黑料社

The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) has lifted the Bureau of Internal Revenue seizure orders on the assets of boxing great, Sen. Manny Pacquiao, as it directed the BIR to stop its efforts to collect P3.29 billion in taxes while the case remains pending.

Pacquiao鈥檚 legal battle, however, is not yet over as it is set to proceed to the trial stage. Pretrial conference of the case is scheduled for Aug. 30.

Citing the BIR鈥檚 鈥渧iolations of rules and irregularities,鈥� the CTA First Division ordered the bureau to 鈥渃ease and desist鈥� from implementing its final decision on disputed assessment (FDDA) dated May 14, 2013.

The FDDA set at P3.29 billion the final amount of the deficiency tax liabilities imposed on Pacquiao and his wife Jinkee for 2008 and 2009.

In a resolution dated July 27, the CTA also withdrew the tax lien annotated on the titles of the Pacquiaos鈥� General Santos City properties.

A tax lien prevents the couple from disposing of the property and secures it to satisfy the government鈥檚 claim for taxes.

No more bond

Moreover, the CTA spared the billionaire from the requirement of posting a bond first as a condition for stopping the BIR鈥檚 tax collection efforts.

The BIR 鈥渦tterly failed to comply with necessary requirements under pertinent laws and issuances鈥� in assessing the couple鈥檚 liabilities, read the decision signed by Presiding Justice Roman G. del Rosario and Associate Justices Erlinda P. Uy and Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla.

Because of the irregularities, the CTA would be 鈥渄ispensing the required cash deposit or bond provided under Section 11 of the [Republic Act] No. 1125.鈥�

The CTA found 鈥渘o prima facie evidence of fraud or tax evasion鈥� established by the BIR during its preliminary investigation.

The BIR failed to show that it conducted procedures to verify and determine 鈥渢he schemes employed and the extent of the fraud鈥� on the Pacquiaos鈥� part, the court said.

The BIR did not even specify in its May 2, 2012, formal letter of demand (FLD) the 鈥渂est possible sources鈥� of information it used in computing their tax underpayments.

黑料社paper articles

Documentary evidence presented to the CTA showed that the BIR used newspaper and magazine articles to establish that Pacquiao earned income in the United States in the form of guaranteed payouts and his cut of pay-per-view revenues and ticket sales.

The reports were not 鈥渃orroborated by other more sufficient evidence鈥� and the BIR did not at least confirm the veracity of the articles with the authors, the court said.

The BIR notices were hounded by procedural flaws, too. For one, the FLD was not even addressed to Jinkee despite being held jointly liable with her husband.

The warrants of distraint and/or levy and garnishment鈥攚hich paved the way for the seizure of the Pacquiaos鈥� bank accounts鈥攚ere found to be prematurely issued. These were dated July 1, 2013, though the couple received the FDDA only on July 2, 2013.

On giving the couple due process, the BIR failed to prove that a notice of formal conference was issued or even any record to show that the conference actually took place.

Jayson Fernandez, the Pacquiaos鈥� lawyer, told the BIR in a Jan. 31, 2012, letter that he only learned of the proceedings by chance and asked for it to be rescheduled, but the BIR did not reply.

It failed to show the court the protest letter where the Pacquiaos supposedly admitted that they attended the conference.

The agency also failed to justify why it included the years 1995 to 2006 in the scope of its electronic letter of authority that authorized the tax audit.

The CTA had to evaluate the validity of the BIR notices after the Supreme Court ruled on April 19, 2016, that when imposing the bond requirement, it should make a preliminary determination of whether the BIR violated the law in its tax collection efforts.

The case reached the Supreme Court because the Pacquiaos questioned the CTA requirement for them to first deposit P3.29 billion in cash or post a P4.948-billion surety bond before the stay order against the garnishment on April 22, 2014, can take effect.

In its April 2016 decision, the high tribunal said the CTA should have conducted a preliminary hearing first before imposing the bond requirement.

The Supreme Court reminded the CTA that in case of doubt, the scale should tip in favor of the taxpayer鈥檚 right to due process and equal protection.