CTA Case No. 3666 (Decision)

- ~ �PU RLIC 0 F T HE PHILIPPINES ,; >URT OF TAX APP�ALS QUEZON CITY A. SORIANO CORPORAT ION, a/k/a ANSCOR, Petitioner, - ve r sus: - C.T . A. CASE NO . 3666 COMHSSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent. X- - - - - DE C I S I 0 N In i ts petition for review filed with this Court on August 5 , 1 98 3, petitioner A. Soriano Corporation , a / k/ a An scor , alleges: 1 . '::.'Hl'.T petitioner, also known as ANSCOR f o r short , is a domestic corporation pr i mar i ly engaged i n t he business of being gener~l manager of v ariou s corporations ���� among other things , it is also authorized through i ts Insurance Division, to engage in the sale of insurance policies as agent of i nsurance companies; and through its Soriamont Steamship Division and Cargo Specialists Division, in solici ting cargo for loading in and in the servicing and manni ng of foreign vessels; and to make investments and own and hold property, personal and real; 2 . THAT it has i ts offices in t he Ans:cor Bldg -., 877 6. Paseo de Roxas , Hakati , Hetro Manila wher e it may be served wi th not ices, writs, processes and other le gal papers ; 3 . THAT respondent is the head o f the Bureau of Interna l Revenue and has his offices at the BIR Bldg ., Diliman , Quezon City , Hetro Hanila where he may be served with summons, notices., writs, pro- c esses and other legal papers ; � 109

- DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3&66 - 2- 4. THAT on January 17, 1983, peti- tioner r eceived deficiency business tax assessment and demand No . 01-25-908-77-82 f or taxable year 1977 totalling ~5,139,281 . 30, computed as follows: "Gross taxable sales/receipts per return Iii_ _ _ _ __ Adjustments: Soriamont Steamship ~6, 487 '966. 00 Management Fees ~41,604,908 . 00 Conmission Insurance 17,639,799.00 Haulage & handling 582,635.00 Administrative fees 105. 00 Building Operation 176,6517. uo Special Service 889 , 845.00 Management Service� 1, 447 , 320.00 Aviation 967,514.00 ~63' 308 '783. 00 i:"i6,487 , 956.00 X 3% X 6% .,, ~ 1 , 899 , 263 . 40 Iii 389,277.96 3% and 6.%Tax due thereon i!i2, 288 , 541. 30 Less: 'I'ax already paid 423 , 420.39 Deficiency tax due ill ,865,12l. 00 50% Surcharge due thereon 932,560.50 Interest 2,341,099.80 s.oo.oo Compromise Penalty for late payment Total Amount Due & Collectil:i= P==S:!:1=3=9=:!:2=8=1==. =3=0" 5 . THAT r espondent expressly allowed petitioner to protest the demanded assess- ment within 30 days after receipt otherwise he would consider it f inal and unappealable1 6. THAT petitioner by counsel in a letter dated February 8, 1983 protested the aforestated assessment demanded by r espondent who received it on Feb . 9, 1983; 7. THAT on July 22 , 1983 , petitioner r ece i ved t he final decision of respondent deny i ng completely the protest of petitioner 1 8 . THAT the deficiency assessment demanded and the decision denying it are i llegal and erroneous and not supported by law and facts, x x x: XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 110

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3666 -3 - In moving for the dismissal of t he pe t ition on the ground of lac k of jur i sdiction, respondent Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue contends : "Respondent has: not yet rendered a decision on the protest of petitioner . Hence , peti tioner' s app eal to t his Court, wi thou t await ing the decision of respon - . dent on its protest , is premature : conse- q uently , this Honorable Cour t acquires no jurisdiction over this case . As the Supreme Court sa i d in the Villa c ase, "the juris- diction of the Tax Court is to review by appeal d e cisions of the Commissioner o f I n t ~rnal Revenue on disputed assessme nts . The Tax Court is a court of s pecial juris- dict i on . As such , it can take cognizance only of suc h matters as are clearly within ,. its j urisdi ct ion ." (C ommis si oner vs . Villa , infra. ) Before us for resolution is respondent ' s "Motion to D1 sm is:s" fil ed by him on March ~3, 1 984 all eging , among others , that petitioner without awaiting the decisi o n of respond en t on its protest dat e d Feb r uar y B, 1983 interposed i t s appea l to this Court . Hence , peti- tioner ' s appeal is premature and the Court acquires no jurisdictio n on the pe�tition for revie�w. Petitioner however interposed its opposition t o the said motion on March 16, 1~84 , c o nt endin g that a � final decision of r espondent d e nying its protest has been received by 1t on July 22 , 1983 . Hence , the appe al is no t prematurely fil ed , and the Court has j urisdiction over the case . The law conferring j urisdiction on the Court of Tax Appeals is fou nd in Sect ion 7 o f Republic Act 111

:j I DEC IS ION - CTA CASE NO . 3 6&6 - 4- No . 1125 , the per tin ent p ar t of which sta te s: " Sec. 7. J uri sd iction.- The Court o f Tax App e a ls shal l exercise 'exclusive appellate j ur isdict i on to review by appeal as herein provided - (1) Decisions of the Commissioner of I nterria l Revenue in case s invo l ving d isputed assessments , refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges , penal ties i mposed in relation ther eto, o r othe r matters a r is ing un de r t he Nat i ona l Internal Revenue Code or other law o r part of the l aw administered by t he Burea u of Internal Revenue ; ( 2) XXX XXX XXX ( 3 ) XXX XXX XXX The Cour t o f Tax Appe als is a court of special ju risd iction. As s uc~ 1 i t can take c ognizan ce only o f such matters as are clear l y with in i ts j u risdiction . The j urisdiction of a court to take cognizance of a case should be c onfer red clearly and should not be deemed to exist on mere i mpl i c ation, or affirmation of a party to the action , specially so with this Cou r t which is a specialized court of limited j urisd i ction . (Vic torias � Milli ng Co ., Inc . vs . The Philippine Por ts Authority , CTA Case No . 3 466, October 2 6 , 1 98 3, ce r ti orar i denied in G.R. No . 663 81 , Feb . 29, 1984 ; see� also Amilbangsa v . Angangco, CTA Case No . 255, May 7, 1 9 56.) It is worth noting that the word "dec ision " as appearing in Section 7(1) ?f Republi~ Ac t No . 11 25 ha s bee n interpreted by th e Sup r eme Court in th e case of Commissioner o f I n t e rnal 112

'I DECISION CTA CASE NO . 3666 - 5- Revenue vs . Leonardo s . Vi lla, et al ., January 2 , 1968, 22 SCRA 3 , to mean the decision of t he Commissione r of. Int e r nal Revenu e on the protest of t he taxpayer against the assessment. The Supreme Court f urther stated: "The same interpretati on fi nds support in Section 11 of Republic Act 1125, which s tates: Sec . 11 . Who may appeal : . effect of appeal . - Any person , assoc1at1on or corporation adversely affected by ~ decision or ruling o f t he Collector (now Commissioner ) of Internal Re v enue, the Collecto r ( Com~i ssi oner ) o f Cu stoms o r any pr ov inci al or city Board of Assessment Appeals may file an appeal - in the co ur t of Tax Appeals with i n thirty days after the receipt of such decision or r uling . (Emphasis supplied) ~ Note that the law uses the word "decisions" , not "assessments" , thus further i ndicat i ng t he l egislative intention to subject to judicial review the decision of the Commissioner on the protest agains t an assessment but not the assessment itself." (Unde r lining supplied.) Pet itioner's allegat i on t hat a decision has been r endered by respondent on its protest and the same has bee~ received by it on July 22, 1 Y83 is not substantiated by the evidence . Records of the Bureau of Internal Re venue p ert in en t t o this ca se do not show that a deci - sion has been rendered by respondent in connection with petitioner'~ protest. Ne ith e r is there a copy of the alleged decision attached to the petition f or review as required by Section 2 , Rule 5 , of the Rules of Court of Tax Appeals . Even more , when the said motion t o dismi ss 113

I j� .... ) DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3666 - 6- o f responden t was heard by t he Court on Ap r i l l6, 1 9 84 , pe titioner failed to present t he alleged decision which it daimed to have received on J ul y 22, 198 3. Respon- dent Commiss i oner of Interna l Revenue h aving a verred in his motion to di sm i s s th a t he has not y et re ndere d a decision on the protest o f petitioner , the bare alle- gation of peti tioner tha t on July 22 , 1983 it received the final deci sion o f respondent denying completely i ts protes t, � un a ccompanied by adequate evidence , has t here- fore no weight wi th the Court . Under the se circu mstances , we believe tha t no d ec ision was rendered by respondent in this cas e which is appealalble to this Cour t. The appeal therefore is premature and the Court has no j ur1sdict1on to enterta in the instant case . WHEREFORE, the petiti on for review is hereby dis- missed a t peti tioner 's costs. SO ORDERED. Qu ezon City, Metro Ma nil a , Apri l 27 , 19 8 4. G..M~ AMANTE F Pr esid ing /J WE CONCUR : ~OffA"' CON~_. ROAQUIN ssociate Judge 114