On the Hoax Email Offering P150 Million Reward for information on Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya's Tax Evasion

We would first like to deny any and all involvement in the alleged circulation of an e-mail stating that the BIR was offering a P150 Million reward for information on Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya's tax evasion amounting to Php 1.5 Billion.

We suspect that the email hoax may have been unleashed by people whose aim is to discredit the information that we have published here.

We are not interested in any reward and we are doing this as a matter of principle, taking the side of tens millions of over-taxed and over-burdened Filipino salaried employees.

We see a grave injustice in the fact that multi-billion corporations like Silka Papaya get away with paying incorrect taxes, even as a sizable chunk (as much as 20 percent) of our income is taken away in the form of with held taxes.

According to its Financial Statements from 2007 to 2011, Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya’s Net Sales amounted to P2,661,288,237.  But according to market research data from a reputable Market Research Firm, Silka Papaya's actual net sales amounted to P 4,490,682,515.

BUT SILKA PAPAYA PAID ONLY PHP 15 MILLION IN TAXES!!!


THAT'S JUST 1 PERCENT!!


The total estimated under payment of basic tax is around P350 Million and the total estimated potential deficiency in taxes including penalties may range from P600 Million to P700 Million.

But that's just basing the tax deficiency on market research data from large supermarket chains and if we were to include sales made through small stores, the total tax deficiency of Silka Papaya may go over some Php 1.5 Billion!

To add insult to injury, the COO of the company even brags about his Ducatis and shouldering his entire clan's trip to China!

As for BIR Commissioner Kim Henares, a women whom we admire and trust, we would like to help her out in stating that the maximum reward for people who provide information on tax evasion is just P1,000,000 or 10 percent of the revenues, which ever is lower.

You can find the Reveneue Regulation here.

Silka Papaya Soap COO Evades Taxes to Support Lavish LIfestyle

In his Facebook account, Jannsen Co brags about buying a
Ducati 991 and billing it as "company expense".
The cost? Php 3 Million.

Former employees at Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya say that their Chief Operating Officer Jannsen Co's lavish lifestyle is the reason behind their low wages and the company's Php 1.5 Billion tax evasion.

Since 2008, Silka Papaya has been under reporting its sales by as much as 50%!

According to its Financial Statements from 2007 to 2011, Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya’s Net Sales amounted to P2,661,288,237.  But according to market research data from a reputable Market Research Firm, Silka Papaya's actual net sales amounted to P 4,490,682,515.

BUT SILKA PAPAYA PAID ONLY PHP 15 MILLION IN TAXES!!!

The total estimated under payment of basic tax is around P350 Million and the total estimated potential deficiency in taxes including penalties may range from P600 Million to P700 Million.

But that's just basing the tax deficiency on market research data from large supermarket chains and if we were to include sales made through small stores, the total tax deficiency of Silka Papaya may go over some Php 1.5 Billion!

The BIR seems to have completely overlooked Silka Papaya despite the dubious Financial Statements it has been submitting since 2008.

Silka Papaya Reported Fake Net Sales Figures from 2008 to 2011

Since 2008, Silka Papaya has been reporting unusual Net Sales Growth which is uncharacteristic for its market.

In 2008, Silka Papaya achieved Net Sales of P365,034,832.
In 2009, its Net Sales jumped by 14.4% to P426,881,955.
In 2010, Silka's Net Sales increased to P628,327,183, jumping by 32%.
In 2011, Silka managed to surpass its Net Sales again, reaching a 36.8% increase with its Net Sales at P994,928,845.

Silka's Net Sales Growth goes far beyond the norm, something easily seen when it is compared with the Net Sales of other companies.


Net Sales of Cosmetique Asia's Silka Papaya Soap grew from P365,034,832 in 2008 to P994,928,845 in 2011 -- achieving a Net Sales Growth of 272% in a span of just 3 years!  It's incredible that Silka Papaya Soap's Net Sales grew by an average of 90 percent per year!


In 2008, Johnson and Johnson reached Net Sales of  P 2,374,479,381 and in the following year, 2009, its Net Sales contracted to P 2,032,118,636 -- a decrease of 14.4%.

In 2010, Unilever achieved net sales of  P35,735,971,982 and in 2011, its Net Sales went up to  P38,859,784,456, representing an increase of 8.74%.

In the matrix above, you will note that Cosmetique Asia's Net Sales growth increased 14.4% from 2008 to 2009, 32% from 2009 to 2010, and 36% from 2010 to 2011.  Silka Papaya's Net Sales Growth which had three consecutive years of growing by leaps and bounds -- an incredible feat, indeed.

On the other hand, Colgate Palmolive's Net Sales went down 28 percent in 2009, increased by 20 percent in 2010, and decreased again by 5.2 percent in 2011.

Silka Papaya Reported Fake Cost of Sales

It is unbelievable that a company would spend Php 800 Million in 2010 just to make Php 100 Million!  Silka Papapaya has been reporting ridiculous figures since 2008 and it is a wonder why the BIR didn't detect the ruse.

In 2008, Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya declared its Cost of Sales at P273,335,746.  With its Net Sales at P365,034,832, its Gross Profit amounted to P91,899,086 -- a gross profit rate of 25%.

In 2009, it declared its Cost of Sales at P324,508,893 and Net Sales at P426,881,955, coming out with a Gross Profit of P102,373,062 -- a Gross Profit of just 24%.

In 2010, Cost of Sales was at 469,298,415 and Net Sales was at P628,327,383, its Gross Profit was at P159,028,768 or again, just 25%.

In 2011, Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya's Cost of Sales nearly doubled to P833,597,551! It's Net Sales was at P994,928,845 and its Gross Profit was at P161,331,294, making its Gross Profit Rate EVEN SMALLER at 16%!

The norm for cost of sales is at 40% or 50% Gross Profit, compared to Cosmetic Asia Silka Papaya which has a Gross Profit rate of 25% to 16% at its lowest.

Looking at its unusually rapid and consistent Net Sales Growth at 90 percent per year, its unusually high Cost of Sales, and its peculiarly low Gross Profits, Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya has all the signs of doctoring its financial figures to evade taxes by fooling the BIR into thinking its income is really small.

Mo Twister as Silka Papaya's Brand Champion

Being a tax evader is just like stealing and as far as getting away

with stuff that isn't yours, we guess Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya

will be in perfect company with DJ Mo Twister.

Find out about the Silka Papapaya Scandal Here

The Silka Papaya Tax Evasion Scandal

In our first four articles in this series, we demonstrated glaring indications that Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya was manipulating the figures in its Financial Statements from 2008 to 2011.

We demonstrated that its consistent 90% annual growth in Net Sales was implausible and irregular given that the average Net Sales growth of larger firms in the same business  was only between 5% to 15%.

We also demonstrated that its 75% to 80% Cost of Sales was unbelievable, after comparing it to the cost of sales of larger firms in the same business which only amounted to about 45% to 50%.

Digging deeper, our investigation into Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya’s  tax evasion scandal we uncovered data from a reputable market research firm showing that the company’s sales were actually 35% to nearly 50% higher.

Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya was caught lying about the Net Sales declared in its Financial Statements.

Adding it all up, according to its Financial Statements from 2007 to 2011, Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya’s Net Sales amounted to P2,661,288,237.  But according to market research data, its actual net sales amounted to P 4,490,682,515.

Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya under reported its real Net Sales by P1,829,394,278! Or nearly P2 Billion!

The thing is, the market research data we got from a reputable market research firm comes only from the Point-Of-Sales systems (cash register systems) of large supermarkets like Savemore, Puregold, and others.

Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya’s actual net sales could actually be 50% higher, possibly reaching as high as P2.5 Billion to P3 billion if sales from small groceries as well as sari-sari stores were included.

In any case, based on these figures, the total estimated under payment of basic tax is around P350 Million and the total estimated potential deficiency in taxes including penalties may range from P600 Million to P700 Million.

Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya’s total tax liabilities could reach as high as P1.5 Billion if its sales from mini-groceries and sari-sari stores were included.

One question on our minds is how could the BIR have overlooked Silka Papaya?  We thought about it and what we figured was somewhat close to something like this:

A few of them seem to hold the belief that taxpayers should just pay the right taxes and everything will just be peachy. I agree it could be argued that taxpayers are also to blame for all the graft and corruption going on in the BIR. It could be said that graft and corruption would not exist in the BIR if taxpayers just paid what is due to the government and refrained from offering bribes.

+Kim Henares +Noynoy Aquino 

A Typical Salaried Filipino Employee's Lament Over Taxes

We've often heard of the lament that in the Philippines, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

You'd think that the number of poor people increase because they have more children, who in turn, also become poor.

Although true in a number of cases, another fact that isn't getting as much attention is that the rich actually pay less taxes than most salaried employees. 

As a salaried employee, I earn about P50,000 a month but after income tax deduction and other mandatory deductions amounting to around P12,000, my take home pay is only P38,000 a month.  About 24 percent of my income goes to paying taxes!

Twelve thousand pesos is a lot of money to "lose" every month to taxes and every time I look at my pay slip, I can't help but get a little angry with thoughts of other ways I could have spent that money.

With that money, perhaps my husband and I could have some savings, and perhaps we could invest those savings in a small business -- earning us more money as well as create employment for our less "prosperous relatives".

But it's a useless thought, or so my husband says.  He points out, "After all, that money gets deducted from your salary even before it gets to your hands."

Even though, my husband and I are both working, we actually just barely make both ends meet and we hardly have any savings.

Most of our money goes to paying for a housing loan, our kid's education, and a car loan.  Some might think this is maluho or frivolous spending on our part -- considering the many ways that we can settle for less.  Like, for instance, what if instead of paying for a housing loan in a subdivision, we just rented an apartment somewhere in Manila?  What if instead of sending out children to what we think is the best school for them, we settled for a less costly school?  What if we commuted to work using public transportation instead of driving ourselves in a car?

Sure, we could do that, but with the way things are in Metro Manila, it seems to us we'd be trading money for safety and peace of mind just so that we could have some savings.

Having graduated college and earned masters degrees as well as climbed up the corporate ladder, my husband and I expect to afford some degree of security as well as convenience in our lives.

If only we could really count on the government to really spend our taxes the right way and deliver services at the right quality, I don't think we'd need to live in a gated subdivision (if only we could count on our police to prevent crime instead of causing it) or perhaps we could just send our kids to public school (if only it were up to world standards) or perhaps ride the bus/train to work (if only we didn't have poorly managed as well as poorly maintained roads).

On the other hand, companies like Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya aren't taxed in the same way that salaried workers are taxed.  Companies are taxed based on their net income (which is Gross income minus expenses/losses) and Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya, based on public records that we found, has manipulated both it's real income as well as expenses.

What Cosmetique Asia basically did was to declare a lower income instead of its real income.  It's public records state that it earned close to Php 1 Billion pesos, but according to data in a Nielsen study as well as estimations of sales from small stores it's real income could be as high as Php 2 Billion pesos.

Moreover, our investigation into Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya indicates that it has been over reporting its Cost of Sales or expenses.  Far from the norm set by the Cost of Sales of companies with products similar to Silka Papaya, the company declared in its financial statement that its cost of sales is 75% of its Net Sales -- they want the entire country to believe that they are spending 750 million pesos a year to earn 250 million pesos!

Most other companies cost of sales is only at 50% of their Net sales!

What is even worse is that Silka Papaya further reduces their Net Income by subtracting costs for advertising and other marketing costs.

This is how, Cosmetique Asia managed to justifying payment of just P15 Million Pesos after earning about Php 2 Billion!  P15 Million pesos isn't even 10 percent!!

Gerard Depardieu, France's biggest tax evader

We personally cannot identify with the feelings of Gérard Depardieu who announced he had quit Paris for a small town 800 meters (yards) from the French border over what he suggested in so many words was excessive taxation.

In an open letter, Depardieu wrote:

I leave after paying, in 2012, 85% tax on my income. But I keep in mind that France was beautiful and I hope will remain. 

I give you my passport and Social Security, which I've never used. We no longer the same country, I'm a true European, a citizen of the world, as my father has always taught.

Depardieu bares his view on taxation:

(Original French)

Je n'ai malheureusement plus rien à faire ici, mais je continuerai à aimer les Français et ce public avec lequel j'ai partagé tant d'émotions!Je pars parce que vous considérez que le succès, la création, le talent, en fait, la différence, doivent être sanctionnés. 

(Google Translation)

I unfortunately have nothing more to do here, but I continue to love the French public and with whom I shared so many emotions! I'm leaving because you consider that success, creativity, talent...   must be punished.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said Depardieu's act of leaving the country was "shabby", and suggested he was "shirking his patriotic responsibilities".

In an article on The Telegraph, Ayrault was quoted saying that those who left France were greedy.

"Those who are seeking exile abroad are not those who are scared of becoming poor," the prime minister declared after unveiling sweeping anti-poverty measures to help those hit by the economic crisis. 

These individuals are leaving "because they want to get even richer," he said. "We cannot fight poverty if those with the most, and sometimes with a lot, do not show solidarity and a bit of generosity," he added 

... ... 

Announcing plans to spend up to 2.5 billion euros by 2017 to help the poor, Mr Ayrault said that poverty affected 12.9 percent of the population in 2002 and rose to 14.1 percent in 2010.

As such, we assume that Depardieu's line of reasoning on taxation would cleave to certain well trodden lines usually quoted against taxing the rich -- a line of reasoning seemingly not borne out by empirical data.

It's axiomatic among Republicans that taxes on the rich are the single most important factor determining economic growth. If that were true, then the period from 1988 to 1990, when the top rate was just 28 percent, should have been the most prosperous in recent American history. During that time we had the lowest top rate since 1931. But although 1988 started out okay with a real GDP growth rate of 4.1 percent, it fell to 3.6 percent in 1989 and just 1.9 percent in 1990. 

Conversely, the period from 1993 to 2000, when the top rate rose from 31 percent to 39.6 percent, should have been a period of dismal growth. But in fact, that period was the most prosperous in recent American history. Real GDP growth averaged 3.9 percent per year – more than 50 percent above the average postwar growth rate. 

Then there should have been a burst of even faster growth when the top rate was reduced in the 2000s to 35 percent – a rate that is still in effect. But during that period, real GDP growth has averaged just 1.8 percent – 30 percent below the average postwar rate. 

So where is the data supporting the argument that taxes on the rich are the sine qua non of growth? I don’t see it. On the contrary, the data from the last several decades would in fact support the opposite conclusion – that higher tax rates on the wealthy stimulate growth.

Comparing Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya's Gross Profits with Johnson and Johnson, Unilever, and Colgate Palmolive

(In the third part of this series on Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya's Tax Evasion, we revealed how the company padded its Cost of Sales in order to shrink its Net Income and thereby evade paying the right taxes. Today, we will be showing how peculiarly tiny Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya's Gross Profits are.  We will be comparing Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya's Gross Profits with those of Johnson and Johnson, Unilever, and Colgate Palmolive.)

In 2011, Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya's Cost of Sales nearly doubled from P469,298,415 in 2010 to P833,597,551! It's Net Sales was at P994,928,845 and its Gross Profit was at P161,331,294, making its Gross Profit Rate OF JUST 16%!

In year 2008, 2009, and 2010, Cosmetic Asia Silka Papaya declared gross profit rates of around 25%.

Looking at the company's figures alone, one might be fooled into thinking that nothing screwy is happening with its financial statement.

But comparing it with the Gross Profits of other companies, one will see the glaring disparity that marks Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya's financial statement as the odd man out. -- a sure tip off that the figures are being manipulated and set arbitrarily with the objective of shrinking its taxable income.

One example is Johnson and Johnson whose Gross Income Rate was at 44% in 2009 and 50% in 2009.

Unilever's Gross Income Rate was at 55% in 2010 and 47% in 2011.

Colgate Palmolive's Gross Income Rate was at 55% in 2008, 56% in 2009, 59% in 2010, and 56% in 2011.

These companies establish somewhat of a norm which is at 40% or 50% Gross Profit, compared to Cosmetic Asia Silka Papaya which has a Gross Profit rate of 25% to 16% at its lowest.

Looking at its unusually rapid and consistent Net Sales Growth at 90 percent per year, its unusually high Cost of Sales, and its peculiarly low Gross Profits, Cosmetique Asia Silka Papaya has all the signs of doctoring its financial figures to evade taxes by fooling the BIR into thinking its income is really small.

In the next post, we will show just how Cosmetic Asia Silka Papaya ends of OWING the Bureau of Internal Revenue as much as P1.5 Billion in unpaid taxes.)