Camille Navarro July 25, 2015JD- 3 Atty. Froilyn DoyaoenThe cases of People of the Philippines vs. Judy Anne Santos1 and People of thePhilippines vs. Gloria V. Kintanar2 illustrate the application of Sec 255 of the Tax ode. !n the case of People of the Philippines vs. Gloria V. Kintanar" the courtenunciatedthedoctrineof #illful $lindness#hereinit #asruledthat thetaxpayer%sconscious avoidance to chec& the contents of the !nco'e Tax (eturns filed in his or her$ehalf $yhisor her a)ent #ithout in*uirin)itsveracityconstitutes#illful $lindness.Pursuant to such doctrine" a taxpayer cannot escape the effects of non+co'pliance #ithhis or her tax o$li)ations $y si'ple invo&in) the fact the he or she relied on his or herrepresentative. ,n the other hand" the court did not find any evidence to esta$lish theele'ent of #illfulness in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Judy Anne Santos.Althou)hthetaxpayer inthat casealsoattri$utedthefailuretosupplythecorrectinfor'ation to the acts of her representatives" the court only finds that the taxpayer #asne)li)ent. Accordin) to the court" such ne)li)ence is insufficient to esta$lish intent toevade the pay'ent of tax as conte'plated $y la#.,n the surface" it can $e )leaned that the rulin) in the case of People of thePhilippines vs. Judy Anne Santos has the effect of a$andonin) the doctrine of #illful$lindnesspronouncedintheearlier caseof Peopleof thePhilippinesvs. GloriaV.Kintanar. -o#ever" such state'ent is inaccurate. The court cate)orically states in theprior case that attendin) circu'stances are to $e considered in deter'inin) #illfulness.!t is note#orthy to reco)ni.e that the t#o cases have different factual $ac&)round. !n thecase of Kintanar" the taxpayer is a $usiness#o'an #ho is presu'ed to $e 'indful ofher tax responsi$ilities as it is expected of so'e$ody en)a)ed in nu'erous financialunderta&in)s. Althou)h it can $e inferred that the taxpayer in the case of Santos shallalso $e su$/ected to the sa'e presu'ption" the court considered her inexperience as'ere ne)li)ence since it is coupled #ith #illin)ness to co'ply #ith her tax o$li)ationunli&e the taxpayer in the case of Kintanar.!t is su$'itted that the rulin)s in $oth cases are not conflictin) per se. The ourtof Tax Appeals still a$ide #ith the precedent set out in the case of Kintanar in decidin)the recent case of Santos. -o#ever" it appears that the lac& of concrete standard forapplyin) the doctrine of #illful $lindness is pro$le'atic. !t is not enou)h for the Supre'eourt torulethat factual circu'stancesisthetest indeter'inin)theexistenceof#illfulness to evade tax o$li)ations. !t is too va)ue and it is prone to $e ar$itrarily used.1 TA ri'. ase 0o. ,+112" January 12" 21132 G.(. 0o. 142351A #ell+defineddefinitionof thedoctrineiscalledfor inordertoavoidconfusionindeter'inin) the tax lia$ility of a taxpayer.