- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 15 Mar 2011 · read from the court record
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- G.R. No. 172087
- Judge
- Peralta, J.
- Filed
- 2006
- Type
- Operator v. regulator, gambling tax litigation
- Money
- No settlement fund or award on record
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
On 15 March 2011 the Court upheld Congress's removal of PAGCOR's corporate income tax exemption (the exemption had been granted at PAGCOR's own request, so no equal-protection violation; a franchise is not a contract) but struck down the BIR regulation subjecting PAGCOR to VAT, which remains exempt under special law. The BIR's attempt to tax all PAGCOR income afterwards led to the 2014 clarification.
What this case is about
PAGCOR v Bureau of Internal Revenue is a tax case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc, under G.R. No. 172087, filed in 2006. It is one of the leading cases in Gambling Tax Litigation on how the Philippine state taxes its gaming agency.
PAGCOR challenged two measures. The first was section 1 of RA 9337, which deleted PAGCOR from the list of government corporations exempt from income tax, on equal protection and non-impairment grounds.
The second was Revenue Regulations 16-2005, which imposed a 10% VAT on PAGCOR. The defendants were the Bureau of Internal Revenue and Commissioner Jose Mario Buñag, among others.
Who is covered
The ruling decides PAGCOR's tax position against the Bureau of Internal Revenue. It does not involve players or ticket holders, and it is not a class action.
Other cases cited as related deal with the later tax treatment of PAGCOR's income and of casino operators that work with it, and are listed below.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. It is a dispute between a state gaming agency and the tax authority. The record shows no fund, damages or claim deadline, and no award to any player.
What the court decided
On 15 March 2011 the Court, with Justice Peralta writing, partly granted the petition. It upheld section 1 of RA 9337: the exemption had been granted at PAGCOR's own request, so removing it did not violate equal protection, and a franchise is not a contract.
It struck down Revenue Regulations 16-2005 as to the 10% VAT, so PAGCOR remains exempt from VAT under special law. As of 14 November 2026 the record shows no further step in this case. The Bureau's later attempt to tax all PAGCOR income led to the 2014 clarification.
Why it matters
The decision split PAGCOR's tax position: income tax applies after Congress removed the exemption, while VAT does not apply because a regulation cannot override the special-law exemption. Later tax disputes involving PAGCOR and its licensees start from this ruling.
For how tax authorities treat money that players receive, see Are Gambling Settlement Payments Taxable?.
Questions people ask
Is PAGCOR exempt from income tax?
Not under this ruling. On 15 March 2011 the Supreme Court upheld section 1 of RA 9337, which removed PAGCOR from the income-tax-exempt corporations. It found no equal-protection violation because the exemption had been granted at PAGCOR's request.
Does PAGCOR pay VAT?
No, according to this judgment. The Court struck down Revenue Regulations 16-2005 as to the 10% VAT, and PAGCOR remains exempt under special law.
Did a later case change this?
The Bureau of Internal Revenue's later attempt to tax all PAGCOR income led to the 2014 clarification in G.R. No. 215427, listed below.
Related cases
- PAGCOR v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 215427 (2014): the 2014 ruling on the tax on gaming income, status judgment.
- Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 212530: a casino operator's tax dispute, status judgment.
- Thunderbird Pilipinas Hotels and Resorts, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 211327: a licensee's income tax dispute, status judgment.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: PAGCOR
| Defendants | Bureau of Internal Revenue (Commissioner Jose Mario Buñag) et al. |
|---|---|
| Judge | Peralta, J. |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006 | Filed |
| 15 Mar 2011 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: lawphil.net
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| G.R. No. 172087, 15 March 2011, dispositive portion; G.R. No. 172087, 15 March 2011, Peralta J, En Banc, petition partly granted: s 1 RA 9337 valid, RR 16-2005 void as to 10% VAT | lawphil.net | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
3 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| PAGCOR v BIR 2014 (5% franchise tax on gaming income only) | Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc | Judgment entered |
| Bloomberry (Solaire) v BIR: licensees pay 5% franchise tax in lieu of income tax | Supreme Court of the Philippines, Third Division | Judgment entered |
| Thunderbird v CIR (licensee operating own casino is taxable) | Supreme Court of the Philippines, Third Division | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.