Bureau of Local Government Finance Opinion

March 12, 1997 BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE OPINION 1st Indorsement Respectfully referred to the City Treasurer of Manila, the attached letter dated November 26, 1996 of Ms. Remedios T. Rasca of Goldilocks BAKE SHOP, Inc., 435 Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong City, requesting opinion on the propriety of the imposition of tax under Section 21 of Ordinance No. 7794, as amended, of that city. It appears that the businesses of Goldilocks BAKE SHOP, Inc. (GBSI) as manufacturer, retail general merchandise and restaurant, in addition to the Mayor's permit and other regulatory fees, are taxed under Sections 14, 17 and 23, respectively, of Ordinance No. 7794, as amended, of that city. However, said company is still being taxed under Section 21 of the same Ordinance. Hence, it is their contention that the imposition under said Section 21 is a clear case of double taxation. To further support the above contention, GBSI furnished this Office xerox copies of Official Receipts for the years 1995 and 1996, representing payments under said Section 21, and Sections 14, 17 and 23, based on the same gross receipts and for the benefit of the same government entity. In this connection, the Department of Finance, on previous similar cases, has expressed the view that "if a business is already taxed under sub-sections (a) to (g) of Section 143 of the LGC, such business should no longer be taxed under sub-section (h), for reasons that such imposition will constitute double taxation as the same kind of tax is being imposed twice on the same business." The foregoing views are in reiteration of the previous action on a similar query addressed to Mr. Alfredo T. Libunao, Office Manager of R.R. Baltazar & Co., Inc., copy enclosed. Accordingly, and considering the representations made by GBSI, this Bureau concurs in the stand of said company that the imposition of local taxes under Section 21, and Sections 14, 17 and 23 of the subject Ordinance is tantamount to double taxation. Hence, this Bureau has written the Manager of said company to confer with that Office for the purpose of securing the refund or tax credit of the erroneous payments made under Section 21 of said Ordinance. IcaEDC Finally, it is suggested that effort be exerted by that Office to advise the city officials concerned about the mounting complaints of the taxpayers of the city against the imposition in question which should not be enforced/collected by that Office. (SGD.) LORINDA M. CARLOS Executive Director