GR 249540 Dimaampao (Digest)
G.R. No. 249540 , February 28, 2024
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. ARTURO E. VILLANUEVA, JR., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
This is a Separate Concurring Opinion by Justice Dimaampao in a case where the Third Division denied the petition of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and cancelled the assessments issued against respondent Arturo E. Villanueva, Jr. for taxable year 2006. Justice Dimaampao concurs with the denial of the petition and the cancellation of the assessments.
ISSUE
The core legal issue addressed in this separate opinion is the proper interpretation of Section 222(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code) regarding the prescriptive period for tax assessment—specifically, whether the provision’s reference to a “false return” contemplates only intentional falsities or may also include unintentional false returns.
RULING
Justice Dimaampao reiterates his dissenting position from McDonald’s Philippines Realty Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( G.R. No. 247737 ), where he opposed the wholesale abandonment of the doctrine in Aznar v. Court of Tax Appeals. He maintains that the literal wording of Section 222(a), the plain meaning of “false returns,” and its use in various Tax Code provisions support the interpretation that it may contemplate unintentional false returns (e.g., those based on a wrong presumption or mistaken notion) and not just those made with fraudulent intent. He clarifies that this does not mean all innocent errors trigger the extended ten-year prescriptive period; it depends on whether the degree of falsehood caused actual prejudice to the government and prevented it from discovering the falsity through reasonable efforts. The government bears the burden of proving such falsity as an established fact. However, he accepts the Banc‘s standing interpretation and does not oppose its application to the present case. Applying his own interpretation here would lead to the same result, as the petitioner failed to prove that the purported falsity prevented a proper assessment within the ordinary three-year period. Therefore, he concurs in voting to DENY the petition.