TAXPAYER'S REMEDIES

The Assessment Cycle1. Incur Tax Liability2. Filing of Return3. Pre-Audit Investigation4. Audit5. Informal Conference (IC)6. Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)7. Reply to PAN8. Final Assessment Notice (FAN)9. Protest

10. Supplemental Protest11. Decision on Protest12. Petition for Review in CTA Division13. Appeal to CTA en banc14. Appeal to SC

The Assessment Cycle1. Incur Tax Liability

National taxesTaxable period: per transaction, monthly, quarterly, annually

2. Filing of ReturnDoctrine of Imprescriptibility. - Taxes are imprescriptible as they are the lifeblood of the government.

Exception to the Doctrine of Imprescriptibility. - However, tax statutes may provide for statute of limitations.

Exception to the Exception. - Although the NIRC provides for the limitation in the assessment and collection of taxes imposed, such prescriptive period will only be applicable to those taxes that were returnable. The prescriptive period shall start from the time the taxpayer files the tax return and declares his liability. (Collector v. Bisaya Land Transportaion Co., 1958)

"Pay-as-you-file" systemException: "installment" payment

Income tax is in excess of P2,000Taxpayer is not a corporation

Option to pay in 2 installments1st installment: upon filing2nd installment: on or before July 15 following the close of the calendar year

"Self-assessment" ruleWhen is assessment required to establish tax liability?GENERAL RULES:

1. Taxes are self-assessing, i.e. assessment is not required to establish tax liability

2. If discrepancy is on the face of the return (i.e. tax paid < tax due), assessment is also not required

EXCEPTIONS:1. Improperly Accumulated Earnings Tax2. When taxable period of taxpayer is terminated

Retirement from businessIntent to leave the PhilippinesIntent to hide/conceal/remove property from the PhilippinesAct tending to obstruct proceedings for the collection of taxes

3. In case of deficiency tax liabilityarising from a tax audit

4. Tax lien5. Dissolving corporation

Delinquency vs. DeficiencyPNOC

Where to file?Large Taxpayer: eFPSNon-Large Taxpayer: RDO of principal place of businessIndividual Self-Employed: RDO of principal place of businessIndividual Employee: RDO of place of residence or employmentReal Property Transaction: RDO of location of real property

When to file?Per transaction

CGTMonthly

OPTDST

VAT (declaration)Creditable Withholding Tax

QuarterlyVAT (return)

AnnuallyITR

Amendment of ReturnConditions:

1. No withdrawal of return allowed2. Within 3 years from date of filing3. No notice of audit has been served

CAVEAT: "Substantial Amendment"Resets prescriptive periodWhen substantial?

Amount underdeclared: 30%Amount overstated: 30%

3. Pre-Audit InvestigationFishing Expedition?

Search WarrantsSubpoena Duces Tecum

Power to ascertain the correctness of the returnPower to make / amend the return

1. Failure to file return2. Willful non-filing of return3. Filing of fraudulent return

Power to prescribe the amount of tax basee.g. gross sales and receiptse.g. real property values

Use of "Best Evidence Obtainable"Data, record, papers, documents, or any evidenceSources: government, corporations, employees, clients, patients, tenants, lessees, vendees, and from all other sourcesWhen available:

1. Return is false / erroneous2. Return is incomplete3. No return is filed4. Failure to substantiate: deductions, exemptions,

credits claimed5. Failure to submit documentary support

Inventory-takingSurveillanceLimited power to inquire into bank accounts/deposits

"Bank Secrecy Law"GENERAL RULE: BIR cannot inquire into bank deposits of taxpayersEXCEPTIONS:

1. To determine gross estate of decedent2. Compromise based on financial incapacity of

taxpayerWaiver of bank secrecy privilege is required

3. RA 10021 (Exchange of Information Act)Applicable in tax treatiesRequest of a treaty country to obtain information held by banks and financial institutions

Request for Financial Information

Authorizing BIR to use information for:Tax assessmentVerificationAuditEnforcement

ITR of specific taxpayersOrder of the President of the Republic

Treated as confidential informationNotice to Taxpayer

A taxpayer may be left in the dark as to the existence of a request for financial information made by a foreign tax authorityDefault period prior to notification: 60 daysDiscretionary period (if

notification undermines chances of success of investigation): maximum of 6 months

Penalty for refusal: fine or 2-5 years imprisonment

Examine documents relevant and material to inquirySummon personsProduction of documents

Pacquiao case: BIR subpoenaed him to produce tax returns filed with the US Internal Revenue Service

Power to take testimony under oathCanvass revenue district

CONSTRUCTIVE METHODS OF INCOME DETERMINATION (if taxpayer's records/methods are not reflective of true income)

Net Worth MethodCash Expenditure Method

e.g. Napoles tax evasion case: BIR used the expenditure method against the accused, by arguing that Napoles purchased real property, motor vehicles and other investments that exceeded their declared incomes (ITRs) during the mentioned periods.e.g. James Tiu tax investigation:

COMELEC campaign contributionCandidates' statements of contributions and expensesDownpayment for BMWSale of unlisted shares of stockPayment of CGT

Percentage MethodBank Deposit MethodUnit and Value Method"Third Party Information" or "Access to Records" Method

Access LetterRoyale Business Club tax evasion case: variance in ITR (P196 million) and income payments from BPI, Metrobank and BDO (P780 million)

Surveillance and Assessment MethodSuch methods as in the opinion of the Commissioner clearly

reflects the income4. Audit

Selection criteriaTargets of Audit

1. Mandatory CasesIncome tax: tax refund, tax credit, carry-over of paymentsVAT: refund, credit, excess input taxRequest for Tax Clearance: retirement and cessation of businessRequest for Tax Clearance: corporate reorganizations (e.g. merger, consolidation, split-up, spin-off)

2. Top Priority TaxpayersIndustry-based

3. Other Priority Taxpayers"red flags"-based

4. RDO DiscretionLimit: total number of selected audit candidates may not exceed 25% of total number of taxpayers to be audited by the district office (other than mandatory cases)

e.g. Audit of VATtaxpayers whose VAT compliance is below the established industry benchmarks;taxpayers whose VAT returns for the succeeding quarters show substantial decrease in tax payment;taxpayers whose VAT returns reflect substantial input taxes from importations and local purchases, such as when the total purchases claimed exceed 75 percent of the total sales.

Pacquiao case: The BIR started to investigate and audit Pacquiao in late 2010 after an abrupt drop in his ranking among the countrys top taxpayersRandom sampling

"Only 2,000 tax investigators"e.g. professionals

AUDIT NOTICES

1. Letter of Authority (LA)"White Paper"

informal invitation letterWhen LA not needed:

1. Civil or criminal tax fraudTax fraud division of Enforcement Services

2. Policy cases under audit (RMO 36-99)Special Teams in the National Office

Content:1. Revenue officers authorized to conduct

UST case: a Letter of Authority was issued to regional revenue officers. Subsequently, UST was transferred to the Large Taxpayers Service. Regional officers lost authority under the LA. A new LA should have been granted. Hence, LA is void. Consequently, assessment is void.

2. Kinds of taxesEach kind of tax has a separate filing due date, and separate filing due dates mean there are separate prescriptive periods

3. Period when tax was incurredBusiness One vs. CIR: audit only covered year 1998, but taxpayer was assessed a deficiency for tax incurred in 1997. Why is this valid?

4. Approving officialPeriod of service: 30 days from date of issuance"Once per Year" Rule

GENERAL RULE: audit should be done only once per taxable year.EXCEPTIONS:

1. Fraud, irregularities, mistakes were committed2. Request for reinvestigation or re-examination3. Need to verify taxpayer's compliance with

withholding and other internal revenue taxes4. Verification of CGT5. Third party verification

Period of audit: double 120-day RuleOriginal period (120 days)Revalidation (another 120 days)

Only once if issued by RDTwice if issued by CIR

"Place of business" rule2. Tax Verification Notice (TVN)3. Letter Notice (LN)

Inventory Methods for Income DeterminationLast In First Out (LIFO)First In First Out (FIFO)Weighted AverageSpecific Identification

5. Informal ConferenceNotice of Informal Conference (NIC)

Reply to NIC: 15 days from date of receipt of NICEffect of failure to reply: is assessment executory? Not yet. Examiner recommend only for PAN.

When NIC dispensable:1. Deficiency tax results from mathematical error.2. Discrepancy: withheld vs. remitted3. Double refund or double tax credit

Claim in one quarter, carry over in another quarter4. Excise tax due has not been paid5. Violation of condition of tax-free importation

Findings of revenue officerSources of information

1. Returns filede.g. VAT return, Income Tax Return

2. Reports submitted by taxpayere.g. Summary List of Purchases, Summary List of Sales

3. Books kept by taxpayere.g. journals, ledgers, financial statements

4. Third party sourcese.g. Pacquiao case: BIR estimated his tax obligations for 2009 at P1.433 billion based on his income in the United States from public information

on his bouts and shares from pay-per-view and online ticket purchases, as well as endorsements.e.g. Corona impeachment: alpha list of compensation income, SALN, GCIS filed in SEC, entries in the Registry of Deedse.g. Bayshore Chemical Importer: proprietor underdeclared sales based on the Summary List of Purchases submitted by his customers on local purchases.e.g. Siennalyn Gold Mining Corp.: the case against the mining firm stemmed from a denunciation letter informing the BIR of its alleged perpetration of tax evasion schemes such as its failure to register two addresses with the BIR and its use of a fake Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and financial statements.

VariancesReturn vs. ReturnReturn vs. BooksReturn vs. Reports submitted to BIRReturn vs. Third party sourcesBooks vs. Reports submitted to BIRBooks vs. Third party sourcesetc.

What happens in Informal Conferences:BIR presents findingsBIR presents sources of informationBIR may or may not sign findings1st opportunity to explain (verbal)Submit documentary evidence (optional)Submit position paper (optional)Request for 2nd Informal ConferenceRequest for re-examination/reinvestigation

Effect: suspends running of prescriptionSee if waiver of statute of limitations necessary

Alternative: jeopardy assessmentInformal Conference deleted (RR No. 18-2013): deleted the due process requirement of providing an informal conference.

Rationale: quicker cash turnover & reduce the discretion on the part of examiners

6. Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)Letter from Regional District Officer (RDO)

2nd opportunity to explain (5 days)Letter from Assessment Division Chief or Regional Director

3rd opportunity to explain (15 days)Due process requirement

General rule: PAN is indispensable.Exceptions: PAN is dispensable.

1. Deficiency tax results from mathematical error.2. Discrepancy: withheld vs. remitted

2002 Bar Question: amounts actually remitted by a security agency were lower than taxes withheld from employees. Is PAN needed? (No)

3. Double refund or double tax creditClaim in one quarter, carry over in another quarter

4. Excise tax due has not been paid5. Violation of condition of tax-free importation

e.g. Exempt person imports vehicle, sells to non-exempt person

7. Reply to PAN15 days from receipt of PANExtension allowed (not a right)Effect of non-filing of reply: assessment is executory? Not yet. Only enables RO to issue FAN.

8. Final Assessment Notice (FAN)15 days from Reply to PAN (RR 18-2013)

Public criticism: The shortened period does not give the taxpayers enough time to prepare his documents and arguments. More importantly, it does not allow the BIR officers enough time to consider and study the documents and arguments presented to them. The short time renders the opportunity to respond and protest the PAN meaningless.

The "assessment" properWritten notice of tax liabilityDemand Letter

Effects:

Legal obligation is createdDeficiency interest starts to runBusiness of taxpayer does not become illegal

Contrast with: local business tax delinquencyEssential Requirements:

1. Antecedent steps are validLAICPAN

2. Form of the FANSigned by Commissioner or authorized representativesIn writing

Sevilla vs. CIR: numerical figures are also considered "in writing". Writing consists of: letters, words, numbers, etc., in any form of data compilation (including digital/electronic)

Statement of lawCIR vs. Enron: FAN failed to contain any legal basis (NIRC, rules and regulations, jurisprudence). Hence, void.

Statement of factsRelate with following concepts:

Self-assessmentBurden of proofPrima facie correctness of assessment"Naked Assessment"

"Naked Assessment" (invalid)Assessment without factual basisCIR vs. Benipayo: presumption of correctness of assessment cannot be made to rest on another presumption.Falcon Marketing vs. CIR: taxpayer's accounting books and records were lost or destroyed. The BIR made an assessment, based on ESTIMATES, considering absence of accounting records. Why didn't "presumption of correctness of assessment" apply?

CIR vs. Hantex: an assessment based on mere photocopies of documents is invalid. Why didn't "presumption of correctness of assessment" apply?CIR vs. Agrinurture: assessment of under-declaration based on failure to declare purchases. Purchases did not appear in inventory or capital expenditures. BIR conclusion: such undeclared purchase was sold, resulting in un-reported income. SC: assessment is invalid. There is income tax when there is income, not when there is purchase. Secondly, undeclared purchase is not prohibited by law. What is prohibited is overstatement of deductions.

"Jeopardy Assessment" (valid)Assessment without benefit of complete investigation/auditCollection will be "jeopardized" because of "delay" in assessmentCauses of "delay":

LACK OF COOPERATION. Taxpayer does not want to present books of accounts and records.FAILURE TO SUBSTANTIATE. Taxpayer fails to substantiate all or any of the deductions, exemptions, or credits claimed in his return

What is the "jeopardy" involved?Impending expiration of prescriptive period for assessment

Remedy: waiver of prescriptive periodWhat does taxpayer prefer: to receive a jeopardy assessment, or to extend prescriptive period for assessment?

3. ServicePersonal delivery

Substituted service (RR No. 18-2013): PAN,

FLD/FAN, FDDAPacquiao case: FDDA was served in Pacquiao's office in House of Representatives. He was not around. It was served to one of the staff. CTA treated it as ineffective. Hence, 30-day period to appeal in CTA did not lapse. Consequently, CTA still has jurisdiction.

Registered mailBasilan vs. CIR: the FAN was mailed within the prescriptive period, but was received beyond the period. Why is the assessment considered still within the prescriptive period? (Presumption: regular course of mail)South Entertainment Gallery vs. CIR: the BIR must prove that the taxpayer has indeed received the FLD/FAN in cases wherein such document was sent through registered mail and the taxpayer directly denies receiving such mail.

Such presumption can be disputed, and that a direct denial by the taxpayer that he received the documents shifts the burden of proof of receipt back to the BIR.

Barcelon vs. CIR: a direct denial of the receipt of the mail shifts the burden of proof on the other party favored by the presumption to prove that the mailed letter was indeed received by the addresseeSVI Information vs. CIR: doctrines on Service of FAN also apply to antecedent notices (e.g. PAN)

4. PrescriptionRationale for statute of limitationsNIRC periods

If tax return is filedNot false or fraudulent

3 years from deadline for filing return, or 3 years from actual date of filing if beyond the deadline for filing

2000 Bar Question: due date for

filing is April 15, 2005. Date of actual filing is March 2005. FAN was received in April 15, 2008. Is this beyond the prescriptive period? (No)2002 Bar Question: due date for filing is April 15, 1998. FAN was received in April 20, 2001. Is this beyond the prescriptive period? (Yes)

Timing of filing:e.g. creditable withholding tax: monthly remittance return vs. annual information return

False or fraudulent (10 years from discovery)Aznar vs. CIR: distinguishes false return vs. fraudulent return.

If tax return is not filed10 years after date of discovery of omission to file the returnDate of discovery must be within the 3-year general prescriptive periodButuan Sawmill vs. CTA: if a defective return was filed, it is as if no return was filed. Hence, the prescriptive period is 10 years, not 3 years, because there is already omission to file the return.

Agreed periodsExtension of period for assessment

Subsequent extensions allowed, but must be within the period of the prior extensionsRequired in "Request for Reconsideration" from the FAN

Waiver of prescription1. Use of BIR Form2. Signed by taxpayer3. Signed by Commissioner or representative

DOLE Philippines case: Waivers were

not signed by the BIR commissioner or her representative during the time that the said waivers were executed on various dates in 1989 through 1993. Hence, the prescriptive period was not validly extended. (P146 million tax deficiency case)

4. Notarized5. 3 copies6. Indicate: expiration date7. Execution: date of acceptance by BIR =

before expiration of prescriptive period8. Renewal: Date of renewal of waiver = before

expiration of prior extensionDefective waiver

JGC Corporation Manila case: the first waiver executed by the corporation was valid, but the second waiver, which ostensibly was executed to further extend the prescription period beyond the period covered by the first waiver, was not valid to effect the extension of the prescriptive period.

Rules of counting:Date of issue of FAN (irrelevant)Date of service

Date of receiptDate of mailing

"Last day" rule: Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, business dayTaxable year

Normal year (365 days)Leap year (366 days)Art. 13, Civil Code: 1 year = 365 daysNamarco vs. Tecson: if there is a leap year within the prescriptive period, the 1,095th day (365 days x 3 years) is the last day of assessmentCIR vs. Primetown Property Group:

Sec. 31, Administrative Code of 19871 year = 12 calendar months1 month = 30 days unless law refers to a specific calendar monthPresumption: 360 days in one year

Reconcile: Namarco case vs. Primetown case

Suspension of running of prescriptive period1. Period when CIR is prohibited from making

assessment and beginning distraint or levy or proceeding in court and 60 days thereafter

e.g. Republic vs. Ker: pending petition for review in CTA from the decision on the protested assessment

2. Taxpayer requests for reinvestigationWaiver of suspension of period is requiredCollector vs. Suyoc: The request alone will not suspend the period. It should be GRANTED by BIR.

3. Taxpayer cannot be located in address given by him in the return filed

Except: taxpayer informs BIR of change of addressCIR vs. BASF Coating: taxpayer changed address without formally informing BIR. BIR sent a FAN via registered mail, but it was returned to sender (i.e. not received). BIR also had communications with the taxpayer sent to the new address.

4. Warrant of Distraint and Levy is duly served, and no property could be located

Applies only for suspension of period to collect5. Taxpayer is out of the Philippines

Substantial Amendment of Returnresets the prescriptive period30% rule

Kinds of Assessments:Original FAN

Follow-up or Collection Letter (after taxpayer denied receipt of original FAN)Demand Letter (erroneous refund)Demand Letter (bouncing check)

Not considered assessmente.g. Show-cause lettere.g. Antecedent notices (e.g. PAN)e.g. Incomplete FANe.g. Affidavit in support of criminal complaint

9. Protest"Makes or breaks a tax case""The most crucial remedy"30 days from receipt of FAN

Effect of failure to protest: FAN becomes executoryMeaning of "executory":

Appeal to CTA not availableBIR can start to collect (administratively or judicially)Compromise of assessment is still possible

"Request for reconsideration"Required: waiver of prescription

BPI vs. CIR: without the waiver, the prescriptive period will not be tolled.

"Request for reinvestigation"automatically tolls the statute of limitations

Content:Statement of facts and lawUndisputed findingsDisputed findings

CIR vs. Isabela: a "disputed assessment" arises from the filing and receipt of a protest, i.e. without a protest, there is no disputed assessment, and without disputed assessment, the CTA has no jurisdiction (note: the subject matter jurisdiction of CTA includes "disputed assessments", which is an exclusive appellate jurisdiction)Jurisdictional requirement for judicial appeal

"Exhaustion of administrative remedies"Premature invocation of court's intervention: The CTA threw out a petition filed by Castalloy Technology Corp., Allied Industrial

Corp. and Alinsu Steel Foundry Corp., for lack of jurisdiction because the said corporations did not file an administrative protest against the FAN issued by the BIR Regional Office in Cebu.

10. Supplemental Protest60 days from date of filing of protestEffect of non-filing: FAN becomes executory!Content:

New or additional evidenceStandard Chartered Bank vs. CIR: taxpayer to submit evidence which he feels is necessary to support his protest, not what BIR feels should be submitted.

New or additional defenses11. Decision on Protest

Administrative Appeal30 days from date of receipt of decision on ProtestFrom Regional Director to BIR Commissioner"Exhaustion of administrative remedies"Oceanic vs. CIR: since the authority to make tax assessments may be delegated to subordinate officers, assessment has same force and effect if not revised or reviewed by CIR.

Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA)Cancel assessmentRevise assessmentDirect Denial

Indirect Denial (any attempt to collect)Formal and final letter of demandFinal Notice Before SeizureHilado vs. CIR: outright issuance of Warrant of Distraint and LevyBIR vs. Union Shipping: Filing of civil action by BIR

Period of appeal to start from receipt of summonsUnited International Pictures vs. CIR: preliminary collection letter may serve as FANReferral to SOLGEN of caseInaction by BIR Commissioner

180 days from filing of protest, or of supplemental protest (if any)

12. Petition for Review in CTA DivisionRCBC vs. CIR: 2 alternative options-- file Petition for Review (PR) after lapse of 180 days from filing of protest if there is inaction, OR wait for the FDDA and then file the PR within 30 days from receipt

Lascona case: the taxpayer cannot be prejudiced if the 180-day period lapses, because he chose to wait for the final decision of the BIR on the protest.Relate with RMC 54-2014 (VAT refund) / ROHM Apollo vs. CIR: the lapse of the 120-day period within which the BIR should decide, without a decision on such claim, shall be deemed a denial of the claim.

This means that the 30-day period to file with CTA shall automatically run from the end of the 120-day period.NO MORE OPTION TO WAIT FOR FINAL DECISION OF BIR.TMAP lobby for legislative amendment: In the past, taxpayers claiming a refund normally wait for an actual denial by the BIR before they actually file a case in court. Now, it would then be necessary for the taxpayer claiming the VAT refund to file a case before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within 30 days from the deemed denial of the administrative claim to further pursue his claim for refund.Pending case by business associations: RMC 54-2014 provides for its retroactive application, which means that all pending administrative claims for refund that have been pending by more than the 120 plus 30 day-period would then be deemed as final and unappealable.

Fishwealth Canning vs. CIR: a motion for reconsideration of the denial of the Protest, filed in the BIR, does not toll the 30-day period to appeal to the CTA.Exclusivity rule (RR 18-2013): the remedy of filing a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals bars the remedy of waiting for the final decision of the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, which decision is subject to appeal to the CTA.

Basis of subject matter jurisdiction: exclusive appellate jurisdiction over "disputed assessments"Presumption of correctness of assessment

Motion for Reconsideration15 days from date of receipt of CTA decision

13. Appeal to CTA en banc15 days from CTA final order

14. Appeal to SC15 days from CTA en banc final order

Collection of Deficiency Taxes1. Administrative Remedies

1. Tax lien2. Compromise and abatement3. Distraint, levy or garnishment4. Forfeiture5. Sale6. Penalties and fines

SurchargeInterestCompromise penalty

7. Tax clearancee.g. Distribution of estate assets

8. Closure of business establishmente.g. "Operation Kandado"

2. Judicial Remedies1. Civil action

1. RTC or MTC2. CTA

2. Criminal action1. RTC2. CTA

Summary of Taxpayer's RemediesBefore payment

Tax amnestyDOLE Philippines case: P146 million tax deficiency (sales and income tax) in 1986 covered by an application for tax amnesty in 2008.Proposed Pacquiao tax amnesty: valid to class or individuals?

VAP or EVAPCompromise

Available when:

1. A reasonable doubt to the validity of the claim exists"Doubtful assessment""Jeopardy assessment""Naked assessment""Best evidence obtainable"Prima facie correctness of an assessment

2. The financial position of the taxpayer demonstrates a clear inability to pay the assessed tax.

AbatementTax exemption claim

Tax exemption certificate/ruling: all entities claiming tax-exempt status under the Constitution and other laws should renew their tax-exempt status with the BIR every three years. (RMO No. 20-2013)

Background: religious, charitable, educational institutionsSt. Paul College of Makati and CEAP case: BIR may provide certain documentary requirements to prove taxpayers' qualifications for tax exemptionBanks & withholding agents: Requiring banks and withholding agents to demand a "valid, current and subsisting" tax-exemption ruling from their payees. (RMC No. 8-2014)

After paymentTax creditRefundCarry over of excess paymentTax Treaty Relief

Penn Philippines case: BIR cannot impose additional requirements for the availment of privileges arising from a tax treaty. The 15-day period within which the taxpayer must apply for tax treaty relief is "not enforceable."Sal Oppenheim Jr. & Cie Kommanditgesselshaft Auf Aktien case: the taxpayer is a company which is a resident of Germany. Hence, the dividend payment of PLDT to the taxpayer is subject to the 15% preferential tax rate based on the gross amount of the dividend, pursuant to the Philippines-Germany Tax Treaty. The taxpayer overpaid its tax, then it filed a refund, but it was denied. The BIR required prior approval of an application to avail of tax

privileges under a tax treaty. SC: the prior approval requirement is not mandatory, invoking the doctrine of automatic enforceability of tax treaties.

Adversarial:To question legality of tax law

1. Original action:Rule 63 (Concurrent original jurisdiction: RTC, CA, SC)Rule 65 (Concurrent original jurisdiction: RTC, CA, SC)

2. Appeal:Rule 45 (Exclusive appellate jurisdiction: SC)

To question legality of BIR rules or regulations1. Original action:

Rule 63 (Concurrent original jurisdiction: RTC, CA, SC)Rule 65 (Concurrent original jurisdiction: RTC, CA, SC)

2. Appeal:Rule 45 (Exclusive appellate jurisdiction: SC)

To dispute assessment (substantive & procedural)1. Administrative procedure

LA issuanceAuditICPANFANProtestDenial of ProtestAdministrative appeal to CIR

2. Judicial appealCIR to CTA divisionCTA division to CTA en bancCTA en banc to SC