Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Municipality of Aguadilla

99 P.R. 815
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedApril 27, 1971
DocketNo. O-68-112
StatusPublished

This text of 99 P.R. 815 (Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Municipality of Aguadilla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Municipality of Aguadilla, 99 P.R. 815 (prsupreme 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Municipal License Tax Act, 21 L.P.R.A. §§ 621-640, classifies the.businesses or industries subject to taxation in three groups. In group A it includes, among others, wholesale stores and in group B it includes factories [816]*816manufacturing soda and carbonated water. Group C has no relation whatsoever with the facts of this case.

In or about 1965 the appellee Coca Cola Bottling Company of Puerto Rico, Inc., had its factory of carbonated water in Hato Rey and it operated a warehouse in the Municipality of Aguadilla for the wholesale distribution of the manufactured product. The Municipality of Aguadilla levied upon appellee the tax corresponding to group A — wholesale store— instead of that corresponding to group B. Appellee made the payments under protest and filed a complaint before the District Court requesting the return of the difference in the type of taxes. The trial court, relying on the decision in Coca Cola Bottling Company v. Secretary of Labor, 88 P.R.R. 329 (1963), sustained the complaint concluding that the wholesale distributing business in Aguadilla was an integral part of the manufacturing operation of Hato Rey, inasmuch as the latter consisted of two principal functions, the production of the articlé in itself and its storage, distribution, and sale, and that, therefore, appellee was only bound to pay the tax type B, applicable to soft drink factories.

Said judgment is erroneous and it cannot prevail. The evident purpose of the Municipal License Tax Act is to empower each municipality to levy the license tax on the specific operation which the industry or business performs within its jurisdiction. See Act No. 93 of June 25, 1962.1 Appellee operates a warehouse in Aguadilla for the wholesale distribution of the product it manufactures in Hato Rey. It [817]*817does not operate any factory in said Municipality. Appellee’s operation in Aguadilla falls clearly under classification A, wholesale store. The cited case Coca Cola Bottling Company v. Secretary of Labor, supra, is not applicable since it deals with the scope of a mandatory decree under the Minimum Wage Act, and not with the interpretation of the Municipal License Tax Act.

The judgment appealed from will be reversed and the record remanded to the trial court so that another judgment be rendered consistent with the pronouncements herein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 P.R. 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coca-cola-bottling-co-v-municipality-of-aguadilla-prsupreme-1971.