This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The well-established rule is that the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought determine the nature of an action.[18] Here, it is not disputed that the machineries and equipment are being used for power generation. The primordial issue, however, is whether these machineries and equipment are actually, directly and exclusively used by petitioner within the purview of Section 234[19] of the LGC, which exempts it from payment of real property taxes, to wit:Section 234. Exemptions from Real Property Tax. - The following are exempted from payment of the real property tax: | |||||
|
2010-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The LBAA dismissed Napocor's petition for exemption for its failure to comply with Section 252 of the LGC[30] requiring payment of the assailed tax before any protest can be made. Although the CBAA ultimately dismissed Napocor's appeal for failure to meet the requirements for tax exemption, it agreed with Napocor's position that "the protest contemplated in Section 252 (a) is applicable only when the taxpayer is questioning the reasonableness or excessiveness of an assessment. It presupposes that the taxpayer is subject to the tax but is disputing the correctness of the amount assessed. It does not apply where, as in this case, the legality of the assessment is put in issue on account of the taxpayer's claim that it is exempt from tax." The CTA en banc agreed with the CBAA's discussion, relying mainly on the cases of Ty v. Trampe[31] and Olivarez v. Marquez.[32] | |||||