Philippine Basketball Association vs.

Court of Appeals
GR No. 119122 – August 8, 2000
J. Purisima

The Case:
 A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking a review
of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 34095 which affirmed the
decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 4419

Facts:
 June 21, 1989, petitioner received an assessment letter from the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue for payment of deficiency amusement tax
 July 18, 1989, petitioner files a protest with the Commissioner who denied the same on
November 6, 1989
 January 8, 1990, petitioner files for review with Court of Tax Appeals questioning denial
by Commissioner of its tax protest
 CTA dismissed PBA’s petition for lack of merit
 Petitioner files a motion for reconsideration but was denied by CTA on April 8, 1994;
petitioner then appeals the decision to the CA
 CA affirms the CTA decision
 Petitioner files a motion for reconsideration but was denied by CA on January 31, 1995
 Petitioner contends that PD 231, Local Tax Code of 1973, transferred power and
authority to levy and collect amusement taxes from sale of admission of tickets of
amusement from national gov’t to local gov’t

Issues – Held:
1) W/N amusement tax on admission tickets to PBA games are considered national or local tax
National Tax. Sec 13 of the Local Tax Code only covers proprietors, lessees, or
operators of theaters, cinematographs, concert halls, circuses, and other places of
amusement. There is no mention of any authority to tax professional basketball games.
Sec. 268 states that proprietor, lessee, or operator of professional basketball games is
required to pay amusement tax equivalent of 15% of their gross receipts to the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, which payment is a national tax.

2) W/N cession of advertising and streamer spaces to Vintage Enterprises, Inc. is subject to the
payment of amusement tax
YES. For purposes of amusement tax, gross receipts cover all receipts of the proprietor,
lessee, operator of the amusement place.

3) W/N petitioner is liable to pay a 75% surcharge on deficiency of the amount due if ever it is
liable for the payment of deficiency amusement tax
YES. While petitioner contends that it is not liable, as it acted in good faith, issue must
necessarily fail as the same has never been posed as an issue before the respondent court.
Issue not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Ruling:
Petition is DENIED and the Decisions of the Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals are
AFFIRMED.