Practice question
A taxpayer refuses a proposed compromise penalty for a covered violation. An officer orders payment anyway, reasoning that no court conviction is needed because the amount is called civil and appears in an administrative schedule. Which analysis is correct?
- The schedule does not authorize unilateral exaction; absent settlement, any criminal sanction must follow the proper prosecution and adjudication process
- Refusal automatically creates a criminal conviction
- The officer may imprison the taxpayer immediately
- Calling the amount civil cures missing consent
- The officer may collect any amount without a legal basis
Legal references
- RA11976, Section45: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2024/ra_11976_2024.html
- BIR RR6-2024, reduced penalties for micro and small taxpayers: https://bir-cdn.bir.gov.ph/BIR/pdf/RR%206-2024%20(final).pdf
- BIR RMO7-2015, compromise penalty schedule and voluntary settlement rule: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/10/69577
- La Flor Dela Isabela v. CIR, GR202105, April28 2021, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/apr2021/gr_202105_2021.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.