(Third of three parts) In the second part of this series, we discussed some pointers that companies may wish to consider before filing an application for value-added tax (VAT) refund. In particular, we discussed the need to prepare for a BIR audit, to secure in advance the required certifications from government agencies and to ensure that non-resident corporations who are service recipients are not doing business in the Philippines.
DENIED tax refund applications filed before June 2014 will continue to be processed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in order to provide taxpayers “fair and adequate relief.”
For businesses, the start of the new year means setting new goals and targets. Likewise, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) also has its own new set of plans for 2017. This year, the BIR is tasked to collect P1.829 trillion which is equivalent to 79% of the National Government’s total projected tax revenue of P2.313 trillion. Although the target amount is lower than the last year’s collection goal which was P2.025 trillion, P1.829 trillion is still undeniably an uphill challenge.
(Second of three parts)In the first part of this series, we discussed the difference in the procedures for processing refund claims for unutilized input Value-Added Tax (VAT) on account of zero- or effectively zero-rated sales prior to and after the issuance of Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) 54-2014; given the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) mandate to increase tax collection, it needs every peso it can collect from, and not refund to, taxpayers; and the maintenance of the status quo under the current administration insofar as the application of the circular.
(First of three parts)Companies that have filed applications for refunds with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) can attest that securing an approval of a refund claim for unutilized input Value-Added Tax (VAT) attributable to zero-rated sales is always a challenge. There is a perception that tax refunds, compared to tax assessments, are not prioritized by BIR examiners. It is easy to see why.
THE Department of Finance (DoF) plans to revisit revenue performance evaluation measures of the country’s tax collection bureaus, before implementing the rewards and penalties law.
The tourism sector seems to be going through an interesting phase now that it has been called on to take a bigger challenge — to be sustainable and competitive against other tourist destinations in the region. What else could possibly make it more fun in the Philippines? In the field of taxation, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) appears to likewise recognize the urgency of effecting Republic Act (RA) No. 9593, otherwise known as the “Tourism Act of 2009,” as a roadmap to developing Tourism Enterprise Zones (TEZs) aimed at enhancing the capacity of tourist attractions and its facilities in priority destinations. Through the issuance of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 7-2016, the BIR recently acted upon the directive to implement the rules and regulations governing the tax incentives available to Registered Tourism Enterprises (RTEs) with the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA). The realization of these incentives comes seven years after RA 9593 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) were passed.
IN A continuing bid to promote mediation to settle tax liabilities, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) will issue tax clearances for taxpayers settling their liabilities through compromise or abatement.
Nonstock, nonprofit educational institutions may have reason to be upbeat this school year with the issuance of Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 44-2016, excluding them from the renewal requirements of their tax exemption status. Readers may recall that in 2013, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued RMO No. 20-2013, requiring nonstock, nonprofit organizations under Section 30 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) to secure confirmatory BIR rulings or certificates of tax exemption by submitting an application and supporting documents for evaluation. However, this requirement was declared null and void as far as nonprofit schools were concerned when a Regional Trial Court in 2014 cited the constitutional protections enjoyed by such institutions.
If a taxpayer was given two benefits which cannot be simultaneously availed, who should choose which benefit to avail — the government or the taxpayer? If we apply Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 27-2016 dated June 23, 2016 with regard to the final withholding tax (FWT) on dividends paid to foreign corporate shareholders, it appears that it is the government who can choose. However, the effectivity of this RMO was suspended by the BIR under Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 69-2016 dated July 1, 2016. Is the suspension good news?