Philippine Legal and Tax Compliance Guide

Introduction

In Philippine bookkeeping practice, the abbreviation “Do” is commonly understood to mean “ditto.” It is used to indicate that the entry is the same as the one immediately above it. In ordinary office records, a bookkeeper may write “Do” under a repeated name, address, description, or other recurring detail to avoid rewriting the same information several times.

In the context of BIR books of accounts, however, the use of “Do” for repeated buyer names must be approached carefully. BIR books are not casual internal notes. They are official accounting records required under Philippine tax law. They may be examined by the Bureau of Internal Revenue during audit, investigation, tax mapping, verification, or assessment proceedings.

The central issue is this:

May a taxpayer use “Do” or “ditto” instead of repeatedly writing the buyer’s name in BIR books of accounts?

The practical answer is: it may be tolerated in some bookkeeping situations if the reference is clear, complete, and not misleading, but it is not best practice for BIR compliance. For official tax books, especially where the buyer’s identity affects VAT, percentage tax, withholding tax, sales substantiation, receivables, audit trail, or invoice matching, the safer practice is to write the buyer’s full name on every relevant line or transaction.

1. What Does “Do” Mean in Bookkeeping?

“Do” is an abbreviation of ditto, meaning “same as above.”

For example:

Date	Buyer	Amount
Jan. 5	ABC Trading	₱10,000
Jan. 5	Do	₱5,000
Jan. 5	Do	₱8,000

In this example, “Do” means that the buyer for the second and third entries is also ABC Trading.

This kind of shorthand is common in manual records, especially when transactions are written consecutively and the repeated information is obvious.

But in tax books, the question is not merely whether the bookkeeper understands the entry. The question is whether the entry is sufficiently clear, complete, auditable, and compliant for tax purposes.

2. Legal Importance of BIR Books of Accounts

Philippine taxpayers engaged in trade, business, or the practice of profession are generally required to keep books of accounts. These books record business transactions and support the taxpayer’s tax returns.

Books of accounts are important because they help establish:

Gross sales or receipts;
Purchases;
Expenses;
Input and output VAT;
Percentage tax base;
Cost of sales or services;
Receivables and payables;
Inventory movement;
Withholding tax transactions;
Cash receipts and disbursements;
Net taxable income;
Financial position of the taxpayer.

The BIR may examine books to determine whether the taxpayer properly reported income, claimed deductions, paid VAT or percentage tax, withheld taxes, and complied with invoicing and recordkeeping rules.

Because books of accounts are official tax records, entries must be accurate, complete, and understandable.

3. Manual Books, Loose-Leaf Books, and Computerized Books

The issue of writing “Do” usually arises in manual books of accounts, although similar issues may arise in loose-leaf and computerized records.

Manual Books

Manual books are handwritten journals and ledgers registered with the BIR. These may include:

General journal;
General ledger;
Cash receipts book;
Cash disbursements book;
Sales book;
Purchase book;
Subsidiary sales journal;
Subsidiary purchase journal;
Other special journals.

In manual books, bookkeepers sometimes use “Do” to avoid rewriting repeated buyer names.

Loose-Leaf Books

Loose-leaf books are printed accounting records generated from a system or spreadsheet and bound after approval or use according to BIR rules. In loose-leaf books, repeated buyer names are usually generated automatically. Using “Do” is less common and less advisable because the system can print the full name.

Computerized Books

Computerized books are generated from an approved computerized accounting system. These systems normally store the buyer name per transaction. The use of “Do” in a customer name field would be risky because it may distort data, reports, audit trails, and invoice matching.

4. The Main Compliance Question

The main question is not whether “Do” is a known abbreviation. It is whether using “Do” satisfies the taxpayer’s duty to keep books that are:

Complete;
Accurate;
Clear;
Verifiable;
Consistent with source documents;
Capable of audit;
Not misleading;
Sufficient to support tax returns.

If “Do” creates ambiguity, makes it hard to identify the buyer, interrupts the audit trail, or prevents matching with invoices, receipts, sales reports, or subsidiary records, it can become a compliance risk.

5. Is “Do” Expressly Prohibited?

There is no general principle that every shorthand notation is automatically unlawful. In traditional bookkeeping, abbreviations may be used if they are understood and do not obscure the transaction.

However, the absence of an express prohibition does not mean the practice is risk-free. BIR examiners usually care about whether the books clearly show the transaction and support the tax declaration.

Therefore, the better question is:

Would a BIR examiner, accountant, auditor, or court be able to identify the buyer and verify the transaction without guessing?

If the answer is yes, the risk is lower. If the answer is no, the entry may be questioned.

6. Why Buyer Names Matter in BIR Books

The buyer’s name may be important for many reasons.

It can help verify:

Whether a sale was properly recorded;
Whether the invoice or official receipt matches the book entry;
Whether the transaction was cash or credit;
Whether the buyer is a related party;
Whether the sale is subject to VAT, zero-rated, exempt, or percentage tax;
Whether withholding tax should have been applied;
Whether the sale was made to a government entity;
Whether the transaction is business-to-business or business-to-consumer;
Whether receivables are collectible;
Whether sales were duplicated or omitted;
Whether there are fictitious sales or accommodation invoices;
Whether declared sales match customer records.

For ordinary small cash retail sales, the buyer’s name may not always be central. But for invoices issued to identified customers, credit sales, large transactions, VAT sales, government sales, and business customers, the buyer’s identity can be important.

7. When “Do” May Be Less Risky

Using “Do” may be less risky if all of the following are true:

The repeated buyer name appears clearly in the immediately preceding line;
The entries are consecutive;
There is no intervening buyer name;
The date and transaction sequence are clear;
Each entry has a separate invoice or receipt number;
Amounts are separately stated;
The source documents clearly identify the buyer;
The books can be matched to invoices, receipts, or subsidiary schedules;
The abbreviation is used consistently;
The entry is not used to hide, shorten, or obscure material information.

Example:

Date	Invoice No.	Buyer	Description	Amount
Jan. 10	00125	ABC Corporation	Service Fee	₱20,000
Jan. 10	00126	Do	Additional Service	₱5,000

This may be understandable if invoice 00126 clearly shows ABC Corporation and immediately follows invoice 00125.

Still, the safer entry is to write ABC Corporation again.

8. When “Do” Is Risky or Improper

Using “Do” becomes risky when it causes uncertainty.

It should be avoided when:

The repeated name is not immediately above;
There are intervening lines;
A page break separates the original name and “Do” entry;
The buyer name is long or similar to another buyer;
Multiple buyers appear on the same date;
The transactions are later sorted or copied;
The book is photocopied or scanned partially;
The records are used for audit reconciliation;
The transaction involves VAT;
The transaction involves withholding tax;
The buyer is a government entity;
The buyer is a related party;
The sale is large;
The sale is credit-based;
The sale is disputed;
The buyer name is needed for collection;
The entry appears in a computerized or loose-leaf report;
The source document is missing or defective;
The BIR examiner cannot easily verify the buyer.

If the buyer cannot be determined from the book entry itself without looking elsewhere, the entry may be criticized as incomplete.

9. “Do” Across Page Breaks

Using “Do” across page breaks is especially risky.

Example:

End of page:

Date	Buyer	Amount
Jan. 15	XYZ Trading	₱12,000

Date	Buyer	Amount
Jan. 15	Do	₱9,000

This is risky because if the second page is viewed alone, copied separately, scanned separately, or submitted without the previous page, “Do” becomes meaningless.

Best practice: never begin a page with “Do.” Write the full buyer name at the start of each page or whenever a repeated entry continues after a page break.

10. “Do” After Intervening Non-Buyer Entries

Using “Do” after unrelated lines may create ambiguity.

Example:

Date	Buyer	Amount
Jan. 20	ABC Corporation	₱10,000
Jan. 20	Service charge adjustment	₱500
Jan. 20	Do	₱3,000

Here, “Do” may be unclear. Does it refer to ABC Corporation or to the immediately preceding description? A BIR examiner may question the entry.

Best practice: use “Do” only, if at all, where the repeated item is directly above and unmistakable.

11. “Do” in the Sales Book

The sales book is one of the most sensitive places to use “Do” because buyer names may be matched against invoices, VAT declarations, and sales summaries.

In a sales book, the safer practice is to enter:

Date;
Invoice number;
Buyer name;
Taxpayer identification number, where applicable or required;
Address, if relevant;
Gross selling price;
VATable sales;
VAT-exempt sales;
Zero-rated sales;
Output VAT;
Total amount;
Terms or mode of payment.

Using “Do” in the buyer column may be questioned if the examiner needs to reconcile sales per buyer, invoice sequence, VAT treatment, or withholding tax.

For VAT taxpayers, writing the full buyer name is strongly preferable.

12. “Do” in the Cash Receipts Book

In the cash receipts book, buyer or customer identity may matter for tracing collections.

Using “Do” may be less risky for multiple collections from the same customer on the same date, but it is still better to write the full name.

A cash receipts book should clearly show:

Date of collection;
OR or invoice reference;
Payor or customer;
Nature of receipt;
Cash amount;
Check amount;
Bank details, where applicable;
VAT or tax treatment if relevant.

If a taxpayer later needs to prove that a payment came from a specific buyer, “Do” may complicate the audit trail.

13. “Do” in the General Journal

In the general journal, narrative explanations are important. “Do” may be used less often because journal entries usually summarize transactions rather than list every buyer.

If buyer names are part of the explanation, they should be written clearly, especially for adjustments, reversals, write-offs, bad debts, related-party transactions, and reclassifications.

Example of a clearer entry:

“Record credit sale to ABC Corporation per Sales Invoice No. 1234.”

Rather than:

“Record credit sale to Do.”

14. “Do” in Subsidiary Ledgers

Subsidiary ledgers track individual customers, suppliers, accounts receivable, accounts payable, or other details.

Using “Do” in a subsidiary ledger for buyer names is generally unnecessary and risky. The entire point of a subsidiary ledger is to maintain clear account-level detail.

For customer subsidiary ledgers, each customer should have a clearly identified account. “Do” should not replace the customer name in a way that obscures ownership of the account.

15. “Do” in Computerized Accounting Systems

In computerized systems, entering “Do” as the buyer name is a bad practice.

It can cause problems such as:

Incorrect customer master file;
Misclassified sales;
Unreliable reports;
Difficulty generating per-customer summaries;
Mismatch with invoices;
VAT reconciliation issues;
Audit trail issues;
Incorrect receivables aging;
Duplicate or meaningless customer records.

In a computerized environment, the system should store the actual buyer name. The convenience reason for using “Do” does not apply.

16. “Do” in Loose-Leaf Books Generated from Excel

Some taxpayers prepare loose-leaf books using spreadsheets. If a spreadsheet is used, repeating the buyer name is easy. Therefore, use of “Do” is usually unnecessary and may look careless.

For loose-leaf books, the recommended practice is:

Repeat the full buyer name per line;
Use consistent spelling;
Include invoice number;
Include TIN where applicable;
Use data validation or customer lists;
Avoid blank cells and “ditto marks”;
Ensure printouts are complete and readable.

17. “Do” vs. Ditto Marks

Instead of “Do,” some bookkeepers use quotation marks or ditto marks:

Buyer
ABC Trading
”
”

This is also shorthand and carries the same risks. In official BIR books, ditto marks should be avoided where the repeated information is material.

Writing the full name is clearer and safer.

18. The Audit Perspective

During a BIR audit, the examiner may compare:

Books of accounts;
Sales invoices;
Official receipts;
VAT returns;
Income tax returns;
Summary list of sales or purchases, if applicable;
Bank deposits;
Withholding tax certificates;
Inventory records;
Accounts receivable schedules;
Customer confirmations;
Contracts;
Delivery receipts;
Collection records.

If the sales book says “Do,” the examiner must trace upward to identify the buyer. If the record is clear, the issue may be minor. If the record is unclear, the examiner may question the completeness or reliability of the books.

The more difficult the books are to audit, the higher the risk of disputes.

19. Can the BIR Disallow Entries Because of “Do”?

The use of “Do” alone does not automatically mean a sale, expense, or transaction is invalid. However, if the abbreviation prevents verification, the BIR may question the entry, require explanation, or treat the books as incomplete or unreliable.

The risk is not merely the abbreviation itself. The risk is the resulting uncertainty.

For sales, the BIR may question whether:

The buyer was properly identified;
The invoice exists;
The sale was recorded under the correct tax classification;
Output VAT was correctly declared;
Withholding tax was properly handled;
The transaction was genuine;
The books are complete and reliable.

For purchases or expenses, a similar issue may arise if “Do” is used for supplier names.

20. Does “Do” Affect Validity of the Invoice?

The invoice or receipt is separate from the book entry. If the invoice correctly states the buyer name and other required details, the invoice may remain valid even if the book uses “Do.”

However, the books should match the invoice. A taxpayer should not rely on the invoice alone if the books are unclear. Books and source documents should support each other.

A book entry using “Do” is more defensible if:

The invoice number is complete;
The invoice itself clearly identifies the buyer;
The invoice is available;
The sequence is obvious;
The buyer name is directly above;
There is no ambiguity.

21. Does “Do” Affect VAT Compliance?

It can.

For VAT taxpayers, buyer identity may matter because VAT invoices must support output VAT, input VAT, zero-rating, exempt sales, and claims of customers. If the buyer is a VAT-registered business, government entity, or withholding agent, proper identification becomes more important.

Using “Do” may create issues when reconciling:

VATable sales;
Zero-rated sales;
Exempt sales;
Output VAT;
Withholding tax certificates;
Summary schedules;
Customer claims of input VAT;
Related-party transactions;
Government sales subject to special rules.

For VAT sales books, the conservative recommendation is: do not use “Do” for buyer names.

22. Does “Do” Affect Percentage Taxpayers?

Percentage taxpayers may have simpler records than VAT taxpayers, but they are still required to maintain proper books. Buyer identity may still matter, especially for business sales, credit sales, official receipts, or customers who withhold tax.

For small retail cash transactions where buyer identity is not individually recorded, the issue may not arise. But if the book has a buyer-name column, it should be completed clearly.

23. Does “Do” Affect Withholding Tax?

Yes, potentially.

If the buyer is a withholding agent and withholds tax from payments, the taxpayer must reconcile the sale or income with withholding tax certificates.

Using “Do” may complicate matching between:

Sales book;
Official receipts;
Customer payments;
Creditable withholding tax certificates;
Income tax return claims;
Accounts receivable records.

Where withholding tax is involved, write the full buyer name.

24. Does “Do” Affect Receivables?

For credit sales, buyer identity is essential. A taxpayer must know who owes the receivable.

Using “Do” in a sales journal may not be fatal if the invoice number clearly identifies the customer, but the receivable subsidiary ledger should show the full customer name.

For credit sales, best practice is to write the full buyer name in every entry.

25. Does “Do” Affect Related-Party Transactions?

Related-party transactions require clarity. If the buyer is a related company, shareholder, officer, affiliate, or family-owned entity, shorthand should be avoided.

Using “Do” in related-party entries may look suspicious because related-party transactions are often scrutinized for pricing, substance, tax avoidance, or documentation.

Write the full legal name of the related party.

26. Does “Do” Affect Government Sales?

Sales to government offices may involve specific tax treatment, withholding, documentation, and payment procedures.

For sales to government agencies, local government units, government-owned or controlled corporations, or instrumentalities, the buyer name should be written in full. Do not use “Do” in a way that could obscure the government buyer.

27. Does “Do” Affect Senior Citizen or PWD Sales?

If the buyer’s identity is relevant to discounts, exemptions, or documentation, shorthand should be avoided. Records supporting senior citizen or PWD transactions should be clear and properly documented.

The buyer name, ID reference, discount, VAT treatment, and supporting documents may matter depending on the transaction.

28. Does “Do” Affect E-Commerce and Online Sales?

Online sellers often deal with repeated buyers, usernames, marketplace orders, courier references, and electronic payment records.

Using “Do” in manual records for online sales is risky because online transactions may need to be matched against:

Platform order IDs;
Buyer names;
Shipping details;
Courier records;
Payment gateway records;
Bank or e-wallet receipts;
Invoices;
Sales reports.

For online sellers, write the actual customer or platform buyer reference clearly. If the actual buyer is not available because the marketplace remits in aggregate, the taxpayer should use a consistent and documented method, such as marketplace settlement reports, rather than “Do.”

29. Legal Name vs. Trade Name

Another issue is whether the buyer name should be the legal name or trade name.

For BIR books, the safest practice is to use the name appearing on the invoice or official receipt. For business buyers, this is usually the registered name or business name.

If a buyer is known by a trade name, the taxpayer may include both:

“ABC Corporation doing business as ABC Hardware.”

Avoid “Do” when the correct legal identity matters.

30. TIN and Address of Buyer

Depending on the transaction and taxpayer type, the buyer’s TIN and address may be relevant in invoices and accounting records.

Where the buyer is a business customer, especially for VAT transactions, including TIN and address in source documents is important. Books may also include these details or refer to the invoice containing them.

If a taxpayer uses “Do” for buyer name but not for TIN or address, the record may still be confusing. If the buyer is repeated, it is better to repeat the key information or ensure the invoice reference is complete.

31. Best Practice: Repeat the Full Buyer Name

The safest and most audit-friendly rule is:

Write the full buyer name for every transaction line.

This avoids arguments about whether “Do” was clear enough.

Benefits of repeating the full name:

Easier BIR audit;
Better invoice matching;
Clearer VAT reconciliation;
Better receivables tracking;
Less ambiguity after photocopying or scanning;
Fewer questions from accountants and examiners;
Better internal controls;
Better support for financial statements;
Better legal defensibility.

The small time saved by using “Do” may not be worth the risk.

32. If “Do” Was Already Used in Past Books

If the taxpayer already used “Do” in registered manual books, do not erase or tamper with the books. Altering official books improperly can create a bigger problem.

Instead, the taxpayer may:

Ensure source documents are complete;
Prepare a reconciliation schedule;
Keep invoices and receipts organized;
Annotate only in a proper manner if allowed and necessary;
Avoid using “Do” going forward;
Ask the accountant to review whether corrective entries or supporting schedules are advisable.

Do not use correction fluid, tear pages, rewrite old books, or conceal entries.

33. Can Past Entries Be Corrected?

Manual books should not be altered casually. If an entry is wrong or unclear, corrections should follow proper bookkeeping practice.

Possible methods include:

Draw a single line through an error so the original remains readable;
Write the correct information nearby;
Initial the correction;
Avoid erasures;
Avoid correction fluid;
Use adjusting entries where appropriate;
Prepare supporting schedules;
Keep source documents.

If the issue is not an error but shorthand, the better approach may be to prepare a buyer-name reference schedule for internal and audit support, rather than overwriting the books.

34. Buyer-Name Reference Schedule

If “Do” was used repeatedly, the taxpayer may prepare a supporting schedule showing the full buyer name per transaction.

The schedule may include:

Date;
Invoice number;
Book page;
Line number;
Amount;
Buyer name written above;
Full buyer name intended for “Do”;
Remarks;
Reference to source document.

This schedule does not replace the original book, but it helps explain the entries during audit.

35. Example of Reference Schedule

Book Page	Date	Invoice No.	Entry in Buyer Column	Full Buyer Name	Amount
12	Jan. 5	000123	ABC Trading	ABC Trading	₱10,000
12	Jan. 5	000124	Do	ABC Trading	₱5,000
12	Jan. 5	000125	Do	ABC Trading	₱8,000

This schedule should be supported by the actual invoices.

36. Importance of Invoice Numbers

If “Do” is used, the invoice or receipt number becomes even more important. Each transaction should have a unique source document reference.

An entry with “Do” and no invoice number is much weaker than an entry with “Do” and a clear invoice number.

Example of weak entry:

Date	Buyer	Amount
Jan. 8	Do	₱15,000

Example of stronger entry:

Date	Invoice No.	Buyer	Amount
Jan. 8	000156	Do	₱15,000

Still, the best entry is:

Date	Invoice No.	Buyer	Amount
Jan. 8	000156	ABC Corporation	₱15,000

37. Blank Buyer Columns vs. “Do”

Leaving the buyer column blank is usually worse than writing “Do.” A blank entry may suggest incomplete records. “Do” at least indicates an intended reference to the prior entry.

However, both are inferior to writing the full buyer name.

A blank buyer column may be acceptable only if buyer identity is not applicable or not required for that type of summarized entry, such as daily cash sales summary, provided the method is properly supported.

38. Daily Sales Summary Entries

Some businesses record daily sales in summary form rather than listing every buyer, especially retail businesses with many small transactions.

Example:

Date	Particulars	Amount
Jan. 10	Daily cash sales per POS Z-reading	₱85,000

In this case, there may be no repeated buyer name. The support is the POS report, invoices, receipts, or sales tapes. The issue is different from writing “Do” for a known repeated buyer.

If individual buyer entries are required or maintained, however, names should be clear.

39. Retail Sales to Walk-In Customers

For retail sales to walk-in customers, the buyer may not always be individually identified in the sales book, especially where sales are supported by cash register tapes, POS reports, or invoices issued to various customers.

In such cases, entries may use descriptions such as:

“Cash sales”;
“Walk-in customers”;
“Daily retail sales”;
“Various customers.”

This is different from “Do.” The entry describes the nature of sales rather than repeating a specific buyer.

The method must still be supported by receipts, invoices, POS reports, and tax returns.

40. “Various Customers” vs. “Do”

“Various Customers” may be appropriate for summarized retail sales where individual buyer names are not recorded in the book.

“Do” means the buyer is the same as the entry above.

They should not be confused.

Use “Various Customers” only when the entry is truly a summary of multiple customers and is supported by proper sales records.

Use the actual buyer name when the transaction is individually invoiced or material.

41. “Same as Above” Instead of “Do”

Writing “same as above” is clearer than “Do,” but it still has the same weakness: it depends on the previous line.

If the goal is BIR compliance and audit clarity, writing the full buyer name is still better.

42. Language and Abbreviations in BIR Books

Books of accounts should be understandable. Common business abbreviations may be acceptable if they do not obscure meaning.

Examples of generally understandable abbreviations:

Co. for Company;
Corp. for Corporation;
Inc. for Incorporated;
Dr. for Debit or Debtor depending on context;
Cr. for Credit or Creditor depending on context;
OR for Official Receipt;
SI for Sales Invoice;
TIN for Taxpayer Identification Number.

But abbreviations that replace material information should be used cautiously.

“Do” may be understood by accountants, but not every reviewer will accept it as sufficient for tax audit purposes.

43. Consistency With Source Documents

The books should be consistent with source documents.

If the invoice says:

“Juan Dela Cruz”

The book should not say:

“Do”

unless the immediately preceding entry clearly shows Juan Dela Cruz and the source document number matches.

If the invoice says:

“ABC Corporation”

The book should not say:

“ABC,” “A Corp,” “Do,” or “Customer” in a way that creates uncertainty.

Consistency reduces audit questions.

44. Internal Controls

Good bookkeeping is also about internal control. Repeating full buyer names helps prevent:

Misposting;
Duplicate entries;
Fraud;
Misapplication of payments;
Incorrect receivable balances;
Wrong customer statements;
Lost audit trail;
Mistaken tax classification;
Confusion during staff turnover.

A business should not rely on the memory of one bookkeeper to interpret “Do.”

45. Effect of Photocopying and Scanning

BIR audits often involve photocopies, scanned pages, partial submissions, and working papers. A “Do” entry may become unclear when separated from the prior line or page.

This is another reason to avoid shorthand in official books.

If the full buyer name appears on every line, each transaction remains understandable even when copied separately.

46. Bookkeeping Standards and Professional Practice

Professional bookkeepers and accountants generally aim for records that are clear, traceable, and understandable by third parties.

The question is not only “Can I understand my books?” but also:

Can another accountant understand them?
Can the BIR examiner understand them?
Can the taxpayer explain them years later?
Can the entries be matched with invoices?
Can the records support the tax return?
Can they withstand litigation or assessment?

Using “Do” weakens the third-party readability of the books.

47. Risk During BIR Tax Mapping

During tax mapping or compliance checks, BIR personnel may inspect books, invoices, receipts, and registration documents. If entries are incomplete or unclear, the taxpayer may be asked to explain.

A book full of “Do” entries may create the impression of poor recordkeeping, even if the transactions are legitimate.

A clean, complete sales book reduces unnecessary questions.

48. Risk During Letter of Authority Audit

During a full audit under a Letter of Authority, the BIR may examine books in detail. “Do” entries may become problematic when the examiner asks for schedules, invoices, or explanations.

If the taxpayer cannot immediately explain each “Do” entry, the examiner may treat the records as unreliable or incomplete.

Good recordkeeping reduces assessment risk.

49. Burden of Explanation

In tax audits, the taxpayer usually has the practical burden of substantiating entries and claims. If the book uses shorthand, the taxpayer must explain the shorthand.

Using the full name avoids unnecessary explanation.

50. Is “Do” Acceptable for Repeated Supplier Names?

The same principles apply to supplier names in purchase books or disbursement books.

Using “Do” for repeated supplier names may be understandable but risky, especially for:

VAT input tax claims;
Deductible expenses;
Withholding tax obligations;
Purchases of goods;
Inventory;
Related-party purchases;
Large expenses;
Professional fees;
Rent;
Contractors;
Government-regulated suppliers.

For input VAT and deductions, supplier identity is critical. Write the full supplier name.

51. Is “Do” Acceptable for Repeated Descriptions?

Using “Do” for descriptions may be less risky than using it for buyer names if the transaction is otherwise clear.

Example:

Date	Buyer	Description	Amount
Jan. 5	ABC Corp.	Consulting services	₱10,000
Jan. 5	ABC Corp.	Do	₱5,000

Even then, full descriptions are better where tax treatment depends on the nature of the sale.

52. Is “Do” Acceptable for Repeated Addresses?

Using “Do” for repeated addresses is also risky if address is material, but less problematic than buyer name if the buyer name and invoice number are clear.

Still, if the address is required in the record or invoice, it is safer to write it completely in the source document and maintain complete customer records.

53. Is “Do” Acceptable for Repeated TINs?

Avoid using “Do” for TINs. A TIN is a specific identifier. Errors in TINs can cause matching problems.

If a TIN must be recorded, write the actual TIN for each relevant entry or ensure it is maintained in a proper customer master file linked to the transaction.

54. Practical Risk Ranking

The risk of using “Do” depends on where and how it is used.

Lower Risk

Consecutive handwritten entries;
Same page;
Same date;
Same buyer clearly written immediately above;
Invoice numbers complete;
Source documents available;
Small non-VAT transaction;
No withholding tax;
No credit sale.

Medium Risk

Multiple repeated entries;
Same buyer over several lines;
Some source documents require tracing;
Non-VAT but business customer;
Credit sale;
Larger amount.

High Risk

VAT taxpayer;
Withholding tax involved;
Government buyer;
Related party;
Large transactions;
Page break;
Missing source documents;
Computerized books;
Loose-leaf books;
Unclear invoice references;
Multiple buyers on same page;
Audit or assessment dispute.

55. Best Practice Rules

The following practical rules are recommended:

Do not use “Do” in computerized books.
Do not use “Do” in loose-leaf books if the full name can be printed.
Do not use “Do” for VAT sales where buyer identity matters.
Do not use “Do” for transactions involving withholding tax.
Do not use “Do” across page breaks.
Do not use “Do” after intervening entries.
Do not use “Do” for government buyers.
Do not use “Do” for related parties.
Do not use “Do” where source documents are incomplete.
Write the full buyer name whenever possible.

56. If a Bookkeeper Insists “Do” Is Traditional Practice

A bookkeeper may say that “Do” is commonly used and understood. That may be true in traditional manual bookkeeping. But tax compliance is judged by clarity, completeness, and verifiability.

A good response is:

“Even if ‘Do’ is understandable, writing the full buyer name is safer for BIR audit and avoids unnecessary questions.”

Traditional practice should give way to audit-ready documentation.

57. If the BIR Examiner Questions “Do”

If a BIR examiner questions the use of “Do,” the taxpayer should calmly explain the notation and provide supporting documents.

The taxpayer may present:

The book page showing the full buyer name above;
Sales invoices or official receipts;
Customer ledger;
Sales summary;
Collection records;
Bank deposit records;
Withholding tax certificates;
Buyer-name reference schedule;
Accounting system reports, if any.

The goal is to show that the transaction is genuine, properly recorded, and traceable.

58. Sample Explanation to BIR

A taxpayer may explain:

“The notation ‘Do’ was used by the bookkeeper to mean ‘ditto’ or ‘same buyer as the immediately preceding line.’ The entries are consecutive, on the same page, and supported by the corresponding sales invoices. For clarity, we have prepared a reference schedule identifying the full buyer name for each affected entry.”

This explanation is stronger if the records are complete and consistent.

59. Should the Taxpayer Voluntarily Rewrite the Books?

No. A taxpayer should not rewrite registered books to make them look cleaner. Rewriting books may create suspicion and may be treated as tampering.

If books already contain “Do” entries, preserve them as they are and support them with schedules and documents.

Going forward, adopt a policy of writing full buyer names.

60. Recommended Internal Policy

A business may adopt a simple policy:

“All entries in BIR-registered books of accounts must state the full buyer or customer name per transaction. The use of ‘Do,’ ditto marks, blank cells, or shorthand for buyer names, supplier names, TINs, invoice numbers, and other material transaction details is prohibited except for non-material descriptions where the meaning is unmistakable and approved by the accountant.”

This helps standardize recordkeeping.

61. Training Bookkeepers and Staff

Bookkeepers should be trained that BIR books are official records. Convenience should not override compliance.

Training should cover:

Proper sales book entries;
Proper invoice references;
Full buyer names;
VAT classifications;
Withholding tax references;
Correction of errors;
Prohibition on erasures;
Document retention;
Audit trail requirements;
Handling of repeated entries.

Many compliance problems arise from habits that seem harmless but become difficult during audit.

62. Record Retention

Books and supporting documents must be retained for the period required by tax rules. Since records may be examined years later, shorthand like “Do” becomes risky because the person who wrote it may no longer remember the intended reference.

Writing full names helps future verification.

63. Electronic Backups and Schedules

Even for manual books, taxpayers may maintain electronic schedules for internal control. These may include:

Sales register;
Customer list;
Invoice register;
Collection register;
VAT output schedule;
Withholding tax schedule;
Accounts receivable subsidiary ledger.

These schedules can help explain manual entries, but they should be consistent with registered books and source documents.

64. When Buyer Names Are Confidential

Some businesses worry about confidentiality of buyer names. BIR books are official records and must still be accurate. Confidentiality is not a reason to use unclear shorthand.

If confidentiality is a concern, the taxpayer should protect access to books and comply with privacy obligations, but still maintain clear records.

For certain sensitive industries, customer codes may be used internally if properly controlled and supported by a customer master list. However, for tax audit purposes, the taxpayer must be able to identify the buyer when required.

65. Use of Customer Codes

Some businesses use customer codes instead of repeatedly writing full names.

Example:

CUST-001 = ABC Corporation;
CUST-002 = XYZ Trading.

This may be acceptable in computerized or structured systems if the code is linked to a master file and the full buyer name can be produced. It is more organized than “Do.”

However, in manual BIR books, customer codes should be used carefully and consistently. The taxpayer should maintain a customer code legend or master list.

For small taxpayers, writing the full name is simpler.

66. What About Repeated Buyer in Same Invoice?

If a single invoice covers multiple line items, the sales book may record the invoice as one transaction under one buyer. There is no need to repeat the buyer name for each line item unless the book format requires line-by-line details.

If the book records each line item separately, the full buyer name should still be clear.

67. Aggregated Entries

Some businesses aggregate transactions by day, category, or invoice batch. Aggregation may be acceptable depending on the business and accounting method, provided source documents are complete and the aggregation method is consistent.

If entries are aggregated, the description should be clear, such as:

“Sales per SI Nos. 000101-000150, various customers.”

This is better than using “Do” in a way that suggests a single repeated buyer.

68. Practical Examples

Example 1: Acceptable but not ideal

Date	SI No.	Buyer	Amount
Feb. 1	1001	ABC Trading	₱5,000
Feb. 1	1002	Do	₱3,000

This is understandable if the invoices are consecutive and both are to ABC Trading. But full repetition is better.

Example 2: Risky

Date	SI No.	Buyer	Amount
Feb. 1	1001	ABC Trading	₱5,000
Feb. 1	1002	XYZ Trading	₱2,000
Feb. 1	1003	Do	₱3,000

Here, “Do” refers to XYZ Trading if interpreted literally as same as above. If the bookkeeper meant ABC Trading, the entry is wrong or ambiguous.

Example 3: Very risky

Date	SI No.	Buyer	Amount
Feb. 1	1008	Do	₱20,000

If this appears at the top of a page, the buyer cannot be identified from the page itself.

Example 4: Best practice

Date	SI No.	Buyer	Amount
Feb. 1	1001	ABC Trading	₱5,000
Feb. 1	1002	ABC Trading	₱3,000
Feb. 1	1003	ABC Trading	₱20,000

This is clear and audit-friendly.

69. Effect on Taxpayer’s Credibility

BIR audits are not only mechanical. The quality of books affects the examiner’s impression of the taxpayer’s compliance.

Books that are neat, complete, and clear suggest good faith and proper controls. Books filled with shorthand, blanks, erasures, and unclear entries may invite deeper scrutiny.

Using full buyer names is a simple way to improve credibility.

70. “Substantial Compliance” Argument

A taxpayer may argue substantial compliance if:

“Do” was used only as shorthand;
The full buyer name appears immediately above;
Source documents are complete;
Taxes were correctly declared;
No income was hidden;
No deduction or VAT claim was inflated;
The BIR can verify the entries.

This may be a reasonable defense in minor cases. But relying on substantial compliance is less desirable than maintaining clean records from the start.

71. Possible Penalties and Risks

If the BIR treats the books as incomplete, inaccurate, or improperly kept, potential consequences may include:

Requests for explanation;
Tax mapping findings;
Compromise penalties;
Disallowance of claimed deductions or input VAT if substantiation is inadequate;
Assessment based on best evidence available;
Questions on reliability of books;
Requirement to produce supporting documents;
Administrative penalties for bookkeeping violations, depending on facts.

The use of “Do” alone may not cause all these consequences, but it may contribute to a finding that records are insufficient if other problems exist.

72. The Safer Compliance Position

The safer compliance position is:

“Do” may be understood as shorthand, but it should not be used for material buyer names in BIR books of accounts. Full buyer names should be written per transaction, especially for VAT, withholding tax, credit sales, government sales, related-party transactions, and large transactions.”

This position is practical, conservative, and audit-ready.

73. Accountant’s Recommendation

An accountant reviewing books with “Do” entries will likely recommend:

Stop using “Do” going forward;
Repeat full buyer names;
Maintain invoice references;
Prepare a schedule for past “Do” entries;
Keep source documents organized;
Reconcile sales books with invoices and tax returns;
Review VAT and withholding tax implications;
Correct unclear entries properly if necessary.

74. Frequently Asked Questions

Is it illegal to write “Do” in BIR books?

Not necessarily in every case, but it is risky if it makes the entry unclear or incomplete. The safer practice is to write the full buyer name.

Does “Do” mean ditto?

Yes. In bookkeeping, “Do” generally means same as above.

Can I use “Do” for the same buyer on the next line?

It may be understandable if the buyer is immediately above and the source documents are complete, but it is not best practice.

Can I use “Do” at the top of a new page?

No. This is highly discouraged because the reference may not be visible.

Can I use “Do” in computerized books?

No. In computerized records, the actual buyer name should be stored per transaction.

Can I use “Do” in Excel loose-leaf books?

Avoid it. Excel can easily repeat the full buyer name.

What if I already used “Do” in old books?

Do not erase or rewrite the books. Keep supporting invoices and prepare a reference schedule if needed.

Is “Do” acceptable for small cash sales?

If buyer names are not individually recorded and sales are summarized properly, use a clear description such as “daily cash sales” or “various customers,” not “Do.”

What if BIR questions it?

Explain that “Do” means ditto, show the full buyer name above, and present invoices and schedules.

75. Practical Checklist for Taxpayers

For every sales book entry, check:

Is the date complete?
Is the invoice number complete?
Is the buyer name written in full?
Is the amount correct?
Is VAT properly classified?
Is withholding tax relevant?
Is the source document available?
Is the entry readable?
Is the entry free from erasures?
Can another person verify the transaction without guessing?

If the buyer column says “Do,” consider whether a future examiner can identify the buyer immediately. If not, fix the practice going forward and prepare support for past entries.

76. Practical Checklist for Past “Do” Entries

If past books contain “Do,” prepare:

List of affected pages;
Invoice numbers;
Full buyer names;
Amounts;
Source document copies;
VAT classification;
Withholding tax references;
Customer ledger references;
Explanation of notation;
Accountant’s review.

This helps reduce audit risk.

77. Recommended Format for Manual Sales Book

A clear manual sales book may use columns like:

Date;
Sales invoice number;
Buyer name;
Buyer TIN, if applicable;
Address, if applicable;
Description;
VATable sales;
VAT-exempt sales;
Zero-rated sales;
Output VAT;
Total sales;
Remarks.

The buyer name should be written in full for each row.

78. Recommended Format for Cash Receipts Book

A clear cash receipts book may include:

Date;
OR number or invoice reference;
Payor or buyer;
Particulars;
Cash;
Check;
Bank or e-wallet reference;
Sales;
Output VAT;
Accounts receivable credit;
Other income;
Remarks.

Again, write the payor or buyer clearly.

79. Recommended Format for Purchase Book

A clear purchase book may include:

Date;
Supplier invoice number;
Supplier name;
Supplier TIN, if applicable;
Description;
VATable purchase;
Input VAT;
Exempt purchase;
Total purchase;
Withholding tax, if applicable;
Remarks.

Avoid “Do” for supplier names.

80. Recommended Format for Disbursement Book

A clear disbursement book may include:

Date;
Voucher number;
Payee;
Check number or payment reference;
Nature of payment;
Amount;
Input VAT;
Expanded withholding tax;
Net payment;
Remarks.

The payee name should be written in full.

81. Practical Rule for Manual Writing Fatigue

Manual books can be tiring. But buyer names are material. To reduce fatigue without using “Do,” taxpayers can:

Use standard abbreviations for entity type, such as Corp. or Inc.;
Use neat handwriting;
Use a wider book format;
Use pre-numbered schedules;
Use a customer code with master list, if approved by the accountant;
Shift to loose-leaf or computerized records if appropriate;
Use daily summaries where legally and operationally suitable.

Do not sacrifice clarity for speed.

82. The Role of the CPA or Bookkeeper

The CPA or bookkeeper should advise the taxpayer on proper recordkeeping. If the taxpayer is under audit, the accountant can help prepare explanations and reconciliations.

A responsible accountant should discourage ambiguous shorthand in tax books.

83. The Role of the Taxpayer

The taxpayer remains responsible for books and tax compliance even if a bookkeeper writes the entries. A taxpayer cannot fully excuse poor records by saying the bookkeeper used “Do.”

Business owners should periodically review books and ask whether entries are complete and BIR-ready.

84. Practical Bottom Line

Using “Do” for repeated buyer names in BIR books is a convenience practice, not a compliance best practice.

It may be understandable when:

The same buyer appears immediately above;
Entries are consecutive;
The page is the same;
Invoice references are complete;
Source documents clearly support the buyer;
There is no ambiguity.

But it is risky or improper when:

The entry is not immediately below the full name;
It crosses page breaks;
It appears in VAT records;
It affects withholding tax;
It involves credit sales;
It involves government or related-party buyers;
It is used in computerized or loose-leaf books;
Source documents are incomplete;
The buyer cannot be identified from the records.

The best practice is simple:

Write the full buyer name for every transaction.

85. Conclusion

In Philippine BIR books of accounts, the use of “Do” for repeated buyer names is not a practice taxpayers should rely on. Although “Do” or “ditto” may be understood in traditional manual bookkeeping, BIR records must be clear, complete, accurate, and verifiable.

A taxpayer who uses “Do” may still be able to explain the entries if the full buyer name appears immediately above and the invoices are complete. But the practice creates avoidable audit risk, especially for VAT taxpayers, withholding tax transactions, credit sales, government buyers, related parties, computerized records, loose-leaf books, and large transactions.

For compliance, audit readiness, and evidentiary clarity, the recommended rule is to avoid “Do” for buyer names and write the full buyer name on each transaction line. If “Do” was already used in past books, the taxpayer should not tamper with the records, but should preserve source documents, prepare reference schedules, and adopt a clearer practice going forward.