AN ILOILO-BASED microfinance company has lost an appeal to have its P282-million tax case reviewed at the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), which lacks jurisdiction in going over the dispute.
In a decision dated June 23, the Third Division of the CTA has dismissed Lifebank Foundation, Inc.’s petition for review on its taxes amounting to P282,055,951.22 for 2009.
“The Court has no jurisdiction to review the correctness of the assessment,” the decision reads.
Lifebank is a nonstock microfinance lending company based in Iloilo City. It is engaged in “creation and support of initiatives that advance comprehensive sustainable development in rural areas.”
The petitioner appealed to the court, arguing that the formal letter of demand (FLD) or the final assessment notice (FAN) issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s Regional District Office (RDO) “cannot be considered as final notice which would warrant the collection of taxes.”
“Notice is premature; and that even assuming that the FLD/FAN can be considered as the final demand, the same is void for being issued in violation of petitioner’s right to due process considering that the FLD/FAN was prepared and issued even before the PAN (preliminary assessment notice) was received by petitioner,” Lifebank claimed.
But the court said the petitioner had failed to file an appeal within 30 days from its receipt of the assessment as prescribed by the National Internal Revenue Code, rendering the assessment final and executory.
The CTA noted that Lifebank received its FLD with attached FAN on Aug. 2, 2013, but did not file its protest.
“For failure to file a protest, the assessment has attained finality by mere lapse of time,” the CTA said.
“Petitioner itself knows for a fact that it did not file any protest to the FLD/FAN to initiate the process of reinvestigation of the assessment; hence, it is illogical for it to think that the reinvestigation arose from its protest to the FLD/FAN instead of from the PAN, to which it actually filed a reply.”
“Prudence dictates that petitioner should have filed the protest on or before Sept. 2, 2013, if only to protect its interest. Petitioner simply slept on its rights,” the court further held.
“[T]he Court hereby finds it has no jurisdiction over the case as no protest was filed within the prescriptive period, thus rendering the assessment final, executory and demandable,” the decision reads.
The 17-page decision was penned by Associate Justice Lovell R. Bautista. Concurring are Associate Justices Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban. — Kristine Joy V. Patag
