GR L 16759; (August, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16759 August 31, 1966
RAFAEL MORALES, petitioner, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rafael Morales informed the Collector of Internal Revenue of his wife’s death and filed a copy of a deed of extrajudicial partition on April 28, 1951. The respondent issued a tentative assessment, which was paid. On May 14, 1956, the respondent issued a new assessment for deficiency taxes. On October 15, 1956, the petitioner contested this reassessment, claiming it had prescribed under Section 331 of the Tax Code, as more than five years had elapsed since the filing of the deed. The respondent rejected this claim of prescription in a letter dated December 28, 1956, stating Section 332(a) applied due to a failure to file a return, setting a ten-year period. After subsequent demands and the issuance of a warrant of distraint and levy, the petitioner requested its cancellation, which was denied by the respondent in a letter dated December 5, 1958. On December 8, 1958, the petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals, stating it was an appeal from the respondent’s December 5, 1958 letter.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Tax Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioner’s appeal for having been filed out of time, by ruling that the appealable decision was the respondent’s letter of December 28, 1956, and not the letter of December 5, 1958.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Tax Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the disputed assessment became a “disputed assessment” when the petitioner questioned it. The respondent’s final decision on this dispute was rendered in the letter of December 28, 1956, which rejected the plea of prescription and demanded payment. This letter had the tenor of finality and was the appealable decision under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125. The subsequent letter of December 5, 1958 pertained merely to the denial of the request to cancel the warrant of distraint and levy, a collection remedy, and was not a decision on the disputed assessment itself. The appeal from the December 28, 1956 decision was filed beyond the 30-day period, making that decision final and unappealable. The matter of prescription could no longer be reopened through an appeal from the later letter.