Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    Pepsi Cola v. City of Butuan

    Uploaded by

    Cindee Yu
    (1) The document is a Supreme Court case regarding the validity of a tax ordinance imposed by the City of Butuan on soft drinks. (2) The ordinance imposed a tax of P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of soft drinks, but only on agents or consignees of dealers located outside of Butuan City. (3) The Supreme Court ruled the ordinance was invalid and discriminatory as it only taxed certain dealers, and ordered a refund to Pepsi who had paid the tax.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pepsi Cola v. City of Butuan

    Uploaded by

    Cindee Yu
    61 views2 pages
    (1) The document is a Supreme Court case regarding the validity of a tax ordinance imposed by the City of Butuan on soft drinks. (2) The ordinance imposed a tax of P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of soft drinks, but only on agents or consignees of dealers located outside of Butuan City. (3) The Supreme Court ruled the ordinance was invalid and discriminatory as it only taxed certain dealers, and ordered a refund to Pepsi who had paid the tax.

    Original Description:

    TAX

    Original Title

    1. Pepsi Cola v. City of Butuan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) The document is a Supreme Court case regarding the validity of a tax ordinance imposed by the City of Butuan on soft drinks. (2) The ordinance imposed a tax of P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of soft drinks, but only on agents or consignees of dealers located outside of Butuan City. (3) The Supreme Court ruled the ordinance was invalid and discriminatory as it only taxed certain dealers, and ordered a refund to Pepsi who had paid the tax.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    61 views2 pages

    Pepsi Cola v. City of Butuan

    Uploaded by

    Cindee Yu
    (1) The document is a Supreme Court case regarding the validity of a tax ordinance imposed by the City of Butuan on soft drinks. (2) The ordinance imposed a tax of P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of soft drinks, but only on agents or consignees of dealers located outside of Butuan City. (3) The Supreme Court ruled the ordinance was invalid and discriminatory as it only taxed certain dealers, and ordered a refund to Pepsi who had paid the tax.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Pepsi Cola v.

    City of Butuan consignee of any person, association,


    Topic: Valid Classification of taxpayers/subject partnership, company or corporation engaged
    matter to be taxed in selling . . . soft drinks or carbonated drinks."
    As a consequence, merchants engaged in the
    Facts: Petitioner, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company sale of soft drinks or carbonated drinks, are not
    of the Philippines, is a domestic corporation subject to the tax, unless they are agents
    with offices and principal place of business in and/or consignees of another dealer, who, in
    Quezon City. Its warehouse in the City of the very nature of things, must be one engaged
    Butuan serves as a storage for its products the in business outside the City.
    "Pepsi-Cola" soft drinks for sale to customers in
    the City of Butuan. These "Pepsi-Cola" soft When we consider, also, that the tax "shall be
    drinks are bottled in Cebu City and shipped to based and computed from the cargo manifest
    the Butuan City warehouse of petitioner for or bill of lading . . . showing the number of
    distribution and sale in the City of Butuan and cases" — not sold — but "received" by the
    all municipalities of Agusan. taxpayer, the intention to limit the application
    of the ordinance to soft drinks and carbonated
    The City of Butuan enacted an ordinance drinks brought into the City from outside
    imposing a tax on any person, association, etc., thereof becomes apparent. Viewed from this
    of P0.10 per case of 24 bottles of Pepsi- Cola. angle, the tax partakes of the nature of an
    Petitioner Pepsi filed a complaint for recovery import duty, which is beyond defendant's
    of amount paid on grounds that the Ordinance authority to impose by express provision of
    is unconstitutional law.

    Pepsi argues that the ordinance is null and void Even, however, if the burden in question were
    because: regarded as a tax on the sale of said beverages,
    (1) it partakes of the nature of an import it would still be invalid, as discriminatory, and
    tax; hence, violated the rules on uniformity
    (2) it amounts to double taxation; because only sales by "agents or consignees"
    (3) it is excessive, oppressive and of outside dealers would be subject to the tax.
    confiscatory;
    (4) it is highly unjust and discriminatory; The classification must be reasonable and this
    (5) and Section 2 of Republic Act No. 2264, requires: (1) it is based upon substantial
    upon the authority of which it was distinctions which make real differences; (2)
    enacted, is an unconstitutional these are germane to the purpose of the
    delegation of legislative powers. legislation or ordinance; (3) the classification
    applies, not only to present conditions, but,
    Issue: WON Ordinance is void and WON the also, to future conditions substantially
    party is entitled to a refund identical to those of the present; and (4) the
    classification applies equally to all those who
    HELD: YES belong to the same
    Sec 3 of the Ordinance was imposed upon
    dealers "engaged in selling" soft drinks or Indeed, if its purpose were merely to levy a
    carbonated drinks. Thus, it would seem that burden upon the sale of soft drinks or
    the intent was then to levy a tax upon the sale carbonated beverages, there is no reason why
    of said merchandise. The tax is, however, sales thereof by dealers other than agents or
    imposed only upon "any agent and/or consignees of producers or merchants
    established outside the City of Butuan should
    be exempt from the tax.

    Judgement: Ordinance is void and the refund


    to Petitioner is allowed

    You might also like