
Originally Posted by
raboy50
Ang selling price sa COA ana nga lot sa SRP is 12,000/sq.mtr.ra, unya gibaligya sa City ngadto sa FLI ug tag 15,000/sq.mtr.so nakaganansya ang city ug 3,000/sq.mtr kwentaha pila ganansya sa city di ba 60,000,000.00 pesos kana sa 2 hectars ra na unya less sa capital gain tax nga gibayad sa city nga 20,000,000.00 pesos di ba ang ganansya sa city is 40,000,000.00 ,, mao ba na ang giingon ni Pablo nga disadvantageuos sa City ang contrata sa FLI?
nope.
Question NO.1: Why is the City paying for the Capital gains tax, and not FLI instead?
the transaction is in violation of COA rules regarding payment of taxes and incidental expenses in the sale of government-owned lands. This is in flagrant violation of Section 197 of COA Circular No. 92-386 that provides that expenses to the registration and transfer of ownership from the local gov't to the vendee shall be borne by the vendee.
It is characterized as a “bonanza” the over P112 million FLI would gain in violation of the law from not paying capital gains, documentary stamp taxes and transfer taxes on the P1.5 billion transaction.
Question NO.2: Why did the joint venture agreement “differed on all material points from the terms of the invitation to bid published by the Cebu City Gov't, which urged potential challengers to submit comparative proposals."?
In a local newspaper, the City Gov't posted an invitation to apply for eligibility and to submit a Comparative Proposal for a central business district type dev't over the 50.6 hectare area.
Also, it was stated that FLI has to compensate the city gov't in the amount of not less than P1.5 billion in cash payable within 3 years.
But contrary to what has been published, the unincorporated joint venture is not for the 50.6 hectares but only for 40 hectares, with the 10.6 hectares sold through outright purchase.
It was pointed out that the joint venture dev't is no longer for a central district type, but for an integrated and well-planned clusters of medium rise residential bldgs and retirement and congregate care complexes, which is inconsistent with a central business district type of dev't.
Question NO.3: Why is the term of payment by FLI that instead of being payable in 3 years, it is now payable in six years?
The deviations from the published invitation directly result in the language of the SC in the Piatco case – concrete financial disadvantages that were previously not available during the bidding process.