Nagsumbong Ako Kay PNOY dahil Boss Niya Ako

BIR AUDIT SELECTION CRITERIA....NABASTOS, BINABASTOS, BABASTUSIN... HAYYYYYY!!!!

1. The efforts being exerted by the ‘IN COOPERATION OF..” agencies in curbing the graft and corruption activities are astounding.
2. However, it is yet to be felt and experienced as far as the BIR-delivery of public services is concerned.
3. The is no question that A SMALL AND SIMPLE CRIME THAT IS HABITUALLY PRACTICED NATIONWIDE BY MOST OF THE BIR FRONTLINERS AND BEING TOLERATED BY THEIR HIGHER OFFICES AND OFFICIALS IS PERCEIVED TO BE AN UNRESOLVED CRIME AND THE BIGGEST CRIME OF ALL.
4. I was a participant in the EHEM, AHA anti-corruption program where I learned that I should participate in the effort of the Philippine Government in its fight against the graft and corruption whether it is big or small.
5. Therein, I was encouraged to report to the Philippine Government even the petty crimes that I witnessed or experienced.
6. Also, I attended a seminar that was conducted by Atty Jun Alarcon who happened to be a Resident Ombudsman at the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
7. In the said seminar, I learned that his Office would act on all tips and leads even if the same is written on tissue paper that is anonymously signed or from unidentified phone caller.
8. With a new found ally in curbing a century old small and simple graft and corruption in the BIR, I consciously preached and encouraged and still am preaching and encouraging all my students and taxpayers to report to the above agencies all crimes that they come across
9. Disturbing and irritating as it is, in my cases and the cases of many taxpayers that I am helping and assisting, the reported small and simple crimes were automatically ignored, disregarded and dismissed for the reason not only that these crimes are within the exceptions to the rule but also were referred to the Office where the said crimes, in the first place, were originated and practiced nationwide. The reason of the said Office is that the the Office where the said crimes were originated and practiced nationwide would be in the best position to answer the reports of abuses. These said actions are deemed to be a death penalty for the said reports of abuses. 
10. Dismayed as I am, the teachings being propagated by the above agencies do not tally with their actions.
11. Finally, my question to the Civil Service Commission is, ‘As the implementor of the Republic Act  No. 9485, what is the feeling of not writing or answering back my LPNs?’
    

STATE OF BIR-BEHAVIOR REPORT

1. The National Internal Revenue Code or Tax Code has two hundred ninety two (292) sections. 
2. More of its two hundred (200) sections the following can be read, viz;
1. WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE
2. SUBJECT TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSIONER
3. UNDER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND STANDARDS FORMULATED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE
3. Importantly, its Section 244 says, ‘AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF FINANCE TO PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS. - THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSIONER, SHALL PROMULGATE ALL NEEDFUL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE.’

1. The term ‘RULE/S’, according to the 1987 Administrative Code includes internal rules, office memoranda such as delegation of authority to sign documents and papers that would be sent to the taxpayers.
2. The term ‘ALL’, according to the page 74, Black’s Law Dictionary, means ‘Means the whole of - used with a singular noun or pronoun, and referring to amount, quantity, extent, duration, quality, or degree’

1. For the info of the above agencies, the above substantive provisions are consciously ignored and played around by BIR-officials and officers.
2. Meaning, most of the rules are not approved, by way of signing, by the Secretary of Finance. Therefore, they are ineffective, irregular, illegal and being utilized at the expense of the Philippine taxpayers.
3. Recently, I read a decision of the Ombudsman dismissing a case that a taxpayer filed against the abusive and misbehaved BIR-officials and officers.
4. The taxpayer explained that the assessment notice issued by the said BIR-officials and officers are contrary to the facts and the laws of the State due to the fact that they consciously failed and refused and still fail and refuse to considered 20% of the homogenous evidences such as vouchers and checks that were not previously presented for the same cannot be located.
5. Despite the gallant and consistent effort from the taxpayer to have these evidences be considered, these BIR-officials and officers deliberately disregarded and ignored them as if they were non existent. This action, according to Section 11, NIRC, can be classified under malfeasance, incompetence, neglect of duty or delinquency (MIND).
6. The Ombudsman stated that the best persons to check the validity of the assessment notice is the BIR and her Office has no jurisdiction over the said assessment notice.
7. For justice and fair-play, let me express my disappointment. The assessment notice is the result of MIND, misdemeanor, gross misconduct and bad behavior which in plain and simple language, is an evidence of a crime. 
8. The very reason why a taxpayer is requesting for the attention and intervention of the above agencies is to get their help and assistance in establishing the bad behaviors of BIR-officials and officers, gather more evidences, improve the delivery of government services and if it is possible, file appropriate charges agains the BIR-officials and officers who are behaving badly.
9. I was provided by an October 24, 2012 letter which was addressed to Mario Calica and Roderick Alonzo and signed by BIR-Regional Director Nestor Valeroso, For easy reference, I scanned and copy-pasted it hereof.
10. The taxpayers were merely requesting for the audit selection criteria that were used in selecting an electronic-Letter-of-Authority recipient.
11. His answer is a world apart by way of explaining that the Revenue Audit Memorandum Order (RAMO) is an internal document that cannot be provided to a taxpayer.
12. An audit selection criteria is totally different from RAMO. The former justifies why a taxpayer should be investigated while the latter provides a BIR-officer on how a taxpayer shall be investigated.
13. Actually, his counterparts in Quezon and Manila Cities voluntarily provided the audit selection criteria that they used in preparing and issuing 2012 eLAs within their territorial jurisdictions. An August 14, 2012 audit selection criteria, as an example, which was signed by Manila City Regional Director Simplicio Madulara and approved by Commissioner Kim Henares is scanned and copy-pasted hereof.
14. For the record, these are the small and simple crimes that are pursued nationwide.
15. Is the national policy of the BIR in providing researched data, procedures and other information different from region to region? Have these people considered the constitution mandate that THE RULE OF TAXATION SHALL BE UNIFORM AND EQUITABLE.
16. I was also provided a December 11, 2012 letter from Deputy Commissioner Nelson Aspe (DCIR) which was addressed to Ms. Leticia O Tiapson. I scanned and copy-pasted it hereof for easy reference.
17. The good DCIR explained that the eLA signed and issued by Quezon City Regional Director Jonas Amora is in conformity with RMO Nos. 80-2010, 3-2011 and 4-2011 although the restrictions stated in the said RMOs showed and presented that those who shall be investigated shall be professional-individual having failed to pay an amount to 18% of their respective gross income/receipts and shall cover only the taxable years 2009 and 2010.
18. This small and simple crime of extending the coverage of an internal rule of the BIR to cover corporations and taxable year 2011 was consciously performed nationwide and this time with the consent of no-less than the top management of the BIR.
19. Moreover, defining, specifying and prescribing rules and regulations without the approval and signature of the Secretary of Finance are so prevalent and practice at the BIR as if his signature is not required by the law of the State and unimportant.
20. My one-centavo question to the good Secretary of Finance is, ‘Did you already delegate your power and authority to sign the rules of the BIR to the CIR and her subordinates? Are you aware of neglect of duty and the term ‘delegatus non delegare’?

REPORT OF ABUSE OF AUTHORITY

1. The letters of BIR-officials and officers are, in all legal purposes and intent, evidences of malfeasance, nonfeasance or misfeasance.
2. They are the result of an crime or punishable act.
3. What is being penalized is the act and not the result of the act. So, next time that a taxpayer provided the above agencies letters, notices and communications from BIR-officials and officers, I, with due respect, am requesting that they should be treated as evidences to prove that a crime is committed.
4. To show that a preliminary investigation shall be pursued is a sign that the law of the State is working for the welfare of the State. 
5. Please do not view that the purpose of the LPNs to be sent to the above agencies is to retaliate and get even to a BIR-official or other government employee. No. No. No. No. The objective is make this Philippine a better habitat not only to this generation but most importantly to the next ones.
6. I hope that I would not receive a letter stating that this LPN is good for filing purposes only or indorsed for the appreciation and appropriate actions of the “criminals”
7. If the same shall be done, the lives of all patriotic Filipinos are in the lines of tank-fires and bombardments.

For legal advise, please call Cess at 0922 801 0922 or write at Unit 419, Corporate 101, Mother Ignacia, Quezon City.

Thank you for reading this privileged communication which shall be read as the taxpayer’s personal conviction and belief.