Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 150 views

    #76 Punzalan v. Municipal Board of Manila

    Uploaded by

    Kristine Enriquez
    This case concerns the validity of an ordinance passed by the Municipal Board of Manila that imposed an additional occupation tax on professionals in the city. Plaintiffs argued this amounted to double taxation as they already paid taxes under the national tax code. The lower court found the law authorizing the ordinance valid but ruled the ordinance itself invalid as it imposed penalties not authorized. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that penalties were authorized under the city charter. It held that taxation by both national and local governments is permitted and not double taxation. The lower court ruling on the ordinance was reversed but affirmed as to the law authorizing the tax.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    #76 Punzalan v. Municipal Board of Manila

    Uploaded by

    Kristine Enriquez
    150 views2 pages
    This case concerns the validity of an ordinance passed by the Municipal Board of Manila that imposed an additional occupation tax on professionals in the city. Plaintiffs argued this amounted to double taxation as they already paid taxes under the national tax code. The lower court found the law authorizing the ordinance valid but ruled the ordinance itself invalid as it imposed penalties not authorized. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that penalties were authorized under the city charter. It held that taxation by both national and local governments is permitted and not double taxation. The lower court ruling on the ordinance was reversed but affirmed as to the law authorizing the tax.

    Original Title

    #76 PUNZALAN V. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case concerns the validity of an ordinance passed by the Municipal Board of Manila that imposed an additional occupation tax on professionals in the city. Plaintiffs argued this amounted to double taxation as they already paid taxes under the national tax code. The lower court found the law authorizing the ordinance valid but ruled the ordinance itself invalid as it imposed penalties not authorized. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that penalties were authorized under the city charter. It held that taxation by both national and local governments is permitted and not double taxation. The lower court ruling on the ordinance was reversed but affirmed as to the law authorizing the tax.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    150 views2 pages

    #76 Punzalan v. Municipal Board of Manila

    Uploaded by

    Kristine Enriquez
    This case concerns the validity of an ordinance passed by the Municipal Board of Manila that imposed an additional occupation tax on professionals in the city. Plaintiffs argued this amounted to double taxation as they already paid taxes under the national tax code. The lower court found the law authorizing the ordinance valid but ruled the ordinance itself invalid as it imposed penalties not authorized. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that penalties were authorized under the city charter. It held that taxation by both national and local governments is permitted and not double taxation. The lower court ruling on the ordinance was reversed but affirmed as to the law authorizing the tax.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SILVESTER M. PUNSALAN, ET AL. vs. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    FACTS:
    Plaintiffs who happened to be professionals of the city of Manila, questions the validity of ordinance
    No. 3398 of the City of Manila together with the provision of the Manila charter authorizing it and the refund
    of taxes collected under the ordinance but paid under protest.

    The ordinance in question, which was approved by the municipal board of the City of Manila on
    July 25, 1950, imposes a municipal occupation tax on persons exercising various professions in the city
    and penalizes non-payment of the tax.

    The ordinance was enacted pursuant to paragraph (1) of section 18 of the Revised Charter of the
    City of Manila (as amended by Republic Act No. 409), which empowers the Municipal Board of said city to
    impose a municipal occupation tax, not to exceed P50 per annum, on persons engaged in the various
    professions above referred to.

    Having already paid their occupation tax under section 201 of the National Internal Revenue Code,
    plaintiffs, upon being required to pay the additional tax prescribed in the ordinance, paid the same under
    protest and then brought the present suit for the annulment of the said ordinance.

    The lower court upheld the validity of the provision of law authorizing the enactment of the
    ordinance but declared the ordinance itself illegal and void on the ground that the penalty there in provided
    was not legally authorized.

    From this decision both parties appealed to this Court, and the only question they have presented
    for our determination is whether this ruling is correct or not.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the ordinance and law authorizing it amounts to double taxation
    HELD:
    The lower court was in error in saying that the imposition of the penalty provided for in the
    ordinance was without the authority of law. The last paragraph of the section that authorizes the enactment
    of this tax ordinance (section 18 of the Manila Charter) in express terms also empowers the Municipal
    Board "to fix penalties for the violation of ordinances which shall not exceed to two hundred pesos fine or
    six months imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, for a single offense." Hence, the
    pronouncement below that the ordinance in question is illegal and void because it imposes a penalty not
    authorized by law is clearly without basis.

    The argument against double taxation may not be invoked if one tax is imposed by the state and
    the other is imposed by the city. It is widely recognized that there is nothing inherently terrible in the
    requirement that taxes be exacted with respect to the same occupation by both the state and the political
    subdivisions thereof.

    The Legislature may, in its discretion, select what occupations shall be taxed, and in the exercise
    of that discretion it may tax all, or it may select for taxation certain classes and leave the others untaxed.
    The National Government and with a population and volume of trade many times that of any other
    city or municipality, Manila, no doubt, offers a more lucrative field for the practice of the professions, so that
    it is but fair that the professionals in Manila be made to pay a higher occupation tax than those in the
    provinces.

    Judgment of the lower court is reversed as to the ordinance and affirmed as to the law authorizing
    it.

    You might also like