Tax Remedies Under the NIRC

4

Payment

in protest 

Yes

GR: no ER:

if

no the

be raised in a protest

on

with reference to the

disputes or protests against

particular item or items

the validity of some of the

constituting the subject

issues raised, the taxpayer

matter

shall be required to pay the

Single

efficiency

refers to the entire

attributable undisputed

taxpayer

tax

or to issues.

taxes the

content

a

ruling

decision

of

Collector whereby

is

duties, fees, surcharges

taxpayers disputed issues

or fines incident.

until the taxpayer has paid

Period

the deficiency tax or taxes

 protest 

to

for

filing

a

the

The assessment that wiil be

Notice

the

the subject of protest of the

assessment

taxpayer is the FAN

issued

for

by

the

local treasurer.

charge

determined, adverse

15 days from

The assessment may be

Within

the receipt of the ruling

protested by filing a request

from receipt of 

or

for

or

the

30

assessment

decision

of

the

may

imported goods)

assessment

Where to file

Collector of Customs

CIR

Local treasurer

Period

30

180 days from receipt of 

60

written protest

receipt of written

days

after

termination of hearing

Comm

of 

BoC

of denial of protest  2.

CTA division

3.

CA en banc

The scope of protest

the

shall be limited to the

unfavorable

subject matter of a

government, there is

single

or

an automatic review by

independent

the Commissioner or

but

any

number of issues may

Mae Bautista   

days

from

protest 1.

Where to appeal in case

In case the decision of 

transaction;

of 

days from receipt of the

decision.

adjustment

notice

reinvestigation

to decide cases

within

60 days

and appraisal of the

protest such ruling or

other

reconsideration

is the

party

Within

Collector (classification of 

duties, fees, or other money

one

liquidation, including all

or

made

liability

of

No

undisputed issues When

protest.

adjustment

action shall be taken on the

attributable

Subject of protest 

of

collector

Finance Sec.

to

is the

1.

CTA division

Court

2.

CTA en banc

Competent Jurisdiction

of 

7

claim refund. It said that P & G

USA

instead should make the

claim. The Court said BIR should not be allowed to do this because it had all the opportunity to ask about P & Gs capacity or authorization from its parent company at the administrative level. It is unfair and too late to ask for it now especially because this suit was filed just before the expiration of the two-year prescriptive period.  x.

 ACCRA Investment vs. CA 1.

The Court elaborates on the (second) Gibbs ruling, saying that there are two alternative reckoning dates for a taxpayer whose income is withheld at source: a.

the end of the tax year, and

b.

when the tax liability falls due. In this case, since ACCRA Investments only knew its tax liability on April 15, 1982, when it filed its return, this date would be the reckoning date for the prescriptive period and not December

3 1,

1981, when the

taxes withheld at source were paid and remitted to the BIR. Before it filed its return, ACCRA was not sure of whether it made a profit or not.

Mae Bautista   