Friday, December 30, 2011

Proposed revenue revision not for tax increase, says Tacloban City assessor

TACLOBAN CITY – The revenue revision of Tacloban is not a proposal for tax increase but rather focuses on market value of all lands and productive improvement within the city.

This was clarified by City Assessor Engr. Carlos Cordero during a public hearing held at Sagkahan Gymnasium .

“The subject of the public hearing was focused on the evaluation of market values of land that needs to be updated,” said Cordero in an interview.

Thus, Cordero said the buildings are not included in the increase and the classification of land (agricultural, residential, commercial or industrial use) but more on the actual market value of land as it has been 12 years since the revision of the tax code of the city was implemented.

“People should not be worried…,” Cordero said.

Former Leyte board member Attorney Evangeline Esperas, who was among those who attended the public hearing, stressed that tax is indeed a must for every local government unit as it is their life blood.

However, Esperas stressed that inflation rate and the comments and recommendations from the business sector should also be heard, before the council members introduced any revision of the tax code.

She added that 100% increase is considerately high among low income taxpayers to include businessmen.

“If there will be an increase that should be reasonably just, not oppressive, and equitable,” Esperas said.

Although it was learned from Cordero that the proposed increase on property tax is 100 percent, he stressed that said increase is still reasonable as the increase is the comparison of the 2000 market value to the market value of 1999, the last time there was a revision of tax code.

“The comparison is not market value in 1999 to the market value of 2011, but the market value of 2000 to the market value of 1999, because if we will use the 2011 market value that would be a huge increase,” Cordero explained.

Cordero added that the revision to be implemented this year is the revision that should have been done in 2002.

No comments: