RSS

National Power Corporation v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals et al., G.R. No. 171470, 30 January 2009

24 Nov

FACTS

First Private Power Corporation (FPPC) entered into a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreement with NAPOCOR for the construction of Bauang Diesel Power Plant and creation of Bauang Power Plant Corporation (BPPC). The pertinent provisions of the BOT agreement, include among others:“2.03 NAPOCORxxx shall be responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes and assessments, rates, and other charges in respect of the Site and the buildings and improvements thereon. The Municipal Assessor of Bauang issued a Notice of Assessment and Tax Bill to BPPC. NAPOCOR sought tax exemption on the basis if Sec. 234(c) of R.A. No. 7160.

 

ISSUE

Under the terms of the BOT, can the GOCC be deemed the actual, direct, and exclusive user of machineries and equipment for tax exemption purposes? If not, can it pass on its tax-exempt status to its BOT partner, a private corporation, through the BOT agreement?

HELD

NO. Neither can NAPOCOR pass its tax–exempt status to its BOT partner.

NAPOCOR’s basis for its claimed exemption – Section 234(c) of the LGC – is clear and not at all ambiguous in its terms. Exempt from real property taxation are: (a) all machineries and equipment; (b) [that are] actually, directly, and exclusively used by; (c) [local water districts and] government-owned or –controlled corporations engaged in the [supply and distribution of water and/or] generation and transmission of electric power.

By [BOT’s] express terms, BPPC has complete ownership – both legal and beneficial – of the project, including the machineries and equipment used, subject only to the transfer of these properties without cost to NAPOCOR after the lapse of the period agreed upon. As agreed upon, BPPC provided the funds for the construction of the power plant, including the machineries and equipment needed for power generation; thereafter, it actually operated and still operates the power plant, uses its machineries and equipment, and receives payment for these activities and the electricity generated under a defined compensation scheme. Notably, BPPC – as owner-user – is responsible for any defect in the machineries and equipment.

Consistent with the BOT concept and as implemented, BPPC – the owner-manager-operator of the project – is the actual user of its machineries and equipment. BPPC’s ownership and use of the machineries and equipment are actual, direct, and immediate, while NAPOCOR’s is contingent and, at this stage of the BOT Agreement, not sufficient to support its claim for tax exemption.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 24, 2015 in Case Digests, Taxation Law

 

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: