THE House will come up with its own version of the tax reform package that the Finance Department had submitted to Congress for consideration but was rejected, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez said on Monday.
He told reporters an alternative proposal would be drafted by the House committee on ways and means to address their concerns about Finance’s proposals–especially its proposal to impose additional taxes on several commodities and remove the tax exemptions on senior citizens and people with disability.
Finance claims its proposals would make up for the estimated P179 billion in revenues that would be lost from the planned lowering of the personal income tax.
“Initially, I have seen it [Finance’s proposed reform package] and I think it has to be reviewed,” Alvarez said.
“We will request a meeting with the Department of Finance. We will be working on a counter proposal to its tax measures.”
Alvarez made his statement even as Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno on Monday assured Congress that a higher tax collection would suffice to cover what would be lost from a lowering of personal and corporate income taxes.
Many lawmakers have described Finance’s proposed tax reform package as “regressive” and “anti-poor.”
Diokno said he was convinced it’s possible to increase the tax collection despite the plan to cut the personal income tax to 25 percent from 32 percent, and to reduce the corporate income tax to 25 percent from 30 percent.
“Of course, to show to the entire world that we’re not fiscally irresponsible, higher spending will be accompanied by better collection, plus we’re submitting a tax reform package,” Diokno told CNN Philippines.
“If we’re lucky,” the tax reform package will be signed by the President before the end of the year.
Alvarez says Finance’s proposal will be scrutinized to ensure that its proposed tax reform will advance the interest of the people.
He says the House leadership is still in the process of completing the details of their counter proposal.
Alvarez earlier said he was dissatisfied with Finance’s proposal because its provisions were anti-poor.
