11 lascona vs cir

TheRegional Director alleged that the failure to appeal to the CTA within 30 days from the lapse of the day period renderedthe assessment final and executor. CIR, [12] the Court has held that in case the Commissioner failed to act on the disputed assessment within the day period from date of submission of documents, a taxpayer can either: Consequently, on April 20,Lascona filed a letter protest, but was denied by Norberto R.

More so, because the law and jurisprudence have alwayscontemplated a 11 lascona vs cir where the CIR will decide on the protested assessment. More so, because the law and jurisprudence have always contemplated a scenario where the CIR will decide on the protested assessment.

It is imperative that the taxpayers are informed of its action in order that the taxpayer should then at least be able to take recourse to the tax court at the opportune time. CIR, 12 the Court has held that in case the Commissioner failed to act on the disputed assessment within the day period from date of submission of documents, a taxpayer can either: It further declared that the subject Assessment Notice No.

As correctly pointed out by 11 lascona vs cir tax court: Within sixty 60 days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final. 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.

As correctly pointed out by the tax court: On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. In the first place, we believe the respondent court erred in holding that the assessment in question is the respondent Collector'sdecision or ruling appealable to it, and that consequently, the period of thirty days prescribed by section 11 of Republic Act No.

It argued that in declaring the subject assessment as final, executory and demandable, it didso pursuant to Section 3 3. Respondent, however, insists that in case of the inaction by the Commissioner on the protested assessment within the day reglementary period, petitioner should have appealed the inaction to the CTA.

Thus, the instant petition, raising the following issues: Thus, the instant petition, raising the following issues: Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Divisions.

If the taxpayer fails to respond, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative shall issue an assessment based on his findings. Thus, Lasconawhen it filed an appeal on April 12, before the CTA, after its receipt of the Letter datedMarch 3, on March 12,the appeal was timely made as it was filed within 30 days after receipt of the copy of the decision.

Respondent, however, insists that in case of the inaction by the Commissioner on the protested assessment within the day reglementary period, petitioner should have appealed the inaction to the CTA.

On the other hand, such collection should be made in accordance with law as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself. 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.

Lascona Land vs CIR

Consequently, on April 20,Lascona filed a letter protest, but was denied by Norberto R. By virtue thereof, the said assessment notice has become final, executory and demandable. Thus, the instant petition, raising the following issues: Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty 30 days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations.

Corollarily, petitioner posits that when the Commissioner failed to act on its protest within the day period, it had the option to await for the final decision of the Commissioner on the protest, which it did. Definitely, said word does not signify the assessment itself.

If the protest is denied in whole or in part, or is not acted upon within one hundred eighty days from submission of documents, the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision or inaction may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within 30 days from receipt of the said decision, or from the lapse of the one hundred eighty -day period; otherwise the decision shall become final, executory and demandable.

Precisely, when a taxpayer protested an assessment, he naturally expects the CIR to decide either positively or negatively.

Thus, Lasconawhen it filed an appeal on April 12, before the CTA, after its receipt of the Letter datedMarch 3, on March 12,the appeal was timely made as it was filed within 30 days after receipt of the copy of the decision.

It further declared that the subject Assessment Notice dated March 27, final, executor. We quote what this Court said aptly in a previous case: The CIR moved for reconsideration.

CIR moved for reconsideration. Definitely, said word does not signify the assessment itself. As early as the case of CIR v.

Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation within thirty 30 days from receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations.

LASCONA LAND vs CIR

Lascona moved for reconsideration, but was denied for lack of merit. We do not agree. Lascona filed a letter protest but was denied by BIR due to failure to appeal with the CTA after the lapse of the day reglementary period provided under Sec.

As early as the case of CIR v. It pointed out that the former spoke of an assessment becoming final, executory and demandable by reason of the inaction by the Commissioner, while the latter referred to decisions becoming final, executory and demandable should the taxpayer adversely affected by the decision fail to appeal before the CTA within the prescribed period.Assessment – Option to appeal to CTA after lapse of days or wait for the decision of the CIRLASCONA Land Co.

Inc. vs. CIR G.R. no.March 5, Facts: March 27, - CIR issued Assessment Notice against Lascona informing the. DESCRIPTION. Assessment – Option to appeal to CTA after lapse of days or wait for the decision of the CIR LASCONA Land Co.

Inc. vs. CIR G.R. no.March 5. SUPREME COURT Manila. THIRD DIVISION. G.R. No. March 5, LASCONA LAND CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. D E C I S I O N. 3 9. Team Energy Corp.

(formerly Migrant Pagbilao Corporation), Petitioner vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), Respondent (G.R. No.

Tax - CIR vs. San Roque Power

January 13, ). 11 LASCONA VS CIR Research Paper  Lascona Land Co., Inc. v.

LASCONA LAND vs CIR

CIR FACTS: On March 27,the CIR issued Assessment Notice No. against Lascona Land (Lascona) informing the latter of its alleged deficiency income tax for the year in the amount of P, Lascona Land Co., Inc. v. CIR FACTS: On March 27,the CIR issued Assessment Notice No.

against Lascona Land (Lascona) informing the latter of its alleged deficiency income tax for the year in the amount of P,

Download
11 lascona vs cir
Rated 5/5 based on 78 review