Pagcor v. Bir Case Digest
Pagcor v. Bir Case Digest
Pagcor v. Bir Case Digest
BIR
FACTS:
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
ISSUE:
(1) W/N PAGCORs protest was filed on time-NO
HELD:
PAGCOR received fan Jan 17, 2008
PAGCOR filed protest to RD MIsajon Jan 24, 2008no action