A PROGRAM launched eight years ago to raise citizens’ awareness of the role receipts play in ensuring businesses pay correct taxes ends today, with both the government and a group of tax professionals saying it did its job.
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), through a memorandum dated Sept. 9, said its Premyo sa Resibo program “will officially end its implementation effective Oct. 1...” with the last draw to be held two days later.
“Text entries from Sept. 19 to 30 shall qualify for this final draw,” the memorandum read, adding that entries -- consisting of taxpayer’s identification number, official receipt number and amount -- were to be accepted via mobile phone text up to 11:59 a.m. yesterday.
Ten entries will win P5,000 each and another 10 will each get P10,000, BIR added.
The memorandum, signed by Nelson M. Aspe, deputy commissioner in charge of BIR’s Operations Group, said the program “has successfully achieved its prime objective of making citizenry aware of the importance of demanding the issuance of official receipts by commercial establishments and professionals as well”.
“The ‘Premyo sa Resibo’ contributed to waking up and increasing the level of tax awareness in the matter of issuance of receipts and invoices of establishments,” Mr. Aspe said in a telephone interview yesterday.
While BIR could not measure the program’s success since its June 2006 launch, Mr. Aspe said the bureau has noted a decline in non-compliance among establishments when its teams conduct tax compliance verification and surveillance.
Receipts, in turn, help BIR track value added tax payments.
“It’s hard to quantify, but you will observe almost everyone asks for receipts when they buy products,” Mr. Aspe noted.
Sought for comment, Tax Management Association of the Philippines, Inc. President Rina-Lorena R.Manuel said in a telephone interview: “I think it’s a good program because, in the past, it has actually encouraged individuals to ask for receipts.”
Asked if the program helped BIR shore up collections, Ms. Manuel said: “It might have helped at the start of the program when awareness about it was high.”
While its collections have been rising, BIR has missed annual targets from 2006 to 2013, data from the Finance department showed. This year, so far, the bureau has exceeded its monthly target only once -- in July when it raked in P119.94 billion against a P119.883-billion target. BIR collections totaled P890.71 billion in the eight months to August, against a P1.456-trillion full-year goal. -- Mikhail Franz E. Flores
source: Businessworld
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Give the taxpayer what is his by right
REBATE. Refund. Reimbursement. Money back. Return. These are not just words but music to the ears of any one who spends his hard-earned money, especially to a taxpayer who was advised that there is overpayment in tax remitted to the government which he can get back through a refund or tax credit.
A taxpayer is entitled to a refund either by: (i) authority of a statute expressly granting such right, privilege or incentive in his favor; or (ii) under the principle of solution indebiti requiring the return of taxes erroneously or illegally collected.
In both cases, the taxpayer must prove not only his entitlement to a refund but also his compliance with procedural due process. Note that non-observance of the prescriptive periods within which to file the administrative and judicial claims would result in denial of the claim for refund.
Generally, an administrative claim for value-added tax (VAT) refund or credit must be filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made. Thereafter, the BIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claims within which to decide whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate (TCC).
The lapse of the 120-day period within which the BIR is required to decide the administrative claim for refund gives the taxpayer the right to elevate the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within 30 days from the lapse of the 120-day period.
Thus, the right of the taxpayer to file a claim in the CTA will only arise upon inaction of the BIR with regard to the claim within the required period.
Under the old rules, the mere filing of a case in court after the lapse of the 120-day period does not terminate or dismiss the application initially lodged in the BIR.
However, Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 54-2014 issued by the BIR last June 11 equated such inaction with denial of the claim.
The new RMC states that if the claim for VAT refund or credit is not acted upon by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) within the 120-day period, as required by law, such “inaction shall be deemed a denial” of the application for tax refund or credit.
Simply put, the claim is denied due to inaction of the BIR and such denial constitutes as denial based on the merits of the application. Consequently, the BIR will no longer act on the claim for refund or tax credit when the period has already lapsed.
This should not be the case.
While it was not explicitly stated in the RMC, the “deemed denial” due to inaction must be interpreted to apply only for the purpose of filing a judicial claim. Note that under the Tax Code and established jurisprudence, the taxpayer seeking a refund or tax credit needs not to wait for the BIR to issue an actual denial of the administrative claim before filing the case in the courts when the 120-day period has already expired.
Nevertheless, the lapse of the 120-day period should not be construed as a denial based on the merits of the application for refund. As far as the BIR is concerned, it must still conduct its audit investigation despite the filing of the case in the CTA. Otherwise, some indifferent BIR personnel may opt not to act at all on the claim, wait for the period to lapse and then, upon the filing of a judicial claim, defer to the judgment of the courts.
Taxpayers are granted an unmistakable right to avail of the remedy of judicial action in case of an adverse decision of an administrative body such as the BIR. However, such right is not cheap and some taxpayers cannot afford the fees attendant to the filing of a court case. Also, the amount of the claim for refund or credit might not be commensurate to the cost of bringing the matter to the courts.
Thus, the taxpayer who filed the claim for refund must not be left to the mercy of the BIR which fa iled to act on the application. The merits of the case must still be the ultimate consideration in deciding whether or not the taxpayer is entitled to a tax refund or credit.
As if the fact inaction of the BIR now constitutes denial of the claim were not enough, RMC 54-2014 further provides the list of the documents that must accompany the application. Included in the said list are documents which must be certified by the BIR itself, i.e., verification of delinquent accounts by the revenue district officer concerned and certified true copy of the approved application for zero-rating issued by the BIR for effectively zero-rated transactions, among others.
It does not make sense that a taxpayer who will file an application for refund is now being required to submit documents that must come from the BIR. Such circuitous requirement necessarily burdens a taxpayer even more when the information contained in such documents are properly within the BIR’s reach.
While it is a generally accepted principle that refund cases are construed strictly against the taxpayer, this should not be taken to mean that the BIR can pose all obstacles at its disposal.
Refund cases should not be tests to see the lengths that the taxpayer is prepared to go to get what is rightfully his.
Rather, it is a remedy based on equity pursuant to the time-honored principle that no one should be unjustly enriched at the expense of another -- certainly not the government most of all.
source:
Shirley C. Tuazon of Punongbayan & Araullo
A taxpayer is entitled to a refund either by: (i) authority of a statute expressly granting such right, privilege or incentive in his favor; or (ii) under the principle of solution indebiti requiring the return of taxes erroneously or illegally collected.
In both cases, the taxpayer must prove not only his entitlement to a refund but also his compliance with procedural due process. Note that non-observance of the prescriptive periods within which to file the administrative and judicial claims would result in denial of the claim for refund.
Generally, an administrative claim for value-added tax (VAT) refund or credit must be filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were made. Thereafter, the BIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents in support of the administrative claims within which to decide whether to grant a refund or issue a tax credit certificate (TCC).
The lapse of the 120-day period within which the BIR is required to decide the administrative claim for refund gives the taxpayer the right to elevate the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within 30 days from the lapse of the 120-day period.
Thus, the right of the taxpayer to file a claim in the CTA will only arise upon inaction of the BIR with regard to the claim within the required period.
Under the old rules, the mere filing of a case in court after the lapse of the 120-day period does not terminate or dismiss the application initially lodged in the BIR.
However, Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 54-2014 issued by the BIR last June 11 equated such inaction with denial of the claim.
The new RMC states that if the claim for VAT refund or credit is not acted upon by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) within the 120-day period, as required by law, such “inaction shall be deemed a denial” of the application for tax refund or credit.
Simply put, the claim is denied due to inaction of the BIR and such denial constitutes as denial based on the merits of the application. Consequently, the BIR will no longer act on the claim for refund or tax credit when the period has already lapsed.
This should not be the case.
While it was not explicitly stated in the RMC, the “deemed denial” due to inaction must be interpreted to apply only for the purpose of filing a judicial claim. Note that under the Tax Code and established jurisprudence, the taxpayer seeking a refund or tax credit needs not to wait for the BIR to issue an actual denial of the administrative claim before filing the case in the courts when the 120-day period has already expired.
Nevertheless, the lapse of the 120-day period should not be construed as a denial based on the merits of the application for refund. As far as the BIR is concerned, it must still conduct its audit investigation despite the filing of the case in the CTA. Otherwise, some indifferent BIR personnel may opt not to act at all on the claim, wait for the period to lapse and then, upon the filing of a judicial claim, defer to the judgment of the courts.
Taxpayers are granted an unmistakable right to avail of the remedy of judicial action in case of an adverse decision of an administrative body such as the BIR. However, such right is not cheap and some taxpayers cannot afford the fees attendant to the filing of a court case. Also, the amount of the claim for refund or credit might not be commensurate to the cost of bringing the matter to the courts.
Thus, the taxpayer who filed the claim for refund must not be left to the mercy of the BIR which fa iled to act on the application. The merits of the case must still be the ultimate consideration in deciding whether or not the taxpayer is entitled to a tax refund or credit.
As if the fact inaction of the BIR now constitutes denial of the claim were not enough, RMC 54-2014 further provides the list of the documents that must accompany the application. Included in the said list are documents which must be certified by the BIR itself, i.e., verification of delinquent accounts by the revenue district officer concerned and certified true copy of the approved application for zero-rating issued by the BIR for effectively zero-rated transactions, among others.
It does not make sense that a taxpayer who will file an application for refund is now being required to submit documents that must come from the BIR. Such circuitous requirement necessarily burdens a taxpayer even more when the information contained in such documents are properly within the BIR’s reach.
While it is a generally accepted principle that refund cases are construed strictly against the taxpayer, this should not be taken to mean that the BIR can pose all obstacles at its disposal.
Refund cases should not be tests to see the lengths that the taxpayer is prepared to go to get what is rightfully his.
Rather, it is a remedy based on equity pursuant to the time-honored principle that no one should be unjustly enriched at the expense of another -- certainly not the government most of all.
source:
Shirley C. Tuazon of Punongbayan & Araullo
Philippines signs treaty on tax info sharing
THE PHILIPPINES has signed up to a multilateral treaty that will allow it to share information on potential tax evaders with other countries, including the US and financial hubs Singapore and Switzerland, the Finance department yesterday said in a press release.
The country, through Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, became the 68th signatory to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (MAC).
Ms. Henares was granted a special authority from the Office of the President to sign the agreement in Paris on Sept. 26.
The agreement, the OECD said on its website, “is the most comprehensive multilateral instrument available for all forms of tax cooperation to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, a top priority for all countries.”
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) said the agreement will equip the country in its nearly a decade-old campaign against tax cheats as it gives the tax agency “jurisdiction” over non-residents that owe the Philippines taxes.
Earlier signatories to the treaty include tax havens Switzerland and Singapore, and the US, according to a list available on the OECD website.
“Being a party offers the Philippines several forms of assistance, including automatic exchange of information, assistance in recovery, service of documents, and the freezing of assets,” the Finance Department said in the statement.
BIR said the latest agreement will bolster the government’s criminal suit against at least seven individuals.
The seven cases were filed under the BIR’s Run After Tax Evaders (RATE) Program, but Lawyer Estela V. Sales, BIR Deputy Commissioner-Legal and Inspection Group, did not identify them, only saying those with properties abroad will be directly affected by the agreement.
“Being a party offers the Philippines several forms of assistance, including automatic exchange of information, assistance in recovery, service of documents, and the freezing of assets,” the Finance Department said.
“Every tool we use to enhance our country’s revenue generating capacity is a weapon we take to the fight for every Filipino’s right to have quality public goods and services,” Ms. Henares was quoted as saying in the statement.
The BIR has filed a total of 301 tax evasion cases since 2010. Broken down, 269 complaints are pending before the Department of Justice (DoJ), 28 are lodged before various tribunals while the remaining four cases have been dismissed with finality.
“Signing the agreement gives the Philippines an efficient and expeditious way of increasing our tax treaty network from 28 to 59 treaty partners, saving time, financial, and human resources spent on negotiating and updating bilateral tax treaties, which usually take five to ten years to complete,” the Finance Department said.
The Philippine Senate should ratify the treaty for it to enter into force.
The multilateral treaty was developed jointly by the OECD and the Council of Europe in 1988 and amended by Protocol in 2010. -- Mikhail Franz E.Flores
source: Businessworld
The country, through Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, became the 68th signatory to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (MAC).
Ms. Henares was granted a special authority from the Office of the President to sign the agreement in Paris on Sept. 26.
The agreement, the OECD said on its website, “is the most comprehensive multilateral instrument available for all forms of tax cooperation to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, a top priority for all countries.”
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) said the agreement will equip the country in its nearly a decade-old campaign against tax cheats as it gives the tax agency “jurisdiction” over non-residents that owe the Philippines taxes.
Earlier signatories to the treaty include tax havens Switzerland and Singapore, and the US, according to a list available on the OECD website.
“Being a party offers the Philippines several forms of assistance, including automatic exchange of information, assistance in recovery, service of documents, and the freezing of assets,” the Finance Department said in the statement.
BIR said the latest agreement will bolster the government’s criminal suit against at least seven individuals.
The seven cases were filed under the BIR’s Run After Tax Evaders (RATE) Program, but Lawyer Estela V. Sales, BIR Deputy Commissioner-Legal and Inspection Group, did not identify them, only saying those with properties abroad will be directly affected by the agreement.
“Being a party offers the Philippines several forms of assistance, including automatic exchange of information, assistance in recovery, service of documents, and the freezing of assets,” the Finance Department said.
“Every tool we use to enhance our country’s revenue generating capacity is a weapon we take to the fight for every Filipino’s right to have quality public goods and services,” Ms. Henares was quoted as saying in the statement.
The BIR has filed a total of 301 tax evasion cases since 2010. Broken down, 269 complaints are pending before the Department of Justice (DoJ), 28 are lodged before various tribunals while the remaining four cases have been dismissed with finality.
“Signing the agreement gives the Philippines an efficient and expeditious way of increasing our tax treaty network from 28 to 59 treaty partners, saving time, financial, and human resources spent on negotiating and updating bilateral tax treaties, which usually take five to ten years to complete,” the Finance Department said.
The Philippine Senate should ratify the treaty for it to enter into force.
The multilateral treaty was developed jointly by the OECD and the Council of Europe in 1988 and amended by Protocol in 2010. -- Mikhail Franz E.Flores
source: Businessworld
Monday, September 29, 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.
Sheena Marie D. Daño is a senior at the Cebu branch of Punongbayan & Araullo. P&A is a leading audit, tax, advisory and outsourcing services firm and is the Philippine member of Grant Thornton International Ltd.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Tax exemption ruling: Going around the roadblock
GIVEN the tax reform bill pending in Congress and an alleged revenue loss consequently looming upon the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), the massive task of meeting tax revenue targets may become even more challenging for the tax bureau. Even without the tax reforms pushing through, the BIR is already experiencing difficulties in terms of enforcing existing tax laws as it continues to encounter implementation challenges. This is to be expected if the BIR is seen to continue to go beyond its quasi-legislative functions.
Last 22 July 2013, BIR Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 20-2013 sparked controversy when qualified non-stock, non-profit corporations and associations were required to secure a Tax Exemption Ruling (TER) before they could avail of the exemption benefit under Section 30 of the Tax Code.
Entities enumerated under Section 30 of the Tax Code, consisting of non-stock, non-profit corporations and associations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, athletic, or cultural purposes or for rehabilitation of veterans; and non-stock and non-profit educational institutions, among others, are generally exempt from income tax.
In an attempt to impede the implementation of RMO No. 20-2013, a non-stock, non-profit educational institution filed a civil action before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Makati City to declare the RMO as unconstitutional and to apply for preliminary injunction. In a decision dated 25 July 2014, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner and declared RMO No. 20-2013 as unconstitutional for being violative of Article XIV, Section 4 (3) of the Constitution. As a result, all RMOs subsequently issued to implement RMO No. 20-2013 were likewise declared without force and effect. The RTC further went on and made permanent the writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued in February 2014.
Needless to say, the 1987 Philippine Constitution recognized the critical role of education providing under Article II, Section 17, that the state shall give priority to education. As a specific implementation of the said provision, Section 4 (3) of Article XIV thereof mandates that all revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purpose shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Quoting the well respected Constitutionalist Father Joaquin G. Bernas, the RTC held that the “exemption, which is given by the Constitution itself, may not be diminished by legislation or by administrative regulation. The original proposal would have been [sic] made the tax exemption dependent on legislation, i.e. ‘Non-stock, non-profit educational institutions shall be exempt from taxes and duties as may be provided by law.’ ” However, the phrase “as may be provided by law” was deleted to emphasize that the legislature is bereft of the discretion on the subject.”
Notably, the BIR may still request for reconsideration of the RTC decision and may still file an appeal should the RTC affirm its decision. Nonetheless, the BIR recently issued RMO No. 34-2014 dated 18 September 2014 as if to concur with the decision of the RTC. In the newly issued RMO clarifying certain provisions of RMO No. 20-2013, the BIR shed light on the nature of TERs by clearly stating that a TER does not confer tax exemptions which are not provided for by law, nor can it abrogate those exemptions which are granted by the law. In its review of applications for TER, the BIR merely seeks to validate or confirm whether the conditions set forth by law for the grant of tax exemption are present or whether such conditions have been complied with by the applicant.
The RMO went on to expressly confirm that the absence of a valid, current and subsisting TER will not operate to divest qualified entities of the tax exemption provided under the Constitution or Section 30 of the Tax Code. Needless to say, in the event of a tax audit, affected entities which fail to secure a TER must be able to demonstrate compliance with the conditions laid down by the law and applicable rules.
However, the BIR seems to stop short of fully applying the RTC’s decision. Despite the BIR’s recognition that a TER is not necessary, it is curious to note that, in the same breath, the RMO also reiterated the BIR’s requirements under Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 8-2014 to present a TER. Under the RMC, the failure of the non-stock, non-profit entity to present its valid TER to the appropriate withholding agents shall subject them to the payment of withholding tax. On the other hand, the withholding agents’ failure to withhold notwithstanding the lack of a TER shall trigger penalties under Section 251 and other pertinent Sections of the Tax Code.
While the RTC decision declaring RMO No. 20-2013 as unconstitutional is a triumphant affirmation for non-stock, non-profit entities, the controversy continues as it would appear that, as far as the BIR is concerned, the requirement to present a TER remains.
The views or opinions presented in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Isla Lipana & Co. The firm will not accept any liability arising from the article.
Elinor E. de Gracia is an assistant manager at the Tax Services Department of Isla Lipana & Co., the Philippine member firm of the PwC network.
(02) 845-2728
elinor.e.de.gracia@ph.pwc.com
source: Businessworld
Last 22 July 2013, BIR Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 20-2013 sparked controversy when qualified non-stock, non-profit corporations and associations were required to secure a Tax Exemption Ruling (TER) before they could avail of the exemption benefit under Section 30 of the Tax Code.
Entities enumerated under Section 30 of the Tax Code, consisting of non-stock, non-profit corporations and associations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, athletic, or cultural purposes or for rehabilitation of veterans; and non-stock and non-profit educational institutions, among others, are generally exempt from income tax.
In an attempt to impede the implementation of RMO No. 20-2013, a non-stock, non-profit educational institution filed a civil action before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Makati City to declare the RMO as unconstitutional and to apply for preliminary injunction. In a decision dated 25 July 2014, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner and declared RMO No. 20-2013 as unconstitutional for being violative of Article XIV, Section 4 (3) of the Constitution. As a result, all RMOs subsequently issued to implement RMO No. 20-2013 were likewise declared without force and effect. The RTC further went on and made permanent the writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued in February 2014.
Needless to say, the 1987 Philippine Constitution recognized the critical role of education providing under Article II, Section 17, that the state shall give priority to education. As a specific implementation of the said provision, Section 4 (3) of Article XIV thereof mandates that all revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for educational purpose shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Quoting the well respected Constitutionalist Father Joaquin G. Bernas, the RTC held that the “exemption, which is given by the Constitution itself, may not be diminished by legislation or by administrative regulation. The original proposal would have been [sic] made the tax exemption dependent on legislation, i.e. ‘Non-stock, non-profit educational institutions shall be exempt from taxes and duties as may be provided by law.’ ” However, the phrase “as may be provided by law” was deleted to emphasize that the legislature is bereft of the discretion on the subject.”
Notably, the BIR may still request for reconsideration of the RTC decision and may still file an appeal should the RTC affirm its decision. Nonetheless, the BIR recently issued RMO No. 34-2014 dated 18 September 2014 as if to concur with the decision of the RTC. In the newly issued RMO clarifying certain provisions of RMO No. 20-2013, the BIR shed light on the nature of TERs by clearly stating that a TER does not confer tax exemptions which are not provided for by law, nor can it abrogate those exemptions which are granted by the law. In its review of applications for TER, the BIR merely seeks to validate or confirm whether the conditions set forth by law for the grant of tax exemption are present or whether such conditions have been complied with by the applicant.
The RMO went on to expressly confirm that the absence of a valid, current and subsisting TER will not operate to divest qualified entities of the tax exemption provided under the Constitution or Section 30 of the Tax Code. Needless to say, in the event of a tax audit, affected entities which fail to secure a TER must be able to demonstrate compliance with the conditions laid down by the law and applicable rules.
However, the BIR seems to stop short of fully applying the RTC’s decision. Despite the BIR’s recognition that a TER is not necessary, it is curious to note that, in the same breath, the RMO also reiterated the BIR’s requirements under Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 8-2014 to present a TER. Under the RMC, the failure of the non-stock, non-profit entity to present its valid TER to the appropriate withholding agents shall subject them to the payment of withholding tax. On the other hand, the withholding agents’ failure to withhold notwithstanding the lack of a TER shall trigger penalties under Section 251 and other pertinent Sections of the Tax Code.
While the RTC decision declaring RMO No. 20-2013 as unconstitutional is a triumphant affirmation for non-stock, non-profit entities, the controversy continues as it would appear that, as far as the BIR is concerned, the requirement to present a TER remains.
The views or opinions presented in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Isla Lipana & Co. The firm will not accept any liability arising from the article.
Elinor E. de Gracia is an assistant manager at the Tax Services Department of Isla Lipana & Co., the Philippine member firm of the PwC network.
(02) 845-2728
elinor.e.de.gracia@ph.pwc.com
source: Businessworld
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
To lump payees in the alphalist or not: that is the question
AT THE start of the year, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Revenue Regulations No. (RR) 1-2014 and Revenue Memorandum Circular No. (RMC) 5-2014, which tackled the submission of the alphabetical list (alphalist) of employees and list of payees on income payments subject to creditable and final withholding taxes of all withholding agents. These issuances require that complete names of payees be specified in the alphalists. Using words such as “various payees” and “PCD nominees” where income payments and taxes withheld are lumped into one single amount shall not be allowed and failure to follow such prescribed format shall disqualify the related expenses from being deductible for income tax purposes.
The Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE), the Bankers Association of the Philippines (BAP), and other groups filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the BIR’s issuance of RR 1-2014 and RMC 5-2014.
Last Sept. 9, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against enforcing new regulations that would require the stock exchange, brokers, banks and other companies to disclose their shareholders or investors who receive income payments and dividends.
Why would the regulation stretch the patience of these important sectors of the economy to the limit?
The banks are among the withholding agents significantly affected by these new requirements, particularly in the case of depositors whose interest income are subject to final withholding taxes. With the new regulations, banks are required to specify in their alphalists all depositors receiving interest income with the corresponding final taxes withheld. However, the disclosure of interest income and taxes withheld per depositor has the effect of disclosing the amount of deposits of each depositor, which can be worked back from the amount of interest earned.
Thus, this new requirement might be contradictory to the Bank Secrecy Law. The Bank Secrecy Law states that all deposits of whatever nature with banking institutions -- including investment in bonds issued by the government -- are absolutely confidential in nature and may not be examined, inquired after, or looked into by any person, government official, bureau, or office except upon written permission of the depositor, or upon order of a competent court in cases of impeachment, bribery, or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
The industry groups also noted in their petition that the issuances might be violating Republic Act No. (RA) 10173, or the Data Privacy Act. This might not be the case, though, since the act provides that the processing of personal information shall be permitted if the processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the personal information controller is subject. Thus, if the BIR requires the disclosure of the dividends received by each investor in the alphalist, then it would be a legal obligation already and processing of such personal information would not be a crime.
However, the regulations might have a negative effect on the country’s investment growth. By requiring that the alphalist reflect each individual investor receiving dividend income, the investor’s privacy is neglected.
Aside from specifying the payees, RMC 5-2014 also requires that the tax identification number (TIN) indicated in the alphalist be valid and correspondingly issued by the BIR to the employees or payees. Hence, the use of dummy TIN(s) such as “000 -- 000 -- 000 -- 000” is not allowed.
This means that foreign investors would now be required to apply for TIN with the BIR in order for their withholding agents to comply with the new BIR regulation. Though applying for a one-time TIN is not a complex task, foreign investors might choose to pull out their investments and place them instead in countries with more investor-friendly policies.
Another major issue is the prohibition of the use of “PCD Nominees” in the alphalist. PCD Nominee Corp. (PCNC) is an entity established to improve operations in securities transactions and to provide a fast, safe, and highly efficient system for securities settlement in the Philippines. Persons who opt to trade using the PCD do not receive stock certificates as proof of ownership since trading is completely paperless and certificates are registered in the name of PCNC.
PCNC serves as one of the largest shareholders -- if not the largest -- in many Philippine corporations. Thus, it would be hard for businesses whose major shareholder is PCNC to list all the lodging stockholders to which the dividend payments are due considering that there may be thousands of stockholders who compose the PCNC shareholdings in one company.
The BIR is well advised to view itself as part of the government’s economic team. While raising revenues from taxation is a very important function, taxation itself is an important factor driving the economy. Regulations issued by the bureau have the capacity to break or make a nation. Such issuances may discourage tax evaders, but they may also weigh down good companies. Policies that are too strict, difficult to implement, and even harder to comply with are only am unnecessary burden to everyone.
The report on Global Competitiveness for 2010-2011 showed inefficient government bureaucracy as one of the most problematic factors hindering business growth or further investments in our country. Likewise, in the recent Global Competitiveness Report for 2014-2015 released just this month, the burden of government regulation is one of our country’s weaknesses.
Thus, perhaps the BIR should focus its efforts on releasing efficient and effective taxation policies to help our country move forward on the road of continual progress and competitiveness.
Donna Flor V. Lipat is a senior at the Cebu branch of Punongbayan & Araullo. P&A is a leading audit, tax, advisory and outsourcing services firm and is the Philippine member of Grant Thornton International Ltd.
source: Businessworld
Continue to site
The Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE), the Bankers Association of the Philippines (BAP), and other groups filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the BIR’s issuance of RR 1-2014 and RMC 5-2014.
Last Sept. 9, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against enforcing new regulations that would require the stock exchange, brokers, banks and other companies to disclose their shareholders or investors who receive income payments and dividends.
Why would the regulation stretch the patience of these important sectors of the economy to the limit?
The banks are among the withholding agents significantly affected by these new requirements, particularly in the case of depositors whose interest income are subject to final withholding taxes. With the new regulations, banks are required to specify in their alphalists all depositors receiving interest income with the corresponding final taxes withheld. However, the disclosure of interest income and taxes withheld per depositor has the effect of disclosing the amount of deposits of each depositor, which can be worked back from the amount of interest earned.
Thus, this new requirement might be contradictory to the Bank Secrecy Law. The Bank Secrecy Law states that all deposits of whatever nature with banking institutions -- including investment in bonds issued by the government -- are absolutely confidential in nature and may not be examined, inquired after, or looked into by any person, government official, bureau, or office except upon written permission of the depositor, or upon order of a competent court in cases of impeachment, bribery, or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
The industry groups also noted in their petition that the issuances might be violating Republic Act No. (RA) 10173, or the Data Privacy Act. This might not be the case, though, since the act provides that the processing of personal information shall be permitted if the processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the personal information controller is subject. Thus, if the BIR requires the disclosure of the dividends received by each investor in the alphalist, then it would be a legal obligation already and processing of such personal information would not be a crime.
However, the regulations might have a negative effect on the country’s investment growth. By requiring that the alphalist reflect each individual investor receiving dividend income, the investor’s privacy is neglected.
Aside from specifying the payees, RMC 5-2014 also requires that the tax identification number (TIN) indicated in the alphalist be valid and correspondingly issued by the BIR to the employees or payees. Hence, the use of dummy TIN(s) such as “000 -- 000 -- 000 -- 000” is not allowed.
This means that foreign investors would now be required to apply for TIN with the BIR in order for their withholding agents to comply with the new BIR regulation. Though applying for a one-time TIN is not a complex task, foreign investors might choose to pull out their investments and place them instead in countries with more investor-friendly policies.
Another major issue is the prohibition of the use of “PCD Nominees” in the alphalist. PCD Nominee Corp. (PCNC) is an entity established to improve operations in securities transactions and to provide a fast, safe, and highly efficient system for securities settlement in the Philippines. Persons who opt to trade using the PCD do not receive stock certificates as proof of ownership since trading is completely paperless and certificates are registered in the name of PCNC.
PCNC serves as one of the largest shareholders -- if not the largest -- in many Philippine corporations. Thus, it would be hard for businesses whose major shareholder is PCNC to list all the lodging stockholders to which the dividend payments are due considering that there may be thousands of stockholders who compose the PCNC shareholdings in one company.
The BIR is well advised to view itself as part of the government’s economic team. While raising revenues from taxation is a very important function, taxation itself is an important factor driving the economy. Regulations issued by the bureau have the capacity to break or make a nation. Such issuances may discourage tax evaders, but they may also weigh down good companies. Policies that are too strict, difficult to implement, and even harder to comply with are only am unnecessary burden to everyone.
The report on Global Competitiveness for 2010-2011 showed inefficient government bureaucracy as one of the most problematic factors hindering business growth or further investments in our country. Likewise, in the recent Global Competitiveness Report for 2014-2015 released just this month, the burden of government regulation is one of our country’s weaknesses.
Thus, perhaps the BIR should focus its efforts on releasing efficient and effective taxation policies to help our country move forward on the road of continual progress and competitiveness.
Donna Flor V. Lipat is a senior at the Cebu branch of Punongbayan & Araullo. P&A is a leading audit, tax, advisory and outsourcing services firm and is the Philippine member of Grant Thornton International Ltd.
source: Businessworld
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Easing requirements for changes in companies’ addresses
IN AN ERA when almost any information can be found through the Internet, a not-so-techie person can get lost in a myriad of information available on the Web. In some cases, searching for information requires a bit of navigational skill in order to get you through the stack of unnecessary search results appearing on your browser. It would be a lot easier if someone would just drop the specific uniform resource locator (URL) or Web site address needed to lead us straight to the desired location.
Similarly, in business, information such as the address of a company as appearing in corporate documents provide the means by which customers, suppliers, the government and other interested parties can identify and locate the company.
Hence, the office address can’t just be a vague location. A general address such as “Metro Manila” may prove unreliable especially for parties who need to contact or locate the company for reasons that may be critical to the operations of the business. For tax purposes, the specific address is necessary to serve summons from the court, or notices from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in case of assessments, etc.
Recognizing the importance of indicating a specific address, earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 6-2014, pursuant to MC 3-2006, requiring all registered corporations and partnerships to state in their Articles of Incorporation (AOI) or Articles of Partnership (AOP), the specific address of their principal office, which shall include, if feasible, the street number, street name, barangay, city or municipality.
Affected corporations and partnerships are given until Dec. 31 to amend their respective charters. In case of failure to comply, the corporation or partnership shall not be penalized but the SEC can impose sanctions by not acting on their applications (e.g. amendments, certifications, clearance, etc.).
To ease the burden on the affected entities, however, the SEC recently issued MC 16-2014. Under the new MC, in the event that the principal address of a corporation as indicated in its AOI is already specific, complete and compliant with the full disclosure requirements of the SEC, such corporation is no longer required to file an amended AOI if it has moved or should it move to another location within the same city or municipality.
Instead, under the new issuance, a firm need only declare its new or current specific address in its General information Sheet (GIS) within 15 days of transferring to its new location or the effectivity date of MC 16-2014, which will be on Jan. 1, 2015.
Needless to say, though expressly stated in the MC for the avoidance of doubt, in case the corporation transfers its principal office to a city or municipality different from its former address, it is still required to file an amended AOI to indicate its new location in another city or municipality. “Metro Manila” shall not be considered a city or municipality for purposes of interpreting the relocation rule under MC 16-2014. Nevertheless, should they choose to, the concerned corporations are not precluded from filing an amended AOI to indicate their new location within the same city or municipality of their former address.
Failure to file the GIS within the prescribed period will constitute a violation of Section 16 of the Corporation Code (covering Amendment of AOI) and will be subject to the imposition of penalty in accordance with the SEC’s existing scale of fines. In the case of a partnership, since it has no obligation to file the GIS, it is still required to file an amended AOP every time it transfers to a new location regardless of whether the new address is within the same or in another city or municipality.
To clarify that non-compliance with the updating requirements will not prejudice the SEC, the MC expressly provides that corporations and partnerships shall be deemed to have been duly notified or validly served where the SEC has sent its subpoena, summons, notice, show cause letter, and other communications to the address indicated in the AOI or AOP, and/or GIS, as the case may be.
It is worth noting that any amendment of a corporation’s AOI must be approved by a majority vote of the members of the board of directors and by the vote or written assent of stockholders representing at least two-thirds of the outstanding capital stock. Thus, in issuing MC 16-2014, the SEC aims to dispense with the tedious process and costs involved in reflecting the new address if the corporation remains within the same city or municipality. Hopefully, these less stringent rules would facilitate compliance with the SEC’s requirements.
The views or opinions presented in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Isla Lipana & Co. The firm will not accept any liability arising from the article.
Mae Ann S. Acha is a senior consultant at the Tax Services Department of Isla Lipana & Co., the Philippine member firm of the PwC network. (02) 845-2728
mae.ann.s.acha@ph.pwc.com
source: Businessworld
Similarly, in business, information such as the address of a company as appearing in corporate documents provide the means by which customers, suppliers, the government and other interested parties can identify and locate the company.
Hence, the office address can’t just be a vague location. A general address such as “Metro Manila” may prove unreliable especially for parties who need to contact or locate the company for reasons that may be critical to the operations of the business. For tax purposes, the specific address is necessary to serve summons from the court, or notices from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in case of assessments, etc.
Recognizing the importance of indicating a specific address, earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 6-2014, pursuant to MC 3-2006, requiring all registered corporations and partnerships to state in their Articles of Incorporation (AOI) or Articles of Partnership (AOP), the specific address of their principal office, which shall include, if feasible, the street number, street name, barangay, city or municipality.
Affected corporations and partnerships are given until Dec. 31 to amend their respective charters. In case of failure to comply, the corporation or partnership shall not be penalized but the SEC can impose sanctions by not acting on their applications (e.g. amendments, certifications, clearance, etc.).
To ease the burden on the affected entities, however, the SEC recently issued MC 16-2014. Under the new MC, in the event that the principal address of a corporation as indicated in its AOI is already specific, complete and compliant with the full disclosure requirements of the SEC, such corporation is no longer required to file an amended AOI if it has moved or should it move to another location within the same city or municipality.
Instead, under the new issuance, a firm need only declare its new or current specific address in its General information Sheet (GIS) within 15 days of transferring to its new location or the effectivity date of MC 16-2014, which will be on Jan. 1, 2015.
Needless to say, though expressly stated in the MC for the avoidance of doubt, in case the corporation transfers its principal office to a city or municipality different from its former address, it is still required to file an amended AOI to indicate its new location in another city or municipality. “Metro Manila” shall not be considered a city or municipality for purposes of interpreting the relocation rule under MC 16-2014. Nevertheless, should they choose to, the concerned corporations are not precluded from filing an amended AOI to indicate their new location within the same city or municipality of their former address.
Failure to file the GIS within the prescribed period will constitute a violation of Section 16 of the Corporation Code (covering Amendment of AOI) and will be subject to the imposition of penalty in accordance with the SEC’s existing scale of fines. In the case of a partnership, since it has no obligation to file the GIS, it is still required to file an amended AOP every time it transfers to a new location regardless of whether the new address is within the same or in another city or municipality.
To clarify that non-compliance with the updating requirements will not prejudice the SEC, the MC expressly provides that corporations and partnerships shall be deemed to have been duly notified or validly served where the SEC has sent its subpoena, summons, notice, show cause letter, and other communications to the address indicated in the AOI or AOP, and/or GIS, as the case may be.
It is worth noting that any amendment of a corporation’s AOI must be approved by a majority vote of the members of the board of directors and by the vote or written assent of stockholders representing at least two-thirds of the outstanding capital stock. Thus, in issuing MC 16-2014, the SEC aims to dispense with the tedious process and costs involved in reflecting the new address if the corporation remains within the same city or municipality. Hopefully, these less stringent rules would facilitate compliance with the SEC’s requirements.
The views or opinions presented in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Isla Lipana & Co. The firm will not accept any liability arising from the article.
Mae Ann S. Acha is a senior consultant at the Tax Services Department of Isla Lipana & Co., the Philippine member firm of the PwC network. (02) 845-2728
mae.ann.s.acha@ph.pwc.com
source: Businessworld
Monday, September 15, 2014
BIR urged to simplify tax system
Sen. Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara is calling on the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to simplify the current tax system to encourage more Filipinos, especially self-employed individuals, to pay their taxes.
Angara said the existing tax payment scheme is complicated making it difficult for small entrepreneurs to catch up with multi-billion corporations.
Sen. Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara
“It’s already proven that a complicated tax system does not work in our country,” said Angara, who chairs the Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
He said that BIR’s nationwide public information campaign on the basic steps to comply with the payment of correct taxes is not enough.
“It is commendable but this might not be enough. What we need to do is to incentivize our taxpayers, especially the informal sector. We should make it easy for them to comply for us to be able to widen our tax base,” Angara said.
He noted that currently the BIR operates on a “one-size-fits-all type” of tax system covering small companies and entrepreneurs and multi-billion corporations.
“Currently, we have a one-size-fits-all type of tax system. Meaning, those business tycoons who own multi-billion corporations have the same requirements as small owners of sari-sari stores or sidewalk vendors,” he said.
“But in reality, these small entrepreneurs really can’t afford to hire accountants and lawyers to do their financial statements,” he said.
He noted that taxpayers have to fill out many types of forms when they line up to pay their taxes. This can pose problems for ordinary individuals who may resort to tapping fixers to expedite their registration.
“That is where corruption, fixing and bribery start,” he said, reiterating the need to make the requirements simple particularly to the informal sector.
BIR registration and documentary requirements include birth certificate, mayor’s permit, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) certificate of business name, Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) ID, and payment of professional tax receipt.
Taxpayers must also pay a registration fee of P500 annually, apply for invoices, and register their books of accounts.
A tax return should then be filed monthly for percentage tax, quarterly and annually for income tax, and monthly and quarterly for value added tax, even when there is no payment to be made.
Angara suggested that the BIR impose a one-time payment—a flat fee of P100 per year—to the national and local government for small entrepreneurs and informal economy workers in lieu of all taxes due in a year.
“We already requested from BIR their time and motion studies so we can look into how long it takes for a taxpayer to file, register and pay their taxes, and see how we can simplify and shorten the process,” Angara said.
source: Manila Bulletin
DILG, BIR ready lifestyle check for policemen
Members of the Philippine National Police who are suspected of enriching themselves through illegal activities can count the days of enjoying a rich lifestyle.
Yesterday, a strategy was being mapped out by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to identify policemen suspected of enriching themselves.
BIR Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares made the disclosure yesterday after she briefed Interior Secretary Mar Roxas on how the agency conducts its investigation on taxpayers with untaxed wealth.
“Secretary Mar talked to me last week wanting to know how the BIR conducts a lifestyle check,” Henares said.
Roxas sought the advice and support of Henares in removing police scalawags from the service following the so-called “EDSA hulidap” incident where policemen are accused of robbing more than P2 million from two men they stopped on EDSA and brought to the La Loma police station.
Roxas suspects that many police officials are spending more than what they legally earn as evidenced by the discovery of criminal activities involving law enforcers.
Sources said it is also a common public perception that corrupt PNP members maintain lavish lifestyles by accepting bribes from illegal gambling and drug operators and other lawless elements.
Henares did not give details of her discussions with Roxas.
HOW AUDIT STARTS
A veteran tax fraud investigator said the audit usually starts at the Register of Deeds to identify properties listed under the name of the subject taxpayer.
Next, records of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) are secured to determine the number of vehicles registered under the name of subject taxpayer.
Lawyer Frederick Kapitan, former chief of the BIR Tax fraud division, said that the taxpayer usually registers his acquisitions under the name of other persons to avoid tax fraud investigation. But he said ownership of cars can easily be traced by identifying the frequent users.
FAMILY’S LIFESTYLE
The overseas travel records of the taxpayer and members of his family will also be checked with the Bureau of Immigration by the tax probers.
The schools where the children are enrolled will be identified. Likely, the children of the rich cops will be enrolled in exclusive schools or send them abroad to study, a source said.
Casino and five-star hotel records could also be a rich source of information about the lifestyle of an individual, he said.
BANK SECRECY LAW
Due to the bank secrecy law, the BIR is prohibited from prying into the bank deposits of the taxpayer suspected of illegal accumulation of wealth.
Henares said that like other tax investigations, the lifestyle check on policemen are confidential and results will be known only upon the filing of tax evasion cases before the Department of Justice.
Meanwhile, Malacañang yesterday said that the Philippine National Police (PNP) should welcome the lifestyle check among its ranks.
Conducting a lifestyle check in the government is not something new, Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said.
“It’s not something new. That is something expected for all of us in government to see whether our lifestyle exceeds our means,” Lacierda said.
“I suppose everybody should welcome the call of (DILG) Secretary Mar Roxas to look at the lifestyle of, in his case, the PNP,” he said.
“Let me just emphasize: this is not the first time that is happening in government. This has been ongoing. A lifestyle check has been ongoing in the other departments in the Executive branch,” Lacierda said.
“Yung lifestyle check naman lahat ng government officials, in one way or another, are also being subject to lifestyle check because we’re supposed to lead lives equivalent to the standards of our compensation, standards of what good governance should be,” he said. (With a report from Madel Sabater Namit)
source: Manila Bulletin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)