Hence, the decision of CA was reversed and set aside. Petitioner tried to show that in considering the surplus, the examiner did not take into account the possible expenses for cultivation, labor, fertilitation, drainage, irrigation, repair, etc.
Depreciation is the gradual diminution in the useful value of tangible property resulting from wear and tear and normal obsolescence. Petitioner contends that: a the period of assessment has On April 11,petitioner received a Formal Letter of Demand dated April 3, prescribed, applying the three 3 year period provided under Batas Pambansa from Revenue District No.
Additional tax on corporations improperly accumulating profits or surplus a Imposition of tax. Thus, the period of assessment is still five 5 years, under the old law.In the letter of the Regional to delinquency; and that if petitioner disagreed, it may appeal to the CTA. Petitioner failed to provide sufficient explanation. Accordingly, the law permits the taxpayer to recover gradually his capital investment in wasting assets free from income tax. On March 23, , respondent requested a reconsideration of the Furthermore, Section of the National Internal Revenue Code states that a subject assessment. Thus, while in it was already clear that the money was intended to go to future projects, in upon reversion to the general fund, no such intention was shown. On this ground, the petitioner may be sustained, for under Section of the Tax Code, receipts and papers supporting such expenses need be kept by the taxpayer for a period of five years from the last entry. Cir Facts: 1. Petitioner further argues that when it sent its records to Manila in February, , the papers in support of these miscellaneous and travelling expenses were not included for the reason that by February 9, , when the Bureau of Internal Revenue decided to investigate, petitioner had no more obligation to keep the same since five years had lapsed from the time these expenses were incurred. These advances were in fact indirect loans to the stockholders indicating the unreasonable accumulation of surplus beyond the needs of the business. In this case, the said period of days had already lapsed when On February 9, , ICC received from CIR a Final Notice Before Seizure, respondent filed its request for reconsideration on March 23, , without any dated December 22, with a demand for the payment of the subject action on the part of the CIR. Hence, this petition. The determination therefore, of the Commissioner disallowing said amount, affirmed by the CTA is sustained. We have but to point out that the unreasonable accumulation was in On non-payment of the assessed insofar as the petitioner is liable for P2, Related Papers.
These Hence, the SC agreed with the Solicitor General that the shortened period of circumstances pointing to official performance of duty must necessarily prevail three 3 years prescribed under B. At the time of the investigation, said 5 years have lapsed.
At the outset, it must be stressed that "internal revenue taxes are self-assessing 9 Aggrieved, the CIR filed a petition for review with the CTA-En Banc, but the and no further assessment by the government is required to create the tax petition was dismissed after a determination that no new matters were raised.
As of January 1, it changed the depreciable value of said assets by increasing it to conform with the increase in cost for their replacement.CIR G. The third question is on the unreasonably accumulated profits. Post navigation. They are not created by implication but upon clear expression in the law. HELD: Yes, Section of the Tax Code provides that an assessment xxx may be protested administratively by filing a request for reconsideration or HELD: No, in arguing that the assessment became final and executory by the reinvestigation within thirty 30 days from receipt of the assessment in such sole reason that petitioner failed to appeal the inaction of the Commissioner form and manner as may be prescribed by implementing rules and regulations. Accordingly, the law permits the taxpayer to recover gradually his capital investment in wasting assets free from income tax. L effect is released, mailed or sent by the Collector to the taxpayer and it is not September 5, required that the notice be received by the taxpayer within the aforementioned FACTS: A Philippine corporation engaged in the coconut industry, Basilan five-year period. The recovery, free of income tax, of an amount more than the invested capital in an asset will transgress the underlying purpose of a depreciation allowance.