MEL STA. MARIA | Manny Pacquiao, the BIR, and taxations power to - TopicsExpress



          

MEL STA. MARIA | Manny Pacquiao, the BIR, and taxations power to destroy By: Mel Sta. Maria, News5 November 28, 2013 10:34 AM Atty. Mel Sta. Maria is the resident legal analyst of TV5. He teaches at the Ateneo School of Law, and co-hosts the daily program Relayson on Radyo Singko 92.3 News FM. Tax is the lifeblood of the government. But if the power to tax is exercised wrongly, whether intentionally or negligently, it can, as former US Chief Justice John Marshall said, involve the power to destroy. This power to destroy, as further explained by well-known author Clarence B. Carson, can defeat and render useless the power of individuals to create and preserve what they have created. In the hands of any power-tripping official, the power to collect taxes can be a terrible governmental weapon to cripple a taxpayer, to force a conscientious citizen-objector to submission and indeed to destroy his/her life. The official can even use the law for this abusive purpose. For example, normally, when a person is imminently to be injured or damaged, that person can go to court to seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) or an injunction against the concerned public official. However, this does not apply to collection of taxes. Section 218 of the National Internal Revenue Code provides that no court shall have the authority to grant an injunction to restrain the collection of national internal revenue tax, fee or charge imposed by the code. So if you were assessed the wrong tax and the BIR wanted to collect it, no one can stop the injustice. Then, if it is later found out that indeed there was a wrong collection, you can seek reimbursement but, before going to court, you must first claim a refund from the very office - the BIR - which committed the injustice. Also, usually, government can deprive the use of a persons property only through a court order, but Section 207 of the National Internal Revenue Code powerfully authorizes the BIR Commisioner, without court intervention, to seize and distraint any goods, chattels or effects, and the personal property, including stocks and other securities, debts, credits, bank accounts, and interests in and rights to personal property of such persons for payment of taxes. Section 208 likewise provides that bank accounts shall be garnished by serving a warrant of garnishment upon the taxpayer and upon the president, manager, treasurer or other responsible officer of the bank. Manny Pacquiao laments that after all that he went through - not being with his family for a long time in preparation for an international boxing event which the Filipino people longed to see and suffering many physical inflictions that, in reality, could have been life threatening, and then ultimately giving to all of us that much needed momentary feeling of joy and hope after Yolanda - he gets a warrant of distraint and garnishment, depriving him of the productive use of the wealth he legitimately created and preserved with blood, sweat and tears. Alluding to the PDAF and DAP controversies, Manny frustratingly commented thieves are better treated. (Read: Pacquiao, stunned by assets freeze, hits back at government: Thieves are treated better) The government timing was so bad it smacks of malice and harassment, whether true or merely perceived, and regardless of whether the justification given is legitimate or conjured. People work so hard for their money in order to survive. And for the citizens, every cent counts. Without contributing to the taxpayers creation of hard-earned wealth, the government takes some or most of it. The least government officials can do in collecting taxes is to be sensitive to the feelings of taxpayers. Government officials can perform their duties without pointlessly being arrogant. To be sure, Manny should pay the right taxes. That is his obligation. And the government has a corresponding right to exact that obligation. But if Manny indeed already paid the taxes pursuant to the Tax-Treaty between the Philippine and US governments against double taxation, and the only administrative matter left was the production and submission of the necessary documents for this purpose, and if Manny submitted proofs which the BIR considered inadequate according to its assessment and protest procedures, was garnishment of his money, or distraint of his property, proportionate to the claimed inadequate submission? Should this procedural lapse, mistake, inadequacy be enough to withhold the property of a person depriving him of its productive use? Is this not relying too much on technicalities rather than substance? If Manny paid and he is made to pay again due to a mere infraction of a procedure, is this not injustice? Legal procedures are meant to help an individual right a mistake or an inadequacy. It cannot be used simply as a kind of menu where officials just determine what is missing in the list and then go for the jugular. In fact, our Supreme Court had said: It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse … to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice. (Barnes vs. Padilla, GR No. 160753 June 28, 2005) In Mannys case, the best thing to do was not for the government to be arrogantly adversarial to the taxpayer but for the government to have coordinated with the taxpayer so that it can help him procure the official and original documents from the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) of the United States of America. Had that been done, everything might have been solved. And if after examining these original documents, the BIR determines that no taxes were paid or there was an inadequacy of payment, then thats the time notice of payment should be made. This is basic and elementary due process. Special treatment for Manny? Not at all. In fact, that is the kind of helpful service ALL citizens must expect from the BIR and which the BIR should and ought to extend to all without exceptions. Instead of an adversarial approach, the direction must be one of dedicated service to authentically help and assist people in their tax problems. Difficult to undertake considering that there may be hundreds of problematic taxpayers? Well, BIR officials just have to deal with that difficulty and provide that kind of helpful service. After all, they are supposed to be public servants - servants of the people, and not their tormentors.
Posted on: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:01:49 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015