SAMPLE ONLY. NO PROBATIVE/LEGAL VALUE.
RUSSIAN REPUBLIC
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;
‘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)
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)
