Menu Don't

There is a strange breeze wafting through the taxman's halls. The proposal is to mandate professionals, like lawyers and doctors, to post their set of rates at their receiving areas. Much like entering a restaurant and choosing from a menu of delectable food, the plan is to allow clients to know what the prices are before they order their fare.

To illustrate, a patient walking into a doctor's clinic will be able to find out what the consultation fees are before the actual disrobing. And a litigant will know how much it will hurt right before he presents his cause before potential counsel. That way, there is no embarrassing moment when the bill is printed out for satisfaction.

The lawyers and doctors are up in arms. As a profession, the lawyers think this practice will be demeaning. It is unethical for lawyers to compete via price, when it is skill and quality that should determine choice. There should be no shopping for advisers based on how cheap the adviser is.

(Realistically though, clients do choose on the basis of price. If two service providers can deliver the same quality anyway, why go with the more expensive choice? Just talk to the big companies who ask the major law firms and engineering giants to respond to a Request for Proposal. A beauty contest is held, where talent, hourly rates and ultimately, fee caps are compared. That's not just window shopping.)

What is strange is that, it is the Bureau of Internal Revenue that is spearheading this move. The purpose that they broadcast is they allegedly want to protect "consumers" of these services from 'unscrupulous' service providers.

If that is the rationale, why is it that it is the taxing authorities who are protecting consumers? Their role is to levy the proper tax. All they need is to make sure that whatever is paid by the client, whether it was 'just right' or 'exorbitant' or totally shocking, that the proper tax is deducted and then siphoned off to their coffers. Why does the BIR need to concern itself with whether the consumer is fully aware or not?

This measure seems to be beyond the jurisdiction of the BIR. This agency wasn't created to protect consumers. Its mandate is to raise revenue for the state. Seek out the evaders. Prosecute the tax cheaters. Think up of more schemes to make the state float. Where does protecting clients fit into this scenario?

And this comes at a time when the nation is in the grip of a pork barrel frenzy. Citizens have their attention focused on illegally gotten wealth, not only of the alleged perpetrators, but of the senators and congressmen who have wasted billions of tax money entrusted to them.

The question becomes, if the money trail leads to their doors (or office lobbies, or even bathtubs, as in the case of alleged ringleader Janet Lim Napoles) why isn't the force of the taxman's arsenal being aimed at the recipients of the funds? Why even divert our attention and float an arguably ridiculous proposal before our noses?

Shouldn't the BIR be filing escheat or forfeiture proceedings already at this point? I would think it would be so easy to compare tax filings. The annual income tax return would let the BIR know how much income they declared. The assets we've seen so far are fairly ample, enough even to merit shock. (Ritz Carlton condominium and Porsches? Come on). The Anti-Money Laundering Council can check the cash flows in and out of banks. What other ammunition does the BIR need?

Let's not cook small fry. Our appetites are a bit stronger at this time. And a little more sophisticated.