Taxation Ortega
Taxation Ortega
Taxation Ortega
Income taxation
Tax is primarily for revenue-raising for the purpose of meeting the expenses of running the operations of the
government
There will be a problem if the amount collected as taxes would not be enough to cover the expenses of the
government
As much as practicable, the lawmaking body, which has the power of taxation, must set up a tax system that would be
able to generate the amount of funds that would be necessary for running the government
Will you consider our present tax system a tax system that is sufficient to cover the expenses of the government?
We want make sure that they money collected is sufficient because the money collected is intended for public use
To attain fiscal adequacy, for the purpose of generating more revenue to meet the expenses of the government,
there are a lot of ways
One way is to increase the rate. That will translate into collection of more taxes
Second way is to expand the tax base. The rate can be maintained, but by expanding the tax base, then there will be
a generation of more revenue
If congress would select another tax base to be subjected to the tax, then it would mean expanding the tax base also
By removing exemptions
If nothing will be added to the tax subjects of our tax code, since income tax is already there, transfer tax, activities
subject to tax, percentage, excise and documentary tax, then tax base can still be expanded by removing exemptions
By removing exemptions, that would mean more ability to generate more taxes
That is also expanding the tax base, by removing certain exemptions
All these are possible courses of actions in order to raise more revenues
In the end so that in order for the needs of the government to be met
2) Theoretical justice
So that is why in our constitution, congress is even mandated to evolve a progressive system of taxation.
This is not strictly mandatory. So that every tax system that will be made of, shall be in conformity of the progressivity
of the tax system
SC said that whether that a tax law cannot be invalidate just because it does not conform with the progressivity
principle
But that alone will not be enough to invalidate the tax law. Congress or the Supreme Court even acknowledge that we
cannot do away with regressive taxes
Anyhow, under our constitution, it is not strictly prohibited that taxes should only be progressive
One example of this is the value added tax. It is a kind of tax that is rather insensitive to a persons ability to pay
Other indirect taxes like percentage and documentary or excise tax, in the provisions in the law, there is no express
mention of them being indirect taxes
But even without that provision in the law, vat which is a business tax is an indirect tax
If it is indirect tax, then the person liable for that is free to shift or pass on to another person the burden of the tax
Hence, since the transactions subject to the vat are mostly sales transactions, it is upon the consumer that the burden
of taxation is placed
If for example a restaurant is a VAT registered person, and we will be eating in that restaurant
The consideration for our food will have tax on it, although the tax itself is the liability of the seller
As the statutory tax payer under the law, the seller is free to shift the burden of taxation to the purchaser
So if our food amounts to 1000 pesos, 12% is for the VAT, that means the total cost on the part of the purchaser
including the VAT would be 1120 pesos
But if the person who eats there is Pedro who only has a monthly salary of 5,000, when he eats in that restaurant for
that amount 1120 pesos, that is for special occasions only
That 120 pesos that is taken from Pedros income is what percentage of Pedros income of 5,000
But to another who comes to the same restaurant and eat for the price of 1,000 pesos plus vat of 120 pesos, 120
pesos is nothing to him if his monthly income is 500,000
Because the same vat is collected with respect to particular price, regardless if one is rich or not so much
But the law imposing the vat cannot be invalidated for the simple reason that it is rather regressive
3) Administrative feasibility
This principle means that tax system must be one that can easily be collected, easy to apply, with the least
inconvenience both on the part of the government and the taxpayer
When tax system is one that is difficult to implement, it does not by itself constitute a sufficient reason to invalidate a
law.
Even in this law there is no qualification if the franchise is a legislative one or not
So long as franchises are providing services to another for a fee or remuneration, is rather subject to the value added
tax
2. Theoretical justice
The government and the person may stand as creditor and debtor or each other
Debt is due to the government in its corporate capacity, whereas taxes is due to the government in its sovereign
capacity
It should be the same nature, before there can be set off or compensation
That is why they cannot be set off or cannot be the subject of compensation
So, when a person has a claim against the government, he cannot allege that he cannot be made liable for the
deficiency assessment against him because his claim can answer for the deficiency being assessed against him
There is not here a situation to bring about the setting off or compensation