This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-10-13 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Tax assessments by tax examiners are presumed correct and made in good faith, and all presumptions are in favor of the correctness of a tax assessment unless proven otherwise.[58] We have held that a taxpayer's failure to file a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals within the statutory period rendered the disputed assessment final, executory and demandable, thereby precluding it from interposing the defenses of legality or validity of the assessment and prescription of the Government's right to assess.[59] Indeed, any objection against the assessment should have been pursued following the avenue paved in Section 229 (now Section 228) of the NIRC on protests on assessments of internal revenue taxes.[60] | |||||
|
2007-10-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As to the fourth issue, the probate court can rightfully take cognizance of the unpaid taxes of the estate of the deceased; if the estate is found liable, the probate court has the discretion to order the payment of the said taxes.[27] | |||||
|
2007-04-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Finally, as the records show, contrary to petitioner's claim, it had been afforded the opportunity to protest the assessment notices as in fact it even requested for a re-investigation which is, given the nature of the present case, the essence of due process.[38] | |||||
|
2005-10-25 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As we held in Marcos II vs. Court of Appeals,[6] the omission to file an estate tax return, and the subsequent failure to contest or appeal the assessment made by the BIR is fatal, considering that under Section 223 of the NIRC, in case of failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed at any time within ten years after the omission, and any tax so assessed may be collected by levy upon real property within three years following the assessment of the tax (as was done here). Since the estate tax assessment had become final and unappealable, there is now no reason why petitioner should not enforce its authority to collect respondent's deficiency percentage taxes for 1986 and 1987. | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Regional Office found the allegation of theft unsupported by evidence while that of subleasing as proven by the statement of a certain Francisco Maala and affidavit of one Camilo Moskito. Both the DARAB and the Court of Appeals did not make a finding on this point. Not being a trier of facts, this Court cannot pass upon these factual issues. It is futile to determine the truth or falsity of these accusations in view of the equity principle that the DARAB applied. In reversing the Regional Office's decision to turn over possession of the land to petitioner, the DARAB applied the equity principle that he who comes to court must come with clean hands.[18] Otherwise, he not only taints his name, but also ridicules the very structure of established authority.[19] A court may deny a litigant relief on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair, dishonest, fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.[20] We agree with the DARAB that we cannot close our eyes and remain indifferent to the perpetuation of an act that the law has long ago declared illegal and contrary to public policy. The Court cannot allow petitioner to invoke Section 27(2) of RA 3844 prohibiting subletting when he himself violated Sections 4 and 5 of the same RA 3844 outlawing share tenancy. | |||||