WASHINGTON – The Philippines paid the District of Columbia city government nearly $35,000 (P1.6 million) in property taxes for an old, unused chancery it has owned since the days of American colonialism, a spokeswoman for the DC’s Office of Chief Financial Officer said.
Maryann Young was commenting on a Washington Times report on Monday that more than a dozen countries including the Philippines owed the city government $250,000 in back taxes on diplomatic land.
Young said the annual property tax pertaining to the old chancery at 1617 Massachusetts Avenue was actually paid last month but there was a delay in removing the Philippines from the debtors’ list before the Times report.
The old chancery fell into disuse about 15 years ago when the present embassy at 1600 Massachusetts Avenue was built.
There have been attempts over the last few years to sell off the old chancery building and other Philippine government properties in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle and Houston because of increasing real estate taxes and lack of funds to maintain them. The latest effort in 2003 collapsed because of intense media opposition in Manila to the sale of “historic sites.”
An embassy source said it was the first time since the old chancery was vacated that the DC government charged property tax for it, raising speculation within the Filipino community that Manila may attempt again to put it on the auction bloc.
Young told The STAR diplomatic properties generally are not subject to property taxes. In many cases, she said, unpaid taxes stem from liens that existed before the property was purchased, part of the diplomatic property is used for commercial or residential purposes or, as in the case of the Philippines, it has been unused for many years.
Last month the Supreme Court slashed the tax-exempt status of UN missions that double as staff residences, ruling it is legal for New York and other jurisdictions to collect taxes on dual-use properties.
The 2003 proposal to sell Philippine properties in the US was initiated by then ambassador Albert del Rosario who said it was disadvantageous to the government to retain old properties which could not be maintained because of lack of funds.
He said unless the government was prepared to spend vast amounts of money to overhaul and renovate these properties and maintain them properly, holding on to them would result in greater losses and could be construed as gross negligence.