Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
TRANSFER TAXATION
A. Transfer Taxation: Its general concepts
B. Kinds of transfer taxes
C. Kinds of transfers subject to transfer taxes
D. Governing Rules: Revenue Regulations 2-2003
ESTATE TAXATION
GIFT TAXATION
b. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994 (Original
Decision) and G.R. No. 115455, October 30, 1995 (Motion for Reconsideration)
c. ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Ermita G.R. No. 168056, 1 September 2005
B. VAT as an indirect tax
a. Distinctions between direct and indirect taxes
b. Specific characteristics of an indirect tax
i. Imposed on the seller/lessor/importer/service provider
1. CIR v. Magsaysay Lines, GR No. 146984, 28 July 2006
ii. Not a tax on the buyer/lessee/service availer
1. Cases in point:
a. Philippine Acetylene v. CIR, 17 August 1967
b. CIR v. American Rubber, 29 November 1966
c. CIR v. John Gotamco and Sons, 27 February 1987
C. Specific characteristics of Value Added Tax
a. Tax imposed on the sale/barter/exchange/lease
i. CIR v. Sony Philippines, GR No. 178697, 17 November 2010
b. Tax imposed on all levels of the production/distribution process
c. Tax imposed on the value added
i. Tax Credit Mechanism
1. Input Tax
2. Output VAT
d. Consumption based tax
i. Destination Principle
ii. Cross-border Doctrine
D. Transactions subject to VAT
E. Governing Regulations
a. Revenue Regulations 16-2005, as amended by RR 4-2007 (Consolidated Regulation)
b. Revenue Regulations 16-2011 (adjustment re threshold amount for liability)
c. Revenue Regulations 10-2011 (clarifying the VAT rules re certain transactions)
F. Rates of VAT
a. Ordinary
b. Exempt Transactions
i. Philippine Packing Corporation vs. CIT, December 26, 1956
c. Zero-Rated Transactions
i. Western Mindanao Power Corporation v. CIR, GR No. 181136, 13 June 2012;
Panasonic v. CIR, GR No. 178090, 8 February 2010; Hitachi v. CIR, GR
No. 174212, 20 October 2010 (“Zero-rated” must be indicated in the O.R.)
ii. Silicon Philippines, Inc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 172378, dated
January 17, 2011 (Failure to indicate ATP)
iii. CIR v. Manila Mining Corp, GR No. 153204, 31 August 2005 (Zero Rating
for the benefit of the seller/lessor/service provider)
d. Effectively Zero-Rated Transactions
e. Cases in Point (Exempt and Zero Rated)
1. Contex v. CIR, G.R. No. 151135, July 2, 2004
2. CIR v. Seagate Technology (Phils.), GR No. 153866, 11 February
2005
3. CIR v. Acesite Hotel Corporation, 16 February 2007
4
LOCAL TAXATION
B. Common Limitations on the exercise of the local taxing power and the principle of
preemption/exclusionary rule (Section 133, LGC)
a. The principle of preemption
b. Cases:
1. Province of Bulacan v. Court of Appeals, 27 November 1998
2. First Philippine Industrial Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 125948,
December 29, 1998 (Section 133j; Local Tax on Common Carriers)
3. Palma Development Corporation v. Municipality of Malangas, GR No.
152492, 16 October 2003 (Section 133e)
4. Batangas Power Corporation v. Batangas City, GR No. 152675, 28
April 2004 (Section 133g)
5. MIAA v. CA and Paranaque, GR No. 155650, 20 July 2006
(Section 133 o)
6. LTO v. City of Butuan, 20 January 2000 (re Section 133 (l))
7. Philreca v. DILG, 10 June 2003 (re Section 133 n)
8. Petron Corporation v. Tiangco, GR No. 158881, 16 April 2008
(Petroleum Products)
9. Pelizloy vs. Municipality of Tuba,2013
10. Consolidated Cases of City of Manila, et al. vs. Hon. Colet and
Malaysian Airline System, G.R. No. 120051; Maersk-Filipinas, Inc.,
et al. vs. City of Manila, et al., G.R. No. 121613; Eastern Shipping
Lines, Inc. vs. City Council of Manila, et al., G.R. No. 121675;
William Lines, Inc., et al. vs. Regional Trial Court of Manila, et al,
G.R. No. 121704; PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs.
Hon. Nabong, et al., G.R. No. 121720-28; Maersk-Filipinas, Inc., et
al. vs. City of Manila, et al., and with Intervenors William Lines, Inc.,
et al., G.R. No. 121847- 55; Cosco Container Lines and HEUNG-
A Shipping Co., Ltd., et al. vs. City of Manila, et al., G.R. No.
122333; Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Regional Trial Court of Manila, et al.,
G.R. No. 122335; Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc. vs.
City of Manila, et al., G.R. No. 122349; Dongnama Shipping Co.,
Ltd, et al, vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124855 Supreme
Court (En Banc), promulgated December 10, 2014
A. Governing Law
B. Nature of Real Property Taxes—National or Local?
C. Fundamental Principles (Section 198, LGC)
a. Appraisal at current fair market value and based on actual use: Allied Banking
Corporation v. Quezon City, GR No. 154126, 15 September 2006 in relation to Local
Ass. Reg. 1-92
D. Properties Covered
a. Article 415, et seq, Civil Code
b. Caltex v. CBAA, 31 May 1982
c. Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Inc. vs. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 166838, June 15 2011
E. Properties Exempt
a. Section 234, LGC
b. Section 238, LGC
c. Constitutional Exemptions
d. Cases
i. MIAA v. Paranaque, GR No. 155650, 20 July 2006; MIAA v. Pasay GR
No. 163072, April 2, 2009
ii. Lung Center of the Philippines v. QC, 29 June 2004
iii. LRTA v. CBAA, 12 October 2000
iv. NAPOCOR v. Province of Quezon, GR No. 171586, 15 July 2009;
NAPOCOR v. CBAA, GR No. 171470, 30 January 2009
v. Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. CBAA, etc., G.R. No. 178030,
December 15, 2010
vi. City of Pasig v. Republic of the Philippines, GR No. 185023, 24 August 2011
F. May LGUs grant exemption?
G. Who are liable for the Real Property Taxes
a. Ownership v. Use
b. Testate Estate of Concordia Lim v. Manila, 21 February 2000
15
c. Government Service Insurance System v. City Treasurer and City Assessor of the City of Manila,
G.R. No. 186242 23 December 2009
H. Procedure in Real Property Taxation
a. Lopez v. City of Manila, 19 February 1999
b. Declaration of real properties—whose duty?
c. Valuation by Assessors
Callanta v. Ombudsman, 30 January 1998
d. Preparation of Schedule of Fair Market Values
e. Enactment of a Real Property Tax Ordinance
i. Levy annual ad valorem tax
1. Scope of the LGU’s taxing power (Sec. 232, LGC)
a. Provinces—1%; Cities, Municipalities in MM—2%
b. SEF—1%; Idle land tax—5%; Special Assessments
ii. Fix assessment levels
iii. Provide for appropriations
iv. Adopt Schedule of Fair Market Values
1. Fair Market Value and Assessed Value—What’s the difference?
I. Remedies in Local Taxation
a. Remedies of the Government
i. Administrative
1. Contents of Assessment
a. Meralco v. Barlis, 2 February 2002
2. Who is entitled to the notice of assessment?
a. Talusan v. Tayag, G.R. No. 133698, 4 April 2001
ii. Judicial
1. Period within which to collect
iii. Other Provisions
1. Accrual of the tax
2. Time of Payment
3. Surcharges, Interests and Penalties
b. Remedies of the Taxpayer
i. Administrative
1. Appeal to the Secretary of Justice re newly enacted tax
ordinance (Section 187, LGC)
a. Drilon v. Lim, 4 August 1994
b. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 1999
c. Hagonoy Market Vendors Association v. Municipality of
Hagonoy, Bulacan, G.R. No. 137621. February 6, 2002
d. Ty v. Trampe, 1 December 1995
2. Appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals, (Section 226, 252,
LGC)
a. Systems Plus Computer College v. Caloocan City, G.R. No.
146382, August 7, 2003
b. Olivares v. Marquez, G.R. No. 155591, September 22, 2004
3. Protest of the Assessment (Section 226, 252, LGC)
a. Cagayan Robina v. Court of Appeals, 12 October 2000
b. Meralco v. Barlis, 18 May 2001
16
END OF OUTLINE