APRIL 2024 COURT OF TAX APPEALS DECISIONS

A MEMORANDUM OF ASSIGNMENT (MOA) CANNOT REPLACE A LETTER OF AUTHORITY (LOA). The Deputy Commissioner and other BIR officials authorized by the CIR himself are permitted to issue an LOA. Among the BIR officials expressly authorized by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) to issue the LOA are the Assistant Commissioners, and Head Revenue Executive Assistants. Thus, where the revenue officers who suggested the issuance of the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), Final Assessment Notice (FAN) and Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) do not appear on the LOA and the authority to examine and audit the taxpayer originated from a MOA issued by a chief, a person without authority to examine the taxpayers, the assessment should be void. (CIR V. Tann Philippines, Inc.; (Commissioner Internal Revenue v. Hard Rock Café (Makati City) Inc.; CTA EB No. 2690; April 12, 2024); an LOA not only applies in RDO but also in the Office of the Commissioner (CIR v. Diaego Philippines, CTA EB No. 2702, CTA Case No. 9522, April 25, 2024)

 

LOA AT THE REINVESTIGATION STAGE IS NOT REQUIRED; A MOA ISSUED AT THE REINVESTIGATION STAGE IS SUFFICIENT AND WILL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSMENT VOID.  The Tax Code requires authority from the CIR or authorized representative before an examination of a taxpayer in the form of LOA. While the law explicitly requires an LOA to be addressed to a revenue officer before an examination of a taxpayer and recommendation of an assessment may be had, the law does not specifically require the same for purposes of recommending a final decision on a disputed assessment. Moreover, even assuming that an LOA is required to conduct the reinvestigation, its absence would only invalidate the resulting decision, such as the FDDA, but not the assessment. Thus a MOA issued by the Revenue District Officer (RDO) to another revenue officers at the reinvestigation stage should not invalidate the FAN previously issued against the taxpayer. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue V. RCL Feeders Phils., Inc; CTA EB No. 2772; April 29, 2024)

 

LOA COVERING 2 YEARS IS VOID. Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) Nos. 36-99 and 19-2015 require the issuance of one LOA per Taxable Year (TY) or a period to be audited. In CIR v. De La Salle University Case (G.R. No. 196596 November 9, 2016), the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that BIR must specify each taxable year or period on separate LOAs. Thus, a LOA covering portion of 2 taxable years is void. (CIR. Sofgen Holdings Limited- Philippine Branch, CTA EB No. 2695, CTA Case NO. 9691, April 12, 2024)

 

THIRD PARTY INFORMATION (TPI) MUST BE SUPPORTED BY AUTHENTICATED SWORN STATEMENT AND REGISTERED RETURN CARD [IF SOURCE IS IN ANOTHER RDO. In determining discrepancies via TPI, the BIR must obtain sworn statement from TPI sources to attest the veracity of the data provided. To obtain sworn statements, the BIR must send confirmation required to the third-party sources. If the TPI source is from other RDO, the BIR confirmation request must be supported by registered return cards. Here, the allegation of underdeclared purchase based on TPI had no registered return card and authenticated sworn statement. Thus, the findings based on TPI is considered unverified information and finds no basis. (Powernet Systems Corp v. Commissioner of Internal; CTA Case No. 10383; April 11, 2024)

 

FORMAL LETTER OF DEMAND’S (FLD) STATEMENT THAT “WITHIN THE TIME SHOWN IN THE ECLOSED ASSESSMENT NOTICE” WITHOUT DATE IN THE FAN RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT VOID; THE FDDA’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONS FOR THE REJECTION OF THE EXPLANATIONS AND DEFENSES OF THE TAXPAYER RENDERS THE FDDA VOID. An assessment must contain a demand of payment within a prescriptive period. In Fitness by Design Inc. case, the SC ruled that BIR’s FAN is void if it fails to indicate a due date. Thus, were the FLD indicates “within the time shown in the enclosed assessment notice” by the spaces in the FAN which should contain the due dates in each noticer were left blank, the assessment is void. Moreover, In the case of CIR v. Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc. (Avon case), the SC clarified that the obligation to provide factual and legal bases in assessments also include the duty to state the reasons for the rejection of a taxpayer’s defenses and explanations against issues raised during tax investigation. Where the FDDA failed to indicate explanations, contentions and evidence submitted by the taxpayer, the FDDA is void. (Major Shopping Management Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; CTA Case No. 9300; April 25, 2024; see also(Marina Square Properties, Inc., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; CTA Case No.10349; April 11, 2024; (Travellers International Hotel Group, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; CTA Case No. 10445; April 18, 2024; Commissioner Of Internal, Revenue v. Capitol Steel Corporation; CTA EB No. 2585; April 25, 2024; (Commissioner of Internal Revenue V. RCL Feeders Phils., Inc; CTA EB No. 2772; April 29, 2024)

 

10-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD WILL NOT APPLY IF FAN/FDDA DID NOT STATE THAT THE APPLICABLE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD IS 10 YEARS. internal revenue taxes must be assessed within three (3) years from the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the tax return or the actual date of filing of such return, whichever comes later, except for an extraordinary period of 10 years to assess based on fraud. In invoking fraud, the factual basis must be stated and communicated to the taxpayer. The CIR should show that the fact are communicated to the taxpayer. It must clearly state the allegations of fraud. Thus, where the FAN or FDDA did not explicitly state that the applicable period is 10 years, the extraordinary period should not apply. (TYC Trading & Manufacturing Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; CTA Case No. 10247; April 18, 2024

 

WARRANT OF DISTRAINT AND/OR LEVY (WDL) ISSUED AFTER 14 YEARS FROM ISSUANCE OF FLD RENDERS THE COLLECTION EFFORT INVALID. The BIR as 3 years to collect taxes for assessment issued within the 3-year period. The 3-year period to collect begins when the assessment notice is released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer; or five (5) years applying the extraordinary period. The BIR’s collection efforts are initiated by distraint, levy, or court proceeding. The distraint and levy proceedings are validly begun or commenced by the issuance of a WDL and service thereof on the taxpayer. A judicial action for the collection of a tax is initiated: (a) by the filing of a complaint with the court of competent jurisdiction; or (b) where the assessment is appealed to the CTA by filing an answer to the taxpayer’s petition for review wherein payment of the tax is prayed for. Where FLD was released on December 27, 2007, but the WDL was issued on June 8, 2022, the BIR has until December 27, 2012 to collect or December 27, 2012 applying the extraordinary period. Thus, the collection effort was barred by prescription (South Cotabato Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; CTA Case No. 10937; April 18, 2024)

 

PETITION FILED AFTER FOUR (4) YEARS FROM RECEIPT OF THE WDL IS DISMISSIBLE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The WDL is a proof of finality of the assessment and is considered a denial of the protest. Its issuance is considered as “other matters” within the jurisdiction of the CTA. The taxpayer’s remedy is to appeal within 30 days from the date it was notified of the WDL. Where the taxpayer received the WDL on August 28, 2015, but it only filed the petition on November 17, 2020, the CTA has no jurisdiction to act on the case.  (Ronaldo Reyes Cruz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Register Of Deeds For The Province Of Bulacan Meycauayan Branch; CTA CASE N0.10404; April 11, 2024)

 

PEZA-REGISTERED ENTERPRISE IS ENTITLED TO INCENTIVES AS SHOWIN IN THE LETTER ISSUED BY PEZA. Section 23 of RA No. 7916, as amended, gives the PEZA-registered enterprises the option to choose between two (2) sets of fiscal incentives: (a) the five percent (5%) preferential tax rate on its gross income and (b) ITH, exempting the enterprise from income tax bus subject to all other taxes Only income actually gained or received by the Ecozone Enterprise related to the conduct of its registered business activity are covered by fiscal incentives. Moreover, the incentives shall apply only to registered operations of the Ecozone Enterprise and only during its registration with PEZA. Where the taxpayer is registered with the PEZA as in ECOZONE IT enterprise covering the transaction, whereby a letter by PEZA Director General issued a letter approving the its PEZA application, including its extension, the taxpayer is entitled to ITH incentive (Wipro Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; CTA Case No. 10329; April 22, 2024)

 

NET-OPERATING LOSS CARRY-OVER (NOLCO) EXCESS CREDITS CREDITED FORWARD TO SUCCEEDING PERIOD AND EXCESS MINIMUM CORPORATE INCOME TAX (MCIT) OVER NORMAL CORPORATE INCOME TAX (NCIT) CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUCCEEDING PERIOD WITHOUT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS SHOULD BE CANCELLED. The taxpayer shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment is void. Thus, where the items of NOLCO, Excess MCIT over NCIT carried forward to succeeding period were found only in the computation of the deficiency income tax liability of the taxpayer but FLD and FDDA shows no discussion at all in the said findings, the item of assessment is considered void. (Powernet Systems Corp v. Commissioner of Internal; CTA Case No. 10383; April 11, 2024)

 

 

PAYMENTS TO GENERAL PROFESSIONAL PARTNERSHIP (GPP) IS EXEMPT FROM EXPANDED WITHHLDING TAX (EWT). Income payments made to a GPP, as a juridical person, are exempt from income tax, vis- a-vis the EWT. The partners of said GPP are the ones liable in their individual capacities for the payment of income tax, pursuant to the afore-quoted Section 26 of the 1997 Tax Code, as amended. Thus, where the taxpayer supported the professional fees with articles of partnership, the item of assessment should be cancelled. (TYC Trading & Manufacturing Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; CTA Case No. 10247; April 18, 2024

 

ITEM OF ASSESSMENT NOT PROTESTED BECOMES FINAL, EXECUTORY AND DEMANDABLE. When the assessment is comprised of several issues, only the particular issues validly protested are considered disputed; while the particular issues undisputed become final executory and demandable. Thus, where the taxpayer failed to dispute disallowed expenses due to non-withholding, salaries and wages not subjected to Withholding Tax on Compensation (WTC) and Value-Added Tax (VAT), the same becomes final. (Powernet Systems Corp v. Commissioner of Internal; CTA Case No. 10383; April 11, 2024)

 

 

NO DONOR’S TAX SHOULD BE IMPOSED IF SELLING PRICE IS HIGHER THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THE SOLD SHARES NOT LISTED AND TRADED THRU LOCAL STOCK EXCHANGE. Under the Tax Code, where the property is transferred for less than an adequate and full consideration, the amount by which the FMV exceed the value of the consideration shall be considered a gift subject to donor’s tax. In Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 6-2013, the FMV of the shares not listed and traded in local stock exchange shall be the higher of among others, the fair market value as determined by the independent appraiser, requiring application of adjusted net asset method for determining the value of the shares (subscription receivable should be a deduction from capital stock under the equity section). Thus, where the selling price is higher than the fair market value, no donor’s tax should be imposed. (Kepwealth, Inc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; CTA Case N0.10353; April 17, 2024)

 

REFUNDS

 

REFUND OF EXCESS INPUT VAT ON ZERO-RATED SALES

 

Certain requisites must be complied with by the taxpayer-applicant to successfully obtain a credit/refund of input VAT related to zero-rated sales. Said requisites are classified into certain categories, to wit:

As to the timeliness of the filing of the administrative and judicial claims:

1. The claim is filed with the BIR within two (2) years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made;
2. That in case of full or partial denial of the refund claim rendered within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of submission of the official receipts or invoices and other documents in support of the application, the judicial claim shall be filed with the CTA within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision.
   • The 90-day period to appeal are both mandatory and jurisdictional. After the lapse of the 90-day period, petitioner had 30 days to elevate its claim to the CTA.  (Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10407 April 23, 2024)
   • For regional cases, the power to decide was delegated to the Regional Director. RDO’s participation is limited only to verification and processing. The appealable decision to the CTA is not the one issued by the RDO but that of Regional Director (Sankyu-Ats Consortium-B v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10313, April 18, 2024)

With reference to the taxpayer’s registration with the BIR:

3. The taxpayer is a VAT-registered person;

In relation to the taxpayer’s output VAT:

4. The taxpayer is engaged in zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales;

5. For zero-rated sales under Section 106(A)(2)(a)(1), (2) and (b), and Section 108(8)(1) and (2), the acceptable foreign currency exchange proceeds have been duly accounted for in accordance with BSP rules and regulations;
   • sales of goods abroad, in order for an export sale to qualify as zero-rated, the following essential elements must be present:
     • the sale was made by a VAT registered person;
     • there was sale and actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country, as evidenced by the following:
       • sales invoice as proof of sales of goods; the invoice must comply with the invoicing requirements
       • bill of lading or airway bill as proof of actual shipment of goods from the Philippines to a foreign country;
     • the sale was paid for in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BSP. Amounts shown in the summary of VAT zero-rated sales supported with sales invoices must be traced with certainty to the certificates of inward remittance (Halliburton Worldwide Limited – Philippine Branch v. CIR, CTA Case No. 9890, April 12, 2024; Pure Essence Int’l Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10411, April 8, 2024)
   • sales of goods to PEZA-registered entities – the following requisites must be present: (1) the sale must be made by a VAT registered person; and (2) the sale of goods must be to an entity entitled to the incentives under Executive Order No. 226 otherwise known as the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987, and other special laws as shown by PEZA Certificate of Registration (Pure Essence Int’l Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10411, April 8, 2024)
     • Proof of documents: (a) the sales invoice or official receipt as proof of sale of goods or services; and (b) any proof of the buyer’s entitlement to tax incentives under other special laws (i.e., Certificates of Registration with the PEZA pursuant to RA No. 7916, as amended, for the pertinent period/taxable year) (Pure Essence Int’l Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10411, April 8, 2024)
     • Reasons for denial of zero-rated sales: Sale of services supported by VAT sales invoice and not by ORs; sale of services supported by billing statement and not by OR; Sale of goods with VAT sales invoice by the sales amount is labelled as VAT exempt; Sales without supporting documents (Lantro Phils. Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10130, April 29, 2024)
     • Sale of power generated through renewable sources of energy is zero-rated (Halliburton Worldwide Limited – Philippine Branch v. CIR, CTA Case No. 9890, April 12, 2024)
     • Renewable Energy Developers are entitled to VAT zero-rating on its purchases of local goods, properties and services needed for the development, construction and installation of its plant facilities.(Halliburton Worldwide Limited – Philippine Branch v. CIR, CTA Case No. 9890, April 12, 2024)
       • For a purchase transaction of an RE Developer to qualify for VAT zero-rating, the taxpayer must be able to present the following documents of the RE Developer:
         • Department of Energy (DOE) Certificate of Registration (Halliburton Worldwide Limited – Philippine Branch v. CIR, CTA Case No. 9890, April 12, 2024); otherwise, input VAT may be passed on and may be refunded where sale is zero-rated
         • Registration with the Board of investments (Halliburton Worldwide Limited – Philippine Branch v. CIR, CTA Case No. 9890, April 12, 2024); and,

Re. sales of services, certain essential elements must be present for a sale or supply of services to be subject to the VAT rate of zero percent (0%), to wit:

• The services fall under any of the categories under Section 108(6)(2), or simply, the services rendered should be other than ”processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods”- service related to any software is allowed (Citco International Support Services Limited-Philippine ROHQ v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10403, April 18, 2024)
• The service must be performed in the Philippines by a VAT-registered person.  The agreement must specify that the services shall be performed in the Philippines (Citco International Support Services Limited-Philippine ROHQ v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10403, April 18, 2024); If the service agreement does not bear any indication that the services were to be performed in the Philippines but the witness testified so, the element is complied with; however, nature of services must be indicated in the supporting ORs (Zuellig Pharma Asia Pacific Ltd. Phils. ROHQ, v. CIR CTA Case No. 9025, April 19, 2024)
• The payment for such services should be in acceptable foreign currency accounted for in accordance with BSP rules. Payment must be supported by Certificate of Inward Remittance. (Citco International Support Services Limited-Philippine ROHQ v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10403, April 18, 2024)
• The recipient of the services is a foreign corporation, and the said corporation is doing business outside the Philippines, or is a nonresident person not engaged in and business who is outside the Philippines when the  services were performed (Citco International Support Services Limited-Philippine ROHQ v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10403, April 18, 2024)

 

As regards the taxpayer’s input VAT being refunded:

6. The input taxes are not transitional input taxes. Transitional input tax credit operates to benefit newly VAT- registered persons, whether or not they previously paid taxes in the acquisitions of their beginning inventory of goods, materials and supplies. During the period of transition from non-VAT to VAT status, the transitional input tax credit serves to alleviate the impact of the VAT on the taxpayer. (Lantro Phils. Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10130, April 29, 2024; Pure Essence Int’l Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10411, April 8, 2024)

 

7. The input taxes are due or paid;

Input tax must comply with invoicing requirements. Reasons for disallowance:

Domestic purchase of goods supported with billing statement; domestic purchase of services supported with billing statement; domestic purchase of services supported with VAT sales invoice; domestic purchase of goods with non-VAT sales invoice; unreadable date and description of goods, etc.; without business style; incomplete address; without description of services rendered (Lantro Phils. Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10130, April 29, 2024)

BOC’s certification of remittance to the Bureau of Treasury is required; IERD pertain merely to import declaration but not sufficient to prove payment of VAT on importation. (Lantro Phils. Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10130, April 29, 2024)

Nput VAT supported by SI/OR that are photocopy only; corrections not sountersiged by authorized personnel; VAT not separately indicate; overclaimed input VAT(Pure Essence Int’l Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10411, April 8, 2024)

 

8. The input taxes claimed are attributable to zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales. However, where there are both zero-rated or effectively zero-rated sales and taxable or exempt sales, and the input taxes cannot be directly and entirely attributable to any of these sales, the input taxes shall be proportionately allocated on the basis of sales volume
9. the input taxes have not been applied against output taxes during and in the succeeding quarters

Taxpayer must clearly establish that the amount was not applied against the output VAT liability during and in the succeeding quarters. CTA will not simply assume that the amount declared in Line 23D is the amount sought to be refunded.  (Lantro Phils. Inc., v. CIR, CTA Case No. 10130, April 29, 2024)

 

 

PAGCOR CONTRACTEES AND LICENEES ARE EXEMPTED FROM INCOME TAX. The exemption of PAGCOR and its licensees and contractees from payment of all kinds of taxes, except the five percent (5%) franchise tax, has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the Bloombery Case. Where the taxpayer is a holder of Casino License granted by PAGCOR, it is exempt from income tax but must comply with the requirements: (1) that it is a licensee of PAGCOR; (2) that it derives income from the casino operations as a licensee; (3) that it pays license fee, which must be inclusive of the five percent (5%) franchise tax; and, (4) that it paid income tax. Where the license fees received is net of shares in the gross gaming revenue of the casino of 5% franchise tax, the taxpayer is entitled to refund. Dissenting Opinion: it must be proven that PAGCOR remitted the 5% to the BIR. (Premiumleisure and Amusement, Inc. v. CIR, CTA EB No. 2712, CTA Case No. 10060, April 22, 2024)

 

WATER UTILITY SERVICES ARE SUBJECT TO FRANCHISE TAX. Section 108 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, provides the general rule that the sale or exchange of services is subject to Value-Added Tax (VAT). Section 119 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, on the other hand, enumerates the entities who are engaged in sale or exchange of services that are subject to franchise tax instead of VAT under the general rule laid down in Section 108. The term ‘franchise’ has been broadly construed as referring, not only to authorizations that Congress directly issues in the form of a special law, but also to those granted by administrative agencies to which the power to grant franchises has been delegated by Congress. Where a taxpayer is engaged in the sale of services as a water utility, it is subject to franchise tax. (Davao City Water District v. CIR; CTA EB 2725; April 2, 2024)

 

SALE OF SHARES APPLYING TAX TREATY IS EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. Capital gains realized during the taxable year from the sale or other disposition of shares of stock in a domestic corporation made outside the stock exchange and any gain derived from such dealings in property derived by a foreign corporation are subject to income tax, exempt to the extent required by treaty obligation. Here, the RP-Germany Tax treaty requires the following: taxpayer is a resident of Germany; There is an alienation of shares of a domestic corporation; and the assets of the domestic corporation do not principally consist of immovable property in the Philippines. “Principally” means more than 50% of the entire assets in terms of value as may be proved by the financial statement. (Siemens Altiengesellschaft v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; CTA Case No. 10797; April 24, 2024)

 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

 

BILLING STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE LGU IS NOT CONSIDERED AN ASSESSMENT. Local government Code provides two procedures in refund of local business tax. Section 195 applies when there is assessment, and Section 196 in case of recovery of an erroneously paid or illegally collected tax. Moreover, Assessment must state the nature of the tax, fee, or charge, the amount of deficiency , surcharge interest and penalties. Thus, where the LGU merely issued a billing statement without the foregoing elements required of an assessment, the taxpayer’s refund is governed by Section 196. Section 196 requires that the taxpayer should file its refund administratively and judicially within 2 years from date of payment. Where the taxpayer paid the tax on January 20, 2020, but the judicial claim is filed on February 3, 2022, the claim is prescribed. Bellagio One Condominium Association et. al.  v. City Treasurer of Taguig City et. al. (CTA AC No. 277, April 22, 2024)

 

LGU HAS 60 DAYS TO DECIDE TAXPAYER’S PROTEST ON LOCAL BUSINESS TAX; INACTION IS CONSIDERED DEEMED DENIAL APPEALABLE TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS. Under Section 195 of the LGC, when the taxpayer protest the assessment, the LGU has 60 days to decide; inaction is considered deemed denial. The taxpayer has 30 days from the date of receipt of adverse decision, or deemed denial, whichever comes earlier, within which to appeal to the RTC. Here, the LGU issued First and Second Notice containing the LBT assessment. The taxpayer protested against First notice on March 1, 2012 but was not acted by the LGU or considered the assessment deemed denied on April 30, 2012. The taxpayer has until May 30, 2012 to appeal. But since TP filed on ly on July 10, 2012, the appeal prescribed. Assuming Second Notice is considered new LBT assessment, the taxpayer did not observe the 60-day period and thus the appeal is premature. (Service Resources, Inv. v. Pasig City et. al., CTA EB No. 2719, CTA AC 243), April 23, 2024

 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TAX CODE

 

CRIMINAL CASE FOR FAILURE TO PAY TAX, WHERE INFORMATION IN COURT IS FILED AFTER SEVEN (7) YEARS FROM FINALITY OF ASSESSMENT, WARRANTS THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE FOR PRESCRIPTION. In case of willful refusal to pay deficiency tax, the five-year prescriptive to prosecute runs from the finality of the assessment (failure to pay within the period given in the FAN/FLD), and is interrupted by filing of information in court. Where the FLD/FAN was issued and served on December 15, 2010, the assessment becomes final and executory on January 15, 2011. The prosecution has until January 15, 2016 to file a case. Where the case was filed on January 10, 2023 or after seven years, the offense is prescribed. (People of the Philippines v. Julieta N. Ariete; CTA Crim. Case No. A-18; April 8, 2024; People of the Philippines v. Star Asset Management NPL Inc., et. al. CTA EB Crim No. 129, CTA Crim Case No. O-995); five-year period to run from filing of complaint if the date of the commission of the offense is not known. (People v. Bernardo, CTA EB Crim No. 123, CTA Crim Case No. O-931, April 16, 2024)