DOJ approves tax evasion case vs Corona’s son in law

By: Tetch Torres-Tupas - 11 years ago

Department of Justice building. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—The Department of Justice has approved the filing of tax evasion case before the Court of Tax Appeals against Dr. Constantino Castillo, son in law of former Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The filing of the case came at the heels of the controversy surrounding the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) tax campaign advertisement portraying medical doctors as tax cheat.

In a 20-page resolution approved by Prosecutor General Claro Arellano, Castillo, husband of Corona’s eldest daughter Carla, failed to declare any income in 2003 despite acquiring a property in Molave Street, Quezon City worth P10.5 million.

“Failure of respondent Castillo to file an ITR (Income Tax Return) for the taxable year 2003 and the fact that he was able to purchase a property worth P10.5 million give rise to a presumption of undeclared income,” the DOJ resolution dated Feb. 20 but released Wednesday stated.

Castillo argued that he did not file his ITR in 2003 because he has no income and is still reviewing for his Urology Board Exams.

But the DOJ noted that Castillo is already a registered tax payer as early as 1998.

The DOJ added that Castillo’s claims that he borrowed money from his parents to buy the property “was unsubstantiated by any evidence aside from his mere testimony.”

Then, he bought another property in 2009 in Kalayaan Avenue in Quezon City worth P15 million when he only declared a P988,711 income for that year.

“In spite of this, the total cumulative amount of his declared income from the years 2005 to 2009 is only P1, 933, 716.86 which is undoubtedly insufficient to purchase the Kalayaan property. In short, his expenses outweigh his income, which is illogical unless he has undeclared income,” the resolution said.

“Based on the foregoing, we find that there is probable cause that respondent Castillo has underdeclared income for taxable year 2009, which makes him liable for violating Sections 254 and 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code,” the resolution said adding that the respondent “deliberately failed and or underdeclared it in his ITRs.”