Spouses Paquiao v.

CTA and CIR

G.R. No. 213394, April 6, 2016

FACTS:

Although this case was decided recently, the facts of the case happened way
before petitioners Spouses Maneh and Jenkeh Paquiao XD were elected into
office, the time when they both relied on Mannys worldwide fame as
professional boxer
Because of his success, Paquiao amassed income from both Philippines and
USA. His income from Philippines consisted of his talent fees while his income
from USA consisted of the prizes he earned from his boxing matches under
Top Rank, Inc.
The controversy began in March 2010 when Manny received a Letter of
Authority (March LA) from the BIR for the examination of his books of
accounts and other accounting records for the period covering January 1,
2008 to December 31, 2008
In April 2010, Manny filed his 2009 ITR which failed to reflect his US-sourced
income. He also failed to file VAT returns for 2008 and 2009
Finding the need to directly conduct the investigation and determine the tax
liabilities of the petitioners, respondent Commissioner on Internal Revenue
(CIR) issued another Letter of Authority, dated July 27, 2010 (July
LA), authorizing the BIRs National Investigation Division (NID) to examine
the books of accounts and other accounting records of both Pacquiao and
Jinkee for the last 15 years, from 1995 to 2009.
Hence, Manny and Jinkee, through counsel, questioned the propriety of the
CIR investigation, arguing that:
o they were already investigated by the BIR for years prior to 2007 and
that no fraud was found
o under the March LA, they were already being investigated for year
2008
The BIR responded:
o the reinvestigation of years prior to 2007 was justified because the
assessment thereof was pursuant to a fraud investigation against the
petitioners under the Run After Tax Evaders (RATE) program of the
BIR.
o the July LA superseded the March LA
Spouses Paquiao submitted the documents required as much as they could
After conducting its own investigation, the CIR made its initial assessment
finding that the petitioners were unable to fully settle their tax liabilities.
Thus, the CIR issued its Notice of Initial Assessment-Informal Conference
(NIC) directly addressed to the petitioners, informing them that based on the
best evidence obtainable, they were liable for deficiency income taxes in the
 amount of P714,061,116.30 for 2008 and P1,446,245,864.33 for 2009,
inclusive of interests and surcharges.
Spouses Paquiaos counsel sought to have a conference but he never
received any response
On February 20, 2012, the CIR issued the Preliminary Assessment
Notice(PAN), informing the petitioners that based on third-party
information, they found the petitioners liable not only for deficiency income
taxes in the amount of P714,061,116.30 for 2008 and P1,446,245,864.33 for
2009, but also for their non-payment of their VAT liabilities in the amount
P4,104,360.01 for 2008 and P 24,901,276.77 for 2009.
Spouses Paquiao protested the PAN
After denying the protest, the BIR issued its Formal Letter Demand
(FLD), dated May 2, 2012, finding the petitioners liable for deficiency income
tax and VAT amounting to P766,899,530.62 for taxable years 2008 and
P1,433,421,214.61 for 2009, inclusive of interests and surcharges.
Spouses Paquiao questioned the findings of the CIR.
On May 14, 2013, the BIR issued its Final Decision on Disputed
Assessment (FDDA), addressed to Pacquiao only , informing him
that the CIR found him liable for deficiency income tax and VAT for taxable
years 2008 and 2009 which, inclusive of interests and surcharges, amounted
to a total of P2,261,217,439.92.
BUT, the Accounts Receivable Monitoring Division of the BIR (BIR-
ARMD), issued the Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL), dated July 19,
2013, demanding that BOTH PACQUIAO AND JINKEE pay the amount of
P2,261,217,439.92, inclusive of interests and surcharges.
Then, on August 7, 2013, the BIR-ARMD sent Pacquiao and
Jinkee the Final Notice Before Seizure (FNBS) , informing the
petitioners of their last opportunity to make the necessary settlement of
deficiency income and VAT liabilities before the bureau would proceed against
their property.
Spouses Paquiao no longer questioned the deficiency VAT assessments and
eventually paid them
However, Spouses Paquiao filed a petition for review with the
CTA to assail the assessments made against them for
deficiency income taxes for 2008 and 2009:
o the assessment of the CIR was defective because it was
predicated on its mere allegation that they were guilty of fraud
o the attempt to collect taxes from Jinkee was void because the
FDDA was void for being violative of due process. Unlike for the
past issuances, the FDDA was only addressed to Manny
o the CIR assessment, which was not based on actual transaction
documents but simply on best possible sources, was not
sanctioned by the Tax Code
 Spouses
Pending the resolution by the CTA of their appeal, the
Paquiao SOUGHT THE SUSPENSION of the issuance of
warrants of distraint and/or levy and warrants of
garnishment.
In a letter, the BIR-ARMD denied Spouses Paquiaos request and
informed them that despite their initial payment, there were still deficiencies.
The letter also included a warrant of distraint and/or levy against
Pacquiao and Jinkee
Hence, Spouses Paquiao filed the subject Urgent
Motion for the CTA to lift the warrants of distraint,
levy and garnishments issued by the CIR against their assets and
to enjoin the CIR from collecting the assessed
deficiency taxes pending the resolution of their
appeal.
As for the cash deposit and bond requirement under
Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1125, the petitioners question
the necessity thereof, arguing that the CIRs
assessment of their tax liabilities was HIGHLY
QUESTIONABLE.
The CTA granted Spouses Paquiaos Urgent Motion:
o the COLLECTION SHOULD BE SUSPENDED SINCE IT
WAS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL to the interest of Spouses
Paquiaos interest. The amount sought to be collected was way beyond
the petitioners net worth ( P1,185,984,697.00.) based on Mannys
SALN and considering that the petitioners still needed to cover the
costs of their daily subsistence
o however, the CTA ordered the Spouses Paquiao to
deposit the amount of P3,298,514,894.35 or post a bond in the
amount of P4,947,772,341.53.
Spouses Paquiao sought for partial reconsideration but was denied. Hence,
the instant petition before the Supreme Court
Spouses Paquiao asked the Court, in application of the exception
provided under Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125 as affirmed by the
ruling of the Court in Collector of Internal Revenue v. Avelino and
Collector of Internal Revenue v. Zulueta, to: (1) direct the CTA to
DISPENSE WITH THE BOND REQUIREMENT imposed under Section 11
of R.A. No. 1125, as amended; and (2) direct the CIR to SUSPEND THE
COLLECTION of the deficiency income tax and VAT for the years
 since the assessment and collection efforts
2008 and 2009
of the BIR was marred by both procedural and
substantive errors, to wit:
o the fraud assessment by the CIR could not serve as basis for security
because the amount assessed by the CIR was made without
evidentiary basis, but just grounded on the best
possible sources, without any detail
o the CIR initiated summary collection remedies even before
the expiration of the period allowed for them to pay the
assessed deficiency taxes
o BIR only served the FDDA to Pacquiao. There was no similar FDDA
to Jinkee
o amount assessed by the BIR as deficiency taxes included the
deficiency VAT for the years 2008 and 2009 which they had already
paid, albeit in installments
o posting of the required security is effectively an impossible condition
given that their undisputed net worth is only
P1,185,984,697.00
CIRs arguments:
o Sec. 11 of RA 1125 DOES NOT provide for any exception when it
states that notwithstanding an appeal to the CTA, a taxpayer, in
order to suspend the payment of his tax liabilities, is
required to deposit the amount claimed by the CIR or to file a
surety bond for not more than double the amount due
o Avelino and Zulueta cases are INAPPLICABLE because in those cases,
it was ruled that the requirement of posting a bond to suspend the
collection of taxes could be dispensed with only if the methods
employed by the CIR in the tax collection were clearly null
and void and prejudicial to the taxpayer
o whether the assessment and collection of the petitioners tax
liabilities were proper as to justify the application of Avelino and
Zulueta is a question of fact which is not proper in a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, considering that the rule
is only confined to issues of jurisdiction

ISSUE:

WON an assessment and collection of taxes may be suspended?

WON the requirement of depositing cash or posting a bond may be dispensed

with to suspend the assessment and collection of taxes?
RULING:

WON an assessment and collection of taxes may be

suspended?
YES, an assessment and collection of taxes may be suspended under Sec. 11
of RA 1125.

The general rule is that an appeal to the CTA from the decision
of the CIR will not suspend the payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any
property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by
existing law.

when, in the view of the CTA, the collection

However,
may jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the
taxpayer, it may suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer
either to deposit the amount claimed or to file a surety bond.

WON the requirement of depositing cash or posting a bond

may be dispensed with to suspend the assessment and
collection of taxes?
YES, the requirement of depositing cash or posting a bond may be dispensed
with.

The general is that to suspend the assessment and collection of taxes, the
CTA may require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or to file
a surety bond.

However, as explained by the Court in the Avelino and Zulueta cases,

whenever it is determined by the courts that the method
employed by the Collector of Internal Revenue in the
collection of tax is not sanctioned by law , the bond
requirement under Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125 should be
dispensed with.
In the Avelino case, the Court found that the demand of the then CIR was
made without authority of law because it was made five (5) years and thirty-
five (35) days after the last two returns of Jose Avelino were filed clearly beyond
the three (3)-year prescriptive period.
 the
In the Zulueta case, the Court made an analysis and concluded that
requirement of the bond as a condition precedent to the
issuance of a writ of injunction applies ONLY IN CASES
WHERE THE PROCESSES by which the collection sought to
be made by means thereof ARE CARRIED OUT IN
CONSONANCE WITH LAW for such cases provided and not when said
processes are obviously in violation of the law to the extreme that they
have to be SUSPENDED for jeopardizing the interests of the taxpayer.

The purpose of the rule is not only to prevent jeopardizing the

interest of the taxpayer, but more importantly, to prevent the absurd
situation wherein the court would declare that the collection by the
summary methods of distraint and levy was violative of law, and
then, in the same breath require the petitioner to deposit
or file a bond as a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of injunction.

WON the instant case falls under the foregoing exceptions?

It is still premature to determine whether the instance case falls under the
foregoing exceptions.

Absent any evidence and preliminary determination

by the CTA, the Court cannot make any factual finding and
settle the issue of whether the petitioners should comply with the security
requirement under Section 11, R.A. No. 1125. All the arguments are mere
allegations from both sides.

The determination of whether the methods, employed by the CIR in its

assessment, jeopardized the interests of a taxpayer for being patently in violation of
the law is a question of fact that calls for the reception of evidence which would
serve as basis. In this regard, the CTA is in a better position to initiate this given its
The remand of the case to the CTA on this
time and resources.
question is, therefore, more sensible and proper.

Moreover, any finding by the Court would pre-empt the

CTA from properly exercising its jurisdiction and settle the main issues presented
before it, that is, whether the petitioners were afforded due process; whether the
CIR has valid basis for its assessment; and whether the petitioners should be held
liable for the deficiency taxes.
 Nonetheless, the Court partially granted Spouses Paquiaos petition and
issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction:

In view of all the foregoing, the April 22, 2014 and July 11, 2014
Resolutions of the CTA, in so far as it required the petitioners
to deposit first a cash bond in the amount of P3,298,514,894.35
or post a bond of P4,947,772,341.53, SHOULD BE FURTHER
ENJOINED until the issues aforementioned are settled in a
preliminary hearing to be conducted by it . Thereafter, it
should make a determination if the posting of a bond would still be
required and, if so, compute it taking into account the CTA En Banc
Resolution, which was approved by the Court in A.M. No. 15-02-01-CTA,
and the claimed payment of 32,196,534.40, among others.