Henares rebuffs “Dunkin’ Donuts” protector’s tag

Uncollected P1.56B taxes

By Mortz C.Ortigoza

URDANETA CITY – Despite the expose’ of a disgruntled former Examiner that the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue protects alleged big time tax evader, the latter argued that her omission to collect P1.56 billion was correct and dismissed tag as coddler of “Dunkin’Donuts”.

BIR Commissioner Kim Henares cuddles in this cartoon Ms
Marixi Prieto, Secretary of Dunkin Donuts' franchise and
 Chairperson of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

“Tatlong reinvestigation na kami sinasabi mali po siya. Papaano mo pipilitin ang isang mali sa isang taxpayer assuming natin na ma-assess ko iyan. Gagawin ng taxpayer pupunta siya sa Court of Tax Appeal ku-kwestionin niya,” stressed by Commissioner Kim Henares after the inauguration of the new revenue district office here.

Othello Dalanon, the resigned BIR Examiner, cited he discovered in his assessment that Golden Donuts, Inc.(GBI), the exclusive Philippine franchisee of the global brand “Dunkin’ Donuts” was liable to pay P1.56 billion after it did not protest the Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice (FAN) of the tax agency.

Dalanon personally reported GDI’s omission to Henares and recommended to her criminal prosecution for tax evasion of GBI under the much vaunted “Run After Tax Evaders” program of the Bureau; but she intentionally did not pursue the fraud case against the company because its secretary – Marixi Prieto who is also the chairperson of the Philippine Daily Inquirer – is President Aquino’s friend, according to Deputy Commissioner Estela Sales.

The former Examiner cited the deficiency tax assessment done by the BIR obtained finality because GDI failed to file a valid protest against the FAN.

Ms. Prieto, Dalanon added, talked to Henares and then BIR Regional and the incumbent Assistant Commissioner Nestor Valeroso on different occasions who both gave leniency to GDI.

Henares intentionally did not collect it, because representatives of GDI complained to her that Dalanon’s assessment was faulty. She, according to Dalanon, ordered two re-investigation.

Dalanon said however that there is no law that authorizes the commissioner to order two re-investigation of a final, executory, and demandable assessment.

Henares assailed Dalanon’s insistence, he reported in the mass media, for her to collect the P1.56 billion.

“Siguro tinanong muna siya bakit siya pursigidong ganito. Ano ba ang nawala sa kanya? So, ano ba ang para sa akin?”

She said how could she insist to collect the sum when what she will be doing is illegal.

“Unang sinabi niya ayaw kung kumulekta ng ganoon kalaki. Kung talagang kulekta. Kung hinde naman ano naman ang gagawin ko kung pipilitin ko ang isang mali?” she posed.

Dalanon cited how jurisprudences support his charges against Henares’ stubborn inaction to collect the more than a billion pesos back taxes.

 “The alleged letter of protest of GDI merely states “protest against  Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) adopted in toto”. It does not state the facts, the applicable law, rules, and regulations, or jurisprudence on which its protest was based. It is neither a request for reconsideration nor reinvestigation, “Dalanon wrote to this paper.

The National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 states that the taxpayer or his duly authorized representative may protest administratively against the aforesaid formal letter of demand and assessment notice within 30 days from date of receipt thereof.

If the taxpayer fails to file a valid protest against the formal letter of demand and assessment notice within 30 days from date of receipt thereof, the assessment shall become final, executory, and demandable.

“The Court of Tax Appeals in the case of Allied Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CTA Case No. 4581, March 25, 1992, cited “failure to comply with any or all of these requirements results in the assessment against the taxpayer becoming final and unappealable,” Dalanon told this paper.

Henares said because of the BIR’s failure to collect, Dalanon sued her and other BIR officials at the Ombudsman. 
"Secondly, demanda niya kami sa Ombudsman. Ang Ombudsman dinismis ang kaso niya. Motion for Reconsideration siya kung saan-saan ang kaso niya pumunta siya sa Court of Appeals, dinismis pa rin ang kaso niya".

Dalanon assailed the Commissioner “while she “sows fears among taxpayers, bullies, private and government workers, marginal income earners, and insists on probing Supreme Court Justices; she fears, coddles and lawyers for Dunkin’ Donuts’ local seller – a big time tax evader”.