Why does the verse state that one should "destroy" Maaser Sheni and Neta Reva'i?
וְאָמַרְתָּ֡ לִפְנֵי֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהֶ֜יךָ בִּעַ֧רְתִּי הַקֹּ֣דֶשׁ מִן־הַבַּ֗יִת וְגַ֨ם נְתַתִּ֤יו לַלֵּוִי֙ וְלַגֵּר֙ לַיָּת֣וֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָ֔ה כְּכָל־מִצְוָתְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֣ר צִוִּיתָ֑נִי לֹֽא־עָבַ֥רְתִּי מִמִּצְוֺתֶ֖יךָ וְלֹ֥א שָׁכָֽחְתִּי
And you will say before Hashem, your G-d, "I have destroyed the holy [produce] from the house, and I have also given it to the Levi, the convert, the orphan, and the widow, according to all of Your commandments which You have commanded me. I have not strayed from Your commandments, nor have I forgotten."
Mishnah Maaser Sheni 5:10:
בִּעַרְתִּי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן הַבַּיִת, זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְנֶטַע רְבָעִי
"I have destroyed the holy [produce] from the house" — this refers to Maaser Sheni and Neta Reva'i.
Why does the verse use the unusual (in this context) language of "I have destroyed" (בערתי), rather than "I have removed" (פניתי)? As it is worded, the passuk implies that one must destroy Maaser Sheni and Neta Reva'i, when one instead is required to bring it to Jerusalem (or transfer its sanctity onto coins with which he will buy other produce to be eaten in Jerusalem). If by this point he still hasn't eaten it, sure it has to be destroyed; why doesn't the passuk then use the terminology of אכלתי, which carries the dual connotations of "I have eaten" and "I have destroyed"?