Why Corporate Presidents and Treasurers Face Jail Time in BIR Criminal Cases
Introduction: Why corporate tax cases often focus on the “responsible officers”
In Philippine tax enforcement, a corporation may be the taxpayer, but imprisonment is imposed on natural persons. This is why Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) criminal complaints and court Informations frequently name the corporate president, general manager, and treasurer—officers who typically control (or are expected to control) tax reporting, payment decisions, and internal financial systems. The legal basis is found in the Tax Code provisions on criminal liability and the specific rule that, for corporate offenders, penalties are imposed on the officers and employees responsible for the violation.
Governing laws and regulations
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), as amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8424, 1997). This is the primary statute governing tax crimes, liability rules, and penalties. Section 253 provides general rules applicable to Tax Code crimes, including how liability is treated when the offender is a corporation (Tax Reform Act of 1997 or RA 8424, 1997).
Republic Act No. 7642 (1992). This statute increased penalties for tax evasion and related offenses under the Tax Code, reflecting the policy that tax crimes warrant substantial fines and potential imprisonment (Republic Act No. 7642, 1992).
BIR Revenue Regulations No. 15-2024 (2024). While focused on registration and compliance (including for online businesses), this issuance reiterates that failure to comply may carry administrative and criminal liability and echoes the Tax Code principle that corporate officers may be held accountable for violations (Revenue Regulations No. 15-2024, 2024).
Section 253 of the Tax Code: the rule that connects corporate violations to individual jail exposure
Section 253 (General Provisions) contains the framework that prosecutors commonly use to justify charging specific corporate officers.
1) Section 253(d): why the president, general manager, and treasurer are frequently charged
Section 253(d) provides that, in the case of associations, partnerships, or corporations, “the penalty shall be imposed on the partner, president, general manager, branch manager, treasurer, officer-in-charge, and employees responsible for the violation” (Tax Reform Act of 1997 or RA 8424, 1997).
This provision explains two recurring features of BIR criminal prosecutions:
- Named “default” officers: The statute expressly lists the president, general manager, and treasurer as the officers upon whom penalties may be imposed in corporate tax crimes.
- Responsibility is the controlling idea: Even if an officer holds the title, the theory of the case still typically aims to show that the officer was responsible—i.e., had authority, supervision, knowledge, or control over the conduct that resulted in the violation.
2) Section 253(b): aiding or abetting extends liability beyond signatories
Section 253(b) also states that any person who willfully aids or abets in the commission of a Tax Code crime, or causes the commission of such offense by another, is liable as a principal (Tax Reform Act of 1997 or RA 8424, 1997). In corporate settings, this can support charges against officers or employees who orchestrated or approved tax misconduct even if they did not personally sign returns or checks.
3) Section 253(e): fine levels can be driven by the tax deficiency
Section 253(e) provides that fines for Tax Code violations should not be lower than those in the Code or twice the amount of taxes, interests, and surcharges due, whichever is higher (Tax Reform Act of 1997 or RA 8424, 1997). This is why corporate tax prosecutions often carry very large fine exposure in addition to imprisonment for individuals.
Which Tax Code crimes typically lead to jail exposure for corporate officers
Corporate officers are most often charged under provisions covering (a) tax evasion/fraudulent conduct, and/or (b) failures to file/pay/keep records/supply accurate information. Courts also distinguish between the offense elements depending on the section charged.
1) Tax evasion (attempt to evade or defeat tax)
Republic Act No. 7642 (1992) increased penalties for “attempt to evade or defeat tax,” emphasizing that willful evasion may result in imprisonment and significant fines (Republic Act No. 7642, 1992).
In litigation practice, prosecutors commonly tie the alleged acts (e.g., underdeclared sales, false invoices, suppressed income, fabricated deductions) to the corporate officers who allegedly approved or knowingly permitted the scheme.
2) Willful failure to pay, file, keep records, or supply accurate information
In People of the Philippines v. Kingsam Express Incorporation et al. (CTA Criminal Case No. O-522, 2018), the court outlined requisites used in prosecutions under Tax Code provisions penalizing failures such as failure to pay taxes or supply correct and accurate information, and emphasized that in corporate settings the accused must be a responsible officer under Section 253(d) (People of the Philippines v. Kingsam Express Incorporation et al., CTA Criminal Case No. O-522, 2018).
Why presidents, general managers, and treasurers are the “primary targets” in BIR criminal filings
1) They are the officers the law explicitly enumerates
The simplest reason is textual: Section 253(d) expressly includes the president, general manager, and treasureramong those on whom penalties may be imposed when the offender is a corporation (Tax Reform Act of 1997 or RA 8424, 1997).
2) Their roles usually connect them to tax compliance systems and decisions
In many corporations, these officers are structurally positioned to influence the conduct that becomes the subject of a tax case:
- President / General Manager: operational control, approval authority, and supervision over finance and accounting teams.
- Treasurer: custody and control over funds, payment processes, bank signatories, and often the internal discipline of remitting taxes.
This is also why defenses that “the accountant handled it” frequently face skepticism if the evidence shows management-level approval, knowledge, or tolerated practices.
3) Prosecutors typically need human defendants for imprisonment, not just corporate fines
Even where the corporation may face fines, incarceration requires an individual accused. Tax prosecutions therefore focus on officers who can plausibly be linked to willfulness and responsibility, consistent with Section 253(d) (Tax Reform Act of 1997 or RA 8424, 1997).
Important procedural and evidentiary issues that can decide liability
1) Proof of receipt of assessment notices and due process concerns
Recent Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) rulings emphasize that for certain criminal tax charges tied to assessed liabilities, the prosecution must prove actual receipt of assessment-related notices to establish willfulness and to satisfy due process.
In People of the Philippines v. Robust Security Corp. et al. (CTA En Banc Criminal No. 098, 2024), the CTA En Banc explained that in criminal tax cases for willful failure to pay assessed taxes, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the taxpayer and its responsible officers willfully failed to pay the assessed taxes, which requires proof of actual receipt of assessment notices. The decision also notes that absent such proof, criminal liability is not established, and discussed prescription issues (People of the Philippines v. Robust Security Corp. et al., CTA En Banc Criminal No. 098, 2024).
Similarly, in People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo C. Latina et al. (CTA Criminal Case No. O-1144, 2025), the CTA stressed that mere reliance on presumptions from mailing is inadequate where the prosecution must show actual receipt of the FDDA (Final Decision on Disputed Assessment). The absence of proof of actual receipt was treated as fatal to the prosecution’s case due to due process considerations (People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo C. Latina et al., CTA Criminal Case No. O-1144, 2025).
2) Assessment not always a prerequisite for filing a criminal case
Not all tax crimes require a formal assessment as a precondition for criminal prosecution. In People of the Philippines v. Kingsam Express Incorporation et al. (CTA Criminal Case No. O-522, 2018), the CTA held that in criminal tax cases for violations under certain NIRC provisions, a formal tax assessment stating the exact deficiency amount is not necessarily required for filing criminal charges; what matters is that the Information sufficiently describes the offense and related amounts for jurisdictional purposes, and that due process is satisfied through preliminary investigation and trial (People of the Philippines v. Kingsam Express Incorporation et al., CTA Criminal Case No. O-522, 2018).
3) Prescription: timing can defeat otherwise strong allegations
In People of the Philippines v. Juanchito D. Bernardo, et al. (CTA En Banc Criminal No. 079, 2021), the CTA En Banc discussed the five-year prescriptive period for violations of the NIRC and clarified that the prescriptive period begins from discovery of the violation and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment, not merely from the filing of a complaint with the DOJ for preliminary investigation (People of the Philippines v. Juanchito D. Bernardo, et al., CTA En Banc Criminal No. 079, 2021).
Typical scenarios where corporate presidents and treasurers get charged
- Underdeclared sales / income: Sales are recorded off-books, or official receipts do not match actual collections.
- Inflated deductions or fictitious expenses: Input documents are fabricated or sourced from non-existent suppliers.
- Failure to remit withheld taxes: Amounts are withheld from employees or vendors but not remitted to the BIR.
- Repeated non-filing or late filing: Patterns suggesting intentional non-compliance rather than isolated oversight.
- Post-audit non-payment: Alleged refusal to pay assessed liabilities coupled with evidence claimed as willful.
What corporate officers should do to reduce criminal exposure
The following compliance steps are often relevant to demonstrate good faith, improve audit readiness, and reduce the risk that officers are portrayed as willful participants:
- Formalize tax governance: clear internal policies on return preparation, review, approval, and documentary support.
- Document officer oversight: board resolutions, compliance certifications, and written approvals that reflect lawful intent and proper review.
- Ensure traceable BIR communications handling: designated receiving personnel, logs for PAN/FAN/FDDA and other notices, and prompt escalation to counsel.
- Respond timely to assessments and administrative processes: preserve remedies and avoid missed deadlines that later weaken defenses.
- Segregate duties and audit trails: reduce the risk of “single-person control” narratives and strengthen internal controls.
Summary table: how Section 253 points prosecutors to corporate officers
| Provision (NIRC) | Main rule | How it affects presidents/treasurers |
|---|---|---|
| Section 253(d) (RA 8424, 1997) | For corporate offenders, penalties are imposed on enumerated officers and employees responsible for the violation | President, general manager, and treasurer are commonly charged because they are expressly listed and typically linked to control/oversight |
| Section 253(b) (RA 8424, 1997) | Willful aiding/abetting is punished like the principal | Supports charges against officers who approved, directed, or tolerated unlawful practices even without signing returns |
| Section 253(e) (RA 8424, 1997) | Fines should not be lower than those in the Code or twice the taxes/interest/surcharges, whichever is higher | Raises financial pressure in criminal cases and influences settlement posture and risk exposure |
Conclusion: what Section 253 means in real tax prosecutions
Section 253 of the Tax Code is central to corporate tax crime prosecutions because it supplies the bridge from a corporate violation to individual punishment. Its text—especially Section 253(d)—explains why the corporate president, general manager, and treasurer are commonly placed at the front of criminal filings where the government is seeking prison exposure. At the same time, recent CTA decisions show that outcomes often hinge on procedural proof (such as receipt of assessment notices) and timing defenses like prescription, in addition to the underlying allegations.
For corporate officers, the best protection is sustained compliance: reliable internal controls, careful documentation of good-faith oversight, disciplined handling of BIR notices, and early legal review when audits and assessments arise.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
