From: Alfred Clayton <clayalf@msn.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM
Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
GANGRENED JUSTICES
Impeach them
By: Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
By: Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
10:06 pm | Tuesday, October 11th, 2011
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Monday, October 3, 2011
SHELL ALWAYS EVADE TAXES_SECOND PUBLICATION_RESEARCH (SHELL IS ABOVE THE LAW)
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL HISTORY OF TAX AVOIDANCE
By John Donovan
The oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has a long history as a participant in what the Guardian has aptly described as “the murky world of corporate tax avoidance.”
In February 2009, the Guardian newspaper published an article under the headline: “Offshore – and out of reach to the Revenue“
Extracts
The Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell, although it is still a British plc operating under UK company law, has shifted its trademarks to Switzerland and its main tax residence to the Netherlands.
Shell, meanwhile, has shifted ownership rights of its iconic scallop-shell roadside sign out of London to a third low-tax regime in Switzerland. It was part of a carefully planned merger of its UK and Dutch arms, which enabled the oil giant to keep many operations from the grip of the British tax authorities. For tax purposes, Royal Dutch Shell plc is now resident in the Netherlands. The company told us that the brand shift to the tax haven canton of Zug was not for tax avoidance, but for “entirely commercial” reasons. “There has been no impact on the Shell brand in the UK,” the company said. It added that there would now be “more effective and consistent management of the Shell trademarks”.
Another article on the same subject was published on the same day by the Guardian under the headline: “TAX GAP“
Extract
Ownership of the iconic scallop sign which appears on thousands of Shell petrol station forecourts has migrated to a Swiss tax haven.
The Anglo-Dutch oil giant which made $50bn (£35bn) in pre-tax profits in 2007, shifted its main tax-residence to the more benign climate of Holland after the merger of its twin UK and Netherlands arms in 2005.
Shell simultaneously moved the ownership of its immensely valuable brands. Legal ownership of the trademarks now belongs to a subsidiary set up in the low-tax canton of Zug, which is entitled to charge royalties for their use to other Shell companies.
The rights were shifted in February 2005 to Shell Brands International AG, a holding company registered in the former Alpine village of Baar, now part of a mini-conurbation joined to Zug itself.
The canton hosts about 18,000 companies, mostly foreign entities set up to take advantage of corporate tax rates as low as 8%, with personal tax for expatriate executives at a similarly enticing level.
This means that, legally speaking, Shell is now simultaneously a British public company, tax-resident in Amsterdam, whose brands are Swiss.
Shell says: “Shell Brands International paid Shell UK Ltd for certain trademarks. This payment was subject to corporation tax on capital gains in the UK. In the future, royalties are payable for the use of the trademark by UK companies”.
In fact, no tax was paid on the sale, because Shell was able to set it against other tax losses.
The Guardian also referred to Shell’s tax avoidance in its subsequent article: “Holding the UK’s major corporations to account“
Extracts
Our innovative online database helped shed light on the murky world of corporate tax avoidance
The series revealed the tax stratagems of many of Britain’s corporate household names. It documented brands shifted offshore by Diageo, Shell, and drug companies AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.
Royal Dutch Shell was also mentioned in an article published in January 2011 by “This is Money”, under the headline: “Revealed: Tax havens of the top 20 UK companies“
Extract
Shell has 47 offshore subsidiaries, mainly in Bermuda, although the company said that its holding group, Royal Dutch Shell, is based in the Hague and not British tax-resident.
There is nothing new about Shell tax avoidance. The following is an extract from from pages 78 & 79 of the book “Patents for Hitler” by Guenter Reimann published in 1942.
The story of the secret Oil International would not be complete without referring to Liechtenstein, Europe’s mystery state. Liechtenstein, with its capital, Vaduz, is the most remarkable country in war-time Europe. Situated in Central Europe, almost encircled by the Third Reich, it is the only place in the old world where people feel safe, with unprotected frontiers, with only a few policemen maintaining internal order-in short, an idyllic country. How did it escape Hitler’s armies? With a population of only 12,000, it could never have tried to defend its national existence. But we must not forget that the administration of this tiny state offered hospitality to corporations which sought a neutral centre for private empires, free from the struggle of national states and from taxation. This little country in war-torn Europe had been selected by I. G., by Standard Oil, and also by Shell as one of the centres for the super-national world empires. Its only apparent function is to enable private world empires or large corporations to escape from the risks of war and also from taxation.
Solon accuses Shell of smuggling; calls for inquiry
MANILA, Philippines - A congresswoman today accused Pilipinas Shell of "unabated smuggling activities" and tax evasion.
Zambales Rep. Maria Milagros Magsaysay made the accusation as she urged the House of Representatives' committee on ways and means to investigate the oil company.
In the House Resolution 1643, Magsaysay said that the committee should also probe officials of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for their alleged failure to "take action and necessary steps to run after Pilipinas Shell."
"The House Committee on Ways and Means should immediately conduct an investigation in aid of legislation to ferret out the truth and determine the culpability of the culprits," said Magsaysay.
According to Magsaysay, Pilipinas Shell started declaring in 2004 its shipments of Catalyctic Cracked Gasoline (CCCG) and Light Catalyctic Cracked Gasoline (LCCG) that arrived at the Port of Batangas as blending components, which the BOC disagreed to. She said that the bureau had found out that the shipments were not blending components, but rather final products and therefore liable for payment of excise taxes and value added taxes on excise taxes.
She said that the oil company contested the BOC findings and got a reprieve from a BIR Memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner Jose Mario Bunag stating that indeed CCCG and LCCCG are blending components.
The BOC did not agree to the BIR Memorandum, and on Nov. 11, 2009, an eight-member Verification Committee of the BOC found Pilipinas Shell to have committed fraud and was therefore liable to pay taxes in the amount of P7,348,767,933.00.
Magsaysay said that in a separate issuance, acting BIR Commissioner Joel Tan Torres reversed Bunag's position and found that CCCG and LCCG are not blending components and therefore Shell is liable to pay the taxes of P7 billion.
However, the Court of Tax Appeals issued an order enjoining the commissioners of the BOC and the BIR and its agents to refrain collecting taxes from Pilipinas Shell by using as basis the company’s very minimal surety bond, and the interference from then Solicitor-General Alberto Agra and purportedly from Malacañang through "a certain Secretary Favila."
The congresswoman said that despite the very clear case against Shell for smuggling and non-payment of taxes, there is great injustice to the government by the solicitor-generla for its inaction of not pursuing a winning case against Shell at the Court of Tax Appeals.
Magsaysay also alleged that Shell continued its "smuggling activity" from the period July 2010 to April 2011 and imported shipments declared as alkylate, which were found by the BOC at the Port of Batangas as misdeclared.
After subjected to thorough tests and evaluation, a composite team of officials at the Port of Batangas found the alkylate as motor gasoline and therefore subject to the imposition of excise taxes and VAT on excise taxes in the amount of P1,578,269,755.00.
After the findings of misdeclaration and smuggling by Shell of motor gasoline declared to be alkylate, the Collector of the Port of Batangas Juan Tan, immediately sent a memorandum to incumbent BOC Commissioner Angelito Alvarez to demand payment from Shell of the taxes due plus the penalties and interests and surcharges, and to file a criminal case.
Magsaysay said that Alvarez refused to take action, and instead relieved Tan and the other Port of Batangas officials "under questionable and mysterious reasons."
Magsaysay said the government stands to lose several billions of pesos in uncollected taxes, and these indicate that certain government officials may have given undue advantage to smugglers.
"It is imperative for the House to conduct an inquiry on these issues that involved transcendental importance," she said.
MANILA, Philippines - A congresswoman today accused Pilipinas Shell of "unabated smuggling activities" and tax evasion.
Zambales Rep. Maria Milagros Magsaysay made the accusation as she urged the House of Representatives' committee on ways and means to investigate the oil company.
In the House Resolution 1643, Magsaysay said that the committee should also probe officials of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for their alleged failure to "take action and necessary steps to run after Pilipinas Shell."
"The House Committee on Ways and Means should immediately conduct an investigation in aid of legislation to ferret out the truth and determine the culpability of the culprits," said Magsaysay.
According to Magsaysay, Pilipinas Shell started declaring in 2004 its shipments of Catalyctic Cracked Gasoline (CCCG) and Light Catalyctic Cracked Gasoline (LCCG) that arrived at the Port of Batangas as blending components, which the BOC disagreed to. She said that the bureau had found out that the shipments were not blending components, but rather final products and therefore liable for payment of excise taxes and value added taxes on excise taxes.
She said that the oil company contested the BOC findings and got a reprieve from a BIR Memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner Jose Mario Bunag stating that indeed CCCG and LCCCG are blending components.
The BOC did not agree to the BIR Memorandum, and on Nov. 11, 2009, an eight-member Verification Committee of the BOC found Pilipinas Shell to have committed fraud and was therefore liable to pay taxes in the amount of P7,348,767,933.00.
Magsaysay said that in a separate issuance, acting BIR Commissioner Joel Tan Torres reversed Bunag's position and found that CCCG and LCCG are not blending components and therefore Shell is liable to pay the taxes of P7 billion.
However, the Court of Tax Appeals issued an order enjoining the commissioners of the BOC and the BIR and its agents to refrain collecting taxes from Pilipinas Shell by using as basis the company’s very minimal surety bond, and the interference from then Solicitor-General Alberto Agra and purportedly from Malacañang through "a certain Secretary Favila."
The congresswoman said that despite the very clear case against Shell for smuggling and non-payment of taxes, there is great injustice to the government by the solicitor-generla for its inaction of not pursuing a winning case against Shell at the Court of Tax Appeals.
Magsaysay also alleged that Shell continued its "smuggling activity" from the period July 2010 to April 2011 and imported shipments declared as alkylate, which were found by the BOC at the Port of Batangas as misdeclared.
After subjected to thorough tests and evaluation, a composite team of officials at the Port of Batangas found the alkylate as motor gasoline and therefore subject to the imposition of excise taxes and VAT on excise taxes in the amount of P1,578,269,755.00.
After the findings of misdeclaration and smuggling by Shell of motor gasoline declared to be alkylate, the Collector of the Port of Batangas Juan Tan, immediately sent a memorandum to incumbent BOC Commissioner Angelito Alvarez to demand payment from Shell of the taxes due plus the penalties and interests and surcharges, and to file a criminal case.
Magsaysay said that Alvarez refused to take action, and instead relieved Tan and the other Port of Batangas officials "under questionable and mysterious reasons."
Magsaysay said the government stands to lose several billions of pesos in uncollected taxes, and these indicate that certain government officials may have given undue advantage to smugglers.
"It is imperative for the House to conduct an inquiry on these issues that involved transcendental importance," she said.
COMMITTEE NEWS
VOLUME 16 | NO. 41 | 15-APRIL-2009
PROBE:P21B ALLEGED UNPAID EXCISE TAX BY PILIPINAS SHELL
THE COMMITTEE on Ways and Means chaired by Antique Representative Exequiel Javier continued its investigation into the alleged non-payment of excise tax on importations of unleaded gasoline by Pilipinas Shell from May 2004 up to 2008.
In the Committee�s third meeting on the issue, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) maintained that Pilipinas Shell owed the government P21billion in unpaid excise taxes and that the company had been misdeclaring its shipments of unleaded gasoline as catalytically cracked gasoline (CCG) to avoid the taxes.
Tax-exempt
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has ruled that imported CCG, an ingredient blended with gasoline to produce unleaded gasoline, is exempt from the excise tax.
Both BOC Commissioner Napoleon Morales and Port of Batangas Customs Collector Juan Tan were of the position that Pilipinas Shell has to pay the tax of P21 billion including penalties for the shipments of unleaded gasoline it brought into the country.
The shipments were released without being taxed on the basis of the Authority to Release Imported Goods (ATRIG) issued by the BIR, according to the two customs officials.
Misdeclaration
In a demand letter, Tan asked Pilipinas Shell to pay the excise tax claiming that the oil company has been importing unleaded gasoline as shown in their invoices, but was declaring it as CCG.
AKBAYAN Party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros questioned the exemption of CCG from the payment of excise tax, referring to Sec. 129 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), which provides that excise taxes apply to imported goods.
Likewise, Rep. Reno Lim (3rd District, Albay) said that the issue of misdeclaration of shipments should be looked into.
Responding to these comments, Robert Kanapi of Pilipinas Shell said that CCG is a raw material and not a finished product, and only the latter is subject to excise tax.
�Gasoline products are derived from imported crude oil coming from at least a dozen sources around the world. Crude oil � is mixed with CCG at 30-40 percent ratio in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Imported crude oil is levied a three percent import duty,� Kanapi explained.
BIR ruling
Rep. Andres Salvacion Jr. (3rd District, Leyte) noted that the excise tax used to apply to CCG until a ruling was issued by then BIR Deputy Commissioner Jose Bu�ag exempting it from the excise tax. He contended that the BIR cannot issue a ruling contradicting Section 1508 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
This particular section of the Code authorizes the Customs collector to hold the delivery or release of imported articles whenever the importer has an outstanding and demandable account with the BOC.
�BIR should not favor the importers to the detriment of the government,� Rep. Salvacion stressed.
Tan disclosed that the BIR was under pressure to issue the ruling due to an impending oil shortage at that time. He also said that Pilipinas Shell used to pay one billion pesos annually for CCG imports before the tax exemption was granted.
Smuggling
On Rep. Hontiveros� query on whether the alleged misdeclaration can be considered smuggling, Tan said yes. But he refused to comment on Rep. Hontiveros� inquiry as to whether the BIR colluded with Shell.
Explaining how the BIR arrived at the tax exemption ruling, BIR Director Jethro Sabariaga said the Department of Energy (DOE) was consulted on the matter which confirmed that CCG is a raw material and not a finished product.
BOC Deputy Commissioner Alexander Arevalo apprised the Committee that Commissioner Morales has already formed a task force to study the case and to submit its findings as soon as possible.
However, Rep. Abraham Kahlil Mitra (2nd District, Palawan) observed that the BOC�s creation of a task force was rather a late reaction to the issue. He also bewailed the fact that the Committee hearing is now on its third and yet only a little has been accomplished so far due to �delaying tactics.� He suggested giving the BOC task force a deadline to do its task.
The Chair added that the DOE must be included in the task force and that the latter must be supervised by the Department of Finance (DOF).
The BOC Deputy Commissioner assured Rep. Mitra that the task force findings will be submitted within one week.
DOF�s silence
Noting the silence of the DOF on the controversy, Rep. Nicanor Briones (Party-list, AGAP) asked the department to state its position especially since both the BIR and the BOC are under it.
DOF Undersecretary Estela Sales said the department is still waiting for the position papers of the BIR and BOC even as she took cognizance of the BOC�s creation of a task force to investigate the matter.
The Chair acknowledged the jurisdiction of the BIR over the administration of the excise tax. He cited a portion of Section 246 of the NIRC, which reads that �Any revocation, modification, reversal of any of the rules or circulars ... shall not be given retroactive application if the revocation, modification or reversal will be prejudicial to the tax payers, except in the following cases: where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return or any document required of him by the BIR; where the facts subsequently gathered by the BIR are materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based; or where the taxpayer acted in bad faith.�
The Committee is set to schedule another meeting on the matter. BIR Director Sabariaga was also requested to submit the excise tax payments of Pilipinas Shell. Representatives from Petron, Chevron and DOE will also be invited to the succeeding hearings of the Committee.
Source: Committee Administrative Support Service, Committee Affairs Department
VOLUME 16 | NO. 41 | 15-APRIL-2009
PROBE:P21B ALLEGED UNPAID EXCISE TAX BY PILIPINAS SHELL
THE COMMITTEE on Ways and Means chaired by Antique Representative Exequiel Javier continued its investigation into the alleged non-payment of excise tax on importations of unleaded gasoline by Pilipinas Shell from May 2004 up to 2008.
In the Committee�s third meeting on the issue, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) maintained that Pilipinas Shell owed the government P21billion in unpaid excise taxes and that the company had been misdeclaring its shipments of unleaded gasoline as catalytically cracked gasoline (CCG) to avoid the taxes.
Tax-exempt
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has ruled that imported CCG, an ingredient blended with gasoline to produce unleaded gasoline, is exempt from the excise tax.
Both BOC Commissioner Napoleon Morales and Port of Batangas Customs Collector Juan Tan were of the position that Pilipinas Shell has to pay the tax of P21 billion including penalties for the shipments of unleaded gasoline it brought into the country.
The shipments were released without being taxed on the basis of the Authority to Release Imported Goods (ATRIG) issued by the BIR, according to the two customs officials.
Misdeclaration
In a demand letter, Tan asked Pilipinas Shell to pay the excise tax claiming that the oil company has been importing unleaded gasoline as shown in their invoices, but was declaring it as CCG.
AKBAYAN Party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros questioned the exemption of CCG from the payment of excise tax, referring to Sec. 129 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), which provides that excise taxes apply to imported goods.
Likewise, Rep. Reno Lim (3rd District, Albay) said that the issue of misdeclaration of shipments should be looked into.
Responding to these comments, Robert Kanapi of Pilipinas Shell said that CCG is a raw material and not a finished product, and only the latter is subject to excise tax.
�Gasoline products are derived from imported crude oil coming from at least a dozen sources around the world. Crude oil � is mixed with CCG at 30-40 percent ratio in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Imported crude oil is levied a three percent import duty,� Kanapi explained.
BIR ruling
Rep. Andres Salvacion Jr. (3rd District, Leyte) noted that the excise tax used to apply to CCG until a ruling was issued by then BIR Deputy Commissioner Jose Bu�ag exempting it from the excise tax. He contended that the BIR cannot issue a ruling contradicting Section 1508 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
This particular section of the Code authorizes the Customs collector to hold the delivery or release of imported articles whenever the importer has an outstanding and demandable account with the BOC.
�BIR should not favor the importers to the detriment of the government,� Rep. Salvacion stressed.
Tan disclosed that the BIR was under pressure to issue the ruling due to an impending oil shortage at that time. He also said that Pilipinas Shell used to pay one billion pesos annually for CCG imports before the tax exemption was granted.
Smuggling
On Rep. Hontiveros� query on whether the alleged misdeclaration can be considered smuggling, Tan said yes. But he refused to comment on Rep. Hontiveros� inquiry as to whether the BIR colluded with Shell.
Explaining how the BIR arrived at the tax exemption ruling, BIR Director Jethro Sabariaga said the Department of Energy (DOE) was consulted on the matter which confirmed that CCG is a raw material and not a finished product.
BOC Deputy Commissioner Alexander Arevalo apprised the Committee that Commissioner Morales has already formed a task force to study the case and to submit its findings as soon as possible.
However, Rep. Abraham Kahlil Mitra (2nd District, Palawan) observed that the BOC�s creation of a task force was rather a late reaction to the issue. He also bewailed the fact that the Committee hearing is now on its third and yet only a little has been accomplished so far due to �delaying tactics.� He suggested giving the BOC task force a deadline to do its task.
The Chair added that the DOE must be included in the task force and that the latter must be supervised by the Department of Finance (DOF).
The BOC Deputy Commissioner assured Rep. Mitra that the task force findings will be submitted within one week.
DOF�s silence
Noting the silence of the DOF on the controversy, Rep. Nicanor Briones (Party-list, AGAP) asked the department to state its position especially since both the BIR and the BOC are under it.
DOF Undersecretary Estela Sales said the department is still waiting for the position papers of the BIR and BOC even as she took cognizance of the BOC�s creation of a task force to investigate the matter.
The Chair acknowledged the jurisdiction of the BIR over the administration of the excise tax. He cited a portion of Section 246 of the NIRC, which reads that �Any revocation, modification, reversal of any of the rules or circulars ... shall not be given retroactive application if the revocation, modification or reversal will be prejudicial to the tax payers, except in the following cases: where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return or any document required of him by the BIR; where the facts subsequently gathered by the BIR are materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based; or where the taxpayer acted in bad faith.�
The Committee is set to schedule another meeting on the matter. BIR Director Sabariaga was also requested to submit the excise tax payments of Pilipinas Shell. Representatives from Petron, Chevron and DOE will also be invited to the succeeding hearings of the Committee.
In the Committee�s third meeting on the issue, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) maintained that Pilipinas Shell owed the government P21billion in unpaid excise taxes and that the company had been misdeclaring its shipments of unleaded gasoline as catalytically cracked gasoline (CCG) to avoid the taxes.
Tax-exempt
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) has ruled that imported CCG, an ingredient blended with gasoline to produce unleaded gasoline, is exempt from the excise tax.
Both BOC Commissioner Napoleon Morales and Port of Batangas Customs Collector Juan Tan were of the position that Pilipinas Shell has to pay the tax of P21 billion including penalties for the shipments of unleaded gasoline it brought into the country.
The shipments were released without being taxed on the basis of the Authority to Release Imported Goods (ATRIG) issued by the BIR, according to the two customs officials.
Misdeclaration
In a demand letter, Tan asked Pilipinas Shell to pay the excise tax claiming that the oil company has been importing unleaded gasoline as shown in their invoices, but was declaring it as CCG.
AKBAYAN Party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros questioned the exemption of CCG from the payment of excise tax, referring to Sec. 129 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), which provides that excise taxes apply to imported goods.
Likewise, Rep. Reno Lim (3rd District, Albay) said that the issue of misdeclaration of shipments should be looked into.
Responding to these comments, Robert Kanapi of Pilipinas Shell said that CCG is a raw material and not a finished product, and only the latter is subject to excise tax.
�Gasoline products are derived from imported crude oil coming from at least a dozen sources around the world. Crude oil � is mixed with CCG at 30-40 percent ratio in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Imported crude oil is levied a three percent import duty,� Kanapi explained.
BIR ruling
Rep. Andres Salvacion Jr. (3rd District, Leyte) noted that the excise tax used to apply to CCG until a ruling was issued by then BIR Deputy Commissioner Jose Bu�ag exempting it from the excise tax. He contended that the BIR cannot issue a ruling contradicting Section 1508 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
This particular section of the Code authorizes the Customs collector to hold the delivery or release of imported articles whenever the importer has an outstanding and demandable account with the BOC.
�BIR should not favor the importers to the detriment of the government,� Rep. Salvacion stressed.
Tan disclosed that the BIR was under pressure to issue the ruling due to an impending oil shortage at that time. He also said that Pilipinas Shell used to pay one billion pesos annually for CCG imports before the tax exemption was granted.
Smuggling
On Rep. Hontiveros� query on whether the alleged misdeclaration can be considered smuggling, Tan said yes. But he refused to comment on Rep. Hontiveros� inquiry as to whether the BIR colluded with Shell.
Explaining how the BIR arrived at the tax exemption ruling, BIR Director Jethro Sabariaga said the Department of Energy (DOE) was consulted on the matter which confirmed that CCG is a raw material and not a finished product.
BOC Deputy Commissioner Alexander Arevalo apprised the Committee that Commissioner Morales has already formed a task force to study the case and to submit its findings as soon as possible.
However, Rep. Abraham Kahlil Mitra (2nd District, Palawan) observed that the BOC�s creation of a task force was rather a late reaction to the issue. He also bewailed the fact that the Committee hearing is now on its third and yet only a little has been accomplished so far due to �delaying tactics.� He suggested giving the BOC task force a deadline to do its task.
The Chair added that the DOE must be included in the task force and that the latter must be supervised by the Department of Finance (DOF).
The BOC Deputy Commissioner assured Rep. Mitra that the task force findings will be submitted within one week.
DOF�s silence
Noting the silence of the DOF on the controversy, Rep. Nicanor Briones (Party-list, AGAP) asked the department to state its position especially since both the BIR and the BOC are under it.
DOF Undersecretary Estela Sales said the department is still waiting for the position papers of the BIR and BOC even as she took cognizance of the BOC�s creation of a task force to investigate the matter.
The Chair acknowledged the jurisdiction of the BIR over the administration of the excise tax. He cited a portion of Section 246 of the NIRC, which reads that �Any revocation, modification, reversal of any of the rules or circulars ... shall not be given retroactive application if the revocation, modification or reversal will be prejudicial to the tax payers, except in the following cases: where the taxpayer deliberately misstates or omits material facts from his return or any document required of him by the BIR; where the facts subsequently gathered by the BIR are materially different from the facts on which the ruling is based; or where the taxpayer acted in bad faith.�
The Committee is set to schedule another meeting on the matter. BIR Director Sabariaga was also requested to submit the excise tax payments of Pilipinas Shell. Representatives from Petron, Chevron and DOE will also be invited to the succeeding hearings of the Committee.
Source: Committee Administrative Support Service, Committee Affairs Department
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
West Tower suit an ordinary damage claim, judge says
West Tower suit an ordinary damage claim, judge says
Is there still an "Environmental Protection Agency" in the Philippines? If so, what is this agency doing or not doing? The EPA is expected to be on the forefront fight against these violators. The public is eager to know about the courses of action the agency has waged and been waging to protect the environment from recklessly mode of doing business by these Oil Giants. In my view these Oil Giants are poised not only to wreck havoc to the environment but more pollutants to most government institutions, the courts of law, the Bureau of Customs. and more...It is time for the people to be vigilant and ask ourselves why government agencies created for the peoples interests are working otherwise. These violators seemed acting with impunity and being boldened each day as they knew they would be paying pennies for the billions worth of environment degradation. Unfortunately, it is the way it is in the Philippines..the EPA is just as good as a roll of paper in your restroom.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
SHELL FUEL SYRIAN TANKS?
Shell fuels Syrian Tanks?
By John Donovan
SHELL IS A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER, PARTNER, OWNER AND MANAGEMENT PARTICIPANT IN A COMPANY SUPPLYING THE FUEL FOR SYRIAN TANKS USED TO CRUSH THE UPRISING
On Wednesday 24 August 2011, I sent an email to Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
I asked him whether an email sent earlier that same day to a third party, purportedly by Graham Henley, General Manager of Syria Shell Petroleum Development B.V. was authentic. I supplied a copy.
I also advised him of an allegation that Shell fuel has been used in Syrian army tanks active in the current uprising.
I received an immediate automated acknowledgement from Mr. Brandjes indicating that although on a business trip until 29 August, he would be checking urgent emails on his Blackberry . The following day I sent an email to another Shell email address asking the same questions.
There was no response from Shell, possibly because the subject is one of great sensitivity.
On 26 August I sent a follow-up email to Mr Brandjes:
Since you have not responded to my email of 24 August, I take it that the email response below from Graham Henley is authentic and the allegation is true.
If I do not receive a response today indicating otherwise, I will proceed on that basis.
There has been no response from Mr Brandjes even though we were officially notified that he is our designated contact at Shell.
The email purportedly from Mr Henley, which I believe to be authentic, is printed below. It was a reply sent on behalf of Shell CEO Peter Voser. It seeks to justify Shell’s continuing presence in Syria despite the crimes against humanity being committed against peaceful Syrian protestors by the despotic regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
It says that Shell has publicly expressed concern over the current situation in Syria.
If the allegation that Shell fuel has been used in the Syrian army tanks suppressing the uprising is true, then that would completely undermine Shell’s attempt to distance itself from the Syrian regime, while continuing to do business with them. The business activity includes fueling the tanks via Al Furat Petroleum Company, in which Shell is a major shareholder. Does this not make Shell an accomplice in crimes against humanity?
If the allegation is unfounded, Shell should quickly say so in unequivocal terms.
We note that when the Daily Mail recently accused Shell of working ‘hand in glove’ with the Syrian regime, Shell also refused to comment on that occasion:
Extract
Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of working ‘hand in glove’ with the government in Syria where hundreds of unarmed demonstrators have been killed during protests against the regime.
The firm chartered a tanker to export almost 600,000 barrels of the country’s oil worth $55m, according to campaign group Platform. Shell declined to comment.
THE SHELL EMAIL DATED 24 August 2011 SENT TO THE THIRD PARTY
From:
Date: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:22 AM
Subject: Shell in Syria
Thank you for your letter to Peter Voser, to which he has asked me to respond. I understand your concern over the current situation in Syria. We are also concerned. We have publicly condemned the current violence and deeply regret the loss of life in the country. We aremonitoring the situation in Syria closely and ensuring the safety and security of our staff, who are our main concern.
Our involvement in oil production in Syria is through a share in a joint venture company, Al Furat Petroleum Company. We do not operate this joint venture but are proud that the over 3000 staff it employs reflect the rich cultural and religious diversity of the country. We are heavily involved in the development of those staff. In the last five years Shell has played a significant role in training more than 400 Syrian graduate staff in the joint venture.
In the last 25 years Shell through Al-Furat Petroleum Company has contributed to the development of the oil and gas industry in Syria, providing income to the country and employment for a generation of Syrians, who have acquired skills and long term employment in a remote area of Syria where there are few other opportunities for employment.
In addition we have an active social investment programme in the country. We and our partners manage a fund in the remote area where Al Furat operates providing amenities such as water schemes. We also have a training programme for entrepreneurs in Damascus, Homs, Hama and Deir Ez Zor, helping Syrians start up their own businesses and create wealth for themselves and the country. In the last three years we have trained 750 people who have set up more than 150 businesses.
We estimate that indirectly more than 30,000 people are touched and benefit through employment and our other activities. Our Syrian staff are supportive of Shell’s continued presence in the country.
We believe these are all positive contributions to the country that should continue as long as we can continue to operate in the country according to our business principles, international and local laws and we can respect human rights, as set out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core conventions of the International Labour Organisation. We are committed to conducting business as responsible corporate members of society, complying with applicable laws and regulations, including international sanctions.
I hope this explains our presence in Syria and the contribution we make.
Graham Henley,
General Manager
Syria Shell Petroleum Development B.V.
EMAIL ENDS
Basically, Shell is demonstrating once again that it is willing to deal with the devil incarnate, whether in the guise of Hitler, thecorrupt Nigerian dictator, General Sani Abachato, the apartheid regime in South Africa, “Mad Dog” Gaddafi, the Iranian Mad Mullahs, Saddam Hussein, or the current Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, killing peaceful protestors on a daily basis.
RELATED ARTICLES
Why is Shell still present and operating in Syria?:RoyalDutchShellPlc.com
UN to investigate ‘crimes against humanity’ in Syria: Telegraph 23 August 2011
EU prepares to embargo Syrian oil in line with US: The Scotsman 25 August 2011
EU Embargo on Syrian Crude Likely to Hurt Italy Most: Wall Street Journal 26 August 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
