THE CITY OF ILOILO vs. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SMART)

THE CITY OF ILOILO vs. SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SMART)
GR No. 167260
February 27, 2009

FACTS:

SMART received a letter of assessment dated February 12, 2002 from petitioner requiring it to pay deficiency local franchise and business taxes, in the amount of P764,545.29, which it incurred for the years 1997 to 2001. SMART protested the assessment, claiming exemption from payment of local franchise and business taxes based on Section 9 of its legislative franchise under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7294 (SMART’s franchise). Under SMART’s franchise, it was required to pay a franchise tax equivalent to 3% of all gross receipts, which amount shall be in lieu of all taxes. SMART contends that the “in lieu of all taxes” clause covers local franchise and business taxes. SMART similarly invoked R.A. No. 7925 or the Public Telecommunications Policy Act (Public Telecoms Act) whose Section 23 declares that any existing privilege, incentive, advantage, or exemption granted under existing franchises shall ipso facto become part of previously granted-telecommunications franchise. SMART contends that by virtue of Section 23, tax exemptions granted by the legislature to other holders of telecommunications franchise may be extended to and availed of by SMART.

The petitioner posits that SMART’s claim for exemption under its franchise is not equivocal enough to prevail over the specific grant of power to local government units to exact taxes from businesses operating within its territorial jurisdiction under Section 137 in relation to Section 151 of the LGC. More importantly, it claimed that exemptions from taxation have already been removed by Section 193 of the LGC, which provides that tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except local water districts, cooperatives duly registered under RA No. 6938, non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.


ISSUE: whether or not SMART is exempt from the payment of local franchise and business taxes under Section 9 of its franchise and Section 23 of the Public Telecoms Act.


HELD:

The basic principle in the construction of laws granting tax exemptions is he who claims an exemption from his share of the common burden of taxation must justify his claim by showing that the Legislature intended to exempt him by words too plain to be beyond doubt or mistake.

We have indeed ruled that by virtue of Section 193 of the LGC, all tax exemption privileges then enjoyed by all persons, save those expressly mentioned, have been withdrawn effective January 1, 1992 – the date of effectivity of the LGC. The first clause of Section 137 of the LGC states the same rule. However, the withdrawal of exemptions, whether under Section 193 or 137 of the LGC, pertains only to those already existing when the LGC was enacted. The intention of the legislature was to remove all tax exemptions or incentives granted prior to the LGC. As SMART’s franchise was made effective on March 27, 1992 – after the effectivity of the LGC – Section 193 will therefore not apply in this case.

But while Section 193 of the LGC will not affect the claimed tax exemption under SMART’s franchise, we fail to find a categorical and encompassing grant of tax exemption to SMART covering exemption from both national and local taxes:

R.A. No 7294 does not expressly provide what kind of taxes SMART is exempted from. It is not clear whether the “in lieu of all taxes” provision in the franchise of SMART would include exemption from local or national taxation. What is clear is that SMART shall pay franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all gross receipts of the business transacted under its franchise. But whether the franchise tax exemption would include exemption from exactions by both the local and the national government is not unequivocal.

The uncertainty in the “in lieu of all taxes” clause in R.A. No. 7294 on whether SMART is exempted from both local and national franchise tax must be construed strictly against SMART which claims the exemption.

SMART’s claim for exemption from local business and franchise taxes based on Section 9 of its franchise is therefore unfounded.

Whether Section 23 of the Public Telecoms Act extends tax exemptions granted by Congress to new franchise holders to existing ones has been answered in the negative in the case of PLDT v. City of Davao. The term “exemption” in Section 23 of the Public Telecoms Act does not mean tax exemption; rather, it refers to exemption from certain regulatory or reporting requirements imposed by government agencies such as the National Telecommunications Commission. The thrust of the Public Telecoms Act is to promote the gradual deregulation of entry, pricing, and operations of all public telecommunications entities, and thus to level the playing field in the telecommunications industry. The language of Section 23 and the proceedings of both Houses of Congress are bereft of anything that would signify the grant of tax exemptions to all telecommunications entities. Intent to grant tax exemption cannot therefore be discerned from the law; the term “exemption” is too general to include tax exemption and runs counter to the requirement that the grant of tax exemption should be stated in clear and unequivocal language too plain to be beyond doubt or mistake.