Professionals’ fees confidential – SC

7

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday stopped the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) from implementing a new regulation requiring professionals, including medical doctors, to disclose their fees.

The High Court earlier ruled that lawyers are not required to issue receipts for their services.

“The court acted on the motion for leave of court to file intervention and the attached motion for intervention filed by the Philippine College of Physicians by allowing the intervention and issuing a temporary restraining order against the BIR Revenue Regulation 4-2014 in favor of doctors this time,” the SC explained after an en banc meeting.

Dated March 3, Revenue Regulation (RR) 4-2014 requires all self-employed professionals to submit an “affidavit indicating the rates, manner of billings and the factors they consider in determining their service fees upon registration and every year thereafter on or before January 31.”


Immediately, the Philippine College of Physicians and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) filed separate petitions challenging RR 4-2014 titled “Guidelines and Policies for the Monitoring of Services Fees of Professionals” for being unconstitutional.

The regulation also requires professionals to submit their books of accounts and official appointment books containing the names of their clients and the dates and time of the meetings.

Receipts are required also even in pro bono cases when no fee is charged.

Lawyers, through the IBP, said the regulation issued by the BIR and the Department of Finance “encroaches upon the court’s exclusive authority and jurisdiction to regulate and prescribe rules” for the legal profession.

“The power to promulgate rules on the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings and practice and the law profession is lodged exclusively in the Supreme Court, not in any other agency of government, least of all the Department of Finance and the Bureau of Internal Revenue,” the IBP said.

Share.
.
Loading...

Please follow our commenting guidelines.

7 Comments

  1. Arthur Keefe on

    Just another example of how the elites in this society seem to think they are above the law that applies to everybody else. Thus ruling will only result in continued fraud and criminal evasion of lawful tax liabilities.

  2. If it is the law of the land, it must be followed. Should any person or entity is against it, they should cause that the legislative branch change the law. I believe that this practice by doctors and lawyers being not required to issue receipt came from the U.S. According to my nephew who is a doctor in Florida, they are not required to issue receipts but they need to file their income taxes honestly because the IRS have mechanics to compute their tax due. Maybe Kim Henares can study what the procedures these are so she will not be subjected to hate campaigns for her illegal acts.

    • carlos sanchcez on

      Pag mga abogado ang kalaban mo, nako(!!!!) nandiyan pa rin ang SC na magtatangol sa kabaro nila. Pabayaan na lang na ang mga nasa ibaba ng income bracket ang mag pasan sa kailangang kolektahin ng BIR. Basta’t parehong balahibo, magkatulad ang uri.

  3. Josslin Diaz on

    It is an opinion approaching the heights of absurdity. How can the BIR collect proper taxes if the SC rules that way. With this kind of ruling the PI will remain a 3rd world country as the government won’t be able to collect enough revenues to spend for the welfare of the people.Look they just opened the school year and as usual there is not enough classroom for the new students.The professionals would be cheating on their taxes , it is possible for them to report less than half of what they receive for fees.That is the absurdity of this SC ruling.

  4. Is this ruling include Accountants, Engineers and other professions? Only in the Philippines kaya daming di nagbabayad ng tamang buwis. Kung sabagay ninakaw lang naman ng mga timawa ang kaban ng bayan.

  5. Surely the supreme court has made a big mistake. I mean the lawyers fees arnt kept secret so why cant they be disclosed. All this hiding of things leads to corruption. They said lawyers dont have to give receipts for their services, why not, its a service that you have to pay for & an official receipt should be compulsory. My supermarket has to give a receipt why not my lawyer, are they protecting them & doctors as why are they a special case. If i am wrong in saying this i hope someone will please explain it to me.

  6. Rocky Coronel on

    Here is a clear example why the SC must not be court of last resort. Its members proved themselves to be far from being impartial and fair.