About Me

My photo
Because I am blessed, I am blessing the world in Jesus' name...

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Top 10 Reasons Why I Love 2013

In a few hours, the year 2013 will give its final bow and exit the stage to give way to another year. This is the perfect moment for our final verdict, whether we will applaud the year's performance or 'boo' it. I've been reading many year-end posts and I feel blessed that most of us had a happy year. There were bad times, but at the end of the day (or year, in this case), we choose to remember the good stuff and take the difficulties as mere spices to add flavor to our lives. After all, if we only eat chocolates, we'll die early.

So now I'm giving my 2013 not just an applause but a standing ovation with matching 'woot woot' for countless reasons. I am thankful for even the most microscopic blessing I get, but for my "year-end special", I am honoring the top 10 reasons why 2013 is a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious year. 

1. I became a lawyer. This A-T-T-Y title is the SECOND BEST blessing God gave me in 2013. (You'll know what's the best blessing later.) It's not all that matters to me, nor is it everything that I am, but it made many other dreams possible. I welcomed 2013 with prayer and faith, and God said 'yes' to me in a really sweet way.

2. I made a brilliant career move. It wasn't a big shift in terms of what I do. I am still doing the same thing and I have come to accept and believe, based on my core gifts, that tax practice is my anointing. But a month after I took my oath, I decided to move to a bigger firm where I could spread my wings a little bit wider. And just a few days after I made that decision, I found a new corporate home (actually, it found me by accident). Not only did I find a bigger place. I am in the biggest! 7 years ago I hated that place. My words are too sweet, I ate them. Hehe... I love my work and the people I work with. Each day is full of challenges and stresses and headaches and... (blah blah) But I always go home fulfilled, and I wake up everyday ready to conquer another set of challenges and stresses and headaches and... (blah blah) in fulfilling God's great plan for me.

3. I moved to a new place. No, I don't have my own house and lot yet. My goal is to pay for at least the down payment in cash and have the balance paid in 5 years. And it's gonna be my dream home. (Lord, I know You heard me. Hehe...) But this year, I moved to another apartment and I'm now managing my own household. It's a small place. (I mean it.) But I love the peace it gives me. I can be as messy as I want, or as OC as I want, and no one would mind. Show me one tiny ant and I'll end up cleaning the whole day. (I'm exaggerating. I can tolerate up to 5 ants as long as they don't bite.)

4. I traveled 90% solo. I say it's 90% solo because I was in the same flight to Macau with my friends. But after a few hours, when we reached Hong Kong, we parted ways. I stayed in a separate place. And because communication was difficult, I explored the city - disneyland, cable car, old train, shopping places, cultural and historical spots, restaurants - alone. On day 3, I went back to Macau and explored the place - tower, churches, temples, casinos - with a backpack and a map, which made me feel like that cartoon girl with bangs and a friend monkey. I totally loved the adventure and even if I could possibly go back in time, I wouldn't change a thing, even with strong wi-fi signal. :-D For someone like me who hates the feeling of being seen eating in a restaurant alone, this is such a big deal. Oops! I almost forgot to mention that it was my first time to go out of the country. That's another blessing which made the blessing of traveling alone even more awesome.

5. I went to Boracay for the first time. Yes, first time. While almost everyone around me has already been there at least once, and I know some people who think that's their second home, in all 29 years of my life I never stepped a toe on that white sand beach. Why? Because time and money seldom met. When I wasn't so busy, I didn't have enough money for vacations of that kind. When I was already earning enough, I had no time because I spent my weekends in law school. No, I never thought of skipping classes just to get a tan. There were those few no-work-and-no-school-too days when I could have joined my friends, but I would always choose to spend them at home with my family. No out-of-town trip can ever replace the joy (and the real rest) of staying with my family. So after finally getting blessing #1, hello Bora! Yay!

6. I joined the Truly Rich Club. I learned about it in 2009, but I couldn't afford the monthly fee. I t was quite expensive that time. I also didn't have any more space in my brain, again because of law school, for stock market, real estate or small business. But this year, finally, I signed up and began receiving stock updates, wealth strategies newsletters, powertalks and other regular doses of useful materials. Once in a while, Bro. Bo, being such a sweet guy, would surprise us with e-books. Recently, I received a paper copy of his latest book, The Abundance Formula, as his Christmas gift. The TRC gives its members financial coaching coupled with spiritual guidance because, as Bro. Bo would always say, money should belong to God through the stewardship of good people.

7. I started investing in the stock market. Because of the TRC, I am now able to invest in stocks without having to worry about not having time to monitor the market. Reaching my financial goals is a slow process involving a little sacrifice each month, but I will surely get there.

8. Lovelife. I won't put any detail here because I don't want to feed other people's hunger for gossip. (Bwahaha!) I'm blessed by God, my ultimate lovelife. That's all.

9. I gained friends, strengthened my bond with the old ones, and spent more quality time with my family. No more assignments, exams and case digests to keep me from having worry-free laughs with my friends and going home to my family at least once a month. Thank God for the gift of healthy relationships.

10. I'm alive. I'm able to write this and praise God for all the wonderful things happening in my life. This is the BEST BLESSING ever, not only for me but for all of us. Thank you, Lord, for the gift of life.

With that, I'd like to thank all the people who were instruments of God in delivering His blessings to me, and those who rejoiced with me when I got them. Join me in this silent prayer to praise our Dream-giver....

Welcome, 2014! I declare more blessings for me, my family, my friends, and everybody this coming year. Because I am blessed, I'll be happy sharing my blessings to others and back to God, knowing that I can never beat His generosity. Amen. Amen.

Happy new year!

Saturday, December 21, 2013

God of My Dreams

"Because of who you are, I can live with hope,
Knowing that you'll always be
God of all my dreams
Everything I want to be is found in you"
(Who You Are by Gateway Worship)

November 4, 2012

Fresh from taking the 2012 Bar Examinations, exactly a week after the last of those 4 Sundays inside that room in UST that seemed like a big pressure cooker that time, I attended The Feast for the first time at PICC. To those of you who do not know what "The Feast" is, it is a weekly gathering to praise and glorify God, organized by Light of Jesus, a Catholic charismatic community founded by Bro. Bo Sanchez. Attending the Feast was a 4-year old plan that I was only able to do after I'm done with law school and the Bar review, when Sunday is no longer the busiest day of my typical week. Praise God!

So on that first slack Sunday, I met my friends at PICC and we attended The Feast. After the mass, I was amazed by the energy of every person inside the plenary hall. People were like in a rock concert, only that they were singing praise songs. My first impression was, "Parang born again!" But of course I've been a follower of Bro. Bo long enough to know that he is a Catholic lay preacher. I sang along.

And then they played that song that made me burst into tears as my entire law school and Bar review memories came playing inside my head like a scary movie. Then I saw my 10-year old self who, for the first time, decided that I wanted to be a CPA Lawyer. I also remembered taking my oath as a CPA in that very same place. While everybody was singing so loud, I cried out, "Lord, sana kasama ako sa mag-oath dito next year!" (Bar results come out the following year.)

"Who You Are" became my favorite song, my comfort song everytime fear of the Bar result would set in.

December 8, 2013

Fast-forward... I'm now a regular 'Feaster', actively attending (with some absences -- sorry) for more than a year. I've been into two (2) Kerygma Conferences, some CG (Connect Group) sessions, and a half-day retreat for singles. I also signed up for the Truly Rich Club. (You should register, too! Let me know so I can assist you.)

On the second week of the "Power Up" series, we sang my favorite song again. And again, tears came flowing down, and as my physical vision started to blur, memories played inside my head again. But this time, there were new images - my oath-taking, the day I signed my name in the Roll, my first baby steps as a lawyer, my struggles in this continuing journey to my bigger dreams, and the joys of finally being able to have time for myself and the people I love. I am just so thankful that the roles God gives me in this life are not hard to love and appreciate. Yes, I live my life dealing with everyday challenges. But at the end of each day, when my battery gets drained, I only have to tap into the Power Source, the God of all my dreams, who always reminds me of the reason why I have to go through all the stress and difficulties - LOVE. It is love that makes us want to be truly rich so that we can serve other people. It is love that puts balance between our desire to excel at work and to excel in our relationships. It is love that sets the strong foundation for our goals. And my goal is not to be a great lawyer, but to be a great person worthy of all the perks of being God's beloved daughter.

And so as the song was coming to its end, I thanked God for always staying by my side, for being my Dream-giver, my Coach and my Cheerleader. I bet He is also busy throwing big parties in Heaven for each little success I achieve on earth. That song will always remind me of how God shows His love through my dreams coming true one step at a time.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Sale of Precious Metals on Tighter Tax Watch

[Published in Business Mirror on May 22, 2013]

THE Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has enforced a stricter measure to ensure that the government gets hold of its proper share in the sale of jewelry, gold and other metallic minerals.

A tax-collection scheme called the “advance payment of probable taxes due” was adopted by the BIR, pursuant to Revenue Regulations (RR) 5-2013, issued on March 21, 2013. According to the regulations, the revenue measure is the government’s response to the strategy being resorted to by the sellers of precious metals to avoid being taxed.

The Tax Code imposes the following taxes on the sale of gold and other metallic minerals: 1) excise tax; 2) value-added tax (VAT) or percentage tax; and 3) income tax. On the other hand, the sale of jewelry is subject to 1) VAT or percentage tax; and 2) income tax.

Excise tax is payable at the place of production. However, if the products have been removed from the place of production without the payment of excise tax, the person having possession thereof shall be liable. The rate is 2 percent, based on the actual market value of the gross output thereof at the time of removal, in the case of those locally extracted or produced; or the value used by the Bureau of Customs in determining tariff and Customs duties, net of excise tax and VAT, in the case of importation.

The sale of metallic minerals to persons and entities, except sale of gold to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), is subject to 12-percent VAT on the gross selling price if the gross selling price exceeds P1,919,500; otherwise, it is subject to 3-percent percentage tax. The sale of gold to the BSP is subject to 0-percent VAT if the seller is VAT-registered.

Since the sale is an income-generating activity, it is, likewise, subject to income tax. RR 2-98, as amended, has included income payments on purchases of minerals, mineral products and quarry resources among the payments that are subject to creditable withholding tax. The prevailing withholding tax rate is 5 percent.

Last year RR 6-2012 was issued to provide guidelines on the imposition of excise tax, VAT, and income tax on the sale of jewelry, gold and other metallic minerals to the BSP and to other entities. To facilitate the collection of taxes thereon, the regulations constituted all buyers as withholding agents for the collection of the 2-percent excise tax and the 5-percent creditable withholding tax.

The taxing authority, however, observes that sellers opt to sell jewelry, gold and other metallic minerals to foreign entities that come to the Philippines for a limited period and only for the purpose of buying such minerals, instead of selling to the BSP and other entities that withhold taxes. Consequently, the BIR finds it hard to collect the taxes rightfully due the government. To cover this loophole, the Department of Finance (DOF) prescribed the rules on the advance payment of business and income taxes and actual payment of excise tax by sellers of jewelry, gold and other metallic minerals to non-resident individuals not engaged in trade or business or to non-resident foreign corporations.

Under the new regulations cited, sellers are now required to pay the applicable taxes in advance to the RDO having jurisdiction over the place where the transaction occurs. The advance payments are creditable against the actual income and taxes due for the taxable period for which such payment pertains. As regards the VAT paid in advance, the same, together with any input tax, shall be deducted from the output tax to determine the VAT payable.

The regulations further impose upon the nonresident buyers the obligation to maintain a record of the transactions and require the seller to sign an order slip or any document which will be the basis of the revenue officers in assessing the correct tax due. Operators of establishments where the subject transactions are conducted are required to advise the concerned BIR Revenue District Office (RDO) about the sale. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. On the basis of the information gathered, the Special Investigation Division (SID) of the concerned RDO shall check if the seller complies with his obligations. Any tax due shall be collected on the spot.

With this new tax-collection procedure, the BIR is looking at more revenues going into the government coffers. Such revenues are expected to come only from those transactions that are advertised or at least displayed, as it may still be hard for the BIR to monitor the selling of precious metals that is not ostensible. The BIR can easily spot purchasing in large scale, but transactions involving relatively small amounts may escape the eyes of revenue collectors.

If advance payment of taxes turns out to be very effective on sales of precious metals, the possibility of adopting this collection scheme to other hard-to-collect taxes may not be far away.

Friday, March 29, 2013

DST on Assigned Trade Receivables

This article was published in Business Mirror and http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/ on March 14, 2013.

A recent Supreme Court decision (Philacor Credit Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR 169899, February 6, 2013) shed light in interpreting the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code (Tax Code) on documentary stamp tax (DST), particularly on what specific transactions are subject to DST, and who can be made liable for it.
The taxpayer in this case is engaged in retail financing through which a buyer may purchase appliances on installment basis from a dealer. The buyer executes a unilateral promissory note in favor of the appliance dealer, which is pre-approved by the financing company. The appliance dealer then assigns the note to the financing company.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) assessed Philacor for deficiency DST on: (1) the issuance of promissory notes by buyers in favor of appliance dealers; and (2) the subsequent assignment of the notes by the dealers to Philacor. The Supreme Court, however, declared that the taxpayer is not liable on both counts.
Under Section 173 of the Tax Code, taxpayers, not otherwise exempt, can be held liable for DST if they are the ones making, signing, issuing, accepting, and transferring the taxable documents, instruments and papers. From that, it would seem that the retail financer’s “acceptance” of the promissory note is taxable, but it is not, according to the High Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the word “acceptance” has to be taken in its strict sense. Under the negotiable instruments law, “acceptance” is “the signification by the drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer.” This definition can only apply to bills of exchange. Acceptance makes the drawee/acceptor primarily liable. In contrast, “acceptance” of documents in its ordinary sense does not make the person accepting primarily liable on the instrument. The only taxable act of “acceptance” in Section 173 of the Tax Code is one that would make the person accepting a party to the instrument.
One may argue that the financing company should be held liable because it is an active participant in the transaction. The Supreme Court also thought that tax collection would have been more efficient if the financing company, as the one financing the debt instruments, can also be held liable for DST. But since the legislature did not extend the liability to persons who are not parties to the instrument, the rule that only the parties to the issuance of a debt instrument can be held liable for DST stands.
Neither can the subsequent assignment of the notes give rise to DST because according to the Court, such event is not taxable under the law. Section 198 of the Tax Code does not impose DST on transfers of debt instruments. What is subject to DST is the renewal of debt instruments, which is treated as a new issuance.
How do we tell then if a transfer of debt instrument constitutes renewal and not a simple assignment of credit? In a US case (State of Florida Department of Revenue v. Miami National Bank, 1979) cited by the Supreme Court, it was held that a renewal would involve an increase in the amount of indebtedness or an extension of a period, and not the mere change in the person of the payee.
This reminds us of the Civil Code provisions on novation, which is a mode of extinguishing an obligation by the creation of a new one that may involve one of the following: (1) a change in the object or principal conditions; (2) substituting the person of the debtor, and (3) subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor. (Article 1291,Civil Code) To my mind, “novation” under the Civil Code and “renewal” under the Tax Code have the same underlying concept: the creation of a new obligation in lieu of the one that is extinguished. This may be the reason renewal of debt instruments is tantamount to an original issuance.
While subrogation and assignment of credit may have the same effect, they are not quite the same. When a credit is assigned, the right passes from one person to another, but the obligation subsists. In subrogation, the original obligation terminates and gives way to a new one.
The transactions covered by the Philacor case occurred prior to the effectivity of the 1997 Tax Code, yet the provisions of the old Tax Code from which the ruling was based remained unchanged. The exemption is even further strengthened in the amendment to Section 199, introduced by Republic Act 9243 in 2004, to the effect that even the renewal of debt instrument is not subject to DST if there is no change in the maturity date. Clearly, instruments
evidencing transactions of this kind are not subject to DST.
If the BIR previously succeeded in collecting DST from financing companies for transactions similar to the ones from which the Philacor case originated, we could perhaps expect taxpayers to be chasing the commissioner soon for tax refund. Let’s wait and see.

The Judy Ann Doctrine

This article was published in Business Mirror and http://www.businessmirror.com.ph on January 24, 2013.

ACTRESS Judy Ann Santos-Agoncillo was acquitted from the tax-evasion case filed against her by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).
In a 46-page decision, the Third Division of the Tax Court dismissed the criminal aspect of the case, but ordered Santos to pay her income-tax deficiency plus 20-percent per-annum interests, amounting to P3.418 million.
Being a popular celebrity that she is, the news of her “victory” spread like wildfire via all possible channels for news and gossip. The entertainment industry considers the event as something to celebrate.
People in the “tax industry,” on the other hand, have different reactions to the matter. The decision caused quite a stir and triggered amusing discussions among tax practitioners. It seems to have modified or perhaps, even defied, some established rules that have been there for Heaven-knows-how-long.
Let us trace the beginnings of the tax-evasion case against “Juday.”
Then-BIR Commissioner Guillermo L. Parayno Jr. wrote a letter addressed to then-Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzales, recommending the possible filing of a case against Santos for substantial underdeclaration of her income for 2002. Pursuant to the said letter, an information was filed with the CTA First Division in November 2005, seeking the conviction of the actress for willful attempt to evade taxes.
In her motion to quash the information, Santos argued that, among other things, she had been denied due process when similar charges against Regine Velasquez were dismissed for the reason that her tax liability could not be fully and readily determined. In 2008 the CTA dismissed the argument, ruling that Santos and Velasquez are not similarly situated so as to call for the application of the equal-protection clause. The trial proceeded and eventually led to the CTA decision dated January 16, 2013.
The BIR anchored its case against Santos on Sections 254 and 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, which impose criminal liability for willful failure to supply correct and accurate information on tax returns, and failure to pay the correct tax due. In relation thereto, Section 248 (B) of the Tax Code provides that a substantial underdeclaration of taxable income constitutes prima facie case of false or fraudulent return. Failure to report income in an amount exceeding 30 percent of that declared per return constitutes substantial underdeclaration, for which 50-percent surcharge is being imposed, in addition to interest and other penalties.
The Tax Code is clear on the presumption of fraud in case of substantial underdeclaration of income. In the case of Santos, however, the Tax Court seems to have put a distinction between substantial underdeclaration, which amounts to fraud, and substantial underdeclaration, which is not considered fraudulent, considering the BIR’s claim that Santos’s undeclared income in 2002 exceeded 100 percent of the income she declared in her income-tax return (ITR).
The decision also reversed the previous ruling of the CTA, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of People v. Gloria Kintanar, resulting in the first conviction by final judgment for tax evasion in the Philippines. It was in this case that the “doctrine of willful blindness” became part of jurisprudence and a precedent in future tax-evasion cases. Under that doctrine, the taxpayer’s deliberate refusal or avoidance to verify the contents of the ITR and other documents and inquire into the authenticity thereof constitutes “willful blindness” on his part. It is by reason of such doctrine that taxpayers can no longer refute the presumption of deliberate failure to pay their correct tax liabilities by simply invoking reliance on mere representations of their accountants or representatives. To be liable, it is enough that the taxpayer knows his obligation to file the required return and has failed to comply thereto in the manner required by law.
If we are to harmonize the ruling in this case and the previous rulings, there is a need to draw a clear line between the opposite doctrines so that in future cases, there won’t be too much confusion in determining if the taxpayer willfully evaded his tax liabilities, or if he “only underdeclared his tax liability.”
Is the “willful blindness doctrine” still in place? That, we hope to see when the decision in this case attains finality. The commissioner said that the BIR will file a petition for review to insist that the court find Santos criminally liable. So for now, Santos may claim her victory, but only up until the BIR’s petition is filed with the court and the next phase of the legal battle starts. And for future tax-evasion cases, this is a precedent-in-progress.