Knowing when BIR decisions are appealable
By: Atty. Lew Earvin H. Manarin on November 27, 2025
TAX administration in the Philippines has long been guided by the principle that, while taxes are indispensable to government operations, their collection must still observe procedural fairness.
Jurisprudence continues to refine the delicate balance between the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) authority to collect and the taxpayer’s right to due process, particularly in situations where the timing of the bureau’s collection efforts intersects with the taxpayer’s right to seek judicial review.
A recurring point of confusion has been when the BIR may validly initiate its summary collection remedies and, conversely, when the 30-day reglementary period for the taxpayer to elevate a disputed assessment to the Court of Tax Appeals actually begins to run. These questions were central in Light Rail Transit Authority v. Bureau of Internal Revenue (GR 231238, June 20, 2022), a Supreme Court case that has become a key reference point in understanding how the administrative and judicial phases of tax disputes should properly unfold.
In the LRTA case, the taxpayer timely protested the assessment and elevated the denial of that protest to the Office of the Commissioner. Despite this ongoing appeal, the bureau issued a preliminary collection letter, a final notice before seizure and ultimately a warrant of distraint and/or levy. At first glance, these issuances could have easily been mistaken for the commissioner’s final action on the taxpayer’s appeal, appearing on their face to trigger the 30-day period for elevating the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals. If treated as such, the collection-related letters and the warrant of distraint and/or levy would have been material to the taxpayer’s right to file a timely judicial appeal.
The Supreme Court clarified that none of the issuances could be treated as final decisions appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals because they were all released under the incorrect premise that the taxes had already become delinquent. It was only when the regional director, acting as the BIR commissioner’s authorized representative, issued a letter expressly resolving the taxpayer’s appeal and denying its request for reinvestigation for failure to submit the required documents that the assessment first became final, executory and demandable. This marked the point from which the taxpayer could properly elevate the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals.
The court stressed that the existence of delinquent taxes is a statutory prerequisite to the issuance of a warrant or other summary collection remedies. Where an assessment is still pending review by the commissioner, it cannot yet be considered final, executory and demandable. Consequently, any collection letter or warrant issued during that period is void and without legal effect. These issuances, the court emphasized, were not only non-final, but they were also issued from a fundamentally defective premise. Treating them as final decisions would strip the taxpayer of the remedy expressly recognized under law and jurisprudence, the right to await the commissioner’s ultimate ruling on the appeal, even beyond the 180-day period.
The court also rejected the BIR’s reliance on an earlier 2001 decision, noting that the legal landscape has since evolved. At that time, the taxpayer’s statutory option to either appeal after the lapse of 180 days or await the commissioner’s final decision had not yet been recognized. Because those remedies were unavailable then, the final notice before seizure was deemed the only response to the taxpayer’s protest and was treated as the appealable decision. In contrast, in the LRTA case, the taxpayer had properly elevated its protest to the commissioner and this pending appeal prevented the BIR from prematurely treating the assessment as demandable. To insist that the taxpayer should have appealed from the collection letters would effectively nullify the remedy that the law now clearly affords: the right to wait for the commissioner’s final decision on the disputed.
This doctrine was subsequently applied and reaffirmed in Mannasoft Technology Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (GR 244202, July 10, 2023), further clarifying when BIR decisions are appealable. There, even though the 180-day period had lapsed when the bureau issued a warrant of distraint and/or levy, the taxpayer consistently indicated that it was awaiting the commissioner’s action on its request for reinvestigation. The BIR nonetheless proceeded with collection measures, but later issued a formal letter expressly denying the reinvestigation request. The Supreme Court ruled that this letter, and not the prematurely issued warrant, constituted the final decision appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals. The warrant, like the collection issuances in the LRTA case, was void because the taxpayer’s protest remained unresolved, and therefore no delinquent tax liability existed to justify the use of summary collection remedies.
These rulings underscore a consistent principle: while the BIR’s power to assess and collect is broad, it must be exercised on the basis of a demandable tax liability. Where the taxpayer has a pending and duly filed administrative appeal before the commissioner, the assessment has not yet attained finality. Any collection action premised on delinquency is therefore premature and void. This principle safeguards not only taxpayers’ procedural rights but also the integrity of the administrative protest system, ensuring that the government’s interest in revenue collection does not override the equally important requirement of due process.
Lew Earvin H. Manarin is an Associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at info@mtfcounsel.com or visit MTF website at www.mtfcounsel.com
The article was published at the More to Follow Column at The Manila Times on November 27, 2025. Please see this link.