{"id":13495,"date":"2014-06-03T23:56:05","date_gmt":"2014-06-03T15:56:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=13495"},"modified":"2014-06-03T23:56:05","modified_gmt":"2014-06-03T15:56:05","slug":"sc-restrains-bir-rule-on-doctors-rates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2014\/06\/03\/sc-restrains-bir-rule-on-doctors-rates\/","title":{"rendered":"SC restrains BIR rule on doctors&#8217; rates"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_4486\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-4486\" style=\"width: 1024px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/Supreme-Court.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-4486\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/Supreme-Court.jpg\" alt=\"Supreme Court of the Philippines. Photo by Mike Gonzales courtesy of Wiki Commons.\" width=\"1024\" height=\"768\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/Supreme-Court.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/Supreme-Court-300x225.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-4486\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Supreme Court of the Philippines. Photo by Mike Gonzales courtesy of Wiki Commons.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>MANILA &#8212; Favoring doctors who have questioned the legality of Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) regulation, the Supreme Court has issued a Temporary Restraining Order on BIR\u2019s rule on doctor\u2019s rate<\/p>\n<p>In separate petitions, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the Philippine College of Physicians (PCP) has also challenged the constitutionality of the regulation.<\/p>\n<p>Under BIR Revenue Regulation No. 4-2014, self-employed professionals are required to submit an affidavit of fixed service rates and fees, register their appointment books and issue receipts even for free services.<\/p>\n<p>According to IBP, in issuing the regulation, the Department of Finance and BIR &#8220;transgressed their constitutional and statutory boundaries&#8221; and &#8220;encroached upon the exclusive authority and jurisdiction&#8221; of the high court to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, legal practice, and the legal profession as a whole.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>PCP president Dr. Anthony Leachon said in a statement published by ABS-CBN News approves of the SC decision adding that medical doctors \u201chave taken the high road towards developing a culture of change to help the government\u2019s advocacy in paying the right taxes.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOn behalf of the medical doctors, I must thank Commissioner Kim Henares in providing us the support to comply with our obligation and pave the way for a partnership that restores pride and nobility in the medical profession. We are humbled by the SC decision, finding the PCP position meritorious and justifiable,\u201d Leachon added.<\/p>\n<p><em>With reports from Ina Reformina<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MANILA &#8212; Favoring doctors who have questioned the legality of Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) regulation, the Supreme Court has &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":4486,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[95],"tags":[2107,2243,1144],"class_list":["post-13495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ph","tag-bir","tag-doctors","tag-supreme-court","mauthors-lei-fontamillas","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13495","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13495"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13495\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4486"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}