Ilang beses iniligtas si florante sa buobg akda posts
Loki Zuri Get 5% RBF when you add your first portfolio!
*Referral Bonus Fee.
Ilang beses kana na scam?
Dito walang scam. Pure trading investment! join here!
⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩
https://ethtrade.org/lp1/516294?en
How many times were you get scamm Read more ... ed?
Scam no more! Pure trading investment! join here!
⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩
https://ethtrade.org/lp1/516294?en
PAANO TAYO KIKITA SA ETHRADE?
✍ Tayo ay kikita sa ETHTRADE sa pamamagitan ng pag trade ng ETHEREUM TEAM sa CRYPTOCURRENCY MARKET
✍ Tayo ay kikita ng 15% to 25% average monthly walang (NO FIXED INCOME RATE) possible more than 25%
✍ Ang income ay papasok daily from MONDAY to FRIDAY only
sa ating income balance
✍ Pwede natin siyang auto-reinvest
✍ Ang minimum deposit ay $10 worth of ETH or BTC
✍ Ang minimum withdrawal ay $10 ETH or BTC
✍Pwede tayong mag withdraw sa kahit anong oras
✍ Ang proseso ng withdrawal ay nasa 3 to 5 days. ( usually 3 days base on my exp)
✍ Walang expiration term ang bawat investment portfolio
▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁
IMPORTANT PART PLEASE READ:
★ Pwede nating ikansela ang ating investment anytime pero may mga condition:
PARA SA nasa WITHIN 30 DAY NA PERIOD:
-Kapag kinansela natin within 30 DAYS may 30% na FEE
PARA SA nasa 30 to 60 DAYS na PERIOD:
➤Kapag kinansela natin ang 30% ng investment portfolio nating WALANG FEE.
➤Kapag kinansela natin ang 31% to 50% ng investment portfolio natin ay may karagdagang 10% FEE.
➤Kapag kinansela natin ang 50% to 100% ng investment portfolio natin ay may karagdagang 10% FEE.
➤Kapag kinansela natin after 60 DAYS PATAAS WALANG FEE 0%
https://ethtrade.org/lp1/516294?en
Earn passive income
No need to recruit
No registration fee
This is not a networking
This is trading!
Sign up here to know more
https://ethtrade.org/lp1/516294?en
Or PM me
Investment?
NOW 1 ETH= 19.5$!!!
Trusted and transparent management
----(with Ethtrade Presentation)
Join now or be left behind!!
https://ethtrade.org/lp1/516294?en
➥Launched March 29, 2016
➥Trading happens Monday to Friday (except weekends and holidays).
➥10$ minimum portfolio investment.
➥10$ minimum withdrawal any day
➥0.5% to 1%+ daily
➥BITCOIN and ETHEREUM available in the platform
➥ 15% to 25% profit monthly
➥Lifetime contract
OTHER BENEFITS
➥Be part of the TRADING TEAM
➥ Job opportunities (chat support, representative etc)
➥Affiliate Bonus from 3% - 12%
58E715DC5BB1E
Ethtrade
Ethtrade Club opening and offline Leaders meeting featuring special guest from our management team, Louis Stocking. The event took place in Viet Nam, in HoChi Minh City on February 17th. We discussed the future of our platform, exciting new developme Read more ... nts occuring on the ethereum blockchain and trading techniques and strategies used by traders such as Elliot Waves and stop/limit orders. You can visit our international Ethtrade Club any time during working hours from Monday to Friday. Our address is 67 Le Trung Nghia Street, 12 Ward, Tan Binh District, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. Our contact details: Ho Chi Minh City - Mr. Bao Bao Phone number: 84937458268 Telegram: @baobaoeth Ha Noi capital: Mr. Viet Tran Phone number:+841652349198 Telegram @Viettr Ethtrade - the future is here!
#Ethtrade #Ethereum #btc #bitcoin #money #finance #trade #trader #ether #buterin #eth #mist #geth #dao #daohub #blockchain #augur #digix #lisk #waves #ico #presale #crowdsale #crypto #cryptotrade #cryptotrading #litecoin #edrcoin #dashcoin #trust_management_trading
107 months ago
Deadspin Is track and field an individual or a team sport?
The IAAF Seeks To Restrict The Market For African Runners
deadspin.com
Kenya-born Yasemin Can and Meryem Akda, competing for Turkey, won gold and silver respectively at the 2016 European Cross Country Championships in November. The Irish Independent wrote that Ireland’s Fionnuala McCormack, who finished fifth, was “ Read more ... denied” a medal by the naturalized Turks, and Irish ru...
109 months ago
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos Presidential Center Manny Pacquiao MOCHA USON BLOG Robin Padilla Bitag Live by Ben Tulfo Ben Tulfo Unfiltered Erwin Tulfo Teddy Boy Locsin ABS-CBN News GMA News Yahoo News Rappler INQUIRER.net MANILA BULLETIN ANC 24/7 MOR 101.9 For Life Philippine Star CNN Philippines Read more ... Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines InterAksyon DZRH News Television DZMM TeleRadyo The Manila Times Abante Tonite Super Radyo DZBB 594khz Bulatlat Philippine News Hataw Tabloid PSSAP Underground Media Sosyal Medya Mindanews Malaya Business Insight Online IFM 99.5 Laoag Bombo Radyo Roxas (OFFICIAL) Asian Journal Bombo Laoag Dzvr DZJC Aksyon RADYO LAOAG The Ilocos Times ABS-CBN Laoag Ilocos Sentinel Love Radio Laoag Dwfb radyo ng bayan Rpn Dzrl Batac
ILibing na
Suportado ni Pangulong Duterte ang Kailian March mula Ilocos hanggang Manila! Sa ilang minutong stop over niya sa Laoag International Airport nakipagusap siya kay Governor Imee Marcos at mga lider at volunteeers ng martsa.#ilibingNa #SalamatAPO #YESt Read more ... oHealing
113 months ago
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos Presidential Center KAMATAYAN NI FEM, GINUNITA
“Sibibiagka ditoy isipusomi, Apo Lakay!” (Nananatili kang buhay sa isipuso, diwa at gawa naming Apo Lakay!), paggunita ng mga Loyalista sa ika-27 anibersaryo ng pagyao ni Pangulong Ferdinand Edralin Marcos.
Read more ... “Ay-ayatendaka unay, Apo,” (Mahal na mahal ka namin!) nangingilid ang luha ni Gng. Erlinda Camfa, loyalista mula Quezon City.
“Sapay ta natalgedkan iti sidong ti Dios A Namarsua uray dida pay kayat dagiti dadduma a maidulin ti bangkaymo iti nakaisangratam a pantheon mo idiay Libingan ng mga Bayani,” (Sana kapiling mo na ang Poong Maykapal kahit ayaw pa ng ilang sector maihimlay ka sa Libingan ng mga Bayani.) dugtong ng isa pang loyalist mula Isabela.
Ayon naman Mr. Vince Avena, pangulo ng United Marcos Loyalists of the Philippines, dapat iwaksi ang galit sa dibdib ng mga kontra at payagan nang mailibing si Marcos.
Aniya, mismong Diyos ang humusga at dapat nang paghilomin ang sugat upang maghari ang kapayapaan sa bansa.
“It is about time that our country, the Philippines should move on-but this cannot happen as long as we let the past dictate our life as a country today. Though we do not ask that the past be forgotten, we should however, as the only self-proclaimed Christian nation of Asia, forgive. Whatever former Pres. Ferdinand Marcos has done in the past, the Almighty God has already judged him; that being the case, who are we to withhold from him the kind of burial he deserves?” wika pa Avena.
“Let peace reign,” diin Avena.
Nabatid mula sa mga legal expert na hindi na maaring panagutin sa mga kasalanan o kamaliang nagawa ng isang tao kapag ito’y pumanaw na.
Kasalukuyang hinihimay sa Supreme Court ang usaping paglilibing kay Marcos sa LNMB kung saan sa ‘pagluluksa’ sa ika-27 anibersaryo, pag-asa at panalangin ng pamilya Marcos at Loyalista na maigawad ang karapatan ng dating Pangulo sa pamamagitan ng pabor na desisyon dito.
Pumanaw si Marcos noong Septiyembre 28, 1989 sa edad 72 sa Honolulu, Hawaii. Ipinanganak Septiyembre 11, 1917 sa Batac, Ilocos Norte. Nagsilbi siyang Pangulo ng Republika ng Pilipinas sa loob ng dalawang dekada at naging sundalo noong World War II kung saan tumanggapa ng pension si dating Unang Ginang Imelda Marcos.
#ilibingNa #salamatAPO
Manny Pacquiao MOCHA USON BLOG Robin PadillaBitag Live by Ben Tulfo Ben Tulfo Unfiltered KUYA Erwin Tol
Teddy Boy Locsin ABS-CBN News GMA News Yahoo News INQUIRER.net MANILA BULLETIN ANC 24/7 MOR 101.9 For Life
philstar.com CNN Philippines Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines InterAksyon
DZRH News Television DZMM TeleRadyo The Manila Times Abante News Online Super Radyo DZBB 594khz
Bulatlat Philippine Trending News - PhilNews Hataw Tabloid PSSAP Underground Media Sosyal Midya Mindanews
Malaya Business Insight ( Sales and Marketing Group) Ifm Laoag BOMBO RADYO PHILIPPINES Asian Journal Bombo Radyo Laoag
DZJC Aksyon Radyo 747 kHz Ilocos Times ABS-CBN Laoag Ilocos Sentinel Love Radio Laoag Dwfb-Radyo Ng Bayan Laoag
Rpn Dzrl Batac
114 months ago
Thello Dalanon EX-BIR KIM HENARES’s STUPIDITY RESULTED IN THE LOSS OF BILLIONS OF TAXES.
“I’m not unreasonable…but if you tell me that the BIR’s policy is wrong, be prepared to defend your position…” Ex-BIR Kim Henares said.
However, in “Dunkin’ Read more ... Donuts” tax case, Henares herself FAILED to defend her position. The DD tax case proved Henares’s STUPIDITY which resulted in the loss of BILLIONS of taxes.
In my previous postings, I said that I asserted my firm stance that the PhP1.56 Billion deficiency tax assessment against Philippine Daily Inquirer Chair Marixi Prieto firm “Dunkin’ Donuts” attained finality, thus, re-investigation was no longer necessary.
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.
Once it has become final, it is no longer appealable; and there is now no reason why the BIR cannot continue with the collection of the said deficiency tax.
However, despite the ensuing finality of the said tax assessment against DD, Henares did not enforce collection thereof. Instead, she had it re-investigated for several times (twice).
Her policy of allowing several re-investigations of a final, executory and demandable tax assessment does not find basis in law. It is WRONG.
On August 11, 2016, I was at the BIR national office and got the chance to personally view and inspect the RE-INVESTIGATION REPORT submitted by Henares’s revenue officers who conducted the re-investigation. Of the PhP 1.564 Billion final, executory and demandable tax deficit of “Dunkin’ Donuts”, only PhP 4 Million was collected for the Government’s coffer. Where did the difference of more than PhP 1.560 billion go?
I noticed that all BIR Forms 0500 series were not signed by the Chief Assessment Division and Regional Director of the Bureau’s regional office in Quezon City.
This may mean only one thing, that is – the two high-ranking officials of the regional office DID NOT CONCUR with the re-investigation conducted, given that they very well know that the original tax assessment amounting to PhP 1.564 Billion already attained finality, and that re-investigation was no longer warranted.
I was relayed the information that one of the revenue officers assigned to conduct the re-investigation did not participate upon learning of the finality of the said tax assessment.
“DUNKIN’ DONUTS” STILL OWES THE FILIPINO PEOPLE PHP 1.560 BILLION TAX DEFICIT.
NOTE:
DD tax case docket is no longer intact. Perhaps, all BIR people involved in the case could have chopped it. But the BIR, under the current dispensation, is trying to retrieve the tax docket. Let’s just wait.
LUMABAS NA ANG KATOTOHANANG SADYANG GARAPALANG NILOKO NI KIM HENARES ANG SAMBAYANANG PILIPINO.
Othello Dalanon
www.othelloedalanon.blogspot.com
*** *** ***
Ex-BIR Chief Henares deliberately CHEATED the Government and severely damaged the Filipino people.
Philippine Daily Inquirer Chair Marixi Rufino-Prieto firm “Dunkin’ Donuts” is a bigtime tax cheat. It deliberately perpetrated fraudulent acts or criminal tax violations to CHEAT payment of rightful taxes. It owes the Philippine Government PhP1.56 BILLION in taxes. However, Henares intentionally failed to either collect it or pursue tax evasion case against the company despite clear existence of actual fraud.
*** *** ***
HENARES’s ALIBIS IN REFUSING TO COLLECT DD’s TAX DEFICIT AND IN NOT PURSUING FRAUD CASE AGAINST THE COMPANY.
1. She claimed that my tax assessment against DD purportedly 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.
DISCUSSIONS
1. On her claim that my tax assessment against DD purportedly 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.
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.
The HOCUS-POCUS re-investigation report - BIR Form No. 0500 series – were not signed by the Chief Assessment Division and the Regional Director of the Bureau’s regional office in Quezon City.
This may mean only one thing, that is – the two high-ranking officials of the Bureau’s regional office in Quezon City did not concur with the re-investigation conducted given that the original tax assessment amounting to PhP1.56 Billion already attained finality, thus, re-investigation was no longer warranted.
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 CHEATED the Philippine Government BILLIONS in taxes.
*** *** ***
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, 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
115 months ago
Thello Dalanon ATTY. KIM HENARES’s IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND INEXCUSABLE MISTAKE AS THEN PHILIPPINES INTERNAL REVENUE COMMISSIONER.
1. Kim Henares, on February 28, 2014, told GMA-7 in a telecast interview that my tax assessment against “Dunkin’ Donuts” show Read more ... ed inaccuracies.
However, Henares and BIR Deputy Commissioner 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 all the glaring and crucial issues included in my audit findings that were clearly stated in the Formal Complaint I filed against them before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Despite respondents Henares’s and Sales’s failure to refute, the Ombudsman dismissed the case without conducting a thorough investigation and without requiring the respondents to submit “Dunkin’ Donuts” 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. AMAZING!!!
2. Henares’s ignorance of the law and inexcusable mistake as then internal revenue commissioner.
I expressed my firm stance that the P1.56-B tax assessment against “Dunkin’ Donuts” attained finality based on the following grounds:
a. DD failed to file a VALID protest; and
b. 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.”
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 No. 12-99 in relation to Section 228 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
The Ombudsman dismissed the case without studying tax assessment rules. WONDERFUL!!!
3. Henares, in her counter-affidavit, denied knowledge of “Dunkin’ Donuts” irregularities; but admitted that she received my audit report on September 3, 2010. --- Therefore, she knew about it.
I personally reported to her “Dunkin’ Donuts” omissions 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.
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 handed over to Henares.
“Othello, di ka ba natatakot sa ginagawa mo? – That’s Atty. Sabariaga asking. To which I replied – trabaho lang ho sir.
So if Henares didn’t know about “Dunkin’ Donuts” case as she claimed, what did Atty. Sabariaga report to her? -- Was it about the filmed story of “ASIONG SALONGA”?
It was Henares who introduced me to Deputy Commissioner Estela Sales to whom she 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. The informant further told me that the RATE team was then already preparing the memorandum to recommend the criminal prosecution of the doughnut company for tax evasion, but discontinued upon instruction by a high-ranking official of the Bureau whose name the informant did not disclose.
There are documents to prove that Henares was properly apprised of the “Dunkin’ Donuts” tax case. These were attached to my Formal Complaint against Henares and Estela Sales filed before the Ombudsman.
As I said, the Ombudsman dismissed the case. SURPRISING!!!
4. Henares, in her counter-affidavit, denied that she ordered “two re-investigations”. However, on February 28, 2014, in a telecast interview by GMA-7, she admitted that she had the doughnut company’s tax case re-investigated for several times (twice).
“pinaimbestiga natin ng ilan beses, at yong mga imbestigasyon na yon, lumalabas na hindi naman tama ang assessment ni Mr. Othello [Dalanon]” – Henares said.
This is what happened to the “two reinvestigations”.
The “first re-investigation”, which is no longer warranted because my tax assessment which remained undisturbed after review and evaluation by high-ranking officers in the district and regional levels of the Bureau and already covered by Final Assessment Notices (FANs), 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 TUMANGUIL. Mr. Stanley Ong was the same revenue officer who conducted the review of “Dunkin’ Donuts” 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, who were then assigned at RDO No. 41, Mandaluyong City, was a HOCUS-POCUS.
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 in Diliman, Quezon City. I strongly admire Atty. Cruz of her investigative expertise in administrative cases. Lest I be misconstrued. I am not saying that Atty. Cruz is short of proficiency in tax accounting and tax auditing. NO RESULT OF REINVESTIGATION WAS SUBMITTED BY ATTY. CRUZ.
So, how can former BIR Chief 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 the doughnut company was incorrect? --- AMAZING!!!
5. Henares’s another “PALUSOT” in not filing fraud case vs. “Dunkin’ Donuts”.
Henares and her minions claimed that the compact disc (CD), which I presented to the RATE team, was allegedly not compliant with the requirements prescribed under Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 29-2002.
The RATE coordinator, members, and Mr. Wilfredo Reyes, the pioneer CATTs user, failed to consider and evaluate the documents attached to the docket of “Dunkin’ Donuts” case and the findings for deficiency tax assessment which were based on entries per duly-registered books of accounts (hardbound computer-generated), as I have appropriately validated; and other independent relevant documents, such as but not limited to: Franchise Agreement, Technical Service Agreement, and other BIR returns filed by the doughnut company, such as: VAT returns and Final Withholding Tax Remittance Returns.
The CD, which was neither mentioned nor objected to by “Dunkin’ Donuts” in its INVALID protest, is used by Henares and her minions as scapegoat in not filing tax evasion case against the company 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 “Dunkin’ Donuts” 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 “Dunkin’ Donuts”, 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 “Dunkin’ Donuts”.
I suggested to the RATE team that they may recommend for the issuance of a Subpoena Duces Tecum (SDT) to compel the doughnut company 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.
Again, as I said, the Ombudsman dismissed the case…without scrutinizing tax laws, rules and regulations. –- IT’S MORE FUN IN THE PHILIPPINES!!!
www.othelloedalanon.blogspot.com
Othello Dalanon
117 months ago
Caramoan Travels & Tourist Services Welcome 2016, ilang kembot na lang Summer na naman,kaya sa minamahal naming mga suki/customer,friends,family,relatives,
honeymooners,students,professionals.etc.
May hinanda ang
#Caramoantouristservices para sa inyong lahat!!!
BOOK NOW FOR YOUR RESERV Read more ... ATION.. .
Thank you
0910 2433 552 SMART
0916 7627 968 GLOBE
Mr. Fernan Llagas
ADMIN
123 months ago
Ilang beses iniligtas si florante sa buobg akda news
No news about ilang beses iniligtas si florante sa buobg akdaIlang beses iniligtas si florante sa buobg akda videos
No videos about ilang beses iniligtas si florante sa buobg akdaRelated searches
- akda pandesal sipi mula sa 101 filipino icons
- mga tauhan sa florante at laura
- PANDESAL 101 Filipino Icons in tagalog sa ikatlong markahan pandesal sipi mula sa 101 filipino icons...
- akda ng pandesal ikatlong markahan
- ano ang di-kathang akda?
- kaligirang kasaysayan ng florante at laura
- mga akda ni dr. JOSE RIZAL
- ANO ANG DI-KATHA NA AKDA?
- buod ng bayang nagdurusa-florante at laura(saknong 1-26
- ano ang napansin mo sa binasang akda?