BIR Ruling [DA-351-06]

June 6, 2006 BIR RULING [DA-351-06] Memo-046-2004 Malcolm Law 2/F Jose Cojuangco & Sons Bldg. 119 Dela Rosa corner Palanca Sts. Legaspi Village, Makati City Attention: Atty. Serecio Mathew B. Jo Atty. Marcia Munoz-Tillman Gentlemen : This refers to your letter dated February 10, 2006 requesting on behalf of your client, Luisita Realty Corporation ("LRC") for a ruling on the zonal value to be used absent a Table of Zonal Values for Commercial Lands located at Barangay Capehan, Tarlac City. As represented, LRC is a corporation duly registered under the Philippine laws who owned the following properties located at Barangay Capehan, Tarlac City: Lot No. TCT No. Tax Dec. No. Classification 1 Block 27 400914 17-023-008-001 Commercial 2 Block 27 400915 17-023-015-072 Commercial The aforementioned properties may become subject matters of complaint for eminent domain that may be filed by the National Transmission Corporation ("Transact") against LRC in the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City. As an offshoot of the aforementioned possible case, you checked but failed to find in our Table of Zonal Values the zonal value for "commercial lands" located at Barangay Capehan, Tarlac City, Tarlac. What you found in our Table of Zonal Values is only the zonal value for "Commercial Lands" located at the adjoining/nearest Barangay of San Miguel, Tarlac City. Queries you made revealed that since the last revision of zonal values in 1997, our Office has not released any revised or updated Table of Zonal Values for properties in Tarlac City, Tarlac. In reply, please be informed that No. 1(b) of the "Certain Guidelines in the Implementation of Zonal Valuation of Real Properties for RDO. 17-Tarlac, Tarlac," which is attached to the Department of Finance Order No. 62-2002 dated September 16, 2002, relating to the "Implementation of the Revised Zonal Values of Real Properties in all Municipalities of Tarlac, Tarlac under the Jurisdiction of Revenue District 17 (Tarlac, Tarlac) Revenue Region No. 4 (San Fernando, Pampanga) for Internal Revenue Tax Purposes" provides: "1. No zonal value has been prescribed for a particular classification of real property. Where in the approved schedule of zonal values for a particular barangay a) . . . b) No zonal value has been prescribed for a particular classification of real property in one barangay, the zonal value prescribed for the same classification of real property located in an adjacent barangay of similar conditions shall be used." The aforequoted guidelines shall apply in cases where a classification has already been prescribed by the Assessor's Office in the respective Local Government Units where the subject real property is located, while the BIR, on the other hand, has not yet prescribed a zonal value for said particular classification. IcaHTA In view of the foregoing, this Office holds that the zonal value for "Commercial Lands" located at the adjoining/nearest barangay of similar condition shall be considered as the zonal value for taxation purposes of the aforesaid lots earlier mentioned. This ruling is being issued on the basis of the foregoing facts as represented. However, if upon investigation, it will be disclosed that the facts are different, then this ruling shall be considered as null and void. Very truly yours, (SGD.) JAMES H. ROLDAN Assistant Commissioner Legal Service