You are on page 1of 2


PAGCOR claims that it is a duly organized GOCC under PD 1869. It was created to
regulate and operate clubs and casinos for amusement and recreation
PAGCOR provided a car plan program to qualified officer under which 60% of the car
plan is shouldered by PAGCOR and 40% for the account of the officer.
PAGCOR received a post reporting notice from the BIR for deficiencies on VAT,
Withholding tax on VAT (WTV), Expanded withholding tax (EWT) and Fringe Benefits
Tax (FBT)however BIR abandoned the same (acecite case)
PAGCOR receive a Final Assessment Notice (FAN) on Jan 17, 2008. On Jan 24, 2008,
it filed a protest
On Aug 14, 2008 it elevated it to the CIR, there being no action taken
ON September 23, 2008, the revenue region informed PAGCOR that its protest was
forward to the assessment division.
CTA (Division)-ruled that the there was valid delegation on the part of revenue director
Mission on its issuance of the FAN and that PAGCORs administrative protest was
validly and seasonable filed.
PAGCOR filed an MR. In the meantime, the CIR sent a letter that it would be subject to
a Warrant of Distraint or Levy and Warrant of Garnishment because of its failure to pay
46M PHP.
CTA en bancthe protest filed before the RD is a valid protest and superfluous to file
protest to CIR
(1) W/N PAGCORs protest was filed on time-NO
PAGCOR received fan Jan 17, 2008
PAGCOR filed protest to RD MIsajon Jan 24, 2008no action

PAGCOR filed another protest to CIR Aug 14, 2008 no action

PAGCOR filed to CTA on MArch 11, 2009
PAGCOR did not wait for the RD or CIRs decision. PAGCOR made a separate and
successive filing before the RD and CIR before it filed with the CTA. PAGCORs protest
to the RD on Jan 24, 2008 was filed within 30-day period prescribed in Sec 228. The RD
did not act so PAGCOR was unable to make use of first option to justify an appeal to
On the third option, PAGCOR still should have waited for the RDs decision until October
27, 2008 or 180 days from April 30, 2008. PAGCOR then had 30 days from october 27
until November 26, 2008 to file a petition to the CTAit did not make use of such option.
On the second option, PAGCOR should have waited for the RDs whole or partial denial
of its protest before it filed an appeal before the CIR. PAGCOR render the 2nd option
moot when it formulated its own rule and chose to ignore the clear text of Section 3.1.5
PAGCOR elevated an appeal to the CIR on Aug 13, 2008 without any decision from
the RC then filed a petition before the CTA on March 11, 2009.
PAGCOR only had 30 days from Jan 17, 2008 within which to file its protest. This period
ended on Feb 16, 2008. PAGCOR filed its submission before the CIR on Aug 13, 2008.
PAGCOR failed to make use of any of the three options. A petition before the CTA may
only be made after a whole or partial denial of the protest by the CIR or the authorized
representative. When PAGCOR filed a petition on March 11, 2009, there was still no
denial of PAGCORs protest either by the RD or CIR. It failed to comply with the
requisites in disputing an assessment provided in Section 228 and Section 3.1.5. Such
lapses made the BIRs assessment final, executory and demandable.