[ad_1]
MANILA (UPDATE) – The Ministry of Justice has filed five separate tax evasion cases against Rappler Holdings Corporation (RHC) and its president Maria Ressa in a Pasig court and Tax Court of Appeal.
RHC is the holding company of Rappler Inc., owner of the Rappler information site, which has faced several legal difficulties, including the revocation by the government of its operating license in January and a complaint for cyber defamation.
A case of non-declaration of Value Added Tax (VAT) under Article 255 of the Tax Code was brought against RHC and Ressa in the Pasig City Regional Court of First Instance on November 14, 2018. that Rappler's lawyers only discovered on Thursday.
This case concerns the VAT return of the second quarter of 2015, when RHC was supposed to owe tax benefits to BIR 294 258.58 after allegedly earning taxable income of P2.45 million euros in because of the sale of Filipino deposit certificates to PDP NBM Rappler LP.
According to Rappler, 4 other cases were lodged with the Court of Appeal on 26 and 28 November.
According to DOJ Attorney General Richard Anthony Fadullon, Rappler said that three of the charges related to the alleged failure to report VAT for the third and fourth quarters and for the 2015 tax return, in violation of the Act. Article 255 of the Tax Code.
The fourth concerned an alleged violation of Section 254 of the Tax Code (attempt to evade payment of taxes).
Article 254 of the Tax Code is punishable by fines of up to 100,000 pesos and 2 to 4 years imprisonment.
Article 255 punishes acts such as the absence of a tax declaration or the non-payment, withholding or payment of taxes to the government, with a prison sentence of up to 10 years. and a fine of at least 10,000 pesos.
These sanctions will be imposed on the executives of the companies involved in the complaints, if found guilty.
In case of liability, the company could also be fined from 50,000 to 100,000 pesos.
Ressa, who is being sued as president of RHC, risks being arrested if the Pasig court and CTA find a probable cause.
The Ministry of Justice has recommended a deposit of 60,000 pesetas each in the 4 cases (for violation of Article 255 of the Tax Code) and 24,000 pesos in another case (for violation of the law). Article 254 of the Tax Code).
Securities dealer?
In all of these cases, the GM referred to RHC as a "securities dealer".
In a resolution dated Oct. 2, Deputy State Attorney Zenamar Macachon-Caparros said that RHC acted as an intermediary by buying the shares of Rappler Inc. in order to buy RDPs for resale to interested buyers. .
RHC purchased approximately 119 million common shares of Rappler Inc. between 2014 and 2015 and against these issued PDR shares to NBM Rappler and Omidyar Network Fund LLC.
According to the resolution, the profits of a transaction worth 162.5 million Swedish pesos are taxable under the Tax Code, which equates to about 108 million weighings.
Rappler maintained that it is not a securities dealer and has never hidden any transactions at BIR.
Harassment
In a statement, Ressa said the tax cases clearly amounted to harassment.
"These cases are part of the government's desperate efforts to harass and silence independent media such as Rappler. We continue to tell the story of the nation. These cases will not intimidate us and prevent us from holding public servants accountable, through our stories, "she said.
Atty rapper Atty's lawyer. In a statement, Francis Lim said "that there was an excessive haste to file tax cases in court, the time limit for asking the GM to reconsider his decision has not yet expired".
"This is a right granted to the respondents by the DOJ rules, in fact, one of the cases was filed even before the respondents received a copy of the DOJ's decision. "This is a patent violation of our clients' constitutional right to due process," he said.
In addition to tax matters, Rappler is also facing a cyberlibelle complaint before the GM.
The Securities and Exchange Commission also revoked the license of Rappler Inc. in January for the same sale of PDRs.
The SEC said that the wording of Omidyar's PDR gave the foreign company a form of control, which is prohibited by the Constitution.
On Rappler's plea, the Court of Appeals (CA) agreed that the sale of the RDPs was tantamount to giving foreigners control, but gave Rappler a reasonable period of time to correct the transaction.
CA also asked the SEC to determine the legal effect of Omidyar's subsequent donation of its RDPs to Rappler's staff.
Source link
