BIR Ruling [UN-191-94]

June 29, 1994 BIR RULING [UN-191-94] The Assistant Regional Director Revenue Region No. 10-B Butuan City S i r : This refers to your request for opinion as to whether you can produce the income tax return of a person, in compliance with a Subpoena duces tecum issued by a Regional Trial Court in connection with a criminal case pending therein, without violating Section 269 of the Tax Code. It appears that a Subpoena duces tecum was issued by the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City ordering your Office to produce the income tax return for the year 1990 of one Rodolfo L. Comillas who was accused in Criminal Case No. 3858 for Falsification of Public Document. Instead of complying with the said Subpoena duces tecum, your Chief of the Legal Branch filed a Motion to Quash said Subpoena duces tecum, citing Section 269 of the Tax Code which prohibits the production of income tax returns of taxpayers. However, the Court denied your Motion and ordered the production of the income tax return of the accused, in line with the Supreme Court decision in Cu Unjieng vs. Posadas, 58 Phil. 260 and BIR Ruling No. 025 dated October 23, 1972. Pursuant to the aforesaid BIR Ruling, certified true copies of the income tax returns may be furnished the fiscal in a criminal case. In connection therewith, please be informed that you can furnish the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City with the income tax return for the year 1990 of accused Rodolfo L. Comillas, without incurring criminal liability under Section 269 of the Tax Code. What is prohibited in said section is the unlawful divulgence of any information regarding the income, estate or business of any taxpayer . . . in a manner not provided by law. Obviously, a Subpoena duces tecum issued by a Regional Trial Court in connection with a criminal case pending therein cannot be considered as having been made in a manner not provided by law. Besides, it is noted that the crime allegedly committed by the accused herein is falsification of his income tax return for 1990; hence, the best evidence to prove the same is the income tax return which the defendant filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. More importantly, it appears that the case was filed by the Ombudsman who can also require the production of the income tax return of said accused, pursuant to Section 15(5), 33, 36, 41 of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989. cdtech Very truly yours, ALICIA P. CLEMENO Actg. Assistant Commissioner (Legal Service)