Scribd
Upload
176 views2 pages

Asiatrust Development Bank V

This case involved tax assessments issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) against Asiatrust Development Bank for deficiency in taxes over three fiscal years. Asiatrust protested the assessments. The Court of Tax Appeals initially ruled in favor of the CIR, finding that Asiatrust failed to prove it availed of a Tax Abatement program or Tax Amnesty Law. Asiatrust filed a motion for reconsideration with additional documents. The court still refused to consider Asiatrust's availment due to the lack of a required termination letter from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding the termination letter was necessary to prove approval of the tax abatement application. It also upheld the dismissal of the

Uploaded by

balot cui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
176 views2 pages

Asiatrust Development Bank V

This case involved tax assessments issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) against Asiatrust Development Bank for deficiency in taxes over three fiscal years. Asiatrust protested the assessments. The Court of Tax Appeals initially ruled in favor of the CIR, finding that Asiatrust failed to prove it availed of a Tax Abatement program or Tax Amnesty Law. Asiatrust filed a motion for reconsideration with additional documents. The court still refused to consider Asiatrust's availment due to the lack of a required termination letter from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding the termination letter was necessary to prove approval of the tax abatement application. It also upheld the dismissal of the

Uploaded by

balot cui
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Facts: Presents an overview of the demands and notices for tax deficiency against Asiatrust Development Bank as assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
  • Ruling: Details the court's ruling on Asiatrust not meeting the requirements for Tax Abatement due to failure to submit the termination letter from BIR, and the subsequent appeal ruling.
  • Issues: Identifies the core legal issues regarding the Certification from BIR and its sufficiency to prove Asiatrust availed of the Tax Abatement program.

Asiatrust Development Bank v.

CIR (823 SCRA 648)

CASE BRIEF
APRIL 19, 2017

Facts:

Asiatrust Development Bank, here known as “Asiatrust”, received from the


Commissioner of Internal

Revenue three formal letters of Demand with assessment notices for deficiency
of internal revenue taxes in the amounts of P131, 909, 161.85, Php 83, 012,
265. 78 and Php 144, 012, 918.42 for fiscal years ending June 30, 1996, 1997
and 1998 respectively. Asiatrust protested such assessment notices. Due to the
inaction of the CIR of the protest of Asiatrust, the latter filed a petition for
review with the Court of Tax Appeals, which Asiatrust prayed for the
cancellation of the tax assessments and deficiency income tax, documentary
stamp tax (DST),regular dst, industry issue, final withholding tax, expanded
withholding tax, and fringe benefit tax, issued against it by the CIR.

On December 28,2001, the CIR issued again a new assessments against


Asiatrust, whereas the deficiency taxes now by the Asiatrust are as follows; 1.)
12, 816,258. 73 2.) 53, 314, 512. 72 3.) 133, 013,458.73, which covers the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1996, 1997, 1998 respectively. On the same day
Asia trust partially paid the assessment, leaving the following balance to the
assessment. Fiscal year 1996- P 110, 852, 424. 26, Fiscal year 1997- 49, 318,
948.20, Fiscal year 1998- 124, 040, 016.41.

On April 19, 2005, the CIR approved the offered compromised by Asiatrust of
DST- regular assessment for the fiscal year of June 30, 1996, 1997, 1998.
However, Asiatrust claimed that it availed of the Abatement program for its
deficiency final withholding tax, trust assessments for the said fiscal years,
1996 and 1998. Where it paid the basic taxes in the amounts of Php 4,187,
683. 27 and Php 6,097,825. 03. Also Asiatrust claimed that it availed Tax
amnesty program under R.A 9480.
The CTA division rendered its decision in favor of the CIR, where it stated that
Asiatrust failed to produce the necessary document to prove its Tax abatement
application and the Tax amnesty Law

Asiatrust filed a motion for reconsideration, where it attached the photocopies


of the application for abatement program, the payment form, and the deposit
slip, Improved Voluntary Assessment Program Application Forms, Tax Amnesty
Return, Tax Amnesty Payment Form, Notice of Availment of Tax Amnesty and
Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networth (SALN) as of June 30, 2005..
The CTA division refused to consider Asiatrust’s availment of the Abatement of
the Tax abatement program by reason of failure to submit a termination letter
from the BIR

The CIR appealed the January 20, 2er009 decision and the july 6, 2009
resolution with the CTA en banc via a petition for review, however it was
dismissed for being premature.
Asiatrust was not satisfied with the decision alleging that mere certification is
sufficient proof that gives them the right under the Tax Abatement program.
Hence this petition.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the Certification issued by BIR, is sufficient proof that Asiatrust
availed of the Tax Abatement program.
Whether or not the CTA erred in dismissing the petition for review filed by the
CIR

Ruling:
No, according to the High court, the BIR issued RR NO. 15-06 prescribing the
guidelines of the implementation of the tax abatement program, where the last
step in the abatement process is the issuance of the termination letter. Since
this termination letter proves that the taxpayer’s application for tax abatement
has been approved, thus without a termination letter, a tax assessment cannot
be considered closed and terminated. In the instant case, Asiatrust failed to
present the termination letter, it only presented the documentary proof that it
applied for the abatement program and the receipts as a proof that it paid,
however it does not prove that such application has been accepted.

No, since, due to the failure of CIR to file within the prescribed period their
petition for reconsideration as provided by Rule 8 section 1 of the Revised
Rules of the CTA, whereas the word “must” is indicated, failure to file the
petition for review with the CTA division, who rendered the assailed decision at
the prescribed time is only rightful for the outright dismissal in the CTA en
banc.

You might also like