G.R. No. 148380. December 9, 2005.
OCEANIC WIRELESS NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. received deficiency tax assessments from the BIR on March 17, 1988. It filed a protest and request for reconsideration on April 12, 1988. On January 24, 1991, the Chief of the BIR Accounts Receivable and Billing Division, acting for the Commissioner, sent a letter to petitioner denying its request for reinvestigation for failure to submit supporting documents and demanding payment within ten days. Following petitioner’s non-payment, the BIR issued warrants of distraint, levy, and garnishment in October 1991.
On November 8, 1991, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) to contest the enforcement warrants. The CTA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, ruling it was filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period. The CTA held that the BIR’s demand letter of January 24, 1991, constituted the Commissioner’s final decision on the protest. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the demand letter dated January 24, 1991, signed by the Chief of the Accounts Receivable and Billing Division, constitutes the final decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The demand letter denying the request for reinvestigation and reiterating the assessment is the Commissioner’s final decision on the disputed assessment. The Court cited established jurisprudence, notably Surigao Electric Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, which holds that a demand letter following a taxpayer’s protest is considered the final decision appealable to the CTA. The authority of a subordinate officer to issue such a final decision is presumed when acting in the regular course of duties, and the letter itself indicated it was an action on behalf of the Commissioner.
The legal logic is that the period to appeal to the CTA under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 begins upon the taxpayer’s receipt of this final decision. Applying the presumption under Section 2(v), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the letter was presumed received by petitioner within a reasonable time after January 24, 1991. Consequently, the filing of the petition on November 8, 1991, was well beyond the 30-day reglementary period, rendering the assessment final and executory. The CTA correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.