Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tax - Procter & Gamble VS Municipality of Jagna

    Uploaded by

    Kath Lim
    31 views2 pages
    The plaintiff, Procter & Gamble, stored copra that it purchased in Jagna municipality at its bodega located there. In 1957, Jagna enacted an ordinance imposing a storage fee of 10 centavos for every 100 kilos of exportable copra stored in the municipality. Procter & Gamble paid these fees from 1958-1963 but claimed they were paid under protest. It argued the ordinance did not apply to it as it only stored copra for manufacturing, not buying or selling. It also argued this amounted to double taxation. The court ruled that no double taxation occurred as a tax on products is different from a tax on the privilege of storage, and Procter & Gamble benefitted from storing

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    TAX_PROCTER & GAMBLE VS MUNICIPALITY OF JAGNA

    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
    The plaintiff, Procter & Gamble, stored copra that it purchased in Jagna municipality at its bodega located there. In 1957, Jagna enacted an ordinance imposing a storage fee of 10 centavos for every 100 kilos of exportable copra stored in the municipality. Procter & Gamble paid these fees from 1958-1963 but claimed they were paid under protest. It argued the ordinance did not apply to it as it only stored copra for manufacturing, not buying or selling. It also argued this amounted to double taxation. The court ruled that no double taxation occurred as a tax on products is different from a tax on the privilege of storage, and Procter & Gamble benefitted from storing

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    31 views2 pages

    Tax - Procter & Gamble VS Municipality of Jagna

    Uploaded by

    Kath Lim
    The plaintiff, Procter & Gamble, stored copra that it purchased in Jagna municipality at its bodega located there. In 1957, Jagna enacted an ordinance imposing a storage fee of 10 centavos for every 100 kilos of exportable copra stored in the municipality. Procter & Gamble paid these fees from 1958-1963 but claimed they were paid under protest. It argued the ordinance did not apply to it as it only stored copra for manufacturing, not buying or selling. It also argued this amounted to double taxation. The court ruled that no double taxation occurred as a tax on products is different from a tax on the privilege of storage, and Procter & Gamble benefitted from storing

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-24265 December 28, 1979


    PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
    vs.
    THE MUNICIPALITY OF JAGNA, PROVINCE OF BOHOL

    Facts:

    Plaintiff-appellant is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of soap, edible oil, margarine
    and other similar products, and for this purpose maintains a "bodega" in defendant Municipality where it
    stores copra purchased in the municipality, and therefrom ships the same for its manufacturing and other
    operations.

    In 1957, the Municipal Council of Jagna enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1957, wherein it
    imposed storage fees in the amount of ten centavos for every 100 kilos of all exportable copra deposited
    within the jurisdiction of the municipality.

    For a period of six years, from 1958 to 1963, plaintiff paid defendant Municipality, allegedly under protest,
    storage fees in the total sum of 42,265.13. Plaintiff then filed this suit in the CFI of Manila praying that 1)
    Ordinance No. 4 be declared inapplicable to it, or in the alternative, that it be pronounced ultra-vires and
    void for being beyond the power of the Municipality to enact; and 2) that defendant Municipality be
    ordered to refund to it the amount of P42,265.13 which it had paid under protest.

    It is plaintiff's submission that the Ordinance, even if presumed valid, is inapplicable to it because it is not
    engaged in the business or occupation of buying or selling of copra but is only storing copra in connection
    with its main business of manufacturing soap and other similar products, and that to be compelled to
    pay the storage fees would amount to double taxation.

    Defendant Municipality upheld its power to enact the Ordinance in question.

    Issue:

    Whether or not double taxation was imposed upon petitioner corporation.

    Ruling:

    No, there was no double taxation.

    The question of whether appellant is engaged in the business of buying or selling of copra is irrelevant
    because the storage fee, as previously mentioned, is an imposition on the privilege of storing copra in a
    bodega within defendant municipality by persons, firms or corporations. Section 1 of the Ordinance in
    question does not state that said persons, firms or corporations should be engaged in the business or
    occupation of buying or selling copra. Moreover, by plaintiff's own admission that it is a consolidated
    corporation with its trading company, it will be hard to segregate the copra it uses for trading from that it
    utilizes for manufacturing.

    Thus, it can be said that plaintiff's payment of storage fees imposed by the Ordinance in question does
    not amount to double taxation. For double taxation to exist, the same property must be taxed twice, when
    it should be taxed but once. Double taxation has also been defined as taxing the same person twice by
    the same jurisdiction for the same thing. Surely, a tax on plaintiff's products is different from a tax on the
    privilege of storing copra in a bodega situated within the territorial boundary of defendant municipality.

    You might also like