CITY OF MANILA VS.

COCA-COLA MORE ABOUT THIS

TOPIC:

BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC.- CTA, COMMISSIONER OF

CUSTOMS vs. MARINA

DOUBLE TAXATION SALES, INC .- Motion

for Reconsideration
MERCURY DRUG
CORPORATION VS. CIR-
Category: Tax Remedies Tax Credit
PHILIPPINE BRITISH
ASSURANCE COMPANY,
Exciting Giveaways Await OPEN INC. vs. BUREAU OF
Add to your cart now, and buy on March 27. Don't miss out. Lazada Philippines
CUSTOMS- Customs
Bonds
CITY OF MANILA vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS ESSO V. CIR- Tests of
PHILIPPINES, INC.- CTA, Double Taxation Deductability
REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9503 - AMENDMENT TO
THE Court of Tax
FACTS: Appeals LAW
LEPANTO
Respondent paid the local business tax only as a manufacturers as it was expressly exempted from the
CONSOLIDATED
business tax under a different section and which applied to businesses subject to excise, VAT or MINING COMPANY vs.
percentage tax under the Tax Code. The City of Manila subsequently amended the ordinance by deleting AMBANLOC- Local
the provision exempting businesses under the latter section if they have already paid taxes under a Business Taxation
different section in the ordinance. This amending ordinance was later declared by the Supreme Court FISHWEALTH CANNING
CORPORATION vs. CIR-
null and void. Respondent then filed a protest on the ground of double taxation. RTC decided in favor of
Court of Tax Appeals
Respondent and the decision was received by Petitioner on April 20, 2007. On May 4, 2007, Petitioner filed Accion Directa
with the CTA a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review asking for a 15-day extension or CIR vs. HAMBRECHT &
until May 20, 2007 within which to file its Petition. A second Motion for Extension was filed on May 18, QUIST PHILIPPINES,
2007, this time asking for a 10-day extension to file the Petition. Petitioner finally filed the Petition on May INC.- Tax Assessment
and Protest
30, 2007 even if the CTA had earlier issued a resolution dismissing the case for failure to timely file the
SOMODIO VS. COURT
Petition. OF APPEALS- Accion
interdictal
☰
ISSUES:
BATASnatin LIVE! Free legal advice every Wednesday and Friday at 6pm.

(1) Has Petitioner’s the right to appeal with the CTA lapsed?
(2) Does the enforcement of the latter section of the tax ordinance constitute double taxation?

HELD:
(1) NO. Petitioner complied with the reglementary period for filing the petition. From April 20, 2007,
Petitioner had 30 days, or until May 20, 2007, within which to file their Petition for Review with the CTA.
The Next LIVE Free Legal Advice
The Motion for Extension filed by the petitioners on May 18, 2007, prior to the lapse of the 30-day period
Episode
on 20 May 2007, in which they prayed for another extended period of 10 days, or until 30 May 2007, to file
WE ARE LIVE MON, WED,
their Petition for Review was, in reality, only the first Motion for Extension of petitioners. Thus, when FRI
Petitioner filed their Petition via registered mail their Petition for Review on 30 May 2007, they were able at 6:00 pm
to comply with the period for filing such a petition. Facebook Event | YouTube Channel

(2) YES. There is indeed double taxation if respondent is subjected to the taxes under both Sections 14 Season One

and 21 of the tax ordinance since these are being imposed: (1) on the same subject matter — the privilege Episode 1: August 31, 2018

of doing business in the City of Manila; (2) for the same purpose — to make persons conducting business Facebook Video | YouTube Video

within the City of Manila contribute to city revenues; (3) by the same taxing authority — petitioner City of Episode 2: September 7, 2018
Manila; (4) within the same taxing jurisdiction — within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Manila; (5) Facebook Video | YouTube Video

for the same taxing periods — per calendar year; and (6) of the same kind or character — a local business Episode 3: September 13, 2018
tax imposed on gross sales or receipts of the business. Facebook Video | YouTube Video

Episode 4: September 21, 2018

 Prev Next  Facebook Video | YouTube Video

Episode 5: September 28, 2018

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. MARINA SALES, INC .- Motion for Reconsideration
MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION VS. CIR- Tax Credit Facebook Video | YouTube Video
PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS- Customs Bonds Episode 6: October 5, 2018
ESSO V. CIR- Tests of Deductability
Facebook Video | YouTube Video
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9503 - AMENDMENT TO THE Court of Tax Appeals LAW
LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY vs. AMBANLOC- Local Business Taxation
FISHWEALTH CANNING CORPORATION vs. CIR- Court of Tax Appeals
Accion Directa
CIR vs. HAMBRECHT & QUIST PHILIPPINES, INC.- Tax Assessment and Protest
SOMODIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS- Accion interdictal

BATASnatin Legal Civil Law Criminal Law Land Titles and Socials
Services Deeds
Collection of Debts All crimes as defense lawyer or private
"Excellence is our Standard" Unlawful Detainer prosecutor.
Mobile Globe: +63 (915
915) 954
954-6080
6080 Forcible Entry
Corporation Law Election Law
Mobile Smart: +63 (949
949) 589
589-8377
8377 Recovery of Real or Personal Property,
Landline: (632) 359
359-4203
4203 Damages, etc... Creation of Corporate Bodies
Litigation of Corporate Courts
Email: batasnatin@gmail.com Labor Standards and Relations Alternative Dispute
Law Others
Resolution
2nd Floor LC Building,
Illegal Termination Environmental Law
31 Gen. Luna St., Tuktukan
1632 Taguig City, Philippines Constructive Dismissal Writ of Kalikasan
Non-payment / Underpayment of Protection of the Environment and
Salaries and Benefits Natural Resources
Others...

Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy

© 2019 BATASnatin - Filipino's Comprehensive Online Law Resource and Community Back to Top