Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Barcelon V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Carmz Sumile
    The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Barcelon, Roxas Securities Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) in its petition for review against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). It found that the period for the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to make an assessment against the petitioner had already prescribed. While there is generally a presumption that an assessment notice sent by registered mail is received, the petitioner in this case denied receiving the notice and the BIR failed to present sufficient evidence that the notice was mailed before the assessment period expired. The entries in the BIR's record book and testimony of its custodian did not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Barcelon V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Carmz Sumile
    41 views2 pages
    The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Barcelon, Roxas Securities Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) in its petition for review against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). It found that the period for the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to make an assessment against the petitioner had already prescribed. While there is generally a presumption that an assessment notice sent by registered mail is received, the petitioner in this case denied receiving the notice and the BIR failed to present sufficient evidence that the notice was mailed before the assessment period expired. The entries in the BIR's record book and testimony of its custodian did not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    11. Barcelon v CIR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Barcelon, Roxas Securities Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) in its petition for review against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). It found that the period for the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to make an assessment against the petitioner had already prescribed. While there is generally a presumption that an assessment notice sent by registered mail is received, the petitioner in this case denied receiving the notice and the BIR failed to present sufficient evidence that the notice was mailed before the assessment period expired. The entries in the BIR's record book and testimony of its custodian did not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views2 pages

    Barcelon V CIR

    Uploaded by

    Carmz Sumile
    The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner Barcelon, Roxas Securities Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) in its petition for review against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). It found that the period for the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to make an assessment against the petitioner had already prescribed. While there is generally a presumption that an assessment notice sent by registered mail is received, the petitioner in this case denied receiving the notice and the BIR failed to present sufficient evidence that the notice was mailed before the assessment period expired. The entries in the BIR's record book and testimony of its custodian did not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Barcelon, Roxas Securities Inc.

    vs CIR
    GR 157064, August 7, 2006

    FACTS:  

    Petitioner Barcelon, Roxas Securities Inc. (now known as UBP Securities, Inc.) is a corporation
    engaged in the trading of securities.  On 14 April 1988, petitioner filed its Annual Income Tax
    Return for taxable year 1987.  After an audit investigation conducted by the Bureau of Internal
    Revenue (BIR), respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) issued an assessment for
    deficiency income tax in the amount of P826,698.31 arising from the disallowance of the item
    on salaries, bonuses and allowances in the amount of P1,219,093,93 as part of the deductible
    business expense since petitioner failed to subject the salaries, bonuses and allowances to
    withholding taxes. This assessment was covered by Formal Assessment Notice No. FAN-1-87-
    91-000649 dated 1 February 1991, which, respondent alleges, was sent to petitioner through
    registered mail on 6 February 1991.  However, petitioner denies receiving the formal
    assessment notice. It alleges that it came to know of the deficiency tax assessment only on 17
    March 1992 when it was served with the Warrant of Distraint and Levy.  The BIR records
    custodian, Ingrid Versola, testified that she made the entries therein. Respondent offered the
    entry in the BIR record book and the testimony of its record custodian as entries in official
    records in accordance with Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner filed a petition
    for review with the CTA. After due notice and hearing, the CTA rendered a decision in favor of
    petitioner, however The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the CTA. The CA found the
    evidence presented by the respondent to be sufficient proof that the tax assessment notice was
    mailed to the petitioner

    ISSUE: Whether or not the period to make an assessment has prescribed due to the failure of
    the BIR to send the assessment notice to the taxpayer on time.

    Held: Yes.  It already prescribed. The Court ruled pursuant to Section 203 of the Tax Code,
    internal revenue taxes must be assessed within three years from the last day for the filing of
    the return. An assessment is made within the prescribed period if the notice is released, mailed
    or sent b the CIR to the taxpayer within the prescriptive period.  Although there exists a
    presumption that an assessment which was sent by registered mail is received in the regular
    course of mail, a direct denial made by the taxpayer of the receipt thereof shifts the burden to
    the BIR to prove that the assessment was indeed received by the taxpayer. Here,  petitioner
    denies receiving the assessment notice, and the respondent was unable to present substantial
    evidence that such notice was, indeed, mailed or sent by the respondent before the BIR's right
    to assess had prescribed and that said notice was received by the petitioner.
    Instead, the respondent presented the BIR record book where the name of the
    taxpayer, the kind of tax assessed, the registry receipt number and the date of mailing were
    noted. The BIR records custodian, Ingrid Versola, also testified that she made the entries
    therein. Respondent offered the entry in the BIR record book and the testimony of its record
    custodian as entries in official records in accordance with Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of
    Court

    Under Rule 130 f the Rules of  Court, to be admissible, the entries in official records must meet
    the following requisites: 1) that the entry was made by a public officer of by another person
    specially enjoined by law to do so; (2) that it was made by the public officer in the performance
    of his duties specially enjoined by law; and (3) that the public officer or other person had
    sufficient knowledge of the facts that must have been acquired by him personally or through
    official information.  
    Here, the entries made by Ingrid Versola were not based on her personal knowledge. She
    did not attest to the fact that she personally prepared and mailed the assessment notice. Nor
    did she state how and from whom she obtained the pertinent information. She did not attest to
    the fact that she acquired the reports from persons under a legal duty to submit the same.
    Hence, Rule 130, Section 44 finds no application in the present case. Thus, the evidence offered
    by respondent does not qualify as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence.

    You might also like