Practice question
A taxpayer alleges a warrant reaches assets of a spouse not named in the relevant demand and that part of the assessed VAT was already paid. The BIR disputes both. The taxpayer claims Pacquiao automatically found every similar warrant invalid. Which is correct?
- Pacquiao identified such matters for preliminary factual inquiry rather than declaring every similar allegation established
- Every allegation about a spouse necessarily voids collection
- A claimed payment needs no proof
- The case abolished security in all tax appeals
- An evidentiary hearing is categorically prohibited
Legal references
- Spouses Pacquiao v CTA GR213394 April6,2016 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_213394_2016.html MAIN preliminary inquiry and security computation.
- RA9282 amending RA1125: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2004/ra_9282_2004.html Section11 as amended.
- NIRC: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8424_1997.html Section218 national collection restriction.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.