PHILIPPINES's INTERNAL REVENUE CHIEF BETRAYED THE FILIPINO PEOPLE
The formal
complaint I filed with the Office of the Ombudsman vs Kim Henares and Estela
Sales in connection with the P1.56-B tax case involving Golden Donuts, Inc.
(GDI) includes, among other issues, the following:
1.
That GDI’s duly-registered
books of accounts reflected a Net Income of P135.2-M while the tax return
reflected a Net Loss of P44.9-M.
2.
That GDI’s duly-registered
books of accounts reflected higher sales than that reflected on the tax return.
Sales
per duly-registered books was P1.928-B while per tax return was P1.031-B. A
huge discrepancy (under-declaration) amounting to P897-M.
The
SUPREME COURT ruled in the case of
Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines versus Court of Appeals, et
al., 250 SCRA 434 that “where the books of accounts reflected a Sales or
Receipts higher than that reflected in the return, the books of accounts should
prevail. This is so, because the books of accounts are kept by the taxpayer and
are prepared under its control and supervision; and they reflected what may be
deemed to be admission against interest.”
3.
Other independent relevant
documents further revealed that GDI’s sales topped P2.366-B but the amount
recorded in the duly-registered books was P1.928-B. A huge discrepancy
amounting to P438-M.
Henares and
Sales, in their counter-affidavits, and even the supporting affidavits of Atty.
Romel Curiba, RATE Team Leader, and Mr. Wilfredo Reyes, the pioneer BIR CAATTs
user, did not state any justifications or explanations to refute the
above-enumerated issues.
The
Ombudsman dismissed the case without investigating these issues scrupulously,
and without discussing the same in the dismissal resolution despite glaring
discrepancies.
The
Ombudsman also did not secure GDI tax case docket from the BIR which is very
crucial in the investigation.
No hearing
was conducted.
THE HOCUS-POCUS
Henares, in a telecast interview by GMA-7, said that
representatives of GDI complained to her that my tax assessment against the
company was faulty, that is why she had it re-investigated twice, conducted by
different groups of revenue officers who supposedly arrived at the same
results, purportedly finding my tax assessment to be incorrect. SHE LIED!!!
Just to
reiterate. The PhP 1.56 billion deficiency tax assessment against GDI obtained
finality. Thus, re-investigations are no longer warranted.
Once the
deficiency tax assessment obtained finality, the right of the government to
collect the deficiency tax becomes absolute; thus, precludes the taxpayer from
questioning the correctness of the assessment and from raising any justification
or defense that would pave the way for a re-investigation.
There is no
LAW that authorizes the Commissioner to order two (2) re-investigations of a
FINAL, EXECUTORY and DEMANDABLE assessment.
Notwithstanding
the ensuing finality of the afore-said deficiency tax assessment against GDI,
no less than the Commissioner herself allowed such re-investigations.
The “first re-investigation”, which is
no longer warranted because my tax assessment which remained undisturbed after
review and evaluation by high-ranking officers in the district and regional
levels of the Bureau and already covered by Final Assessment Notices (FANs)
bearing Demand No. 41-B072-07 and all dated October 29, 2010 obtained finality,
was assigned to Revenue Officer STANLEY
ONG, under Group Supervisor GREGORIO
S. TUMANGUIL. Mr. STANLEY ONG was
the same revenue officer who conducted the review of the case and recommended
for the issuance of the statutory notices of assessment (PAN and FANs) when he
was yet with the Assessment Division of the Regional Office in Quezon City.
I am not a lawyer though I believe
that Revenue Officer STANLEY ONG who
conducted the “first re-investigation” could no longer disturb my tax
assessment by himself for reasons of principle
of estoppel. The equitable principle of estoppel forbids the revenue
officer who conducted the “first re-investigation” from taking inconsistent
position against his concurrence to my original audit findings that culminated
in the deficiency tax assessment amounting to P1.56 billion which is already
FINAL, EXECUTORY and DEMANDABLE but which was re-investigated by no other than
him.
The result of the “first
re-investigation” conducted by revenue officers STANLEY ONG and GREGORIO TUMANGUIL, both of BIR Revenue
District Office (RDO) no. 41, Mandaluyong City, was a HOCUS-POCUS.
The “second re-investigation”, which
again is no longer necessary because my tax assessment obtained finality, was
referred to ATTY. GRACE CRUZ of the
National Investigation Division, BIR National Office in Diliman, Quezon City. I
strongly admire ATTY. CRUZ of her investigative expertise in administrative
cases. Lest I be misconstrued. I am not saying
that ATTY. CRUZ is short of proficiency in tax accounting and tax auditing. No
result of re-investigation was submitted by ATTY. CRUZ.
So, how can Henares claim that her
groups of revenue officers who conducted the two (2) separate re-investigations
came up with the same findings that my tax assessment against GDI was
incorrect?
What is
crystal clear is that, Henares deliberately deceived the FILIPINO people by making excuses to conceal the real truth about
this bigtime tax evasion case.
ON ANOTHER NOTE.
Henares and her minions claimed that
the compact disc (CD), which I presented to the RATE “Run after Tax Evaders”
team, was allegedly not compliant with
the requirements prescribed under Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 29-2002.
The RATE
coordinator, members, and Mr. Wilfredo Reyes, the pioneer CAATTs
(Computer-Assisted Audit Tools and Techniques) user, failed to consider and
evaluate the documents attached to the docket of GDI case and the findings for
deficiency tax assessment which were based on entries per duly-registered books
of accounts (hardbound computer-generated), as I have appropriately validated;
and other independent relevant documents, such as but not limited to, Franchise
Agreement; Technical Service Agreement, and other BIR returns filed by GDI,
such as: VAT returns and Final Withholding Tax Remittance Returns.
The CD,
which was neither mentioned nor objected to by GDI in its INVALID protest, is used by Henares and her minions as scapegoat in
not filing tax evasion case against GDI by claiming that said CD is not
compliant with the requirements prescribed under RMO No. 29-2002 - that it
should be properly labeled with the name of the taxpayer, taxable year and
serial no. and volume no. and signed by the taxpayer and RDO.
I pointed
out that GDI adopts a “computer-assisted accounting system” wherein it is still
required to register a “hardbound computer-generated books of accounts” which
were the bases of my audit findings. Thus, the CD, which they used as scapegoat
in not filing fraud case against GDI, need not be strictly compliant with the
requirements provided under the aforesaid RMO in regards to the markings to be
inscribed thereon.
RMO No.
29-2002 clearly provides that in case the taxpayer has no capability to submit
in CD-ROM form, procedures under the MANUAL
SYSTEM shall prevail. In other words, if the taxpayer adopts a computer
system of accounting but has no capability to integrate the different
components of accounting system (i.e., books of accounts and other related
accounting records) in a CD-ROM form, it shall still be required to register a
“hardbound computer-generated books of accounts”, as in the case of GDI.
I suggested
to the RATE team that they may recommend for the issuance of a Subpoena Duces
Tecum (SDT) to compel GDI produce its duly-registered hardbound
computer-generated books of accounts, but the suggestion was just ignored.
ATTY. HENARES, JUST SPEAK THE WHOLE TRUTH AND
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!!!
Othello Dalanon