PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION vs CA August 8, 2000; Purisima, J: FACTS: On July 21, 1989, the petitioner received an assessment from the CIR for the payment of deficiency amusement tax in the amount of P586426084 (induding 75% surcharge and 25% interest for 2 years). The petitioner contested the assessment but it wes denied by the CIR. The Court of Tax Appeals also dismissed the subsequent petition of PBA. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the CTA so the petitioner, fled this petition for certiorari. Petitioner's arguments: Jurisdiction to collect amusement taxes of PBA is vested with the local government and not the national government. it argues that hey should be included in the enumeration provided by Section 13 of the Local Tax Code of 1973. Commissoner's issuance of BIR Ruling No. 231-86 and BIR Revenue ‘Memorandum Circular No. 8-88 -- both upholding the authority of the local government to collect amusement taxes -- should bind the government or that, if there is any revocation or modification of said rule, the same should operate prospectively. Income from the cession of streamer and advertising spaces to VEI should not be subject to amusement taxes In case they are made liable to pay the deficiency amusement tax, they should not be charged with the 75% surcharge.ISSUES: WON the amusement tax cn admission tickets PBA games a lacal tax— NO 2. WON BIR Rulng No.231-86 ard BIR RMC Na 8-88 binds he govenment =NO 3. WON income from the cession of sreamer andadvertsing spaces to VEI Is, subject to amusement taxes - YES 4, WON the peitionershouldbe charged wih amusement x - YES HELD: 1, Sec 13of the Local Tax Code indicates that the province can only impose a Bx fon admission from the proprietors, lessees, or operstors oftheates, cinematographs, concert nalls, circuses and other places of amusement. The authority to tax professional basketball gamos is not therein included, as the same is expressly embraced in PD 1959, which amended PD 7456, wherein itis clear that the "propriebr, lessee or operator of . . . professonal basketbal games’ is required to pay an amusement tax equivalent to fifteen per centum (15%) of their gross receipts to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which payment is a national tax. While Section 13 of the Local Tax Code mentions “other places of amusement", professional basketball games aro definitely not within its scope. Under the principle of ejusdem generis’, in determining the meaning of the phrase ‘other places of amusement; one must refer to the prior enumeraton of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls and circuses with artisic expression as their ‘commen cheracterstic. Professional basketball games do not fall under the same tegory as theaters, cinematographs, concert halls and circuses as the latter sicaly balong 10 artistic forms of entertainment while the former caters to sports and gaming. Algo, a historical analyeis of pertinent laws does reveal the legislative intent to place professional basketball games within the ambit of a national tax. Previous laws (PD 871 by PD 1456 and PD 1959) shows a recognition that the amusement tax on professiond basketball games is a natonel, and not a local, tax. 2. Commissioner's issianae of BIR Ruing No. 23486 and BIR Merorardum Circular No. 8-88, both upholding the authority ofthe local government to collect amusement taxes cannot bint the government The government cannot be never be in estoppels, particulary in matters involving fx. It's a well-known rule that erroneous epplicetion end enforcement of the law by public officers de not preclude subsequent correct application of the statute, and that the Government is never estooped by mistake or error on the part of ts agents PD 1436 provides that for the purpose of the amusement tax, the term gross receipts’ embraces all the receipts of the proprietor, lessee or operator of the amusement placa. That definition of gross receipts is broad enough to embrace the cession of advertising and streamer spaces as the same embraces all the receipts of the proprietor, lessee or operator of the amusement place. 4. The issu on the payment of surcharge was newer posed as an isaie befor the respondent court so it must necessarily fail