Thursday, 16 April 2015

Joseph Calata...a victim? ... in the pursuit of fame and fans?....and institution of fear?

This is privileged communication.

In the spirit of fairness and fearlessness, Kataxpayer.blogspot.com wants to clarify certain vague and unusual stories and statements behind the Bureau of Internal Revenue's filing of tax evasion charge against JOSEPH CALATA.

Apparently, as stated in the news conference held to provide information to the taxpaying public, Joseph's gross income in 2006 was pegged at 2 million pesos and in 2011, the investigating team found out, using the information filed in the Securities and Exchange Commission and Philippine Stock Exchange, that Joseph's asset had increased to 214 million pesos. Accordingly, by presuming, the said team, through the voice of the BIR, alleged that the increase in net worth is to be considered as an undeclared income. Such undeclared income is subject to 12% VAT and 32% income tax. Finally, the same team concluded that Joseph knowingly failed to declare this asset in his financial report.

From the POINT OF VIEW OF UNTRAINED MINDS, the story and the statements inside such story seemed to be undeniably true and correct but to those who have opened eyes and minds, the same is a semblance of generalisation, distortion and deletion (GDD)..

The GDD is a term that is used to confuse and abuse the minds of the INNOCENT and IGNORANT. However, to help these minds, please allow me to explain what ETM (who will have a TV program that will protect the interest of taxpayers at UNTV starting April 27(tentatively) which will be entitled KATAXPAYER. Kaalaman, Katarungan at Karapatan, 4.15-4.45 pm) believes to be behind the story and the statements of the BIR.

First, the BIR says that an increase in net worth is an increase in gross income and failure to declare this increase is considered to be a tax evasion activity. TO REFUTE THIS GENERALISATION AND DISTORTION, an increase in net worth may come from five (5) sources.

1. An increase in net worth due to inheritance means without an active activity from Joseph, he became the beneficiary of an asset. Therefore, he cannot be faulted for having amassed the said asset. However, the estate should be examined if the proper estate tax had been paid.

2. An increase in net worth due to donation means that Joseph is again a beneficiary of an asset without any effort in receiving the same. Therefore, he cannot be faulted for having amassed the said asset. However, the donor should be examined if the proper donor tax had been paid.

3. An increase in net worth due to buying an asset from the proceeds of loan means that Joseph has not active income to declare because no income is made when he used the cash from loan to buy an asset. However, the lender should be investigated if the proper documentary stamp tax had been paid.

4. An increase in net worth due to an increase in the value of an asset means that Joseph did not make any active income because there was no sale, exchange or barter of the said asset. According to numerous BIR issuances, an increase in the value of a property is not subject to 12% VAT and 32% income tax.

5. An increase in net worth due to an increase of cash derived from trade, business or practice of profession means that indeed an active income had been made. And, if this is the real fact, then, Joseph should pay his due to the Philippine Government.

Now that it became clearer to you, the reader hereof, that there are five (5) possibilities in increasing Joseph's net worth.

Therefore, the allegation of the BIR may be 20% correct and the probability that the allegation of the BIR is incorrect is 80%.

Finally, it is wrong to state that all assets must be declared by a taxpayer. Taxpayers are required to declare their business assets while their personal assets are not required to be disclosed either in their tax returns or financial statements. Thus, any personal asset can't be seen in the said return and statement. AGAIN, ONLY BUSINESS ASSETS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN TO THE BIR AND IF PASSIVE INCOME IS DERIVED FROM THE PERSONAL ASSETS, ONLY THE PASSIVE INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE DECLARED IN THE RETURN AND STATEMENTS AND NOT THE ASSET ITSELF.

The GDD doctrine is so prevalent in every walk of life..... Please be careful in receiving and accepting messages even if they may come from honourable persons.

Thank you.