JUDICIAL REMEDIES (CTA JURISDICTION)

The CTA has jurisdiction to issue injunctive writs.

The CTA has authority to issue injunctive writs to restrain the collection
of tax and to dispense with the deposit of the amount claimed or the
filing of the required bond, whenever the method employed by the CIR
in the collection of tax jeopardizes the interests of a taxpayer for being
patently in violation of the law.
As a general rule, 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 in satisfaction of his tax liability.
An exception to this rule is when in the view of the CTA, the collection
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.
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. The CTA is in a better position to
initiate this given its time and resources (Spouses Emmanuel
Pacquiao and Jinkee Pacquiao v. CTA- First Division and CIR,
G.R. No. 213394, 06 April 2016),

Difference between assessment and decision. Effect of a

void decision to a tax assessment.
When may a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) be
declared void, and in the event that the FDDA is found void, what
would be its effect on the tax assessment?
An FDDA that does not inform the taxpayer in writing of the facts and
law on which it is based renders the decision void. Therefore, it is as if
there was no decision rendered by the CIR. It is tantamount to a denial
by inaction by the CIR, which may still be appealed before the CTA and
the assessment evaluated on the basis of the available evidence and
documents.
However, a "decision" differs from an "assessment" and failure of the
FDDA to state the facts and law on which it is based renders the
decision voidbut not necessarily the assessment.
In St. Stephen's Association v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 1958 the
Court has long recognized that a "decision"- differs from an
"assessment," to wit:
Where a taxpayer questions an assessment and asks the
Collector to reconsider or cancel the same because he (the
taxpayer) believes he is not liable therefor, the assessment
becomes a "disputed assessment" that the Collector must
decide, and the taxpayer can appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals
 only upon receipt of the decision of the Collector on the disputed
assessment, in accordance with paragraph (1) of section 7,
Republic Act No. 1125, conferring appellate jurisdiction upon the
Court of Tax Appeals to review "decisions of the Collector of
Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessment..."
An assessment becomes a disputed assessment after a taxpayer
has filed its protest to the assessment in the administrative level.
Thereafter, the CIR either issues a decision on the disputed
assessment or fails to act on it and is, therefore, considered
denied. The taxpayer may then appeal the decision on the
disputed assessment or the inaction of the CIR. As such, the
FDDA is not the only means that the final tax liability of a
taxpayer is fixed, which may then be appealed by the taxpayer.
Under the law, inaction on the part of the CIR may likewise result
in the finality of a taxpayer's tax liability as it is deemed a denial
of the protest filed by the latter, which may also be appealed
before the CTA.
Clearly, a decision of the CIR on a disputed assessment differs from the
assessment itself. Hence, the invalidity of one does not necessarily
result to the invalidity of the otherunless the law or regulations
otherwise provide (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Liquigaz
Philippines Corporation, G.R. No. 215534 and G.R. No. 215557,
18 April 2016).

CTA sitting en banc cannot annul a decision of one of its

divisions.
A petition for annulment of judgment filed in the CTA En Banc is not the
proper remedy to annul a judgment rendered by its Division. The
divisions are not considered separate and distinct courts but are
divisions of one and the same court. The Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals sitting en banc is not an appellate court
vis-a-vis its divisions, and it exercises no appellate jurisdiction over the
latter.
There will be extraordinary cases, when the interest of justice highly
demands it, where final judgments of the Court of Appeals, the CTA or
any other inferior court may still be vacated or subjected to the
Supreme Courts modification, reversal, annulment or declaration as
void. But it will be accomplished not through the same species of
original action or petition for annulment as that found in Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court, but through any of the actions over which the Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction as specified in the Constitution like 65 of
the Rules of Court. What remained as a remedy for the petitioner was
to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which could have been
filed as an original action before the Supreme Court, and not before the
CTA En Banc (CIR v. Kepco Ilijan Corporation, G.R. 199422, 21
June 2016)

The exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions rendered by

a CTA division is vested on the CTA en banc.
A party adversely affected by the decision of the CTA division may, on
motion for reconsideration, file a petition for review with the CTA en
banc. Thereafter, the decision or ruling of the CTA en banc may be
elevated to the Supreme Court. No decision of the CTA division may be
elevated to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure without passing through the CTA En Banc (Duty Free
Philippines v. Bureau Internal Revenue , G.R. No. 197228, 8
October 2014).

Decision of the Secretary of Finance falls under other

matters, which is appealable to the CTA
The CIRs power to interpret tax laws is subject to review by the
Secretary of Finance under Section 4 of the Tax Code. The decision of
the Secretary of Finance is appealable to the CTA as this falls under the
ambit of other matters arising under the Tax Code or other laws
administered by the BIR under Sec. 7(a)(1) of RA 1125 (The
Philippine American Life and General Insurance Company v.
The Secretary of Finance et al., G.R. No. 210987, 24 November
2014).