The government timing was so bad it smacks of malice and harassment, whether true or merely perceived, and regardless of whether the justification given is legitimate or conjured. People work so hard for their money in order to survive. And for the citizens, every cent counts. Without contributing to the taxpayers' creation of hard-earned wealth, the government takes some or most of it. The least government officials can do in collecting taxes is to be sensitive to the feelings of taxpayers. Government officials can perform their duties without pointlessly being arrogant.
To be sure, Manny should pay the right taxes. That is his obligation. And the government has a corresponding right to exact that obligation. But if Manny indeed already paid the taxes pursuant to the Tax-Treaty between the Philippine and US governments against double taxation, and the only administrative matter left was the production and submission of the necessary documents for this purpose, and if Manny submitted proofs which the BIR considered inadequate according to its assessment and protest procedures, was garnishment of his money, or distraint of his property, proportionate to the claimed inadequate submission? Should this procedural lapse, mistake, inadequacy be enough to withhold the property of a person depriving him of its productive use?
Is this not relying too much on technicalities rather than substance? If Manny paid and he is made to pay again due to a mere infraction of a procedure, is this not injustice? Legal procedures are meant to help an individual right a mistake or an inadequacy. It cannot be used simply as a kind of menu where officials just determine what is missing in the list and then go for the jugular.
In fact, our Supreme Court had said: "It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse … to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice." (Barnes vs. Padilla, GR No. 160753 June 28, 2005)
In Manny's case, the best thing to do was not for the government to be arrogantly adversarial to the taxpayer but for the government to have coordinated with the taxpayer so that it can help him procure the official and original documents from the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) of the United States of America. Had that been done, everything might have been solved. And if after examining these original documents, the BIR determines that no taxes were paid or there was an inadequacy of payment, then that's the time notice of payment should be made. This is basic and elementary due process.
Special treatment for Manny? Not at all. In fact, that is the kind of helpful service ALL citizens must expect from the BIR and which the BIR should and ought to extend to all without exceptions. Instead of an adversarial approach, the direction must be one of dedicated service to authentically help and assist people in their tax problems. Difficult to undertake considering that there may be hundreds of problematic taxpayers? Well, BIR officials just have to deal with that difficulty and provide that kind of helpful service. After all, they are supposed to be public servants - servants of the people, and not their tormentors.
from Atty Mel Sta Maria
MEL STA. MARIA | Manny Pacquiao, the BIR, and taxation's power to destroy - InterAksyon.com
Originally Posted by Passport
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
