GR 193381; (February, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193381 , February 8, 2017
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. APO CEMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Final Assessment Notice (FAN) to Apo Cement Corporation for various deficiency taxes for the taxable year 1999. Apo Cement protested. The BIR subsequently issued a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment, which reduced but upheld several deficiencies, most notably for Documentary Stamp Taxes (DST) amounting to over ₱67 million. Apo Cement paid all other assessed deficiencies but contested the DST assessment, arguing it was based on an incorrect valuation of its real property transactions.
While the case was pending before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), Apo Cement availed of the tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480 specifically for the 1999 DST liabilities. It filed a Motion to Cancel Tax Assessment, which the CTA Second Division granted, finding Apo Cement a qualified amnesty applicant. The CTA En Banc affirmed this decision. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing Apo Cement failed to fully comply with the amnesty requirements.
ISSUE
Whether Apo Cement Corporation had fully complied with all the requirements to avail of the tax amnesty under Republic Act No. 9480 , thereby warranting the cancellation of the deficiency documentary stamp tax assessment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the CIR’s petition and affirmed the rulings of the CTA. The Court found that Apo Cement had satisfactorily complied with the conditions for availing the tax amnesty. The law requires the filing of a Tax Amnesty Return and a Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), along with full payment of the amnesty tax. The Court upheld the CTA’s factual finding that Apo Cement submitted these requisite documents.
The CIR’s challenge to the veracity of the SALN was deemed improper. The Court ruled that the authority to question the contents of a SALN filed under the amnesty program lies with the Ombudsman or the appropriate anti-graft agency, not with the CIR. Furthermore, the CIR’s petition raised questions of fact, such as the completeness of Apo Cement’s submissions, which are not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition limited to questions of law. The CTA’s factual conclusions, being supported by evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court. Consequently, Apo Cement’s valid availment of the amnesty extinguished its tax liability for the 1999 DST assessment.