Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Victorias Milling V Municipality of Victorias Digest

    Uploaded by

    gel94
    1K views1 page
    This case involved a challenge to Ordinance 1 passed by the Municipality of Victorias, which increased license tax rates for operators of sugar centrals and sugar refineries. Victorias Milling Co., which operated the only sugar central and refinery in the municipality, argued the ordinance was discriminatory and constituted double taxation. The court ruled that the ordinance was not discriminatory as it did not single out Victorias Milling, and it did not constitute double taxation as the taxes covered different occupations - operating a sugar central versus a sugar refinery - and were imposed based on annual output capacity rather than the actual sugar produced.

    Original Description:

    Tax

    Original Title

    Victorias Milling v Municipality of Victorias Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a challenge to Ordinance 1 passed by the Municipality of Victorias, which increased license tax rates for operators of sugar centrals and sugar refineries. Victorias Milling Co., which operated the only sugar central and refinery in the municipality, argued the ordinance was discriminatory and constituted double taxation. The court ruled that the ordinance was not discriminatory as it did not single out Victorias Milling, and it did not constitute double taxation as the taxes covered different occupations - operating a sugar central versus a sugar refinery - and were imposed based on annual output capacity rather than the actual sugar produced.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Victorias Milling V Municipality of Victorias Digest

    Uploaded by

    gel94
    This case involved a challenge to Ordinance 1 passed by the Municipality of Victorias, which increased license tax rates for operators of sugar centrals and sugar refineries. Victorias Milling Co., which operated the only sugar central and refinery in the municipality, argued the ordinance was discriminatory and constituted double taxation. The court ruled that the ordinance was not discriminatory as it did not single out Victorias Milling, and it did not constitute double taxation as the taxes covered different occupations - operating a sugar central versus a sugar refinery - and were imposed based on annual output capacity rather than the actual sugar produced.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    VICTORIAS MILLING CO.

    INC v MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS, PROVINCE OF NEGROS


    OCCIDENTAL
    G.R. No. L-21183 September 27, 1968

    FACTS: Ordinance 1 was approved by the municipal Council of Victorias on September 22, 1956
    by way of an amendment to two municipal ordinances separately imposing license taxes on
    operators of sugar centrals and sugar refineries. The changes were: with respect to sugar
    centrals, by increasing the rates of license taxes; and as to sugar refineries, by increasing the
    rates of license taxes as well as the range of graduated schedule of annual output capacity.

    Plaintiff Victorias Milling Co. filed a suit to ask for judgment declaring the said Ordinance null and
    void as it is discriminatory since it singles out plaintiff which is the only operator of a sugar central
    and a sugar refinery within the jurisdiction of defendant municipality; and that it constitutes double
    taxation.

    ISSUES:
    1) Whether Ordinance 1 is discriminatory.
    2) Whether Ordinance 1 constitutes double taxation.

    RULING:

    1) No. The ordinance does not single out Victorias as the only object of the ordinance. Said
    ordinance is made to apply to any sugar central or sugar refinery which may happen to operate
    in the municipality. The fact that plaintiff is actually the sole operator of a sugar central and a
    sugar refinery does not make the ordinance discriminatory. Not even the name of plaintiff herein
    was ever mentioned in the ordinance now disputed.

    2) No. 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.

    You might also like