ENJAY HOTELS vs.

CIR
Petitioner is a domestic corporation that is primarily engaged in the general business of a hotel, resort,
apartment, and doing business under the name "InterContinental Manila".

On March 5, 2007, the Board of Investments (BOI) approved EHI's application as an Operator of Tourist
Accommodation Facilities under the BOI's Modernization Program. As such, EHI was given both fiscal
and non-fiscal incentives for the project, such as an Income Tax Holiday (ITH) benefit for three (3) years
pursuant to its being a BOI-registered enterprise.

As such, on September 7, 2011, the BIR issued a Notice of Informal Conference informing EHI that as per
result of their income tax audit for CY 2008, EHI's deficiency income amounts to P5,013,015.97.

Then, a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) was issued by the BIR assessing EHI for deficiency income
tax in the total amount ofP7,797,650.22.

EHI filed a letter with the BIR contesting the said PAN.

In May 2012, EHI received a Formal Letter of Demand (FLO) with Details of Discrepancies and Audit
Result. It was assessed of deficiency income tax in the amount of P8,211,369.54 for CY 2008.

EHI filed a protest letter, impugning the validity of the deficiency income tax assessment issued against
it. The BIR then issued a Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA) denying the protest letter.

On September 26, 2012, EHI filed a Petition for Review with the CTA-Division praying that the foregoing
FDDA be declared null for being premature and defective.

Consequently, EHI wrote a letter to the BIR requesting for a re-computation of its deficiency tax
assessments and further proposed a partial settlement but, excluding the items that were still being
contested before the BOI, such as rental income, handling fee, income from broadband services, parking
fee, and in-house video.

The CIR declined EHI's proposal since the matter is already pending with the CTA-Division. However, the
CIR informed EHI that it may voluntarily settle any undisputed tax assessments to stop the running of
interest penalty. Hence, EHI sent a letter to the CIR informing him of its partial payment of the deficiency
income tax assessment in the amount ofP'3,442,704.64.

The CTA Division promulgated its Decision ordering EHI to pay the CIR the amount of P5,553,132.53,
representing the amount still due after EHI's partial payment of its income tax liability including
surcharges and interests Deficiency interest.

EHI and the CIR both filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration but were both denied.
Hence, they both elevated this case before the CTA En Banc.

ISSUES:
1. W/N CTA-DIVISION has jurisdiction to entertain the present case
2. W/NBOI Letters are admissible as evidence
RULING:
1. YES. Section 7 of RA 9282 states that "Sec. 7. Jurisdiction.- The CTA shall exercise:
(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as
herein provided:
(1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments,
refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or
other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered
by the Bureau of Internal Revenue;"

Meanwhile, Section 4 of RA No. 8424

"SEC. 4. Power of the Commissioner to Interpret Tax Laws and to Decide Tax Cases - The power
to interpret the provisions of this Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the Secretary of Finance.
the BIR, under the Department of Finance (DOF), is mandated to assess and collect all national
internal revenue taxes, fees and charges. It administers supervisory and police powers conferred
by NIRC, as amended, or other laws.

That, when an appeal made before a govt agency under the Office of the President does not stay
or suspend the conclusions reached by the BIR in its own proceedings, more so, oust this Court
of jurisdiction.

In fact, by filing a Petition for Review with the CTA-Division, EHI recognizes the CTA's jurisdiction
over the present consolidated cases including all matters raised in its Petition such as the
disallowed rental income. And, considering that the Court of Tax Appeals, being a Court of
record, is required to conduct a formal trial where the parties must present their evidence
accordingly if they desire this Court to take such evidence into consideration.

While the BOI has the power to decide controversies, such, however, is limited to those
concerning the implementation of EO No. 226 between registered enterprises or investors and
government agencies. But with regard to the assessment and collection of the taxes, fees and
charges, it is the BIR who was exclusively vested with said directive.

2. YES. The CTA En-banc found no merit on CIR’s contention that the BOI Letters have no probative
value as they were not sufficiently authenticated in accordance with the Rules of Court.

However, the en banc explained that this requirement of authentication only pertains to private
documents and 'does not apply to public documents, these being admissible without further proof
of their due execution or genuineness

Said letters are written official acts of the Director of the Board of Investments (BOI), they are public
documents. Being such, the proof of their authenticity and genuineness are not necessary but
already presumed.

Therefore, the BOI Letters were admissible as evidence.