Practice question
A local treasurer institutes an authorized collection case in a court of competent jurisdiction after the applicable collection period has expired. The LGU proves no suspension, fraud exception or other saving circumstance. It argues that a later demand letter automatically revived the expired claim. Which analysis is correct?
- Any letter revives any prescribed tax
- Public purpose eliminates all limitation statutes
- The LGU must establish timeliness or an actual statutory saving ground; a later demand alone cannot simply be assumed to revive an expired claim
- Only the size of the deficit matters
- The taxpayer's silence always repeals Section 194
Legal references
- RA7160, Sections183,194 and256: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html
- RA9282 amending RA1125, Sections7,11 and18–19: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9282_2004.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.