CIR v. Market Strategic Firm, Inc.

 

CIR v. Market Strategic Firm, Inc.

CTA EB NO. 2281

November 4, 2022

Doctrine:

The memorandum of assignment, referral memorandum, or any equivalent document is not a proof of the existence of authority of the substitute or replacement revenue officer. The memorandum of assignment, referral memorandum, or any equivalent document is not issued by the CIR or his duly authorized representative for the purpose of vesting upon the revenue officer authority to examine a taxpayer's books of accounts. It is issued by the revenue district officer or other subordinate official for the purpose of reassignment and transfer of cases of revenue officers.

Facts:

The subject MOA indicated that it was issued for the “continuation of the audit/investigation to replace the previously assigned Revenue Officer(s) who resigned/retired/transferred to another district office. 

Issue:

Whether or not the MOA could be considered proof of authority.

Held: 

No. The practice of reassigning or transferring revenue officers, who are the original authorized officers named in the LOA, and subsequently substituting them with new revenue officers who do not have a separate LOA issued in their name, is in effect a usurpation of the statutory power of the CIR or his duly authorized representative. The memorandum of assignment, referral memorandum, or such other equivalent internal document of the BIR directing the reassignment or transfer of revenue officers, is typically signed by the revenue district officer or other subordinate official, and not signed or issued by the CIR or his duly authorized representative under Sections 6, I 0( c) and 13 of the NIRC. Hence, the issuance of such memorandum of assignment, and its subsequent use as a proof of authority to continue the audit or investigation, is in effect supplanting the functions of the LOA. since it seeks to exercise a power that belongs exclusively to the CIR himself or his duly authorized representatives.'' That the MOA could not be considered proof of authority of the Revenue Officers named therein is underscored by the fact that the same was merely issued by Cesar D. Escalada, OIC-Chief of RL TAD I. Not being the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representative, OIC-Chief Escalada did not have the requisite power to authorize such Revenue Officers, a power which belongs exclusively to the former.


No comments:

Post a Comment