INSIGHTS is a monthly publication of BDB LAW to inform, update and provide perspectives to our clients and readers on significant tax-related court decisions and regulatory issuances (includes BIR, SEC, BSP, and various government agencies).

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 © 2022 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.

Issuing LOAs is a delegable power which the CIR may devolve to Revenue Regional Directors, Assistant Commissioners/Head Revenue Executive Assistants.

The taxpayer was held liable for deficiency income tax, VAT, EWT, WTC, and DST for TY 2013. It filed a protest and subsequently filed a petition before the CTA Division arguing that the Revenue Officer (RO) and Group Supervisor (GS) do not have authority to conduct an audit/investigation. The CTA granted the petition. The case involves two (2) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The first MOA was issued on April 19, 2016 and the second on June 17, 2016. The second MOA referring to the newly assigned RO and GS to replace the previously assigned RO.

The Court En Banc, in upholding the ruling of the Court in Division, cited Section 10 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, which states that issuing LOAs is a delegable power which the CIR may devolve to Revenue Regional Directors. Accordingly, the ROs who conducted the examination of the respondent’s records may be deemed authorized to do so without the need for a new LOA, if said letter or notice or memorandum was signed by persons duly authorized. Under RMO No. 29-07, the equivalent of a Regional Director in the Large Taxpayers Service is the Assistant Commissioner/Head Revenue Executive Assistant. Here, the MOA was signed by a Revenue District Officer, who has no power to authorize the examination of taxpayer’s accounts. Thus, the authorities of the ROs are void and the subject deficiency tax assessments bear no valid fruit. (Commissioner on Internal Revenue vs. Global Energy Supply Corporation, CTA EB No. 2365 [CTA Case No. 9673], February 28, 2022)

The Court of Tax Appeals may consider evidence attached to the motion for reconsideration.

Taxpayer claims for refund for input taxes over its sales to “Microchip Technology Ireland” formerly registered as “ULC-Private Unlimited Company.” In opposition, the BIR contends that it failed to present the SEC Certificate of Non-Registration which establishes that the customer is a non-resident foreign corporation. The Court in Division then denied the claim for refund and held that since it did not have the requisite certificate, the sales to it cannot qualify for VAT zero-rating purposes.

The taxpayer subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration attaching the SEC Certification indicating that MTI is a foreign corporation. In its amended decision, the Court in Division held that the sales to “Microchip Technology Ireland” qualify for VAT zero-rating allowing then the claim for a refund subject to re-computation of the refundable amount. It ruled that proceedings before the Court of Tax Appeals are not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence. The paramount consideration remains the ascertainment of truth. Settled in jurisprudence is that the CTA may consider evidence attached to the motion for reconsideration and that procedural rules should not bar courts from considering undisputed facts to arrive at a just determination of a controversy. (MTI Advanced Test Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9690, February 24, 2022)

A LOA signed by at least a Regional Director (RD) is essential to confer authority to an RO and GS to continue audit; the RD has no authority to ratify an act which is void ab initio.

In seeking for the reversal of the Court in Division’s ruling, the BIR maintains that the authority of RO Ifurung and GS Sy from the same LOA were ratified by the Regional Director (RD) who issued the LOA and that the Court cannot grant a relief that was never prayed for by the taxpayer. The Court, in its previous ruling, held that such LOA was void, consequently, the RO and GS had no authority to conduct an audit/investigation. Hence, the filing of the motion for reconsideration.

The Court in Division, in resolving such motion, addressed the issue of ratification by the RD of the actions of RO and GS when the RD issued the PAN and FAN. The Court said that ratification cannot validate an act void ab initio done absolutely without authority, thus, the RD cannot ratify the findings of the RO and GS by issuing the PAN and FAN since his failure to issue a new LOA renders the assessment void ab initio. On granting a relief not prayed for, the Court held that the CTA, as a court of justice, has jurisdiction to decide the issue on the lack of authority of RO and GS to continue the audit and examination, albeit the same was not raised in the protest letter to the FAN and in the Petition for Review. (Casas + Architects vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 9960, February 24, 2022)

CTA has jurisdiction to pass upon the constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regulation when raised by the taxpayer as a defense in disputing or contesting an assessment or claiming a refund.

The instant case pertains to a claim for refund representing excise taxes collected by the BIR on San Mig Light for the period covering January 1, 2014 to December 31,2014. The CIR assails the jurisdiction of the Court over the case. According to him, the taxpayer primarily seeks to nullify a provision of RMC No. 90-2012 and the alleged action for refund of erroneously collected excise taxes is merely consequential thereto. Absent the nullification of RMC No. 90-2012, the taxpayer’s cause of action has no leg to stand on. However, the authority to declare void an administrative issuance rest upon courts of general jurisdiction and not on courts of special jurisdiction such as the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).

The CTA En Banc ruled that the CTA has undoubted jurisdiction to pass upon the constitutionality or validity of a tax law or regulation when raised by the taxpayer as a defense in disputing or contesting an assessment or claiming a refund. It is only in the lawful exercise of its power to pass upon all matters brought before it, as sanctioned by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended. The CTA may likewise take cognizance of cases directly challenging the constitutionality or validity of a tax Jaw or regulation or administrative issuance (revenue orders, revenue memorandum circulars, rulings). Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended, is explicit that, except for local taxes, appeals from the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies on tax-related problems must be brought exclusively to the Court of Tax Appeals. (San Miguel Brewery vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA EB NOS. 2320 & 2327, February 21, 2022)

For the instant claim for refund to prosper, the taxpayer must not only establish that it has timely filed its refund claim, it must likewise prove that the subject FWTs paid fall under the definition of "erroneous or illegal tax".

The taxpayer argues that it has erroneously paid the FWT corresponding to dividends declared in excess of the unrestricted retained earnings.

The CTA stated that the NIRC allows the recovery of taxes erroneously or illegally collected. An "erroneous or illegal tax" is defined as one levied without statutory authority, or upon property not subject to taxation, or by some officer having no authority to levy the tax, or one which is some other similar aspect is illegal. Thus, for the instant claim for refund to prosper, the taxpayer must not only establish that it has timely filed its refund claim, it must likewise prove that the subject FWTs paid fall under the above-stated definition of "erroneous or illegal tax".

It must be pointed out that any error committed by the taxpayer in the determination of the appropriate tax base, or specifically, the total amount of dividends to be, or have been, distributed to its shareholders, does not automatically translate or result in an "erroneous or illegal tax'; as jurisprudentially defined. Surely, the taxpayer must still further prove that the collected or paid FWTs are indeed erroneous or illegal. (Matex International Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA case No. 10180, February 15, 2022)

Under the LGC, the non-payment of the assessed tax does not render the protest
invalid.

The City of Makati assessed the taxpayer deficiency taxes, which the taxpayer protested within the 60-day period without, however, paying the assessment under protest. The City of Makati argues that the protest to the assessment is not valid for failure to pay the tax assessed under protest as required by Section 7B.14(c) of the Revised Makati Revenue Code (“RMRC”).

In ruling in favor of the taxpayer, the Court found that, under Section 195 of the LGC, there is no requirement that payment should have been made by the taxpayer in order to validly protest the assessed tax. Notably, it is only required that the protest be done within a period of 60 days from receipt of the notice of assessment; otherwise, the assessment becomes conclusive and unappealable.

The Court likewise ruled that ordinances should not contravene existing statutes enacted by Congress, such as the LGC. Section 7B.14(c) requires the taxpayer to first pay the assessed tax; otherwise, the protest shall not be entertained. However, such requirement is not present under Section 195 of the LGC for the protest to be given due course. Thus, Section 7B.14( c) of the RMRC must be set aside. (City of Makati vs. DMCI Holdings, Inc., CTA AC No. 234, February 10, 2022)

Absent any proof of authority of the person who initiated a Petition for Review on behalf of an LGU, the said Petition for Review shall be dismissed outright.

In its Motion to Dismiss, the taxpayer alleges that the Provincial Treasurer lacks the authority to represent the Province of Negros Oriental in filing the Petition for Review and to execute the Certification against Non-Forum Shopping. This is evidenced by the Provincial Treasurer’s continuous failure to abide with the Court’s orders.

In dismissing the Petition for Review, the Court ruled that absent any proof of authority of the person who initiated a Petition for Review on behalf of an LGU, the said Petition for Review shall be dismissed outright. While the LGC grants certain powers and duties to the local treasurer, a careful examination of the said law would reveal that there is nothing therein which authorizes the said official from filing an appeal in the appropriate court on behalf of the concerned LGU. Considering that in this case, the Provincial Treasurer and Municipal Treasurer have continuously failed to submit any proof that the persons who initiated the Petition and signed the Verification and Certification against Non-Forum Shopping were duly authorized to do so, the instant Petition should be dismissed outright. (Danilo Mendez vs. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, CTA EB No. 2265 [CBAA Case No. V-37] [LBAA Case No. 2013-001], February 9, 2022)

A Tax Verification Notice (“TVN”) is NOT equivalent to a Letter of Authority (“LOA”) which will serve as authority to conduct tax examination.

The taxpayer assailed through the CTA Division the validity of the TVN issued by BIR authorizing the assessment of the taxpayer’s alleged internal revenue tax liabilities for the taxable year/period 2008. The Court in Division granted the taxpayer’s petition and set aside the FDDA treating the TVN as not equivalent to LOA. The BIR moved for the reconsideration of the Division’s decision which was eventually denied. Aggrieved, the BIR appealed to the En Banc insisting that the TVN is equivalent to LOA and that there is no law prohibiting the BIR as well as its Regional Directors to delegate the issuance of TVN to the Revenue District Officer.

On appeal, the CTA En Banc affirmed the decision of the CTA Division and held that the delegated authority of the BIR must be pursuant to the issuance of an LOA and that there was no other equivalent notice as to such authority that was provided for by law that may substitute other than required LOA. Thus, a TVN which was nowhere mentioned in the 1997 NIRC, as amended, is not an LOA that vested authority to the Revenue Officer to conduct tax examination into the financial records of a taxpayer. Consequently, the lack of the required LOA shall invalidate the tax examination itself as well as the notices issued after such examination “for it is well settled that a void assessment bears no fruit.” (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Jinzai Experts, Inc., CTA EB No. 2259, February 09, 2022)

As provided for by RMO No. 19-2007, CIR-imposed compromised penalties shall be itemized in a separate assessment notice/demand letter; a compromise offer must be written either in the form of Annex B, otherwise, it must be signed by both taxpayer and the CIR.

The taxpayer pursued a judicial action claiming tax credits/refunds against paid CIR-imposed compromise penalties for alleged violations of the NIRC and/or tax regulations. Before the CTA Division, the CIR argued the lack of the court’s jurisdiction over the petition as the same does not contain any allegation that the amount paid by the taxpayer was erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, and hence, the taxpayer is not entitled to a refund. After the trial and pieces of evidence were considered, the CTA Division granted the taxpayer’s petition for review and ordered CIR to refund or issue a tax credit certificate in favor of the taxpayer. The CTA Division denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the CIR. Hence, an appeal was elevated before the CTA En Banc.

The CTA En Banc affirmed the CTA Division’s ruling. It held that the wording of Section 7(a)(1) of RA 1125, as amended, clearly and simply states that the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA includes the CIR’s decisions and inactions in cases involving, inter alia, refunds of penalties in relation to taxes. It went on and said that what is sought to be refunded in the case are compromise penalties, collected by, or imposed by the BIR, for supposed violations committed by the taxpayer and invoked Section 229 of the NIRC dealing with a refund of “any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority.” It emphasized that the CIR failed to adhere to the provisions of RMO No. 19-2007 as records show a dearth of evidence not only as regards the separate assessment notice, but also as to the required taxpayer’s written offer. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Dunlevy Food Corporation, CTA EB No. 2294, February 08, 2022)

It is not unlawful for an MOA to be issued instead of an LOA for the continuance of an audit as long as said MOA is issued and signed by the proper official which may be the Regional Director or the Assistant Commissioner/Head Revenue Executive Assistant in the Large Taxpayers Service.

The taxpayer was assessed for various tax deficiencies by virtue of an LOA issued by the CIR authorizing several ROs and GS. It was later re-assigned to other RO and GS pursuant to a Memorandum of Assignment (MOA) issued by the OIC-Chief for LT Audit Division. Assessment ensued and FAN/FLDD was issued. Arguing that the MOA did not validly clothe the several ROs the requisite authority to continue and finish the audit examination, the taxpayer filed an administrative and judicial protest seeking to nullify the FAN/FLDD. The CTA in Division ruled in favor of the taxpayer and declared the cancellation of the FAN/FLDD. Aggrieved, the CIR filed an MR which the CTA Division subsequently denied, thus, subsequently appealed to the CTA En Banc.

The CTA En Banc affirmed the CTA Division’s ruling declaring the FAN/FLDD void. It emphasized that unless authorized by the CIR or his duly authorized representative, through an LOA, an examination of the taxpayer cannot ordinarily be undertaken. As a rule, the power to issue LOAs may be delegated to RR Director. Relative thereto, under RMO 29-07 the equivalent of RR Director is the Assistant Commissioner/Head Revenue EA.

The CTA En Banc went further declaring that an MOA may have the same effect as an LOA provided it fulfills the following requirements inherent to the latter: (1) the grant of authority be done in writing and (2) although the document may not be entitled “LOA” but otherwise, it should contain all the elements necessary to establish a contract of agency between the CIR and new RO. In this case, the MOA is not issued by an authorized CIR representative, and the CIR is enjoined from collecting the assessed deficiency taxes. It should have secured a new LOA. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs First Philippine Power Systems, Inc., CTA ETB No. 2243, February 03, 2022; Commissioner of Internal Revenue and First Life Financial Co., Inc, CTA EB No. 2263, February 03, 2022)

While assessment is not necessary before the civil liability of the taxpayer may be imposed, it is still incumbent upon the CIR to provide competent evidence on which the amount of such civil liability may be based.

A Joint Complaint Affidavit (“JCA”) of Revenue Officers showing the estimated deficiency VAT liability of the taxpayer was filed by the CIR. After trial, the taxpayer was convicted of violation of Sec. 255 of the NIRC but was absolved of civil liabilities as the CIR failed to present any evidence that an assessment has been issued by the CIR. The CIR filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration (“MPR”), attaching therein the photocopies of the PAN and the FLD, which were not previously offered as evidence. The Court in Division denied the MPR. In its Petition for Review, the CIR claims that in case of no return or false or fraudulent returns, the tax may be collected in court without an assessment. The CIR also argues that the JCA nevertheless contains the computations which the Court in Division should have used as the basis for taxpayer’s civil liabilities.

The Court En Banc denied the Petition, ruling that while assessment is not necessary before the civil liability of the taxpayer may be imposed, it is still incumbent upon the CIR to provide competent evidence on which the amount of such civil liability may be based. Here, the computations in the JCA are not sufficient to fix with definiteness the civil liabilities of the taxpayer as such computations are mere estimates. The PAN and FLD, aside from being mere photocopies, were also not offered as evidence for the CIR.

While it is true that the Court in Division had found the taxpayer guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal cases against her, still, the absence of a precise computation ties the hands of the Court En Banc and prevents it from decreeing the resulting civil liabilities. (People of the Philippines vs. Rebecca S. Tiotangco, CTA EB Crim. No. 080 [CTA Crim. Case Nos. O-599, O-601, O-603, and O-604], February 3, 2022)

RMC No. 19-2022,
February 4, 2022
It provides clarification and guidance on Section 8 of Revenue Regulations No. 5-2021 on the tax-free exchanges of properties.

This provides clarification and guidance to the RDO, other internal revenue officers and others concerned on Section 8 of RR No. 5-2021, particularly on the mandate to issue CAR sans a prior BIR confirmation or tax ruling on the tax-free exchanges of properties, while at the same time ensuring that the proper taxes due the Government on their subsequent sale or disposition are protected and collected thru the establishment and proper monitoring of their correct substituted basis.

• COVERAGE – Under Section 40(C)(2) of the 1997 Tax Code, as amended by CREATE, transactions are covered by the tax-free exchanges of properties are Re-organization and Transfer to a Controlled Corporation
• DETERMINATION OF SUBSTITUTED BASIS – Under Section 40(C)(5) of the Tax Code, as amended, the substituted basis of the properties transferred shall be determined as follows:

The substituted basis, as determined above shall be the basis for determining gain or loss on a subsequent sale or disposition of properties subject of the tax-free exchange transactions.

For proper monitoring of the substituted basis, the parties to the tax-free exchange/reorganization should comply with the requirements enumerated in the Circular, as set forth under Revenue Regulations No. 18-2001.

The transfers of properties, in exchange for shares of stocks made pursuant to Section 40(C) (2) of the 1997 Tax Code, as amended, shall be exempt from the following taxes:

a. Capital Gains Tax (CGT);
b. Creditable Withholding Tax (CWT);
c. Income Tax (IT);
d. Donor's Tax (DT);
e. Value-Added Tax (VAT); and
f. Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) on conveyances of real properties and shares of stocks

However, the original issuance of shares in exchange for the properties transferred be subject to the DST under Section 174 of the 1997 Tax Code, as amended.

RMC No. 21-2022,
February 21, 2022
It prescribes the guidelines in the claim of Input Value-Added Tax (VAT) on purchases or importations of capital goods, pursuant to Section 110 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 (Tax Code), as amended by Republic Act No. 10963 (TRAIN Law).

• COVERAGE – Per Section 110 of the Tax Code, amortization of the input VAT shall only be allowed until December 31, 2021 after which taxpayers with unutilized input VAT on capital goods purchased or imported shall be allowed to apply the same as scheduled until fully utilized.
  
  
• Starting January 1, 2022, all input tax on purchases of capital goods shall already be allowed upon purchase/payment, and shall no longer be deferred.
  
  
• The taxpayer shall indicate Roman numeral “1” as the estimated useful and recognized useful life and encode the total input taxes claimed from purchase/s of capital goods exceeding P1 Million under Column “G” in order to show a nil amount of “Balance of Input Tax to be Carried to Next Period” under Column “H” of the monthly and quarterly VAT returns.
  
  
• Taxpayers with unutilized input VAT on capital goods purchased or imported prior to January 1, 2022 shall be allowed to amortize the same as scheduled until fully utilized. Hence, Schedule 3(B) still be filed out. However, if the depreciable capital good is sold/transferred within the period of five (5) years or prior to the exhaustion of the amortizable input tax thereon, the entire unamortized input tax on the capital goods sold/transferred can be claimed as input tax credit during the month/quarter when the sale or transfer was made.
  
  
• The following work-around procedures and guidelines are prescribed in the meantime that the BIR Form Nos. 2550Q and 2550M pertaining to Quarterly VAT Declaration and Monthly VAT Declaration, respectively, are undergoing revisions to effect the aforesaid provisions:
  
  

  BIR FORM NO.	AFFECTED FIELDS	DESCRIPTION	REMARKS
  2550M (v. February 2007)	Schedule 3(A)	Purchases/Importation of Capital Goods (Aggregate Amount Exceeds P1 Million)	Instead of the actual life in terms of months, place number “I” under columns “E” and “F” and encode the input tax claimed from purchase/s of capital goods exceeding P1M in Column “G”
  2550Q (v. February 20017)	Schedule 3(A)	Purchases/Importation of Capital Goods (Aggregate Amount Exceeds P1 Million)	Instead of the actual useful life in terms of months, place number “1” under columns “E” and “F” and encode the input tax claimed from purchase/s of capital goods exceeding P1M in Column “G”

MC-No-02-s-2022
February 8, 2022
It prescribes the Schedules for Filing of Annual Financial Statements and General Information Sheet.

It provides for the schedule for filing of annual financial statements and general information sheet and adopts the use of the Electronic Filing and Submission Tool (eFAST) to adopt the following measures in the filing of annual reports:

AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COMPANIES WHOSE FISCAL YEAR ENDS ON DECEMBER 31,2021

• All corporations, including branch offices, representative offices, regional headquarters and regional operating headquarters of foreign corporations, shall file their AFS depending on the last numerical digit of their SEC registration or license number in accordance with the following schedule through the eFAST:

• The above filing schedule shall not apply to corporations specifically enumerated in the said circular. Late filings or filing after respective due dates shall be accepted starting September 16, 2022, and shall be subject to the prescribed penalties which shall be computed from the date of the last day of filing schedule.

GENERAL INFORMATION SHEET(GIS)

All corporations shall file their GIS within 30 calendar days from:

ALL REPORTS

• All corporations (stock or non-stock) are required to file their annual reportorial requirements (AFS and GIS) through eFAST by applying the SEC issued number coding schedule for AFS. Other reports not available in the eFAST may be submitted by sending through email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
• All filers of GIS and AFS, regardless of the number of reports to be filed at the SEC, complying with the circularized SEC-issued number coding schedule (for AFS only), shall be accommodated through the eFAST Facility. Submission of reports Over-the-Counter (OTC) and/or through mail/courier via SENS shall no longer be accepted.
• All reports submitted through eFAST are scanned or digital copies of the manually signed or digitally signed reports. The responsibility to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the e- signature rests upon the signatory or authorized signatory of the filer.

M-2022-007,
February 2, 2022
It prescribes the Frequently Asked Questions on Targeted Financial Sanctions

FAQs on Targeted Financial Sanctions (TFS)

TFS means both asset freezing and prohibitions to prevent funds, for the benefit of designated persons and entities, for terrorism, terrorist financing, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and proliferation financing. The memorandum discusses the following:

1. Relevance of TFS to BSP-supervised Financial Institutions (BSFIs)
2. Pertinent laws and regulations related to TFS;
3. Implementation of TFS and the risk assessment involved. The memorandum specifically states that the methodology should be tailored fit according to the risk and context of the BSFI. There are no one-size fits all methodology. The simpler the products, services and operations of the BSFI, the simpler the approach that can be used.
4. Screening process involved.

CL-2022-05,
February 5, 2022
It prescribes the Dissemination of the National AML/CFT Coordinating Committee (NACC) Statement on the Impact of Grey-Listing.

Dissemination of the National AML/CFT Coordinating Committee (NACC) Statement on the Impact of Grey-Listing.

The Insurance Commission received a report of some “de-risking” moves by reinsurers because of the grey-listing of the Philippines. In this issuance, the IC clarified that inclusion of the PH in the grey-list does not immediately call for application of enhanced due diligence (EDD) measures.

Risk-based approach should be case-by-case, and not wholesale de-risking. De-risking should never be an excuse for a bank to avoid implementing risk-based approach in line with the standard set forth by Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

In sum, Filipino businesses or nationals should not be considered as high risk based solely on the inclusion of the PH in the FATF’s grey-list. RA 9160 (AMLA), as amended, and its implementing rules does not apply to PH-covered persons and foreign covered persons conducting business in the PH with respect to the PH. Therefore, covered persons should not apply EDD or any form of countermeasure against Filipino businesses or nationals by reason only of jurisdictional/ country risks arising from the grey-list. Instead, covered persons should continue observing risk-based approach in conducting customer due diligence.

CL-2022-07,
February 16, 2022
It prescribes the Online Quarterly Submission of Reports on Negative List of Officers and Employees for Pre-Need Companies and Health Maintenance Organizations

Online Quarterly Submission of Reports on Negative List of Officers and Employees for Pre-Need Companies and Health Maintenance Organizations:

lnactive as well as active officers and employees of Pre-Need Companies as well as Health Maintenance Organizations who may have been found guilty of, or with pending complaints filed against them before the company, any administrative body, or court for committing any of the following shall be included in the list:

a) Materially misrepresented statements in the application requirements;
b) Obtained or attempted to obtain a license by fraud or misrepresentation;
c) Materially misrepresented the terms and conditions of pre-need or HMO plan which he sold or offered to sell;
d) Solicited, sold or attempted to solicit or sell a pre-need or HMO plan by means of false or misleading representation and other fraudulent means;
e) Terminated for cause from another pre-need or HMO company;
f) Convicted of any crime involving any pre-need or HMO plan, security of financial product;
g) Convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude or involving fraud or embezzlement or theft, estafa or other fraudulent acts or transactions;
h) By reason of any misconduct, enjoined by order, judgement or decree by any court, quasi-judicial body or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction from acting as a director, officer, employee, consultant, agent or occupying any fiduciary position;
i) Wilfully violated or wilfully aided, abetted, counselled, commanded, induced or procured the violation of the Pre-need Code, the lnsurance Code, the Securities Regulation Code or any related laws and any rules or orders thereunder;
j) Judicially declared to be insolvent or incapacitated to contract;
k) Found guilty by a foreign court, regulatory authority or government agency of the acts or violations similar to any of the acts or misconduct enumerated in the preceding paragraphs;
l) Wilfully allowing the use of one's license by a non-licensed or barred individual, and
m) Analogous circumstances.