To prove the fact of mailing, the BIR must present the Registry Receipt issued by the Bureau of Posts or the Registry Return card.

The BIR issued a FAN in 2018, which was followed up by a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) and a Warrant of Garnishment (WG) in 2020. The taxpayer filed its Petition, alleging that the assessment notices and the WDL and WG should be declared null and void due to the failure of the BIR to serve the taxpayer with a copy of the FAN/FLD. The BIR argued that the taxpayer duly received the FAN, which was served via registered mail. However, the registry receipt or the return card were not presented by the BIR as evidence during the trial.

The Court held that the assessments made for deficiency internal revenue taxes are void, for failure to accord the taxpayer due process in the issuance of assessment notices. Registry receipt is a proof that the FAN/FLD is mailed, while the registry return card is proof that it was received.

Here, nowhere can it be seen from the BIR's evidence that there was actual service and receipt of the subject FAN since the registry receipt, or the return card were not presented. Neither did the BIR offer any other form of evidence such as certification from the Bureau of Posts or other pertinent document executed with its intervention, to prove that the FAN was served to, or received by taxpayer. (Konica Minolita Marketing Services Philippines, Inc., vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. CTA Case No. 10255. March 01, 2024

The removal of the requirement regarding the revalidation of LOAs for failure of the revenue officials to complete the audit within the prescribed 120-day period shall begin on June 1, 2010.

On February 17, 2016, the taxpayer received the Letter of Authority (LOA). The BIR then issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) with Details of Discrepancies dated February 27, 2017. Now, the taxpayer argues that the tax audit/investigation and the resulting assessment are void for having been made in the absence of a revalidated LOA, outside the 120-day validity period of the LOA.

The CTA held that the mere lack of revalidation does not render an assessment invalid. The removal of the requirement regarding the revalidation of the LOAs for failure of the revenue officials to complete the audit within the prescribed 120-day period shall begin on June 1, 2010.

Here, the subject LOA was issued on February 17, 2016, the same need not be revalidated even when the 120-day period was not observed. Such being the case, the failure of the RO to request for revalidation of the LOA or the expiration of the revalidation period does not nullify the LOA, nor will it affect or modify the rules on the reglementary period within which an assessment may be validly issued. (Barrio Fiesta Manufacturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9871, March 01, 2024)

A collection letter, having the character of finality, may be treated as the BIR’s final decision, which may already be appealed to the CTA.

A protest was filed by the taxpayer with the BIR seeking cancellation of the alleged deficiency tax assessments. However, despite the repeated letters filed with the BIR, it issued a Collection Letter and a Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WDL) against the taxpayer for the subject assessment. The taxpayer filed a Petition for Review, arguing that their right to due process was violated. The BIR, however, argued that the CTA has no jurisdiction, there being no final decision on the protest.

The Court held that it has jurisdiction to rule on questions surrounding the Collection letter and the WDL. A collection letter, having the character of finality, may be treated as the BIR’s final decision, which may already be appealed to the CTA. Further, the Court also has jurisdiction in instances when the BIR, without categorically deciding the taxpayer's protest or request for reconsideration or reinvestigation, proceeds with distraint and levy or institutes an action for collection in the ordinary courts. In such case, the Supreme Court has considered this an implied denial.

Here, the taxpayer had thirty (30) days from receipt of the said WDL on February 1, 2019, or until March 3, 2019, within which to file its appeal before this Court. Correspondingly, the filing of the Petition for Review on March 1, 2019, was timely made. (BETA Electromechanical Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. CTA Case No. 10040. March 05, 2024)

While the CIR should be given an opportunity to act on the taxpayer’s claim, the taxpayer should not be faulted for lawfully filing a judicial claim before the expiration of the two-year prescriptive period, notwithstanding the alleged defects in its administrative claim.

This is a claim for refund of excess and unutilized CWT for CY 2016. Due to inaction by the CIR, the taxpayer filed a Petition for Review before the Court in Division seeking the refund of unutilized CWT. The CTA in Division partially allowed the refund, and both parties moved to assail the decision.

The CIR maintains that the taxpayer’s s judicial claim for CWT refund covering CY 2016 is premature because the latter failed to await his adverse decision on its administrative claim for refund, thereby violating the principle of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The CTA En Banc ruled that while the CIR should be given an opportunity to act on the taxpayer’s claim, the taxpayer should not be faulted for lawfully filing a judicial claim before the expiration of the two-year prescriptive period, notwithstanding the alleged defects in its administrative claim. The law does not require the taxpayer to await the BIR's action on its administrative claim for CWT refund, prior to seeking judicial redress. Here, the taxpayer’s judicial claims for CWT refund covering CY 2016 were correctly instituted within the two-year prescriptive period. Therefore, there is no violation of the principle of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Tullett Prebon (Philippines) Inc., vs. CIR. CTA EB No. 2713. March 07, 2024)

The Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) is explicit that all taxes collected during the recovery period are recoverable provided that they are detrimental to the contractor's recovery of pre-operating and property expenses

The Court En Banc denied the taxpayer’s claim for refund representing excise taxes illegally collected by the BIR. It ruled that to be entitled to the refund, the taxpayer must establish that the collection of excise taxes during the recovery period was detrimental to the recovery of its pre-operating and property expenses and that the taxpayer's recovery period had already ended in 2016.

The taxpayer cites Section 81 of Republic Act ("RA") No. 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (“Mining Act”), which provides that the government share in the Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement ("FTAA") consists of excise tax, among others, and shall be collected only after the contractor has fully recovered its pre-operating expenses. It emphasizes that the law makes no qualifications or conditions. Thus, while the FTAA uses the term "detrimental" with respect to recoverable taxes, said qualification should be deemed effectively superseded upon the enactment of the Mining Act.

The Court ruled that Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) is explicit that all taxes collected during the recovery period are recoverable provided that they are detrimental to the contractor's recovery of pre-operating and property expenses. To be entitled to refund, taxpayer had the burden to prove two things: 1.) that the taxes were paid during the recovery period; and 2.) that the taxes were detrimental to the recovery of pre-operating and property expenses. Here, as found by this Court, the taxpayer did not present evidence to establish the latter. Instead, it solely relied on its theory that it is no longer required to do so, the plenary tax exemption under Sec. 81 of the Mining Act having already eliminated such requirement under the FTAA. (Oceanagold Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA EB No. 2663, March 8, 2024)

For criminal cases heard before the CTA, it is the filing of an Information before said Court, not the filing of a complaint before the DOJ, that interrupts the prescriptive period.

The taxpayer allegedly filed a fraudulent income tax return (“ITR”) in violation of the Tax Code. The CIR referred the case for preliminary investigation with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on February 18, 2016. Acting upon such, the DOJ filed an Information before the CTA on September 6, 2022. The Court in Division granted the Motion to Quash and dismissed the case on the ground of prescription.

The prosecution maintains that the running of the 5-year prescriptive period is interrupted when a complaint is filed before the proper officer, for the purpose of conducting the requisite preliminary investigation or the filing of complaint before the DOJ.

The Court held that the period of prescription for the offense charged for all violations of any provision of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, is five (5) years. The filing of an Information interrupts the running of the prescriptive period before the Court in Division. Since the preliminary investigation necessarily entails the investigation and consequent punishment of the subject offense, the five (5)- year prescriptive period begins to run on such date. The prosecution, therefore, had until February 18, 2021, to file the requisite Information with the Court. Accordingly, when the prosecution filed the Information on September 6, 2022 with the CTA, the government's right to file an action has already prescribed. (People of the Philippines v. Antonio Valeriano M. Bernardo, CTA EB Crim No. 123, March 8, 2024)

A Preliminary Collection Letter, as well as a Final Notice Before Seizure, Warrant of Distraint and/ or Levy, or other means of summary administrative collection, remain tentative for as long as there is a pending administrative appeal before the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

While the taxpayer’s motion for reconsideration of the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (“FDDA”) was still pending before the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”), the BIR issued a Preliminary Collection Letter (“PCL”). Now, the taxpayer argues that the issuance of the PCL is premature.

The Court declared the PCL void and without force and effect. The BIR's authority to proceed against the taxpayer for the collection of taxes is grounded on the premise that the taxpayer has become delinquent. One of the instances wherein a taxpayer becomes delinquent is when an assessment issued against it becomes final and executory and, thus, due and demandable.

Here, the assessment remained to be non-demandable because the assessment is still pending appeal before the CIR through a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the issuance of the PCL is premature. (C.U.T. Commercial Corporation v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9933, March 22, 2024)

A FAN should contain a definite amount due as well as the due date for payment. Without a valid FAN, the assessment that sprung from it is inescapably void.

The taxpayer filed a Petition for Review praying, among others, that the Formal Assessment Notice (“FAN”) covering deficiency taxes for taxable
period 2015 issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”) be cancelled and withdrawn.

Ruling in favor of the taxpayer, the Court held that despite the validity of the letter of authority (“LOA”) and the conduct of audit, the FAN suffers an incurable defect as it lacks the definite amount for which the taxpayer is accountable for as well as the due date for payment. Without a valid FAN, the assessment that sprung from it is inescapably void.

Here, the assessment Notices enclosed in the FAN shows that the due date for payment of the deficiency taxes were all stamped January 7, 2018. Noteworthy is the fact that the FAN was issued on December 7, 2018. Glaringly, the supposed deadline for payment was eleven (11) months before the issuance date of the Assessment Notices. Even considering that the correct due date for payment is January 7, 2019, there is a discord in the computation of the interest vis-a-vis the deadline for payment which negates the definiteness of the total amount due. (IBMS Technology Phils. Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 10177, March 15, 2024)

Persons who sign the relevant Memoranda recommending the issuance of PAN and FDDA requires an authority granted by an LOA.

The taxpayer challenged a tax assessment before the tax court. Among the arguments of the taxpayer was that the persons who recommended the issuance of the Preliminary Assessment Notice (“PAN”) and the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (“FDDA”) are not named in the Letter of Authority (“LOA”).

The BIR, on the other hand, contended that such participation was merely clerical and ministerial or that they signed the memoranda only as part of the same group as the revenue officers named in the LOA.

The tax court agreed with the taxpayer. It held that having signed the relevant memoranda, they effectively recommended the issuance of the PAN and FDDA. Considering that such recommendations require the authority granted by a LOA, said act was enough to violate the taxpayer's right to due process.

The tax court cannot lend credence to the BIR’s claims. If these were true, then the revenue officers should not have signed the memoranda in the first place, regardless of which "groups" they were members of. (Concepcion Industries Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, C.T.A. Case No. 10584 (Resolution), April 26, 2024)

The right of a taxpayer to answer the PAN carries with it the correlative duty on the part of the BIR to consider the response thereto.

The taxpayer questioned an assessment made by the BIR. It alleged that despite providing its defenses and arguments against the findings in the Preliminary Assessment Notice (“PAN”), the basic taxes as stated in the PAN and in the Formal Letter of Demand/Final Assessment Notice (“FLD/FAN”) remained unchanged. Moreover, Details of Discrepancies attached to the FLD/FAN and FDDA show that the BIR merely reiterated the same findings as stated in the Details of Discrepancies attached to the PAN and FLD/FAN without giving any reason for rejecting the explanations made by the taxpayer in its Reply to the PAN and Protest.

The CTA held that the right of a taxpayer to answer the PAN carries with it the correlative duty on the part of the BIR to consider the response and that the issuance of the FAN without even hearing the side of the taxpayer is anathema to the cardinal principles of due process. Right to due process is the opportunity to be heard. However, such an opportunity would be wasted if the reply or protest to assessments submitted to the BIR is not considered.

Here, the BIR failed to give the reason/s for rejecting the taxpayer's explanations and to provide the particular facts upon which his conclusions are based. As a consequence of the violation of taxpayers's right to due process, the said deficiency tax assessments are rendered void and cannot be enforced against the taxpayer. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Rieckermann Philippines, Inc., CTA EB No. 2704 [CTA Case No. 9613], May 13, 2024)

The requirement to file quarterly VAT returns must be differentiated from that of quarterly corporate income tax returns.

The taxpayer questioned an assessment made against it by the BIR on the ground of prescription. The latter defended its assessment for the first three quarters against prescription by arguing that the assessment for VAT was lumped on an annual basis since the disallowed excess input tax was earned over up to the 4th quarter of the TY 2010.

The CTA ruled that the prescriptive period to assess the taxpayer for deficiency VAT is separable into four quarters, inasmuch as the taxpayer is mandated by law to file a VAT return on a quarterly basis. The requirement to file quarterly VAT returns must be differentiated from that of quarterly corporate income tax returns. While corporations are required by law to file income tax returns for the first, second, and third quarters of a taxable year, the Final Adjustment Return must reflect the transactions for the whole taxable year, not just the fourth quarter. Thus, the prescriptive period to assess a corporate taxpayer for that taxable year shall be reckoned from the filing of the Final Adjustment Return. On the other hand, each quarterly VAT return thus filed constitutes a final computation of the taxpayer’s VAT payable for that taxable quarter; the filing thereof/statutory deadline therefor shall commence the three-year period for assessment.

In the present case, the taxpayer filed its quarterly VAT returns prior to its respective statutory deadlines. It appears that when the BIR issued the FLD/FAN on January 27, 2014, the right to assess the taxpayer for deficiency VAT relative to the first, second, and third quarters of TY 2010 had already prescribed. (Applied Food Ingredients Co, Inc. vs. CIR., CTA Case No. 9952, May 23, 2024)

If an authorized representative of the CIR denies the protest within the 180-day period and the taxpayer appeals to the CIR, the CIR only has the remainder of the 180-day period within which to act.

The taxpayer was assessed by the BIR and was eventually issued with a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (“FDDA”) by an authorized representative of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”). It opted to file an administrative appeal before the CIR on December 21, 2018. On the belief that it was granted a fresh 180-day period (until June 19, 2019), the taxpayer appealed the inaction of the CIR within 30 days from the lapse of the said 180-day period.

The CTA held that there is a singular 180-day period, i.e., the period counted from the filing of the protest or the submission of the required documents. Accordingly, if an authorized representative of the CIR denies the protest within the 180-day period and the taxpayer appeals to the CIR, the CIR only has the remainder of the 180-day period within which to act. If the same period lapses with no action from the CIR, the taxpayer can appeal to this Court within 30 days after the lapse of the said remaining period.

Here, considering that the 180-day period has already lapsed by the time the CIR issued the FDDA, there is no longer any appealable inaction on the part of the CIR. It is only after CIR acts on the taxpayer’s administrative appeal that the taxpayer could file an appeal before this Court. (Friendlycare Foundation, Inc. vs. CIR, CTA Case No. 10123, May 30, 2024)

RMC No. 34-2024, March 5, 2024 – This provides updates to the List of VAT-Exempt products.

The List of VAT-Exempt Medicines under Republic Act (RA) No. 10963 (TRAIN Law) and RA No. 11534 (CREATE Act) now includes certain medicines for cancer, hypertension and mental illness.

As clarified under Q&A No. 1 of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 99-2021, the effectivity of the VAT exemption of the covered medicines and medical devices under the CREATE Act shall be on the date of publication by the FDA of the updates to the said list.

RMC No. 37-2024, March 14, 2024 – This announces the availability of TIN Inquiry thru electronic mail (eMail).

Taxpayers, Individual or corporation, may inquire on their issued TIN via email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Upon receipt of the TIN Inquiry, the BIR shall verify the submitted information with the BIR's Internal Revenue Integrated System-Taxpayer Registration System (IRIS-TRS).

If information provided are correct with the information in the BIR's IRIS-TRS, an email reply will be sent to the taxpayer with the information on his/her TIN indicated. However, if information provided are incorrect, the request for TIN Inquiry shall be denied with the reason for denial of request stated in the email reply.

RMC No. 34-2024, March 5, 2024 – This provides updates to the List of VAT-Exempt products.

The List of VAT-Exempt Medicines under Republic Act (RA) No. 10963 (TRAIN Law) and RA No. 11534 (CREATE Act) now includes certain medicines for cancer, hypertension and mental illness.

As clarified under Q&A No. 1 of Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 99-2021, the effectivity of the VAT exemption of the covered medicines and medical devices under the CREATE Act shall be on the date of publication by the FDA of the updates to the said list.

RMC No. 37-2024, March 14, 2024 – This announces the availability of TIN Inquiry thru electronic mail (eMail).

Taxpayers, Individual or corporation, may inquire on their issued TIN via email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Upon receipt of the TIN Inquiry, the BIR shall verify the submitted information with the BIR's Internal Revenue Integrated System-Taxpayer Registration System (IRIS-TRS).

If information provided are correct with the information in the BIR's IRIS-TRS, an email reply will be sent to the taxpayer with the information on his/her TIN indicated. However, if information provided are incorrect, the request for TIN Inquiry shall be denied with the reason for denial of request stated in the email reply.

Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 62-2024, May 16, 2024. -
This provides for the availability of the “Taxpayer’s Classification Inquiry” Functionality in ORUS

Rule on delay in presentation of notarized deeds of sale or other transfer documents

The relevant laws and regulations effective at the date of notarization shall be applied.

Penalties and interest for late filing of return and payment of taxes shall be imposed.

Rule if the deeds of sale or other transfer documents are ante-dated

The relevant laws and regulations effective at the time of presentation of deeds of sale or other transfer documents shall be applied.

Unless otherwise proved, the following documents are considered ante-dated:

• Dated before the effectivity of the capital gains tax law;
• Dated before the effectivity of the regulations imposing the creditable withholding tax on sales or transfers of real property; and
• Dated before the effectivity of the effectivity of the current zonal values as reflected in the latest Revised Schedule of Zonal Values

The relevant laws and regulations effective at the time of presentation of deeds of sale or other transfer documents shall be applied.

RSEC Memorandum Circular No. 6- 2024, March 27, 2024 –
This provides for updated fines and penalties on late and non-submission of reportorial requirements.

I. Period of Submission of Reportorial Requirements

II. Fines and Penalties – Late Filing of AFS and/or GIS

III. Fines and Penalties – Non-Filing of AFS and/or GIS

IV. Fines and Penalties – Late and Non-Compliance with MC 28 Series of 2020

Imposable fine is ₱20,000 for late filing and non-compliance.

V. Delinquency and 6^th Offense

• Failure to submit reportorial requirements 3 times, consecutively or intermittently, within 5 years may cause the SEC to declare a corporation under delinquent status.

• After notification of delinquent status, commission of a 6^th offense constitutes a ground for revocation^[1] and imposition of monetary fines equivalent to the 5^th offense plus 100% surcharge of the total assessed fine.

 VI. Reversion of Penalty to 1^st Offense

Penalties to corporations may revert to that of the 1^st offense in the following conditions:

• If found to be compliant with the submission of GIS and AFS for 3 consecutive years immediately after the imposition of higher fines (e. 2023 to 2025); or
• Successful availment and issuance of corresponding Confirmation of Payment of Amnesty Fees.

VII. Effectivity

It shall cover requests for monitoring received on April 1, 2024. Further, requests for monitoring must be sent to the proper email addresses. Otherwise, the request will not be entertained.

***