How to prepare a Letter that would suspend a revenue officer assigned to investigate you?

Sample letter to suspend a revenue officer who is assigned to investigate your books and accounting records #Katax

"Honorable Kim Henares
Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Thru : Director Nestor Valeroso, 
Region No. 8, BIR, Makati City

Greetings.

Preamble
It shall be the duty of every Revenue District Officer or other internal revenue officers and employees to ensure that all laws, and rules and regulations affecting national internal revenue are faithfully executed and complied with, and to aid in the prevention, detection and punishment of frauds of delinquencies in connection therewith.

Case-statement
In response to my request for the issuance of Tax Clearance Certificate, Director Valeroso (Nestor) had issued an eLetter of Authority (eLA) dated August 15, 2013 authorising and assigning Mr. Rodolfo, Ms. Maria and Ms. Teresa  to examine, for the taxable year 2012-1013, my books of accounts and other accounting records.

They were expected to finish their investigation on or before February 11. 2014 or one hundred eighty (180) days from the issuance date of the above eLA.

Despite my several written and phone-call requests, the said revenue officers deliberately failed and refused and still fail and refuse to issue the necessary Report of Investigation.

Conclusion
It shall be the duty of every Revenue District Officer to examine the efficiency of all officers and employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue under his supervision, and to report in writing to the Commissioner, through the Regional Director, any neglect of duty, incompetency, delinquency, or malfeasance in office of any internal revenue officer of which he may obtain knowledge, with a statement of all the facts and any evidence sustaining each case.

“Being notoriously undesirable”, these revenue officers should be penalised. Accordingly, this Office and their superiors are required that an administrative sanction should be imposed to them without favour and flavour

Pages and Counterparts
This privileged communication has two (2) pages and five (5) counterparts.

Notice to the Office of the Ombudsman
I hereby request this Honourable Office to call a mediation conference between me and the concerned revenue officers in order to facilitate the extinguishment of their obligations to this State and stop my mental anguish that their inactions are bringing to me.

Prayer
In the name of the Almighty God, this Office is hereby encouraged to pray with me that a Preliminary Assessment Notice shall be issued within five (5) days from the receipt hereof.

It is also prayed that the penalties and sanctions shall be strictly imposed and implemented against the said revenue officers.

Finally, I pray that a reply shall be sent as soon as possible."
Bribing is not a profession. It's a curse. It's a disease.

All 2013 and 2014 accounting graduates from whatever schools, universities and colleges, you're all invited to attend the TAX ACCOUNTING COURSE 101 at Sofitel Hotel, Manila. Free of charge. Free Sofitel Snack. The price of the books shall only be your investment to yourself. Subject to change without notice/obligation. Applicable terms and conditions shall apply

Please place your Name, Email and Mobile inside the space 'Comment' hereof so that when the required number had been reached, you will be informed accordingly.

Sharing this would create a happy feelings to others.
Thanks. Salamat.

www.Facdbook.com/Kataxpayer

How BIR allegedly harassed a taxpayer (Kataxpayer Facebook)?

SAMPLE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY LEGAL PURPOSE. THIS PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION IS A PERSONAL BELIEF OF KATAX. DON'T SHARE OR DISSEMINATE ITS CONTENTS TO OTHERS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MANILA

FOR THE URGENT ATTENTION OF HONORABLE SOJ LEILA DE LIMA

NPS DOCKET # XVI-INV-11J-00380

For: Violation of Sections 254 & 255, NIRC

Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) 

Complainant, versus,

EMELINO T MAESTRO

Respondent.

x-------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

ATTEND A FREE TAX WORKSHOP AT SOFITEL HOTEL 'HOW TO CANCEL A BIR-electronic LETTER OF AUTHORITY USING ITS PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES?'

FREE SOFITEL SNACK

FREE LECTURE-WORKSHOP

FOR FREE TICKET, PLEASE EMAIL KATAX.JULIET@GMAIL.COM or REGISTER HERE http://www.emailmeform.com/builder/form/Zl0qaa3Cfu7

SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE AND OBLIGATION

TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY

CLICK IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT TO WIN A KNOWLEDGE

LEGAL PURPOSE

My objectives are

to supply the laws of the State that were deliberately skipped out

to explain the relevancy of these laws to my case

to request for the dismissal of this case for it contradicted the substantive laws

MEDIA RELEASES

On October 13, 2011, Deputy Commissioner for Legal and Inspection Group, Ms. Estela V. Sales (Estela) knowingly announced to the citizens of the Earth that based on the reports submitted and presumably approved by Commissioner Kim Henares (Kim), a tax evasion charge has been filed against me, EMELINO T MAESTRO.

To prove that this event really happened, I am submitting the following documents

BIR Weekender Brief (ending October 14, 2011) wherein Estela is spearheading the press conference and a clipping beside her picture in which the issues presumably being discussed is EMELINO T MAESTRO (Annex 3001)

BIR Media Release dated 13 October 2011 which was approved by Estela and presented EMELINO T MAESTRO as a tax evader (Annex 3002)

News clipping from www.philstar.com wherein EMELINO T MAESTRO was tagged as a tax evader (Annex 3003)

News clippings from newsinfo.inquirer.net where in wherein EMELINO T MAESTRO was tagged as a tax evader (Annex 3004)

MALFEASANCE DOES NOT BIND THE STATE

On July 15, 2010, Kim issued a Letter of Authority number 44654

In the said letter, she knowingly informed me that

under the RATE Program, I must allow the revenue officers whose names appeared therein  (assigned in Revenue District Office No. 32) to investigate my 2007, 2008 and 2009 books of accounts and other accounting records.

a report of investigation shall be supplied to me once she already approved it.

On April 27, 2012, she deliberately issued a BIR Ruling of First Impression numbered M-043-2012 which says that ‘Based on the above provisions, Commissioner of Internal Revenue has a basis and authority to issue LOA (now, eLA). Accordingly, Letter of Authority No. 44654 dated July 15, 2010 is valid’ (Annex 3005).

Under Section 6(A), Kim is authorized to assigned revenue officers to investigate taxpayers’ returns and records.  And, in my case, she knowingly assigned five (5) revenue officers having a rank lower than a division chief.

Clearly, she laid down her legal obligations that can be summed up as follows, viz;

First, there will be an investigation of my books of accounts and other accounting records which for the record, are in the control and possession of her Officer prior to the filing of criminal charge against me.

Finally, she obligated herself to inform me by way of issuing/submitting to me a duly approved report of investigation.

For the record, the report of investigation, which sometimes is attached and form an integral part of the Notice for Informal Conference,  is yet to be prepared and issued.

To prove it, I quote the statement of her subordinate, Manila Regional Director Simplicio A Madulara, pursuant to his February 29, 2012 letter to me, “With respect to the Notice for Informal Conference, Preliminary Assessment Notice  and Final Assessment Notice, it is informed that these notices are yet to be issued to you as your 2007 audit case is still on-going with Revenue District office No. 32.” (Annex 3006)

NO OFFICIAL CAPACITY

Where did Neil Cordero (Neil) and Eulema DV Demadura (Eulema) who were both assigned at Special Investigation Division of Revenue Regional Office No. 6 and not at Revenue District Office No. 32 get their official capacity and authority to investigate me?

Until now, Neil and Eulema knowingly failed and refused and still fail and refuse to produce a Letter of Authority which would confirm and affirm that they are first authorised and empowered by Kim to investigate my 2007, 2008 and 2009 tax returns and records.

How did Neil and Eulema (on October 13, 2011) arrive at their alleged deficiency VAT and income tax assessments when the investigation on my books of accounts and other accounting records is still on going as at February 29, 2012?

Therefore the figures that Neil and Eulema produced and submitted to this Honorable Office are incorrect/bogus and did not undergo the prescribed procedures that Section 269(D), NIRC is obliging them to do, viz;

“Violations Committed by Government Enforcement Officers. - Every official, agent, or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or any other agency of the Government charged with the enforcement of the provisions of this Code, who is guilty of any of the offenses herein below specified shall, upon conviction for each act or omission, be punished by a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) and suffer imprisonment of not less than ten (10) years but not more than fifteen (15) years and shall likewise suffer an additional penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office, to vote, and to participate in any public election: xxx (d) Offering or undertaking to accomplish, file or submit a report or assessment on a taxpayer without the appropriate examination of the books of accounts or tax liability, or offering or undertaking to submit a report or assessment less than the amount due the Government for any consideration or compensation, or conspiring or colluding with another or others to defraud the revenues or otherwise violate the provisions of this Code”

DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN VIOLATED

I had been deprived of the DUE PROCESS.

Aside from the eLA, no other document from the time that I received it until DCIR Sales, on October 13, 2011, made her quad-media releases was deliberately served to me. 

Contrary to the statements, information and promises stated in the said eLA, Kim, Sales, Neil and Eulema did not even

 bother to use/look at my books and other accounting records

 conduct a thorough audit/investigation thereon

 provide me a copy of the alleged Kim-approved report of investigation

I just learned that I have an outstanding deficiency income tax and value added tax liabilities through televisions, newspapers, radios and BIR website.

I was deprived to know how did Neil and Eulema come up with the amounts of deficiency income and value added taxes.

Although the Record/Report of Investigation (ROI), pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Order No. 53-2010 (Annex 3007) is considered as an official document and its contents are prohibited to be disclosed, divulged and discussed to any person other than those directly concerned thereto, the quad-media and the millions viewers/listeners/readers of TV/radio/newspapers/BIR Media Release were the first to know that the record/report of investigation is already prepared, reviewed, approved and released. Clearly, the substantive law was deliberately violated which for quick reference is published hereunder, viz;

 Section 270, NIRC. Unlawful Divulgence of Trade Secrets. Any officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue who divulges or makes known in any other manner to any person other than the requesting foreign tax authority information obtained from banks and financial institutions pursuant to Section 6(F), knowledge or information acquired by him in the discharge of his official duties, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), or suffer imprisonment of not less than two (2) years but not more than five (5) years, or both.

It is a sign of respect and obedience to the laws of the State that before the report of investigation, if it is really Kim-approved, shall be leaked to the quad-media, I should first be advised of its existence and contents.

 According to BIR prescribed/legal proceedings that is Revenue Memorandum Order No. 27-98 (Annex 3008), no Report of Investigation shall be approved unless the taxpayer is given the chance to be informed of the nature of the findings and the result of audit. 

 They knowingly humiliated me in the eyes of the public.

 Their real purpose might be to inflict lasting pains and unbearable stresses..

The statement of Kim that I shall be informed of her duly approved report of investigation was deliberately ignored, disregarded and skipped off in order to gain favorable approval from the Filipino people.

MY LEGAL DUTY

It is my duty to the State and to this Office to inform them of any malfeasance, incompetence, negligence and delinquency (acronym, ‘MIND’) that willfully perpetuated by the complainants and their cohorts. For quick reference, I publish hereunder the applicable procedure, viz;

 Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc. v. Collector, 98 Phil 290. Assessments are prima facie presumed correct and made in good faith. The taxpayer has the duty of proving otherwise.  In the absence of proof of any irregularities in the performance of official duties an assessment will not be disturbed.  All presumptions are in favor of tax assessments.

The act of proclaiming to the entire world that I am a tax evader is contrary to the laws of the State and has no legal leg to stand on.

Their actions from the preparation and filing of the Criminal Complaint were consciously and maliciously planned and executed. 

My right to due process is totally disregarded.

My privacy and public image as a law-abiding citizen/taxpayer was directly attacked.

In other words, the purpose of the criminal complaint is to tarnish my character and credibility.

In making a decision to this instant case, the substantive laws as shown below should be upheld and strictly implemented, viz;

Section 11, Book 1, 1987 Administrative Code. “The State's Responsibility for Acts of Agents. - (1) The State shall be legally bound and responsible only through the acts performed in accordance with the Constitution and the laws by its duly authorized representatives, and (2) The State shall not be bound by the mistakes or errors of its officers or agents in the exercise of their functions.”

Section 39, Ibid. No subordinate officer or employee shall be civilly liable for acts done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties. However, he shall be liable for willful or negligent acts done by him which are contrary to law, moral, public policy and good customs even if he acted under orders or instructions of his superiors.

Section 8, Republic Act No. 9335. Liability of Officials, Examiners and Employees of the BIR and the BOC. – The officials, examiners, and employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs who violate this Act or who are guilty of negligence, abuses or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance or fail to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of their duties shall be held liable for any loss or injury suffered by any business establishment or taxpayer as a result of such violation, negligence, abuse, malfeasance, misfeasance or failure to exercise extraordinary diligence.

In other words, if the acts of the BIR is contrary to the law, public order and public policy, they shall not bind the State as well as the BIR and the DOJ. Neither the State can use them to create rights and impose obligations and penalties.

I publish Section 228, NIRC, in relation to the BIR Letter of Authority issued to me, viz;

 “When the Commissioner or his duly authorized representative finds that proper taxes should be assessed, he shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings: provided, however, That a pre-assessment notice shall not be required in the following cases: (a) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the result of mathematical error in the computation of the tax as appearing on the face of the return; or (b) When a discrepancy has been determined between the tax withheld and the amount actually remitted by the withholding agent; or (c) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a refund or tax credit of excess creditable withholding tax for a taxable period was determined to have carried over and automatically applied the same amount claimed against the estimated tax liabilities for the taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding taxable year; or (d) When the excise tax due on exciseable articles has not been paid; or (e) When the article locally purchased or imported by an exempt person, such as, but not limited to, vehicles, capital equipment, machineries and spare parts, has been sold, traded or transferred to non-exempt persons. The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void.”

Speaking aloud! Kim and her accomplices would justify their actions by way of saying that there is no need to issue an assessment prior to the filing of a criminal case to this Office.

Again, to refute dearly what might had been in their mind, Section 228, NIRC must be consulted and logically analyzed. And, in doing so, one can clearly identify and completely pinpoint the cases that do not need a notice of assessment. For easy reference, I publish, again, its provision hereunder, viz;

(a) When the finding for any deficiency tax is the result of mathematical error in the computation of the tax as appearing on the face of the return; or 

(b) When a discrepancy has been determined between the tax withheld and the amount actually remitted by the withholding agent; or 

(c) When a taxpayer who opted to claim a refund or tax credit of excess creditable withholding tax for a taxable period was determined to have carried over and automatically applied the same amount claimed against the estimated tax liabilities for the taxable quarter or quarters of the succeeding taxable year; or 

(d) When the excise tax due on exciseable articles has not been paid; or 

(e) When the article locally purchased or imported by an exempt person, such as, but not limited to, vehicles, capital equipment, machineries and spare parts, has been sold, traded or transferred to non-exempt persons.

For the record, my case does not fall within the purview of the above exemptions.

Finally, Philippine Supreme Court had already warned the BIR that before any criminal charge shall be filed, a notice of deficiency tax assessment should first be delivered to me, viz; 

“An assessment fixes and determines the tax liability of a taxpayer. As soon as it is served, an obligation arises on the part of the taxpayer concerned to pay the amount assessed and demanded. Hence, assessments should not be based on mere presumptions no matter how reasonable or logical said presumptions may be." G.R. No. L-13656 January 31, 1962

“In order to stand the test of judicial scrutiny, the assessment must be based on actual facts. The presumption of correctness of assessment being a mere presumption cannot be made to rest on another presumption” G.R. No. 112024 January 28, 1999

The above substantive law would encourage this Office that indeed, the due process had deliberately been disrespected.

Twice, the NIRC said, viz;

“he (BIR Commissioner) shall first notify the taxpayer of his findings”

“The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void.”

Until now, I have yet to receive the so-called deficiency VAT and income tax assessments.

Since there is a deliberate failure/refusal to serve them to me, the deficiency tax assessment notice/s that was/were submitted and became an integral part of the Criminal Complaint Affidavit is void ab initio.

If the legal basis or foundation of the said Affidavit is void ab initio, the Affidavit is also void ab initio.

MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION AND REASSIGNMENT

I heard that my case was already reassigned to another Prosecuting Attorney. However despite one (1) Motion For Speedy resolution and four (4) Motions for Reinvestigation and Reassignment had been filed as early as February 14, 2012, the schedule of hearing is yet to be received.

For the records, all files, motions, notices and communications that I already submitted to this Office shall form a part hereof and be harmonized thereto in order to produce a system or position which should favor me or my case.

CONCLUSION

The acts perpetuated knowingly by the complainant revenue officers are contrary to laws of the State.

Since it is contrary to the laws of the State, they are not binding and enforceable against the State.

The State shall consider it as a mere scratch paper.

Without conducting a preliminary investigation, the case may be dismissed

PAGES AND COUNTERPARTS

As a privileged communication, this has 6 pages and 6 original counterparts.

COPY CIRCULATED

In aid of legislation, a copy shall be sent to Chair., Ways and Means, House and Senate. To investigate administratively the concerned revenue officers, a copy shall be sent to the President of the Philippines. To investigate cases other than administrative in scope, a copy shall be sent to the Executive Justice, Court of Tax Appeals. The copy of Neil/Eulema and Hon SOJ Leila De Lima shall be delivered personally.

PRAYER

In the name of the Almighty God, I humbly pray and move that the FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE shall be consistently applied and this framed-up case shall, based on the above explanations and corresponding evidences, be dismissed accordingly.

VERIFICATION

I aver and assert that 

I cause this to be prepared

I did read and knows its contents 

the allegations herein are true and correct of my own knowledge. 

SIGNATURE

Emelino T Maestro

TIN 129 596 230

Mobile 0998 979 3922 

Unit 419, Corporate 101, Mother Ignacia, Quezon City

To valid and enforceable, all notices, orders, resolutions, affidavits, annexes, evidences and other communication shall be sent either via registered mail or personal delivery at the address presented below my name. 

It is legally agreed and accepted that my actual receipt thereof shall be the reckoning moment where the rights and obligations shall begin to run or are created and the principle of estoppel shall be an irrelevant/inadmissible justification.

CERTIFICATION 

I hereby certify that I have personally examined the signatory hereof and I am satisfied that he fully understands and voluntarily executed this.

JURAT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME

SUCCESS STORY: former Janitor to Millionaire Tax Consultant (TAXNOCRAT)

SUCCESS STORY: former Janitor to Millionaire Tax Consultant

The person wearing an orange T-shirt is Eric and beside him, of course, it's me -Katax or Kataxpayer.

Katax cannot help but to be Proud of the achievement that Eric had already reached. 

As lowly ranked Janitor at the PGH, he dreamt that he wanted to be a Certified Public Accountant (different from the current cpas [Copy-Paste Accountants], Ha! Ha! Joke only.). With tenacity and determination, he already reach his goal.

During the 'HOW TO CANCEL an eLA Using the BIR-prescribed Procedures?' workshop, he emphatically encouraged all the participants to think different (Motto of Steve Jobs, Founder of Apple {iPhone}) and not just be contented with the common solution being offered by lawyers and cpas that is Fixing.

He emphasised, "Learn and timely apply the laws of this Land because it would save taxpayers from bribing BIR officials and hiring incompetent consultants."

Recently, he is talking big of his experience that is he had cancelled an eLetter of Authority somewhere in the Visayas Region and as a token of gratitude, the now stress-free owner of the said business had provided him a free use of a brand new, top of the line Mitsubishi Montero.

He thanked Katax for the knowledge and knowhow that the latter imparted to him.

Katax, 'Eric, well-done. Keep enriching yourself by way of empowering the Visayans'

Would you like to be the next "TAXNOCRAT"? 

FOR UPCOMING EVENTS
www.Facebook.com/Kataxpayer
katax.juliet@gmail.com
Manila Office 921 6107/439 3918
text 0922 801 0922/0998 979 3922

Salamat🚮🚭

SUCCESS STORY: Alliance and Acceptance ... TAX PARNERSHIP

SUCCESS STORY: Alliance and Acceptance

From left, Faith, Gina, Katax, Cres and Kim (not from the BIR) are shown in this photo.

Faith and Kim own a 7-Eleven Store, Gina is in the CPA activity while Cres has fishpond owner and bookkeeping firm. 

For the past four (4) years, their presence in almost all of Katax's courses, workshops, seminars and trainings can be felt, seen and heard.

Thereat, a friendship developed and became a business partnership. Now, they have a very specific market target that is the insurance agents and companies.

Yes, they are now conducting their own seminars and lectures on topics related to business registration, bookkeeping and taxation. These acts gave them opportunities to earn more and beyond the life of comfort.

Nothwithstanding that Faith had singlehandedly cancelled the BIR P1 million deficiency assessment that was issued against her own company by way of using the knowhow that Katax taught her.

Would you like to be a TAXPRENEUR?

FOR UPCOMING EVENTS...
www.Facebook.com/Kataxpayer
email Kataxpayer.juliet@gmail.com
text 0998 979 3922
call 439 3918 or 921 6107

Salamat🚮🚭

SUCCESS STORY: from Employee-Bookkeeper to TAXPRENUER..

Alyn, as she wanted to be called, started as a very quite and unassuming student of Katax seven (7) years ago. Without saying anything, she invested a lot of cash and time to learn the business of TAX ACCOUNTING. 

Now, she has her own company employing highly trained and specialised employees. She is not a Certified Public Accountant, but, she is spending her own money to train her hired CPA as well as her other staff to help and assist her business for a moment. Because she has a pure heart, she is encouraging most of her employees to establish and operate either a Tax Consulting Firm (Katax prefers it to be called 'TAXNOCRAT' because the terms 'CPA', 'lawyer', 'bookkeeper', and 'tax consultant' are being equated to 'fixing', 'bribing' and 'lying') or a Tax Accounting Office so that many taxpayers may take advantage of the services of a competent TAXNOCRAT.

Nowadays, most of the taxpayers not only are committing the same mistakes annually but making new ones. It is nice to follow the Truth, the Way and the Light.

Are you ready to be the next TAXPRENEUR?

FOR UPCOMING EVENTS
www.Facebook.com/Kataxpayer
email - katax.juliet@gmail.com
call - 921 6107
text - 0998 979 3922

Salamat! Maraming Salamat for reading & sharing this on the wall of your Facebook account

University's Thesis and Feasibility Study for Students

"What a College/University Student Must Learn and Apply?"
www.Facebook.com/Kataxpayer

A Professor from a very prestigious College/University invited Katax to be a member of the Panel of Judges. Part of his moral duty not only to this State but also to the said School is to triple-check if the concerned students are ready to the real world of business.

As its member, Katax was told not to exercise 'pity' for it would only give a disservice to the group of graduating students. Meaning if Katax would pass them although in his subconscious, they miserably failed the exercise that is Whether or Not the Feasibility Study that they made for the past 3 months is really feasible, he would committing a gross misconduct against the Republic of the Philippines. Thus, in his conscious mind, it is proper and appropriate to give either a 100% or a zero (0) mark.

All the feasibility studies were well prepared, properly bound, and eloquently presented.  However, Katax is really shocked and unbelievably surprised. It is heartbreaking to note that the concerned students depressingly failed to come up with the fighting financial statements that would guarantee and seal the feasibleness of their studies. (This is non-negotiable for Katax had already been advised by the said Professor)

Moreso, most of them did not consider at all the legal requirements in pursuing these studies if they would be bringing them into the real world. Neither, knowingly take the implication of taxation thereto.

DON'T YOU WORRY, you are not alone.

This State is suffering from the unfathomable graft and corruption and sky-high ignorance of the laws of this State because the laws which are supposed to  knowingly be taught to all the Students of this State are deliberately being Set Aside. Meaning, after learning how to read and count, the next best thing to ingrain into the young minds is what are the laws of this State, how to interpret the laws of this State, why follow the laws of this State and how to correctly obey the laws of this State. Corporations and entrepreneurs give high regards and compensation to those who have substantial knowledge and knowhow on the matters related to Taxation and its Tax Accounting Rules.

Kataxpayer or Katax is writing this to inform these students that the services of a professional adviser having 30 year actual experiences in matters related to taxation and accounting are available for a simple fee.

Finally, ETM or Katax is enjoining all the college/university students to take first a crash course in taxation and its tax accounting rules so that they can have a Solid chance of passing the said exercise (thesis, feasibility study, etc) which in the real life is a real story.

If you're the said student who needs the expertise of Katax and his group so that you would be sure that your would pass the 'taxation and accounting' phase of your education endeavour, then please contact his Office now.... 439 3918 or text name, email and concerns to 0998 979 3922

Be a Nation-builder & Share this on your Facebook account.

PS. It is too damaging and dangerous (civilly and criminally) to know the real thing when it is already exploding on your Face. A little investment would save your face and may control, limit or eliminate the unwanted things to happen.

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT, SAMPLE ONLY (FOR YOUR EYES ONLY)

SAMPLE ONLY. NO PROBATIVE/LEGAL VALUE.

RUSSIAN REPUBLIC

FEDERAL TRIAL COURT

KREMLIN, DONUT, FACTORY

PEOPLE OF THE RUSSIA,

PLAINTIFF,

-versus-

EMELINO T MAESTRO,

ACCUSED

x-----------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF EMELINO T MAESTRO

The person examining me is Atty. Jesus Christ with law office address at 168 Dunking, Donut, Factory. The examination is being undertaken at the same office address.

I am fully aware that my answers to my counsel’s questions are made under the penalty of perjury.

The pronoun ‘I, my, mine and me’ shall refer to the Accused.

OFFER OF TESTIMONY:

That my testimony is being offered:

To establish the identity of the person who is the subjected of herein criminal complaint;

To identify a documentary evidence that is material and relevant in herein case;

To prove that at the time of preparing, signing, and filing of the Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122, the accused has no evil intention and sick-motives to knowingly dishonour/discredit the  image, character and reputation of the complainant; 

To demonstrate that the objective of Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 (as stated in its Preamble) is to bring justice, fair-play and transparency as well as expose, express and explain the malfeasant, misfeasant and nonfeasant actions knowingly executed by the concerned IRS Officials; and

To confirm that the use of Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 as the primal evidence of the private complainant is contrary to law, public order, good moral and public policy.

DIRECT TESTIMONY: 

The ensuing questions and answers shall constitute my direct testimonies in herein proceedings, thus:

QUESTION (Q; ATTY. CHRIST): In what dialect would you like to be asked?

ANSWER (A; EMELINO T MAESTRO): In English language, Sir.

Q: Will you please state before this Honorable Court your name and other pertinent circumstances?

A: I am Mister Emelino T Maestro, of legal age, Filipino citizen, married and with postal address at Mother Ignacia, Cessna City. I am a Certified Public Accountant, an author of various tax books, a resource speaker, lecturer, management and financial adviser, tax consultant and professor. Moreover, I am also the Founder of Tax Accounting Society and Auditor Ng Bayan (an Compliance-accredited Corruption Prevention Unit) which are now both inactive.

Q: Do you recall why you visited the Regional Director’s Office, County No. 168, Internal Revenue Service, Cessna City; the Office of the Commissioner, National Office, Internal Revenue Service, Cessna City; and the Bureau of the Compliance, Cessna City, on June 21, 2123 and the office of the private complainant (Putin Maypanting Itim) which is the Legal Division, County No. 168, Internal Revenue Service, Cessna City on August 12, 2123?

A: I knowingly visited the Regional Director’s Office and the Office of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of the Compliance on June 21, 2123 in order to extinguish my legal obligations to my then-client, Wishmolang Russian Company (Wishmolang) and moreover, to comply with the mandate of the laws of the State that is  to inform the higher ups of the private complainant and the Compliance of what is perceived to be the malicious acts of concerned IRS officials. Finally, I, after consciously considering the right of the private complainant to have access to the contents of my Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 (Annex 1), also visited his office and filed it thereat on August 30, 2123.

Q: Aside from serving personally your Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 to the Bureau of the Compliance, Office of the Official Manager, Office of the Regional Director, IRS Region No. 7, Cessna City and Office of the Chief Legal Division, IRS Region No. 7, Cessna City, had somebody else received directly from you a copy  of your Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122?

A: I did not furnish, neither supply, anyone other than the Offices of the persons that you mentioned.

Q: Why did you not personally provide the (1) Compliance, (2) Official Manager, (3) Regional Director of IRS Region No. 7, Cessna City and (4) Chief Legal Division of IRS Region No. 7, Cessna City a copy of your Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122?

A: Because of the bureaucratic complexities, their respective Offices  had assigned a regular employee whose regular and legal obligation is to accept and receive all the letters, protests, petitions, etc that are being filed/submitted by the taxpaying public/persons. The said employee would not allow you to have such letters, protest, petitions, etc to be filed to and accepted/received by their respective superiors/bosses for they would be charged of DERELICTION OF DUTY. Thus, to follow their Office’s prescribed procedures, I have to bring my communications directly to the person who official duty is to accept and receive the same.

Q: You stated that you prepared, signed and filed the Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 in extinguishing your legal obligations to Wishmolang and in complying with the laws of the State, would you please state what are these obligations and what laws of the State are you referring to?

A: According to my contract with Wishmolang (Annex 2), the following are my obligations to it, thus.. (1) To cancel the subject matter [IRS Letter of Authority Numbered 168168 dated January 22, 2123 TY 2122] or (1) To verify the veracity of IRS assessments if such conforms with the procedural due process and are supported by laws and facts, (2) To gather information and evidences through legal researches in order to support the company’s factual and legal position on matters related to the subject, (3) To represent the company before the IRS on matters pertaining to the subject, and (4) To make ourselves available for routine consultation on matter related to the subject. Furthermore, Republic Acts No. 6770, 6713, 9485, and 8424, 1987 Administrative Code and New Civil Code are encouraging and enjoining the inhabitants of the Republic of the Russia to inform and involve the superiors of errant and enterprising tax officials so that these superior officers may act on time and correct the acts of those errant and enterprising tax officials. Finally, I just followed the order of the Russian Supreme Court in preparing, signing and filing my Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 to the already mentioned offices as I quote its wisdom “Tax laws are civil in nature. Under our Civil Code, acts executed against the mandatory provision of law are void, except when the law itself authorizes the validity of those acts. Failure to comply with Section 228 [NIRC] does not render the assessment void, but also finds no validation in any provision in the Tax Code. We cannot condone errant or enterprising tax officials, as they are expected to be vigilant and law-abiding.”

Q: So based on your written contract with Wishmolang, you represented Wishmolang before the IRS?

A: Because contracts, if their provisions are not contrary to the laws of the State and would not create damages to any party, form part of the legal system of the Republic of the Russia, I am obliged to represent Wishmolang before the IRS. I have no choice to speak of. Yes, Sir.

Q: Because of the Russian Supreme Court’s order that says, “We cannot condone errant or enterprising tax officials, as they are expected to be vigilant and law-abiding.”, you prepared, signed and filed your Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 to the first-mentioned offices?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: What is/are your purpose/s in preparing and signing your Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122?

A: I made it clear to its recipients that my objective is “The essence is to bring justice, fair-play and transparency as well as expose, express and explain the malfeasant, misfeasant and nonfeasant actions knowingly executed by the concerned IRS Officials.” as the same is shown in its Preamble, 1st page. For this purpose and for the record, I quote  the statement that can be found on page 948, Criminal Law, Book Two, 16th edition, 2006, Luis B. Reyes, “In Libel, it is essential that the intention of the offender in publishing the libellous matter was to discredit or dishonour the person allegedly libelled. If the matter charges as libellous is only an incident in an act which has another objective, the crime is not Libel.”

Q: Are you a IRS-accredited Tax Agent?

A: It is my conviction and belief that from 2122 up to the time that the IRS implemented the new procedural requirements of accrediting Tax Agents, yes, Sir.

Q: What is/are your basis/bases of being a IRS-accredited Tax Agent?

A: I can no longer locate my Tax Agent application form and its attachments but I offer the original letter of Atty Toyo Atsuka, Chief, Legal Division, Region No. 6, Internal Revenue Service, Cessna City dated February 27, 2009 stating among others that he signed my application and referred it to the National Accreditation Board (Annex 3). Accordingly, I explained in my Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 that there are two laws which would support my contention, namely... (1) Section 18, Book VII, Non Expiration of License, 1987 Administrative Code. -Where the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license shall not expire until the application shall have been finally determined by the agency, and (2) Section 9, Automatic Extension of Permits and Licenses, Republic Act No. 9485. -If a government office or agency fails to act on an application and/or request for renewal of a license, permit or authority subject for renewal within a prescribed period, said permit, license or authority shall automatically be extended until a decision is rendered on the application for renewal. Provided, That the automatic extension shall not apply when the permit, license, or authority covers activities which pose danger to public, health, public safety, public morals or to public policy including, but not limited to, natural resource extraction activities. These are my legal justifications for claiming that before the new IRS policies on accrediting Tax Agents have been implemented (by the generosity of the laws of the State), I was once a IRS-accredited Tax Agent. Finally as far as Tax-Agent-perjury is concerned, the Department of Justice per its Resolution to 168 888 248 had already acquitted me, viz; “Nonetheless, respondent’s Legal Penal Complaint Notice does not contain any allegation that he is in fact accredited. He only propose that based on the documents he submitted to the IRS, he should be considered accredited. A condition of law, hence, not per se perjurious.”

Q: Do you know the private complainant, Mr. Putin Maypanting Itim? 

A: I don’t know him personally, Sir.

Q: As far as you know, what are the official duties and legal obligations of the private complainant?

A: I know him as the Chief, Legal Division of Region No. 7, Internal Revenue Service and among his duties are inscribed in Section 11, National Internal Revenue Code, as amended (NIRC). -It shall be the duty of every Revenue District Officer or other internal revenue officers and employees to ensure that all laws, and rules and regulations affecting national internal revenue are faithfully executed and complied with, and to aid in the prevention, detection and punishment of frauds of delinquencies in connection therewith and in Section 228, NIRC. -The taxpayers shall be informed in writing of the law and the facts on which the assessment is made; otherwise, the assessment shall be void. Accordingly, the Secretary of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Official Manager, specifically and strictly obliged him, pursuant to Revenue Administrative Order No. 10-2000 (Annex 4), to do/extinguish the following, viz; “(1) Administer regional plans, activities, standards, and other measure necessary to implement the legal prescribed by the National Office; (2) Ensure the uniform application of tax laws, regulation and court decisions; (3) Prepared and issue legal opinions based on established precedents and elevate to Legal Services cases for rulings or opinions which involve national policies or where there are no established precedents; (4) Process claims for tax credits/refund within its jurisdiction involving erroneous or illegal collection of taxes and protests involving questions of law and recommend appropriate action for approval of the Commissioner or duly authorized representative; (5) Evaluate offers of compromise settlement of assessments involving legal issues within its jurisdiction and make recommendations for approval of the Regional Evaluation Board; and (6) Assist in the conduct of hearing of administrative charges involving illegal enrichment cases against regional personnel and violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Q: Having said so, is it safe to say that he has no power and authority to assess and collect any internal revenue tax?

A: That is an understatement, Sir. He is playing a very material and relevant role in the assessment and collection of internal revenue taxes. As you already know, Sir, the Russian Constitution has already stated that THE RULE OF TAXATION MUST BE UNIFORM AND EQUITABLE which in my own understanding is that there must be a written-uniform rule before an assessment and collection of taxes shall knowingly be pursued. Since my Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 raised factual and legal issues, I am engaging and enjoining him and his Office to resolve the said legal issues. These legal issues are (1) the irregularity of the IRS-letter of authority wherein the power to assess a tax originated and (2) the request for him to provide and supply not me but through me, the Wishmolang, the legal basis in assessing and collecting taxable year 2005 withholding taxes. These acts/things are within the armpits/jurisdiction of the Legal Division. Regional Offices, Internal Revenue Service. He is there, pursuant to Revenue Administrative Order No. 10-2000, to be the last resort of a taxpayer in cases that the latter feels and thinks that an abuse of power/authority in the assessment and collection of taxes has consciously been performed.

Q: What does the acronym ‘CLD’ refer to?

A: Chief Legal Division, Sir.

Q: Does it refer to the private complainant, Mr. Putin Maypanting Itim?

A: Generally speaking, Sir, it refers to all Chiefs Legal Division and not exclusively to the private complainant. However, in my Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122, there are two (2) CLDs, namely Putin Maypanting Itim and  Pwet Punas.

Q: In your statement ‘Evidences on records showed that the RDO, GS, RO, CLD, CAD and RD had no official orders from the SOF which expressed and explained that the 2005 withholding taxes presumably determined using the jeopardy assessment is not included in the immunities provided by RA 9480 (Tax Amnesty Law)’, is the term CLD referred to the private complainant?

A: No, Sir. It refers to CLD Pwet Punas as I stated in item 5, IV. PROPOSED CONCLUSION, my Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122.

Q: In your statement, ‘Clearly, the 2005 withholding deficiency tax assessment is unacceptable and illegal because it failed not only to follow the above jurisprudence but also, most importantly, the acts of RO, GS, RD, RDO, CAD and CLD violated the IRS internal rules and guidelines as shown below: a.] RMC 48-90 - Issuance of a deficiency tax assessment without verification of the taxpayer’s records is illegal and b.] RMO 16-80 - Jeopardy or table assessment should never be resorted to and report of investigation should be supported by documentary evidences and authorities.’, is the acronym ‘CLD’ meant for the private complainant?

A: No, Sir. It refers to CLD Pwet Punas as I stated in item 5, IV. PROPOSED CONCLUSION, my Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122.

Q: What do you consider your Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122?

A: It is an official document intended for the use of the Internal Revenue Service.

Q: What does the term ‘official document’ mean?

A: According to Revenue Memorandum Order No. 53-98 (Annex 5), in relation to Section 270, NIRC, all official document may not be removed or used for personal purposes without securing first the written approval form the proper authority. For conveniency, I copy-pasted Section 15, RMO 53-98, viz; “(A.) All records and documents in the custody of revenue officers and employees are in their custody for official purposes only. It is unlawful to remove or conceal, alter, mutilate, obliterate, or destroy records or documents or to remove with intent of performing any of the above action. Employees must not remove records and documents from official files without approval from proper authority. Working papers, copies of reports and other official records and documents shall be promptly sent to file when no longer needed for official purposes. Disposal or destruction of records and documents is to be made in accordance with established requirements, and (B.) Employees shall be held responsible for the loss, disappearance, or theft of official documents when attributable to negligence or carelessness. Employees are cautioned against leaving official documents unprotected in automobiles, leaving them in public conveyances, in rest rooms, in taxpayer’s offices, etc. Recovery of documents may no necessarily be a mitigating circumstance after the loss.

Q: The term ‘proper authority’ refers to whom?

A: According to Section 7, NIRC, the term ‘proper authority’ refers to  the Honorable Official Manager 

Q: Okay. If the official documents such as your Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 was used other than for official purposes only, what would happen to the documents?

A: The unlawful use of a public/official document that is for personal purposes shall make the said document spurious or illegally acquired. Because private complainant used a IRS’s official document for personal purposes, then, it may be concluded that his primal evidence is unlawful.

Q: What was really your intention when you wrote and submitted the subject communication to the Bureau of the Compliance?

A:  I wrote and submitted my Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 to the Bureau of the Compliance in compliance with Republic Act No. 6770 and the National Policy ‘Magsumbong sa Compliance” as well as to double check if the specified and prescribed procedures of the Internal Revenue Service are being diligently applied by the concerned revenue officers. Moreover, it is written on the face of the said communication my objective that is “The essence is to bring justice, fair-play and transparency as well as expose, express and explain the malfeasant, misfeasant and nonfeasant actions knowingly executed by the concerned IRS Officials.” 

Q: What was really your intention when you wrote and submitted the subject communication to the Internal Revenue Service?

A: I wrote and submitted my Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122 to the following offices, namely (a) Office of the Regional Director, IRS Region No. 7 (b) Legal Division, of IRS Region No. 7 and (c) Office of the Official Manager, IRS National Office to propagate the following, viz; “The essence is to bring justice, fair-play and transparency as well as expose, express and explain the malfeasant, misfeasant and nonfeasant actions knowingly executed by the concerned IRS Officials.” which is clearly and completely stated on the face of the said communication.

Q: In your Legal Petition Notice dated January 1, 2122, you mentioned, ‘The Respondent, being rumored to be one of the brightest legal minds in the IRS, had shown ‘dense and dull’ in this instant case.’, what does the term “dense and dull’ mean to you?

A: I invented the word “dense and dull’ by combining the words ‘dense’, ‘and’ and ‘dull’ and enclosing them with open and close quotations. This word ‘dense and dull’ means “PUNUNG PUNO NG INIISIP KAYA NAHIRAPANG UMUNAWA.”

Q: How did the complainant arrive in thinking and describing the term ‘dense and dull’ as similar to the term ‘stupid’?

A: From the surrounding circumstances, I believe, this is how Putin Maypanting Itim arrive at his definition for the term ‘dense and dull’, viz;

First, he divided the term ‘dense and dull’ into ‘dense’ and ‘dull’ (two terms)

Second, for the term ‘dense’, using a computer and its internet connection, he googled it

Third, from the millions of websites that offer numerous synonyms for the term ‘dense’, he chose ‘http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/dense/“

From the said website, he picked up its synonyms, viz;

having the constituent parts massed or crowded together; 

close; 

compact; 

thick; 

containing much matter in a small space; 

heavy; 

opaque; 

as, a dense crowd; 

a dense forest; 

 a dense fog.

 stupid; 

 gross; 

 crass; 

 as, dense ignorance.

Fourth, from the above list of possible meanings of the term ‘dense’ he picked up what he thinks and believes would benefit him that is the term “stupid” which is in the eleventh (11th) place from its nearest common meaning.

Q: Do you have proof that would support your contention?

A: For this purpose, I used a computer and its internet connection. Then I typed on its browser the term ‘dense definition’. Then, twenty two million one hundred thousand (22,100,000) websites appeared. All of these websites offered a definition for the term ‘dense’ (Annex 6).

Q: What does your exercise mean?

A: It means that the complainant, Putin Maypanting Itim, did not know the common meaning of the term ‘dense’. In fact, in his Judicial Affidavit notarised in July 30, 2011, he affirmed and confirmed that he only learned its meaning from the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms.

Q: Have you tried to look for the meaning of the term ‘dense’ in the same dictionary?

A: Yes, in fact, I tried the same research techniques that he usually does (Annex 7). I got a computer in order to connect to the website of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms. Then, I found out that the synonyms for the term ‘dense’ do not include the word ‘stupid’, viz;

compact

crowded

close

jam-packed

packed

serried

thick

tight

Q: What can you say about that?

A: The word ‘stupid’ does not really the perceived and common meaning of the term ‘dense’. And, the twenty two million one hundred thousand (22,100,000) websites that offer a meaning or definition for the term ‘dense’ are  very relevant and material evidences which tell the reader hereof that the common people, in their daily lives, do not associate the term ‘dense’ to the word ‘stupid’. It is only the complainant who is so intense to equate the term “dense” to the word “stupid”. In a democratic country, just like the Russia, the majority shall always the winner.

Q: Before going to the other issue, do you have something to add?

A: Yes, as the Annex 6 would affirm, the website ‘http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/dense/“ cannot be located from the top three (3) pages of the Google’s search engine. This would mean that the complainant, Putin Maypanting Itim, consciously had chosen a website that would suit his intriguing intentions. In my mind, this is so malicious.

Q: For the term ‘dull’, how did the complainant arrive in thinking and believing that it is synonymous with the word ‘stupid’?

A: This is how Putin Maypanting Itim arrive at his definition for the term ‘ dull’, viz;

First, using a computer and its internet connection, he googled it

Third, from the twelve million two hundred thousand (12,200,000)  websites that offer numerous synonyms for the term ‘dull’, he chose ‘http://ardictionary.com/Dull/10165' (Annex 9)

From the said website, he picked up its synonyms, viz;

slow of understanding

wanting readiness of appreciation

stupid

doltish

 blockish

Fourth, from the above list of possible meanings of the term ‘dull’ he picked up what he thinks and believes would benefit him that is the term “stupid” which is in the third (3rd) place from the perceived and common meaning of the term “dull”.

Q: What can you say about that?

A: If the complainant is truly an agent of the law because he is a lawyer, he would do the best two (2) things, viz;

First, he would go to the Russian Supreme Court’s website and not to any types of websites in order to search for the the term ‘dense and dull’ and not for the terms ‘dense’ and ‘dull’.

Lastly, he should only use one website for clarity and consistency and would not use three (3) types of websites, viz; 

‘http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/dense/“

‘http://ardictionary.com/Dull/10165'

 ‘website of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms’

Most importantly, the use of three (3) websites to locate the best-definition of the terms ‘dense’ and ‘dull’ that would suit an intriguing and personal interest is a manifestation that their meanings are not really ‘stupid’ because the perceived, standard and common meaning of a term that is usually used by Filipinos in their daily lives does not need a simple dictionary to know/apply its intended meaning.

In fact, in his Judicial Affidavit notarised in July 30, 2011, he affirmed and confirmed that he only learned its meaning from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms.

Q: Have you tried to look for the meaning of the term ‘dull’ in the same dictionary?

A: Yes, in fact, I tried the same research techniques that he usually does (Annex 8). I got a computer in order to connect to the website of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms. Then, I found out that the synonyms for the term ‘dull’ do not include the word ‘stupid’, viz;

blunt

blunted

dullied

obtuse

Q: How would it affect the case at bar?

A: The Annex 9 would affirm that the website ‘http://ardictionary.com/Dull/10165' cannot be located from the top three (3) pages of the Google’s search engine. This would mean that the complainant, Putin Maypanting Itim, consciously had chosen a website that would suit his intriguing intentions. In my mind, this is so vengeful.

Q: Do you have anything to add?

A: Yes, this Judicial Affidavit is knowingly prepared, signed and released to amend, modify, revoke and repeal all my previously released statements that directly contradict the statements hereof as well as to support and supplement other statements that may help me to bring justice in the process. To reiterate, “In Libel, it is essential that the intention of the offender in publishing the libellous matter was to discredit or dishonour the person allegedly libelled. If the matter charges as libellous is only an incident in an act which has another objective, the crime is not Libel. (page 948, Criminal Law, Book Two, 16th edition, 2006, Luis B. Reyes)”

Atty. Jesus Christ: That is all for the witness, Your Honor.

To attest my conviction and belief, I have hereunto affixed my signature this April 1, 2014 at Cessna City.

ATTORNEY’S ATTESTATION

I, Atty Jesus Christ, with office address at 168 Dunking, Donut, Factory., attest under oath as follows:

That I personally conducted, supervised, and recorded the examination of the Accused Emelino T Maestro in Criminal Case No. 168 168, entitled People of the Russia vs. Emelino T Maestro pending trial at the Federal Trial Court, Branch 2222, Cessna City and

That I faithfully recorded the questions and the corresponding answer given by accused and neither I nor any person present coached or influenced the Accused regarding his answers.

Atty. Jesus Christ

Counsel for the Accused

Avenue, Cessna City

Roll No. 367

PTR No.______________, _________________, Cessna City

IBP Lifetime Membership No. 534

MCLE V-0002305 , 15 August 2123

REPUBLIC OF THE RUSSIA)

Cessna City           ) S.S.

Subscribed and sworn to before me on the date and place above written, affiant Emelino T Maestro exhibiting to me his identification card as above appearing, as competent evidence of identity and likewise made an oath that he is fully aware that he is being examined under oath and is fully aware that he may be criminally liable for perjury or false testimony if he tells a lies or makes misrepresentation, and Atty Jesus Christ, the counsel who conducted and supervised the examination and caused the recording of the questions and answers given thereat, who presented to me his IBP identification card as competent evidence of identity, which bears his picture and signature appearing thereon, the affiant and counsel are one and the same persons who appeared before me and whose signatures in this document are the same as their signature thereon.

Witness my hand and notarial seal.

THIS CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY LEGAL PURPOSE AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS A PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. PLEASE DON’T SHARE THIS OR TALK TO OTHERS ABOUT ITS CONTENTS. ALL STATEMENTS AS THEY ARE PRESENTED HEREIN CAME FROM THE PIGMENT OF KATAX’S IMAGINATION AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE EVENTS. CALL HIS MANILA OFFICE @ 439 3918 IF YOU WANT TO BE ASSISTED IN MAKING A SAMPLE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT.

UPCOMING EVENTS
TAX ACCOUNTING COURSE (Level 101)
1. VAT-REGISTERED SMEs 
2. PEZA-REGISTERED COMPANIES
3. VAT-REGISTERED LARGE CORPORATIONS
TAX CONSULTING COURSE
1. eLa, LN and SDT (Level 101)
2. Tax Mapping, Benchmarking, Oplan Kandado and Inventory Taking (Level 102)