_________________________________________________
.
.
Tax amnesty ‘most likely’ -- Dominguez
Posted
on April 08, 2017 [ bworldonline.com ]
MACTAN,
Cebu -- The Department of Finance (DoF) is considering a tax amnesty offer
after the success of a similar program in Indonesia that netted $330 billion,
but it will first show it means business by making an example of a local
cigarette maker it believes tried to cheat the government of nearly P10 billion
in excise levies.
Finance
Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez III said the government must first demonstrate
determination to enforce the law and go after tax evaders. -- WWW.PCOO.GOV.PH
“We
will most likely come up with a similar tax amnesty program,” Finance Secretary
Carlos G. Dominguez III said in an interview with Bloomberg Television in
Mactan, Cebu on Friday when asked if the country will offer amnesty similar to
Indonesia's eight-month program that ended on March 31.
But he
said the government must first demonstrate determination to enforce the law.
“The
first part of our strategy... is to show the population that we will go after
tax evaders,” Mr. Dominguez said.
“...
[I]n fact, we have already filed a case, the largest tax case filed in recent
years.”
Mr.
Dominguez was referring to the P9.564-billion tax evasion complaint filed with
the Justice department last month against Mighty Corp., which was allegedly
found to have used fake excise tax stamps following a raid by the tax and
customs agents on a warehouse in Pampanga.
“The
tax amnesty will not work if they don’t believe you can actually go after them.
So first we have to go after them,” he said.
The
amnesty, however, will have to start legislation in the House of
Representatives, which last February approved a bill offering amnesty for
estate tax delinquents. House Bill (HB) No. 4814, or the proposed Estate Tax
Amnesty Law, seeks to grant such individuals immunity from civil, criminal or
administrative penalties; as well as provide that estate tax amnesty returns
for 2016 and prior years will not be admissible as evidence in judicial,
quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings; and books of accounts and other
records of the taxpayers for the years covered by the amnesty will not be
examined.
Also
pending in the House is the first of four planned tax reform packages
cumulatively designed to raise more revenues while shifting the burden away
from low wage earners towards those who can afford them.
In its
configuration as of Jan. 30, the first package -- targeted for approval in that
chamber next month -- was to result in P139.6 billion in foregone revenues from
lower personal income tax, estate tax and donor tax rates as well as raise an
additional P302.1 billion from reduced value added tax exemptions, as well as
increased excise taxes on cars and oil products, yielding P162.5 billion in net
revenues in the first year of implementation.
The
government last year missed its tax revenue effort target of 14.1% of gross
domestic product, or GDP, (P2.044 trillion), posting an actual 13.7% (P1.98
trillion).
The
ratio, which hit 13.6% (P1.816 trillion) in 2015 and in 2014 (P1.719 trillion),
broke into the 13% area in 2013 with 13.3% (P1.536 trillion).
This
year, the government is targeting 14.5% (P2.313 billion), a ratio that is
projected to rise to 16.1% (P2.821.3 trillion) in 2018 and further to 16.3%
(P3.156 trillion) in 2019.
Increased
revenues, in turn, are meant to help finance the government’s infrastructure
buildup designed to spur overall economic growth to a faster pace that, in
turn, will lift more Filipinos out of poverty.
The
current administration is looking to increase spending on infrastructure to an
equivalent of 7.1% of GDP by 2022 -- the year its term ends -- from a
programmed 4.3% of GDP in 2015 and from 1.8% in 2010, according to the December
issue of EconomyPH of the government’s Investor Relations Office.
This
year’s P3.35-trillion national budget programs spending on public
infrastructure to increase 13.79% to P860.7 billion equivalent to 5.4% of GDP
from P756.4 billion, or 5.1% of GDP, in 2016.
The
new Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022 approved in February aims to spur GDP
growth to an annual average of 7-8% in that period from the 6.2% average in the
six years under the preceding government of former president Benigno S. C.
Aquino III.
The
administration of President Rodrigo R. Duterte believes such pace of economic
expansion is needed to slash unemployment rate to 3-5% by 2022 -- when the
current government steps down -- from 5.5% last year and achieve its bottom
line of cutting the national poverty rate to 14% also by then from 21.6% in
2015. -- E. J. C. Tubayan
________________________________________________________
Estate tax amnesty okd
24-March-2017,
01:29:54 PM [http://www.congress.gov.ph ]
The
House of Representatives has approved on third and final reading a proposal to
grant amnesty in the payment of estate taxes.
House
Bill No. 4814, or “An Act Granting Amnesty in the Payment of Estate Tax,” is
expected to generate additional revenues for the government and encourage
taxpayers to settle their outstanding estate taxes, thereby freeing up
properties of unsettled estates.
The
bill, which was endorsed for plenary approval by the committee on ways and
means chaired by Rep. Dakila Carlo Cua (Lone District, Quirino), proposes a tax
amnesty program covering estate taxes for the year 2016 and the previous years
that have remained unpaid as of December 31, 2016.
House
Bill 4814 is authored by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez (1st District, Davao del
Norte), Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo Fariñas (1st District, IlocosNorte), Rep.
Arthur Defensor Jr. (3rd District, Iloilo), Deputy Speaker Romero Quimbo (2nd
District, Marikina City), Cua, Reps. Arlene Arcillas (1stDistrict, Laguna),
Rose Marie Arenas (3rd District, Pangasinan), Lianda Bolilia (4th District,
Batangas), Peter John Calderon (7th District, Cebu), Winston Castelo (2nd District,
Quezon City), Eugene Michael De Vera (Party-list, ABS), Jesulito Manalo
(Party-list, ANGKLA), Victoria Isabel Noel (Party-list, AN WARAY), Xavier Jesus
Romualdo (Lone District, Camiguin), Jose Antonio Sy-Alvarado (1st District,
Bulacan), Manuel Zubiri (3rd District, Bukidnon), Marlyn Primicias-Agabas (6th
District, Pangasinan), Rodante Marcoleta (Party-list, SAGIP), Raul Del Mar (1st
District, Cebu), Leo Rafael Cueva (2ndDistrict, Negros Occidental), and
Delphine Gan Lee (Party-list, AGRI).
The
bill is one of the 186 relevant and important legislative measures passed by
the House over the past 83 session days of the 17th Congress.
The
bill grants the following immunities and privileges to taxpayers who avail of
the tax amnesty: (1) immunity from the payment of estate taxes, civil,
criminal, or administrative penalties under the National Internal Revenue Code
of 1997, as amended, arising from the failure to pay any and all estate taxes
for taxable year 2016 and prior years; (2) the taxpayer’s Estate Tax Amnesty
Returns for 2016 and prior years shall not be admissible as evidence in all
proceedings that pertain to taxable year 2016 and prior years related to estate
settlement cases before any judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies
in which the defendant or respondent, and except for the purpose of
ascertaining the gross estate for 2016 and prior years, the same shall not be
examined, inquired or looked into by any person or government office; and (3)
the books of accounts and other records of the taxpayer for the years covered
by the estate tax amnesty availed of shall not be examined.
To
avail of the benefits of the tax amnesty, the covered taxpayer shall file with
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) an Estate Tax Amnesty Return and pay the six
percent of the decedent’s or deceased person’s net estate within two years from
the issuance of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the proposed
legislation. The IRR shall be promulgated within 30 days after the law becomes
effective.
However,
the proposed tax amnesty does not cover taxpayers with pending cases, to wit:
(1) those with pending cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG); (2) those cases involving unexplained
wealth or unlawfully acquired wealth or under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act; (3) those cases filed in court involving violation of the
Anti-Money Laundering Law; (4) those criminal cases for tax evasion and other
criminal offenses under Chapter II of Title X of the National Internal Revenue
Code of 1997, as amended, and the felonies of frauds, illegal exactions and
transactions, and malversation of public funds and property under Chapters III
and IV of Title VII of the Revised Penal Code; and (5) tax cases subject to
final and executor judgement by the courts.
The
bill imposes the following penalties: (1) a person who, having filed a
statement or Estate Tax Amnesty Return, wilfully understates the gross estate
to the extent of 30 percent or more shall be subject to the penalties of
perjury under the Revised Penal Code; (2) the willful failure to declare any
property in the statement and/or in the Estate Tax Amnesty Return shall be
deemed prima facie evidence of fraud and shall constitute a ground upon which
attachment of such property may be issued in favor of the BIR to answer for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be acquired against the declarant; (3)
any person who unlawfully discloses the existence of an Estate Tax Amnesty
Return, or its contents, shall be penalized by a fine of not less than P150,000
and imprisonment of not less than six years but not more than 10 years.
It
further provides that if the offender is an officer or employee of the BIR or
any government entity, he shall suffer the additional penalties of perpetual
disqualification from holding public office, from exercising the right to vote
and be voted for any public elective post.
Tax
amnesty, as defined by the Supreme Court, is a “general pardon or the
intentional overlooking by the state of its authority to impose penalties on
persons otherwise guilty of violation of a tax law.”
Simply
put, taxpayers who failed to disclose their income or pay their tax liabilities
from previous years are freed by the government from any civil, criminal or
administrative penalties.
The
bill has already been transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence. / ABR
_________________________________________________________________
Donor’s tax rate reduction in the offing
25-March-2017, 01:03:13 PM
[http://www.congress.gov.ph ]
The House of
Representatives recently approved on third and final reading a bill which seeks
to reduce the existing donor’s tax rate and ensure fair taxation.
House Bill No. 4903 aims
to simplify the donor’s tax rate, thus amending for the purpose Section 99 of
the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended.
Under the bill, Section 99
(A) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended, is further
amended to read as follows:
“A) In General. – The tax
for each calendar year shall be six percent and shall be computed on the basis
of the total net gifts made during the calendar year: Provided, that annual net
gifts not exceeding P100,000 shall be exempt.”
Under the present law, if
the net gift is:
- Not over P100,000, the
tax shall be exempt
- Over P100,000 but not
over P200,000, the tax shall be 0 plus two percent of the excess over P100,000.
- Over P200,000 but not
over P500,000, the tax shall be P2,000 plus four percent of the excess over
P200,000.
- Over P500,000 but not
over P1,000,000, the tax shall be P14,000 plus six percent of the excess over
of P500,000.
- Over P1,000,000 but not
over P3,000,000, the tax shall be P44,000 plus eight percent of the excess over
P1,000,000.
- Over P3,000,000 but not
over P5,000,000, the tax shall be P204,000 plus 10 percent of the excess over
P3,000,000.
- Over P5,000,000 but not
over P10,000,000, the tax shall be P404,000 plus 12 percent of the excess over
P5,000,000.
- Over P10,000,000, the
tax shall be P1,004,000 plus 15 percent of the excess of P10,000,000.
The bill amends Section 99
(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 to read as follows: “(B) Tax
Payable by Donor if Donee is a Stranger. – When the done or beneficiary is a
stranger, the tax payable by the donor shall be six percent of the net gifts.
For the purpose of this tax, a “stranger” is a person who is not a:
(1) Brother, sister
(whether by whole or half-blood), spouse, ancestor and lineal descendant; or
(2) Relative by
consanguinity in the collateral line within the fourth degree of relationship.”
The present law states the
tax payable by the donor when the donee or beneficiary is a stranger shall be
30 percent of the net gifts.
Rep. Jesulito Manalo
(Party-list, ANGKLA), an author of the bill, said the reduction of the donor’s
tax intends to strike a balance between the power of the State to tax its
people and the implementation of a policy that will motivate those who have
more in life to share their properties and riches not only to the less
fortunate classes of society, but also to individuals whose lives may improve
through such donations.
“Verily, most donors are
dissuaded from giving off their properties for fear that they will have to be
accountable to pay enormous amounts of taxes, if they do. Further, in extreme
cases, donors merely circumvent the payment of the donor’s tax by cloaking
their donation through a sale transaction. This renders the donor’s taxation
system rather ineffective,’’ said Manalo.
Other authors of the bill
are Reps. Robert Ace Barbers (2nd District, Surigao del Norte), Dakila Carlo
Cua (Lone District, Quirino), Peter John Calderon (7th District, Cebu),
Victoria Isabel Noel (Party-list, AN WARAY), Rodante Marcoleta (Party-list,
SAGIP), House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas, Reps.
Deogracias Victor Savellano (1st District, Ilocos Sur), and Leopoldo Bataoil
(2nd District, Pangasinan). / mvip
____________________________________________________________
Rules on tax compromises
FINEX
Folio
By
Benedicta Du-Baladad
Posted
on March 17, 2017 [ bworldonline.com ]
Can
the President compromise taxes? NO. The Tax Code vests in the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (the Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner) the power and
the authority to compromise tax liabilities. He alone can compromise taxes. Not
the President. Not the Secretary of Finance.
In
acts resulting in violations of the Tax Code, there are two aspects of
liability involved -- the criminal aspect, and the civil aspect. These are two
separate liabilities. One is not dependent on the other. A conviction of one
does not imply a conviction of the other, neither is the acquittal of one a bar
to the filing of a case on the other.
Thus,
when we talk of tax compromise, we talk of two separate liabilities to
compromise. And these are governed by separate and different rules.
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
All
criminal violations of the Tax Code may be compromised by the Commissioner,
with the exception of two instances: (a) those already filed in Court, and (b)
those involving fraudulent acts. (Section 204, Tax Code)
Fraud
is a willful intent to evade taxes. It consists of deception, intentional
wrongdoing, willfully and deliberately done or resorted to in order to evade
the payment of taxes. Fraud is a serious charge and therefore it must be
actual, proven by clear and convincing evidence and never presumed.
Using
fake stamps to evade the payment of excise taxes, if proven, is a fraudulent
act that is beyond the authority of the BIR Commissioner to compromise. A mere
signal to compromise a criminal liability for tax evasion will destroy order
and discipline in the payment of taxes.
CIVIL
LIABILITY
Civil
liability, on the other hand, may be compromised but only on two instances --
when the assessment is of doubtful validity or when the taxpayer is financially
incapable to pay the liability. Civil liability pertains to the amount of
unpaid taxes plus surcharges and penalty interest that runs from 20% to 40%
annually, in case of delinquency.
While
the Tax Code allows civil compromises, there is a limitation as to how much the
Commissioner can compromise. If due to doubtful validity, the minimum
compromise rate is 40% of the basic tax assessed. If due to financial
incapacity of the taxpayer, it is 10%.
Examples
of doubtful validity are jeopardy (or harassment) assessments issued without
the benefit of audit, or arbitrary assessments issued without any factual and legal
basis. Examples of financial incapacity, on the other hand, are bankruptcy or
the business has ceased to operate, or when there is impairment of capital by
at least 50%, or when the taxpayer has no other source of income.
Civil
cases may be compromised lower than the above rates but the approval of a
collegial Board called the National Evaluation Board composed of the four
deputy commissioners and the Commissioner is required. The same is true for all
compromises where the basic tax involved exceeds P1 million.
Because
compromises effectively condones, waives the collection of taxes, or gives away
revenues belonging to the government, any tax compromise granted not in
accordance with these rules is a ground for graft and corruption or even
plunder.
In
practice, notwithstanding the authority to compromise granted to the
Commissioner, applications for compromises undergo a very strict and rigid
process involving many layers of technical evaluation and approval. It is a
long and tedious process, understandably, because it involves giving away
government funds.
Thus,
when an act constitutes a clear case of tax evasion, done willfully with intent
to evade the payment of taxes, and the liability is clearly established, there
is no room for tax compromise, both on the criminal aspect and the civil
aspect. The taxpayer must be prosecuted and brought to court, and the amount
due the government must be collected in full inclusive of penalties.
In the
case of corporations, the penalty shall be imposed on the president, general
manager, branch manager, treasurer, officer-in-charge, and the employees
responsible for the violation. Likewise, any person who wilfully aids or abets
in the commission of tax evasion shall be liable in the same manner.
The
opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily
reflect the views and opinions of FINEX.
Atty.
Benedicta Du-Baladad is the managing partner and CEO of Du-Baladad and Associates
(BDB Law) and president of FINEX.
___________________________________________________________
BIR eyes tax exemptions on land sale for housing
By Mary Grace Padin
(The Philippine Star) | Updated March 12, 2017 - 12:00am
BIR commissioner Caesar
Dulay and SHFC president Ma. Ana Oliveros signed an agreement that seeks to
ease the processing of the capital gains tax exemption for the transfer of raw
lands intended for government socialized housing from a landowner to a community
or homeowners association. File photo
MANILA, Philippines
- The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
is working with the Socialized Housing Finance Corp. (SHFC) to facilitate the
processing of tax exemptions for the government’s socialized housing projects.
BIR commissioner Caesar
Dulay and SHFC president Ma. Ana Oliveros signed an agreement that seeks to
ease the processing of the capital gains tax exemption for the transfer of raw
lands intended for government socialized housing from a landowner to a community
or homeowners association.
The tax exemption is compliant with the
provisions of the Community Mortgage Program under Republic Act 7279, also
known as the Urban Development and and Housing Act of 1992.
Under the agreement, the BIR will streamline,
facilitate and prioritize the processing and issuance of the BIR certificate of
tax exemption for the transfer of raw lands.
The BIR shall also
provide the corresponding assessment for the documentary tax stamps of the CMP
projects.
SHFC, for its part, will endorse the community
or homeowner association tax exemption
application for CMP projects to the BIR and assist in the evaluation,
verification and certification of documentary requirements through its
authorized officers.
Both parties also agreed to hold regular
consultations, monitor the effectiveness of procedures and address possible
bottlenecks in the processing of the tax exemption.
Oliveros said the MOA signing was timely as
March is the Women’s and Urban Development Housing Act Month.
________________________________________________________________
Clean slate for taxpayers with pending Estate Tax Bill
Let’s
Talk Tax
By
Marie Fe F. Dangiwan
Posted
on March 07, 2017 [ bworldonline ]
According
to news reports, the House of Representatives approved on third and final
reading two tax bills: House Bill (HB) No. 4814 proposing an estate tax
amnesty, and HB 4815 which calls for a single lower estate tax rate. Our
congressmen unanimously passed the bills. HB 4814 garnered a vote of 216-0-0,
while HB 4815 received a vote of 219-0-0.
File
photo of taxpayers at the Bureau of Internal Revenue in Quezon City -- BW FILE
PHOTO
Under
HB 4814, the proposed tax amnesty covers estate taxes for taxable years 2016
and prior periods. A person who wishes to avail of the amnesty will pay 6% of
the net estate within two years. In addition, the amnesty is designed to free
up properties which are tied up due to unsettled estate tax.
As
mentioned by a proponent of the estate tax amnesty law, “The primary cause of
the inability to settle estate tax is due to high estate tax rates and,
secondly, the inability to cope with the penalties that have accrued. In 95% of
the cases, the penalties are even higher than the value of the properties.”
Capturing
these concerns, the proposed tax amnesty law also seeks to grant the following
immunities and privileges to taxpayers who avail of the planned amnesty:
taxpayers will be immune from estate taxes, civil, criminal or administrative
penalties; estate tax amnesty returns for 2016 and prior years will not be
admissible as evidence in judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
proceedings; and books of account and other records of the taxpayers for the
years covered by the amnesty will not be examined. These are definitely welcome
proposals to the heirs who were not able to completely declare the estate that
they inherited for tax purposes. Please note, however, that in the proposed
bill, the amnesty does not apply to: (a) those with pending cases falling under
the jurisdiction of the Presidential Commission on Good Government; (b) those
cases involving unexplained or unlawfully acquired wealth or under the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; (c) those cases filed in court involving
violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Law; (d) those criminal cases for tax
evasion and other criminal offenses and the felonies of fraud, illegal
exactions and transactions, and malversation of public funds and property; and
(e) Tax cases subject of final and executory judgment by the courts.
On
the other hand, HB 4815 suggests a single estate tax rate of 6%. Currently, the
estate tax rates depend on where the value of the net estate falls. The
schedule is below:
Thus,
if someone were to die now under the current estate tax rates, and the net
estate is P10 million, the heir would have to pay an estate tax of P1,215,000.
On the other hand, given the same net estate, once the single rate of 6% is
passed into law, the tax is only P600,000 (P10,000,000 x 6%), a difference of
P615,000.
An
even bigger impact would be on a net estate or P50 million, where the savings
could be as high as P6,215,000. That’s a huge amount!
HB
4814 and HB 4815, if passed into law, would also be an opportune time for those
who have yet to register the properties that they inherited from their deceased
parents or relatives. These heirs often encounter problems, as they cannot
readily sell or dispose of their properties simply because it remains
registered under the names of the deceased. That’s because before a property is
registered under the name of the heirs, the estate tax has to be paid first.
Paying the estate tax means the declaration of all the properties of the
deceased and the corresponding payment of the correct estate taxes on all the
declared properties with Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
Hence,
if there is an amnesty estate tax law and a lower estate tax rate, these would
help the heirs in facilitating the BIR requirements to eventually expedite the
registration of the properties under the heirs’ names.
So
for those who would like to be relieved from estate tax and those who would
like to sell their properties, keep your fingers crossed that HB 4814 and HB
4815 are approved into law.
Interestingly,
the estate tax bills appear to be moving faster than the long-awaited bill on
the reduction of income tax rates. Of course, we would love to have higher
take-home pay so that we can enjoy the fruits of our labor while we are alive.
Higher take-home pay definitely means having extra money to travel with the
family, to invest or save, or to build a dream house. We hope the income tax
bill comes soon. Nonetheless, developments on the estate tax front seem like a
turning point in providing relief for taxpayers.
Marie
Fe F. Dangiwan is a manager with the Tax Advisory and Compliance division of
Punongbayan & Araullo. P&A is a leading audit, tax, advisory and
outsourcing services firm and is the Philippine member of Grant Thornton
International Ltd.
_______________________________________________________________
DoF rejects VAT exemption on socialized-housing inputs
Posted on March 02, 2017
[ bworldonline.com ]
THE Department of
Finance (DoF) wants a direct subsidy instead of tax exemptions for building
materials used in socialized housing projects, citing the potential for massive
leakages from the current “imperfect” tax system.
A 2008 AFP file photo of
a low cost housing project in Davao City.
Senate Bill 3776,
introduced by Sen. Maria Lourdes Nancy S. Binay, aims to lower the cost of
socialized housing through exemptions from value-added tax (VAT) on
construction materials.
“By eliminating
Value-Added Taxes imposed on construction materials including lease of
equipment for socialized housing as well as housing projects for disaster
victims; it is hoped that we are able to contribute to this objective of making
available housing for all,” said Ms. Binay in the bill’s explanatory note.
However, Finance
Undersecretary Karl Kendrick T. Chua said that the proposal is not the most
viable option in easing housing access for the poor.
“We recognize the need
to provide housing for the poor and the vulnerable... but we do not think the
VAT system and exemptions provided to housing is the way to go, because we are
concerned about the [leakages],” said Mr. Chua
He added that it is
“very difficult” to conduct a proper tax audit on the VAT exemption.
According to Mr. Chua,
the government only collects a third of the 12% VAT.
Mr. Chua said that the
value added tax (VAT) system needs to be simplified to be able to conduct
proper audits and avoid leakages, while directly transferring incentives for
socialized housing through budget allocations.
“The policy
recommendation we have is to simplify the VAT system, and to use the budget
side precisely to help the poor and vulnerable and we will commit to work with
the housing agencies to provide suitable subsidies to directly target those
instead of using the VAT system, [because] it’s really complicated,” he said.
The DoF is targeting an
expansion of the VAT base by removing some exemptions outside food and health,
through the first package of the tax reform program currently being deliberated
in Congress.
Low-income households
will however be cushioned from this by the adoption of a higher VAT threshold
of P3 million from the P1.9 million on the gross sales of small-scale
businesses.
It also aims to limit
the VAT zero-rating to those direct exporters who actually ship the goods
outside the country.
The House Ways and Means
committee expects to furnish a committee report of the tax reform program -- or
the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion -- before the March 17 adjournment
of session. -- Elijah Joseph C. Tubayan
Govt eases rules on tax payment by credit card
posted February 15, 2017 at 07:47 pm
by Julito G. Rada [manilastandard.net]
The government gave taxpayers a leeway
on paying their taxes through credit, debit or prepaid cards.
The Finance Department said in a
statement banks would be held liable and penalized for the delay or
non-remittance of taxes paid by taxpayers through credit, debit or prepaid
cards.
Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III
approved the amendments to Bureau of Internal Revenue Regulation No. 3-2016
issued by the previous administration.
The old regulation made the taxpayer using credit, debit or prepaid card
liable if the authorized agent banks failed to remit the tax payment to BIR on
time.
Dominguez’s directive would benefit
primarily the self-employed taxpayers and owners of micro, small and medium
enterprises who usually line up for hours at the BIR to pay their taxes.
Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III
Under the new revenue regulation that
was recommended for approval by BIR commissioner Caesar Dulay, the payment of
taxes done credit, debit or automated teller machine and/or prepaid cards
should be deemed paid by the taxpayer on the date and time appearing in the
system-generated confirmation receipt issued by the authorized agent banks.
“The AAB [authorized agent bank] will
then be the one held liable in case of late remittance or non-remittance of
such tax payments to the BIR,” the department said.
“The liability to pay the tax rests upon
the AAB-acquirer considering that from the time of issuance of a valid
confirmation receipt to the taxpayer-cardholder, the AAB-acquirer becomes the
trustee of the government with the obligation to remit the payment on time to
the BIR,” it said.
Finance undersecretary Antonette Tionko
said the new system was a reasonable approach “considering that the taxpayer
has no control over the actual remittance of the payment to the BIR other than
securing a valid confirmation receipt and ensuring that his/her tax payment is
paid through a legitimate AAB of the BIR.”
Tionko, who heads the DOF’s revenue operations group,
said the new rule was consistent with the memorandum of agreement among the
BIR, Bureau of Treasury and the
authorized banks, whose obligation to collect, “carries with it the
responsibility to remit accurately and on time such collections to the BTr.”
Tionko said the AAB was responsible for
holding the tax payments “in a fiduciary capacity for the account of the
national government, which should be considered as separate from the other
funds in its custody.”
Tionko said that under the agreement,
banks should pay penalties for late remittance, under remittance, and
non-remittance of the accepted tax payments.
__________________________________________________________________
House OK’s estate tax amnesty
By Raynan F. Javil
Posted on February 14,
2017 [ bworldonline.com ]
THE HOUSE of
Representatives last night approved on third and final reading two measures
that separately seek to grant a one-time amnesty and impose a single rate for
estate tax.
File photo of the House
of Representatives
Approved were House Bill
(HB) No. 4814, or the proposed Estate Tax Amnesty Law, and HB 4815 which sets a
single rate compared to the current range.
Aside from contributing
to an overall increase in much-needed revenues, HB 4814 is designed to free up
properties -- otherwise encumbered by liability on the part of delinquents --
for productive use.
The proposed law seeks to
grant the following immunities and privileges to taxpayers who avail of the
planned amnesty: immunity from civil, criminal or administrative penalties;
estate tax amnesty returns for 2016 and prior years will not be admissible as
evidence in judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceedings; and books
of accounts and other records of the taxpayers for the years covered by the
amnesty will not be examined.
The amnesty will cover
estate tax liabilities up to the year 2016.
Collection of appropriate
estate taxes has been elusive for the Bureau of Internal Revenue, with the past
administration estimating that annual take could actually go up to P10-50
billion from less than P1 billion currently.
Estate tax amnesty
measures in the Senate are still pending before the Senate ways and means
committee, chaired by Senator Juan Edgardo “Sonny” M. Angara.
On the other hand, HB
4815 seeks to impose a single tax rate of six percent.
The National Internal
Revenue Code of 1997 exempts from tax a net estate value of up to P200,000, and
levies 5%, 8%, 11%, 15% and 20% depending on which bracket the property belongs.
Those who will avail of
amnesty will just pay a six percent tax on the value of the property concerned,
sans penalties and sanctions otherwise provided by law.
A similar proposal to
impose a single six percent amnesty tax is part of the Finance department-backed
comprehensive tax reform package filed by House ways and means committee
chairman Rep Dakila Carlo E. Cua (Quirino) as HB 4774.
Mr. Cua said in a
telephone interview last night that the similar provision in the tax package
will stay for now as HB 4815 is not yet enacted since it will now have to go to
the Senate.
The Constitution provides
that all tax laws should emanate from the House.
“Hindi pa naman kailangan
tanggalin kasi hindi pa naman batas and it has to go through the Senate pa. Hindi
rin naman contradicting (There is no need to remove it from the tax package
because it is not yet a law and it has to go through the Senate. The provisions
are not contradicting),” said Mr. Cua.
_________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Revenue Regulations (RRs) are issuances signed by the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that specify, prescribe or define rules and regulations for the effective enforcement of the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and related statutes
Revenue Memorandum Orders (RMOs) are issuances that provide directives or instructions; prescribe guidelines; and outline processes, operations, activities, workflows, methods and procedures necessary in the implementation of stated policies, goals, objectives, plans and programs of the Bureau in all areas of operations, except auditing.
Revenue Memorandum Rulings (RMRs) are rulings, opinions and interpretations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue with respect to the provisions of the Tax Code and other tax laws, as applied to a specific set of facts, with or without established precedents, and which the Commissioner may issue from time to time for the purpose of providing taxpayers guidance on the tax consequences in specific situations. BIR Rulings, therefore, cannot contravene duly issued RMRs; otherwise, the Rulings are null and void ab initio
Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMCs) are issuances that publish pertinent and applicable portions, as well as amplifications, of laws, rules, regulations and precedents issued by the BIR and other agencies/offices.
Revenue Bulletins (RB) refer to periodic issuances, notices and official announcements of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that consolidate the Bureau of Internal Revenue's position on certain specific issues of law or administration in relation to the provisions of the Tax Code, relevant tax laws and other issuances for the guidance of the public.
BIR Rulings are official position of the Bureau to queries raised by taxpayers and other stakeholders relative to clarification and interpretation of tax laws.
real estate central philippines
Copyright ©2008-2020
Copyright ©2008-2020