Saturday typos, 28 Feb 2015

From Tax 2 Revealed (A Guide to Passing the Bar) Vol. II, 2014 Edition by Josephrally L. Chavez, Jr. (available at Rex Bookstore, Cebu Branch):

On page 213,

Page 214,

Page 244,

Page 245,

Mamalateo on CIR vs BPI

In Commissioner v. Reyes, G.R. No. 159694, January 27, 2006, and related decisions, the Supreme Court laid down the ruling which says that the taxpayer should be informed of the law and the facts serving as the bases for the assessment he receives from the BIR. Or else the assessment is void.

We quote from Victorino C. Mamalateo, from page 639 of his book Reviewer on Taxation, 2014 Edition (available at Rex Bookstore) -

One page later he turns to the case of Commissioner v. BPI, G.R. No. 134062, April 17, 2007. Here's the timeline for the case according to Mamalateo:

• Oct 28, 1988 the CIR assessed BPI for tax deficiency for 1986.
• Dec 10, 1988 BPI replied claiming there was no assessment
• June 17, 1991, BPI received letter from BIR stating BPI failed to protest
• July 6, 1991, BPI requested consideration of the assessment
• Dec 1, 1991 BIR denied protest
• Feb 18, 1992 BPI petitioned CTA for review
• Nov 16, 1995 CTA dismissed petition saying assessments had become final
• May 27, 1996 CTA did not reconsider
• May 29, 1998 (not mentioned by Mamalateo but found in the SC decision) CA reversed CTA decision

The CA said the CIR assessment was not valid because it did not inform BPI of the legal and factual bases of the assessment. The CIR, as is usually the case, went to the SC.

Here's  Mamalateo's take (on page 640) on the SC ruling:

Looking at the Mamalateo's words inside the red polygon you would think that the SC ruled against the CIR following its ruling in Commissioner vs Reyes. But you have some doubts when reading the sentence in the blue polygon.

And then you find out that the SC indeed ruled against BPI from this portion on page 641:

So how to explain Mamalateo's seeming equivocation on page 640? Here's how the SC decision reads:

Admittedly, (bold type mine) the CIR did not inform BPI in writing of the law and facts on which the assessments of the deficiency taxes were made. He merely notified BPI of his findings, consisting only of the computation of the tax liabilities and a demand for payment thereof within 30 days after receipt.

In merely notifying BPI of his findings, the CIR relied on the provisions of the former Section 270 prior to its amendment by RA 8424 (also known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997) 

Saturday typos, 21 Feb 2015

From Reviewer on Taxation, 2014 Edition (Rex Publishing), by Victorino C. Mamalateo:

Page 551,

Page 556,

Page 590,

Page 597,

Why oh Y?

From page 368 of Reviewer on Taxation, 2014 Edition (Rex Publishing) by Victorino C. Mamalateo:

So why did Y appear in the answer but not in the question?

Here's the clue from page 72 of Answers to Bar Examination Questions in Taxation (1991-2007) published by the U.P. Law Complex:

Saturday typos, 14 Feb 2015

Here are a few typos to ruminate on this Valentine's day. From Reviewer on Taxation, 2014 Edition by Victorino C. Mamalateo -

Page 401:

I think there should be a "that" between "method" and "is".

Page 533:

Page 538:

Insert a "to" between "CIR" and "distribute".

No posting today, filial matters

Due to filial obligations there will be no posting today and perhaps even tomorrow.

Sunday misnomers, 1 Feb 2015

From Tax 2 Revealed (A Guide to Passing the Bar), Vol. II, 2014 Edition by Josephrally L. Chavez, Jr.,

Page 230:

Page 243:

There is no Section 306 in the latest NIRC.