Paglisan sa tsina ni maningning in pilipino posts
Rinoa Heartilly Hi good day!
Please click lantern photo below first then HIT HÈART Reaction to be counted your vote
photo entry No.3 (Parol)
#PAROLKOPUSUANMONGAYONGPASKO
#TatakPioneerian
#PioneerLab2016
https://m.facebook.com/PioneerLabPH/photos/a.1807551162854965 Read more ... .1073741868.1603628779913872/1807552952854786/?type=3
Pioneer Lab PH
NOY-P (PAROL)
Entry # 3
Ang ikatlong parol ay representasyon ng pagiging malikhain ng mga sumusunod na departamento: HRU, Marketing, Quality Assurance, Accounting at Treasury. Ang bawat parol ay inaasahang magawa mula sa mga katutubo o recycled na m Read more ... ateryales pero para sa amin, ang mga kagamitang ito ay mayroong mas malalim na kahulugan.
Kawayan – Isa sa mga kahanga-hangang katangian ng kawayan ay kung paano ito nakakasabay sa pabago-bagong lakas ng hangin nang hindi napuputol. Ito rin ang isa sa mga katangian ng Pioneer Lab na dalawampu’t dalawang taon nang nilalampasan ang mga pagsubok nang may buong paninindigan.
Papel –Ang aming parol ay nagsimula sa pamamagitan ng pagbalot ng isang blankong papel upang maging matibay ang pundasyon nito. Ito ay maihahambing sa bawat isa sa atin na sya ring nagpapatatag ng isang samahan sa loob ng Pioneer Lab.
Kusot – Sa unang tingin ay maaring walang halaga ang isang pirasong kusot pero kung pagsasama-samahin ito ay makabubuo ng isang disenyo. Ito ay sumisimbolo sa pagtutulungan ng bawat empleyado. Ang indibidwal na kakayanan ng bawat isa ay makakalikha ng isang maayos na trabaho.
Mga kagamitang nagmula sa puno ng niyog – Ang puno ng niyog ay sinasabi na puno ng buhay sapagkat kapaki-pakinabang ang bawat bahagi nito. Alam natin na ang punong ito ay isang buhay na bagay na matatag sa anumang pagkakataon, sa malalakas na ulan, bagyo, baha, matinding hangin at iba pa. Nananatili pa rin nakatayo, Katulad ng Pioneer Lab na kahit na anumang pagsubok ang dumating ay nanatili pa ring matatag.
Ilaw –Maihahalintulad ito sa paggabay ng Diyos sa bawat isa sa atin na nagbibigay ng liwanag at nagsisilbing tanglaw sa ating buhay.
Ang parol ay bahagi ng tradisyon nating mga Pilipino sa pag-gunita ng Kapaskuhan. Sa kabuuan, ang hugis bilog ay walang simula at walang katapusan kagaya ng pagmamahal sa atin ng Poong Maykapal; at ang hugis tala ay syang nagsilbing gabay ng tatlong hari upang marating ang kinaroroonan ng bagong silang na si Hesukristo (Tagapag-ligtas ng Sangkatauhan) na siyang tunay na diwa ng Pasko.
Materyales:
• Bulaklak ng Niyog
• Saha ng Niyog
• Kawayan
• Kusot
• Scratch Paper
• Christmas Lights (Borrowed)
• Spray Paint
• Glue Stick
• Varnish
• Wood Glue
• Palm Tree seeds
112 months ago
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos Presidential Center OVER 1.15M SIGNATURES IN FAVOR OF FEM HERO'S BURIAL REACH SC
A total of 1,158,606 signatures in favor of allowing former President Ferdinand E. Marcos (FEM) to be buried at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani (LNMB) were formally submitted as a petition to t Read more ... he Supreme Court (SC) today, October 6, 2016.
Marcos loyalists held a unity mass in front of the SC before the presentation of signatures, interceding for a positive response towards the cause of their petition.
According to the Marcos heirs' lawyer Atty. Hyacinth Rafael-Antonio, the steady support for FEM even 27 years after his passing shows that "there are numerous Filipinos who are in favor of the burial of the late President at the LNMB."
The entirety of the signatures are composed of those collected on-ground by loyalist and pro-Marcos groups as well as e-signatures gathered through a Change.org petition, "#ilibingNa si President Ferdinand Marcos sa Libingan ng mga Bayani."
E-signatures were cross-checked with the tangible petition to make sure that one person counted as one vote.
Within Metro Manila, it was loyalists like the United Marcos Loyalists in the Philippines (UMLP) and Friends of Imelda R. Marcos (FIRM) 24k, as well as other activist groups including the Kilusang Kaisipang Diwang Pilipino (KKDP) and Buong Bayan Magkaisa (BBM) Youth Movement who carried out the campaign.
In other areas, it was more localized groups like Ilocos Norte's Sirib Ilokano Kabataan Association (SIKA) and the Bayanihan Bayan Movers−Pangasinan Organization of Genuine Inhabitants (BBM-POGI) that spearheaded the gathering of petitions.
The involvement of the BBM Youth Movement and SIKA show strong support for Marcos even among Filipino youth.
Weenter Ventura of SIKA shared, "Si President FEM ay isang inspirasyon at isang bayani para sa mga kabataan dahil sa mga nagawa niya para sa ating bansa, para sa kabataan, at para sa kalakhang Pilipino."
Other Marcos loyalists conducted the signature campaign in other provinces like Abra, Batanes, Ifugao, Ilocos Sur, Isabela and La Union.
Meanwhile, former Kabataang Barangay (KB) officers such as Edward Chua of Leyte and Cris Lindo of Agusan del Norte led the collection of signatures in their localities.
The campaign reached even Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) like those in Canada, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
Last September 18, Marcos loyalists from Australia paid a courtesy to Ilocos Norte Governor Imee R. Marcos, daughter of the late president. They had initially intended to fly home in order to attend Marcos' burial, before the temporary restraining order (TRO) was placed by the SC on burial preparations.
Efforts for the signature campaign spanned a period of a little over one month, excluding international group BongBong Marcos Loyalists Movement, who had the initiative to begin collecting signatures immediately after President Rodrigo R. Duterte declared his favor for FEM's interment at the LNMB.
Throughout the rest of the Philippines and other nations, "pro-libing" netizens shared the online petition link on social networking sites. Many expressed their support by using the #iLibingNa and #iLibingNaNatin hashtags.
"Those who signed are also citizens of our country whose convictions must be considered for national unity and healing to become a reality," shared Atty. Antonio yesterday.
She also urged people to "trust that the SC will rule in accordance with law."
Manny Pacquiao MOCHA USON BLOG Robin Padilla Bitag Live by Ben Tulfo 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 Online Ifm Laoag BOMBO RADYO PHILIPPINES Asian Journal Bombo Radyo Laoag
dzjcaksyonradyo Ilocos Times ABS-CBN Laoag Ilocos Sentinel Love Radio Laoag Dwfb-Radyo Ng Bayan Laoag
Rpn Dzrl Batac
113 months ago
Hoan Kieu Talaga :o 90% ng mga Pilipino ang pabor sa pagdedeklara ni President Duterte ng Martial Law para sa ating bansa :o Alamin niyo po dito ang buong detalye!
115 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
Elna Adamero Gravi nman nyan ang dmi kya pla s america ang mariwana,,,tpos pag my pmunta ng america n mga pilipino,kawawa nman pla,swerthan lang ang mkapnta ng ibang bansa,
115 months ago
Elna Adamero Gravi nman nyan ang dmi kya pla s america ang mariwana,,,tpos pag my pmunta ng america n mga pilipino,kawawa nman pla,swerthan lang ang mkapnta ng ibang bansa,
115 months ago
Elna Adamero Gravi nman nyan ang dmi kya pla s america ang mariwana,,,tpos pag my pmunta ng america n mga pilipino,kawawa nman pla,swerthan lang ang mkapnta ng ibang bansa,
115 months ago
Thello Dalanon AN EXCERPT FROM THE PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF HON. MAGTANGGOL T. GUNIGUNDO I. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
“G. Ispiker, ang mga mamayan na nagbabayad ng buwis ay nagpapaunlad ng ating bansa. Taxpayers are nation builders. Hindi dapat pang pahirapan sila, b Read more ... agkus dapat padaliin ang sistema ng pagbabayad ng buwis upang madaling makasunod sa itinatakda ng batas. Naiiling na lang po ako sa ginagawa ng BIR sa pagpapahirap sa marginal income earners. Gutom, hinagpis at pagdurugo ng puso ang idinudulot ng mga kautusan ng BIR. Ang tuwid na daan ay papunta sa maginhawang buhay. Lumalabas na sa ibang daan at ibang destinasyon patungo ang BIR.”
“Nabasa ko po ang isinulat sa kolum ni G. Emeterio Sd. Perez sa pahayagang Manila Times noong December 1, December 10, 2013 at noong Enero 13, 2014, na pinamagatang, “Who is Afraid of Dunkin’ Donuts?” na nagdetalye kung paano pinagbigyan ng BIR ang Dunkin Donuts na magkaroon ng bagong kuwenta ng kanilang tax liability na P1.5 bilyon para sa taong 2007 na isinantabi ng BIR commissioner sa paniniwalang mali ang kuwenta ng isang G. Othello Dalanon, Revenue Officer II ng Bureau of Internal Revenue. Bagamat sinabi ng BIR na mali ang P1.5 bilyon na tax assessment, hindi naman po nila isinisiwalat sa publiko kung ano ang tamang tax liability ng Dunkin Donuts para sa taong 2007.”
“Napakahilig po palang kumain ng donut ang ating mga kababayang Pilipino. Gusto ko pong malaman kung totoo ang isinulat ni G. Perez tungkol sa bagay na ito. Kung ito po ay totoo, kitang-kita ang kalupitan ng BIR sa maliliit at kabaitan para sa mga malalaki. Ang kakaibang pagbibigay pansin ng BIR sa mga maliit na negosyo tulad nga mga sari-sari store o mga pangkaraniwang kabuhayan tulad ng pangingisda, pagsasaka, pagiging operator at driver ng sariling tricycle, samantalang walang naririnig na pahayag tungkol sa mga dapat sana ay malakihan nilang koleksyon ng buwis buhat sa mga higante at maimpluwensyang negosyo ay nagsasaad ng hindi pantay na pagtingin at panggigipit ng BIR sa maliliit nating mga kababayan. Mabigat na nga ang kalooban ng mga karaniwang tao sa bansa dahil sa mga naglipanang usapin ng katiwalaan, laganap na krimen, mga serbisyong publikong mas madalas ay hindi nararamdaman, heto at naglabas pa ng kautusan ang BIR na lalong magpapabigat sa nararamdaman ng mga mamamayan.”
x x x
“Mainam na rin pong makahingi ng paliwanag mula sa BIR kung tama o mali si G. Perez ng Manila Times tungkol sa isinulat niya sa Dunkin’ Donuts. Tinatawagan ko ang BIR na bawiin kaagad ang kanilang kautusan laban sa mga marginal income earners.”
“Kung hindi nila ito gagawin mas mabuti pa siguro na puro donut na lang ang itinda ng mga magsasaka, mangingisda, sari-sari store, karinderya, at turo-turo upang bumait sa kanila ang BIR.Maraming salamat po, G. Ispiker.”
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
16TH CONGRESS
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 5, 2014
www.othelloedalanon.blogspot.com
Othello Dalanon
123 months ago
Thello Dalanon AN EXCERPT OF THE PRIVILEGE SPEECH OF HON. MAGTANGGOL T. GUNIGUNDO I. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
“G. Ispiker, ang mga mamayan na nagbabayad ng buwis ay nagpapaunlad ng ating bansa. Taxpayers are nation builders. Hindi dapat pang pahirapan sila, bag Read more ... kus dapat padaliin ang sistema ng pagbabayad ng buwis upang madaling makasunod sa itinatakda ng batas. Naiiling na lang po ako sa ginagawa ng BIR sa pagpapahirap sa marginal income earners. Gutom, hinagpis at pagdurugo ng puso ang idinudulot ng mga kautusan ng BIR. Ang tuwid na daan ay papunta sa maginhawang buhay. Lumalabas na sa ibang daan at ibang destinasyon patungo ang BIR.”
“Nabasa ko po ang isinulat sa kolum ni G. Emeterio Sd. Perez sa pahayagang Manila Times noong December 1, December 10, 2013 at noong Enero 13, 2014, na pinamagatang, “Who is Afraid of Dunkin’ Donuts?” na nagdetalye kung paano pinagbigyan ng BIR ang Dunkin Donuts na magkaroon ng bagong kuwenta ng kanilang tax liability na P1.5 bilyon para sa taong 2007 na isinantabi ng BIR commissioner sa paniniwalang mali ang kuwenta ng isang G. Othello Dalanon, Revenue Officer II ng Bureau of Internal Revenue. Bagamat sinabi ng BIR na mali ang P1.5 bilyon na tax assessment, hindi naman po nila isinisiwalat sa publiko kung ano ang tamang tax liability ng Dunkin Donuts para sa taong 2007.”
“Napakahilig po palang kumain ng donut ang ating mga kababayang Pilipino. Gusto ko pong malaman kung totoo ang isinulat ni G. Perez tungkol sa bagay na ito. Kung ito po ay totoo, kitang-kita ang kalupitan ng BIR sa maliliit at kabaitan para sa mga malalaki. Ang kakaibang pagbibigay pansin ng BIR sa mga maliit na negosyo tulad nga mga sari-sari store o mga pangkaraniwang kabuhayan tulad ng pangingisda, pagsasaka, pagiging operator at driver ng sariling tricycle, samantalang walang naririnig na pahayag tungkol sa mga dapat sana ay malakihan nilang koleksyon ng buwis buhat sa mga higante at maimpluwensyang negosyo ay nagsasaad ng hindi pantay na pagtingin at panggigipit ng BIR sa maliliit nating mga kababayan. Mabigat na nga ang kalooban ng mga karaniwang tao sa bansa dahil sa mga naglipanang usapin ng katiwalaan, laganap na krimen, mga serbisyong publikong mas madalas ay hindi nararamdaman, heto at naglabas pa ng kautusan ang BIR na lalong magpapabigat sa nararamdaman ng mga mamamayan.”
x x x
“Mainam na rin pong makahingi ng paliwanag mula sa BIR kung tama o mali si G. Perez ng Manila Times tungkol sa isinulat niya sa Dunkin’ Donuts. Tinatawagan ko ang BIR na bawiin kaagad ang kanilang kautusan laban sa mga marginal income earners.”
“Kung hindi nila ito gagawin mas mabuti pa siguro na puro donut na lang ang itinda ng mga magsasaka, mangingisda, sari-sari store, karinderya, at turo-turo upang bumait sa kanila ang BIR.Maraming salamat po, G. Ispiker.”
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
16TH CONGRESS
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 5, 2014
www.othelloedalanon.blogspot.com
Othello Dalanon
123 months ago
No Scalpel Vasectomy International Inc. today is the natal day of a NYC Documentary Film Maker/ Creator of World Vasectomy Day . . . Jonathan Stack! One good way to greet him a Happy Birthday and to do good to our world is to WATCH and SHARE this website and the video he created Read more ... .... http://www.worldvasectomyday.org/ National Anti-Poverty Commission Department of Social Welfare and Development Department of Health Philippines Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program Department of the Interior and Local Government Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines Commission on Population - National Capital Region U.S. Embassy, Manila Philippines Philippine Information Agency UNFPA UNFPA Philippines Plan International Plan International Philippines CNN CNN Philippines Abs-Cbn GMA Network Rappler INQUIRER.net
130 months ago
Paglisan sa tsina ni maningning in pilipino news
No news about paglisan sa tsina ni maningning in pilipinoPaglisan sa tsina ni maningning in pilipino videos
No videos about paglisan sa tsina ni maningning in pilipinoRelated searches
- paglisan sa tsina ni maningning miclat
- timeline ng paglisan sa tsina ni maningning miclat
- kwento ng paglisan sa tsina ni maningning miclat
- buod ng paglisan sa tsina ni maningning miclat
- kwento ng paglisan sa china ni maningning miclat
- paglisan sa tsina ni maningning miclat kwento
- kwentong paglisan sa tsina ni maningning miclat
- pandesal sipi mula sa 101 pilipino
- PANDESAL 101 Filipino Icons in tagalog sa ikatlong markahan pandesal sipi mula sa 101 filipino icons...
- timeline ng ng kwentong paglisan sa tsina ni maningning miclat