24H NEWS

LIKE Us On Facebook

Please Wait 20 Seconds...!!!or like our page

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Pacman Tax Woes Not Yet Over

 The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) continues to oppose the petition of boxing champion Manny Pacquiao and his wife Jinkee to reduce the multi-billion peso cash or surety bond set by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in connection with the tax collection case filed against them. The BIR, through the Office of the Solicitor General, is set to defend before the Supreme Court on Monday the tax deficiency assessment and cash or surety bond set by the CTA.
The SC earlier issued a temporary restraining order against CTA and the BIR in connection with the multi-billion-peso cash bond and tax collection case against the Pacquiaos.
Revenue officials who declined to be named said the TRO covers only the bail issue and not the merit of the collection case pending before the CTA First Division.
The high tribunal gave the BIR until today to submit its pleadings but this was moved to Monday as the deadline falls on a Saturday.
BIR officials said lawyers from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) will handle the oral argument before the SC but they were tasked with the preparation of the pleadings. 



The high tribunal issued the TRO last month after Pacquiao complained to the SC that the P3.2-billion cash bond, or P4.9-billion surety bond imposed by the CTA in April was unreasonable and beyond his net worth of P1.2 billion.
A revenue lawyer said that under CTA rules “the bond should not be lower than the assessment, nor more than double the amount.”
The congressman from Sarangani was assessed to owe the BIR more than P2.4 billion for the years 2008 and 2009 out of his estimated $28-million prize winnings for successfully defending his various titles in five bouts in the United States.
BIR insiders said Pacquiao could have avoided the huge tax deficiency assessments had he promptly answered tax notices sent to him.
They said the tax debts have become “demandable” and can no longer be appealed because the final assessment notice (FAN) had already been issued as provided for under Section 228 of the Tax Code.
 
 
  
post signature
Twitter News Recently updated
 
Back To Top