Taxation, 2018 Bar — Question XV

QUESTION

In 2015, Kerwin bought a three-story house and lot in Kidapawan, North Cotabato. The property has a floor area of 600 sq.m. and is located inside a gated subdivision. Kerwin initially declared the property as residential for real property tax purposes. In 2016, Kerwin started using the property in his business of manufacturing garments for export. The entire ground floor is now occupied by state-of-the-art sewing machines and other equipment, while the second floor is used as offices. The third floor is retained by Kerwin as his family's residence. Kerwin's neighbors became suspicious of the activities going on inside the house, and they decided to report it to the Kidapawan City Hall. Upon inspection, the local government discovered that the property was being utilized for commercial use. Immediately, the Kidapawan Assessor reclassified the property as commercial with an assessment level of 50% effective January 2017, and assessed Kerwin back taxes and interest. Kerwin claims that only 2/3 of the building was used for commercial purposes since the third floor remained as family residence. He argues that the property should have been classified as partly commercial and partly residential. (a) Is the Kidapawan assessor correct in assessing back taxes and interest? (2.5%) (b) Is Kerwin correct that only 2/3 of the property should be considered commercial? (2.5%) (c) If Kerwin wants to file an administrative protest against the assessment, is he required to pay the assessment taxes first? With whom shall the protest be filed and within what period? (2.5%)

You can write freely without an account. Sign in to reveal the suggested answer and track your progress.