Taxpayer Beware of the 10- year prescriptive period

BECAUSE of the latest controversial tax fraud cases, taxpayers are more aware of the power of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to perform tax audit investigations. Tax assessments have become the norm rather than the exception. Taxpayers find themselves counting the period of limitation from their open taxable years, confident that they will no longer be assessed after three years. This is not so in tax fraud cases.

The right of the government to assess all deficiency internal revenue taxes, including value-added tax (VAT), generally prescribes after three years from the time of the filing of the return or from the last day prescribed by law for the filing of such return, whichever comes later.

This law on prescription is intended to protect law-abiding taxpayers from unreasonable investigation of government agencies. Thus, it must always be liberally construed in favor of the taxpayer and strictly construed against the government. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Commission of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 139736 dated October 17, 2005). Without such a legal defense, taxpayers would be under obligation to always maintain their books and keep them open for inspection subject to the harassment of unscrupulous tax agents. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Ablaza, 108 Phil 1105, 1108)This period to assess, however, may be increased up to 10 years under Section 222 of the Tax Code, as amended.

When is the 10-year period to assess applicable?

The Supreme Court declared in the case of Jose B. Aznar vs. Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and Collector of Internal Revenue that Section 222 of the Tax Code should be interpreted to mean three different situations, namely: (1) a false return; (2) a fraudulent return with intent to evade tax; or (3) failure to file a return.

In such instances, the 10-year prescriptive period begins to run only from the date of the discovery by the BIR of the falsity, fraud or omission, thus making the period to assess almost imprescriptible.

However, there is an instance where falsity or fraud may be deemed prima facie to exist when there is substantial under-declaration of taxable sales, receipts or income or substantial overstatement of deductions, in an amount exceeding 30% as provided under Section 248 (B) of the Tax Code.

In the recent case decided by the CTA, the application of the 10-year prescriptive period was further clarified. The petitioner posits that it was not guilty of falsity or fraud to warrant the application of the 10-year prescriptive period as the under-declaration in its sales was not due to intentional falsity or fraud but was merely due to the improper claim of input tax made by some of its clients.

The court ruled that although the VAT assessment was issued beyond the three-year period prescribed by law, the substantial understatement in the petitioner’s VATable sales in 2006 makes its VAT returns for the said year false. Thus, the 10-year prescriptive period under Section 222 of the Tax Code, as amended, applies.

The same case of Aznar discussed the difference between a “false return” and “fraudulent return.” The first merely implies deviation from the truth, whether intentional or not. On the other hand, the second one implies intentional or deceitful entry with intent to evade taxes due. Thus, even granting that the under-declaration of VATable sales by the petitioner was not intentional -- hence, not a case of fraudulent return -- the situation falls under a false return, which may or may not be intentional.

Noteworthy, however, is the imposition of the 50% surcharge as fraud penalty by the CTA in this case. Section 248 (B) of the Tax Code, as amended, requires that a false or fraudulent return is wilfully made to warrant the imposition of 50% fraud penalty.

In the case of Estate of Fidel F. Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CTA EB No. 189 dated March 21, 2007), the CTA applied the 10-year prescriptive period based on the false returns filed by the petitioners, but disallowed the 50% surcharge fraud penalty because the falsity was not wilfully made. Thus, it is not enough that the taxpayer filed a false return to justify the imposition of the 50% penalty for fraud. The law is clear that a false or fraudulent return should be wilfully made.

The ruling in this case is contrary to the Reyes case. The CTA imposed the 50% surcharge although no evidence was presented to prove that there was an intention to wilfully file a false return on the part of the petitioner to evade the payment of taxes.

Well settled is the rule that fraud is a question of fact and cannot be presumed, but must be sufficiently established. Thus, notwithstanding the applicability of the 10-year prescriptive period, the 50% surcharge should not be imposed in the absence of showing that the falsity was wilfully made.

It is crucial for taxpayers to be fully aware of the circumstances when the 10-year prescriptive period to be assessed by the BIR applies, in order to effectively contest it. The indefinite extension of the period to assess deprives taxpayers of the assurance that they will no longer be subjected to further investigation of taxes after the expiration of a reasonable period of time. Ten years is a long period to be exposed to BIR tax audit investigation.

Charity P. Mandap-de Veyra

Let’s Talk Tax

Punongbayan and Araullo