DOJ approves filing of tax case against ex-PMA president

THE Department of Justice (DOJ) has approved the filing of seven counts of tax evasion charges against former Philippine Medical Association (PMA) president Dr. Leo Olarte.

According to a 19-page resolution written by Assistant State Prosecutor Stewart Allan Mariano and approved by Prosecutor General Claro Arellano, Olarte should be prosecuted for violation of Section 255 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) for failure to file his income tax return.

The DOJ said Olarte failed to refute the allegations made by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) that he was not able to file his ITR from 2006 to 2012.

Olarte, records showed, has paid P743,563.53 withholding tax from 2006 to 2012 from various employers.

The DOJ said Olarte’s tax liability is P1.3-million from 2006 to 2012 broken down as follows P319,072.16 (2006), P42,305.72 (2007), P38,808.19 (2008), P250,985.85 (2009), P191,301.01 (2010), P214,278.98 (2011) and P299,522.57 (2012).

But the DOJ pointed out that it does not exempt him from filing his ITR.

“Albeit the taxes withheld by various employers from compensation income, he is not exempt from the filing of ITR…Such failure to file income tax returns from 2006 to 2012 inclusive, albeit the taxes withheld therefrom by his employers constitutes existence of probable cause that he violated Section 255 of the said law,” the DOJ resolution stated.

The DOJ, however, dismissed the complaint against Olarte for violation of Section 254 of the NIRC (Attempt to Evade Payment of Taxes).

“A second hard look at [the pieces of evidence] submitted by the BIR leads a reasonable mind to conclude that the charge on this score must fail considering that such evidence itself expressly provides that respondent had in fact filed his VAT (Value Added Tax) returns during the taxable period in question,” the resolution stated.

The DOJ said the computation sheet submitted by the BIR “sans the accompanying receipts has no probative value required in order to indict respondent.”

“The deficiency in so far as VAT is concerned is based only on receipts which the BIR even failed to specify much less present as evidence in their complaint. Mere say-so or allegation in the complaint that he earned income from the exercise of his profession would not suffice to meet the standard or level of proof to sustain an indictment,” the resolution added.