Biyernes, Nobyembre 7, 2014

Tax relief after a loss

BUSINESSMEN expect to earn a profit, but that is not always the case. Losses are always possible, especially for start-ups, or if economic conditions are unfavorable. A loss, while not ideal, is not exactly the end of the world.

One of the ways losses are compensated, like life insurance for loved ones who pass away, is tax relief. Those who register a net operating loss are entitled to offset one year’s losses against the succeeding year’s income, subject to certain conditions. The so-called “net operating loss carry-over” (NOLCO) provides tax relief by reducing the tax liability for future years.

The big issue with NOLCO is how the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) interprets the rules. Lately, the bureau has been very aggressive in tax assessments when it comes to NOLCO treatment, adopting the position that even taxpayers reporting losses are to be assessed zero taxable income per return. This effectively prevents the use of losses to reduce taxable income. Accordingly, the BIR disregards losses incurred for the taxable year under audit regardless of whether the same was utilized in the succeeding years or not.

Under Philippine tax rules, the net operating loss of a business for any taxable year immediately preceding the current year, which has not been previously offset as deduction from gross income, shall be carried over as a deduction from gross income for the next three consecutive taxable years immediately following the year of the loss.

However, in some cases, the BIR is taking the position that the taxpayer is no longer entitled to claim unutilized NOLCO as deduction for any deficiency tax assessment for the year under audit. The BIR theory is that the taxpayer waives the right to claim losses for the taxable period in question when it signified its intention to make these deductions available to the subsequent years through filed income tax returns (ITR). Since the losses became part of the available NOLCO, the taxpayer is barred from claiming these losses in the year they emanated.

While it is true that the regulation does not specify that NOLCO cannot be used to offset any deficiency tax assessment, it must also be noted that nothing in the Tax Code states that a taxpayer who has failed to utilize the accumulated NOLCO shall be deemed to have waived its right to utilize the same as deduction from any tax assessment by signifying in the ITR its intention to carry over the same as tax deduction in the succeeding year.

The law would have expressly provided this if it were the intention of the lawmakers to constitute such failure as a waiver of its right to utilize the available and unexpired NOLCO in the current year. A waiver, being a relinquishment of a legal right, cannot be presumed.

In fact, various recent Court of Tax Appeal (CTA) cases (Oakwood Overseas Limited vs. CIR, CTA Case No. 8196, April 29, 2014, AR Realty Holdings Co., Inc., vs. CIR, CTA Case No. 8239, April 1, 2014, among others) resulted in findings of erroneous computation of the deficiency income tax, because although the BIR started with the taxable loss per return, it added back the taxable loss.

According to the CTA, unless the BIR can present evidence to prove that petitioner used its net loss as NOLCO in the succeeding year, the tax benefit purportedly realized by the taxpayer in the succeeding year cannot be assumed.

Consequently, the taxpayer must be allowed to deduct net operating loss incurred from the taxable income during the year.

Notwithstanding the Court decisions, some BIR examiners are still disregarding the losses incurred by the taxpayers in determining the amount of deficiency tax liabilities. That is why some taxpayers are questioning whether there really is a tax relief for losses.

In certain countries, lawmakers have been providing actual relief to taxpayers in case of losses, including the carrying back of NOLCO to the preceding years, using the current year’s deficit to earn a refund for the taxes paid in the previous years. NOLCO can also be carried forward over the next 20 years to reduce future tax liability.

In the Philippines, instead of tax relief, we are seeing businessmen who have incurred losses also have to settle huge tax deficiencies.

Businesses are important economic engines, and it is important for the BIR to look at all the circumstances before disallowing losses, and not just assume that the same will benefit the taxpayer in the future. Instead of being strict on the treatment of NOLCO, the BIR should be providing relief to taxpayers in times of economic distress. The payoff comes later, when taxpayers turn profitable, translating to large tax payments down the line.

Jen R. Serrano
Let’s Talk Tax
Punongbayan and Araullo

Huwebes, Nobyembre 6, 2014

Taxpayer Beware of the 10- year prescriptive period

BECAUSE of the latest controversial tax fraud cases, taxpayers are more aware of the power of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to perform tax audit investigations. Tax assessments have become the norm rather than the exception. Taxpayers find themselves counting the period of limitation from their open taxable years, confident that they will no longer be assessed after three years. This is not so in tax fraud cases.

The right of the government to assess all deficiency internal revenue taxes, including value-added tax (VAT), generally prescribes after three years from the time of the filing of the return or from the last day prescribed by law for the filing of such return, whichever comes later.

This law on prescription is intended to protect law-abiding taxpayers from unreasonable investigation of government agencies. Thus, it must always be liberally construed in favor of the taxpayer and strictly construed against the government. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Commission of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 139736 dated October 17, 2005). Without such a legal defense, taxpayers would be under obligation to always maintain their books and keep them open for inspection subject to the harassment of unscrupulous tax agents. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Ablaza, 108 Phil 1105, 1108)This period to assess, however, may be increased up to 10 years under Section 222 of the Tax Code, as amended.

When is the 10-year period to assess applicable?
The Supreme Court declared in the case of Jose B. Aznar vs. Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and Collector of Internal Revenue that Section 222 of the Tax Code should be interpreted to mean three different situations, namely: (1) a false return; (2) a fraudulent return with intent to evade tax; or (3) failure to file a return.

In such instances, the 10-year prescriptive period begins to run only from the date of the discovery by the BIR of the falsity, fraud or omission, thus making the period to assess almost imprescriptible.

However, there is an instance where falsity or fraud may be deemed prima facie to exist when there is substantial under-declaration of taxable sales, receipts or income or substantial overstatement of deductions, in an amount exceeding 30% as provided under Section 248 (B) of the Tax Code.

In the recent case decided by the CTA, the application of the 10-year prescriptive period was further clarified. The petitioner posits that it was not guilty of falsity or fraud to warrant the application of the 10-year prescriptive period as the under-declaration in its sales was not due to intentional falsity or fraud but was merely due to the improper claim of input tax made by some of its clients.

The court ruled that although the VAT assessment was issued beyond the three-year period prescribed by law, the substantial understatement in the petitioner’s VATable sales in 2006 makes its VAT returns for the said year false. Thus, the 10-year prescriptive period under Section 222 of the Tax Code, as amended, applies.
The same case of Aznar discussed the difference between a “false return” and “fraudulent return.” The first merely implies deviation from the truth, whether intentional or not. On the other hand, the second one implies intentional or deceitful entry with intent to evade taxes due. Thus, even granting that the under-declaration of VATable sales by the petitioner was not intentional -- hence, not a case of fraudulent return -- the situation falls under a false return, which may or may not be intentional.

Noteworthy, however, is the imposition of the 50% surcharge as fraud penalty by the CTA in this case. Section 248 (B) of the Tax Code, as amended, requires that a false or fraudulent return is wilfully made to warrant the imposition of 50% fraud penalty.

In the case of Estate of Fidel F. Reyes vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CTA EB No. 189 dated March 21, 2007), the CTA applied the 10-year prescriptive period based on the false returns filed by the petitioners, but disallowed the 50% surcharge fraud penalty because the falsity was not wilfully made. Thus, it is not enough that the taxpayer filed a false return to justify the imposition of the 50% penalty for fraud. The law is clear that a false or fraudulent return should be wilfully made.

The ruling in this case is contrary to the Reyes case. The CTA imposed the 50% surcharge although no evidence was presented to prove that there was an intention to wilfully file a false return on the part of the petitioner to evade the payment of taxes.

Well settled is the rule that fraud is a question of fact and cannot be presumed, but must be sufficiently established. Thus, notwithstanding the applicability of the 10-year prescriptive period, the 50% surcharge should not be imposed in the absence of showing that the falsity was wilfully made.

It is crucial for taxpayers to be fully aware of the circumstances when the 10-year prescriptive period to be assessed by the BIR applies, in order to effectively contest it. The indefinite extension of the period to assess deprives taxpayers of the assurance that they will no longer be subjected to further investigation of taxes after the expiration of a reasonable period of time. Ten years is a long period to be exposed to BIR tax audit investigation.

Charity P. Mandap-de Veyra
Let’s Talk Tax
Punongbayan and Araullo


Linggo, Nobyembre 2, 2014

Clarification on the mode of submission of alphalist

The BIR has issued the following clarifications on the submission of the alphabetical list of employees and list of payees on income payments subject to creditable and final withholding tax (alphalist) in accordance with Revenue Regulations No. 1-2014.
a. Mode of submission of alphalists
All withholding agents, regardless of the number of employees/payees, are now required to submit electronically their alphabetical list of employees and list of payees using either of the following modes:       
 1) Attachment in the electronic filing and payment system (eFPS)
 2) Electronic submission using the BIR’s website (esubmission@bir.gov.ph)
 3) Electronic mail (email) at dedicated BIR address using the prescribed      CSV data file format.
The proper mode of submission shall depend on the type of registration/enrolment of the taxpayer, as follows:

Taxpayer registration
Mode of Submission of alphalist
e-Submission
e-mail Submission
Attachment in the eFPS
eFPS
Yes
No
Yes, when attachment facility becomes available
BIR Inter-Active Form system (IAFS)
Yes
No
No
Non-eFPS/Non-IAFS
Yes
(BIR-preferred mode)
Yes
No
Taxpayers submitting their alphalist through eSubmission or email shall receive an email message on the status of their submission.  The required courses of action for the taxpayer are outlined below:

Submission status
Course of action of taxpayer
Alphalist successfully uploaded
Print the e-mail message or the computer screen displaying the confirmation which shall serve as proof of filings/submission. The printed copy of the computer screen display shall be attached to the hard or physical copy of the monthly remittance returns, annual information returns, etc. required to be filed by non-eFPS taxpayers
Alphalist failed the prescribed validation process
Address the issues and re-submit the corrected and completely filled-up alphalist within 5 days from receipt of email-message


No e-mail message
Coordinate with the RDO to confirm the status.  If submission did not reach BIR, re-check correctness of email address and re-send.
b. Coverage of the  modes of submission of alphalist  
The prescribed modes of submission under RR 01-2014 covers the Monthly Alphalist of Payees (MAP) and the Summary Alphalist of Withholding Taxes (SAWT).  It does not cover the monthly remittance return for compensation (BIR Form 1601C) where the monthly list of recipients of compensation is not required to be attached to the return. 
c. Penalty on failure to successfully upload the alphalist 
In case a taxpayer unsuccessfully uploaded its alphalist and was considered not received by the BIR, he/it shall be liable to pay P10,000  plus imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than 10 years, or in lieu of imprisonment, pay the compromise penalty based on gross annual sales under RMO 19-2007.
In case the BIR, after conducting the validation process, duly informed the taxpayer for non-compliance of requirements in the submission of alphalist (Q12 of the Circular) and required the re-submission of a correct alphalist, a separate penalty shall be imposed against the taxpayer for each incorrectly accomplished and submitted alphalist.  
On the other hand,  if the taxpayer failed to file the alphalist, or failed to address the issues and re-submit its complete and corrected alphalists after the validation process, the taxpayer cannot claim the expenses arising from the alphalist for income tax purposes.  
Where the taxpayer is able to successfully upload its alphalist in the BIR’s data warehouse but fails to enter some transactions that should have been entered in its previously submitted alphalist, the taxpayer is required not only to re-file/re-submit the missing information but also to re-file/re-submit the complete and corrected alphalist to the BIR. 
The specific procedures/steps in the submission of alphalists are explained in RMC 5-2014  Likewise, the e-mail addresses of the different BIR offices where the taxpayer may submit their alphalist through email is contained in the Annex “A” of RMC 5-2014.  
Tax Alerts
Punongbayan and Araullo

Lunes, Oktubre 27, 2014

Indication of complete principal office address of corporations and partnerships

Under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 6, series of 2014, all existing corporations and partnerships whose articles of incorporation or articles of partnership indicate a general address as their principal office address must amend their articles of incorporation/partnership to specify their complete address.

To ease the burden of affected corporations and partnerships in amending their articles of incorporation when they transfer or move to a new location, the SEC issued the following guidelines:

1. In the event that a corporation whose principal office address as indicated in its articles of incorporation is already specific and complete or fully compliant with SEC MC No. 6, series of 2014, has moved or moves to another location within the same city or municipality, the corporation is not required to file an amended articles of incorporation. However, it must declare its new or current specific address in its General Information Sheet (GIS) within 15 days from transfer to its new location.

2. Failure on the part of the corporation to file the GIS within the prescribed period shall constitute a violation of Section 16 of the Corporation Code and shall subject the corporation to the imposition of penalty in accordance with the existing scale of fines.

3. In the case of a partnership, considering that it has no obligation to file a GIS, it is required to file amended articles of partnership every time it transfers to a new location within the same or another city or municipality.

4. Both corporations and partnerships shall be deemed to have been duly notified or validly served where the Commission has sent its subpoena, summons, notice, show cause letter, and other communications to the address indicated in the articles of incorporation or partnership, and/or GIS, as the case may be.

(SEC Memorandum Circular No. 16, series of 2014, August 13, 2014)
Tax Brief 
Punongbayan and Araullo

Biyernes, Oktubre 24, 2014

The trouble with tax clearance

WITH the current tax season underway, going-concern companies are preoccupied with the preparation and filing of tax returns as well as the corresponding payment of taxes. For corporations planning to dissolve or those that have already ceased operations, the filing of nil tax returns is still required until the official closure is effected.
  
In the Philippine setting, the dissolution of business does not preclude the effects of taxation. Section 235 of the Tax Code provides that corporations and partnerships shall not be dissolved until cleared of any tax liability. Similarly, Section 52 (c) of the Tax Code and Section 120 of the Corporation Code requires a dissolving corporation to secure a certificate of tax clearance from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and to submit said certificate to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) upon filing of the application for dissolution.

The taxpayer, therefore, needs the approval of both the SEC and the BIR before the dissolution becomes effective. Note that even if the date of dissolution is immediate, the same will not be effective until the SEC issues the approval of the dissolution, which requires the submission of the duly issued BIR tax clearance. The certificate of tax clearance is a written confirmation from the BIR that a taxpayer has no pending tax liabilities as of the date of issue of the certificate.

For foreign corporations licensed to do business in the Philippines as a branch, regional operating headquarters, or representative office, a Certificate of Withdrawal of License must be secured by filing a petition with the SEC which likewise requires a BIR tax clearance.

A tax clearance is also a requirement for refund of excess taxes of a dissolving entity. It serves as a substantive proof that the taxpayer is cleared of all its tax liabilities, and is therefore entitled to a refund of any taxes paid.

Under Revenue Regulations No. (RR) 11-2008, cancellation of registration with the BIR requires the filing of the Notice of Closure or Cessation of Business to the Revenue District Office (RDO) where the taxpayer is registered by accomplishing the prescribed registration updates form (BIR Form 1905). The supporting documents required are:

• a board resolution authorizing a shortened corporate term in the case of a domestic corporation, or the dissolution of the Philippine entity in the case of branches or representative offices of foreign firms;
• an inventory of goods, supplies, and capital goods;
• a list of unused sales invoices (SI) or official receipts (OR) and all other accounting forms, such as vouchers, debit/credit memos, delivery receipts and purchase orders;
• the surrender of original copies of unused sales invoices or official receipts and all other unused accounting forms; and
• short period return for income tax purposes and the surrender of original copies of all business notices and permits.

The RDO, upon receipt of the above-mentioned requirements shall:

1. “End date” the tax types of the taxpayer;
2. Destruct, in the presence of the taxpayer or his authorized representative, the unutilized SI/ORs and other accounting forms by cutting them crosswise and lengthwise at the middle thereof so that the same shall be divided into four, ensuring that the same will no longer be used as originally intended; and
3. Return to taxpayer the destructed SI/ORs and other accounting forms for burning and/or proper disposition.

To be able to issue a tax clearance, the BIR has to perform a tax audit. Hence, all taxpayers that filed for cancellation of registration due to closure/cessation or termination of business shall be subjected to immediate investigation by the BIR office concerned. This is also to prevent the situation where companies with existing tax liabilities close down their business to avoid or evade the payment of taxes.

Generally, the processing of the tax clearance can take one to three years and can naturally delay the filing of the SEC application. For dormant companies or those with no operations, the period should be shorter as there are few or no transactions to examine. For companies that are operational in the years under investigation (prior to closure), the process for securing a tax clearance may take longer since this will go through the same process as a regular audit and there will be more transactions and taxes to examine.

There is a possibility that deficiency tax assessments may be issued in the course of the examination, which will require more time to resolve and which will further prolong the process of securing a tax clearance. Where the issues are complex and the liabilities are substantial, the taxpayer may decide to challenge the assessments before the Courts and the resolution of the issues by the Court can take four to 10 years.

Should the BIR be satisfied that there are no more open cases or tax liabilities, it will cancel the dissolving taxpayer’s Certificate of Registration and TIN and issue the tax clearance or Certificate of No Outstanding Tax Liability.

It must be emphasized that securing the BIR tax clearance is the most cumbersome process in the dissolution procedure. In order to avoid further delay, taxpayers intending to close their business must ensure that: (a) the open taxable years are supported by complete accounting records arranged by year and easily retrievable; (b) the reportorial requirements are consistently filed; (c) taxes are correctly paid; (c) some employees are maintained to assist in the tax investigation process; and (d) a high level compliance review is performed to explain any discrepancies usually raised during a tax audit.

Charity Mandap
Let’s Talk Tax

Punongbayan and Araullo

Linggo, Oktubre 19, 2014

BIR's right to collect has expired

WHEN one is facing a tax assessment case we resort to exhaust all possible and available legal remedies that the law provides for the taxpayer. One of the possible and available remedies is for the taxpayer to request for a reinvestigation of the case.

Under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 18-2013, request for reinvestigation refers to a plea of re-evaluation of an assessment on the basis of newly discovered or additional evidence that a taxpayer intends to present in the reinvestigation. It may also involve a question of fact or of law or both.

This request, however, cannot be granted without a return of favor to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).As a rule, when the taxpayer requests for a reinvestigation which is granted by the Commissioner of the BIR, the running of prescriptive period of the BIR to assess and collect shall be suspended. Consequently, the five (5)-year prescriptive period for BIR to collect the tax assessment shall be suspended.

WHEN DOES THE SUSPENSION OF THE FIVE (5)-YEAR PRESCRIPTION PERIOD TO COLLECT COMMENCE?

In G.R. No. 197515 (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc.), the Supreme Court (SC) said that the request for reinvestigation should be granted or at least acted upon in due course before the suspension of the statute of limitations to collect may set in.

In the instant case, the final assessment notice (FAN) was issued by the BIR on January 9, 1996 and the taxpayer requested for a reinvestigation on March 14, 1997. However, the BIR granted such request only on January 22, 2001 or after five (5) years from the date of the issuance of the FAN. Further, the BIR issued Preliminary Collection Letter only on February 21, 2002.

The BIR argued that its right to collect the tax assessment has not yet prescribed. The five (5)-year prescriptive period to collect was interrupted when the taxpayer filed its request for reinvestigation. Thus, the period for tax collection should have begun to run from the date of the reconsidered or modified assessment.

This argument failed to persuade the SC. The Court emphasized the rule that the Commissioner of the BIR must first grant the request for reinvestigation as a requirement for the suspension of the statute of limitations. The act of requesting a reinvestigation alone does not suspend the period. The request should first be granted, in order to effect suspension.

The Court pointed out that while the request for reinvestigation was made on March 14, 1997, the same was only acted upon by the BIR on January 22, 2001 which is beyond the three (3) year statute of limitations from the issuance of the FAN on January 9, 1996. Further, the Court stressed that the Preliminary Collection Letter was only issued on February 21, 2002 which is clearly five (5) long years had already lapsed before collection was pursued by the BIR.

Moreover, the Court rejected the BIR’s argument that the taxpayer’s act of elevating its protest to the Court of Tax Appeals has fortified the continuing interruption of the BIR’s prescriptive period to collect. The Court found the argument flawed at best because the taxpayer was merely exercising its right to resort to the proper Court and does not in any way deter the BIR’s right to collect taxes from the taxpayer under existing laws.

The Court also elucidated that the statute of limitations on the collection of taxes was enacted to benefit and protect the taxpayers. Just as the government is interested in the stability of its collections, the taxpayers are also entitled to an assurance that they will not be subjected to further investigation for tax purposes after the expiration of a reasonable period of time.


While it is true that taxes are the lifeblood of the government, it must be exercised fairly, equally and uniformly so as not for the tax collector to kill the “hen that lays the golden egg.”

Nikkolai F. Canceran
Let’s Talk Tax
Punongbayan and Araullo

Biyernes, Oktubre 17, 2014

Fair and relaxed tax exemption rulings for NSNP entities

THE BUREAU of Internal Revenue (BIR) is in a surprisingly merry mood these days. The reason could be one of three things:

1) the nearing yuletide season;
2) the P9.45 billion increase in revenue collection as of August 2014 compared to August 2013;
3) the P62 billion worth of tax evasion cases filed in the courts as of July 2014.
  
Whatever the reason is, taxpayers surely felt the good vibes with the issuance of Revenue Memorandum Order No. (RMO) 34-2014 on September 18, 2014, which helpfully eased the burden of nonstock, nonprofit (NSNP) corporations and associations, falling under Section 30 of the Tax Code, namely:

a. Labor, agricultural or horticultural organizations not organized for profit
b. Mutual savings banks and cooperative banks without capital stock and organized not for profit
c. Beneficiary societies or associations operating for the exclusive benefit of the members
d. Cemetery companies owned and operated for the exclusive benefit of the members
e. NSNP corporations or associations operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, athletic or cultural purposes,    no part of net income or asset inures to the benefit of any member or officer
f. Business leagues, chambers of commerce or boards of trade not organized for profit
g. Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare
h. NSNP educational institutions
i. Government educational institutions
j. Farmers’ or other mutual typhoon or fire insurance companies, mutual ditch or irrigation companies, mutual or cooperative    telephone companies or like organizations of a purely local character, the income of which consists solely of assessments,    dues, and fees collected from members for the sole purpose of covering expenses
k. Farmers’, fruit growers’ and like associations organized and operated as sales agents in marketing products of the members    and returning the proceeds to the members

As explained in RMO 34-2014, the tax exemption rulings granted to NSNP entities will serve as confirmation, rather than approval, on whether the conditions for tax exemption set forth by law are appropriately complied.

This means that during the preparation of income tax returns, NSNP entities are not precluded from treating income derived from registered activities as exempt from income tax in the absence of a valid, current, and subsisting BIR ruling or tax exemption certificate. Likewise, NSNP entities are still required to subject income derived from unregistered activities to 30% regular corporate income tax.

This is a welcome relief from the BIR’s previous directive in RMO 20-2013 -- as amended by RMO 28-2013 -- which strictly requires the procurement of a BIR ruling or tax exemption certificate before NSNP entities can avail of the tax exemption.

The issuance also allowed umbrella organizations duly recognized by the BIR to apply for tax exemption rulings on behalf of any of their members that are NSNP entities. This is reasonably practical and fair to NSNP entities given that most, if not all of these entities, do not have adequate budget for a relatively costly BIR ruling.

However, RMO 34-2014 does not negate the purpose of the issuance of tax exemption rulings -- i.e., to minimize tax leakages caused by inaccurate interpretation of existing tax laws and administrative issuances. Therefore, in case of a BIR tax investigation in any given period, the NSNP entities are required to present a valid, current and subsisting BIR ruling or tax exemption certificate as proof of compliance of the conditions for tax exemption. Failure to do so will expose NSNP entities to deficiency in income tax due.

NSNP entities are also required to present the same to the withholding agents in order to be exempt from applicable final and creditable withholding taxes due on their transactions. Failure to do so will likewise expose NSNP entities to deficiency in withholding taxes due. In the same manner, failure on the part of the withholding agents will lead to payment equivalent of the total amount of tax not withheld plus penalties up to P25,000.

To fully take advantage of the tax benefits given to them, qualified NSNP entities should, therefore, carefully examine the nature of their revenue-generating activities, timely check the relevance of their duly issued tax exemption rulings with the newest tax issuances and properly comply with documentary requirements.

All in all, the fair and well-thought-out interpretation of the BIR on tax exemption rulings for NSNP entities has earned the nods of the public.

RMO 34-2014 has provided an efficient way for complying with BIR requirements, which, in effect, has given NSNP entities more time, funds and energy in realizing the purposes for which the NSNP entities were established.

Could the entities under special laws be next? Will the BIR fairly see the certificates of exemption issued by the Philippine Economic Zone Authority and the Board of Investments as practical and sufficient documentation for availing tax exemption under the BIR?

We can only hope that the BIR, as one of the influential pillars of the government in running the economy, continues to set regulations and guidelines that will not only boost the revenue collections of the government, but also boost the growth and sustainability of both for profit and not-for-profit entities.

After all, it wouldn’t be “more fun in the Philippines” if there is imbalance in any of the key economic players.

Let's Talk Tax
Punongbayan and Araullo