the FLD/FAN.
“Thus, the petitioner’s failure to file its protest letters on time renders the FLD /FAN final, executory, and demandable,” the CTA stated.
Comelec spokesman Rex Laudiangco stated the ballot physique would enchantment the ruling earlier than the Supreme Court.
“The COMELEC had put forward positive defenses and justifications which we would be elevating to the Honorable Supreme Court. We will be incorporating justifications and defenses in our Petition for Review on Certiorari,” Laudiangco instructed GMA News Online.
In protesting the FLD/FAN, the Comelec cited the next defenses:
a big a part of the P329,196,954.32 alleged underneath remittance as of 2015 was already paid;
a significant factor of the P329,196,954.32 which quantities to P211,392,925.47 could now not be assessed by the BIR because the authority to evaluate such has already prescribed;
the idea of withholding tax due on compensation amounting to P292, 113,895.04 was an inaccurate Alphabetical List of Employees submitted to the BIR;
the EWT amounting P176,866,742.45 was wrongfully assessed; and
Comelec is probably not deemed to have acquired the evaluation.
The CTA, nevertheless, stated that the Comelec’s defenses in its February 2019 protests of the FLD/FAN weren’t thought of by the BIR when it issued the FDDA.
Further, the CTA stated the Details of Discrepancies connected to the stated FDDA merely reiterated or copied verbatim what was indicated within the Details of Discrepancies connected to the topic FLD.
The CTA stated that whereas jurisprudence dictated that BIR’s FDDA was invalid because the BIR didn’t contemplate Comelec’s defenses in arising with an FDDA, jurisprudence within the Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Liquigaz Philippines Corporation additionally acknowledged that the invalidity of the FDDA didn’t have an effect on the validity of the FAN/FLN.
“Under the law, inaction on the part of the Commissioner of [Bureau of] Internal Revenue may likewise result in the finality of a taxpayer’s tax liability as it is deemed a denial of the protest filed by the latter, which may also be appealed before the CTA. Clearly, a decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on a disputed assessment differs from the assessment itself. Hence, the invalidity of one does not necessarily result in the invalidity of the other—unless the law or regulations otherwise provide,” the CTA stated.
“Hence, the assessment in the FLD stands and its validity is not affected by the invalidity of the FDDA. Wherefore, in light of the foregoing considerations, the present Petition for Review is denied. Accordingly, the FLD, with Details of Discrepancies, and Assessment Notice, both dated December 21, 2018, are hereby affirmed,” it added. —NB, GMA Integrated News
Source: www.gmanetwork.com
