Golden Brew Marketing, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

FIRST DIVISION [C.T.A. CASE NO. 9538. March 2, 2020.] GOLDEN BREW MARKETING, INC. , petitioner , vs . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent . DECISION FABON-VICTORINO , J P : This Petition for Review filed by Golden Brew Marketing, Inc. on February 22, 2017, prays to nullify 1 the Assessment Notices issued against it for deficiency income tax (IT), value-added tax (VAT), expanded withholding tax (EWT), and documentary stamp tax (DST) in the aggregate amount of P180,041,148.07, inclusive of increments, for the year ending December 31, 2010. HTcADC Petitioner is a domestic corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under Company Registration No. ASO91-194649. 2 Its primary purpose is to engage in, conduct, and carry on the business of buying, selling, distributing, marketing at wholesale and retail insofar as may be permitted by law, all kinds of goods, commodities, wares and merchandise of every kind and description; to enter into all kinds of contracts for the export, import, purchase, acquisition, sale at wholesale or retail and other disposition for its own account as principal or in representative capacity as manufacturer's representative, merchandise broker, indentor, commission merchant, factors or agents, upon consignment of all kinds of goods, wares, merchandise or products whether natural or artificial. 3 Respondent, on the other hand, is the Commissioner of Internal Revenue who holds office at the 5th Floor, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), National Office Bldg., BIR Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 4 On September 23, 2011, respondent, through Alfredo Misajon, Officer in Charge Assistant Commissioner for Large Taxpayers Service (LTS), issued a Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 116-2011-00000107, 5 authorizing Revenue Officers (ROs) Zenaida Paz, Myrna Ramirez, Ma. Salud Maddela, Cletofel Parungao, Allan Maniego, Joel Aguila, and Group Supervisor (GS) Glorializa Samoy, of the Large Taxpayer Regular Audit Division I of the BIR, to examine petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for taxable year (TY) 2010. On February 25, 2013, a Memorandum of Assignment No. LOA-116-2013-0431 6 was issued by Cesar D. Escalada, Chief of Regular LT Audit Division I of the BIR, authorizing Revenue Officer (RO) Arnaldo T. Ancheta and GS Juvy S. Dela Pea to continue the audit/investigation of petitioner. In the meantime, petitioner's President, Rolando Abesamis, executed several Waivers of the Defense of Prescription under the Statute of Limitations of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), the details of which were as follows: Waiver Date Executed by Petitioner Effectivity Date Accepted by the BIR First Waiver 7 April 3, 2013 Until December 31, 2013 April 15, 3013 Second Waiver 8 October 11, 2013 Until June 30, 2014 October 29, 2013 Third Waiver 9 May 29, 2014 Until December 31, 2014 June 24, 2014 Fourth Waiver 10 November 13, 2014 Until June 30, 2015 November 28, 2014 Fifth Waiver 11 May 29, 2015 Until December 31, 2015 June 17, 2015 Sixth Waiver 12 December 3, 2015 Until June 30, 2016 December 15, 2015 Seventh Waiver 13 May 20, 2016 Until December 31, 2016 May 26, 2016 On May 16, 2016, 14 Cesar D. Escalada issued another Memorandum of Assignment No. LOA-116-2016-1252 authorizing RO Tito R. Monforte and GS Allan M. Maniego, to continue the audit/investigation of petitioner in view of the transfer of RO Ancheta. On June 9, 2016, LTS Assistant Commissioner Nestor S. Valeroso issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) with Details of Discrepancies and Schedules , 15 assessing petitioner of deficiency IT, VAT, EWT and DST for TY 2010. On June 27, 2016, petitioner received an undated Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) with Details of Discrepancies and Assessment Notices , assessing it for deficiency IT, VAT, EWT and DST, 16 in the aggregate amount of P180,041,148.07, inclusive of interest and compromise penalties for TY 2010, as shown below: CAIHTE Nature of Tax Basic Tax Interest Compromise Total Income tax P65,316,932.51 P69,146,473.00 P134,463,405.51 VAT 20,795,988.22 22,915,469.00 43,711,457.22 EWT 826,649.06 915,428.90 1,742,077.96 DST 1,660.00 1,847.38 3,507.38 Compromise penalties P120,700.00 120,700.00 Total P86,941,229.79 P92,979,218.28 P120,700.00 P180,041,148.07 On July 27, 2016, petitioner filed an Administrative Protest (Request for Reconsideration) against the FLD. 17 On February 22, 2017, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review citing respondent's inaction on its administrative protest as ground therefor. 18 In his Answer filed on May 2, 2017, 19 respondent denied petitioner's contentions maintaining that the latter was liable to pay the deficiency taxes as assessed aside from compromise penalties pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Order No. 1-79, as amended by Revenue Memorandum Order No. 19-2007. According to respondent, petitioner failed to file the required returns and pay the corresponding tax as mandated under Section 255 of the NIRC of 1997. Be that as it may, he preferred to settle the matter extrajudicially rather than filing a criminal case but conditioned on petitioner's payment of compromise penalties. On the alleged denial of due process and prescription, respondent argued that the assessment was issued in accordance with the procedural and substantive guidelines contained in the NIRC of 1997 and relevant rules and regulations. More importantly, the subject assessment was issued within the period prescribed under the law and pertinent rules. Respondent pointed out that petitioner voluntarily executed several Waivers of the Defense of Prescription which validly extended his period to assess petitioner. After the parties submitted their Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI) on August 1, 2017, 20 the Court issued the Pre-Trial Order on August 4, 2017, which terminated the pre-trial proceeding. 21 During trial, petitioner presented (1) its Accountant, Esperanza Tingzon Cobero, 22 and (2) the Court-commissioned Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA), Prudencio F. Tatunay. 23 Witness Esperanza Tingzon Cobero testified that petitioner is engaged in the business of buying, selling, distributing, marketing at wholesale and retail, of fermented liquor, bottled water, and other beverages as provided in its Articles of Incorporation. It is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and with the BIR. As petitioner's Accountant, she handles tax issues involving the company, including tax assessments issued by the BIR. On September 23, 2011, petitioner received a LOA authorizing certain revenue officers to examine its book of accounts and other accounting records for TY 2010. Subsequently or on March 13, 2013, it received a notice about the re-assignment of the audit and examination to new Revenue Officers by virtue of Memorandum of Assignment dated February 25, 2013. Thereafter, petitioner, upon respondent's request, executed Waivers of the Statute of Limitations on April 3, 2013, October 11, 2013, May 29, 2014, November 13, 2014, May 29, 2015, December 3, 2015, and May 20, 2016 which extended the period to assess until May 26, 2016. Respondent however did not accept the sixth Waiver executed on December 3, 2015. On various dates during the audit, petitioner submitted eight (8) batches of documents. This notwithstanding, petitioner received a PAN on June 9, 2016, followed by a FLD on June 27, 2016. Petitioner protested the FLD on July 27, 2016 but respondent failed to act on it. Thus, petitioner was constrained to file the instant Petition for Review on February 22, 2017. aScITE As to the assessment for deficiency income tax arising from the alleged unsupported losses, disallowed advertising expense, unsupported miscellaneous expenses, disallowed purchases, unaccounted salaries, and income payments not subjected to EWT, the witness averred that these items were justified as explained by petitioner with supporting documents in the administrative protest and in the present Petition for Review. The same is true with the assessment for deficiency VAT arising from alleged sales not subjected to VAT, and disallowed input tax relating to disallowed expenses and purchases, as well as the assessment for EWT. Insofar as the assessment for DST arising from alleged rental/lease agreement, the witness claimed that the assessment failed to specify which rental/lease agreement entered into by petitioner were subject to DST. Finally, compromise penalties cannot be imposed without petitioner's consent. The Court-commissioned ICPA, Prudencio F. Tatunay , testified that he examined and validated all the documents submitted to him by petitioner pertinent to the deficiency tax assessments issued against it. Thereafter, he prepared the ICPA Report recommending that out of the total deficiency IT, VAT, EWT, and DST of P180,041,148.07, inclusive of increments for TY 2010, petitioner is only liable to pay EWT and DST in the sum of P40,922.90, plus the applicable interest thereon. His ICPA Report was submitted to the Court on October 5, 2017, together with the soft copies of the annexes, schedules, and all the examined and verified documents. The ICPA explained that the assessment for deficiency IT arose from expenses which were disallowed by the BIR which upon audit proved to be properly substantiated, hence, should be cancelled. On the other hand, for lack of factual basis, the assessment for deficiency VAT should be cancelled. The perceived discrepancy between petitioner's Summary List of Sales (SLS) and Sales per Taxpayer's Summary Alphalist of Withholding Agents of Income Payments Subject to Tax (SAWT) was due to timing difference in the reporting of the transactions. The ICPA also found that only the amount of P39,262.90 should be assessed as deficiency EWT based on income payment of P3,962,290.05 where no EWT was withheld. He also found the assessment for deficiency DST in the amount of P1,660.00 basic tax as proper as petitioner failed to pay the corresponding DST on its rental/lease agreement. Finally, the ICPA rejects the imposition of compromise penalty on the ground that petitioner correctly and timely filed tax returns without indication of intention to hide any information. Petitioner rested after its formal offer of exhibits was filed on November 16, 2017 24 and resolved by the Court in its Resolutions dated February 23, 2018, 25 and May 25, 2018. 26 Respondent's lone witness, Revenue Officer (RO) Tito Monforte 27 testified that he was among the ROs who took over the subject audit from the originally assigned RO Zenaida Paz by virtue of LOA No. LOA-116-2011-00000107/SN: eLA201100003015 dated September 23, 2011. The said LOA with a Checklist of Requirements was transmitted to petitioner. Before her transfer, pursuant to Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 5-2013, RO Zenaida Paz prepared a progress report contained in her Memorandum dated January 11, 2013. Thereafter, other Revenue Officers took over the audit, pursuant to Memorandum of Assignment No. LOA-116-2013-0431 dated February 25, 2013. The witness also declared that a Second Request for Presentation of Records dated March 7, 2013 was served upon petitioner as it failed to present or submit any record pertinent to the audit. This was followed by the Letter dated March 13, 2013 informing petitioner about the change of RO/examiner. Thereafter, a Final Notice for Presentation of Books of Accounts and Other Accounting Records dated June 18, 2013 with attached Checklist of Audit Requirements was served upon petitioner. To extend respondent's period to assess, petitioner, on various dates executed six (6) Waivers of the Defense of Prescription, to wit, on April 3, 2013, October 11, 2013, May 29, 2014, November 13, 2014, May 29, 2015, and on December 3, 2015. After the sixth Waiver, he took over the audit by virtue of Memorandum of Assignment dated May 16, 2016. At the time he took over, the audit was already completed, hence, he did not conduct further investigation. His findings and recommendation for issuance of a PAN were merely based on the record which he incapsulated in a Memorandum dated April 14, 2016. On May 20, 2016, petitioner executed the seventh Waiver. The witness admitted that no LOA was issued in his favor. HEITAD Petitioner filed a protest against the PAN which however failed to refute the audit findings resulting in the issuance of the FLD as recommended in the Memorandum dated June 15, 2016. The FLD in two parts, with Details of Discrepancies, and the Audit Result/Assessment Notices were served on petitioner. Although belatedly filed, the Court admitted respondent's Formal Offer of Evidence 28 in its Resolution dated December 31, 2018. 29 The instant case was submitted for decision on March 5, 2019. 30 THE ISSUES RAISED The parties submitted the following issues 31 for the resolution of the Court, to wit: WHETHER RESPONDENT'S IMPOSITION OF ALLEGED DEFICIENCY TAXES AGAINST PETITIONER FOR TAXABLE YEAR 2010, AMOUNTING TO P180,041,148.07, INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS AND PENALTIES, HAVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES. WHETHER RESPONDENT'S ASSESSMENTS OF ALLEGED DEFICIENCY TAXES AGAINST PETITIONER FOR TAXABLE YEAR 2010, AMOUNTING TO P180,041,148.07, INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS AND PENALTIES, HAVE ALREADY PRESCRIBED. Petitioner's arguments: According to petitioner, the final assessment was invalidly issued for respondent's failure to indicate a date certain to pay the alleged tax liabilities as required by law and existing jurisprudence. The assessment was also void as it was issued by an RO in whose favor no valid LOA was issued. Moreover, respondent's right to assess petitioner for any deficiency taxes for TY 2010 had already prescribed. Respondent's counter-arguments: Respondent, on the other hand, claims that the assessment has not prescribed, in view of petitioner's voluntary execution of several Waivers extending his period to assess. More importantly, the subject assessments were issued within the extended period. Moreover, petitioner is estopped from questioning the validity of the waivers which it voluntarily executed. Besides, raising this issue for the first time on appeal is proscribed under the rules of procedure. For respondent, petitioner is liable for deficiency taxes as assessed. THE RULING OF THE COURT Pursuant to Section 6 (A) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the power to authorize examination of a taxpayer and issue assessments is primarily lodged with respondent CIR, to wit: aDSIHc SECTION 6. Power of the Commissioner to Make Assessments and Prescribe Additional Requirements for Tax Administration and Enforcement. (A) Examination of Returns and Determination of Tax Due. After a return has been filed as required under the provisions of this Code, the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative may authorize the examination of any taxpayer and the assessment of the correct amount of tax: Provided, however, That failure to file a return shall not prevent the Commissioner from authorizing the examination of any taxpayer x x x Thus, the power to issue an assessment is primarily lodged with respondent. But by express provision of the law, specifically, Section 7, in relation to Sections 10 and 13 of the same Tax Code, the said power may be delegated, as follows: SEC 7. Authority of the Commissioner to Delegate Power. The Commissioner may delegate the powers vested in him under the pertinent provisions of this Code to any or such subordinate officials with the rank equivalent to a division chief or higher , subject to such limitations and restrictions as may be imposed under rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner: xxx xxx xxx That the authority of respondent Commissioner to issue assessments can be delegated to subordinate officials with the rank equivalent to a division chief or higher, is echoed in Section 10 of the Tax Code which authorizes the Revenue Regional Director, to issue Letters of Authority for the examination of taxpayers, to wit: SEC. 10. Revenue Regional Director. Under rules and regulations, policies and standards formulated by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary of Finance, the Revenue Regional Director shall, within the region and district offices under his jurisdiction, among others: xxx xxx xxx (c) Issue Letters of Authority for the examination of taxpayers within the region; In the relatively recent case of Central Luzon Drug Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , this Court ruled that the power to issue LOA may be delegated by respondent to a Revenue Regional Director. 32 LOA is defined as the authority given to the appropriate RO to examine the books of account and other accounting records of a taxpayer in order to determine its correct internal revenue liabilities and for the purpose of collecting the correct amount of tax, in accordance with Section 5 of the Tax Code, precisely, the CIR has the power to secure information, to summon/examine, and take testimony of persons for the purpose of determining the tax liability of a taxpayer. The LOA commences the audit process and informs the taxpayer that it is under audit for possible deficiency tax assessment. 33 In view thereof, a RO, before conducting tax examination, must first be authorized through a validly issued LOA, pursuant to Section 13 of the Tax Code, which provides, as follows: SECTION 13. Authority of a Revenue Officer. Subject to the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner, a Revenue Officer assigned to perform assessment functions in any district may, pursuant to a Letter of Authority issued by the Revenue Regional Director , examine taxpayers within the jurisdiction of the district in order to collect the correct amount of tax, or to recommend the assessment of any deficiency tax due in the same manner that the said acts could have been performed by the Revenue Regional Director himself. (Emphasis supplied) ATICcS Evidently, there must be a grant of authority before any RO may conduct an audit or examination of a taxpayer or issue an assessment. Moreover, the RO so authorized must not go beyond the granted authority. In the absence of such an authority, the assessment or examination is a nullity. 34 In the instant case, the examination of petitioner's books of accounts and other accounting records for internal revenue taxes for TY 2010 was by virtue of LOA No. 116-2011-00000107 dated September 23, 2011. 35 The said LOA specifically authorized ROs Zenaida Paz, Myrna Ramirez, Ma. Salud Maddela, Cletofel Parungao, Allan Maniego, and Joel Aguila to conduct the tax audit. However, RO Zenaida Paz, who actually conducted the audit, was not able to complete the examination as she was transferred to another jurisdiction pursuant to Revenue Travel Authority Order (RTAO) No. 5-2013. 36 The audit was reassigned for continuation to RO Arnaldo T. Ancheta via Memorandum of Assignment dated February 25, 2013. In the Memorandum of Assignment dated May 16, 2016, the tax audit was further transferred for continuation to RO Tito Monforte due to the transfer of RO Ancheta per RTAO 059-2016. 37 RO Tito Monforte recommended the issuance of the PAN and FLD against petitioner. To be sure, the Memorandum of Assignment issued to RO Monforte could not even approximate a validly issued LOA. The record is bereft of any indication that LOA was ever issued to ROs Ancheta or Monforte authorizing them to conduct a tax examination against petitioner. Only Memoranda of Assignment dated February 25, 2013 38 and May 16, 2016 39 were respectively issued to ROs Ancheta and Monforte, directing them to continue the audit/verification of all internal revenue taxes for TY 2010 of petitioner pursuant to LOA-116-2011-00000107 dated September 23, 2011. In fact, RO Monforte admitted in open court that he was not issued a LOA, 40 thus: JUSTICE CASTAEDA: So your testimony here is limited to review. MR. MONFORTE: A. To review, yes. ATTY. MIQUE-SUNIEGA: Q. Mr. Witness, do you affirm that there was no Letter of Authority that was issued to you in relation to the conduct of audit of petitioner's books and records? MR. MONFORTE: A. Yes. I have just answered, it was just reassigned to me so I do not have the LOA . I only have the Memorandum of Assignment. Since, no new LOA was issued naming him as the new authorized RO to continue the tax audit, RO Monforte was without any authority to continue the tax audit of petitioner's internal revenue tax liability for TY 2010. Without the required LOA, his finding and recommendation pertaining to petitioner's alleged tax liability is without any legal consequence. Hence, the subject assessments for deficiency IT, VAT, EWT, and DST, being null and void, should be cancelled. Even assuming that the audit of petitioner was conducted with proper authority through a LOA, still the subject tax assessments are void for lack of a date certain to pay as well as the exact amount of tax liability to be paid. It is elementary that an assessment must contain not only a computation of tax liabilities, but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period. It also signals the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer. x x x an assessment must be sent to and received by a taxpayer, and must demand payment of the taxes described therein within a specific period. 41 The issuance of a valid formal assessment is a substantive prerequisite to tax collection, for it contains not only a computation of tax liabilities but also a demand for payment within a prescribed period, thereby signalling the time when penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer and enabling the latter to determine his remedies therefor. Due process requires that it must be served on and received by the taxpayer. 42 The Supreme Court elucidated on this issue as follows: ETHIDa . . . the Final Assessment Notice is not valid if it does not contain a definite due date for payment by the taxpayer. xxx xxx xxx The issuance of a valid formal assessment is a substantive prerequisite for collection of taxes . Neither the National Internal Revenue Code nor the revenue regulations provided for a 'specific definition or form of an assessment.' However, the National Internal Revenue Code defines its explicit functions and effects. An assessment does not only include a computation of tax liabilities; it also includes a demand for payment within a period prescribed. Its main purpose is to determine the amount that a taxpayer is liable to pay . xxx xxx xxx A final assessment is a notice 'to the effect that the amount therein stated is due as tax and a demand for payment thereof.' This demand for payment signals the time 'when the penalties and interests begin to accrue against the taxpayer and enabling the latter to determine his remedies[.]' Thus, it must be 'sent to and received by the taxpayer, and must demand payment of the taxes described therein within a specific period .' The disputed Final Assessment Notice is not a valid assessment. First , it lacks the definite amount of tax liability for which respondent is accountable. It does not purport to be a demand for payment of tax due, which a final assessment notice should supposedly be. An assessment, in the context of the National Internal Revenue Code, is a 'written notice and demand made by the [Bureau of Internal Revenue] on the taxpayer for the settlement of a tax liability that is there definitely set and fixed.' Although the disputed notice provides for the computation of respondent's tax liability, the amount remains indefinite. It only provides that the tax due is still subject to modification, depending on the date of payment . Thus: The complete details covering the aforementioned discrepancies established during the investigation of this case are shown in the accompanying Annex 1 of this Notice. The 50% surcharge and 20% interest have been imposed pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 (B) of the [National Internal Revenue Code], as amended. Please note, however, that the interest and the total amount due will have to be adjusted if prior or beyond April 15, 2004 . (Emphasis Supplied) Second , there are no due dates in the Final Assessment Notice. This negates petitioner's demand for payment . Petitioner's contention that April 15, 2004 should be regarded as the actual due date cannot be accepted. The last paragraph of the Final Assessment Notice states that the due dates for payment were supposedly reflected in the attached assessment: In view thereof, you are requested to pay your aforesaid deficiency internal revenue tax liabilities through the duly authorized agent bank in which you are enrolled within the time shown in the enclosed assessment notice . (Emphasis in the original) However, based on the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals First Division, the enclosed assessment pertained to remained unaccomplished . TIADCc Contrary to petitioner's view, April 15, 2004 was the reckoning date of accrual of penalties and surcharges and not the due date for payment of tax liabilities. The total amount depended upon when respondent decides to pay. The notice, therefore, did not contain a definite and actual demand to pay . Compliance with Section 228 of the National Internal Revenue Code is a substantive requirement. It is not a mere formality. Providing the taxpayer with the factual and legal bases for the assessment is crucial before proceeding with tax collection. Tax collection should be premised on a valid assessment , which would allow the taxpayer to present his or her case and produce evidence for substantiation. 43 (Emphases and underscoring ours) A scrutiny of the questioned undated FLD/FAN, 44 reveals that although it provides for the computation of petitioner's alleged tax liabilities, no definite amount of tax due appears therein, since the tax due is still subject to change or adjustment depending on the date of payment, thus: * Please note that the interest and the total amount due will have to be adjusted if paid beyond July 29, 2016. 45 Further review of the undated FLD/FAN also shows that it does not contain any due date for the payment of the assessed taxes. Neither does it appear in the corresponding undated Audit Result/Assessment Notice Nos. IT-116-LOA-0000107-10-16-368, 46 VT-116-LOA-0000107-10-16-369, 47 WE-116-LOA-0000107-10-16-370, 48 and DS-116-LOA-0000107-10-16-371. 49 The space in these Audit Result/Assessment Notices where the due date should be indicated was unaccomplished or blank. There being no due date for the payment of the alleged tax liabilities in both the FLD/FAN and Audit Results/Assessment Notices , the assessments are void. On the imposition of compromise penalty on the alleged ground that for TY 2010, petitioner failed to pay the correct income tax, VAT, EWT, and DST, suffice it to say that a compromise implies agreement. One party cannot impose it upon the other. 50 In other words, a compromise is, by its nature, mutual in essence. 51 Considering that there is no indication that petitioner agreed to the payment of compromise penalties, and since petitioner is, in fact, disputing the imposition thereof, petitioner cannot be held liable therefor. WHEREFORE , the instant Petition for Review is GRANTED . Accordingly, the subject assessment for income tax, VAT, EWT, DST, and compromise penalties, issued by respondent against petitioner, in the aggregate amount of P180,041,148.07, inclusive of increments, for taxable year 2010 is CANCELLED and SET ASIDE , for being void. cSEDTC SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ESPERANZA R. FABON-VICTORINO Associate Justice Catherine T. Manahan, J. , concurs. Roman G. del Rosario, P.J. , with concurring opinion. Separate Opinions DEL ROSARIO , P.J., concurring opinion : I concur in the grant of the Petition for Review and the cancellation and setting aside of the undated Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices issued against Golden Brew Marketing, Inc. assessing it for deficiency taxes for taxable year 2010 solely on the ground that the aforesaid undated Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices are void for the following reasons: (i) the authority of the revenue officers who continued the audit of petitioner emanated not from a Letter of Authority signed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and/or the Assistant Commissioner or HREA of the Large Taxpayers Service, but from mere Memoranda of Assignment signed by the Chief of Regular LT Audit Division 1; and, (ii) for failure to demand payment of the tax due within a specific period. In view of the foregoing infirmities, the undated Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices are void, hence, they bear no fruit 1 and must be slain at sight. All told, I CONCUR in the result. Footnotes 1. Summary of the Case, Pre-Trial Order dated August 4, 2017, Docket Vol. II, p. 527. 2. Exhibit "P-1", Docket Vol. II, p. 821. 3. Exhibit "P-2", Docket Vol. II, p. 822. 4. Par. 10, Petition for Review , vis--vis Par. 1, Answer , Docket Vol. I, pp. 11 and 142; Admitted Facts, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI), Docket Vol. 1, p. 187. 5. Exhibit "P-4", Docket Vol. II, p. 741; Exhibit "R-1", BIR Records, p. 4. 6. Exhibit "P-5", Docket Vol. I, p. 263; Exhibit "R-4", BIR Records, p. 462. 7. Exhibit "P-6", Docket Vol. I, p. 264; Exhibit "R-8", BIR Records, p. 473. 8. Exhibit "P-7", Docket Vol. I, p. 265; Exhibit "R-9", BIR Records, p. 477. 9. Exhibit "P-8", Docket Vol. I, p. 266; Exhibit "R-10", BIR Records, p. 482. 10. Exhibit "P-9", Docket Vol. I, p. 267; Exhibit "R-11", BIR Records, p. 483. 11. Exhibit "P-10", Docket Vol. I, p. 268; Exhibit "R-12", BIR Records, p. 484. 12. Exhibits "P-11" and "R-13", BIR Records, p. 484-A. 13. Exhibit "R-15", BIR Records, p. 484-B. 14. Exhibit "R-14", BIR Records, p. 484-C. 15. Exhibits "P-21", "P-21-1", "P-21-2" and "P-21-3", Docket Vol. I, pp. 279 to 285; Exhibit "R-17", BIR Records, pp. 502 to 508. 16. Exhibits "P-22", "P-22-1", "P-22-2", "P-22-3", "P-22-4", and "P-22-5", Docket Vol. I, pp. 846 to 856; Exhibit "R-19", "R-19-A", "R-19-B", "R-20", "R-20-A", "R-20- B", "R-20-C", BIR Records, pp. 517 to 525. 17. Exhibit "P-23", Docket Vol. II, pp. 742 to 759. 18. Docket Vol. I, pp. 10 to 37. 19. Docket Vol. I, pp. 142 to 152. 20. Docket Vol. I, pp. 186 to 195. 21. Docket Vol. II, pp. 527 to 536. 22. Exhibit "P-81", Docket Vol. I, pp. 199 to 234; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated, August 7, 2017, Docket Vol. II, pp. 541 to 543; with cross examination, see TSN dated August 7, 2017 pp. 12-18. 23. Exhibit "P-84", Docket Vol. II, pp. 580 to 623; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated October 18, 2017, Docket Vol. II, pp. 624 to 625; with cross examination, see TSN dated October 18, 2017 pp. 9-19. 24. Docket Vol. II, pp. 629 to 673. 25. Docket Vol. II, pp. 811 to 815. 26. Docket Vol. II, pp. 867 to 869. 27. Exhibit "R-22", Docket Vol. II, pp. 882 to 893; Minutes of the hearing held on, and Order dated September 17, 2018, Docket Vol. II, pp. 902 to 904; with cross examination, TSN dated September 17, 2018 pp. 8-11. 28. Docket Vol. II, pp. 907 to 919. 29. Docket Vol. II, pp. 937 to 939. 30. Docket Vol. II, p. 1007. 31. Issues, JSFI, Docket Vol. I, p. 187. 32. CTA Case No. 8952, November 14, 2018. 33. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. De La Salle University, Inc. , G.R. No. 196596; De La Salle University, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 198841; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. De La Salle University, Inc. , G.R. No. 198941, November 9, 2016. 34. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Sony Philippines, Inc. , G.R. No. 178697, November 17, 2010. 35. Exhibit "P-4", Docket Vol. II, p. 741. 36. Exhibit "R-22" (8.Q/A), Docket Vol. II, p. 883. 37. Exhibit "R-14", BIR Records, p. 484-C. 38. Exhibit "R-4", BIR Records, p. 462. 39. Exhibit "R-14", BIR Records, p. 484-C. 40. TSN dated September 17, 2018, pp. 9 to 11. 41. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Pascor Realty , G.R. No. 128315, June 29, 1999. 42. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Dominador Menguito , G.R. No. 167560, September 17, 2008. 43. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fitness by Design, Inc. , G.R. No. 215957, November 9, 2016. 44. Exhibit "P-22", Docket Vol. II, pp. 846 to 848. 45. Exhibit "P-22", Docket Vol. II, at p. 847. 46. Exhibit "P-22-2", Docket Vol. II, at p. 853. 47. Exhibit "P-22-3", Docket Vol. II, at p. 854. 48. Exhibit "P-22-4", Docket Vol. II, at p. 855. 49. Exhibit "P-22-2", Docket Vol. II, at p. 853. 50. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Abad , G.R. No. L-19627, June 27, 1968. 51. De San Agustin vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 138485, September 10, 2001. DEL ROSARIO, P.J., concurring opinion: 1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Metro Star Superama, Inc. , G.R. No. 185371, December 8, 2010.