Request for Waiver of Surcharge, Interest and Penalties for Failure to Beat the Clearing Time for Checks

October 30, 2000 BIR RULING NO. 055-00 248; 249 Coats Thread Philippines 472 Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue Maybunga, Pasig City Attention: Mr . Generoso V . Sales Management Accountant Gentlemen : This refers to your letter dated December 29, 1999 requesting for the waiver of surcharge, interest and penalties for failure to beat the 3:00 p.m. cut-off time set by Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC) for the clearing of checks. It is represented that your Messenger inadvertently placed your check payment in the amount of P1,053,536.68 dated December 10, 1999 covering withholding tax payment for the month of November, 1999, inside his carry bag and did other errands for the day, forgetting the fact that he got BIR payment deadline; that it was only around 4:00 p.m. when he returned from Manila that he saw the check and hurriedly proceeded to MBTC; and that Ms. Teresita Q. Cortez, Manager, Pasig-Mabini Branch issued a Certification to the effect that the Bank received from you, Check Nos. 0801568267 and 0801568208 in the amount of P1,053,089.49 and P447.19 respectively at around 4:20 p.m. of December 10, 1999, which were accepted as late payment/filing and were validated on December 13, 1999 only. In reply, please be informed that under Sections 248 and 249, both of the Tax Code of 1997, the imposition of the surcharge and interest on delinquency is mandatory. Strong reasons of policy support a strict observance of the rule regarding the payment of tax. The laws imposing penalties for delinquencies are clearly intended to hasten tax payments or punish evasions or neglect of duty in respect thereof. If delays in tax payments are to be condoned for light reasons, the law imposing penalties for delinquencies would be rendered nugatory and the maintenance of the government and its multifarious activities would be as precarious as taxpayers are willing or unwilling to pay their obligations to the state on time. (Jamora vs. Meer, 74 Phil. 22) However, considering the aforementioned circumstance, this Office hereby grants your request for the waiver of payment of surcharge and penalties but not the payment of interest imposed under Section 249 of the Tax Code of 1997. This ruling is being issued on the basis of the foregoing facts as represented. However, if upon investigation it shall be disclosed that the facts are different, then this ruling shall be considered null and void. STcADa Very truly yours, (SGD.) DAKILA B. FONACIER Commissioner of Internal Revenue