This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-20 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In light of Pelizloy Realty, a golf course cannot be considered a place of amusement. As petitioner asserted, people do not enter a golf course to see or view a show or performance. Petitioner also, as proprietor or operator of the golf course, does not actively display, stage, or present a show or performance. People go to a golf course to engage themselves in a physical sport activity, i.e., to play golf; the same reason why people go to a gym or court to play badminton or tennis or to a shooting range for target practice, yet there is no showing herein that such gym, court, or shooting range is similarly considered an amusement place subject to amusement tax. There is no basis for singling out golf courses for amusement tax purposes from other places where people go to play sports. This is in contravention of one of the fundamental principles of local taxation: that the "[taxation shall be uniform in each local government unit."[38] Uniformity of taxation, like the kindred concept of equal protection, requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities.[39] | |||||
|
2009-04-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| All in all, the classification freeze provision addressed Congress's administrative concerns in the simplification of tax administration of sin products, elimination of potential areas for abuse and corruption in tax collection, buoyant and stable revenue generation, and ease of projection of revenues. Consequently, there can be no denial of the equal protection of the laws since the rational-basis test is amply satisfied. Moreover, petitioner's contention that the assailed provisions violate the uniformity of taxation clause is similarly unavailing. In Churchill v. Concepcion,[4] we explained that a tax "is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found."[5] It does not signify an intrinsic but simply a geographical uniformity.[6] A levy of tax is not unconstitutional because it is not intrinsically equal and uniform in its operation.[7] The uniformity rule does not prohibit classification for purposes of taxation.[8] As ruled in Tan v. Del Rosario, Jr.:[9] | |||||