[FAILURE OF THE LOCAL TREASURER TO ACT ON A TAXPAYER’S PROTEST WITHIN THE 60‑DAY PERIOD CONSTITUTES A DENIAL BY INACTION, WHICH IMMEDIATELY TRIGGERS THE 30‑DAY PERIOD TO APPEAL TO A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION] [TAXPAYER CANNOT WAIT FOR A SUBSEQUENT WRITTEN DENIAL ISSUED AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE 60 DAYS SINCE FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT FINAL, EXECUTORY & UNAPPEALABLE]

Petitioner Public Safety Mutual Benefit Fund, Inc. (PSMBFI) filed a Petition for Review seeking the reversal and setting aside of the earlier Decision and Resolution of the Court Second Division holding that the Appeal was filed out of time. The Petitioner argued that the appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was timely, because under Section 195 of the Local Government Code (LGC), the 30-day period may be counted from receipt of the denial or from lapse of the 60-day period, at the taxpayer’s option. Since the Petitioner received the denial on May 14, 2019, it had until June 13, 2019, to appeal. Thus, the filing on that date was on time. On the other hand, the Respondent Rosette F. Laquian, Acting City Treasurer of San Juan City, countered that Section 195 of the LGC is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to appeal within the prescribed period renders the assessment final and unappealable. The failure of the Treasurer to act within 60 days constitutes a denial by inaction, which immediately triggers the 30-day appeal period. The Petitioner’s appeal should have been filed on or before June 11, 2019, not June 13, 2019. The Respondent also maintained that Tax Orders of Payment (TOP) 3 is a valid assessment as the Petitioner is clearly engaged in the insurance business, earning income from the receipt of insurance premiums, thus, it is a financial institution subject to Local Business Tax (LBT). In ruling, the Court held that the protest was deemed denied by inaction on May 12, 2019.  The 30-day period to appeal to the RTC ran from May 12, 2019 to June 11, 2019. The Petitioner’s appeal filed on June 13, 2019 was out of time, depriving the RTC of jurisdiction and rendering TOP 3 final, conclusive, and unappealable. The phrase in Section 195 allowing appeal from either receipt of the denial or lapse of the 60 days is interpreted to mean “whichever comes earlier.” Therefore, the Petition is DENIED and the earlier Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED. [PUBLIC SAFETY MUTUAL BENEFIT FUND INC. VS. ROSETTE F. LAQUIAN, CITY TREASURER, SAN JUAN CITY, CTA A.C. NO. 308, FEBRUARY 3, 2026]

[WAIVER OF INHERITANCE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT THE TRANSFER FROM THE DONOR’S TAX] [GENERAL RENUNCIATION IS REQUIRED FOR EXEMPTION FROM DONOR’S TAX TO APPLY]

Petitioner Anita Dela Vega Lacambacal filed a Petition for Review, praying that the refund on Donor’s Tax she erroneously paid on her waiver of share in the Estate of Victorino P. Lacambacal be granted. The Petitioner argues that she is entitled to a refund of the Donor’s Tax she paid, claiming it was erroneously imposed by the Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) after she executed a general renunciation of her share in the estate in favor of her four children. She contends that under the Civil Code, such renunciation results in accretion to the co-heirs retroactive to the decedent’s death, meaning no donation occurred and no Donor’s Tax was due. On the other hand, the Respondent counters that Section 229 of the Tax Code applies only to illegally or erroneously collected taxes, which does not cover the Petitioner’s case since she voluntarily paid the Donor’s Tax without any demand, making it a natural obligation under Article 1423 of the Civil Code that allows the BIR to retain the payment. Also, the Petitioner failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies by filing her judicial claim shortly after her administrative claim, and she failed to present sufficient evidence to support her allegations. In ruling, the Court denied the Petition, holding that her claimed general renunciation was not truly general, as she specifically designated properties to particular heirs, thereby making the transfer subject to Donor’s Tax under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-2018 and Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 94-2021. Citing the principle reiterated in CIR vs. Filminera Resources Corp. that tax refunds are strictly construed against the taxpayer, the Court concluded that Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to justify the refund. Thus, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. [ANITA DELA VEGA LACAMBACAL VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, CTA CASE NO. 11113, JANUARY 19, 2026]

IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE PERIOD TO APPEAL TO THE CTA IS 15 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE RTC DECISION, NOT 30 DAYS, WHICH ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR CIVIL CASES

Petitioners Marc and Kevin G. Cuyco of Suplitek Equipment, Inc. filed a Petition for Review seeking the reversal of the assailed Decision and Resolution denying their Appeal in relation to the earlier conviction for violation of Section 266, in relation to Section 253 on the Tax Code for alleged willful, unlawful, failure and refusal to appear and produce the Company’s books of accounts and other accounting records despite receipt of Subpoena Duces Tecum (SDT) in relation to the examination by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The Accused argue that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements necessary for conviction under Section 266 of the Tax Code, particularly because they were not duly summoned as the SDT was improperly served in violation of the procedures outlined in Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 10-2013, as amended by RMO No. 8-2014. They contend that the revenue officer did not exert efforts to personally serve the SDT, and it was handed to Ramos, who was authorized only to receive documents for Suplitek and not for them individually, and failed to execute an affidavit of attempts at personal service before resorting to substituted service. Moreover, even assuming valid service, they assert that the prosecution still failed to prove negligence because they attempted to submit the required documents, but the BIR refused to receive them. Thus, they argue that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In ruling, the Court found that it has no jurisdiction over the Petition for Review because it was filed beyond the 15-day period prescribed for appeals in criminal cases under Rule 9, Section 9(c) of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), counted from the alleged receipt of the RTC’s Assailed Resolution on June 13, 2024. Here, the Accused filed their Petition on July 15, 2024, 17 days late, without requesting an extension, and failed to present proof of the actual date of receipt. While they relied on the 30-day period under Section 11 of the CTA Law, the Court clarified that this applies to civil cases and that in criminal cases, the general rules on appeals in regular courts, requiring 15 days, prevail. Thus, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. [MARC G. CUYCO & KEVIN G. CUYCO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CTA EN BANC CRIMINAL CASE NO. 156, JANUARY 8, 2026]