Unformatted text preview: Taxation 1
Case Digest DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
LIST OF CASES
Taxation 1
I. General Principles
A. Definition of Taxation B. Theories and Basis of Taxation
1. Lifeblood Theory
Cases: Pilmico-Mauri Foods Corp. v. CIR, 802 SCRA 618 CIR v. Next Mobile, Inc., 776 SCRA 343 CIR v. Dash Engineering Philippines, Inc., 712 SCRA 347 Camp John Hay Development Corporation v. CBAA, 706 SCRA 547 First Lepanto Taishu Insurance v. CIR, 695 SCRA 639 CIR v. San Roque Power Corporation, 690 SCRA 336 CIR v. BPI, 521 SCRA 373 CIR v. Pineda, 21 SCRA 105 Vera v. Fernandez, 89 SCRA 199 CIR v. CTA, 234 SCRA 348 CIR v. Algue, Inc, 158 SCRA 9 YMCA v. CIR, 298 SCRA 83 Davao Gulf Lumber Corp. v. CIR, 293 SCRA 77 Marcos II v. CA, 273 SCRA 47 Reyes v. Almanzor, 196 SCRA 322 PB Com v. CIR, 302 SCRA 250 Phil. Guaranty, Co., Inc. v. CIR, 13 SCRA 775 Philex Mining Corp. v. CIR, 294 SCRA 687 North Camarines Lumber Co. v. CIR, 109 Phil 511
2. Necessity Theory
Cases: Phil. Guaranty Co. v. CIR, 13 SCRA 775 Gerochi v. DOE, 527 SCRA 696
3. Benefits-protection Theory (Symbiotic Relationship)
Cases: CIR v. Algue, Inc. v. CTA, 158 SCRA 9 Abakada Guro Party List v. Exec. Sec. Eduardo Ermita, 469 SCRA 1
4. Jurisdiction Over Subject and Objects
Cases: CIR v. CA, 267 SCRA 557 Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. v. Bienvenido
Tan, 163 SCRA 371 CREBA , Inc. v. Romulo, 614 SCRA 605 C. Nature of Taxation
1. It is inherently legislative
2. It is for a public purpose
3. It is territorial in application
4. It is subject to international comity
5. It is an exaction payable in money
6. It is subject to limitations and restrictions
Cases: CREBA, Inc. v. Romulo, 614 SCRA 605 Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667 Republic v. Caguioa, 536 SCRA 193 National Telecommunications v. CA, 311 SCRA 508 1 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW D. E. F. Paseo Realty & Dev't. Corp. v. CA, 309 SCRA 402
Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. (Phils.) v. Mun. Of Tanauan, Leyte, 69 SCRA 460
CIR v. Fortune Tobacco Corp., 559 SCRA 160
Phil Guarantee Company v. CIR, 13 SCRA 775
NPC v. Province of Albay, 186 SCRA 198 Purposes of Taxation
1. Revenue Raising
Cases: Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil 148 Gerochi v. DOE, 527 SCRA 696 Gaston v. Republic Bank, 158 SCRA 626
2. Regulatory Purpose
Cases: Chevron Phils., Inc. v. Bases Conversion Dev't. Authority, 630 SCRA 519 Terminal Facilities & Services Corp. v. Phil. Ports Authority, 378 SCRA 81 Manila Memorial Park, Inc. v. Secretary of DSWD, 711 SCRA 302
Characteristics of Taxation
Cases: Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Phil. Corporation, 548 SCRA 485 Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board, et al., 151 SCRA 213
Scope and Limitations of Taxation
1. Inherent Limitations
a. Power of taxation is inherently legislative in character
Cases: NPC v. Province of Albay, 186 SCRA 198 Quezon City, et al. v. Bayan Telecommunications, Inc., 484 SCRA 169 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Mun. Of Tanuan, Leyte, 69 SCRA 460
b. Taxation is for a public purpose
Case: Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corp., 548 SCRA 485
c. Taxation is territorial
Case: ACMDC v. CIR, 524 SCRA 73
d. Taxation is subject to international comity
Cases: CIR v. Mitsubishi Metal Corp., 181 SCRA 214 CBK Power Co., Ltd. v. CIR, GR No. 192283, January 14, 2015
e. Non-delegability of the power of taxation
Cases: Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, 469 SCRA 1 Southern Cross Cement Corp. v. Cement Manufacturers Asso. Of the Phils.,
GR No. 158540, August 3, 2005 Camarines North Elec. Cooperative v. Torres, GR No. 127249, February 27,
1998
f. Government is exempt from taxation
Cases: Phil. Fisheries Dev't. Authority v. The Municipality of Navotas, 534 SCRA
490 City of Lapu Lapu v. PEZA, 742 SCRA 524 MIAA v. Parañaque City, 495 SCRA 591 Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) v. City of Lapu-Lapu,
757 SCRA 323
2. Constitutional Limitations
a. Uniformity and Equality Clause
Cases: CIR v. SM Prime Holdings, Inc., 613 SCRA 774 2 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW b. c. d. e. G. PAGCOR v. CIR, 645 SCRA 338 Phil. Trust BL Company v. Yatco, 69 Phil 420 Tan v. Del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 CREBA, Inc. v. Exec. Sec. Romulo, 614 SCRA 605 Roxas v. CTA, 23 SCRA 276 British Tobacco v. CIR, 562 SCRA 511 Punsalan v. City of Manila, 95 Phil 46 Juan Luna Subdivision, Inc. v. Sarmiento, 91 Phil 371 Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. City of Butuan, 24 SCRA 789
Non-impairment of Contract Clause
Cases: Casanovas v. Hord, 8 Phil 25 Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667 Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, 235 SCRA 630
Due Process Clause
Cases: PB Communications v. CIR, 302 SCRA 241 Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 CIR v. Metro Star Superama, Inc., 637 SCRA 633
Tax
exemptions
of
religious,
educational
and
charitable
institutions/organizations
from property tax
Cases: CIR v. YMCA, 298 SCRA 83 Lladoc v. CIR, 14 SCRA 292 Hodges v. Mun. Board of Iloilo City, 19 SCRA 28 Lung Cancer of the Philippines v. QC, 433 SCRA 119 St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. v. CIR, 682 SCRA 66 Angeles University Foundation v. City of Angeles, 675 SCRA 359
Free Exercise of Religous Profession and Worship
Cases: American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 Phil 386 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 Stages of Taxation
Levy
Assesment and Collection
Cases: CIR v. United Salvage & Towage (Phils.) Inc., 729 SCRA 113 Alhambra Cigar & Cig. Mfg., Co. v. Collector, 105 Phil 1337 CIR v. The Stanley Works Sales (Phils.), Inc. 743 SCRA 642 Ungab v. Cusi, Jr., 97 SCRA 877 CIR v. Pascor Realty Development Corp., 309 SCRA 402 CIR v. Hantex Trading, 454 SCRA 301 CIR v. BPI, 411 SCRA 456
3. Payment
Case: First Lepanto Taisho Ins. Corp. v. CIR, 695 SCRA 639
1.
2. H. I. Principles of a Sound Tax System
1. Fiscal Adequacy
Case: Chavez v. Ongpin, 186 SCRA 331
2. Administrative Feasibility
Case: Timbol & Diaz v. Sec. Of Finance, 654 SCRA 96
3. Theoretical Justice
Doctrines in Taxation
Prospectivity of tax laws 1. 3 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 2.
3. 4. 5. Cases: CIR v. Acosta, 529 SCRA 177 CIR v. CA, 267 SCRA 576
a. Revenue Regulations Non-retroactivity
Cases: CIR v. Filinvest Dev't. Corp., 654 SCRA 56 Supreme Transliner, Inc. v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., 644 SCRA 59 CIR v. CA, 267 SCRA 557 CIR v. Burroughs, Inc., 142 SCRA 324 British American Tobacco, Inc. v. Camacho, 562 SCRA 511
b. BIR Rulings or Administrative Rulings
Cases: Phil Bank of Communications v. CIR, 302 SCRA 241 Team Energy Corp. v. CIR, GR No. 197760 CIR v. Burroughs, Inc., 142 SCRA 324 CIR v. Aichi Forging Co. Of Asia, Inc., 632 SCRA 422
Imprescriptibility of taxes
Principle of Exhaustion of Administrative remedies in taxation
Cases: Silicon Phils., Inc. v. CIR, 717 SCRA 30 City of Lapu-Lapu v. PEZA, 742 SCRA 524 Comm. Of Customs v. Oilink Int'l. Corp., 728 SCRA 469
Double taxation Manufacturers Life v. Meer, 89 Phil 210 Modes of eliminating double taxation:
a) Tax exemption
b) Tax credit
c) Tax deduction
d) Tax discount
e) Tax treaties
f) Principle of Reciprocity
Case: CIR v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87
a. Direct duplicate taxation
Cases: Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc. v. City of Pasig, 538 SCRA 99 Nursery Care Corp. v. Acevedo, 731 SCRA 280
b. Indirect duplicate taxation
Cases: CIR v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87 La Suerte Cigar & Cig. Factory v. CA, 739 SCRA 489 Villanueva v. City of Iloilo, 26 SCRA 578 Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinos v. City of Manila, 8 SCRA 367 CIR v. Solidbank Corp., 416 SCRA 436
c.
Tax pyramiding
Cases: People v. Sandiganbayan, 467 SCRA 137 CIR v. American Rubber Co., 18 SCRA 842
Escapes from taxation
a. Shifting of tax burden
Cases: CIR v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., 717 SCRA 53 Phil. Acetylene Co., Inc. v. CIR, 20 SCRA 1056
b. Tax avoidance
Cases: Gala v. Ellice Agro Industrial Corp., 418 SCRA 431 Heng Tong Textiles Co., Inc. v. CIR, 24 SCRA 767 Delpher Trades Corp. v. IAC, 157 SCRA 349
c. Tax evasion 4 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 6. 7. 8. 9. J.
K. Case: CIR v. Estate of Benigno Toda, Jr., 438 SCRA 290
Exemption from taxation
Cases: John Hay Special Economic Zone v. Lim, 414 SCRA 356 CIR v. Phil. Associated Smelting & Refining Corp., 737 SCRA 328
Grounds of exemption
Cases: Batangas Power Corp. v. Batangas City & NPC, GR No. 152675, April 28,
2004 Tolentino v. Sec. Of Finance, 235 SCRA 630
Kinds of tax exemptions:
a) Express: CIR v. MERALCO, 725 SCRA 384 Western Minolco Corp. v. CIR, 124 SCRA 121
b) Implied or by inference
Case: John Hay Special Economic Zone v. Lim, 414 SCRA 356
c) Contractual
Case: MCIAA v. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667
Nature of tax exemption
Case: FELS Energy, Inc. v. Province of Batangas, 516 SCRA 186
Revocation of tax exemption
Cases: A. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 Provincial Treasurer of Province of Misamis Oriental v. Cagayan Electric
Power & Light Co., Inc., 181 SCRA 38 Batangas Power Corp. v. Batangas City & NPCX, 428 SCRA 250 Phil. Basketball Asso. v. CA, 337 SCRA 358
Construed strictly against the taxpayer
Cases: MCIAA v. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667 CIR v. Phil. American Accident Ins. Co., Inc., 453 SCRA 668 NPC v. City of Cabanatuan, 401 SCRA 259
Compensation and set-off
Cases: CIR v. Toledo Power Company, 775 SCRA 709 Republic v. Ericta, 172 SCRA 623 CIR v. Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., 172 SCRA 364 Republic v. Mambulao Lumber Company, 4 SCRA 622 Domingo v. Garlitos, 8 SCRA 443 Francia v. IAC, 162 SCRA 753 Philex Mining Corp. v. CIR, 294 SCRA 687 CIR v. Citytrust Banking Corporation, 499 SCRA 477 CIR v. UST, 104 Phil 1062
Compromise
Case: Wonder Mechanical Engineering Corp. v. CA, 64 SCRA 555
Tax Amnesty
Cases: People v. Castañeda, 165 SCRA 327 Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. v. CIR, 682 SCRA 49 Special Economic Zone v. Lim, 414 SCRA 356 Elements of a Valid Tax
Tax as Distinguished from Other Forms of Exactions
1. Tax v. Revenue 5 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 2. Tax v. License
Cases: Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Asso., Inc. v. City of Manila, 20 SCRA
47 Gerochi v. Department of Energy, 527 SCRA 696 Cojuangco, Jr. v. Republic, 686 SCRA 472 Angeles University Foundation v. City of Angeles, 675 SCRA 359 Smart Telecommunications, Inc. v. Mun. Of Malvar, Batangas, 716 SCRA 677 Progressive Dev't. Corp. v. Quezon City, 172 SCRA 629 Land Transportation v. City of Butuan, 322 SCRA 805 CIR v. Maritime Shipping, 238 SCRA 42
3. Tax v. Debts
4. Tax v. Fees/Charges
5. Tax v. Tariff
6. Tax v. Penalty
7. Tax v. Subsidy
L. Kinds of Taxes
1. Direct taxes
Cases: Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr., 223 SCRA 217 CIR v. PLDT Company, 478 SCRA 61
2. Indirect taxes
Cases: Diaz & Timbol v. Sec. Of Finance, 654 SCRA 96 Phil. Acetylene Co., Inc. v. CIR, 20 SCRA 1056 Silkair (Sing) Pte., Ltd. v. CIR, 571 SCRA 1431 Asia Int'l. Auctioneers, Inc. v. CIR, 682 SCRA 49 CIR v. Acesite (Phils) Hotel Corp. v. CIR, 516 SCRA 93
3. Specific ad valorem and mixed
4. General or fiscal; special, regulatory, sumptuary
5. National and local
6. Progressive, regressive and proportionate II. National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended by RA 10963 (Tax Reform for
Acceleration and Inclusion Law)
A. Income taxation
Income tax systems
Case: Tan v. Del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324
2. Features of the Philippine income tax law
3. Criteria in imposing Philippine income tax
Cases: Tan v. Del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 CIR v. BOAC, 149 SCRA 395 South African Airways v. CIR, 612 SCRA 665 Alexander Howden & Co., Ltd. v. Collector13 SCRA 601 CIR v. Baier-Nickel, 500 SCRA 87
4. Types of Philippine income tax
5. Taxable period
6. Kinds of taxpayers
7. Income
a. Definition
Broad Definition, RR 2, Section 36
Judicial definition
Cases: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189
CONWI v. CTA, 213 SCRA 83
1. 6 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW b. Nature and Basis
Cases: CIR v. Lednicky, 11 SCRA 603 CIR v. BOAC, 149 SCRA 395 CREBA v. Romulo, 614 SCRA 605
8. Gross income
a. Definition – General statutory, broad and jurisprudential
9. Exclusions from gross income
Cases: El Oriente v. Posadas, 56 Phil 147 Santos v. Servier Philippines, Inc., 572 SCRA 487 Request for reconsideration of Atty. Zialcita, 190 SCRA 851 CIR v. Mitsubishi Metal Corp., 181 SCRA 214
10. Taxation of resident citizens, non-resident citizens, and resident aliens
11. Taxation of non-resident aliens engaged in trade or business
12. Individual taxpayers exempt from income tax
13. Categories of income
a. Forms of Compensation Cancellation or forgiveness of indebtedness Life Insurance Premiums
b. Special Rules on Fringe Benefits
c. Business/Trade/Professional Income
d. Interest income
e. Rent income
f. Dividend income
g. Passive investment income
h. Other sources
14. Taxation of domestic corporations
Case: CIR v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc., 682 SCRA 66
15. Taxation of resident foreign corporations
Cases: Air Canada v. CIR, 778 SCRA 131 Far East International Import and Export Corp. v. Nankai Kogyo Co., Ltd.,
6 SCRA 725 South African Airways v. CIR, 612 SCRA 665
16. Taxation of non-resident foreign corporations
Case: N.V. Reederij Amsterdam v. CIR, 162 SCRA 487
17. Taxation of partnerships (Business and General Professional)
Cases: Evangelista v. Collector, 102 Phil 140 Oña v. CIR, 45 SCRA 74 Pascual and Dragon v. CIR, 166 SCRA 560 Obillos, Sr. v. CIR, 139 SCRA 436 Afisco Insurance Corp. v. CA, 302 SCRA 1 Brocki v. American Express Company, 279F 2d 785, 787
18. Other Corporate Tax Rules
a. Branch Profit Remittance Tax
Cases: Deutsche Ban AG Manila Branch v. CIR, 704 SCRA 216 CIR v. Marubeni, 177 SCRA 500 Bank of America NT & SA v. CA, 234 SCRA 302
b. Minimum Corporate Income Tax (MCIT)
Cases: CREBA v. Romulo, 614 SCRA 605 Manila Banking Corporation v. CIR, 499 SCRA 782
c. Improperly Accumulated Earnings Tax (IAET)
Cases: Cyanamid v. CA, 322 SCRA 639 7 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW 19. 20. 21.
22.
23. 24. 25. Helvering v. National Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282
d. Tax sparing credit (TSC)
Case: CIR v. Procter, 204 SCRA 377
Exempt corporations
Cases: CIR v. De La Salle University, 808 SCRA 156 CIR v. CA, 298 SCRA 83 CIR v. St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc., 682 SCRA 66 PAGCOR v. CIR, 744 SCRA 712
Allowable Deductions from Gross Income
Cases: Pilmico-Mauri General Foods Corp. v. CIR, 802 SCRA 608 Atlas Consolidated Mining v. CIR, 102 SCRA 246 Hospital De San Juan De Dios v. CIR, 185 SCRA 273 Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. CIR, 175 SCRA 149 CIR v. Algue, Inc., 158 SCRA 9 CIR v. Isabela Cultural Corp., 515 SCRA 556 CIR v. General Foods Phils., 401 SCRA 545 CIR v. Palanca, 18 SCRA 496 CIR v. Prieto, 109 Phil 592 PICOP v. CA, 250 SCRA 434 CIR v. Bicolandia Drug Corp., 496 SCRA 176 CIR v. Prescilla, 11 SCRA 130 PRC v. CIR, 256 SCRA 667
Optional Standard Deduction (OSD)
Taxation of Estates and Trusts
Special Topics in Income Taxation
Cases: NDC v. CIR, 151 SCRA 472 Calasanz v. CIR, 144 SCRA 664 Tuason, Jr. v. Lingad, 58 SCRA 176 Smi-ed Phil Technology v. CIR, 739 SCRA 691 Supreme Transliner, Inc. v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., 644 SCRA 59 Delpher Trades, Corp. v. IAC, 157 SCRA 349
Withholding tax (Creditable and Final)
Cases: BDO v. RP, 745 SCRA 361 RCBC v. CIR, 657 SCRA 70 Citibank v. CIR, 280 SCRA 459
Persons Required to File Income Tax Returns 8 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW PILMICO-MAURI FOODS CORP., PETITIONER, -versus-. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 175651, THIRD DIVISION, September 14, 2016, REYES, J.
To support deductions for business expenses, official receipts and sales invoices must meet the
requirements provided for in Section 238 of the 1977 Tax Code.
FACTS:
Petitioner was assessed deficiency income, value-added and withholding tax for the taxable year
1996. In the assessment, petitioner’s claim for business deduction on purchases of raw materials
was disallowed on the ground that petitioner failed to support sales invoices which are compliant
with Section 238 of the 1977 Tax Code, particularly in the name of the purchaser and the date of the
transaction. The CTA found that the alterations in the sales invoices gave rise to serious doubts as to
their authenticity. Petitioner argues that Section 29 of the 1977 Tax Code is applicable to determine
the deductibility of an expense, particularly, (1) the expense must be ordinary and necessary; (2) it
must be paid or incurred within the taxable year; and (3) it must be paid or incurred in carrying on
a trade or business. Petitioner argues that, prior to the promulgation of the 1997 Tax Code; the law
does not require the production of official receipts to prove an expense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 238 of the 1977 Tax Code, particularly the requirements on the information
reflected in the receipts and invoices, is applicable to determine business deductibility of expenses?
(Yes)
RULING:
The law intends for Section 29 and 238 of the 1977 Tax Code to be read together, and not for one
provision to be accorded preference over the other. While official receipts are not the only pieces of
evidences which can prove deductible expenses, if presented, they shall be subjected to
examination. The petitioner submitted the receipts as evidence of its business deductions.
Accordingly, Section 238 of the 1977 Tax Code is applicable to determine if such receipts and
invoices may substantiate such claims for deduction.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, -versus-. NEXT MOBILE, INC.
(FORMERLY NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS PHILS., INC.), RESPONDENT. G.R. No. 212825, THIRD
DIVISION, December 07, 2015, VELASCO JR., J.
An assessment notice issued after the three-year prescriptive period is not valid and effective.
Exceptions to this rule are provided under Section 222 of the NIRC. Section 222(b) of the NIRC provides
that the period to assess and collect taxes may only be extended upon a written agreement between
the CIR and the taxpayer executed before the expiration of the three-year period.
The general rule is that when a waiver does not comply with the requisites for its validity specified
under RMO No. 20-90 and RDAO 01-05, it is invalid and ineffective to extend the prescriptive period to
assess taxes. However, due to its peculiar circumstances, We shall treat this case as an exception to this
rule and find the Waivers valid for the reasons discussed below.
First, the parties in this case are in pari delicto or "in equal fault." Second, the Court has repeatedly
pronounced that parties must come to court with clean hands. Third, respondent is estopped from
questioning the validity of its Waivers. Finally, the Court cannot tolerate this highly suspicious
situation. In this case, the taxpayer, on the one hand, after voluntarily executing waivers, insisted on
their invalidity by raising the very same defects it caused. On the other hand, the BIR miserably failed
to exact from respondent compliance with its rules. The BIR's negligence in the performance of its
duties was so gross that it amounted to malice and bad faith. Moreover, the BIR was so lax such that it
seemed that it consented to the mistakes in the Waivers. Such a situation is dangerous and open to
abuse by unscrupulous taxpayers who intend to escape their responsibility to pay taxes by mere
expedient of hiding behind technicalities. 9 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW FACTS:
Respondent filed with the BIR its Annual Income Tax Return (ITR) for taxable year ending
December 31, 2001. Respondent also filed its Monthly Remittance Returns of Final Income Taxes
Withheld, its Monthly Remittance Returns of Expanded Withholding Tax and its Monthly
Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld on Compensation for year ending December 31, 2001.
Later on, respondent received a copy of the Letter of Authority authorizing the Revenue Officer to
examine respondent's books of accounts and other accounting records for income and withholding
taxes for the period covering January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001.
Sarmiento, respondent's Director of Finance, subsequently executed seve...
View
Full Document
