EX-BIR HENARES CHEATED THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES BILLIONS IN TAXES
Philippine Daily
Inquirer (PDI) chair Marixi Prieto firm “Dunkin’ Donuts” is a bigtime tax
cheat. It deliberately under-declared its sales on the tax return to evade
payment of rightful taxes. It owes the FILIPINO people P1.56 BILLION unpaid tax
deficit; but former Philippines’s internal revenue chief KIM HENARES
intentionally failed to either collect it or pursue tax evasion case against
the company despite clear existence of actual fraud.
I am a former BIR revenue officer. In 2008, I was tasked to conduct an
investigation of the 2007 financial records of GOLDEN DONUTS, INC. (GDI),
the Philippines’s exclusive franchise holder of the American food brand “Dunkin’ Donuts”, for internal revenue tax
purposes, where I discovered and appropriately documented several
irregularities that culminated in the PhP
1.56 Billion deficiency tax assessment against the company.
In 2010, I personally
reported GDI’s omissions to former BIR
Commissioner Kim Henares and recommended to her the criminal prosecution of
the company for tax evasion under the much-vaunted Run After Tax Evaders (RATE) program of the Bureau; but she
intentionally failed to pursue tax evasion case against the company or enforce
the collection of the said deficiency tax, because GDI’s secretary – Ms. Marixi Rufino-Prieto who also
happens to be the Philippine Daily
Inquirer’s chairperson – is former
President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino 3rd’s friend.
Initially, she had the case evaluated by the RATE team under former Deputy Commissioner Estela V. Sales
to determine existence of fraud which resulted in the AFFIRMATIVE as relayed to me by a BIR official who requested
anonymity. My informant said that the RATE team was then already preparing the
memorandum to recommend the criminal prosecution of GDI for tax evasion but
discontinued upon instruction from a high-ranking official of the BIR whose
name my informant did not disclose.
I then conferred with former DCIR Estela Sales about the status of the case
but she told me – “assessment na lang daw kasi kaibigan ni PNoy ang taxpayer at nakakadirekta ito kay comm” (referring to
former CIR Henares). So, the case was referred to Assistant Commissioner, now
Deputy Commissioner NESTOR S. VALEROSO who
was then the Regional Director of BIR Regional Office in Quezon City.
I was also informed by my former group supervisor Mr. GREGORIO S. TUMANGUIL that Ms.
Prieto met with Mr. Valeroso and
informed the latter that she had already talked to CIR Henares about the tax
assessment against GDI and expressed that they cannot afford to lose their
franchise with Dunkin’ Donuts of
America.
Both Henares and Valeroso, who were supposed to execute
tax laws fairly and reasonably to protect the interest of the Filipino people,
deliberately failed to enforce the collection of the afore-said tax deficiency,
at least without fraud charges, giving undue advantage to the tax evader and
undue injury to the Philippine Government.
On June 24, 2013, I resigned
from the service as a result of my dissatisfaction and disenchantment with
Henares over her selective and insincere anti-tax evasion drive that spared the
said company for political patronage.
On March 17, 2014, after
several reminders sent to her and in order to protect the interest of the FILIPINO people to whom the PhP 1.56 Billion tax deficit of GDI
already legally belong, I filed administrative
and criminal charges against
Henares and Sales before the Office of
the Ombudsman; but it dismissed the case without conducting a thorough
investigation and without requiring respondents Henares and Sales to submit GDI’s
tax case docket and copy of its actual “protest”
which are necessary in the investigation.
The Ombudsman, in its dismissal resolution, did not discuss the merits
of the case and did not state the facts and law upon which the conclusion given
were drawn.
I feel in my layman’s understanding that the Ombudsman gravely erred in
dismissing the case; thus, on December
4, 2015, within the period to file an appeal, I filed a PETITION FOR REVIEW before the COURT OF APPEALS which also dismissed
the case for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the Ombudsman’s resolution.
I express my firm stance that both the Ombudsman and CA have gravely
erred in dismissing the case without fairly considering the primary and serious
issues raised in my complaint. Thus, on July
22, 2016, within the 60-day period granted by law, I filed a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI before the SUPREME COURT.
The PhP 1.56 Billion deficiency tax assessment against GDI that remained
undisturbed after review and evaluation conducted by the Assessment Division of
the Bureau’s Regional Office in Quezon City, and already covered by Formal
Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices (FANs), all bearing Demand No.
41-B072-07 and all dated October 29, 2010, and which attained finality, were my
very findings. Such findings were the product of days and nights of toil and
hard work for almost two (2) years, not to mention the pressures that I had to
endure from the outside and even from some of my superiors in the Bureau.
For doing an out-of-the-box job, I was threatened with disciplinary
action by my superiors; and for reporting irregularities, I was threatened with
criminal action by no less than former BIR Commissioner Henares herself who was
supposed to uphold an examiner’s tax assessment. May GOD help me?
HENARES’S ALIBIS TO
CONCEAL THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT DD’s TAX EVASION CASE.
1.
She claimed that my tax
assessment against DD allegedly showed inaccuracies;
2.
She claimed that the tax
assessment against DD has not attained finality; and that the function to
determine finality of an assessment is vested by law upon the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue or her duly authorized representatives;
3.
She claimed that she has no
knowledge of DD’s irregularities;
4.
She claimed that she did not
order “two re-investigations” of DD’s tax case; and
5.
Henares’s and her minions’
other “alibis” in not filing fraud case against DD by claiming that the CD
which I presented to the RATE team for evaluation was not compliant with the
requirements prescribed under RMO 29-2002.
DISCUSSED BELOW ARE HENARES’S ALIBIS IN REFUSING
TO COLLECT DD’S TAX DEFICIT AND IN NOT PURSUING TAX FRAUD CASE AGAINST THE
COMPANY:
1. On her claim that my tax
assessment against DD allegedly showed inaccuracies.
On
February 28, 2014, Henares told GMA-7 in a newscast that she had DD’s tax case
re-investigated for several times (twice), allegedly because my tax assessment
against the company showed inaccuracies. She was giving her side after the
station interviewed me.
“Pinaimbestigahan natin ng
ilang beses, at sa mga imbestigasyon na yan, lumalabas na hindi naman tama yung
assessment ni Mr. Othello [Dalanon], Henares said.”
On
March 17, 2014, I filed Formal Complaint against Kim Henares and Estela Sales
before the Office of the Ombudsman.
In the said complaint, I clearly stated my audit findings which include, among
other things, the following:
a.
That DD’s duly-registered books
of accounts (hardbound computer-generated) reflected a NET INCOME amounting to PhP
135.2-M while its AITR showed a NET
LOSS amounting to PhP 44.9-M;
b.
That DD’s sales as reflected in
the said books was PhP 1.928-B while
the total amount of sales reflected in its AITR was only PhP 1.031-B. This shows a huge discrepancy (substantial
under-declaration) amounting to PhP897-M.
[According
to the SUPREME COURT in the case of Paper Industries Corporation of the
Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et
al., 250 SCRA 434 – the books of accounts prevail over tax return when they
reflect higher sales, because they are kept and prepared under control and
supervision of the taxpayer; and they embody what must appear to be admission against
interest.]
c.
That other independent relevant
documents, such as but not limited to: Franchise Agreement, Technical Service
Agreement, and Final Withholding Tax Returns, indicate that DD’s sales topped PhP 2.366-B but the amount recorded in
its registered books was only PhP
1.928-B. This again shows an unrecorded and undeclared sales amounting to PhP 438-M.
According
to Henares, these findings were flawed that is why she had DD’s case
re-investigated for several times (twice).
However,
she and Estela Sales, in their
counter-affidavits, and even the supporting affidavits of ATTY. ROMMEL CURIBA and Mr.
WILFREDO REYES, both of the BIR national office, did not give any
justifications or explanations to dispute the above-enumerated glaring and
crucial issues.
It
is just AMAZING that despite
respondents’ failure to give rejoinders to the above vital accounts, the Ombudsman dismissed the case. Clearly,
it did not conduct a thorough investigation as it did not even require
respondents to submit DD’s tax case docket and copy of its actual “protest”
which are very essential in the investigation.
The
Ombudsman, in its dismissal resolution, did not discuss the merits of the case
and did not state the facts and law upon which the conclusion given were drawn.
2. On her claim that the tax
assessment against DD has not attained finality; and that the function to
determine finality of an assessment is vested by law upon the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue or her duly authorized representatives;
I
expressed my firm stance that the PhP
1.56-B tax assessment against DD attained finality based on the following
grounds:
a.
That DD failed to file a VALID protest against the FANs.
b.
That DD failed to submit the
required documents within the period required by law.
Henares,
in her counter-affidavit, states: “Mr. Dalanon, as then Revenue Officer, has no
authority – and could not arrogate upon himself – to decide and declare that a
certain assessment is already final, executory, and demandable. THIS IS A FUNCTION VESTED BY LAW UPON
THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE OR HER DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Henares’s
statement does not find basis in LAW.
Her claim is erroneous, because it is the LAW
that determines finality of an assessment as clearly provided under Revenue
Regulations (RR) No. 12-99 in relation to Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC, as
amended.
The
PhP 1.56-B deficiency tax assessment
against DD attained finality based on the following facts and law, and
regulations:
a. DD failed to
file a VALID protest against the Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices
(FANs).
DD’s
alleged letter of protest merely stated “protest against PAN adopted in toto”. It did not state the FACTS, the applicable LAW, RULES and REGULATIONS,
or JURISPRUDENCE on which the
protest was based. It is neither a REQUEST
FOR RECONSIDERATION nor REINVESTIGATION.
What
DD filed instead was a REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION and WITHDRAWAL of the tax
assessment. A request for cancellation
or withdrawal is significantly different from a request for reconsideration or
reinvestigation which is what the law requires.
The
rules on protesting an assessment is found in Section 3 subsection 3.1.5 of RR
No. 12-99, that reads:
“Disputed
Assessment. – The taxpayer or his duly authorized representative may protest
administratively against the aforesaid formal letter of demand and assessment
notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof.”
“The
taxpayer shall state the FACTS, applicable LAW, RULES and REGULATIONS, or JURISPRUDENCE
on which his protest is based, otherwise, his protest shall be considered VOID
and WITHOUT FORCE and EFFECT.”
“If
the taxpayer fails to file a VALID PROTEST against the formal letter of demand
and assessment notice within thirty (30) days from date of receipt thereof, the
assessment shall become FINAL, EXECUTORY and DEMANDABLE.”
The
said Regulations must be taken in relation to Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC,
which reads:
“Protesting
an Assessment. – Such assessment may be protested administratively by filing a
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION or REINVESTIGATION within thirty (30) days from
receipt of the assessment in such form and manner as may be prescribed by
implementing rules and regulations. x x x otherwise, the assessment shall
become FINAL.”
Clearly,
what the law demands is a VALID
administrative protest against the formal letter of demand and assessment
notice which required the taxpayer to comply with the following:
1. The protest must be through a
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION or REINVESTIGATIONS;
2. The protest must be in the form
and manner as prescribed under RR No. 12-99, which provides that said protest
MUST STATE the FACTS, the LAW, RULES and REGULATIONS, or JURISPRUDENCE on which
the protest is based; and
3. Must be filed within thirty
(30) days from receipt of the assessment.
The
COURT OF TAX APPEALS in the case of Allied
Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CTA Case No. 4581,
March 25, 1992), cited that, “failure to comply with any or all of these
requirements results in the assessment against the taxpayer becoming final and
unappealable.”
The
letter should not just state “protest against PAN adopted in toto” because the
administrative protest required to be filed as an answer to the formal letter
of demand and assessment notice is distinct and not the same as the protest
filed against the PAN.
The
COURT OF TAX APPEALS emphasized in
the case of Security Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
(CTA Case No. 6564, November 28, 2006) and further accentuated in the case
of Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CTA
Case No. 7397, April 9, 2008) that:
“A
protest to the preliminary assessment notice is not the same as the protest
required to be filed as an answer to the final assessment notice. In fact, a
preliminary assessment notice may or may not even be protested to by the
taxpayer, and the fact of non-protest shall not in any way make the preliminary
assessment notice final and unappealable. What is clear from 319-A of the Tax
Code of 1977, as amended, is that failure on the part of the taxpayer to
protest or reply to a preliminary assessment notice paves the way for the
issuance of a final assessment notice. However, evident under said Section (now
Section 228 of the 1997 Tax Code) is that failure on the part of the taxpayer
to fila a valid administrative protest through a request for reconsideration or
reinvestigation on the final assessment notice, shall result in the finality of
the said FAN.” (Annotation
supplied)
The
SUPREME COURT in the case of Allied
Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. No. 175097,
February 5, 2010) heightened that:
“It
is the Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice that must be
administratively protested or disputed within 30 days, and not the PAN.”
b. DD failed to
submit the required documents within the period required by law.
That
DD failed its invalid protest
against the Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notices (FANs) on November
30, 2010 but it submitted documents only on March 24, 2011. Hence, it was
already 114 days after the date of its filing of the protest.
Section
228 of the 1997 NIRC, as amended, provides:
“Within
sixty (60) days from filing of the protest, all relevant supporting documents
shall have been submitted; otherwise, the assessment shall become final.”
In
the instant case, when DD submitted documents in support of its protest, it was
already beyond the sixty (60)-day period in violation of the above-cited
provisions of the 1997 NIRC.
Either
of the above-cited grounds, the assessment against DD attained finality.
In
a meeting held sometime on April, 2011 at the National Office in connection
with the instant case which was attended to by ATTY. CLARO ORTIZ, Head Revenue Executive Assistant (now ACIR); ATTY. SIXTO DY, Chief, National
Investigation Division; ATTY. ABEGAIL
GAMBOA, Chief of Staff of DCIR Estela Sales, and myself, it was ascertained that the tax assessment has become FINAL, EXECUTORY and DEMANDABLE, in view of GDI’s failure to
comply with the requirements as prescribed. “These are scraps of paper”, that’s Atty. Ortiz saying.
Atty.
Ortiz knew so well that the PhP 1.56-B tax assessment against DD has become FINAL, EXECUTORY and DEMANDABLE.
Once the deficiency tax
assessment attained finality, it is no longer appealable; and there is now no
reason why the BIR cannot continue with the collection of the said tax.
The
above-cited grounds, were clearly stated in my Motion for Reconsideration filed
with the Ombudsman to justify the reversal of its dismissal resolution, but the
same were disregarded.
It
is just SURPRISING that the
Ombudsman dismissed the case without carefully scrutinizing tax laws, rules and
regulations.
3. On Henares’s claim that she has
no knowledge of DD’s irregularities.
Henares,
in her counter-affidavit, denied knowledge of DD’s irregularities; but admitted
that she received my audit report on 10 September 2010.
As
I said, I personally reported DD’s omissions to Henares and recommended to her
the criminal prosecution of DD for tax evasion under the much-vaunted Run After
Tax Evaders (RATE) program of the BIR.
ATTY. JETHRO M. SABARIAGA
who was then her Chief of Staff, knew very well that I personally talked to
Henares about the case. In fact, Atty.
Sabariaga first read my audit report before it was given to Henares.
“Othello, di ka ba natatakot sa ginagawa mo?”
That’s
Atty. Sabariaga asking.
To
which I replied – trabaho lang ho sir.
If
Henares didn’t know about DD’s tax case as she claimed; then, what did Atty. Sabariaga report to her after
reading my audit report? Did Atty. Sabariaga tell Henares about the filmed
story of “ASIONG SALONGA”?
It
was Henares who introduced me to then Deputy Commissioner Estela Sales to whom
the former referred the case for evaluation by the RATE team to determine
existence of fraud – “ganito ang gusto kong mga kaso!” – Estela Sales even exclaimed.
The
evaluation conducted by the RATE team to determine existence of fraud resulted
in the AFFIRMATIVE as relayed to me
by a BIR official who requested anonymity. My informant told me that the RATE
team was then already preparing the memorandum to recommend the criminal
prosecution of DD for tax evasion, but discontinued upon instruction from a
high-ranking official of the BIR whose name my informant did not disclose.
There
are documents to prove that Henares was properly apprised of DD’s tax case.
These were attached to my Formal Complaint filed before the Ombudsman and
Petition for Review with the CA.
It
is just ASTONISHING that the
Ombudsman dismissed the case without fairly conducting an investigation to
arrive at a fair and reasonable resolution.
4. On her claim that she did not
order “two re-investigations” of DD’s tax case.
Henares,
in her counter-affidavit, denied that she ordered “two re-investigations”.
However, on February 28, 2014, she told GMA-7 in a newscast that she had DD’s
tax case re-investigated for several times (twice), as the company’s
representatives complained to her that my tax assessment allegedly showed
inaccuracies.
“Pinaimbestigahan natin ng
ilang beses, at sa mga imbestigasyon na yan, lumalabas na hindi naman tama yung
assessment ni Mr. Othello [Dalanon], Henares said.”
Clearly
the former Commissioner LIED.
Just
to reiterate. The PhP 1.56-B deficiency tax assessment against DD attained
finality; thus, re-investigations are no longer warranted.
Once
the deficiency tax assessment attained finality, the right of the Government to
collect the deficiency tax becomes absolute; thus, it 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 several re-investigation of a FINAL, EXECUTORY and DEMANDABLE assessment.
However,
notwithstanding the ensuing finality of the afore-said deficiency tax
assessment against DD, Henares had it re-investigated for several times
(twice).
The HOCUS-POCUS
re-investigations ordered by Henares.
a.
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 FANs, all bearing Demand No. 41-B072-07 and all dated October 29, 2010, attained finality, was
assigned to Revenue Officer STANLEY ONG
under Group Supervisor GREGORIO S.
TUMANGUIL, then both of RDO No. 41, Mandaluyong City. Mr. Ong was the same revenue officer who conducted the review of
GDI tax 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 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 PhP 1.56-B 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 Ong
and Tumanguil was a HOCUS-POCUS. – This can be proven, if
DD’s tax case docket which is under the custody of the BIR is presented if ever
an investigation is conducted.
b.
The “second re-investigation”, which is also no longer necessary because
my tax assessment attained finality, was referred to ATTY. GRACE CRUZ of the National Investigation Division, BIR
national office. 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 REPORT OF RE-INVESTIGATION WAS SUBMITTED
BY ATTY. CRUZ.
So,
how can former BIR Commissioner 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 DD was incorrect?
5. On Henares’s and her minions’ other
“alibis” in not filing tax fraud case against DD by claiming that the CD which
I presented to the RATE team for evaluation was not compliant with the
requirements prescribed under RMO 29-2002.
Henares
and her minions used the CD which I submitted to the RATE team as scapegoat in
not filing tax fraud case against DD.
The
RATE coordinator, members, and Mr. Wilfredo Reyes, the pioneer CAATTs user,
failed to consider and evaluate the documents attached to the docket of DD tax
case and the findings for deficiency tax assessment which were based on entries
per DD’s 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 DD, such as: VAT returns and Final Withholding Tax
Remittance returns.
The
CD, which was neither mentioned nor objected to by DD in Its INVALID protest, is used by Henares and
her minions as scapegoat in not filing tax evasion case against DD 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 DD 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 DD, 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 DD.
I
suggested to the RATE team that they may recommend for the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum (SDT) to compel DD produce its duly-registered hardbound
computer-generated books of accounts, but the suggestion was just ignored.
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.
*** *** ***
THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AFFECTING MY CASE AGAINST
HENARES AND SALES:
March 17,
2014
I
filed criminal and administrative charges against Henares and Sales before the
Ombudsman for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and for violation of
Sec. 3(e), (f) of R.A. 3019, and Sec. 269(e), (h) of the NIRC.
August 24,
2015
I
received the Ombudsman resolution dated March 24, 2015 dismissing the criminal
and administrative charges against the respondents.
September 1,
2015
I
filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the Ombudsman denied in an order dated
September 10, 2015 which I received on November 19, 2015.
December 4,
2015
I
filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals to seek the reversal of
the Ombudsman’s decision dismissing the case against the respondents.
December 18,
2015
The Court of Appeals issued a
Resolution dismissing the petition.
January 4,
2016
I filed a Motion for
Reconsideration.
May 27, 2016
I
received CA’s resolution dated May 17, 2016 denying my Motion for
Reconsideration.
July 12,
2016
My
counsel submitted to the Office of CIR Caesar R. Dulay a copy of my 2013
Complaint.
July 18,
2016
I submitted to the Office of CIR
Dulay documents regarding DD tax case.
July 22,
2016
Within
the 60-day period granted by law, I filed a Petition for Certiorari before the SUPREME COURT.
The P1.56-B deficiency tax assessment
against DD that remained undisturbed after review and evaluation conducted by
the Assessment Division of the Bureau’s Regional Office in Quezon City, and already
covered by FANs, and which attained finality, were my very findings. Such
findings were the product of days and nights of toil and hard work for almost
two (2) years, not to mention the pressures that I had to endure from the
outside and even from some of my superiors in the Bureau.
And for
doing an out-of-the-box job, I was threatened with disciplinary action by my
superiors; and for reporting irregularities, I was threatened with criminal
action by no less than former BIR Commissioner Henares herself who was supposed
to uphold an examiner’s tax assessment. MAY
GOD HELP ME?
*** *** ***
I have been posting the issue on social media for
more than two (2) years now. Every time I post it on my google account, I
always share the same with Henares thru her official email account, and with
the Department of Finance and BIR contact center. But until now, Henares failed
to give any satisfactory explanations or defense to clarify it. Not even one of
her minions and none from DD company has attempted to give any explanations or
justifications to refute my postings.
They know very well that my tax assessment against
DD is SOLID as the ROCK OF GIBRALTAR!!!
IT’s MORE FUN IN THE PHILIPPINES!
Othello
Dalanon