Warning this Penalty May Be Imposed 2 U...taxnocrat.com

BIR Compromise Penalty... >>>>>>

Free
TAX ACCOUNTING
seminar workshop

University of the Philippines

June 17-19, 2015

For details,

Call Nica​ (ETM Tax Agent Office)
439 3918 & 921 6107

Text
0922 801 0922 & 0998 979 3922

Email Emelino T Maestro​
go@taxaccountingguru.com

The original Schedule of Compromise Penalty was released in the year 1990 (RMO 1-90) and was later on amended by RMO 19-2007. Ever since, Emelino T Maestro is in the front line questioning their validity.

First, in violation of Executive Order #292, no public hearing was conducted making the original and amendatory RMOs irregular.

Furthermore, in violation of the Tax Code (National Internal Revenue Code), the BIR Chief failed and refused to have such be approved and signed by  the Secretary of Finance (SOF).

Finally, in violation of the constitutional provision, the amounts of the penalties are excessive and confiscatory.

To cover up these unjust behaviours, the Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO 7-2015) had been released without a razzle-dazzle. It is not even highlighted in the BIR website as if it is being hidden from the eyes of the taxpayers.

Notwithstanding that a 'zarsuela' public hearing had been conducted, it still contradicts the Tax Code and the Philippine Constitution.

THE FINES BEING IMPOSED ARE UNJUSTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGHER THAN WHAT THE TAX CODE SET FORTH. For example, the violation 'no entries in the books of accounts' has a minimum of 1,000 pesos to as high as 50,000 pesos. If the same violation is elevated to a regular court, the court can't imposed a fine that is higher than 1,000 pesos for such violation. Meaning, the maximum fine that the Tax Code had set forth is 1,000 pesos.

FINALLY, the FIRST RULE OF TAXATION is THE RULE OF TAXATION MUST BE UNIFORM AND EQUITABLE..... which is unjustly ignored. Giving one taxpayer a fine of 1,000 pesos and another taxpayer a fine of 50,000 pesos although they both committed the same violation at the same time at the same degree is UNJUST and clearly violates the first rule of taxation..... Sheet! this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL....

Share your personal comment and conviction hereunder....