Bloomberry (Solaire) v BIR: licensees pay 5% franchise tax in lieu of income tax: Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 212530, is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case on whether a casino licensee owes corporate income tax on its gaming income.

Bloomberry, the operator of Solaire Resort & Casino and a licensee of PAGCOR (the state gaming regulator), brought the case in 2014.

The company challenged Revenue Memorandum Circular 33-2013, which imposed corporate income tax on a PAGCOR licensee's gaming income. It asked the Court to extend the 2014 PAGCOR ruling to licensees, relying on section 13(2)(b) of PD 1869.

The case belongs to the wider field of gambling tax litigation, where operators and players contest how revenue agencies tax gambling.

Who is covered

The order protects Bloomberry's gaming income. The defendant is the Bureau of Internal Revenue, then led by Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares.

This is not a class action and players are not parties. The Court later narrowed the reach of the holding in a different licensee's case (see the related cases below).

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. It is a tax dispute between one operator and the revenue bureau, and the record shows no fund, no claim process and no money awarded to players.

The decision stops the BIR from imposing income tax on Bloomberry's gaming income. It is not a refund to anyone who gambled.

What the court decided

On 10 August 2016, the Third Division of the Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Perez, ordered the BIR to cease and desist from imposing income tax under RMC 33-2013 on Bloomberry's gaming income.

The Court held that section 13(2)(b) of PD 1869 passes PAGCOR's exemption to entities that contract with PAGCOR in casino operations, once the 5% franchise tax is paid. The franchise tax stands in place of income tax.

As of 14 November 2026 the status is judgment, dated 10 August 2016. The record shows no later step in this case.

Why it matters

The ruling is the key tax precedent for the Entertainment City integrated resorts in the Philippines. The Court applied the reasoning of the 2014 PAGCOR ruling to a private operator working under a PAGCOR licence.

It was later narrowed in Thunderbird (2020). The case concerns operator tax, not player tax. Readers who want the tax treatment of settlement money can read Are gambling settlement payments taxable for IRS, ATO, HMRC and BFH references.

Questions people ask

What tax does a PAGCOR licensee pay under this ruling?

A PAGCOR licensee pays the 5% franchise tax in lieu of corporate income tax on its gaming income. The Court read PD 1869 section 13(2)(b) as passing PAGCOR's exemption to those who contract with it in casino operations.

Who won Bloomberry v BIR?

Bloomberry won. On 10 August 2016 the Supreme Court ordered the BIR to cease and desist from applying RMC 33-2013 to Bloomberry's gaming income.

Did a later case change the rule?

Yes. The Court narrowed the Bloomberry holding in Thunderbird (2020), another licensee case listed below.

Related cases

• PAGCOR v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 215427 (2014): the 2014 ruling that Bloomberry asked the Court to extend to licensees.
• Thunderbird Pilipinas Hotels and Resorts, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 211327: the 2020 judgment that narrowed the Bloomberry holding.