The privilege of VAT zero-rating of Generation Company’s sales does not retroact to cover the period prior to the issuance of Certificate of Compliance.

The taxpayer contends that the absence of a Certificate of Compliance (“COC”) does not necessarily amount to an absence of authorization from the Energy Regulatory Commission (“ERC”) for a generation company to engage in preparatory activities which resulted in the incurrence of input VAT. Thus, taxpayer claims that its sales for the period of claim qualify for VAT zero-rating.

The Court ruled that to be eligible for the grant of VAT zero-rating under Section 15(g)1 of RA no. 9513 or the "Renewable Energy Act of 2008", the seller should be a "generation company" with an authority embodied in a COC issued by the ERC which must be secured before the actual commercial operations of the generation facility. Here, although a COC was eventually issued to taxpayer, the privilege of VAT zero-rating did not retroact to cover the period prior to its issuance. (Trans-Asia Renewable Energy Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case no. 9516, July 1, 2020)

To satisfy the due process requirement in tax assessments, the assessment must contain both the FLD and Assessment Notices.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”) files the Petition for Review before the Court En Banc and argues that the Court in Division erred in its decision when its stated that there was no showing that the Assessment Notices were issued and enclosed together with the Formal Letter of Demand (“FLD”), and that the absence of the same is fatal to CIR's claim and violates the due process requirements under the laws.

The Court En Banc ruled against the CIR. It held that to satisfy the due process requirement, the assessment must contain both the FLD and Assessment Notices. Taxpayers are guaranteed their fundamental right to due process of law, as articulated in various ways in the process of tax assessment. The use of the word "shall" under Section 3 of Revenue Regulations No. 12-99 connotes a mandatory character that cannot be brushed aside.

In this case, however, the Assessment Notices were not found in the records and neither was it proven, in any way, that taxpayer received the same together with the FLD. Thus, the CIR’s petition for review was denied. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. GS MTE Grains Corporation, CTA EB No. 1958, July 6, 2020)

To enjoy VAT zero-rating, the services performed in the Philippines must be other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods.

The taxpayer posits that its sales of services to its clients qualify as zero-rated sales of services. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”) argued that in claims for refund, the taxpayer has the burden of proof and must adduce the required documents under the law, rules and regulations. It is claimed that the taxpayer failed to comply with mandatory requirements for claims for VAT Credit/Refund.

The Court held that for services performed in the Philippines to enjoy VAT zero-rating, the services must be other than processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods. In the absence of proof that the services the taxpayer rendered were not in the same category as “processing, manufacturing or repacking of goods” and that they were performed in the Philippines, the taxpayer failed to establish compliance with said requisite. Hence, the services rendered by the taxpayer do not qualify for VAT zero-rating. (New York Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9669, July 9, 2020)

A MOA may be treated as an equivalent of a LOA provided that it is compliant with the essential elements of a LOA and was issued by the CIR or his duly authorized representative.

The taxpayer raises that the revenue officers who conducted the audit are not the same revenue officers stated in the Letter of Authority (“LOA”), rendering the audit investigation void.

The Court held that the revenue officers have no authority to conduct the audit investigation thus, the assessment is void. A document, such as a Memorandum of Assignment, may be treated as an equivalent of a LOA provided that it is compliant with the essential elements of a LOA and was issued by the CIR or his authorized representative who is the Revenue Regional Director, or in cases of taxpayers falling under the Large Taxpayers Division, the Assistant Commissioner/Head Revenue Executive Assistants. In this case, the Memorandum of Assignment was only signed by the OIC-Chief of the Regular LT Audit Division 3. He is neither of the officials authorized to issue an LOA hence, the revenue officers named under the Memorandum have no authority to continue the Taxpayer’s audit and the resulting assessment is void. (Golden Arches Realty Corporation v. Commission of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9400, July 9, 2020)

Failure to interpose a timely objection to evidence at the time they were offered in evidence shall be considered waived.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”) avers that the documentary exhibits by the taxpayer should not be given probative value for being hearsay evidence. Accordingly, the taxpayer’s witnesses allegedly have no personal knowledge of the fact of issuance and contents of the documentary exhibits.

The Court has held that the objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is formally offered. In case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the purpose of which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and not any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made. Otherwise, the right to object shall be considered waived.

Here, despite due notice to the CIR, it failed to file any comment or opposition to any of the evidence offered in taxpayer’s Formal Offer of Evidence. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Procter and Gamble Asia PTE. LTD. CTA EB No, 1998 dated July 14, 2020)

In VAT on sales of refined sugar, the VAT required to be paid in advance per RR No. 8-15 is the very same VAT to be imposed on the subsequent sale of refined sugar, and any advance VAT paid upon withdrawal shall be allowed as credit against its output tax arising from the sales of refined sugar.

Under RR No. 8-15, the taxpayer is required to pay in advance the output tax of its refined sugar prior to its withdrawal from the sugar refinery/mill. However, it subsequently sold its refined sugar to a PEZA-registered entity, which is entitled to VAT zero-rating. Hence, the taxpayer claimed for refund the advance output taxes paid because no output tax could be claimed arising from the said sale. Conversely, the Commissioner denied the claim and the advance payment shall be valid based on valid regulation.

The Court has held that RR No. 8-15 provided that a Certificate of Advance Payment of the VAT shall be required before the proprietor be allowed any withdrawal of refined sugar from its premises. Further, the amount of advanced VAT payments shall be allowed credit against the output tax based on the actual sale. The VAT implications of the withdrawal of the refined sugar from the sugar refinery/mill and the actual sale of refined sugar are different. To be clear, the transaction subject to VAT is still the sale of refined sugar. The withdrawal of sugar is not a separate transaction subject to VAT. It is only the payment thereof that is required to be paid in advance.

Although the said advance VAT on the refined sugar is eligible for a claim for refund, the Court denied the taxpayer’s claim on the ground that it failed to prove that the advance VAT payment actually pertains to the zero-rated sales and that it was not credited/applied against its output VAT. (Sucden Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue CTA Case No. 9754 dated July 15, 2020)

The DOE Certificate of Registration, BOI Registration, and DOE Certificate of Endorsement are mandatory documents to qualify for VAT zero-rating under the Renewable Energy Act.

The taxpayer sought to refund excess unutilized creditable input tax in relation to VAT zero-rated sales pursuant to the Renewable Energy Act. In support of its claim the taxpayer presented its DOE Certificate of Registration and its BOI Certificates of Registration, which was issued outside the period of claims.

The Court denied the taxpayer’s claim for refund due to its failure to present the Certificates of Endorsement issued by the DOE in its favor. It ruled that that the use of the word "shall" in the implementing rules and regulation of the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 indicates the mandatory submission of the following documents in order to qualify for VAT zero-rating: (1) DOE Certificate of Registration; (2) Registration with the BOI; and (3) Certificate of Endorsement by the DOE. For the taxpayer's failure to present all the above-stated documentary evidence, its reported zero-rated sales/receipts cannot qualify as VAT zero-rated sales. (Philippine Geothermal Production Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case Nos. 9208 & 9274, July 24, 2020)

The BIR must have initially conducted a surveillance or stocktaking against the taxpayer before the issuance of a 48-Hour Notice, 5-day VAT Compliance, and Closure Order.

The taxpayer received a Letter of Authority and subsequently, a 48-Hour Notice from the BIR informing the latter of its failure to issue sales invoices/receipts and pay VAT. The BIR did not conduct any surveillance against the taxpayer before the issuance of the said Notice. When the taxpayer filed a Petition for Review before the Court to declare the said Notice null and void, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”) argues that the Court has no jurisdiction over the case pointing out that the taxpayer must wait for the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment.

The Court ruled that its appellate jurisdiction is not limited to cases involving decisions of the CIR on matters relating to assessments or refunds but also covers other cases that arise out of the Tax Code or related laws administered by the BIR, as in this case. As to the substantive issue, for purposes of the issuance of a 48-Hour Notice, 5-day VAT Compliance Notice, and Closure Order under Revenue Memorandum Order No. 3-2009, a taxpayer, to be considered as "non-compliant", the BIR must have initially conducted a surveillance or stocktaking against the latter. Here, the CIR violated taxpayer's right to due process when the CIR failed to act in accordance with the prescribed procedure before issuing the subject notices. (Paymentwall, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9727, July 28, 2020)

RR No. 19-2020
July 8, 2020
This prescribes the use of the new BIR Form No. 1709 replacing BIR Form No. 1702H.

Taxpayers are now required to submit BIR Form No. 1709 and its supporting documents to disclose the existence of related parties and related party transactions.

The following are considered as “related parties”
a. A person or a close member of that person's family is related to a reporting entity if that person:
i. has control or joint control of the reporting entity;
ii. has significant influence over the reporting entity; or
iii. is a member of the key management personnel of the reporting entity or of a parent of the reporting entity.

The list of family members in the definition of “close members of the family of a person” is not exhaustive and may include other family members, such as parents or grandparents, depending on the assessment of specific facts and circumstances.

b. An entity is related to a reporting entity if any of the following conditions applies:
i. The entity and the reporting entity are members of the same group.
ii. One entity is an associate or joint venture of the other entity or of a member of a group of which the other entity is a member.
iii. Both entities are joint ventures of the same third party.
iv. One entity is a joint venture of a third entity and the other entity is an associate of the third entity.
v. The entity is a post-employment benefit plan for the benefit of employees of either the reporting entity or an entity related to the reporting entity. If the reporting entity is itself such a plan, the sponsoring employers are also related to the reporting entity.
vi. The entity is controlled or jointly controlled by a person identified in (a).
vii. A person identified in (a)(i) has significant influence over the entity or is a member of the key management personnel of the entity or of a parent of the entity.
viii. The entity, or any member of a group of which it is a part, provides key management personnel services to the reporting entity or to the parent of the reporting entity.

The substance of relationships between entities shall be taken into account.

Related party transactions shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
a. purchases or sales of goods (finished or unfinished);
b. purchases or sales of property and other assets;
c. rendering or receiving of services;
d. leases;
e. transfers of research and development;
f. transfers under license agreements;
g. transfers under finance arrangements;
h. provision of guarantees or collateral;
i. commitments to do something if a particular event occurs or does not occur in the future, including executory contracts; and
j. settlement of liabilities on behalf of the entity or by the entity on behalf of that related party.

The following procedures and guidelines must be observed:
1. BIR Form No. 1709 shall be completely and truthfully accomplished by the taxpayer or its authorized representative/s and shall be attached to the ITRs for the current taxable year and subsequent years, making it an integral part of the latter.

2. The "business overview of the ultimate parent company" shall include the profile of the multinational group of which the taxpayer belongs, along with the name, address, legal status and country of tax residence of each of the related parties with whom intra-group transactions have been entered into by the taxpayer, and ownership linkages among them.
3. The nature of transaction and the accounts affected shall be described in detail.

4. The "functional profile" shall include a broad description of the business of the taxpayer and the industry in which it operates, and of the business of the related parties with whom the taxpayer has transacted;

5. The following are required to be attached to BIR Form No. 1709:
a. certified true copy of the relevant contracts or proof of transaction;
b. withholding tax returns and the corresponding proof of payment of taxes withheld and remitted to the BIR;
c. proof of payment of foreign taxes or ruling duly issued by the foreign tax authority where the other party is a resident;
d. certified true copy of Advance Pricing Agreement, if any; and
e. any transfer pricing documentation.

6. No spaces shall be left unanswered. If one or some portions are not applicable, such fact shall be so stated.

RMO No. 23-2020, July 9, 2020
This provides for the issuance of ATRIG for VAT exemption on the sale and importation of prescription drugs and medicines.

The Authority to Release Imported Goods (“ATRIG”) for VAT exemption on the sale and importation of prescription drugs and medicines shall be issued with the following effectivity dates:
a. Diabetes, high cholesterol and hypertension beginning January 27, 2020; and
b. Cancer, mental illness, tuberculosis and kidney diseases beginning January 1, 2023.

For VAT purposes, the ATRIG shall be issued on all importations of articles exempt from VAT pursuant to Revenue Memorandum Order No. 35-2002, which is currently being implemented by the Revenue District Office No. 33 – Intramuros-Ermita-Malate of Revenue Region No. 6 – Manila.

RMC No. 69-2020, July 13, 2020
This provides for the revised procedures on the cancellation of PTU, CRM, POS Machines, and other similar sales machines generating receipts/invoices.

The revised procedures on the cancellation of Permit to Use (“PTU”), Cash Register Machines (“CRM”), Point-of-Sale (“POS”) Machines, and other similar sales machines generating receipts/invoices in compliance with RA No. 11032 otherwise known as the “Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act of 2018” are as follows:
a. The cancellation of the PTU CRM/POS machine shall be processed by the RDO/LT Office having jurisdiction over the taxpayer’s business address where the machine was registered;

b. The taxpayer shall notify the concerned RDO/LT Office, in writing, on their request for cancellation of the PTU within five (5) days from the date the machine was last used/withdrawn from use stating the reason(s) for the cancellation and other information;

c. The taxpayer shall submit the required documents as an attachment to the Letter or to the assigned RO at the time of machine inspection;

d. Actual inspection of the CRM/POS shall be mandatory in case of its withdrawal from use or its transfer to another branch of the company. However, in case of modification/upgrading of the software being used, actual inspection of the machine may be dispensed with under certain conditions;

e. In case of withdrawal from use or transfer of the CRM/POS to another branch of the taxpayer, the assigned RO shall conduct an inspection of the machine;

f. Non-payment of the penalties at the time of the request for cancellation of the PTU shall not be a ground for the non-issuance of the Cancellation Certificate;

g. The assigned RO shall submit a Memorandum Report on the result of the inspection upon completion of the machine inspection and submission of the required documents by the taxpayer, which shall be approved by the Assistant Commissioner, LTS/RDO;

h. Upon approval of the said Memorandum Report, the Client Support Section Chief of the RDO/Chief, LT concerned office or its authorized staff shall cancel the PTU and the MIN of the machine in the eAccReg system and generate the Cancellation Certificate;

i. In compliance with the processing time in the Citizen's Charter, the Cancellation Certificate must be issued within seven (7) days from receipt of the letter request of the taxpayer by the concerned RDO/LT Office. In case when inspection of the machine was dispensed with, the Cancellation Certificate shall be issued to the taxpayer within three (3) working days from receipt of the complete requirements by the RDO/concerned LT Office;

j. The concerned LT Office/RDO shall approve the application for PTU through the eAccReg within three (3) days from receipt of such application;

k. In order to authorize the simultaneous registration in eAccReg system of the new accredited software or upgraded software to be installed in the same machine with application for cancellation of the old software, the taxpayer shall secure approval in writing from the concerned LT Office/RDO to add a distinct prefix/suffix to the serial number of the sales machine to allow registration of the new software.

RMC No. 74-2020, July 15, 2020
This amends and/or clarifies certain provisions of RMC No. 34-2020 relative to the suspension of the running of the Statute of Limitations.

The penultimate paragraph of the said Circular is amended to read as follows:

"The cited provisions and stated circumstances therefore warrant the suspension of the running of the Statute of Limitations under Section 203 and 222 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, for a period starting on March 16, 2020 until the lilting of the extreme community quarantine (ECQ) and for sixty (60) days thereafter. The suspension of the running of the Statute of Limitations shall likewise apply with respect to the issuance and service of assessment notices, warrants and enforcement and/or collection of deficiency taxes. This Circular shall apply nationwide on areas placed under ECQ."

RMC No. 76-2020, July 29, 2020
This clarifies certain issues on the filing of BIR Form No. 1709 or Related Party Transaction (“RPT”) Form, and its attachments.

The clarifications are as follows:

a. The RPT Form shall be accomplished and filed manually by Philippine taxpayers with RPTs regardless of the amount and volume of transactions. Individuals who are considered related parties of a reporting company are also required to submit the RPT Form in their individual capacities. A transfer pricing documentation (“TPD”) is required to be attached in the RPT Form;

b. The RPT Form is now required to be submitted as an attachment to the Annual Income Tax Return (“AITR”) for fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, tentative or otherwise, irrespective of the date of filing of the said AITR, and to all AITRs to be submitted after such date. AITRs for calendar year 2019 or for fiscal year ending before March 31, 2020 are not covered by RR No. 19-2020;

c. The taxpayers are given another two (2) months from July 30, 2020, or until September 30, 2020, within which to prepare, file and submit the RPT Form and its required attachments;

d. There is no need to resubmit the AITR to the BIR. The taxpayer will only have to attach a photocopy of the duly filed AITR when submitting the RPT Form and its attachments;

e. For manual filers, the RPT Form and its required attachments must be submitted, together with the AITR and other required attachments, at the LT Division/RDO where the taxpayer is registered, on or before the statutory due date. For eFPS filers, the hard copy of RPT Form and its required attachments must be submitted manually and stamped "Received” at the LT Division/RDO where the taxpayer is registered, within fifteen (15) days from the statutory due date or actual date of electronic filing of the AITR, whichever comes later;

f. If the parent company has a TPD already covering the transactions with subsidiaries, the subsidiaries can use the same TPD, provided the taxpayer relied upon such TPD in determining the transfer prices. However, the local file is preferred;

g. The TPD should include the creation or preparation date so as to ensure its applicability to the RPTs conducted in the taxable year concerned. The TPD should be prepared prior to or at the time of the transaction, or after the transaction but not later than the filing date of the tax return for the fiscal/calendar year in which the transaction takes place. The TPD has to be updated yearly if there are significant changes in the business model, the factors or conditions considered in drafting the TPD, and the nature of the RPTs;

h. The TPD for the immediately preceding year may apply to subsequent RPTs if the transaction for which the past TPD was prepared is of the same type as the transaction undertaken in the taxable year concerned and was undertaken with the same related party/ies; and if the taxpayer can prove that the same conditions, which were made the bases for the past TPD, are squarely applicable to the RPTs in the taxable year concerned;

i. RR No. 19-2020 requires full disclosure of all RPTs regardless of whether a price is charged. Unlike the disclosure of related party transactions in the notes to the financial statements, the RR requires more details to be disclosed in Parts II and III of the RPT Form;

j. Dividends and redemption of shares between and among related parties (either paid or payable, received or receivable) should likewise be disclosed in the RPT Form;

k. The contracts to be attached to the RPT Form are those executed by the parties to substantiate the RPTs in the taxable year concerned. On the other hand, contracts executed in the previous year, but are still enforceable and applicable to the RPTs in the taxable year concerned, have to be attached;

l. Any taxes paid to a foreign country by a Philippine taxpayer must be declared in, and the proof of payment thereof must be attached to, the RPT Form;

m. If the taxpayer earned an income from its related party in a foreign country but has yet to pay the tax thereon after the filing of the RPT Form, the taxpayer still has to declare in the RPT Form such income and indicate in the column for withholding taxes that it did not pay any tax thereon. The taxpayer must attach the relevant contract, proof of receipt of such income, and a copy of the Tax Residency Certificate issued by International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) and submitted to the foreign country when it obtained treaty benefits. However, if the taxpayer paid the corresponding tax after the filing of the RPT Form, the taxpayer must inform the tax examiner during audit of such fact and present the proof of payment thereof;

n. The Philippine taxpayer is usually the one who bears the Income Tax on any income derived abroad. Thus, it has the right to know how much taxes it has to pay in the foreign country and the right to obtain any document related to the payment of foreign taxes, such as a copy of the return filed for said income and/or a copy of the ruling issued by the foreign tax authority;

o. The BIR has the right to obtain the relevant information and documents from the Philippine taxpayer and may enforce all its rights to obtain the same within the bounds of the law. This is without prejudice to the BIR enforcing its right to obtain said information pursuant to existing and effective tax treaty. To be acceptable as proof, the document showing payment of foreign taxes or copy of foreign ruling duly issued by the relevant foreign tax authority must be duly authenticated or apostillized;

p. The Tax Treaty Relief Application (TTRA) to be indicated in the RPT Form must be those filed with the ITAD relative to the income payments made by the Philippine taxpayer to its related party/ies.

SEC Notice
Dated July 12, 2020
This provides for the filing of Annual Reports during the temporary closure of the SEC Main Office until July 26, 2020.

The SEC shall implement the following adjustments in the procedures and deadlines for the submission of Annual Financial Statements (“AFS”) and the General Information Sheet (“GIS”).

1. Adjusted deadlines for filing of AFS

Corporations shall strictly observe the filing schedule based on their SEC registration or license numbers as follows:

2. Adjusted deadlines for filing of GIS

Corporations which held annual stockholders’ meeting during the ECQ and MECQ in theNCR, will still have until August 31, 2020 to submit the GIS.

3. Filing via courier

Filing via courier shall only be through SENS facility at https://sens.secexpress.ph while the SEC Main Office remains closed, and a return copy may be requested as inclusion in their submission. Request for plain or authenticated copies of their AFS, GIS and other documents through the SEC Express System at http://secexpress.ph two months after receipt.

4. Filing via email submissions

Scanned copies of their duly signed and notarized reports may still be sent through the following email addresses:

The documents shall be considered received on the date stated in the Acknowledgement Receipt (AC) to be sent through email. Printed copies may be submitted through courier or Philippine Postal Corporation (PHLPost), but the date of receipt shall be based on the AC.

5. Submission to the SEC extension offices

Corporations headquartered outside of NCR may continue filing their reports with the SEC Extension Offices, but the SEC – Cebu Extension Office shall be closed while Cebu City remains under ECQ.

6. Request for SEC Documents

Request for plain and authenticated copies of annual reports and other documents submitted shall be via online application only through the SEC Express System. The same shall be processed upon resumption of operations in the SEC Main Office on July 27, 2020.

Self-service processing in the SEC Main Office shall remain suspended until further notice.

IC Ruling ICR-2020-06, July 9, 2020
This provides clarification on IC Circular Letter No. 2020-61 reportorial requirement deadlines and their applicability.

The following items or reports needed to be submitted to the IC on or before January 31 of the following year:
1. List of External Auditor’s clients;
2. Copies of engagement contracts; and
3. Summary of External Auditor’s clients that have pre-terminated engagements.

Lastly, reports on matters discovered that affect the financial condition of the regulated entities shall be submitted fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of the discovery of the materials finding. If there is none to report, the External Auditor shall submit within 15 calendar days after the close of the audit engagement a notarized certification that there is none to report. 

BSP Circular No. 1091, July 22, 2020
This provides the exclusion of debt securities held by market from single borrowers limit.

This Circular amends Section 362/342-Q of the MORB/MORNBFI to read as follows:

“362/342-Q CREDIT EXPOSURE LIMITS TO A SINGLE BORROWER
xxx
Exclusions from loan limit.
xxx
Debt securities acquired as a result of market making activities pursuant to the rules and guidelines of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the market or exchange where such securities are traded and/or enrolled, Provided, That:

1) The market-making positions shall be taken up in the trading book in accordance with Sec. 6L4/6L4-Q on investment activities of Bangko Sentral Supervised Financial Institution (BSFI);
2) The market-making positions shall be properly identified and segregated from the BSFI's proprietary positions; and
3) The BSFI shall periodically monitor the market value of the subject debt securities and the number of days the securities have been outstanding from date of acquisition.

Provided, further, That the subject debt securities shall be excluded from the SBL for a period not exceeding the number of calendar days, as indicated below, from date of acquisition:

BSP Circular Letter No. 2020-035,
July 27, 2020
This provides the extension of deadline to comply with the DIGICUR, implementation of targeted financial sanctions and the accompanying Sanctions Guidelines, and the Question-and-Answer document on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

This Circular also provides that the deadline for compliance with the requirements of AMLC Regulatory Issuances A, B, and C No. 2, Series of 2018, otherwise known as DIGICUR, is extended from April 13, 2021 to September 30, 2021.

BSP Memorandum
M-2020-055,
July 11, 2020
This provides the guidelines on the electronic submission of the Annual Report and Audited Financial Statement beginning 2019 which shall be observed by banks.

Submission Guidelines:

1. Banks shall electronically transmit in PDF the AR and AFS beginning with the 2019 AR and AFS to the Department of Supervisory Analytics (DSA) as provided under the memoranda.

2. Banks shall apply the following prescribed format for the subject as provided under the memoranda.

3. Banks shall only use e-mail addresses officially registered with the DSA in electronically submitting reports.

4. Banks that are unable to electronically transmit the AR and AFS may use any portable storage device and submit the same through messengerial or postal services within the prescribed deadline.

BSP Memorandum
M-2020-060,
July 24, 2020
This provides the guidelines on the electronic submission of the Annual Report and Audited Financial Statement beginning 2019 which shall be observed by Non-Bank BSFIs.

Submission Guidelines:

1. BSFIs shall electronically transmit in PDF the AR and AFS beginning with the 2019 AR and AFS to the Department of Supervisory Analytics (DSA) as provided under the memoranda.

2. BSFIs shall apply the following prescribed format for the subject as provided under the memoranda.

3. Covered Non-Bank BSFIs shall only use e-mail addresses officially registered with the DSA in electronically submitting reports.

4. Covered Non-Bank BSFIs that are unable to electronically transmit the AR and AFS may use any portable storage device and submit the same through messengerial or postal services within the prescribed deadline.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this Insights are summaries of selected issuances from various government agencies, Court decisions and articles written by our experts. They are intended for guidance only and as such should not be regarded as a substitute for professional advice.

Copyright © 2019 by Du-Baladad and Associates (BDB Law). All rights reserved. No part of this issue covered by this copyright may be produced and/or used in any form or by any means – graphic, electronic and mechanical without the written permission of the publisher.