Taxation Cases 1. Victorias Milling, Co. vs. Mun.

of Victorias, Negros Occidental L-21183, Sept 27, 1968

Plaintiff finally impleads double taxation. Its reason is that in computing the amount of taxes to be paid by the sugar refinery the cost of the raw sugar coming from the sugar central is not deducted; ergo, plaintiff is taxed twice on the raw sugar. Double taxation has been otherwise described as "direct duplicate taxation." For double taxation to exist, "the same property must be taxed twice, when it should be taxed but once." Double taxation has also been "defined as taxing the same person twice by the same jurisdiction for the same thing." 50 As stated in Manila Motor Company, Inc. vs. Ciudad de Manila, 51 there is double taxation "cuando la misma propiedad se sujeta a dos impuestos por la misma entidad o Gobierno, para el mismo fin y durante el mismo periodo de tiempo." With the foregoing precepts in mind, we find no difficulty in saying that plaintiff's argument on double taxation does not inspire assent. First. The two taxes cover two different objects. Section 1 of the ordinance taxes a person operating sugar centrals or engaged in the manufacture of centrifugal sugar. While under Section 2, those taxed are the operators of sugar refinery mills. One occupation or business is different from the other.Second. The disputed taxes are imposed on occupation or business. Both taxes are not on sugar. The amount thereof depends on the annual output capacity of the mills concerned, regardless of the actual sugar milled. Plaintiff's argument perhaps could make out a point if the object of taxation here were the sugar it produces, not the business of producing it. There is no double taxation.

2. Villanueva vs City of Iloilo, L-26521 December 28, 1968 3.Pepsi -Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines vs. City of Butuan et al, 24 SRA 789 4. Pespi -Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines vs. Mun. of Tanauan, Leyte 69 SCRA 460 5. City of Baguio vs. De leon 25 SCRA 938 6. Yutivo Sons Hardware vs. CTA , 1 SCRA 160 7. Republic vs. Gonzales 13 SCRA 633 8. Ungab vs. Cusi, 97 SCRA 877 9. CIR vs. PASCOR 309 SCRA 402 10 CIR et al vs. CA et al, GR No. 119322, June 4, 1996 11. CIR vs. Estate of Benigno Toda 438 SCRA 290 12. People vs.Castaeda 165 SCRA 327 13. Asiatic Petroleum vs. Llanes 49 Phil 466 14. Philippine Acetyline vs. CIR 20 SCRA 1056 15. Esso Standard Eastern vs. Acting Comm. Of Customs 18 SCRA 488 16. CIR vs. Manila Jockey Club 98 Phil 670 17. Misamic Oriental vs. Dept. of Finance 238 SCRA 63 18 Davao Gulf Lumber Corp. Vs. CIR 293 SCRA 76 19. Hilado vs. CIR 100 Phil 288 20. Lincol Life Insurance vs. CA 293 SCRA 92

21. Cebu Portland Cement VS. CIR 25 SCRA 789 22. Central Azaucarrera de Don Pedro vs. CTA 20 SCRA 344 23. Republic vvs. Oasan Vda. de Fernandez 99 Phil 934 24. CIR vs. Burroughs Limited GR No. 66653 June 19 1986 25.Atlas Consolidate Mining and Development vs. CIR GR No, 133467 Nov. 17, 1999 26. Reagan vs. CIR 30 SCRA 968 27. CIR vs. PJ Kiener 65 SCRA 142 28.CIR vs. SC. Johnsson and Sons, Inc. 309 SCRA 102