Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Churchill vs. Concepcion, 34 Phil 969

    Uploaded by

    SURITA, FLOR DE MAE P
    77 views1 page
    (1) Francis Churchill and Stewart Tait challenged the validity of a tax imposed on their billboard under Philippine law. (2) The Court upheld the tax, finding that it was uniform and did not constitute double taxation or deprivation of property. (3) The Court affirmed that the power to tax is broad and unlimited, subject only to the discretion of the authority imposing the tax.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    (1) Francis Churchill and Stewart Tait challenged the validity of a tax imposed on their billboard under Philippine law. (2) The Court upheld the tax, finding that it was uniform and did not constitute double taxation or deprivation of property. (3) The Court affirmed that the power to tax is broad and unlimited, subject only to the discretion of the authority imposing the tax.

    Copyright:

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

    Churchill vs. Concepcion, 34 Phil 969

    Uploaded by

    SURITA, FLOR DE MAE P
    (1) Francis Churchill and Stewart Tait challenged the validity of a tax imposed on their billboard under Philippine law. (2) The Court upheld the tax, finding that it was uniform and did not constitute double taxation or deprivation of property. (3) The Court affirmed that the power to tax is broad and unlimited, subject only to the discretion of the authority imposing the tax.

    Copyright:

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

    Name: Surita, Flor De Mae P.

    G.R. No. 11572 September 22, 1916


    FRANCIS A. CHURCHILL and STEWART TAIT, ET AL, plaintiffs-appellants,
    vs.
    VENANCIO CONCEPCION, as Acting Collector of Internal Revenue, defendant-appellee.

    FACTS:

    Francis A. Churchill and Stewart Tait, co-partners and owners of a sign/billboard, challenged the
    validity of Section 100 of Act No. 2339 imposing an annual tax of P 4 per square meter upon
    various signs and billboards, as amended by Act No 2432 reducing the tax to P2. The said billboard
    contains an area of 52 square meters constructed on private property in the city of Manila and
    exposed to public view, were taxed P104. The petitioners instituted the present action under section
    140 of Act No. 2339 against the Collector of Internal Revenue to recover back the amount thus
    paid. They argued that (1) the tax imposed constitutes deprivation of property without
    compensation or due process of law, because it is confiscatory and unjustly discriminatory; and
    (2) in not holding that the said tax is void for lack of uniformity, because it is not graded according
    to value; because the classification on which it is based on any reasonable ground; and furthermore,
    because it constitutes double taxation. The lower court dismissed the complaint upon the merits.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the tax in question was confiscatory and unjustly discriminatory;
    and was void for lack of uniformity or because it constitutes double taxation.

    HELD: (NO)

    As to Uniformity and Double Taxation

    The Court held that a tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place
    where the subject of it is found. "Uniformity," as applied to the constitutional provision that all
    taxes shall be uniform, means that all property belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike.

    In this case, the statute under consideration imposes a tax of P2 per square meter or fraction thereof
    upon every electric sign, bill-board, etc., wherever found in the Philippine Islands. Or in other
    words, "the rule of taxation" upon such signs is uniform throughout the Islands. The rule, which
    the Court has just quoted from the Philippine Bill, does not require taxes to be graded according
    to the value of the subject or subjects upon which they are imposed, especially those levied as
    privilege or occupation taxes.

    Moreover, the Court can hardly see wherein the tax in question constitutes double taxation. The
    fact that the land upon which the billboards are located is taxed at so much per unit and the
    billboards at so much per square meter does not constitute "double taxation." Double taxation,
    within the true meaning of that expression, does not necessarily affect its validity. And again, it is
    not for the judiciary to say that the classification upon which the tax is based "is mere arbitrary
    selection and not based upon any reasonable grounds." The Legislature selected signs and
    billboards as a subject for taxation and it must be presumed that it, in so doing, acted with a full
    knowledge of the situation.

    As to Taxing Power

    The Court held that "the power to impose taxes is one so unlimited in force and so searching in
    extent, that the courts scarcely venture to declare that it is subject to any restrictions whatever,
    except such as rest in the discretion of the authority which exercises it. It reaches to every trade or
    occupation; to every object of industry, use, or enjoyment; to every species of possession; and it
    imposes a burden which, in case of failure to discharge it, may be followed by seizure and sale or
    confiscation of property. No attribute of sovereignty is more pervading, and at no point does the
    power of the government affect more constantly and intimately all the relations of life than through
    the exactions made under it." (Clooey)

    You might also like