SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 179115 : September 26, 2012

ASIA INTERNATIONAL ACTIONEERS, INC., Petitioner, v. CO!!ISSIONER O"
INTERNAL REVENE, Respondent.
R E S O L T I O N
#ERLAS$%ERNA%E, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision dated
August 3, 2007 of the Court of Ta A!!ea"s #CTA$ %n Banc,
&
'(r)*"" and the Reso"utions dated
+ove,-er 20, 200.
2
'(r)*"" and /e-ruar0 22, 2007
3
'(r)*"" of the CTA /irst Division dis,issing
Asia 1nternationa" Auctioneers, 1nc.s #A1A$ a!!ea" due to its a""eged fai"ure to ti,e"0 !rotest
the Co,,issioner of 1nterna" Revenues #C1R$ ta assess,ent.
T&e "'(t)'* A+te(e,e+t-
A1A is a du"0 organi2ed cor!oration o!erating within the 3u-ic 3!ecia" %cono,ic 4one. 1t is
engaged in the i,!ortation of used ,otor vehic"es and heav0 e5ui!,ent which it se""s to the
!u-"ic through auction.
6
'(r)*""
7n August 28, 2006, A1A received fro, the C1R a /or,a" 9etter of De,and, dated :u"0 ;,
2006, containing an assess,ent for deficienc0 va"ue added ta #<AT$ and ecise ta in the
a,ounts of P&02,838,820.00 and P 6,336,7&8.00, res!ective"0, or a tota" a,ount
of P &0.,=70,238.00, inc"usive of !ena"ties and interest, for auction sa"es conducted on
/e-ruar0 8, ., 7, and =, 2006.
8
'(r)*""
A1A c"ai,ed that it fi"ed a !rotest "etter dated August 2;, 2006 through registered ,ai" on
August 30, 2006.
.
'(r)*"" 1t a"so su-,itted additiona" su!!orting docu,ents on 3e!te,-er 26,
2006 and +ove,-er 22, 2006.
7
'(r)*""
The C1R fai"ed to act on the !rotest, !ro,!ting A1A to fi"e a !etition for review -efore the CTA
on :une 20, 2008,
=
'(r)*"" to which the C1R fi"ed its Answer on :u"0 2., 2008.
;
'(r)*""
7n >arch =, 200., the C1R fi"ed a ,otion to dis,iss
&0
'(r)*"" on the ground of "ack of
?urisdiction citing the a""eged fai"ure of A1A to ti,e"0 fi"e its !rotest which there-0 rendered the
assess,ent fina" and eecutor0. The C1R denied recei!t of the !rotest "etter dated August 2;,
2006 c"ai,ing that it on"0 received the !rotest "etter dated 3e!te,-er 26, 2006 on 3e!te,-er
27, 2006, three da0s after the "a!se of the 30@da0 !eriod !rescri-ed in 3ection 22=
&&
'(r)*"" of
the Ta Code.
&2
'(r)*""
1n o!!osition to the C1Rs ,otion to dis,iss, A1A su-,itted the fo""owing evidence to !rove the
fi"ing and the recei!t of the !rotest "etter dated August 2;, 2006A #&$ the !rotest "etter dated
August 2;, 2006 with attached Registr0 Recei!t +o. 3=26B
&3
'(r)*"" #2$ a Certification dated
+ove,-er &8, 2008 issued -0 Ci"fredo R. De Du2,an, Post,an 111, of the Phi"i!!ine Posta"
Cor!oration of 7"onga!o Cit0, stating that Registered 9etter +o. 3=26 dated August 30, 2006 ,
addressed to the C1R, was dis!atched under Bi"" +o. 68 Page & 9ine && on 3e!te,-er &,
2006 fro, 7"onga!o Cit0 to Eue2on Cit0B
&6
'(r)*"" #3$ a Certification dated :u"0 8, 200. issued
-0 Acting Post,aster, :osefina >. Fora, of the Phi"i!!ine Posta" Cor!oration@+CR, stating
that Registered 9etter +o. 3=26 was de"ivered to the B1R Records 3ection and was du"0
received -0 the authori2ed !ersonne" on 3e!te,-er =, 2006B
&8
'(r)*"" and #6$ a certified
!hotoco!0 of the Recei!t of 1,!ortant Co,,unication De"ivered issued -0 the B1R Chief of
Records Division, /e"isa G. Arro?ado, showing that Registered 9etter +o. 3=26 was received
-0 the B1R.
&.
'(r)*""A1A a"so !resented :osefina >. Fora and /e"isa G. Arro?ado as witnesses to
testif0 on the due eecution and the contents of the foregoing docu,ents.
R)*.+/ o0 t&e Co)rt o0 T'1 Appe'*-
After hearing -oth !arties, the CTA /irst Division rendered the first assai"ed Reso"ution dated
+ove,-er 20, 200. granting the C1Rs ,otion to dis,iss. Citing Republic v. Court of
Appeals,
&7
'(r)*"" it ru"ed that Hwhi"e a ,ai"ed "etter is dee,ed received -0 the addressee in the
course of the ,ai", sti"", this is ,ere"0 a dis!uta-"e !resu,!tion, su-?ect to controversion, and
a direct denia" of the recei!t thereof shifts the -urden u!on the !art0 favored -0 the
!resu,!tion to !rove that the ,ai"ed "etter indeed was received -0 the addressee.H
&=
'(r)*""
The CTA /irst Division fau"ted A1A for fai"ing to !resent the registr0 return card of the su-?ect
!rotest "etter. >oreover, it noted that the tet of the !rotest "etter refers to a /or,a" De,and
9etter dated :une ;, 2006 and not the su-?ect /or,a" De,and 9etter dated :u"0 ;, 2006.
/urther,ore, it re?ected A1As argu,ent that the 3e!te,-er 26, 2006 "etter ,ere"0 served as a
cover "etter to the su-,ission of its su!!orting docu,ents !ointing out that there was no
,ention therein of a !rior se!arate !rotest "etter.
&;
'(r)*""
A1As ,otion for reconsideration was su-se5uent"0 denied -0 the CTA /irst Division in its
second assai"ed Reso"ution dated /e-ruar0 22, 2007. 7n a!!ea", the CTA %n Banc in its
Decision dated August 3, 2007 affir,ed the ru"ing of the CTA /irst Division ho"ding that A1As
evidence was not sufficient to !rove recei!t -0 the C1R of the !rotest "etter dated August 26,
2006.
Fence, the instant !etition.
I--)e %e0ore t&e Co)rt
Both !arties discussed the "ega" -ases for A1As ta "ia-i"it0, un,indfu" of the fact that this case
ste,,ed fro, the CTAs dis,issa" of A1As !etition for review for fai"ure to fi"e a ti,e"0 !rotest,
without !assing u!on the su-stantive ,erits of the case.
Re"evant"0, on :anuar0 30, 200=, A1A fi"ed a >anifestation and >otion with 9eave of the
Fonora-"e Court to Defer or 3us!end /urther Proceedings
20
'(r)*"" on the ground that it
avai"ed of the Ta A,nest0 Progra, under Re!u-"ic Act ;6=0
2&
'(r)*"" #RA ;6=0$, otherwise
known as the Ta A,nest0 Act of 2007. 7n /e-ruar0 &3, 200=, it su-,itted to the Court a
Certification of Eua"ification
22
'(r)*"" issued -0 the B1R on /e-ruar0 8, 200= stating that A1A
Hhas avai"ed and is 5ua"ified for Ta A,nest0 for the Taa-"e Iear 2008 and Prior IearsH
!ursuant to RA ;6=0.
Cith A1As avai",ent of the Ta A,nest0 Progra, under RA ;6=0, the Court is tasked to first
deter,ine its effects on the instant !etition.
R)*.+/ o0 t&e Co)rt
A ta a,nest0 is a genera" !ardon or the intentiona" over"ooking -0 the 3tate of its authorit0 to
i,!ose !ena"ties on !ersons otherwise gui"t0 of vio"ating a ta "aw. 1t !artakes of an a-so"ute
waiver -0 the govern,ent of its right to co""ect what is due it and to give ta evaders who wish
to re"ent a chance to start with a c"ean s"ate.
23
'(r)*""
A ta a,nest0, ,uch "ike a ta ee,!tion, is never favored or !resu,ed in "aw. The grant of a
ta a,nest0, si,i"ar to a ta ee,!tion, ,ust -e construed strict"0 against the ta!a0er and
"i-era""0 in favor of the taing authorit0.
26
'(r)*""
1n 2007, RA ;6=0 took effect granting a ta a,nest0 to 5ua"ified ta!a0ers for a"" nationa"
interna" revenue taes for the taa-"e 0ear 2008 and !rior 0ears, with or without assess,ents
du"0 issued therefor, that have re,ained un!aid as of Dece,-er 3&, 2008.
28
'(r)*""
The Ta A,nest0 Progra, under RA ;6=0 ,a0 -e avai"ed of -0 an0 !erson ece!t those who
are dis5ua"ified under 3ection = thereof, to witAchanro-"esvirtua""aw"i-rar0
3ection =. %ce!tions. The ta a,nest0 !rovided in 3ection 8 hereof sha"" not etend to the
fo""owing !ersons or cases eisting as of the effectivit0 of this ActA
#a$ 2.t&&o*,.+/ '/e+t- 3.t& re-pe(t to t&e.r 3.t&&o*,.+/ t'1 *.'b.*.t.e-B
#-$ Those with !ending cases fa""ing under the ?urisdiction of the Presidentia" Co,,ission on
Dood Dovern,entB
#c$ Those with !ending cases invo"ving une!"ained or un"awfu""0 ac5uired wea"th or under
the Anti@Draft and Corru!t Practices ActB
#d$ Those with !ending cases fi"ed in court invo"ving vio"ation of the Anti@>one0 9aundering
9awB
#e$ Those with !ending cri,ina" cases for ta evasion and other cri,ina" offenses under
Cha!ter 11 of Tit"e J of the +ationa" 1nterna" Revenue Code of &;;7, as a,ended, and the
fe"onies of frauds, i""ega" eactions and transactions, and ,a"versation of !u-"ic funds and
!ro!ert0 under Cha!ters 111 and 1< of Tit"e <11 of the Revised Pena" CodeB and
#f$ Ta cases su-?ect of fina" and eecutor0 ?udg,ent -0 the courts.#Emphasis supplied$
The C1R contends that A1A is dis5ua"ified under 3ection =#a$ of RA ;6=0 fro, avai"ing itse"f of
the Ta A,nest0 Progra, -ecause it is Hdee,edH a withho"ding agent for the deficienc0 taes.
This argu,ent is untena-"e.
The C1R did not assess A1A as a withho"ding agent that fai"ed to withho"d or re,it the
deficienc0 <AT and ecise ta to the B1R under re"evant !rovisions of the Ta Code. Fence,
the argu,ent that A1A is Hdee,edH a withho"ding agent for these deficienc0 taes is fa""acious.
1ndirect taes, "ike <AT and ecise ta, are different fro, withho"ding taes. To distinguish, in
indirect taes, the incidence of taation fa""s on one !erson -ut the -urden thereof can -e
shifted or !assed on to another !erson, such as when the ta is i,!osed u!on goods -efore
reaching the consu,er who u"ti,ate"0 !a0s for it.
2.
'(r)*"" 7n the other hand, in case of
withho"ding taes, the incidence and -urden of taation fa"" on the sa,e entit0, the statutor0
ta!a0er. The -urden of taation is not shifted to the withho"ding agent who ,ere"0 co""ects,
-0 withho"ding, the ta due fro, inco,e !a0,ents to entities arising fro, certain
transactions
27
and re,its the sa,e to the govern,ent. Due to this difference, the deficienc0
<AT and ecise ta cannot -e Hdee,edH as withho"ding taes ,ere"0 -ecause the0 constitute
indirect taes. >oreover, records su!!ort the conc"usion that A1A was assessed not as a
withho"ding agent -ut, as the one direct"0 "ia-"e for the said deficienc0 taes.
2=
'(r)*""
The C1R a"so argues that A1A, -eing an accredited investorKta!a0er situated at the 3u-ic
3!ecia" %cono,ic 4one, shou"d have avai"ed of the ta a,nest0 granted under RA
;3;;
2;
'(r)*"" and not under RA ;6=0. This is a"so untena-"e.
RA ;3;; was !assed !rior to the !assage of RA ;6=0. RA ;3;; does not !rec"ude ta!a0ers
within its coverage fro, avai"ing of other ta a,nest0 !rogra,s avai"a-"e or enacted in
futuro "ike RA ;6=0. >ore so, RA ;6=0 does not ec"ude fro, its coverage ta!a0ers
o!erating within s!ecia" econo,ic 2ones. As "ong as it is within the -ounds of the "aw, a
ta!a0er has the "i-ert0 to choose which ta a,nest0 !rogra, it wants to avai".
9ast"0, the Court takes ?udicia" notice of the HCertification of Eua"ificationH
30
'(r)*"" issued -0
%duardo A. Ba"u0ut, B1R Revenue District 7fficer, stating that A"A Hhas avai"ed and is 5ua"ified
for Ta A,nest0 for the Taa-"e Iear 2008 and Prior IearsH !ursuant to RA ;6=0. 1n the
a-sence of sufficient evidence !roving that the certification was issued in ecess of authorit0,
the !resu,!tion that it was issued in the regu"ar !erfor,ance of the revenue district officerLs
officia" dut0 stands.
3&
'(r)*""
24ERE"ORE, the !etition is DENIED for -eing !OOT and ACADE!IC in view of Asia
1nternationa" Auctioneers, 1nc.Ls #A"A$ avai",ent of the Ta A,nest0 Progra, under RA ;6=0.
According"0, the outstanding deficienc0 taes of A"A are dee,ed fu""0 sett"ed.'(r)M")M'N")O-r)Mr
SO ORDERED.