0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
135 vizualizări1 pagină
This document discusses a case between Pepsi Cola Bottling Company and the Municipality of Tanauan regarding two tax ordinances approved by the municipality. Pepsi Cola argued the ordinances constituted double taxation and delegated excessive taxing powers. The municipality claimed only one ordinance was enforced and amended the other, avoiding double taxation. The court ruled there was no undue delegation of powers as local governments have autonomous authority to tax under the Constitution. It also found no double taxation occurred as one tax was imposed by the state and the other by the municipality.
Descriere originală:
digest fullttext
Titlu original
Pepsi Cola Bottling Company vs Municipality of Tanauan
This document discusses a case between Pepsi Cola Bottling Company and the Municipality of Tanauan regarding two tax ordinances approved by the municipality. Pepsi Cola argued the ordinances constituted double taxation and delegated excessive taxing powers. The municipality claimed only one ordinance was enforced and amended the other, avoiding double taxation. The court ruled there was no undue delegation of powers as local governments have autonomous authority to tax under the Constitution. It also found no double taxation occurred as one tax was imposed by the state and the other by the municipality.
This document discusses a case between Pepsi Cola Bottling Company and the Municipality of Tanauan regarding two tax ordinances approved by the municipality. Pepsi Cola argued the ordinances constituted double taxation and delegated excessive taxing powers. The municipality claimed only one ordinance was enforced and amended the other, avoiding double taxation. The court ruled there was no undue delegation of powers as local governments have autonomous authority to tax under the Constitution. It also found no double taxation occurred as one tax was imposed by the state and the other by the municipality.
Pepsi Cola Bottling Company vs Municipality of Tanauan to create its sources of revenue and to levy taxes, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.” Withal, it cannot be said that
Pepsi Cola has a bottling plant in the Municipality of Tanauan, Leyte. In Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264 emanated from beyond the sphere September 1962, the Municipality approved Ordinance No. 23 which of the legislative power to enact and vest in local governments the levies and collects “from soft drinks producers and manufacturers a tai power of local taxation. of one-sixteenth (1/16) of a centavo for every bottle of soft drink corked.” There is no double taxation. The argument of the Municipality is well taken. Further, Pepsi Cola’s assertion that the delegation of taxing In December 1962, the Municipality also approved Ordinance No. 27 power in itself constitutes double taxation cannot be merited. It must be which levies and collects “on soft drinks produced or manufactured observed that the delegating authority specifies the limitations and within the territorial jurisdiction of this municipality a tax of one centavo enumerates the taxes over which local taxation may not be exercised. P0.01) on each gallon of volume capacity.” The reason is that the State has exclusively reserved the same for its own prerogative. Moreover, double taxation, in general, is not forbidden Pepsi Cola assailed the validity of the ordinances as it alleged that they by our fundamental law unlike in other jurisdictions. Double taxation constitute double taxation in two instances: a) double taxation because becomes obnoxious only where the taxpayer is taxed twice for the Ordinance No. 27 covers the same subject matter and impose benefit of the same governmental entity or by the same jurisdiction for practically the same tax rate as with Ordinance No. 23, b) double the same purpose, but not in a case where one tax is imposed by the taxation because the two ordinances impose percentage or specific State and the other by the city or municipality. taxes.
Pepsi Cola also questions the constitutionality of Republic Act 2264
which allows for the delegation of taxing powers to local government units; that allowing local governments to tax companies like Pepsi Cola is confiscatory and oppressive.
The Municipality assailed the arguments presented by Pepsi Cola. It
argued, among others, that only Ordinance No. 27 is being enforced and that the latter law is an amendment of Ordinance No. 23, hence there is no double taxation.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation of taxing powers.
Whether or not there is double taxation.
HELD: No. There is no undue delegation. The Constitution even allows
such delegation. Legislative powers may be delegated to local governments in respect of matters of local concern. By necessary implication, the legislative power to create political corporations for purposes of local self-government carries with it the power to confer on such local governmental agencies the power to tax. Under the New Constitution, local governments are granted the autonomous authority to create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes. Section 5, Article XI provides: “Each local government unit shall have the power