Bea Luisa De De Chavez

1BSA-ABM4

Write an argumentative essay on this suggested topic:

Which among the type of taxes (national or local) do you think can be
reduced, removed, orrevised to the benefit of both the government and
the common individual? Cite relevantsources such as previous research
studies, taxation reform programs, and the like.
The value-added tax, whether it be national or municipal, can, in my opinion, be
decreased, eliminated, or changed to the benefit of both the government and the
average citizen, at least for the time being during the epidemic. It can then be re-
examined when all of this has passed. People lost jobs, businesses, and careers as a
result of the epidemic. The value-added tax is one tax that everyone pays into (VAT).
Every time a property is sold, a business tax is levied against the seller and collected
in the normal course of business (real or personal). Every purchase we made had it
added, increasing the budget we had set up.
Today, lowering the VAT will benefit both the government and the average person. Its
reduction is intended to boost domestic consumption. Prices that are lower are
designed to encourage people to buy all types of consumer items. People will
concentrate on purchasing local items when domestic consumption is stronger, which
implies that those purchases are twice as effective in sustaining the local economy.
Domestic businesses are additionally neighborhood establishments run by local
residents who are more committed to the area's development and less inclined to quit.
Shopping locally supports more local jobs than doing business with large chains or
online retailers. Government will benefit from economic growth, and the general public
would undoubtedly benefit from a lower
While the basis of taxation is found in the reciprocal duties of protection and support
between the State and its citizens, according to the Benefits-Protection Theory or
Symbiotic Relationship theory. The benefits and protection that the government
generally grants the taxpayer and his property in exchange for his tax contribution are
received by the taxpayer. Reiterating what the Supreme Court said in CIR v. Algue,
taxes are what we pay for a civilized society. Therefore, despite one's natural
reluctance to give up some of their hard-earned money, everyone who is able must
contribute their fair amount to the operation of the government, and the latter is
supposed to reciprocate by providing real and intangible advantages aimed at
improving people's lives.
The justification for taxes is this mutually beneficial connection, which should debunk
the myth that they are imposed arbitrarily by people in positions of authority. The
government's ability to levy taxes is seen as supreme, plenary, unrestricted, and
comprehensive, subject to inherent and constitutional restraints. The courts are
unconcerned with the wisdom or policy of the exaction, the political or other collateral
motivations behind it, the amount to be raised, or the people, property, or other
privileges to be taxed as long as the legislature does not violate applicable
constitutional limitations or restrictions when imposing the tax (57 Am. Jur. 77-78).
Philippine taxes include both federal and state taxes. Local taxes are collected by local
government entities and are covered by The Local Government Code, whilst national
taxes are levied and collected by the national government through the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) and are governed by the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC). Capital gains tax, income tax, dividend tax, documentary stamp tax, withholding
tax on income payments, value added tax, donor's tax, and branch profit remittance tax
are among the taxes that apply to enterprises and are managed by the national
government. On the other hand, there are restrictions on the amount of taxes that local
governments can impose on commercial entities.
The exercise of local government taxing power for businesses are limited by the
Constitution to the following: local business tax, and real property tax. This means the
national government and the local government units have different objects and
subjects of taxation, except in cases of double taxation. Double taxation means taxing
the same property twice when it should be taxed only once or taxing the same person
twice by the same jurisdiction for the same purpose or thing. It is obnoxious when the
taxpayer is taxed twice, when it should be once. Otherwise described as direct
duplicate taxation, the two taxes must be imposed on the same subject matter, for the
same purpose, by the same taxing authority, within the same jurisdiction, during the
same taxing period; and the taxes must be of the same kind or character. (CIR vs. BPI)
Taxes imposed, whether national or local, cannot simply be reduced, removed, or
revised except by another law. The amounts or rates of taxes and the entities subject
to taxes are explicitly mandated by law and neither the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue nor the Local Government Executive can modify or remove those. Taxes
cannot even be subject of set-off. In Francia vs. Immediate Appelate Court, the
Supreme Court categorically held that taxes cannot be subject of set-off or
compensation, thus: “We have consequently ruled that there can be no off-setting of
taxes against the claims that the taxpayer may have against the government. A person
cannot refuse to pay a tax on the ground that the government owes him an amount
equal to or greater than the tax being collected. The collection of a tax cannot await the
results of a lawsuit against the government.” However, taxpayers may avail of
privileges provided by laws in the forms of tax amnesty, tax exemptions, and
exclusions. Furthermore with the passage of the new Tax Reform for Acceleration and
Inclusion (TRAIN) Act, tax exemptions has been adjusted providing taxpayers higher
threshold so they can enjoy their income without the burden of paying their taxes. For
example, for income taxes, the new tax exemption amount is Php 250,000.00.

References: Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Algue, Inc., and the Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No.
L28896, February 17, 1988 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Cebu Portland Cement Company and
Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-29059, December 15, 1987 Philippine Guaranty Co. Inc. vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No L-22074, September 6, 1965 Commissioner of Internal
Revenue vs. BPI, G.R. No. 147375, June 26, 2006 Engracio Francia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and
Ho Fernandez, G.R. No. L-67649, June 28, 1988 National Internal Revenue Code The Local Government
Code of the Philippines Republic Act No. 1096 or the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN)
Act