2016 (Taxation) Bar Exam Questions: Question 17

[Answer/discuss the question below, or see 2016 bar exam Taxation Instructions; 2016 Labor Law Questions:   123456789101112131415161819, and 20; See also 2016 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]

-XVII-

The requisites for a valid waiver of the three-year (3-year) prescriptive period for the BIR to assess taxes due in the taxable year are prescribed by Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 20-90:

1. The waiver must be in the proper form prescribed by RMO 20-90.

2. The waiver must be signed by the taxpayer himself or his duly authorized representative. In the case o f a corporation, the waiver must be signed by any of its responsible officials. In case the authority is delegated by the taxpayer to a representative, such delegation should be in writing and duly notarized.

3. The waiver should be duly notarized.

4. The CIR or the revenue official authorized by him must sign the waiver indicating that the BIR has accepted and agreed to the waiver. The date of such acceptance by the BIR should be indicated. However, before signing the waiver, the CIR or the revenue official authorized by him must make sure that the waiver is in the prescribed form, duly notarized, and executed by the taxpayer or his duly authorized representative.

5. Both the date of execution by the taxpayer and date of acceptance by the Bureau should be before the expiration of the period of prescription or before the lapse ofthe period agreed upon in case a subsequent agreement is executed.

6. The waiver must be executed in three copies, the original copy to be attached to the docket of the case, the second copy for the taxpayer and the third copy for the Office accepting the waiver. The fact of receipt by the taxpayer ofhis/her file copy must be indicated in the original copy to show that the taxpayer was notified ofthe acceptance ofthe BIR and the perfection of the agreement.

After being assessed by the BIR with alleged deficiency income taxes, VVV Corporation (VVV) through Enrique, its President, executed a waiver ofthe prescriptive period. The waiver was signed by Revenue District Officer (RDO) Alfredo. However, the waiver did not state the date of execution by the taxpayer and date of acceptance by the BIR. Enrique was also not furnished a copy of the waiver by the BIR.

VVV claims that the waiver is void due to non-compliance with RMO 20-90. Hence, the period for assessment had already prescribed. Moreover, since the assessment involves P2 million, the waiver should have been signed by the CIR and instead ofa mere RDO. On the other hand, the BIR contends that the requirements of RMO No. 20-90 are merely directory; that the execution o f the waiver by VVV was a renunciation o f its right to invoke prescription and that the government cannot be estopped by the mistakes committed by its revenue officers. Is VVV liable? Explain. (5%)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *