Article Index |Advertise | Mobile | RSS | Wireless | Newsletter | Archive | Corrections | Syndication | Contact us | About Us| Services
 
Mon, Nov 23, 2009 03:57 PM Philippines      25°C to 33°C
  HOME       NEWS     SPORTS     SHOWBIZ AND STYLE      TECHNOLOGY     BUSINESS     OPINION      GLOBAL NATION    SERVICES
Advertisement
Robinsons Land Corp.
Xoom

INQUIRER ALERT
Get the free INQUIRER newsletter
Enter your email address:

 
Money/ Breaking News Type Size: (+) (-)
You are here: Home > Business > Money > Breaking News

  ARTICLE SERVICES      
     Reprint this article     Print this article  
    Send as an e-mail     Send Feedback  
    Post a comment   Share  





imns


Legality of higher tax on cigarettes upheld


Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:24:00 08/21/2008

Filed Under: State Budget & Taxes, Tobacco

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared as constitutional a provision of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) which levies higher taxes on cigarette brands that entered the market after 1996.

The high court en banc unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of Section 145 of the NIRC that levies new cigarette brands at their current net retail price and existing brands at their net retail price as of Oct. 1, 1996.

It also nullified two regulations imposed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to implement the NIRC provision which empowered the bureau to reclassify or update cigarette brands every two years or so.

The case arose from a suit brought in 2003 by the British American Tobacco (BAT), the manufacturer of Lucky Strike Filter, Lucky Strike Lights and Lucky Strike Menthol Lights brands, against the tax code provision and the BIR regulations which it said violated the equal protection and uniformity clauses of the Constitution.

After the Makati court upheld the constitutionality and validity of the NIRC section and the two BIR regulations, the BAT elevated the case to the high court.

In its ruling, the high court said the questioned provision did not violate the equal protection clause as it addressed Congress’ concern not to give too much authority to the tax implementers to avoid potential abuse and corruption. Jerome Aning



Copyright 2009 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



Share


OTHER STORIES:



  ^ Back to top

© Copyright 2001-2009 INQUIRER.net, An INQUIRER Company

The INQUIRER Network: HOME | NEWS | SPORTS | SHOWBIZ & STYLE | TECHNOLOGY | BUSINESS | OPINION | GLOBAL NATION | Site Map
Services: Advertise | Buy Content | Wireless | Newsletter | Low Graphics | Search / Archive | Article Index | Contact us
The INQUIRER Company: About the Inquirer | User Agreement | Link Policy | Privacy Policy

Advertisement
Megaworld
Filinvest
Inquirer Blogs
Focalcast