The battle continues for Filipina Award winning actress Judy Ann Santos. Her tax problem continues after her petition to dismiss the tax evasion filed against her by the Bureau of Internal Revenue was denied by the Supreme Court.
Due to lack of merit, Judy Ann Santos petition to reverse the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals was denied.
In a statement released by Supreme court via their website, "The Resolution is interlocutory and, thus, unappealable. Even if her Petition for Review is to be treated as a petition for certiorari, it is dismissible for lack of merit."
Bureau of Internal Revenue filed a case against Santos for not declaring her income from her movie and product endorsements for the year 2002. According to one report, she has a P1.7 million tax liability.
Due to lack of merit, Judy Ann Santos petition to reverse the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals was denied.
In a statement released by Supreme court via their website, "The Resolution is interlocutory and, thus, unappealable. Even if her Petition for Review is to be treated as a petition for certiorari, it is dismissible for lack of merit."
Bureau of Internal Revenue filed a case against Santos for not declaring her income from her movie and product endorsements for the year 2002. According to one report, she has a P1.7 million tax liability.
The Court also held that there was no evidence of a clear and intentional discrimination against Santos, whether by Prosecution Attorney in recommending the filing of Information against her or by the CTA First Division in denying her motion to quash. It added that the only basis for petitioner’s claim of denial of equal protection of the laws was the dismissal of the charges against singer-actress Regine Velasquez (Regina Encarnacion Velasquez in real life), while those against her were not. It explained that Santos did not establish whether she and Velasquez were similarly situated, i.e., that they committed identical acts for which they were charged with and that they presented similar arguments and evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment