BIR Ruling No. 427-61

October 16, 1961 BIR RULING NO. 427-61 2nd Indorsement Respectfully returned, thru the Regional Director, to the Chief, Legal Branch, BIR Regional District No. 6, Naga City. Resolution has been sought by that Office on the query below: "Taxpayer failed to attach in his 1954 income tax return the statement of net worth and operations required by Sec. 6 of Revenue Regulations No. V-1, as amended by Rev. Regs. No. V-15. On December 1, 1956, a letter of demand was sent to taxpayer requiring payment of compromise for the settlement of his violation of the above-cited provisions of Rev. Regs. No. V-1, as amended. "In case taxpayer failed or refused to pay the compromise demanded and prosecution is to be recommended, how should paragraph two of Sec. 354 of the Tax Code be interpreted, for purposes of ascertaining the commencement of the prescriptive period? Should it be counted from the date of filing the return, from the date the return was audited, or from the date of the letter of demand? In answer to the above query, it is informed that since in the instance case the commission of the violation was made on the date the income tax return was filed, under par. 2 of Section 354 of the Tax Code, the commencement of the prescriptive period should be counted from said date. aisadc (SGD.) MELECIO R. DOMINGO Commissioner of Internal Revenue