GR 48129; (November, 1942) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48129 ; November 11, 1942
CELSO B. JAMORA and ASUNCION M. JAMORA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. BIBIANO L. MEER, as Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On September 15, 1938, the defendant Collector of Internal Revenue served an assessment notice on plaintiffs Celso B. Jamora and Asuncion M. Jamora, requiring them to pay an inheritance tax on the estate of the late Francisco Magno by October 15, 1938. The payment was suspended due to pending intestate proceedings. After the proceedings concluded, the plaintiffs received a second assessment notice on February 20, 1939, requiring payment of P2,047.10 on or before March 20, 1939. The plaintiffs sent their payment by registered mail after 4:00 p.m. on March 20, 1939, which was received by the defendant on the morning of March 21, 1939. Due to this delay, the defendant imposed a 25% monthly interest surcharge for one day, amounting to P510.22. The plaintiffs paid this amount under protest and subsequently filed an action for its recovery. The Court of First Instance dismissed the action, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiffs are liable for the delinquency surcharge for their payment of the inheritance tax, which was mailed after the close of office hours on the last day prescribed for payment and was received by the Collector on the following day.
RULING
Yes, the plaintiffs are liable for the surcharge. The Court affirmed the order of dismissal. Under Executive Order No. 92, series of 1927, a taxpayer who remits payment by mail is considered delinquent and subject to a surcharge if it cannot be proven that the remittance was deposited in the mail in ample time to reach the tax collector’s office on or before the close of office hours on the last day for payment. The Court emphasized that tax laws imposing penalties for delinquencies are intended to hasten tax payments and punish neglect. Condoning delays for light reasons would render such penalties ineffective and jeopardize government operations. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had about 28 days to pay from the notice date (exceeding the statutory 20 days under Section 1544[b] of the Revised Administrative Code) yet still failed to pay on time. Furthermore, no reason was provided why they could not have tendered payment to the municipal treasurer in Quezon, Nueva Ecija, where they were staying until the expiration date. The dismissal order was affirmed with costs against the appellants.