SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 249883-84. January 27, 2020.]
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs.OPULENT LANDOWNERS, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 January 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 249883-84 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Opulent Landowners, Inc.). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the July 5, 2019 Decision 2 and the October 16, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc (CTA EB) in CTA EB Nos. 1802 and 1803 for failure of petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) to sufficiently show that the CTA EB committed any reversible error in concluding that the Bureau of Internal Revenue officers who recommended the issuance of deficiency tax assessments against respondent Opulent Landowners, Inc. (respondent) were without authority to do so in the absence of a valid Letter of Authority (LOA) in their favor. aDSIHc
As correctly ruled by the CTA EB, the CTA was authorized to rule on the authority of the revenue officers to conduct the audit and recommend the issuance of the deficiency tax assessments against respondent, notwithstanding the fact that this was not raised at any point in the proceedings. 4 The Court has already upheld the CTA's authority to do so, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals 5 and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, 6 as amended, 7 given that such issue falls under the jurisdiction of the CTA. 8 Likewise, the CTA EB correctly held that the deficiency tax assessments were invalid due to the revenue officers' lack of authority to do so. 9 Under prevailing jurisprudence, 10 a LOA is statutorily required under the National Internal Revenue Code in order to clothe revenue officers with authority to examine taxpayers. It is axiomatic that only the revenue officers actually named under the LOA are authorized to examine the taxpayer. This is likewise evident under the express provision of Revenue Memorandum Order No. 43-90, which provides that any re-assignment/transfer of cases to another revenue officer(s), and revalidation of a LOA which had already expired, shall require the issuance of a new LOA. In the absence of a new LOA issued in favor of the revenue officers who recommended the issuance of the deficiency tax assessments against respondent, the resulting assessments are void. ATICcS
SO ORDERED. (Reyes, A., Jr. and Hernando, JJ., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-48.
2.Id. at 57-76. Penned by Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy with Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate Justices Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, concurring. Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario issued a Concurring Opinion. Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. issued a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, which was joined by Associate Justice Catherine T. Manahan. Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban issued a Separate Concurring Opinion.
3.Id. at 92-105. Penned by Associate Justice Erlinda P. Uy with Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario and Associate Justices Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, and Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, concurring. Associate Justice Juanito C. Castañeda, Jr. reiterated his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, which was joined again by Associate Justice Catherine T. Manahan. Associate Justice Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban is on leave.
4. See id. at 69.
5. Pursuant to A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA of the Supreme Court entitled "REVISED RULES OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS" (December 15, 2005).
6. Entitled "AN ACT CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS" (June 16, 1954).
7. Entitled "AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE, ENTITLED "AN ACT CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS," AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 16, 1962.
8.CIR v. Lancaster Philippines, Inc., 813 Phil. 622, 636 (2017).
9. See rollo, p. 73.
10.Medicard Philippines, Inc. v. CIR, 808 Phil. 528, 542 (2017).