CTA junks Li-son Transport's petition vs BIR over P5.5-M tax assessments
The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has denied for lack of jurisdiction the petition filed by Li-son Transport Service, Inc. which sought the cancellation of the P5.5 million deficiency tax assessments issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for taxable year 2018.
Li-son Transport received a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) from the BIR on Nov. 6, 2020 on the firm's income tax (IT), value added tax (VAT), expanded withholding tax (EWT), and improperly accumulated earnings tax (IAET) amounting to P5,468,501.22.
On Jan. 15, 2021, Li-son Transport received its Final Assessment Notice (FAN) demanding payment of the same basic tax deficiencies, this time totalling P5,536,177.47.
While Li-son Transport sent a "Request for Reinvestigation" before the BIR on Feb. 2021, the BIR served its Warrant of Distraint and/or Levy (WLD) against it on July 7, 2021. Li-son Transport then raised the issue before the CTA on Oct. 26, 2021 in a petition for review.
Li-son Transport argued that the letter of authority (LOA) authorizing the examination of its alleged deficiency taxes for 2018 is void as it had not been personally served upon any of its duly authorized representatives.
It also alleged that the BIR failed to indicate a definite amount of tax liability or indicate the due date for the payment of taxes.
In dismissing Li-son Transport's petition, the CTA said: "It bears noting that when a taxpayer files a petition for review before this Court without validly contesting the assessment with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), the appeal is premature, and the CTA has no jurisdiction."
Even assuming that the CTA was able to successfully acquire jurisdiction over the case, Li-son Transport's petition will still fail because the LOA and FAN were validly served before it.
"In thus losing our authority to review the subject deficiency assessment, this Court sees no relevant need to further tackle the parties' other issues as these will not change the outcome of the case," the decision also stated.
The 32-page decision was written by Associate Justice Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena with the concurrence of Presiding Justice Roman G. Del Rosario.