Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 635 views

    DIGEST - Gomez vs. Palomar

    Uploaded by

    Lou Angelique Heruela
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-TB Stamp Law does not violate the equal protection clause. The law classified mail users as taxpayers for the tax. The Court found this classification was reasonable based on ability to pay and administrative convenience. While legislative classifications must be reasonable, selecting mail users was valid because they were already a distinct class and the legislature just chose to tax that class.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DIGEST - Gomez vs. Palomar

    Uploaded by

    Lou Angelique Heruela
    635 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-TB Stamp Law does not violate the equal protection clause. The law classified mail users as taxpayers for the tax. The Court found this classification was reasonable based on ability to pay and administrative convenience. While legislative classifications must be reasonable, selecting mail users was valid because they were already a distinct class and the legislature just chose to tax that class.

    Original Description:

    Taxation 1 case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-TB Stamp Law does not violate the equal protection clause. The law classified mail users as taxpayers for the tax. The Court found this classification was reasonable based on ability to pay and administrative convenience. While legislative classifications must be reasonable, selecting mail users was valid because they were already a distinct class and the legislature just chose to tax that class.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    635 views1 page

    DIGEST - Gomez vs. Palomar

    Uploaded by

    Lou Angelique Heruela
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-TB Stamp Law does not violate the equal protection clause. The law classified mail users as taxpayers for the tax. The Court found this classification was reasonable based on ability to pay and administrative convenience. While legislative classifications must be reasonable, selecting mail users was valid because they were already a distinct class and the legislature just chose to tax that class.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gomez vs.

    Palomar
    G.R. No. L-23645
    October 29, 1968

    Facts
    Petitioner questions the constitutionality of the statute, claiming that RA 1635, otherwise known
    as the Anti-TB Stamp Law, is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it
    constitutes mail users into a class for the purpose of the tax while leaving untaxed the rest of the
    population and that even among postal patrons the statute discriminatorily grants exemptions.
    Moreover, petitioner contends that the statutory classification of taxpayers has no relation to the
    object sought by the Anti-TB law.

    Issue
    Whether or not the Anti-TB law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

    Ruling
    No. The Supreme Court reiterated that the legislature has the inherent power to select the
    subjects of taxation and to grant exemptions. The reason for this is that traditionally, classification has
    been a device for fitting tax programs to local needs and usages in order to achieve an equitable
    distribution of the tax burden. That legislative classifications must be reasonable is, of course, undenied
    in this case.
    The classification of mail users is not without any reason. It is based on ability to pay, let alone the
    enjoyment of a privilege, and on administrative convenience. The classification is likewise based on
    considerations of administrative convenience. For it is now a settled principle of law that “consideration
    of practical administrative convenience and cost in the administration of tax laws afford adequate ground
    for imposing a tax on a well-recognized and defined class.” Lastly, mail users were already a class by
    themselves even before the enactment of the statute, and all that the legislature did was merely to select
    their class.
    Petitioner’s assertions that statutory classification of mail users must bear some reasonable
    relationship to the end sought to be attained and that absent such relationship the selection of mail users
    is constitutionally impermissible do not hold water. This is altogether a different proposition as explained
    by the court “that while the principle that there must be a reasonable relationship between classification
    made by the legislation and its purpose is undoubtedly true in some contexts, it has no application to a
    measure whose sole purpose is to raise revenue, so long as the classification imposed is based upon some
    standard capable of reasonable comprehension, be that standard based upon ability to produce revenue
    or some other legitimate distinction, equal protection of the law has been afforded.”

    You might also like