CTA Case No. 2199 (Decision)
IC OFT . PHILIPPINF.;t ;. AX APPE.A.LI Ul!;ZO~ CITY " ,.1 ,; . t.to . 21 J V. r t � -- - . ... . � ... ... )1tV �� s r-~~ . '. \1 t-is � 8 () ... 'I l' il �h 1 1 �'� f� t l ). I .:I;J. .l '-\,; nt . k X ... \. (li / b t i �on * sh uJ,J .t. l" l 3 , l rt . i. i n po I .. y: � -� ,fl ai �� 'C I t i ~ . ""'P ~ "' i t e .J O't''l': ~ l: 1 n Jf � J 4;1 t)' 1.}1.: i.�g 1 �
't ,. ,.. 1 t ty '"' X~ f f. 0� y1n I 1 iil ,; '") rw/ I ;
. '} -I c R i lu v c I l io � s t.i I ...�� 0 � � � � � 11 � � � � ) o. t 0 , v 0 �� ~ 2 , ~1) 1:.~ .. 0 8 ������ ����� .. c J( f 1. t: ~p y ( 4 v . c 1 7 1 fl ~ p o. .(\' t yt (:. n vr \ 04 p "" )
p :rp o ~ �~ I') i t .d ~ l . M~J 1 J $ i1 \l� (Jo . ld�j.llt' .~ i �0 � �.� d" ",."..".. .,.. �. r .. � ti � o te -~ a ld � en fh r 1 oul" ( ls ld ��
... � } n. � 0 , ,1 ch I l y t l i d- ' 0 v � � �� u .' � �t � 1 r. � 0 { tl . 7� y v , � ; .... l", 5��
/ c 1 1 c ,,, 6
I 7
hn . - t .... ) f\ ;; .t: nf ,z�c .. (;c>;nC. ~;.;;..;.;o.;;:.;...,;;:~~..., J.lll!..c ' .. .l . l �..... a� , � til �
- I. � u .. n. er p: e 1ti w,t1'\.l .. i.n "" 1 a~d th ' t l c .. ~ 19 nd ~ 2 \l. � ~� ~ J. rate of lnex &� o~ l . )~ ( II l . . 'l ;1 .~ .� - ~ :. I ( t c of �h~ ,,, .r:, CO!'l� Qt.' "' .. '\J.:l th --lv .f1' pa... aau a.... ~n 1 ' � 2n bu .l :L I ) tll~r~er.i�l~ in 1961 ar.,. 1'16-J. , , 1 ,. u l~t ;:.md 11. 1;1.~d ?l . b �r;r "'X:h r~s tc�.. .tycl; ;. c rnpc1~~d t� th 1957 lv � ..� ..I� ~ sa~~ u ,t) h Jl � 'f .t . tip (1 ult j,
'' ( 99 1 '�. .,.. \ �o .l ... l .. � I h � t.h 1.)1 t�l: t, ' ( " !j, ' l� x:� .. �le-o. s of � i th � a � ' r :r ~; int c... c o y v~ . o :c ... � .,. v n l ~. ' \ : ~ "'~ :.c .i.ni... � caner te : 1;;~1,, wa~ th 'n .. n n"'~' t �. � lHdg. /'lpt) ~i ". t � �. f: fY... \:h ... . hei.�1 ... c.-. n y n il 10
... l, 9 l t, C:J. � n t , c v xy . 1 o t ~ ;;: � it i A1 . r t . ly and �$ ; it . r: I,, � '�� � {''- I t ' *"t.;d (!(; . ~ tl "' .Q� G ~�~ . ~h g:: ... u.r,,~ f l "" ! Ji~ 14 ~'f'l"" l� ift ) ;;:;>, p~l .. . ' {" � L.. .) ' .7 " � .~ . !' ) .., . .. i .;.. (1 �t i V'f !ir. . :it on .J no .. J.:.. po. tHl ' (:- � d l l t .�. � ~~ ' 11 . ..,
� I . } ' in ca d \ � mdt ;�. � , .. ~.. , d t; 0 ,of U. (; - .~ ... �� 0: ;J~. f: � n � � � he 0 � f t G ;...(. ,t t'-�. .��.::.J. .� ....., ,, .� n l' 'l(i L. " ~~ \ :t ~! ~ �1m ny; ~' .1 .2
DECISION - CTA CAS~ NO . 2199 (13) may come up. Anf1 usually, wh~n it is a "!.nck roC>f with intention f ��r GthGr use - like per - haps dancing placn, or party plac8 Qr party r0em, the deck is ef nicer finish - I m~an thA finish is nicer than on~ with or~inary roofing. NaturallL the cost of building will inrr r> as e very much -- much hi~hnr than a builring with only g.i. roofing. P. 83-~t . s . n .; unrer�- lining supplied.) Under th~s e circumstanr~s, we beli~V'3 that the assess- ment 0f the deck roc~ ~f the Ort:;ga Blng . is justifin~. Respendent Board in its ~ncision�with r~sp.nct t~ the elevatDr, applying Sertion 53 of the Chart.nr f Manila (Republic Act NG . 409, as amende~ by R~publir Acts Nos. 1928 and 3899) , whirh prDvi~es as f~ll~ws: 5EC . 53 . Powers and dut1ns ~f thn Cit~ Assess~r.- X X x. Th~ rity Ass~ssor XXX shall appraise an~ value all the r~al estate net e:xpr:;ssly exempt , � axc~pt machin~s, mnrha- nical contrivances, ins trum.~nts, tools, impl n- ments, appliances, apparatus, an �_, paraphnrnalia used for industrial, agricultural or manufac- turing purp@ses whif'h s:hall be exclu~en fr ,m such valuation anr assessment whnth8r ~ ~t attache1 ts lands or builrings. x x x. ruled that said section sp~cifirally ex~mpts machi- neries, mechanical rDntrivances, instruments, tools, implements, applian(es, apparatus anr paraph<;rnalia used fer industrial, agrirultural or manufacturing purpeses; that the Ortega Bl"lg. is us~r for re>mrn~rrial and n t f r in~ustrial, agricultural or manufarturing purposes; an1 that, thernfore, thn el~vatcr noes not enj. y ex~mption from ass~~smnnt. Th<:? business of p~ti ti!Dnnr of r~nting h~.r building is not mer8ly a c mmerrial but alse an industrial undertaking r acti~ity; in short, th~ ronstrurtion . .'il 13
DECISION - CTA CAS~ NO . 2199 (14) ~f her building was for an in~ustrial purp~s~ . This Court has int~rpr~t~n a substantially similar provis - ion (Secti �n 3 Lf/) of the Ass~ssm~nt Law to th~ eff~rt that the t~rm 11industry'1 m~ans an y ~npartm~nt e~r branch ef art , occupatian or busin~ss ron~u r t~~ as a m~ans �f liv~lihmod or fer pr~fit , ~ s p~rially ene whirh .nmpl~ys much labor ani capital an~ i s a ~isti n rt branrh of tra~e , er a prm1uctivr> ent~rpris~ whirh ~mp::t.~ys rnlativ..,ly large am0unts of capital an~ or labar. (Philippinn Bulk C0rp0- ratien vs . Prov . Board of Ass~ssm~nt Appnals 9f N~gres Occidental , CTA 1730 , De~. 26 , 1967, riti~g Philippin~ Acetylene C~mpany vs . C9m::1 . of Customs, CTA No. 1147 , Dec . 26, 1963 . ) This Court nxpr~ss~~ th"' vinw in the latt~r (�ase that a pro~uctiv.n GhtnrpTis..,, among oth~rs, is one devot~d te th~ pro ~ urti0n or net r~turn ef w~alth; and that a 11 p'irson engag"'n in commnrrn or trar1Q. ~mploying much labor and capital is engagnn in in~ustry b~rausG the enterprise is pro~urtivn of r~sults, profits or bn- nefi ts . 11 On the basis of this int,.,rpr<>ta tien as to the mearying of 11 indus try , 11 p~ti tion"'r, by cons tru r_ting h~r ap a rt~ept building an~ by r~ntin~ i t , is ~ngag~~ in an pr�p~rty enta ils - murh r apital an~ labor whirh prs Aure s results, pr fits and bnn~fits. The ~l~vater of sai ~ building, ther~fQre , which is a marhin.nry or mnrhanical centrivance used to rarry the t.nnants an ~ th~ g~n~ral public to the various fl�ers of the buil1ing , is a device used fGr the effiri~nt opnration of thn build- .,
DW.CISI ON CTA CAS~ NO . 2199 (15) i ng; hcnc~ , i t is rna hih~ry r instrum~nt us~~ in an industry . Tho ~levat r , wi th a valun f ~7 0 , - 000 . 00, is th~r~for~ ~x~mp t from rnalty tax ~r.r~rtiv~ 1963 pursuant t S~('tien 53 f R,.,publi(' A(t Ne . 4o9 (Charter ef the Ci ty f Manila) , as amnnn~~ by R~ public Acts N s . 1928 an~ 3899 . In (' nnecti~n with th~ assnssm~nt ef th~ ma('hin~ r ef at P3,750 . 06 , w~ n9tir~ that n~ith~r thn p~tition f r review nor petiti n~r�s m~~oran~um a~vanre~ any r sa s n te justify the n ranc~llati er mg~ificatien thereof . F r fail ur ~ t r~but the fin~ing ef rnsp@n~- ~nt , th~ assessmnnt of thn marhin? r�om must be sus- tained . Finally, petiti ner allng.-,s that shn shoul~ net� bn h~l~ liabl~ for the payment of the penalty f r the delay in the payment f h~r r~alty tax n said buil4- ing which was not ~ue to h~r fault . Sh~ (entrm -1s that such ~el a y was ~ue t . th~ failur~ of th~ City Boar ~ f .Ass~ssment Appeals t r 'nsolvn immerliately h~r pr - test against the assessment . We beli~ve that this C urt la('ks (omp~t~nc~ tG pass upon the issue as to wheth~r r not petiti n-r is liable for tht> penalty for the r~elay in the paymnnt ef her raalty tax . It sh ul~ bn n t~~ that the ass~ss- ment f the City Assessor an~ his nenial of petiti ner�s protest, which was app~al~r-1 t the rnsp n~ent Boar ~ , ....,id I not imp sa any penalty. (~hs. A & B; supra . ) In eth~r w rds, no decisi~n has been r~n~er3~ by thn City As- ~~ 15
DECISION - CTA CAS~ NO . 2199 (16) sessor on the question ~f th~ all~g~r'l penalty, as - suming that he has juris~iction t i mposn it , whi ch c ul d be properly ~ levateo to th~ r~sp0n0~nt B ar d fer ravi ~ w . R e sp@n~ent Boar~ , ther e f~r~ , r orr n rtly deelined te pass upon this is s u~ for .lark of juris- dictien . Since r ~ sp~nd~nt Boarn is b~r~ft of jur i s- diction t~ pass ~n the sai~ issue , it ne c ess~rily fol - l�ws that this Court, whos e juris ~ irti~n is 1imit~d to a review of the de ri~i�ns of City an0 Provin(ial Bear ns ef Assessmen t App~als, is lik~wis e with0ut juris~icti~n eve r the same . (Se es. 7(3) & 11, Rnp . Art No . 1125 . ) WH~ ~FOR E , the na cisien appeal~0 fr@m is h~r n by modifi3d . The ass ~ ss mn nt f pntit i oner�s apartment b~ilding for real estate tax purp~s e s . is her nby r er'l uren t P487,000 . 00 effnctiv~ 1963 (P557,000.00 l ess P70,000.00, the value ef the e l evat0r ) . With q )s�ts against p~ titien n r. SO ORDER T?D. Que z~n City, January 31, 1972. (3GD . ) ROMAN M. UHALI Pr esi ning Jur1ge WT<J CONCUR � (SGD . ) ESTANISLAO R. ALVAR ~Z Ass9 ciat e Ju r'l g ~ (SGD . ) RAMON L . ~\VANf'H;NA Asso ciat e Ju rl ge l~ 16
More in CTA Decisions
- CTA Case No. 3070 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 3070)
- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FRANCISCO BILLONES, ANGEL T. DERAY, JR., MARY LUCILLE BILLONES, SUSANA DELA CRUZ GO, ANACLETO SANCHEZ, ROBERT C. AMPOSTA, OSCAR TORRES, MARIA CATAPANG JUMENTO, ROSALIO TEVES, LEONARD DELA PAS, HANNAH AILEEN LIM FERNANDEZ, ANTONIO M. TALAUE. LEANDRO ANTONIO P. TALAUE, ANALYN G. FERNANDEZ and MEYNARDO B. BANAYO. (Consolidate with Case No. O-129)(CTA Case No. O-128)
- RUEL E. ORDU?A, doing business under the name and style, GRUPO ENTABLADO STAGE BUILDERS, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9560)
- CTA Case No. 87 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 87)
- BPI CAPITAL CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 5457)
- CALAMBA PREMIER REALTY CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 2312)
- CTA Case No. EB CRIM-99 (Decision)(CTA Case No. EB CRIM-99)
- NATIONAL GRID CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (NGCP) v. OFELIA M. OLIVA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE CITY TREASURER OF CEBU CITY(CTA Case No. EB 849)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.