Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    013 CELAJE Sps Pacquiao v. CTA

    Uploaded by

    Josh Celaje
    This case involves a tax assessment issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against Manny Pacquiao and his wife Jinkee for deficiency income tax and value-added tax for tax years 2008 and 2009 amounting to over P2 billion. While their appeal was pending with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), the BIR issued warrants to collect the assessed taxes. The Pacquiaos sought to enjoin the collection and lift the warrants. The CTA can issue orders suspending tax collection and dispense with bond requirements when the collection method violates the law, such as when it jeopardizes the taxpayer's interests. The Supreme Court affirmed that the CTA has authority to issue such orders based on its jurisdiction

    Copyright:

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

    013 CELAJE Sps Pacquiao v. CTA

    Uploaded by

    Josh Celaje
    43 views1 page
    This case involves a tax assessment issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against Manny Pacquiao and his wife Jinkee for deficiency income tax and value-added tax for tax years 2008 and 2009 amounting to over P2 billion. While their appeal was pending with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), the BIR issued warrants to collect the assessed taxes. The Pacquiaos sought to enjoin the collection and lift the warrants. The CTA can issue orders suspending tax collection and dispense with bond requirements when the collection method violates the law, such as when it jeopardizes the taxpayer's interests. The Supreme Court affirmed that the CTA has authority to issue such orders based on its jurisdiction

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a tax assessment issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against Manny Pacquiao and his wife Jinkee for deficiency income tax and value-added tax for tax years 2008 and 2009 amounting to over P2 billion. While their appeal was pending with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), the BIR issued warrants to collect the assessed taxes. The Pacquiaos sought to enjoin the collection and lift the warrants. The CTA can issue orders suspending tax collection and dispense with bond requirements when the collection method violates the law, such as when it jeopardizes the taxpayer's interests. The Supreme Court affirmed that the CTA has authority to issue such orders based on its jurisdiction

    Copyright:

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

    013 CELAJE Sps Pacquiao v. CTA

    Uploaded by

    Josh Celaje
    This case involves a tax assessment issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against Manny Pacquiao and his wife Jinkee for deficiency income tax and value-added tax for tax years 2008 and 2009 amounting to over P2 billion. While their appeal was pending with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), the BIR issued warrants to collect the assessed taxes. The Pacquiaos sought to enjoin the collection and lift the warrants. The CTA can issue orders suspending tax collection and dispense with bond requirements when the collection method violates the law, such as when it jeopardizes the taxpayer's interests. The Supreme Court affirmed that the CTA has authority to issue such orders based on its jurisdiction

    Copyright:

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

    013 Sps. Pacquiao v.

    CTA (CELAJE) Internal Revenue in the collection of tax is not sanctioned by


     G.R. No. 213394 |April 06, 2016 | Mendoza, J.| CTA power to suspend collection of law, the bond requirement under Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125 should be
    tax dispensed with.

    PETITIONER: Sps. Pacquiao The purpose of the rule is not only to prevent jeopardizing the interest of the
    RESPONDENTS: CTA, CIR taxpayer, but more importantly, to prevent the absurd situation wherein the court
    would declare "that the collection by the summary methods of distraint and levy
    SUMMARY: Prior to their election as public officers, the petitioners relied
    was violative of law, and then, in the same breath require the petitioner to
    heavily on Pacquiao's claim to fame as a world-class professional boxer. Due to
    deposit or file a bond as a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of injunction."
    his success, Pacquiao was able to amass income from both the Philippines and
    the United States of America (US). On May 14, 2013, the BIR issued its Final
    Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA), addressed to Pacquiao only,
    informing him that the CIR found him liable for deficiency income tax and VAT DOCTRINE: The CTA can enjoin the CIR from collecting taxes as well as
    for taxable years 2008 and 2009 which, inclusive of interests and surcharges, dispense with the bond requirement when the method of collection by the CIR
    amounted to a total of P2,261,217,439.92. The sps. Pacquiao appealed to the jeopardizes the interest of the taxpayer such as when it was violative of the law.
    CTA. Pending the appeal, a letter, dated October 14, 2013, the BIR-ARMD
    informed the petitioners Sps. Pacquiao that they were denying their request to
    defer the collection enforcement action for lack of legal basis and also a warrant
    of distraint and/or levy against Pacquiao and Jinkee was included in the letter.
    The Sps. Pacquiao then field an urgent motion to lift the warrants with the CTA
    and to enjoin the CIR from collection the assess deficiency taxes. The CTA
    granted the suspension subject to posting a bond, which matter was raised with
    the SC. The case was remanded back to the CTA.

    Issue: W/n CTA can issue an suspension order on collection of taxes as well as
    dispense with the bond. YES.

    Thus, despite the amendments to the law, the Court still holds that the CTA has
    ample authority to issue injunctive writs to restrain the collection of tax and to
    even dispense with the deposit of the amount claimed or the filing of the
    required bond, whenever the method employed by the CIR in the collection of
    tax jeopardizes the interests of a taxpayer for being patently in violation of the
    law. Such authority emanates from the jurisdiction conferred to it not only by
    Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125, but also by Section 7 of the same law.

    It is clear that the authority of the courts to issue injunctive writs to restrain the
    collection of tax and to dispense with the deposit of the amount claimed or the
    filing of the required bond is not simply confined to cases where prescription
    has set in. As explained by the Court in numerius cases, whenever it is
    determined by the courts that the method employed by the Collector of

    You might also like