Ignorance is the basic foundation of graft and corruption. The BIR-corrupt brigade is maximizing its full potential and profitability. Fishes find strength, courage and competence in numbers. They had conquered their predators/enemies by grouping together in order to make them bigger than their enemies. You too can become bigger than the fear that lingered in your minds and hearts. Join 'JuanTALKS' now and share your knowledge and experiences to other Filipinos.
(3) The foregoing notwithstanding, any individual not required to file an income tax return may nevertheless be required to file an information return pursuant to rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner.
(4) The income tax return shall be filed in duplicate by the following persons:
(a) A resident citizen - on his income from all sources;
(b) A nonresident citizen - on his income derived from sources within the Philippines;
(c) A resident alien - on his income derived from sources within the Philippines; and
(d) A nonresident alien engaged in trade or business in the Philippines - on his income derived from sources within the Philippines.
(5) The income tax return (ITR) shall consist of a maximum of four (4) pages in paper form or electronic form, and shall only contain the following information:
(a) Personal profile and information;
(b) Total gross sales, receipts or income from compensation for services rendered, conduct of trade or business or the exercise of a profession, except income subject to final tax as provided under thisCode;
(c) Allowable deductions under this Code;
(d) Taxable income as defined in Section 31 of this Code; and
Having the backing of the spirit of RA 11213, the letter from the Regional Director, BIR Form No. 0605 and Agreement Form, I proceeded in paying the amnesty tax due.
All of these documents are now in the control and possession of the Respondents but again, they were ignored as if they are either unimportant to my case or inexistent.
In response to the current BIR letter in which the Respondents insisted that I should be signing the Waiver of Prescription in order that my Request for Reinvestigation shall become valid and binding as well as must submit my proofs at the time prescribed by the Tax Code, I say that due to their malicious inaction and per RA 11213, my Tax Amnesty Application is now final and irrevocable. For this purpose and again, I am submitting my Compliance Letter for RA 11213 and a duly BIR-received Claiming RA 11213’s Immunities, including their respective Annexes.
I invoke this….
Immunities and Privileges. - The tax delinquency of those who avail of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies and have fully complied with all the conditions set forth in this Act and upon payment of the amnesty tax shall be considered settled and the criminal case under Section 18(c) and its corresponding civil or administrative case, if applicable, be terminated, and the taxpayer shall be immune from all suits or actions, including the payment of said delinquency or assessment, as well as additions thereto, and from all appurtenant civil, criminal, and administrative cases, and penalties under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, as such relate to the taxpayer’s assets, liabilities, networth, and internal revenue taxes that are subject of the tax amnesty, and from such other investigations or suits insofar as they relate to the assets, liabilities, networth and internal revenue taxes that are subject of the tax amnesty: Provided, That any notices of levy, attachments and/or warrants of garnishment issued against the taxpayer shall be set aside pursuant to a lifting of notice of levy/garnishment duly issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or its authorized representative: Provided, further, That the Authority to Cancel Assessment shall be issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in favor of the taxpayer availing of the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies within fifteen (15) calendar days from submission to the Bureau of Internal Revenue of the Acceptance Payment Form and the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return. Otherwise, the duplicate copies, stamped as received, of the Acceptance Payment Form, and the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return shall be deemed as sufficient proof of availment: Provided, furthermore, That the Tax Amnesty on Delinquencies Return and the Acceptance Payment Form shall be submitted to the Revenue District Office after complete payment. The completion of these requirements shall be deemed full compliance with the provisions of this Act. Upon full compliance with all the conditions set forth in this Title and payment of the corresponding tax on delinquency, the tax amnesty granted under this Title shall become final and irrevocable.
Pursuant to Section 17, RA 11213, the coverage of the immunities shall be from the taxable year 2017 up to prior years, as to the period covered and all internal revenue taxes, as to the internal revenue taxes covered.
I request that all my existing civil, criminal and administrative tax cases, such as my failure to obey summons, file BIR Forms, settle tax obligations, comply to Letters of Authority and Mission Orders, etc., shall immediately be terminated and closed without further notice and demand.
Furthermore, the following jurisprudence must be taken importance to come up with a relevant decision.
“It is an elementary rule of construction that when the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, the law must be taken to mean exactly what it says (Banawa vs. Miranon, 97 SCRA 533). Its literal meaning should be followed (Tan Lin vs. Republic, 2 SCRA 386); to depart from the meaningexpressed by the words is to alter the statute (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, 492 SCRA 581). Equally settled is the rule that the law cannot be amended by a mere regulation. An administrative agency may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the statute being administered(Pilipinas Kao, Inc. vs. Court ofAppeals, 372 SCRA 573). It may not engraft additional non-contradictory requirements on the statute which were not contemplated by the legislature. In fact, a regulation that 'operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute is a mere nullity' (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, supra. 582). Considering that RA 9480 specifically enumerated the persons and cases that are not covered by the Tax Amnesty Law, those enumerated therein cannot be enlarged or restricted by a mere Revenue Memorandum Circular. Otherwise, the Revenue Memorandum Circular will alter the statute it seeks to implement. Second, under Section 2(a) of Revenue Regulations 17-86, a "delinquent account" is defined as the amount of tax due on or before December 31, 1985 from a taxpayer who failed to pay the same, within the time prescribed for its payment arising from (1) a self assessed tax, whether or not a tax return was filed, or·(2) a deficiency assessment issued by the BIR which has become final and executory.CTA No. 7779”
On October 11, 2019, I received a Notice For Informal Conference (NIC) which is dated on _____________ and signed by the good RDO.
Two communications are attached to the NIC. The first one is a premeditatedly prepared letter named under "RESPONSE TO FINDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 228 OF NIRC OF 1997, AS AMENDED" and dated on October 11, 2019. The last one is a BIR Form No. 0605. The RDO pre-approved the said form. On the face of the said form, The RDO voluntarily inserted on the 'ATC' box, the phrase "MC031". The MC031 means a delinquent account. He also affixed his signature below this idiom, "For Payment of Deficiency Taxes From Audit/Investigation/Delinquency Accounts".
Now, These gestures lawfully confirmed that P129,862.15 is a delinquent amount pre-approved for the payment.
On November 11, 2019, the good CCD received my Request For CTD-Release. My request is for her to prepare, sign and issue a Certificate of Tax Delinquencies/Tax Liabilities (CTD).
On December 6, 2019, the CCD released the said CTD.
On February 17, 2020, the good RDO received my Request For APF-Signature. My requested is for him to sign my prepared Acceptance Payment Form (APF).
On February 21, 2020 and February 24, 2020, the good CCD and the good RDO, respectively, received my Formal Demand To Release CTD/APF.
I received a deafening reply or irrelevant reaction.
On February 21, 2020 and February 26, 2020, the good CCD and the good RDO, respectively, received my Last Opportunity Before Suits. My notice includes the ARTA’s Memorandum No. 2020-02. Such Memorandum confirms the automatic approval of all Applications that remained pending by way of following the 3-7-20 rules of the Ease of Doing Business Law.
I received a deafening reply or irrelevant reaction.
Under Section 3(a), Republic Act (RA) No. 11213, the term ‘BASIC TAX ASSESSED’ refers to the latest assessment issued by the BIR against the taxpayer. By then, I realised that the CTD issued by CCD is inappropriate to its guidelines.
On March 4, 2020, the good CCD received my Request For the Release of an Amended CTD. My request is for her to issue me an amended CTD, which must reflect the delinquency tax shown in the NIC.
I received a deafening reply or irrelevant reaction.
The Tax Amnesty Law is offering a very attractive benefits. I am very much interest to be part of its beneficiaries.
Our Supreme Court already organised a convenient structure in handling the Applications For Tax Amnesty. This fundamental will reach the goals of the Ease of Doing Business Law. Here are its six steps.
Whether or not the applicant-taxpayer is qualified to avail oneself of the tax amnesty;
Whether or not the applicant-taxpayer complied with the requirements of the tax amnesty law;
Whether or not the applicant-taxpayer paid the correct amount of amnesty tax within the period prescribed by law;
Whether or not the revenue officers involved unlawfully introduced new exceptions and conditions to the coverage of the tax amnesty law;
Whether or not the revenue officers involved unjustly neglected the terms of the tax amnesty law; and
Whether or not the revenue officers involved substituted the substance of the tax amnesty law with their judgment.
I am taking the initiative to present below, where I got these six necessary measures.
G.R. No. 167679). Contrary to respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s stance, Republic Act No. 9480 (Tax Amnesty Law) confers no discretion on respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The provisions of the law are plain and simple. Unlike the power to compromise or abate a taxpayer’s liability under Section 204 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code that is within the discretion of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, its authority under Republic Act No. 9480 is limited to determining whether (a) the taxpayer is qualified to avail oneself of the tax amnesty; (b) all the requirements for availment under the law were complied with; and (c) the correct amount of amnesty tax was paid within the period prescribed by law. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9480 which can be construed as authority for respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue to introduce exceptions and/or conditions to the coverage of the law nor to disregard its provisions and substitute his own personal judgment.
My Application For Tax Amnesty (Application), which is covered by the specified provision of Republic Act (RA) No. 11213, is manifested in a box with a checkmark. The unchecked boxes are irrelevant.
Section 17(a)
Section 17(b)
Section 17(c)
Section 17(d)
Qualifying under any of the above instances or coverages entitles an amnesty applicant to the comprehensive privileges and untouched benefits of RA 11213.
Under, Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019, the term “DELINQUENT WITHHOLDING TAX LIABILITIES FROM NON-WITHHOLDING OF TAX” per its Section 3(A)(2)is separate and distinct from the term “WITHHOLDING TAX LIABILITIES OF WITHHOLDING AGENTS ARISING FROM THEIR FAILURE TO REMIT WITHHELD TAXES” per its Section 3(D). Else, the need to separate them and then, place them into different sections of RR 4-2019 is unlawful and a waste of time, paper and money. The fundamental distinction between them is traceable from the documents that supported their existence.
Either a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD), Final Assessment Notice (FAN) or Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA), which is issued on or before April 24, 2019, or the effectivity of RR 4-2019, is sufficient to confirm the existence of the “DELINQUENT WITHHOLDING TAX LIABILITIES FROM NON-WITHHOLDING OF TAX”.
For the phrase “WITHHOLDING TAX LIABILITIES OF WITHHOLDING AGENTS ARISING FROM THEIR FAILURE TO REMIT WITHHELD TAXES”, a Notice For Informal Conference (NIC), Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) or their equivalent documents will authenticate its actuality. Neither FLD/FAN) nor FDDA is necessary to validate its occurrence. However, the presence of either a protested FLD/FAN or protested FDDA is a welcome addition.
Its Section 5(A)(4) says that in cases of applications under Section 3(D), either delinquent account or not, with or without FAN/FDDA, the Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)/Notice for Informal Conference (NIC) or equivalent document is sufficient.
Its Section 2(E) defines the term ‘WITHHOLDING AGENT’ as aperson required to withhold, account for, and remit within the prescribed period any tax imposed by the 1997 Tax Code, as amended.
RR 12-99. Notice for informal conference. – The Revenue Officer who audited the taxpayer’s records shall, among others, state in his report whether or not the taxpayer agrees with his findings that the taxpayers is liable for deficiency tax or taxes. If the taxpayer is not amenable, based on the said Officer’s submitted report of investigation, the taxpayer shall be informed, in writing, by the Revenue District Office or by the Special Investigation Division, as the case may be (in the case Revenue Regional Offices) or by the Chief Division concerned (in the case of the BIR National Office) of the discrepancy or discrepancies in the taxpayer’s payment of his internal revenue taxes, for the purpose of “Informal Conference,” in order to afford the taxpayer with an opportunity to present his side of the case. If the taxpayer fails to respond within fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the notice for informal conference, he shall be considered in default, in which case, the Revenue District Officer or the Chief of the Special Investigation Division of the Revenue Regional Office, or the Chief of Division in the National Office, as the case may be, shall endorse the case with the least possible delay to the Assessment Division of the Revenue Regional Office or the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative, as the case may be, for appropriate review and issuance of a deficiency tax assessment, if warranted.
It is imperative that the administrative penalty shall be imposed on the revenue officers involved without further hearing and demand thereof.
I culled from the relevant BIR revenue issuances that the penalty for the failure and refusal, and continue failure and refusal to conduct and conclude an audit investigation is 6-month suspension without pay.
G.R No. 185371. The persuasiveness of the right to due process reaches both substantial and procedural rights and the failure of the CIR to strictly comply with the requirements laid down by law and its own rules is a denial of Metro Stars right to due process. G.R. No. 222743. The ease by which the BIR’s revenue generating objectives is achieved is no excuse for its non-compliance with the statutory requirement under Section 6 and with its own administrative issuance.
In the parlance of the Penal Code, the infraction falls under the term ‘criminal negligence’.
CONCLUSION.
The revenue officers involved in the conduct of investigation must either be suspended for six (6) consecutive months without pay or dismissed from the government service for failure and refusal, and continued failure and refusal to perform their ministerial functions within the prescribed moments set forth by the Tax Code.
The audit-investigation shall be suspended pending the final determination of the issues presented herein and to allow the investigating or ruling body to appreciate the pieces of evidence presented.
(CTA EB Case No. 1535). Continuous practice of and act for a long period of time, unchecked and unnoticed, does not make it the law. While the Court En Banc appreciates the efforts of the CIR to comply with its mandate of tax collection, he must be reminded to exercise due diligence in the performance of his functions. Being the head of the government agency empowered to assess and collect all national internal revenue taxes, fees, and charges, and the enforcement of all forfeitures, penalties, and fines connected therewith, including the execution of judgment in all cases decided in its favor by the CTA and the ordinary courts, he must see to it that all his issuances are in accordance with the provisions of the 1997 NIRC and its amendatory laws, and that the same will be followed by no less than the officers and employees who are tasked to conduct the audit, assessment, and collection under his name.
(GR # 159694). The Philippine Government and its taxpayers must not condone errant or enterprising tax officials, as they are expected to be vigilant and law-abiding.
PRAYER.
The following are my prayers that need relevant answers.
This Honourable Office shall accept and acknowledge this document upon its presentment;
This Honourable Office shall dispense every lawful remedies that favour me;
This Honourable Office shall prepare and issue a written resolution or reply by 5 p.m. tomorrow or according to RA 11032, three days from the date of receipt of this document, whichever is appropriate.
The failure and refusal of the revenue officers involved to perform their ministerial tasks shall give due course to the preparation, and submission of a FORMAL DEMAND TO CONCLUDE AN AUDIT INVESTIGATION.
The Tax Code explicitly mandated the BIR Chief to delegate his power and authority to a subordinate, through legal proceedings, BIR issuances, etc.
The duties and functions that the BIR Chief delegated to these revenue officers form part of their daily routine and legal obligations. An obligation, as every taxpayer knows, is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do. More importantly, these regular obligations are needed to be upheld and extinguished not only to protect the interest of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines but more significantly, the welfare and rights of the taxpaying public, just like me.
This way, the acts and communications executed against their obligations do not create any legal right; much more a responsibility that is worthy of extinguishment.
Equally important, the revenue officers involved shall endeavour to implement the BIR’s policies and programs promptly, conscientiously, efficiently and effectively, and should do his part in supporting the BIR’s efforts to attain its goals and objectives.
Non-compliance therewith shall be considered as Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties and shall constitute a Grave Offense.
Article 27, Civil Code. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken
Further, the original and ministerial functions of the revenue officers involved are to strictly obey our Tax Code, jurisprudence and BIR issuances.
Our laws disfavours the non-performance of these functions.
Justice favours the right and privileges of the taxpayer when doubts exist within the implementation and interpretation of our laws.
Please read and give credence to all the footnotes because they will give anybody a divine light that will lead someone to see the lies and the truth.
According to Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 19-2015, the result of the examination shall be completed within 180 days from the issuance date of the BIR’s Letter of Authority (LoA).
The term ‘RMO’ or “Revenue Memorandum Order’ is defined, per RAO 1-2003, as “These are directives or instructions outlining procedures, techniques, methods, processes, operations, activities, work flow, and the like, which are necessary to carry out programs or to achieve policy goals and objectives. These issuances may be of general or of limited scope yet in any case require definite compliance by those concerned. They are not addressed to any particular group of employees or offices because they are for general information, but those directly concerned with the compliance of these provisions are either definitely stated, or unmistakably implied thereat.”
On January 25, 2019, I received an LoA which is dated on January 15, 2019 and signed by the good RD.
It informed me that my books of accounts and other accounting records for the taxable year 2018 are required to be assembled and presented for a regular and routine audit-examination.
Also, it requested that I permit the revenue officers whose names appeared thereon to conduct an audit-examination thereof.
Once that it is concluded, the approved result of the examination shall be given to me without delay, purpose of evasion or demand notice.
More than 180 days from the date when the LoA was issued were wasted. Still, the revenue officers involved exerted no concrete and complete efforts to hold a closing conference prior to the preparation and delivery of the ‘Notice For Informal Conference’.
RAMO 1-2000. Essential to an effective audit of internal revenue tax liabilities is the holding of a closing conference with the taxpayer before the preparation of the Final Report of Investigation by the Revenue Officer assigned to the tax case. During this time, the Revenue Officer and his supervisor explain to the taxpayer how the assessment of his tax liability was arrived at. Necessary time and patience should be devoted to a discussion of any proposed adjustments to ensure that the taxpayer has a proper understanding of the issues. Tact and discretion are required in pointing out errors in books and records in order to avoid discrediting an employee or representative of the taxpayer. If necessary, the records of the case shall be presented to the taxpayer to document the Revenue Officer’s findings. The taxpayer shall then be allowed to examine such records and to present his arguments. If the taxpayer agrees with the audit findings, he shall be made to sign an Agreement Form. If not, the Revenue Officer shall give the taxpayer enough time to document his objections to the proposed assessment.
Q. 😁What are the purposes of the Revenue Officers whose names appeared on the face of a BIR's Letter of Authority? A. 🥰 RAMO 1-2000. The purposes of auditing the books of accounts and other accounting records are (1) to ascertain the correctness and validity of entries, and (2) to determine the propriety of application of tax laws. Meaning, your GAAP-based (now, PFRS-based) financial statements, from the eyes of the Revenue Officers, are TOTALLY INCORRECT AND NOT TAX-LAW COMPLIANT. In EmelinoTMaestro's 30-year experience, your failure to align your documentation, bookkeeping and reportorial behaviour to our tax laws always resulted in getting a very BIG DEFICIENCY TAX ASSESSMENTS. Finally, in examining your books and records, our laws required these Revenue Officers to use only the Revenue Audit Memorandum Order in the conduct of their audit and investigation.
