Online Coaching and Mentoring Program: Mock Bar Essay Exams

1. The University of the West (UW) is a non-stock, non-profit educational

institution. During the year, it plans to construct a building which will be used
as follows: the 2nd to 4th floors will be classrooms, the 5th floor will be office
spaces, while the first floor will be divided into five (5) spaces which will
leased to canteen concessionaires and bookstores/shops for school supplies.
UW plans to charge each tenant monthly lease rentals of Php50,000. UW
shall use all collections solely for educational purposes. UW inquires from you
if it will be liable for the following: (a) building permit fees; (b) real property
tax; (c) income tax on the rentals; and (d) value-added tax on leasing.
Discuss.
Suggested Answer:
The implications of the given facts upon UW shall be as follows:
(a) As to building permit feesUW shall be liable. The tax exemption granted
to non-stock, non-profit educational institutions under Section (4)(3), Article
XIV of the 1987 Constitution does not apply in this case. The said exemption
frees from taxes and duties all revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit
educational institutions which are used actually, directly and exclusively for
educational purposes. The present imposition is not a tax but a regulatory
fee, as it is paid to defray the cost of inspecting the project and the plans to
ensure that they are conformable with safety standards. The exaction is
levied under the police power of the State. UW, therefore, cannot claim
exemption from such imposition. (See: Angeles University Foundation v. City
of Angeles, G.R. No. 189999, 27 June 2012)
(b) As to real property taxUW shall be liable. Section 28(3), Article VI of the
1987 Constitution provides that all lands, buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxation. Thus, for the tax exemption to
apply, the property should be exclusively, or put in another way, solely, used
for exempt purposes. Here, a portion of the property is used for commercial
purposes. Hence, the portion that does not comply with the requirement set
forth by the Constitution should be subject to real property tax. However,
with regard to the portion actually, directly and exclusively used for
educational purposes, no real property tax should be imposed.
(Note: **This may no longer be part of the answer.** Even if the income from
the property is used for educational purposes, still, the real property tax
exemption will not apply because what is meant by actual, direct and
exclusive use of the property for charitable purposes is the direct and
immediate and actual application of the property itself to the purposes for

which the charitable institution is organized. It is not the use of the income
from the real property that is determinative of whether the property is used
for tax-exempt purposes.)
(c) As to income tax on the rentalsUW shall not be liable. Section (4)(3),
Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution provides that all revenues and assets of
non-stock, non-profit educational institutions which are used actually,
directly and exclusively for educational purposes shall be free from taxes and
duties. It is the use, and not the source, of the income which is determinative
of its exemption. The rentals collected by UW are used actually, directly and
exclusively for educational purposes. Thus, the said rentals should be free
from income tax.
(Note: **This may no longer be part of the answer.** Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 30 of the NIRC which apparently imposes income tax on
income by tax-exempt corporations sourced from their activities conducted
for profit or from the use of their properties irrespective of the disposition of
such income, still, UW should not be liable because as a non-stock, non-profit
educational institution, its exemption is not simply statutory but
constitutional. An exemption provided by the Constitution cannot be
modified, altered, increased or decreased by statutory provisions.)
(d) As to value-added tax on leasingUW should not be liable. The
Constitution provides an omnibus exemption from taxation of all revenues
and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institution which are actually,
directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. Value-added tax is
still a tax on the revenue; hence, it is covered by the constitutional
exemption. This is specially true in this case since UW was able to comply
with the requirement that the revenue be used solely for educational
purposes.
(Note: This answer might be contrary to rulings issued by the BIR, but
between the Constitution and the rulings of the BIR, it is obvious that the
provisions of the Constitution should prevail.)
2. Congress passed a law amending certain provisions of the NIRC. Pursuant
to the said law, the Secretary of Finance issued the implementing revenue
regulation thereof. Mike, a taxpayer aggrieved by the amendment and its
implementing rules, filed a petition for prohibition and/or injunction before
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, seeking to prohibit and/or enjoin the
enforcement of the said law and its implementing rules. In his Petition, Mike
advanced the argument that the said law and its implementing rules are
violative of certain provisions of the Constitution. The Solicitor General, on
the other hand, moved to dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction on the
ground that the case should have been filed before the Court of Tax Appeals.
If you were the judge who will resolve the motion, would you grant it?

Suggested Answer:
No, I will not grant the motion. While the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has the
jurisdiction to resolve tax disputes in general, where what is assailed is the
validity or constitutionality of a law, or a rule or regulation issued by the
administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function,
the regular courts and the not the CTA have jurisdiction to pass upon the
same. ( British American Tobacco v. Camacho, et al., G.R. No. 163583 dated
August 20, 2008).
3. LL is a Filipino employed by MM Corporation, a domestic corporation. MM
Corporation has a subsidiary in Indonesia, known as SS Corporation. MM
Corporation sent LL to SS Corporation during the latters startup phase, to
help the subsidiary during its takeoff operations. For the year 2012, LL
stayed in Indonesia for a period of 8 months. Thereafter, he returned to MM
Corporation. While in SS Corporation, LL regularly received the amount
equivalent to his salaries in MM Corporation, and an additional amount
equivalent to his salary in SS Corporation; but both payments were made by
MM Corporation. Are the said amounts subject to income tax?
Suggested Answer:
The salaries received by LL are not subject to Philippine income tax. LL is
considered as a non-resident citizen because he is a Filipino whose work
required him to be physically present abroad most of the time during the
taxable year (Sec. 22E, NIRC). As such non-resident citizen, he is taxable only
on income derived from Philippine sources (Sec. 23, NIRC). The salaries of LL
from being employed abroad are incomes from without because these are
compensation for services rendered outside the Philippines (Sec. 42, NIRC).
In determining whether compensation for service rendered is from within our
without, the only question to address is where was the service rendered.
Here, the service was rendered in Indonesia. Thus, regardless of the fact that
the payments were made by a domestic corporation, this will not, in itself
result to the income being sourced from within the Philippines.
4. In a suit for damages filed by X against Y due to the latters negligence in
driving his motor vehicle, the court awarded the following in favor of X:
Php100,000 representing the amount spent by X for his hospitalization and
medication; Php200,000 for moral and exemplary damages; Php150,000
representing three months unearned salary as X was not able to report to his
employment due to his injuries; Php30,000 lost profits, as X was not able to
use his car which he was leasing to others; and Php600,000 representing the
current replacement cost of the Xs car, originally valued at Php500,000. Are
these receipts part of Xs taxable income?

Suggested Answer:
The amount representing expenses for hospitalization and medication are
not taxable income because they are mere reimbursements of actual
damages sustained by X. The payments of moral and exemplary damages,
as well as the three months unearned salary, are likewise excluded from
taxation as they are considered as compensation for a personal injury, which,
under Section 32(B)(4) of the NIRC, is non-taxable.
The lost profits are taxable, since there is a gain/income on the part of X that
is not considered as part of compensation from personal injuries or sickness.
Since the said payment is arising from profits, the same should be income
taxable.
The Php100,000 representing the difference between the current
replacement cost of the car (Php600,000) and its original value (Php500,000)
is taxable. In determining the gain or loss or for tax purposes, comparison
must be had between the amount received as against the cost (or adjusted
basis). Here, X received Php600,000 for a car costing Php500,000. The
difference, therefore, is a gain that is subject to income tax.
5. B Corporation had excessive quarterly corporate income tax payments for
the year 2011 in the amount of Php50M. For the year 2012, B Corporation
had income tax liability of Php30M, for which the corporation did not pay any
income tax anymore, as it credited the amount from its 2011 overpayment.
Since B Corporation still has a remaining overpayment of Php20M, it filed in
2013 a claim for refund of the said overpayment. Were the actions taken by
B Corporation proper?
Suggested Answer:
The action of B Corporation in crediting the excessive quarterly payments for
the year 2011 against the income tax liability for 2012 is proper, as this is
expressly allowed by Section 76 of the NIRC. When a corporation has
excessive quarterly payments, it may either file a claim for refund or credit
the overpayment against the income tax liabilities of the corporation of the
succeeding quarters of the next taxable years. However, the availment of
this crediting scheme is irrevocable, and, as a consequence, there will be no
more right to file a claim for refund which will be entertained. Consequently,
the action taken by B Corporation in filing a claim for refund of Php20M is not
proper. The recourse of B Corporation is to continue crediting the said
amount against its income tax liabilities of the succeeding quarters until the
same is exhausted.
6. ZZ, a Filipino residing in Manila, owns a residential condominium unit in
California, USA, which he bought for an amount of Php10M five years ago.

Anticipating that he will no longer use the said condominium unit, ZZ sold
the same for a consideration of Php20M. Discuss the income tax
consequence of the transaction on ZZ.
Suggested Answer:
ZZ should declare as part of his gross income a capital gain of Php5M. As a
resident citizen, ZZ shall be liable for income tax on every income sourced
from within or without the Philippines. In this case, ZZ sold a real property
classified as capital asset, but its location is outside the country. Hence, the
transaction is not subject to the 6% capital gains tax. Consequently, any gain
on the part of ZZ should be reported as part of the gross income.
ZZs actual income is Php10M, derived by deducting the cost of Php10M from
the selling price of Php20M. However, since ZZ is an individual and the asset
is a capital asset, the holding period rule shall apply. And considering that ZZ
has held the asset for a long-term holding period, only 50% of the gain, or
the amount of Php5M, shall be recognized for income tax purposes.
7. Spouses H and W have a child named Q. Q will get married to R. To help
the would-be spouses in their new life as married individuals, H and W
decided to donate to Q and R an amount of Php1M. How shall H and W be
liable for donors tax?
Suggested Answer:
When spouses make joint donations, their respective donors tax liabilities
shall be separate determined. Thus, the amount they have donated shall be
split. H and W shall be each be liable for donors tax, using the schedular
rates under Section 99 of the NIRC, based on their respective donation made
in favor of Q equivalent to Php250,000, less Php10,000 deduction for each of
them due to a gift on account of marriage. The schedular rate is applied
because the relationship of the parties is of relatives. However, with respect
to the donation made in favor of R, as the latter is an in-law (and, therefore,
for donors tax purposes considered as a stranger), H and W shall be liable
for donors tax using a 30% tax rate based on their respective donations of
Php250,000, without any deduction allowed.
8. The residential house and lot of PP was extrajudicially foreclosed by
Metrobank. The bank submitted a winning bid in the amount of Php6M, which
was equivalent to the outstanding obligation of PP. A perusal of the property,
however, shows that the lot is a 1,000 square meter lot with a zonal value of
Php3,000 per square meter and a tax declaration fair market value of
Php2,000. The house has a tax declaration fair market value of Php3.5M.
What is the tax base of the capital gains tax, if any, and when should the
payment be made?

Suggested Answer:
The basis of the 6% capital gains tax is Php6.5M. For sales of real property
classified as capital asset, the 6% capital gains tax is imposed on the selling
price or fair market value whichever is higher. In this case, the selling price is
the amount of the bid of Metrobank, which is Php6M. The fair market value is
the higher amount between the zonal value of the BIR, or the amount
appearing in the tax declaration of the property. The lots zonal value is
higher, yielding a total of Php3M. This amount, added to the fair market
value of the house which is Php3.5M, will result to Php6.5Man amount
higher than the selling price.
The capital gains tax should be paid within a period of 30 days from the
lapse of the redemption period, if no redemption is effected. It is because it
is only after the lapse of the redemption period that transfer of ownership
over the property shall be considered as effective.
9. Xs claim for refund was denied by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
on 1 September 2014. He intended to file his Petition before the Court of Tax
Appeals on 1 October 2014, but the said date was declared as a non-working
holiday. X thus filed his Petition on 2 October 2014, which is the next working
day.
a. Was the Petition before the Court of Tax Appeals timely filed?
b. Assume that 1 October 2014 is incidentally also the last day of the twoyear period for X to file a case of refund pursuant to Section 229 of the
National Internal Revenue Code, would your answer be the same?
Suggested Answer:
(a) Yes, the petition was timely filed. It is well-settled that if the last day to
file a Petition for Review falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, the same
may be filed during the next working day.
(b) No, my answer will be different. If 1 October 2014 is also the last day of
the two-year period to file a case for refund, the filing of the Petition must be
done the working day prior to the holiday. This is because the two-year
period is a prescriptive period, and not a mere reglementary period, to file a
claim for refund. Thus, if the taxpayer files the Petition after 1 October 2014,
the same is already time-barred.
10. A Letter of Authority (LOA) was issued to a team of BIR examiners to
audit the taxpayer Sony Philippines for the period 1997 and unverified prior
years. It appears, however, that Sony was using the fiscal year, in that it

reported its tax liabilities for the period April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998.
Deficiency taxes were discovered by the team of examiners covering the
period 01 January 1998 to 31 March 1998. This was contested by Sony as the
same was not covered by the LOA. BIR argued that the contested period is
part of the taxable year of Sony. Did the BIR act properly in assessing Sony
for taxes covering the period 01 January 1998 to 31 March 1998?
Suggested Answer:
No. The function of a LOA is to notify the taxpayer of the subject of the
examination, and to fix the scope of the BIR examiners authority. The BIR
team of examiners went beyond the scope of its authority because the
deficiency tax assessment was based on records from January to March 1998
or using the fiscal year which ended in March 31, 1998. The CIR knew which
period should be covered by the investigation. If the CIR wanted to or
intended the investigation to include the year 1998, it should have done so
by amending the LOA to include the said period, or by issuing another LOA. A
LOA should cover a taxable period not exceeding one taxable year.
11. The BIR, after conducting an audit investigation, issued a preliminary
assessment notice against T Corporation. T Corporation filed a letter-protest
against the preliminary assessment. The BIR, thereafter, wrote T Corporation
denying the letter-protest and stated that if the taxpayer disagrees with the
findings of the BIR, it may exercise its right of appealing to the Court of Tax
Appeals. Thus, T Corporation, within thirty days from the receipt of the letterdenial, filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals. The BIR
moved to dismiss the case on the ground that there was yet no protest of the
assessment itself, as what the BIR denied was only the letter-protest
regarding the preliminary assessment. Decide.
Suggested Answer:
The Motion to Dismiss must be denied. The taxpayer cannot be blamed for
not filing a protest. The language used and the tenor of the letter of the BIR
shows that it is the final decision of the CIR on the matter. It is the obligation
of the CIR to indicate in a clear and unequivocal language whether his action
constitutes his final determination of the issue so that the taxpayer will know
whether or not to appeal the action. In this case, the statement of the BIR
clearly indicates that the denial is the final decision of the BIR, and if the
taxpayer disagrees, it may appeal the final decision from receipt thereof.
Thus, the CIR is estopped in claiming that he did not intend the letter to be a
final decision. This case, therefore, is excepted from the requirement of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Allied Banking Corp. v. CIR, G.R. No.
175097, 05 February 2010).

12. X Leasing Corporation is engaged in leasing its buildings and other

properties. After several years of leasing its building located at Ortigas, it
decided to sell the building. Is the sale subject to VAT?
Suggested Answer:
No. The sale, not being in the regular course of business, is not subject to
VAT. For sales to be subject to VAT, the same must be done in the regular
course of business. In this case, the business of X is leasing and not selling.
(Cf. CIR v. Magsaysay Lines, Inc., GR No. 146984, 28 July 2006).
(Note: The answer above is different from Section 14, Revenue Regulations
4-2007 amending Revenue Regulations 16-2005. In the said regulations, the
sale of a property intended for lease, or the sale of a property even if not
held for sale in the ordinary course of business, but such property is used in
business, is also subject to VAT. I submit, however, that the said provision in
the regulation is contrary to the provisions of the NIRC)
(Second Note: It would be different if X Corporation were engaged in real
estate development because in such a case, the sale will be considered as
one of the functions or businesses of the corporation. Thus, the sale will be
subject to VAT.)
13. X Corporation is engaged in selling goods. Y Corporation, a real estate
developer, exchanged its real properties for shares of stocks of X
Corporation, resulting in Y Corporation gaining control of X Corporation.
Discuss the income tax and VAT consequences of the event.
Suggested Answer:
As to income tax: there shall be no income tax consequence of the
transaction as it qualifies as an income tax free exchange under Section
40(c) of the NIRC. The law states that no gain or loss shall be recognized if
property is transferred to a corporation by a person in exchange for stock or
unit of participation in such a corporation of which as a result of such
exchange said person, alone or together with others, not exceeding four (4)
persons, gains control of said corporation. The factual situation in the
problem falls squarely within the said provision of law.
As to VAT consequence, the inventory of goods of X Corporation is NOT
subject to VAT, but the exchange of real properties of Y Corporation for the
shares of X Corporation shall be subject to VAT. The goods of X Corporation
will not be considered sold, as they are still owned by X Corporation, even if
the control over X Corporation is now vested upon Y Corporation. However,
the transfer of the real properties of Y Corporation to the shareholders of X
Corporation (in order for Y Corporation to get the said shares and eventually

take control of X Corporation) is subject to VAT, as there was effective

transfer of ownership of the said real properties.
14. K died, survived by his wife and three children. The estate tax was paid
by the heirs and the estate settled and distributed among them. Each of the
heirs received Php4M. Later, the BIR found out that the estate tax was not
correctly paid, thus, the BIR issued deficiency estate taxes plus interest,
surcharges and penalties totaling Php5M. Since the three children were
already out of the country, the BIR was collecting the Php5M from K. Was the
action taken by the BIR correct?
Suggested Answer:
The BIR is correct in collecting the deficiency estate tax from K alone. The
rule is that when it comes to estate tax liabilities, all or some or any of the
heirs may be held liable. However, the said heir(s) may be liable only up to
the extent of his distributive share in the estate. It is here where the BIR
committed an error. The extent of the liability of K should not exceed her
distributive share in the estate, which is Php4M. She cannot be held liable for
the entire Php5M.
(Note: In the event K is made liable for the estate tax liability, her remedy is
to run after her co-heirs for their respective share in such liability.)
15. After an audit investigation, Internal Revenue Authorities issued a notice
of informal conference to a taxpayer. The taxpayer questioned the basis for
the proposed assessment, but this notwithstanding, the BIR still proceeded to
issue a pre-assessment notice, stating therein the same factual and legal
basis for the an impending assessment. The taxpayer again protested.
Subsequently, a formal assessment was issued against the taxpayer
indicating therein the supposed tax, surcharge, interest and compromise
penalty due thereon. This time, however, the taxpayer was not provided with
the written basis of the law and facts on which the assessment is based.
Revenue authorities justified its action by stating that the basis of the
assessment was advised upon the taxpayer during the informal conference
and the pre-assessment stage. Is the assessment valid?
Suggested Answer:
The assessment is not valid. Section 228 of the NIRC clearly requires that an
assessment should contain the facts and the law upon which it is based;
otherwise, it is void. Here, the assessment did not contain the factual and
legal bases for the assessment. Applying, therefore, the provisions of law,
the assessment is void. The mere fact that the taxpayer was supposedly
notified during the informal conference and pre-assessment stages of the

basis for the assessment does not cure the defect. The mandate of the law is
clear. And in this case, such was not complied with.
16. The Municipality of Sta. Rosa enacted an ordinance which requires that
all stores, restaurants, and other establishments selling liquor should pay a
fixed annual fee of Php10,000,00. Subsequently, the Sangguniang Bayan
proposed an ordinance imposing an additional tax on all business engaged in
selling liquor equivalent to 5% of the amount of gross sales of the store
during the past year. The municipal mayor refused to sign the ordinance on
the ground that it would constitute double taxation, and that the ordinance is
violative of Section 133 of the Local Government Code. The board, on the
other hand, justified that there is no double taxation as the subjects of the
taxes are different, and that there is no violation of Section 133 because the
imposition is based not on current sales but on previous years gross sales. Is
the refusal of the Mayor justified? Reason.
Suggested Answer:
The refusal of the Mayor is justified, not on the ground of double taxation but
based on violation of Section 133 of the Local Government Code.
Double taxation per se does not result in the nullity of a tax law. What is
violative of the Constitution is direct duplicate taxation, for in that instance,
the tax impositions become confiscatory. In this case, there is no direct
duplicate taxation because the impositions are of different nature and
character. The fixed annual fee is in the nature of a license fee imposed
through the exercise of police power while the 5% tax on purchase or
consumption is a local tax imposed through the exercise of taxing powers.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the proposed ordinance is still invalid. Section
133 of the Local Government Code provides, among others, that it is
prohibited for local government units to impose percentage taxes. The
present imposition is a percentage tax, for the tax liability is directly based in
proportion (or a particular percentage) to the tax base thereof. The mere fact
that it is based on the preceding calendar years sales will not change the
fact that the imposition is still in the nature of a percentage tax.
(Note: The above-stated answer is not conformable with the suggested
answer in the 2004 Bar Examination in Taxation. It must be pointed out,
however, that the suggested answer in the 2004 Bar Examination in Taxation
did not consider the issue of violation of Section 133 of the Local
Government Code and simply focused on the issue of double taxation.)
17. The Province of Benguet enacted an Ordinance levying amusement taxes
equivalent to 10% of the gross admission fees collected by resort operators.
Is the Ordinance valid?

Suggested Answer:
No, it is not valid. The imposition is in the nature of a percentage tax, which,
under Section 133 of the Local Government Code, cannot be levied by local
governments (including Provinces). The imposition cannot be justified under
the guise of an amusement tax under Section 140 of the Local Government
Code. The said provision allows Provinces to levy an amusement tax on the
gross admission fees of theaters, cinemas, concert halls, circuses, boxing
stadia and other places of amusement. Resorts are not classified in the same
category of those subject to amusement tax, as it is clear that the subject of
the tax is a place where one seeks to enjoy by watching or viewing a show or
performance. In a resort, while there may occasionally be visual
engagement, such is not the main purpose. (Pelizloy Realty Corporation v.
Province of Benguet, G.R. No. 183137, 10 April 2013).
18. X Corporation is a non-stock, non-profit corporation which owns a
hospital. X Corporation constructed a medical arts center which is used to
house its doctors in exchange for a minimal fee. For real property tax
purposes, the hospital was classified as belonging to special class with an
assessment level of 10%. On the other hand, the medical arts center was
classified by the assessor as commercial with a higher assessment level.
Was the classification of the medical arts center as commercial proper?
Suggested Answer:
No. The medical arts center should have been classified also as special.
The fact that the medical arts center is exclusively for the doctors of the
hospital clearly removes it from being classified as commercial. The
operation of the medical arts center is incidental to the operation of the
hospital; thus, it is but proper that the activity which is incidental to the main
function of the hospital should be classified in the same manner as that of
the hospital. (City Assessor of Cebu v. Association of Benevola De Cebu, 8
June 2007).
19. The Collector of Customs commenced seizure proceedings over the
goods imported by J. K, who claims to be the lawful owner of the goods
subject of the seizure proceedings, filed a case before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) against the Bureau of Customs for recovery of possession with
prayer for the issuance of a writ of replevin. The trial court issued summons
requiring the Collector to file his responsive pleading. What is the best action
to be taken by the Collector?
Suggested Answer:

The Collector should continue with the seizure and forfeiture proceedings. As
to the case filed with the RTC, the Collector should move for the dismissal of
the case, as the RTC has no jurisdiction. The Collector of Customs, sitting in
seizure and forfeiture proceedings, has exclusive and primary jurisdiction to
hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of
dutiable goods. The RTC has no jurisdiction to pass upon the validity or
regularity of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau
of Customs. Neither has the RTC review powers over actions concerning
seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Collector of Customs
which is reviewable by the Commissioner of Customs whose decision, in
return, is reviewable by the Court of Tax Appeals.
It is well-settled that a writ of replevin cannot be issued if its effect is to
recover possession of goods which are already in custodia legis. Here, the
goods, being the subject of seizure and forfeiture proceedings, are within the
ambit of the quasi-judicial powers of the Collector. Hence, the goods are
already considered as in custodia legis.
20. X imported certain articles, which he believes to have been improperly
assessed by the Bureau of Customs. X complied with the requisites for a
valid protest. His protest has now been pending for almost two years,
without the Collector of Customs acting on such protest. Can X already file an
appeal before the Court of Tax Appeals?
Suggested Answer:
Even if the Collector did not act on Xs protest for almost two years, this will
not authorize X to file directly an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals. The
CTAs jurisdiction over customs protest matters is when there is an appeal
from the decision of the Commissioner of Customs. In the present case, there
is yet no decision to appeal to the CTA. The principle of inaction as an
implied denial is not applicable to Customs protest cases, as no provision of
the Tariff and Customs Code authorizes the application of such.