NOATUM LOGISTICS PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly MIQ LOGISTICS PHILIPPINES, INC.) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

CTA Form No.8 (For DCC) llllllllllllllll l llllllllllllll llllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllll l llll 22-000250-0053 REPUBLIC OF THE PIDLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE N0.10867 NOATUM LOGISTICS PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly MIQ LOGISTICS PIDLIPPINES, INC.), Petitioner, -versus- NOTICE OF RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. To: OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legazpi Village Makati City ATTY. SHERYLL P. CACAYURAN ATTY. FELY ROSER. DAGANTA Bureau of Internal Revenue Legal Division, Revenue Region 8B- South NCR 2nd Floor, BIR Regional Office Building No. 313 Sen. Puyat Avenue Makati City SYMECSLaw 3109 One Corporate Center Julia Vargas comer Meralco A venue Ortigas Center, Pasig City GREETINGS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on March 13, 2026, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, March 17, 2026. Atty. Maria j~F. Chan-Te Executive ~Court III

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION NOATUM LOGISTICS CTA CASE NO. 10867 PHILIPPINES, INC. (formerly MIQ Members: LOGISTICS BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson PHILIPPINES, INC.), and CUI-DAVID,]]. Petitioner, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated: . t1 '1.t:.ull ' 3 ------------- Respondent. MAK 1iS 2026..J;;YJrf! X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION BACORRO-VILLENA, L.: For the Court's resolution is respondent Commissioner oflnternal Revenue's (respondent's/CIR's) "Motion for Reconsideration (Of the Decision dated 30 July 2025)"1 (MR) filed and emailed on 20 August 2025, with petitioner Noatum Logistics Philippines, Inc. (formerly MIQ Logistics Philippines Inc. (petitioner's) "Comment/Opposition (Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 August 2025)" 2 (Comment) filed via registered mail on 12 September 2025 and via email on 15 SeRtember 2025. t The MR assails the Court's Decision3promulgated on 30 July 2025 (assailed Decision), which granted p~titioner's Petition for Review. The dispositive portion ofwhich reads: I Div ision Docket, Volume I, pp. 585-599. 2 ld., pp. 60 1-6 10 . ld., pp. 554-583.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10867 Noatum Logistics Philippines, Inc. (formerly MIQ Logistics Philippines, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review filed by petitioner Noatum Logistics Philippines, Inc. on 26 May 2022 is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, since respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's right to collect the alleged deficiency Income Tax, Value-Added Tax and Expanded Withholding Tax for the taxable year 2013 has already prescribed, respondent and his or her duly authorized representatives are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing coll ection of the aforemention ed deficiency taxes. SO ORDERED.4 In the MR, respondent assailed the Court's grant of petitioner's Petition for Review, arguing that respondent's right to collect the subject deficiency tax assessment has not yet prescribed. Further, respondent insists that petitioner's filing of its administrative appeal or request for reconsideration against the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA), before respondent suspended his or her period for collection of the said deficiency taxes. Respondent likewise averred that the suspension of statute of limitations on his or her right to collect has been affected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issuan ces in relation to the Coronavirus Disease of 2019 ( COVID 19 Issuances) specifically the following: (1) Revenue Regulation (RR) No. n-20205; (2) RR No . 6 (3) Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 136- 12-2020 ; 20207; (4) RMC No. 8 and (s) RM C No . 9 3 - 2 0 2 19 � Finally, 80- 2021 ; respondent posits that the parties did not raise the prescription of respondent's right to collect as an issue during trial; hence, issues that I Emphasis in the original text. Amends Section 2 of the Revenue Regulations o. I0-2020 relative to the extension of statutory deadlines and timel iness for the filing and submission of any document and the payment of taxes pursuant to Section 4(z) of Republic Act No. 11 469, otherwise known as "Bayanihan to Heal as One Act". 6 Amends Revenue Regulations No. I0-2020, as Amended by Revenue Regulations No. 11-2020, Relative to the Extension of Statutory Deadlines and Timelines for the Fil ing and Submission of Any Document and the Payment ofTaxes Pursuant to Section4(z) of Republic Act No. 11469, Otherwise Known as "Bayanihan to Heal as One Act". Clarification on the Suspension of the Statute of Limitation Provided Under Revenue Regulations (RR) No. I 1-2020. ClarifYing the Suspension of the Statute of Limitations on Assessment and Collection of Taxes Due to t he D ec laration of Quara ntine in Various A reas in the Country. 9 Suspension of the Running of the Statute of Limitations on Assessment and Collection of Taxes Due to Declaration of ECQ and MECQ in the NCR and Other Areas of the Country.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10867 Noatum Logistics Philippines, Inc. (formerly MIQ Logistics Philippines, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Reven ue Page 3 of lO X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X were not alleged or proved before the BIR cannot be considered on appeal. In petitioner's Comment, it opined that this Court has the authority to resolve related issues necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case. It also pointed out that respondent's right to collect the alleged deficiency tax had already prescribed. Finally, petitioner argued that the assessment of a tax liability is deemed made and the three (3)-year period for collection of the said taxes begins to run on the date the assessment notice has been released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer. We resolve. We preface our discussions by clarifying that this Court can rule on all relevant issues for the orderly disposition of a case. Although the issue of prescription on respondent's right to collect is not raised by the parties themselves, the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) can rule on issues that are not stipulated by the parties for the orderly disposition of the case. In Republic ofthe Philippines, represented by the Bureau ofInternal Revenue v. First Gas Power Corporation 10, the Supreme Court emphasized this principle: In the ca se of Commissioner of Internal Revenu e v. Lancaster Philippines, In c., this Cou rt categorically rule d that the Revised Rules o f the CTA cl early a llowed it to rule o n issu es no t stipula ted by th e parties to achieve a n orderly dispositio n of the case, thus: On whether the CTA can resolve an issue which was not raised by the parties, we rule in the affirmat ive. Under Section 1, Rule 14 of A. M. No. os-n -07-CTA, or the Revised Rules of t he Court of Tax Appeals, the CTA is not bound by the issues specifically raised by the parties but may also rule upon related issues necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case. The text of the provision reads: I SECT IO N 1. Rendition ofjudgment. - x x X 10 G.R. No. 2 14933, 15 February 2022. Italics in the original; citation omitted.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10867 Noatum Logistics Philippines, Inc. (formerly MIQ Logistics Philippines, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 4 of lO X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X In deciding the case, the Court may not limit itself to the issues stipulated by the parties but may also rule upon related issues necessary to achieve an orderly disposition of the case. Moving forward, an examination of the records of the case reveals that respondent's right to collect deficiency taxes has already prescribed. Section 203 of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, as amended, provides for the prescriptive period in the assessment and collection of internal revenue taxes: SEC. 203. Period of Limitation Upon Assessment and Collection. - Except as provided in Section 222, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three (3) years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period: Provided, That in a case where a return is filed beyond the period prescribed by law, the three (3)-year period shall be counted from the day the return was filed. For purposes of this Section, a return filed before the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereo f shall be considered as filed on such last day. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals Second Division and QL Development, Inc. 11 (QL Development), the Supreme Court, citing the case of Commissioner ofInternal Revenue v. United Salvage and Towage (Phils.), Inc. 12 (United Salvage), ruled that in cases of valid assessment issued within the three (3)-year period, BIR has another three (3) years to collect the taxes reckoning from the date the assessment notice had been released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer: The statute of limitations on assessment and co ll ection of national internal revenue taxes was shortened from five (s) years to three (3) years by virtue of Batas Pambansa Blg. 700. Thus, petitioner has three (3) years from the date of actual filin g of the tax return to assess a national internal revenue tax or to commence court proceedings for the collection thereof without an assessment. However, when it validly issues an assessment within the three (3)-year period, it / has another three (3) years within which to collect the tax due ~ II G.R. No. 258947,29 March 2022. 12 G.R. No. 1975 15, 02 July 20 14.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10867 Noatum Logistics Philippines, Inc. (formerly MIQ Logistics Philippines, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 5 oflO X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X by distraint, levy, or court proceeding. The assessment of the tax is deemed made and the three (3)-year period for collection of the assessed tax begins to run on the date the assessment notice had been released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer.13 However, in cases of fraud under Section 222 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the period of collection extends to five (s) years: ... The five-year period for collection of taxes only applies to assessments issued within the extraordinary period of10 years in cases of fal se or fraudu lent return or failure to file a return. Indeed, Section 222 of the NIRC, as amended, provides: SEC. 222. Exceptions as to Period ofLimitation of A ssessment and Collection ofTaxes. - (a) In the case of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax or offailure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be filed without assessment, at any time within ten (10) years after the discovery of the falsity, fraud or omission: Provided, That in a fraud assessment which has become final and executory, the fact of fraud shall be judicially taken cognizance of in the civil or criminal action for the collection thereof. xxxx (c) Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the period of limitation as prescribed in paragraph (a) hereof may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court within five (5) years following the assessment of the tax. (Emphasis suppliedr4 Meanwhile, Section 223 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, provides I for instances when the running of the statute of limitation may be suspended, to wit: 13 Citation omitted and emphasis supplied. I~ Empasis suppl ied.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10867 Noatum Logistics Philippines, Inc. (formerly MIQ Logistics Philippines, Inc.) v. Commiss ioner of Internal Revenue Page 6 oflO X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X SEC. 223. Suspension of Running of Statute of Limitations. - The running ofthe Statute of Limitations provided in Sections 203 and 222 on the making of assessment and the beginning of distraint or levy or a proceeding in court for collection, in respect ofany deficiency, shall be suspended for the period during which the Commissioner is prohibited from making the assessment or beginning distraint or levy or a proceeding in court and for sixty (6o) days thereafter; when the taxpayer requests for a reinvestigation which is granted by the Commissioner; when the taxpayer cannot be located in the address given by him in the return filed upon which a tax is being assessed or collected: Provided, that, if the taxpayer informs the Commissioner of any change in address, the running of the Statute of Limitations will not be suspended; when the warrant of distraint or levy is duly served upon the taxpayer, his authorized representative, or a member of his household with sufficient discretion, and no property could be located; and when the taxpaye r is out of the Philippines.'5 The foregoing Section is plainly worded and could hardly be the subject of any other interpretation. To suspend the running of the prescriptive periods for assessment and collection, the CIR or his or her duly authorized representative must have granted the request for reinvestigation .'6 In the case at bar, the Court notes that the "[Final] Assessment Notice/ Formal Letter of Demand"'7 (FAN/FLD) was issued on 13 January 2017 and in the FAN/FLD, there was no allegation of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax. In response to the FAN/ FLD, petitiOner timely filed a Protest (by way of a request for reconsiderationr8 (Protest to FAN) on 20 February 2017. Though respondent admits that the filing of the Protest to FAN did not toll the running of the prescriptive period to collect, he or she however insists that petitioner's filing of its Request for Reconsideration against the FDDA'9 on 21 June 2018 suspended the said period. In support of respondent's argument, he or she cites Light Rail Tran sit Authority v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, represented by th e~ 15 Emphasis supplied and italics in the original text. 16 Bank of the Philippine Islands (Formerly: Far East Bank and Trust Company) v. Commissioner of Inter n al Re ven ue, G. R. N o. 174942, 07 Ma rc h 2008. 17 Exhi bit " R-6'' I Exhibit " P-4", id., pp. 7 18-7 19. 18 Exhibit "R-9'' I Exhi bit " P-5", id., pp. 736-739. 19 Exhibit " R- 10" I Exhibit "P-7", id.. pp. 827-829.

RESOLUTION CTACase No. 10867 Noatum Logistics Philippines, Inc. (formerly MIQ Logistics Philippines, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Page 7 of l O x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x Commissioner of Internal Revenue20 (LRTA) which provides that if the taxpayer filed a pending appeal against the FDDA, such disputed assessment may not be subjected of any collection proceeding. Thus, following Section 223 of the NIRC, as amended the applicable prescriptive period for the collection of the said taxes shall likewise be suspended. We disagree. In United Salvage, 21 the Supreme Court ruled that the period for the collection of the assessed taxes begins to run on the date that the assessment notice is released, mailed or sent to the taxpayer. From the foregoing, in this case, the prescriptive period to collect would start to run on the FAN/ FLO's issue date of 13 January 2017. Counting three (3) years therefrom, respondent had until 12 January 202022 to collect the deficiency taxes. As enunciated by the Supreme Court in QL Development,23 the BIR's collection efforts are initiated by distraint, levy, or court proceeding. The distraint and levy proceedings are validly begun or commenced by the issuance of a WDL and service thereof on the taxpayer. On the other hand, a judicial action for the collection of a tax is initiated: (a) by the filing of a complaint with the court of competent jurisdiction; or (b) where the assessment is appealed to the CTA, by filing an answer to the taxpayer's petition for review wherein payment of the tax is prayed for. Clearly, respondent's filing of an Answer on 01 August 2o2224 was already time-barred. We are not unaware that petitioner subsequently filed a Request for Reconsideration against the FDDA before the CIR. However, even if the CIR acted on the said Request for Reconsideration, the same could not and did not toll the running of the prescriptive period to collect. ; 20 G .R. o. 23 1238, 20 June 2022. 21 Supra at note 12. 22 Respondent's issuance of the FA / FL D was on 13 January 20 17, he nce, the e nd of three [3]-year peri od to collect is on 12 Janua1y 2020. See Commissioner of Internal Re venue v. Primetown ,. Property Group, Inc., G .R. No. 162 155 , 28 August 2007. -> Supra at note I I. 24 Div ision Docket, pp. 184-205.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10867 Noatum Logis tics Philippines, Inc. (for merly MIQ Logisti cs Philip pines, Inc.) v. Commissio ner of In te rnal Revenue x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x The wordings of Section 223 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, are clear. Only a request for reinvestigation which the CIR has granted will suspend the running of the statute of limitations and not request for reconsideration. A reinvestigation, which entails the reception and evaluation of additional evidence, will take more time than a reconsideration of a tax assessment which will be limited to the evidence already at hand .25 This justifies why the former can suspend the running of the statute of limitations on the collection of the assessed tax, while the latter cannot.26 Respondent, citing LRTA, argues that petitioner's administrative appeal to the CIR rendered the deficiency assessments still disputed, and therefore, not final. As such, it effectively 'prevented' him or her to initiate the collection proceedings and suspended the running of the prescriptive period to collect until the he or she issued a final decision. We disagree with respondent. The doctrine of ejusdem generis provides that "where general terms follow the designation of particular things or classes of persons or subjects, the general term will be construed to comprehend those things or persons of the same class or of the same nature as those specifically enumerated".27 In the same vein, the doctrine of noscitur a sociis provides that "proper construction may be had by considering the company of words in which the term or phrase in question is founded or with which it is associated".28 Applying the foregoing guidelines in the instant case, the phrase "the period during which the Commissioner is prohibited from ...beginning distraint or levy or a proceeding in court" should be construed to mean those of the same class or nature as the succeeding grounds under Section 223 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended: (1) when the taxpayer requests for a reinvestigation and it is granted; (2) when the taxpayer cannot be located at the address stated in the return; (3) when a warrant is served but no property can be located; and (4) i when the taxpayer is out of the Philippines. The foregoing grounds show instances or scenarios beyond the CIR's control. It bears emphasis a 25 Bank of 1he Philippine Islands r. Commissioner of Infernal Revenue, G.R. No. 18 1836; 09 July 2014. 26 I d. 27 National Power Corpora/ion v. Honorable Zain B. Angas, Dis/riel Judge of lhe Courf of First Instance of Lanao del Sur, et. al. , G.R . Nos. 60225-26, 08 May 1992. 28 People ofthe Philippines v. Meinrado Enrique A. Bello, ef. a/., G. R. Nos. 166948-59, 29 August 20 12.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10867 Noatum Logistics Phi lippines, Inc. (fo rmerly MIQ Logistics Philippines, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Reven ue Page 9 oflO X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X request for reconsideration merely entails a re-evaluation of an assessment on the basis of existing records without need of additional evidence from the taxpayer.29 Additionally, to interpret the law otherwise (i.e., to allow a pending request for reconsideration to also toll the prescriptive period) would make the specific mention of a granted request for reinvestigation "superfluous" or unnecessary, as the broader category would already cover it. This goes against a rule in statutory construction that no word, clause, sentence, provision or part of a statute shall be considered surplusage or superfluous, meaningless, void and insignificant.30 To this end, a construction which renders every word operative is preferred over that which makes some words idle and nugatory? Therefore, a pending request for reconsideration before the CIR cannot be considered as one that "prohibits" the CIR from initiating the collection proceedings. Respondent's argument that statute of limitations on his or her right to collect has been suspended by COVID 19 issuances is likewise misplaced. Respondent's right to collect petitioner's deficiency IT. VAT and EWT for TY 2013 had already prescribed on 12 January 2020. Republic Act No. 114 6932, otherwise known as the "Bayanihan to Heal as One Act" took effect on 26 March 2020. Thus, we fail to see the logic in respondent's argument that the said COVID 19 Issuances suspended the statute of limitatio ns on resp o ndent's right to collect. Indeed, the law prescribing a limitation of actions for the collection of taxes is beneficial both to the State and to its citizens; to the State because tax officers would be obliged to act promptly in the/ 29 Bank ofthe Philippine Islands v. Commissioner of internal Revenue, supra at note 25. 30 Main T Aifohammad r . Office ofThe Secretal)', Department of Justice. Menardo I. Guevarra, in his capacity as Secre/C/1)' ofJustice, G. R. o. 256 11 6, 27 February 2024. 31 I d. 32 AN ACT DECLARI NG THE EX ISTENCE OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY ARI SING FROM THE CORONA VIRUS DI SEAS E 201 9 (COVID- 19) SITUATION AN D A NATIONAL POLICY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. AND AUTHORIZING THE PRES IDENT OF THE R EPU B LIC OF TH E PHILIP PI ES FOR A LIMITED PERI OD AN D SUBJ ECT T O RESTRICTIONS, TO EXERCISE POWERS NECESSARY AN D PROPER TO CARRY OUT THE DECLARED NATIONAL POLI CY AND FO R OTHER PURPOSES, dated 24 March 2020.

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10867 Noatum Logistics Philippines, Inc. (formerly MIQ Logistics Philippines, Inc.) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x making of assessment or collection, and to citizens because after the lapse of the period of prescription citizens would have a feeling of security against unscrupulous tax agents who will always find an excuse to inspect the books of taxpayers, not to determine the latter's real liability, but to take advantage of every opportunity to molest peaceful, law-abiding citizensY Without such a legal defense taxpayers would furthermore be under obligation to always keep their books and keep them open for inspection subject to harassment by unscrupulous tax agents. The law on prescription being a remedial measure should be interpreted in a way conducive to bringing about the beneficent purpose of affording protection to the taxpayer.34 WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue's ~~Motion for Reconsideration (Of the Decision dated 30 July 2025)" filed and emailed on 20 August 2025 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. JEAN MAR I CONCUR: AM~Mttnt{ LArflE S~CUI-DAVID Associate Justice 33 See Bank ofrhe Philippine Islands r. Commissioner of/merna/ Revenue, supra at note 25. 34 I d.