So all the requriements dealing with the imposition of franchise tax, local business tax and all the

rest
shall likewise apply with respect to cities imposing such type of tax.
Problem:

Barangays already leving a tax and not a fee. Therefore it is not valid for Barangay Q to impose the
same.
Prescribe the terms and conditions and fix the rates in (c) because it is within the legislative power of
the sangguiang to fix the rates for the imposition of……….. (c) the public property must be funded and
constructed by the LGU, tas know the conditions officers and enlisted men on mission etc.

Readings three public readings.

Yung public hearing, violation thereof, violation of due process clause.

Common limitations of the taxing power.

Section 130 and 133 of the LGC.

Case of Pelizloy, in order for a tax ordinance to be valid, there must be compliance with both section 130
(dealing with fundamental principles) and section 133 of the LGC (rule of preemption).
Did not comply with either one, void. Any violation of anyof them = nullity.

Simple definition of the rule of pre-emption:

- LGUs cannot impose a tax on a subject matter that is already subject to a tax by the National
Government unless such tax is provided under the Local Government Code.

Because LGU may levy on the gross receipts[tax] (GRT) on banks and other financial institutions. They
are already income tax but the LGC allows such imposition.

Ang pwede lang na transfer tax is Transfer tax on real properties.

Provinces may impose transfer tax on real properties whether onerous or gratiutous or capital
or ordinary as long transfer is a real property regardless of classification
Palma, imposed based on the weight on the products that will pass through the municipality.

SC: that is already in the nature of custom duties. Not a Whatfage of the wharves because there is no
wharf constructed and maintained by the LGU.

Tax on the vehicle mabalin, tax on the goods madi. Use of municipal roads ung green valid.
Therefore, city of cebu cannot impose a tax on every kilo of lechon taken out of the city.

Farmer will only be considered as a marginalized farmer or marginal farmer if whatever it is the farmer
earned, it will only be sufficient for his subsistence. = subsistence farming or fishing.
7. Batangas case. Income tax exemption, National taxes, ang reckoning ng 6 and 4 year period is start of
the commercial operations

But with respect to local tax exemption, the reckoning date of the 6 and 4 year period shall be the date
of registration.

Taxes on petro products are excise taxes.

Excise tax in this particular sense is the type of the % tax Business tax. Imposed on alcoholic products,
etc.

Petron v tiangco: LGU cannot impose a % tax even if it’s already in the nature of a business tax on the
petroleum products, would be violation of the rule on pre-emption.

Bulacan v CA: SC, the extraction of quarry resources, sand, gravel frome private properties cannot be
subject of a local tax. Because the extraction of quarry resources from these private properties is already
subject to excise tax under the NIRC.

Sand and gravel fee mo pwede lang if the extraction is from a public land.
Bar q, hindi siya in the nature of an amusement tax [take note also the limits of an amusement tax] hindi
na pwede, pwede in the nature siya of an amusement tax and the subject matter falls within the
definition of amusment place kahit in the nature of % tax or VAT.

- Amusement taxes cannot be imposed on Professional Basketball games. Because these type of
activities are already subject to other % tax under the NIRC. The imposition of a tax on the gross
receipts earned by operators of professional basketball games will be considered as a violation
of the rule on pre-emption. PBA shall not be subject to amusement taxes. Imposition of
percentage tax not allowed under sec.133 of the LGC.
FPIC v. CA
- local business taxes cannot be imposed on FPIC because FPIC is considered as a common carrier. FPIC
ownes pipelines and would carry petroleum products from one point from the point of source to the
point of destination. The classification of the business of FPIC is a common carrier and under the NIRC,
the National Government already imposes other % tax on common carriers = common carrier’s tax.
Already imposes a tax on the gross receipts of common carriers then the LGU can no longer impose a
type of percentage tax on the gross revenue of common carriers. And therefore FPIC is no longer subject
to local business tax.

Except when the amount being collected by the LGU in the nature of [yung naka *]
Because taxes National Government imposes fees on PH products being exported. But di to VAT because
VAT not imposed on products being exported by reason of the cross border principle, to be consumed
outside of the PH.

Because this is a grant of tax exemption. Alam mo dpat kung GOCC and instumentality.

MIAA – both entitites are instrumentalities therefore not subject to local taxes.
Take note of the type of tax to be imposed. Tax on any sale or transfer of real property located within
the city.
The following administrative impositions that can be imposed by the LGU pursuant to its own tax
ordinance. Effect of late payment. May impose Interest at the rate 2% and surcharge at the rate of 25%.

25% surcharge is a one time imposition. Should not be computed on an annual basis. Computation of
25% surcharge based on the tax due and which is computed on an annual basis is said to oppresive and
unconsionable

Where the SC get the 72%, provisions of the LGU, the interests shall be 2% per month but not exceeding
36 months. 36 months x 2% = 72%. The 72% limit shall include the surcharge. The limit applies to both
the interest and the surcharge
Constract this with the succeding provisions on interests which was imposable at the rate of not
exceeding 2% per month of the unpaid tax untill fully paid. What’s being computed at a monthly basis is
the 2% interest but not exceeding 36 months. Surcharge one time basis lang.

Those Local taxes, fees, charges that are not paid will consitute a lien.

Not only property subject of the lien that is covered by the LGL but all other properties used in business.
Before the government can collect through admin means, its necessary that such is preceeded by a valid
assessment. Must be done within yung nasa taas. Walang return na finifile pag local taxes.
May extraordinary period din. Fraud and intent to evade.

Levy in cases of RP of the taxpayers. Judicial means by filing a collection case in court. Salahat parehas
period 5 years from the date of assessment.
Under section 228 of the NIRC, the period to assess or collect can be suspended, the principle applies to
local taxes but the instances are not similar under section 228. The instances for local taxes are those
above.

(2) sa NIRC, when the taxpayer requests for a reinvestigation which is granted by he commissioner, dito
naman dapat may waiver na naexecute in writing.

NIRC, section 218, no injunction can be issued in order enjoin collection of taxes. Not applicable for
collection of local taxes.
Remedies of the taxpayer, admin remedies.

Appeal to Sec of Justice. Applies also to RP taxes. Sec. 187 LGC.

- Enacted a tax ordinance, then the taxpayer must question the constitutionality or legality of the
tax ordinance within 30 days from its effectivity.
- This applies only to tax ordinance.
- 60 days must decide.

2 instances that will happen upon the receipt of the appeal, the SOJ might act on it, or its also possible
that SOJ will sit on it.

If the SOJ issued a decision within the 60 day period, then the Taxpayer must file the necessary case in
court within 30 days after the receipt of the decision. Incases of inanction, the appropriate court in court
within 30 days from the lapse of the 60 day period. The lapse of the 60 day period shall be deemed as a
denial. RTC because incapable of pecuniary estimation.
When the tax ordinance is already in effect but the taxpayer wants to question the computation in the
assessment or to question the legality of the computation, the legal basis used in the computation of the
taxes.

If the taxpayer wants to question the assessment, then the taxpayer must file an assessment.

Protest presupposes that a notice of assessment has been issued.

A document will be considered as a notice of assessment if it contains the nature of the tax, or fee or
charge, the amount of deficiency surcharge interest and penalties.

If the document does not indicate the nature of the tax, then its not considered as a notice of
assessment.

If this information is not indicated in the document, then it is not considered as a notice of assessment.

If this information is indicated then notice of assessment, once received by the taxpayer, taxpayer must
file a protest within 60 days from the receipt of the notice of assessment otherwise the assessment
becomes final and demandable.

Payment under protest is not necessary because this involves an assessment of local tax. Payment under
protest is a mandatory requirement only in cases of erroneous assessment of Real Property taxes. This
does not involve erroneous assessment of RPT.

Upon receipt of the protest, the tresurer has a period of 60 days to decide on the protest. The tres may
issue a decision within the 60 day period or the tres wil not act on it.
If the tres acted on the protest, remedy is to file an action questioning the decision before the RTC,
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Inaction will be an implied denial RTC parin.

RTC taxpayer can file an appeal before the CTA division. Because the RTC takes cognizance of the case in
its original jurisdiciton.
CTA division MR or MNT and then CTA enbanc and then SC.

Instances when the CTA shall acquire jurisdiction over the case:

(2) pag RTC on its appellate jurisdiction, MTC tas RTC, CTA en banc pag in its appellate jurisdiction.

Kailan yung MTC ang una, refund of local tax. Protest is incapable of pecuniary estimation kaya RTC.
CBAA appellate jurisdiction punta ka CTA enbanc kasi appellate jurisdiction.

5 CTA div. 6. CTA div rin.

It is mandatory that the taxpayer must file a written claim for refund with the local tres. Kailangan un,
kung walang written claim violation of exhaustion of admin remedies.

If the local tres decides on the local claim for refund, it can elevate it to the MTC or RTC. Depend on the
jurisdictional amount.

If the juris amount within the RTC, the RTC shall take the case in its orig jurisdiciton, then if the taxpayer
is aggreived, it goes to the CTA division, and then file a motion for new trial or MR and CTA en banc and
SC.

Period within which the City tres. Should decide on the claim for refund, LGC does not specify the period
within which the tres should decide.

Both the admin claim for refund (written claim). And judicial claim must be filed within 2 years from the
date of payment. And this will consider supervening event. Difference niya sa 229, sa 229 kasi may 2
years from the date of payment, regardless of any supervening event. LGC walang phrase na regardless
of any supervening event, kung may supervening event we will consider it with respect to the reckoning
date of the 2 year period.

Case: ninullify yung ordinance tas pwede daw mag file ng claim for refund, yung 2 year period doon is
counted from the promulgation of the decision kasi supervening event yung pagkapanalo doon sa case.
229 v LGC.
Bago pumunta sa CTA en banc dapat may motion for new trial or MR filed before the CTA Div.
mandatory.

The taxpayer can simply pay the tax but the taxpayer will just pay it under protest and then later on file
a claim for refund.
2 conditions must be satisfied in order that there can be a successful action for refund when the
taxpayer received an assesment. Dapat mag protest or dapat may action filed in court within 30 days
from the decsion of the local tres.

Who has juris over the case?

Basta local tax case yan may jurisdiction ang CTA. RA 9282, interlocutory order wala naman, SC by consti
mandate, the CTA is vested juris to issue writ of certorari in these local tax cases.

CTA has jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order issued by the
RTC in a local tax case.