Shell of My Heart

 

Spouses Emmanuel D. Pacquiao and Jinkee J. Pacquiao vs. The Court of Tax Appeals – First Division and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 213394, April 6, 2016

DOCTRINE

The case reaffirms the following legal principles:

1. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has the authority under Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1125, as amended, to issue injunctive writs to restrain the collection of taxes and may dispense with the bond requirement if the method employed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in tax collection violates the law or jeopardizes (jeopardizes) the taxpayer’s interests.

2. Tax assessments must be based on actual facts and transaction documents, not merely on estimates or “best possible sources,” to comply with due process.

3. Taxpayers are entitled to procedural due process in the assessment and collection of taxes, including proper service of notices and adherence to legal procedures.

FACTS

Parties Involved:

Petitioners: Spouses Emmanuel D. Pacquiao, a world-renowned professional boxer and later Congressman, and Jinkee J. Pacquiao, later Vice-Governor.

Respondents: The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) – First Division and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR).

Background:

Emmanuel Pacquiao earned substantial income from boxing matches in the United States (under Top Rank, Inc.) and from Philippine-sourced income through talent fees, endorsements, and advertisements.

Pacquiao filed his 2008 income tax return on April 15, 2009, reporting Philippine-sourced income. He later amended it to include U.S.-sourced income. His 2009 income tax return, filed on April 15, 2010, initially omitted U.S.-sourced income. He also failed to file Value Added Tax (VAT) returns for 2008 and 2009.

BIR Investigation:

On March 25, 2010, the BIR’s Regional District Office (RDO) No. 43 issued a Letter of Authority (March LA) to examine Pacquiao’s 2008 records.

On July 27, 2010, the CIR issued another Letter of Authority (July LA) authorizing the BIR’s National Investigation Division (NID) to examine the books of accounts of both Pacquiao and Jinkee for 1995–2009, later replaced by separate electronic Letters of Authority per Revenue Memorandum Circular.

The investigation was justified as a “fraud investigation” under the BIR’s “Run After Tax Evaders” (RATE) program.

The Pacquiaos submitted tax-related documents for 2007–2009 but could not provide records for 1995–2006, citing disposal under Section 235 of the Tax Code and the death of their previous counsel.

Tax Assessment:

The BIR assessed the Pacquiaos for deficiency income taxes and VAT for 2008 and 2009, alleging fraud. The assessment relied on “best possible sources” rather than actual transaction documents, totaling P2,261,217,439.92 (inclusive of interest and surcharges).

The Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) was issued, addressed only to Emmanuel Pacquiao, despite prior notices being sent to both spouses.

The BIR issued a Preliminary Collection Letter (PCL) and Final Notice Before Seizure (FNBS), followed by warrants of distraint, levy, and garnishment to collect the assessed amount.

CTA Proceedings:

The Pacquiaos filed a petition for review with the CTA, challenging the BIR’s assessment and collection processes. They argued:

1. The assessment was defective due to reliance on fraud allegations without evidence.

2. The FDDA was void as it was addressed only to Emmanuel, denying Jinkee due process.

3. The assessment used “best possible sources” instead of actual documents, violating the Tax Code.

4. The BIR’s summary collection methods (e.g., premature garnishments) violated due process.

The Pacquiaos paid P32,196,534.40 in installments for the deficiency VAT but contested the deficiency income tax of P3,259,643,792.24.

On October 18, 2013, they filed an Urgent Motion to lift the warrants of distraint, levy, and garnishment and to suspend tax collection, arguing that the bond requirement (P3,298,514,894.35 cash or P4,947,772,341.53 surety bond) was excessive given their net worth of P1,185,984,697.00 (per Pacquiao’s SALN).

On April 22, 2014, the CTA granted the motion, ordering the CIR to desist from collection but required the bond. On July 11, 2014, the CTA denied the Pacquiaos’ motion for reconsideration, affirming the bond requirement.

Supreme Court Petition:

The Pacquiaos filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to annul the CTA’s resolutions. They argued that the CTA abused its discretion by imposing the bond, which was excessive and violated due process, and that the BIR’s collection methods were illegal.

ISSUES

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the CTA erred in requiring the Pacquiaos to post a bond (P3,298,514,894.35 cash or P4,947,772,341.53 surety) as a condition for suspending the collection of deficiency taxes, despite allegations of due process violations by the BIR.

2. Whether the BIR’s assessment and collection processes, including the issuance and service of the Letters of Authority, FDDA, and warrants, complied with legal and procedural requirements.

3. Whether the BIR’s reliance on “best possible sources” rather than actual transaction documents for the tax assessment was lawful.

4. Whether the BIR’s tax collection methods violated the Pacquiaos’ constitutional right to due process.

5. Whether the case should be remanded to the CTA for a preliminary hearing to determine if the bond requirement could be dispensed with or reduced.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the Pacquiaos’ petition and ruled as follows:

On the Bond Requirement:

The CTA has the authority under Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125 to suspend tax collection and require a bond, but it may dispense with the bond if the BIR’s collection method is patently illegal or violates due process.

The Court found insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether the CTA abused its discretion in requiring the bond, as no preliminary hearing was conducted to assess the legality of the BIR’s methods.

The case was remanded to the CTA for a preliminary hearing to determine whether the requirements for dispensing with or reducing the bond were met, considering the Pacquiaos’ allegations of due process violations (e.g., improper service of the FDDA, premature garnishments).

On Due Process and Assessment:

The Court emphasized that tax assessments must be based on actual facts, and taxpayers are entitled to due process, including proper notice and adherence to procedural requirements.

The Court did not rule definitively on the validity of the BIR’s assessment or collection methods (e.g., reliance on “best possible sources” or improper FDDA service) but noted these issues warranted further examination by the CTA.

Disposition:

The CTA was directed to conduct a preliminary hearing to evaluate the Pacquiaos’ claims of due process violations and reassess the necessity and amount of the bond.

The CTA’s resolutions (April 22 and July 11, 2014) were not annulled but were subject to reevaluation after the hearing.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The reasoning of the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

CTA’s Authority Under Section 11, R.A. No. 1125:

Section 11 provides that an appeal to the CTA does not suspend tax collection unless the CTA finds that collection jeopardizes the interests of the government or taxpayer. In such cases, the CTA may suspend collection and require a bond, but it can dispense with the bond if the BIR’s methods are illegal or violate due process (citing precedents like Avelino and Zulueta).

The CTA’s imposition of a bond was within its jurisdiction, but the Pacquiaos’ allegations of procedural irregularities (e.g., FDDA addressed only to Emmanuel, premature garnishments, and reliance on “best possible sources”) raised questions about the legality of the BIR’s actions, necessitating a hearing.

Due Process in Tax Collection:

The Court underscored that due process is paramount in tax assessments and collections. The BIR’s failure to properly serve notices (e.g., addressing the FDDA only to Emmanuel) and its use of summary collection methods before the payment period expired could constitute violations of due process. � başkan

Need for a Preliminary Hearing:

The Court could not make a preliminary determination on the BIR’s methods without a factual record. Remanding the case to the CTA for a preliminary hearing was necessary to evaluate the Pacquiaos’ claims and determine if the bond could be reduced or dispensed with.

Balancing Interests:

The CTA correctly noted that the tax amount (P3,298,514,894.35) exceeded the Pacquiaos’ net worth (P1,185,984,697.00), justifying suspension of collection to prevent prejudice. However, the bond amount was substantial, and the CTA needed to assess whether it was reasonable given the alleged illegality of the BIR’s methods.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Spouses Pacquiao vs. CTA and CIR highlights the CTA’s discretion to suspend tax collection and impose or waive bond requirements, provided it adheres to due process principles. By remanding the case, the Court ensured that the Pacquiaos’ allegations of procedural violations would be thoroughly examined, reinforcing the importance of fairness in tax administration. The ruling serves as a precedent for protecting taxpayers’ rights while balancing the government’s interest in revenue collection.

I Like the Moon, But the Moon Doesn't Know