Trader seeks review, refund of overpaid tax

A businessman asked the City Treasurer's Office for a review and possible refund of the alleged overpayment of taxes of his warehouse from 1994 to 2007.

Tereso "Koko" Tan claimed that despite his belief that the increase in his tax dues is illegal and baseless, he continued paying his tax dues even if these are higher than what he is supposed to be paying.

Tan said that on October 12, 2004, he wrote a letter to city treasurer Tessie Camarillo where he stated his concerns on the sudden increase of the assessment of his real property taxes.

He cited the report of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of the City Assessor's Office on March 10, 2005, which says that based on ocular inspection conducted on his warehouse, it was found out that the property is an old warehouse highly depreciated since it was completed and occupied sometime in 1952.

With this, the board recommended that the warehouse and office inside it be reappraised from Grade I-C to Grade II-B and the other offices to be deleted, as there was only one office inside the warehouse. The assessed value of the property is also lowered from P1,835,160 to P623,190.

"The depreciation allowance of 14 percent should also be adjusted to 49 percent commensurate to the age of the warehouse which is 48 years in the year 2000 and finally, that area of the warehouse should be corrected from 1,456.76 square meters to only 1,012 sq. m. which is its original area," the Local Board of Assessment said.

Despite this, Tan said he never received any response from the City Treasurer's Office, nor the refund of the overpayment of his taxes.

On February 23 of this year, Tan again wrote Camarillo seeking for a review on the possibility if he may avail of tax credit on his subsequent tax obligations.

Tan explained that the building had been completed and occupied in 1952, yet under Tax Declaration No. GR2K-06-047-00878, the building was occupied in 1989, hence the application of only seven percent depreciation.

"Under Tax Declaration No. RPTA-003-00840, the grading of the building was Grade II-B and yet, despite no alteration, renovation or improvement of the building it was being graded I-C under Tax Dec. No. GR2K-06-047-00878. How is this?" he said in his letter. - Wenna A. Berondo/MEEV