RMC 27-2017 : CLARIFYING the Basis for the Imposition of Tax on the Sale, Exchange or Other Disposition of Real Property
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
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
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
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.