Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 629 views

    21 CIR Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    R.O.H. Auto Products Philippines, Inc. availed of a tax amnesty under Executive Order No. 41 for unpaid taxes from 1981-1985. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the request to cancel a prior tax assessment, claiming the amnesty did not cover pre-existing assessments. Both the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of R.O.H., finding that Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87 improperly restricted the scope of tax amnesty granted by E.O. 41. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that administrative rules must remain consistent with and not override the laws they implement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    21 CIR Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    629 views1 page
    R.O.H. Auto Products Philippines, Inc. availed of a tax amnesty under Executive Order No. 41 for unpaid taxes from 1981-1985. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the request to cancel a prior tax assessment, claiming the amnesty did not cover pre-existing assessments. Both the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of R.O.H., finding that Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87 improperly restricted the scope of tax amnesty granted by E.O. 41. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that administrative rules must remain consistent with and not override the laws they implement.

    Original Title

    21 CIR vs CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    R.O.H. Auto Products Philippines, Inc. availed of a tax amnesty under Executive Order No. 41 for unpaid taxes from 1981-1985. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the request to cancel a prior tax assessment, claiming the amnesty did not cover pre-existing assessments. Both the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of R.O.H., finding that Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87 improperly restricted the scope of tax amnesty granted by E.O. 41. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that administrative rules must remain consistent with and not override the laws they implement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    629 views1 page

    21 CIR Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    R.O.H. Auto Products Philippines, Inc. availed of a tax amnesty under Executive Order No. 41 for unpaid taxes from 1981-1985. However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the request to cancel a prior tax assessment, claiming the amnesty did not cover pre-existing assessments. Both the Court of Tax Appeals and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of R.O.H., finding that Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87 improperly restricted the scope of tax amnesty granted by E.O. 41. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that administrative rules must remain consistent with and not override the laws they implement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs.

    THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, R.O.H. AUTO PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. and THE HON.
    COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    FACTS:
     On 22 August 1986, when the President of the Republic still wielded legislative powers, Executive
    Order No. 41 was promulgated declaring a one-time tax amnesty on unpaid income taxes, later
    amended to include estate and donor's taxes and taxes on business, for the taxable years 1981
    to 1985.

     R.O.H. Auto Products Philippines, Inc. filed, in October 1986 and November 1986, its Tax
    Amnesty Return No. 34-F-00146-41 and Supplemental Tax Amnesty Return No. 34-F-00146-64-
    B, respectively, and paid the corresponding amnesty taxes due.

     Prior to this availment, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in a communication received by


    R.O.H. Auto Products Philippines, Inc. on 13 August 1986, assessed the latter deficiency income
    and business taxes for its fiscal years (ended 30 September 1981 and 30 September 1982) in an
    aggregate amount of P1,410,157.71. The taxpayer wrote back to state that since it had been able
    to avail itself of the tax amnesty, the deficiency tax notice should be cancelled and withdrawn

     But the request was denied by the Commissioner on the ground that Revenue Memorandum
    Order No. 4-87 implementing Executive Order No. 41, had construed the amnesty coverage to
    include only assessments issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue after the promulgation of the
    Executive Order on 22 August 1986 and not to assessments theretofore made.

     Court of Tax Appeal ruled in favor of R.O.H. Auto Products Philippines, Inc.:
    “CIR failed to present any case or law which proves that an assessment can withstand or negate
    the force and effects of a tax amnesty. This burden of proof on the petitioner (herein respondent
    taxpayer) was created by the clear and express terms of the executive order's intention —
    qualified availers of the amnesty may pay an amnesty tax in lieu of said unpaid taxes which are
    forgiven.”

     Court of Appeals affirmed CTA’s ruling:


    Examining carefully the words used in Executive Order No. 41, as amended, we find nothing
    which justifies Commissioner's ground for denying respondent taxpayer's claim to the benefits of
    the amnesty law. Section 4 of the subject law enumerates, in no uncertain terms, taxpayers who
    may not avail of the amnesty granted,. . . .Admittedly, respondent taxpayer does not fall under
    any of the . . . exceptions. The added exception urged by petitioner Commissioner based on
    Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87, further restricting the scope of the amnesty clearly
    amounts to an act of administrative legislation quite contrary to the mandate of the law which the
    regulation ought to implement.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Revenue Memorandum Order No. 4-87 promulgated to implement E.O. No. 41, is valid.

    RULING:
    No. The authority of the Minister of Finance (now the Secretary of Finance), in conjunction with the
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to promulgate all needful rules and regulations for the effective
    enforcement of internal revenue laws cannot be controverted. Neither can it be disputed that such rules
    and regulations, as well as administrative opinions and rulings, ordinarily should deserve weight and
    respect by the courts. Much more fundamental than either of the above, however, is that all such
    issuances must not override, but must remain consistent and in harmony with, the law they seek to apply
    and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, neither to supplant nor to
    modify, the law.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the court of Appeals, sustaining that of the court of Tax Appeals, is hereby
    AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.

    You might also like