Doctrine:

Topic: Percentage Tax

G.R. No. 119122 August 8, 2000

FACTS:

1. PBA received a deficiency assessment from CIR for its amusement tax. Of course, PBA
protested but the protest was denied. CTA and CA affirmed the denial of the CIR. Hence, this
petition.
2. PBA contends that the Local Tax Code of 1973, transferred the power and authority to levy
and collect amusement taxes from the sale of admission tickets to places of amusement from
the national government to the local governments. Petitioner cited BIR Memorandum Circular
No. 49-73 providing that the power to levy and collect amusement tax on admission tickets
was transferred to the local governments by virtue of the Local Tax Code; and BIR Ruling No.
231-86 which held that "the jurisdiction to levy amusement tax on gross receipts from
admission tickets to places of amusement was transferred to local governments under P.D.
No. 231, as amended." Further, petitioner opined that even assuming arguendo that
respondent Commissioner revoked BIR Ruling No. 231-86, the reversal, modification or
revocation cannot be given retroactive effect since even as late as 1988 (BIR Memorandum
Circular No. 8-88), respondent Commissioner still recognized the jurisdiction of local
governments to collect amusement taxes.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the BIR has the power and authority to collect amusement tax from PBA/

RULING:

YES.

Section 13 of the Local Tax Code provides:

"SECTION 13. Amusement tax on admission. — The province shall impose a tax on admission
to be collected from the proprietors, lessees, or operators of theaters, cinematographs, concert
halls, circuses and other places of amusement . . ."

Section 268 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended, is hereby further amended
to read as follows:

'Sec. 268. Amusement taxes. — There shall be collected from the proprietor, lessee
or operator of cockpits, cabarets, night or day clubs, boxing exhibitions, professional basketball
games, Jai-Alai, race tracks and bowling alleys, a tax equivalent to…

In this case, it is clear that the "proprietor, lessee or operator of . . . professional basketball
games" is required to pay an amusement tax equivalent to fifteen per centum (15%) of their gross
receipts to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which payment is a national tax. The said payment of
amusement tax is in lieu of all other percentage taxes of whatever nature and description.

Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where general words follow an enumeration of persons or
things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in
their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class
as those specifically mentioned. Thus, in determining the meaning of the phrase "other places of
amusement", one must refer to the prior enumeration of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls and
circuses with artistic expression as their common characteristic. Professional basketball games do not
fall under the same category as theaters, cinematographs, concert halls and circuses as the latter
basically belong to artistic forms of entertainment while the former caters to sports and gaming.

THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 119122 August 8, 2000

PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, petitioner,

PURISIMA, J.:

At bar is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking a review of the
decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 34095 which affirmed the decision of the Court of
Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 4419.

The facts that matter are as follows:

On June 21, 1989, the petitioner received an assessment letter from the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (respondent Commissioner) for the payment of deficiency amusement tax computed thus:

Deficiency Amusement Tax

Total gross receipts 1987 P19,970,928.00

===========

15% tax due thereon 2,995,639.20

Less: Tax paid 602,063.35

Deficiency amusement tax P2,393,575.85

Add: 75% surcharge 1,795,181.89

20% interest (2 years) 1,675,503.10

P5,864,260.84

Total Amount Due & Collectible ===========

On July 18, 1989, petitioner contested the assessment by filing a protest with respondent
Commissioner who denied the same on November 6, 1989.

On January 8, 1990, petitioner filed a petition for review2 with the Court of Tax Appeals (respondent
CTA) questioning the denial by respondent Commissioner of its tax protest.

On December 24, 1993, respondent CTA dismissed petitioner's petition, holding:

"WHEREFORE, in all the foregoing, herein petition for review is hereby DISMISSED for lack
of merit and the Petitioner is hereby ORDERED to PAY to the Respondent the amount of
P5,864,260.84 as deficiency amusement tax for the year 1987 plus 20% annual delinquency
interest from July 22, 1989 which is the due date appearing on the notice and demand of the
 Commissioner (i.e. 30 days from receipt of the assessment) until fully paid pursuant to the
provisions of Sections 248 and 249 (c) (3) of the Tax Code, as amended."3

Petitioner presented a motion for reconsideration4 of the said decision but the same was denied by
respondent CTA in a resolution5 dated April 8, 1994. Thereafter and within the reglementary period
ALF

for interposing appeals, petitioner appealed the CTA decision to the Court of Appeals.

On November 21, 1994, the Court of Appeals rendered its questioned Decision,6 affirming the decision
of the CTA and dismissing petitioner's appeal. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said
decision but to no avail. The same was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution7 dated January
31, 1995. Hence, this petition.
1âwphi1.nêt

Undaunted, petitioner found its way to this Court via the present petition, contending that:

"1. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the jurisdiction to collect amusement
taxes of PBA games is vested in the national government to the exclusion of the local
governments.

"2. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that Section 13 of the Local Tax Code of
1973 limits local government units to theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses and
other places of amusement in the collection of the amusement tax.

"3. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that Revenue Regulations No. 8-88 dated
February 19, 1988 is an erroneous interpretation of law.

"4. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in giving retroactive effect to the revocation of Revenue
Regulations 8-88.

"5. Respondent Court of Appeals erred when it failed to consider the provisions of P.D. 851
the franchise of Petitioner, Section 8 of which provides that amusement tax on admission
receipts of Petitioner is 5%.

"6. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the cession of advertising and streamer
spaces in the venue to a third person is subject to amusement taxes.

"7. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the cession of advertising and streamer
spaces inside the venue is embraced within the term 'gross receipts' as defined in Section 123
(6) of the Tax Code.

"8. Respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding that the amusement tax liability of Petitioner
is subject to a 75% surcharge."

The issues for resolution in this case may be simplified as follows:

1. Is the amusement tax on admission tickets to PBA games a national or local tax? Otherwise put,
who between the national government and local government should petitioner pay amusement taxes?

2. Is the cession of advertising and streamer spaces to Vintage Enterprises, Inc. (VEI) subject to the
payment of amusement tax?
3. If ever petitioner is liable for the payment of deficiency amusement tax, is it liable to pay a seventy-
five percent (75%) surcharge on the deficiency amount due?

Petitioner contends that PD 231, otherwise known as the Local Tax Code of 1973, transferred the
power and authority to levy and collect amusement taxes from the sale of admission tickets to places
of amusement from the national government to the local governments. Petitioner cited BIR
Memorandum Circular No. 49-73 providing that the power to levy and collect amusement tax on
admission tickets was transferred to the local governments by virtue of the Local Tax Code; and BIR
Ruling No. 231-86 which held that "the jurisdiction to levy amusement tax on gross receipts from
admission tickets to places of amusement was transferred to local governments under P.D. No. 231,
as amended."8 Further, petitioner opined that even assuming arguendo that respondent Commissioner
revoked BIR Ruling No. 231-86, the reversal, modification or revocation cannot be given retroactive
effect since even as late as 1988 (BIR Memorandum Circular No. 8-88), respondent Commissioner
still recognized the jurisdiction of local governments to collect amusement taxes.

The Court is not persuaded by petitioner's asseverations.

The laws on the matter are succinct and clear and need no elaborate disquisition. Section 13 of the
Local Tax Code provides:

"SECTION 13. Amusement tax on admission. — The province shall impose a tax on admission
to be collected from the proprietors, lessees, or operators of theaters, cinematographs, concert
halls, circuses and other places of amusement . . ."

The foregoing provision of law in point indicates that the province can only impose a tax on admission
from the proprietors, lessees, or operators of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses and
other places of amusement. The authority to tax professional basketball games is not therein included,
as the same is expressly embraced in PD 1959, which amended PD 1456 thus:

"SECTION 44. Section 268 of this Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows:

'Sec. 268. Amusement taxes. — There shall be collected from the proprietor, lessee
or operator of cockpits, cabarets, night or day clubs, boxing exhibitions, professional
basketball games, Jai-Alai, race tracks and bowling alleys, a tax equivalent to:

'1. Eighteen per centum in the case of cockpits;

'2. Eighteen per centum in the case of cabarets, night or day clubs;

'3. Fifteen per centum in the case of boxing exhibitions;

'4. Fifteen per centum in the case of professional basketball games as envisioned in
Presidential Decree No. 871. Provided, however. That the tax herein shall be in lieu of
all other percentage taxes of whatever nature and description;

'5. Thirty per centum in the case of Jai-Alai and race tracks; and

'6. Fifteen per centum in the case of bowling alleys of their gross receipts, irrespective
of whether or not any amount is charged or paid for admission. For the purpose of the
amusement tax, the term gross receipts' embraces all the receipts of the proprietor,
 lessee or operator of the amusement place. Said gross receipts also include income
from television, radio and motion picture rights, if any. (A person or entity or association
conducting any activity subject to the tax herein imposed shall be similarly liable for
said tax with respect to such portion of the receipts derived by him or it.)

'The taxes imposed herein shall be payable at the end of each quarter and it shall be
the duty of the proprietor, lessee, or operator concerned, as well as any party liable,
within twenty days after the end of each quarter, to make a true and complete return
of the amount of the gross receipts derived during the preceding quarter and pay the
tax due thereon. If the tax is not paid within the time prescribed above, the amount of
the tax shall be increased by twenty-five per centum, the increment to be part of the
tax.

'In case of willful neglect to file the return within the period prescribed herein, or in case
a false or fraudulent return is willfully made, there shall be added to the tax or to the
deficiency tax, in case any payment has been made on the basis of the return before
the discovery of the falsity or fraud, a surcharge of fifty per centum of its amount. The
amount so added to any tax shall be collected at the same time and in the same
manner and as part of the tax unless the tax has been paid before the discovery of the
falsity or fraud, in which case, the amount so assessed shall be collected in the same
manner as the tax." (emphasis ours)

From the foregoing it is clear that the "proprietor, lessee or operator of . . . professional basketball
games" is required to pay an amusement tax equivalent to fifteen per centum (15%) of their gross
receipts to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which payment is a national tax. The said payment of
amusement tax is in lieu of all other percentage taxes of whatever nature and description.

While Section 13 of the Local Tax Code mentions "other places of amusement", professional
basketball games are definitely not within its scope. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where
general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific
meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as
applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.9 Thus, in
determining the meaning of the phrase "other places of amusement", one must refer to the prior
enumeration of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls and circuses with artistic expression as their
common characteristic. Professional basketball games do not fall under the same category as
theaters, cinematographs, concert halls and circuses as the latter basically belong to artistic forms of
entertainment while the former caters to sports and gaming.

A historical analysis of pertinent laws does reveal the legislative intent to place professional basketball
games within the ambit of a national tax. The Local Tax Code, which became effective on June 28,
1973, allowed the province to collect a tax on admission from the proprietors, lessees, or operators
of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses and other places of amusement. On January 6,
1976, the operation of petitioner was placed under the supervision and regulation of the Games and
Amusement Board by virtue of PD 871, with the proviso (Section 8) that ". . . all professional basketball
games conducted by the Philippine Basketball Association shall only be subject to amusement tax of
five per cent of the gross receipts from the sale of admission tickets." Then, on June 11, 1978, PD
1456 came into effect, increasing the amusement tax to ten per cent, with a categorical referral to PD
871, to wit, "[t]en per centum in the case of professional basketball games as envisioned in Presidential
Decree No. 871 . . ." Later in 1984, PD 1959 increased the rate of amusement tax to fifteen percent
by making reference also to PD 871. With the reference to PD 871 by PD 1456 and PD 1959, there is
a recognition under the laws of this country that the amusement tax on professional basketball games
is a national, and not a local, tax. Even up to the present, the category of amusement taxes on
professional basketball games as a national tax remains the same. This is so provided under Section
12510 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code. Section 14011 of the Local Government Code of 1992
(Republic Act 7160), meanwhile, retained the areas (theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses
and other places of amusement) where the province may levy an amusement tax without including
therein professional basketball games.

Likewise erroneous is the stance of petitioner that respondent Commissioner's issuance of BIR Ruling
No. 231-8612 and BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 8-8813 — both upholding the authority of the
local government to collect amusement taxes — should bind the government or that, if there is any
revocation or modification of said rule, the same should operate prospectively.

It bears stressing that the government can never be in estoppel, particularly in matters involving taxes.
It is a well-known rule that erroneous application and enforcement of the law by public officers do not
preclude subsequent correct application of the statute, and that the Government is never estopped by
mistake or error on the part of its agents.14

Untenable is the contention that income from the cession of streamer and advertising spaces to VEI
is not subject to amusement tax. The questioned proviso may be found in Section 1 of PD 1456 which
states:

"SECTION 1. Section 268 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977, as amended, is
hereby further amended to read as follows:

'Sec. 268. Amusement taxes. — There shall be collected from the proprietor, lessee
or operator of cockpits, cabarets, night or day clubs, boxing exhibitions, professional
basketball games, Jai-Alai, race tracks and bowling alleys, a tax equivalent to:

xxx xxx xxx

of their gross receipts, irrespective of whether or not any amount is charged or paid for admission. For
the purpose of the amusement tax, the term gross receipts' embraces all the receipts of the proprietor,
lessee or operator of the amusement place. Said gross receipts also include income from television,
radio and motion picture rights, if any. (A person, or entity or association conducting any activity subject
to the tax herein imposed shall be similarly liable for said tax with respect to such portion of the receipts
derived by him or it.)" (emphasis ours)

The foregoing definition of gross receipts is broad enough to embrace the cession of advertising and
streamer spaces as the same embraces all the receipts of the proprietor, lessee or operator of the
amusement place. The law being clear, there is no need for an extended interpretation.15

The last issue for resolution concerns the liability of petitioner for the payment of surcharge and interest
on the deficiency amount due. Petitioner contends that it is not liable, as it acted in good faith, having
relied upon the issuances of the respondent Commissioner. This issue must necessarily fail as the
same has never been posed as an issue before the respondent court. Issues not raised in the court a
quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.16

All things studiedly considered, the Court rules that the petitioner is liable to pay amusement tax to the
national government, and not to the local government, in accordance with the rates prescribed by PD
1959.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the Decisions of the Court of Appeals and Court of Tax
Appeals dated November 21, 1994 and December 24, 1993, respectively AFFIRMED. No
pronouncement as to costs. 1âw phi1.nêt

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ ., concur.

Melo and Vitug, JJ ., concur in the result.