Scribd
Upload
66 views1 page

34 CIR Vs Hambrecht - Quist Philippine Inc

The CIR ruled that a protest letter that is not granted does not suspend the period to collect taxes. The court agreed, finding that while the assessment was final due to a failed protest, the right to collect had prescribed. There was no evidence the tax authority acted on or granted the request for reinvestigation, so the period to collect taxes was never suspended. Therefore, the tax authority could no longer collect the deficient taxes.

Uploaded by

DaLe Aparejado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
66 views1 page

34 CIR Vs Hambrecht - Quist Philippine Inc

The CIR ruled that a protest letter that is not granted does not suspend the period to collect taxes. The court agreed, finding that while the assessment was final due to a failed protest, the right to collect had prescribed. There was no evidence the tax authority acted on or granted the request for reinvestigation, so the period to collect taxes was never suspended. Therefore, the tax authority could no longer collect the deficient taxes.

Uploaded by

DaLe Aparejado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Digest for Tax 2

RULING:
CIR v. Hambrecht & Quist Philippines,
NO. The mere filing of a protest letter which
Inc.,
is not granted does not operate to suspend
DOCTRINE/S: the running of the period to collect taxes.
The fact that assessment has become final
for failure to protest only means that the In the case at bar, the records show that
validity or correctness of the assessment respondent filed a request for reinvestigation
may no longer be questioned on appeal. on Dec 3, 1993, however, there was no
However, this issue is entirely distinct from indication that petitioner acted upon
the issue of whether the right to collect has respondent’s protest. There is nothing in the
in fact prescribed.   record that would show what action was
taken in connection with the protest of the
The Court ruled that the right to collect has respondent. In fact, it did not hear anything
indeed prescribed since there was no proof from petitioner relative to its protest, not
that the request for reinvestigation was in until eight years later when the final
fact granted/acted upon by the CIR. Thus, decision was issued. In other words, the
the period to collect was never suspended. request for reinvestigation was not granted.

FACTS:
On November 4, 1993, respondent received
a letter demanding the payment of alleged
deficiency income and expanded
withholding taxes for the year 1989. It filed
its protest letter against the deficiency tax
assessment on Dec. 3, 1993.

On November 7, 2001, respondent received


a letter advising it of petitioner’s decision
denying its protest on the ground that the
protest was filed beyond the 30-day
reglementary period prescribed in Section
229 of the NIRC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s request for
reinvestigation suspended the prescriptive
period to collect deficiency tax.

Page 1 of 1

You might also like