Title
Mobil Philippines, Inc. vs. City Treasurer of Makati, et al.
Case
G.R. No. 154092
Decision Date
Jul 14, 2005
Mobil Philippines sought a refund of business taxes paid in 1998, claiming overpayment. The Supreme Court ruled the taxes applied to 1998 operations, not 1997, and ordered Makati City to refund the excess amount.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 90637)

Background

Petitioner Mobil Philippines filed an application to retire its business in Makati City on August 20, 1998, as it moved its principal office to Pasig City. Prior to this, it maintained its principal office at the National Development Company Building in Makati City. The application provided gross sales figures of approximately P453.8 million for the calendar year 1997 and P267.9 million for January to August of 1998.

Tax Assessment

Upon evaluating the application, the then Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the License Division, Ms. Jesusa E. Cuneta, issued a billing slip assessing business taxes for 1998 totaling P1,898,106.96, based on Mobil's gross sales from both the previous year and for the year up to the date of application. This included specific amounts for manufacturing, wholesaling, and additional garbage fees.

Payment and Refund Claim

On September 11, 1998, Mobil paid the full assessed amount under protest and received an official receipt. Subsequently, on July 21, 1999, it filed a claim for refund of P1,331,638.84. The claim was denied by the City Treasurer, asserting that the tax payments reflected business operations in Makati from January 1 to August 31, 1998, before Mobil's official retirement of business in the city.

Trial Court's Decision

Mobil filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City to seek a refund of the business taxes claimed to have been erroneously collected. The trial court ruled that payments made in 1998 corresponded to business tax obligations incurred for the year 1997, which had accrued in January 1998. The court concluded that petitions about tax liabilities were thus unfounded, affirming the validity of additional assessments made for the 1998 business tax.

Arguments on Appeal

Petitioner contested the trial court's decision, arguing that the 1997 gross sales should not determine the business tax due for 1998. It posited that business taxes are effectively fees for the privilege of conducting business for the year in which the tax is paid. The respondents, however, maintained that local taxes, including business taxes, correspond to the profits of the preceding year, supporting the decision as in alignment with local tax regulations.

Distinction Between Business Tax and Income Tax

The court underscored the distinction between business tax and income tax. Business taxes are characterized as costs for the privilege of operating within a municipality for the year they are levied, while income taxes are calculated on profits accrued during the taxable year and are due at stipulated times following fiscal year-end.

Court's Analysis

The court identified errors in the trial court's conclusions regarding liability for taxes based on 1997 revenues. It clarified that the business taxes paid in 1998 pertained to the actual privilege of operating that year and should not be retroactively linked to the prior year's gross sales.

Legal Implications

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.