GR L 12157; (May, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12157; May 30, 1959
MARIANO MARQUEZ LIM, JOSE MARQUEZ LIM, CONCORDIA VDA. DE MARQUEZ LIM, YAO JIAP, LIM YAO TING and LIM YAO GO, petitioners, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners received income tax assessment notices dated February 24, 1954. They filed a protest on March 24, 1954, claiming the property was co-ownership property and requesting cancellation. The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) referred the matter for verification. After subsequent correspondence and a BIR investigation, the Deputy Collector, by letter dated September 7, 1955 (received by petitioners on September 21, 1955), advised petitioners’ attorney that the owners bought the land and buildings to lease them and divide profits, constituting a partnership, and demanded payment by September 30, 1955. Petitioners sent letters insisting on the co-ownership claim on September 21, 1955, and October 13, 1955. The Collector reiterated the demand on September 30, 1955, and issued a warrant of distraint and levy on October 1, 1955. A new lawyer for petitioners filed another reasoned request for cancellation on November 4, 1955. The petition for review was finally filed with the Court of Tax Appeals on February 23, 1956.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Tax Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review for having been filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Republic Act No. 1125 .
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dismissing the petition. The determinative date from which the 30-day period to appeal should be counted was the petitioners’ receipt of the BIR’s letter of September 7, 1955, on September 21, 1955. This letter contained the definitive pronouncement on the deficiency tax assessment after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 1125 . The Court of Tax Appeals, after deducting the period during which a request for reconsideration was pending, found that 35 days had elapsed by the time the petition was filed on February 23, 1956, making it filed out of time. The Supreme Court noted that while taxpayers should have an opportunity to present their case, repeated motions for reconsideration on the same grounds could unduly hamper the government’s interest in the speedy collection of taxes. In this case, petitioners had ample opportunity for reconsideration.