CIR vs.

CA

FACTS:
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue served two notices and demand for
payment of the respective deficiency ad valorem and buiness taxes against the
respondent Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation (ACMDC).
The latter protested both assessments but the same were denied, hence it filed
two separate petitions for review in the Court of Tax Appeals. The CTA rendered
a consolidated decision holding, inter alia, that ACMDC was not liable for
deficiency ad valorem taxes on copper and silver thereby effectively sustaining
the theory of ACMDC that in computing the ad valorem tax on copper mineral,
the refining and smelting charges should be deducted, in addition to freight and
insurance charges.
However, the tax court held ACMDC liable for the amount consisting of 25%
surcharge for late payment of the ad valorem tax and late filing of notice of
removal of silver, gold and pyrite extracted during certain periods, and for alleged
deficiency manufacturer's sales tax and such contractor's tax for leasing out of
its personal properties. ACDMC elevated the matter to the Supreme Court
claiming that the leasing out was a mere isolated transaction, hence should not
be subjected to contractor's tax.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the claim of the private respondent, with respect to the
contractor's tax, impressed with merit?

HELD: No. It is being held that ACMDC was not a manufacturer subject to the
percentage tax imposed by Section 186 of the tax code. However such conclusion
cannot be made with respect to the contractor's tax being imposed on ACMDC.
It cannot validly claim that the leasing out of its personal properties was merely
an isolated transaction. Its book of accounts shows that several distinct
payments were made for the use of its personal properties such as its plane,
motor boat and dump truck. The series of transactions engaged in by ACMDC
for the lease of its aforesaid properties could also be deduced from the fact that
during the period there were profits earned and reported therefor. The allegation
of ACMDC that it did not realize any profit from the leasing out of its said
personal properties, since its income therefrom covered only the costs of
operation such as salaries and fuel, is not supported by any documentary or
substantial evidence.
REPUBLIC vs. CA

FACTS:
The petitioner sought the review on certiorari of the decision of the respondent
Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the then Court of First Instance of
Manila which ordered private respondent to pay the Government the amount of
P11,496.00 as ad valorem tax, occupation fees, additional residence tax and 25%
surcharge for late payment. Petitioner claims that the demand letter of 16 July
1955 showed an imprint indicating that the original thereof was released and
mailed on 4 August 1955 by the Chief, Records Section of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, and that the original letter was not returned to said Bureau; thus, said
demand letter must be considered to have been received by the private
respondent. According to petitioner, if service is made by ordinary mail, unless
the actual date of receipt is shown, service is deemed complete and effective upon
the expiration of five (5) days after mailing. As the letter of demand dated 16 July
1955 was actually mailed to private respondent, there arises the presumption
that the letter was received by private respondent in the absence of evidence to
the contrary. More so, where private respondent did not offer any evidence,
except the self-serving testimony of its witness, that it had not received the
original copy of the demand letter dated 16 July 1955.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the notice of assessment or demand properly served to the
respondent.

HELD:
No. As correctly observed by the respondent court in its appealed decision, while
the contention of petitioner is correct that a mailed letter is deemed received by
the addressee in the ordinary course of mail, still this is merely a disputable
presumption, subject to controversion, and a direct denial of the receipt thereof
shifts the burden upon the party favored by the presumption to prove that the
mailed letter was indeed received by the addressee. Since petitioner has not
adduced proof that private respondent had in fact received the demand letter of
16 July 1955, it cannot be assumed that private respondent received said
letter.

CIR vs. FLORES VDA. DE CODIÑERA

FACTS:
The Collector of Internal Revenue sent a warrant of distraint and levy against the
properties of Restituto Codiñera for collection of certain deficiency specific tax.
However, it could not be effected in view of the attachment of the said properties
of the CFI-Manila of another case. After seven years, the Collector of Internal
Revenue issued a warrant of distraint and levy commanding the City Treasurer
of Cebu City to distrain the goods, chattels, or effects and other personal property
of whatever character, and levy upon the real property and interest in or rights
to real property of the estate of the deceased. The heirs of the deceased filed the
action with the CTA barring the government to collect said deficiency on the
ground of prescription therefore praying to declare null and void, and of no legal
force and effect the warrant of distraint and levy which the respondent issued on
March 7, 1955.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the attachment made by a court in a civil case over certain
properties of a taxpayer bar the government from enforcing a warrant of distraint
and levy over the aforesaid properties in order to collect the taxes due.

HELD:
No. There may be a valid reason for non-distraint of the property which was due
to the attachment of the CFI-Manila in another case. However, such property
levied by a competent court may, with the consent thereof, be subsequently
distrained, subject to the prior lien of the attachment creditor. The attachment
merely deprives the Collector of Internal Revenue the power to divest the Court
of its jurisdiction over said property but it does not impair such rights as the
Government may have for the collection of taxes.