G.R. No. 208731 - Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. vs. Bureau of Internal Revenue

Petitioner Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Presidential Decree No. 1869, tasked to regulate and operate casinos and other amusement and recreation activities.
Respondents are the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), and the Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 6, responsible for tax assessments and enforcement.
The controversy concerns PAGCOR’s liability for deficiency Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) for taxable year 2004, assessed by the BIR.

PAGCOR provides a car plan benefit to officers, partly shouldered by PAGCOR (60%) and partly by the officers (40%), payable over five years.
On September 28, 2007, the BIR issued a Post Reporting Notice of audit results showing deficiencies on various taxes including FBT. VAT, withholding VAT, and expanded withholding taxes claims were later abandoned by the BIR.
On January 14, 2008, BIR issued a Final Assessment Notice (FAN) demanding payment of deficiency FBT amounting to P48,589,507.65.
PAGCOR filed an administrative protest with the Revenue District (RD) on January 24, 2008.
PAGCOR elevated the protest to the CIR on August 14, 2008, alleging inaction on protest.
BIR Regional Legal Division sustained assessment, and the protest was referred for further action without resolution.
PAGCOR filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on March 11, 2009, alleging BIR’s inaction.

The CTA First Division ruled on July 6, 2011, that PAGCOR’s petition for review was filed out of time, thus dismissing it and affirming the validity of the assessment.
PAGCOR moved for reconsideration, which was opposed by respondents.
The CTA En Banc affirmed on February 18, 2013, the dismissal and the procedural rulings of the First Division.
PAGCOR filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CTA En Banc on July 23, 2013.
PAGCOR elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on October 14, 2013.

Whether the CTA En Banc gravely erred in affirming the dismissal of PAGCOR’s petition for review on the ground that it was filed out of time.
Whether the CTA En Banc erred in failing to decide the substantive issue of PAGCOR’s tax exemption, particularly exemption from fringe benefits tax, under its charter.
Assuming PAGCOR is not exempt from FBT:

Whether the car plan benefit extended to its officers inures to PAGCOR’s benefit and is necessary in conducting its business.
Whether PAGCOR is liable only for the basic tax, excluding surcharge and interest.