Process: 111/2015-T

Date: September 28, 2015

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This arbitral decision concerns a Stamp Duty dispute involving two building plots in Lisbon owned by A… Sole Proprietorship, Ltd. The Tax Authority assessed Stamp Duty totaling €104,850.79 for 2012 under item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty (TGIS), as amended by Law 55-A/2012. This provision introduced Stamp Duty on high-value residential properties exceeding €1,000,000. The central legal issue was whether building plots (terrenos para construção) designated for residential purposes fall within the scope of item 28.1 TGIS. The Claimant argued that building plots intended for construction cannot be considered 'properties with residential designation' since they are not habitable properties, and mere existence of a construction license does not guarantee construction will occur. The Claimant further contended that the 2013 amendment to item 28.1 demonstrated an extension of the tax base from 2014, implying prior non-applicability. The Tax Authority countered that the properties possess the 'legal nature of property with residential designation' based on their classification for valuation purposes. Since the Stamp Duty Code lacks definitions for 'urban property' and 'residential designation,' the Authority applied concepts from the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMPT) pursuant to Article 67(2) of the SDC. The Authority argued that if residential designation coefficients apply for determining tax assessed value, they must also apply for Stamp Duty purposes. The Claimant also raised procedural issues, alleging lack of prior hearing before dismissal of the official revision request and inconsistencies in the tax authorities' reasoning. The case was heard through the Centre for Administrative Arbitration (CAAD) arbitration proceedings under Decree-Law 10/2011.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

Report

A – General

1.1. A… – … Sole Proprietorship, Ltd., a company with registered office at Avenue …, No. …, in Lisbon, with the collective person number … (hereinafter referred to as the "Claimant"), filed on 19.02.2015 a request for the establishment of an arbitral tribunal in tax matters, seeking the declaration of illegality of the stamp duty assessment acts for the year 2012, in the total amount of € 104,850.79 (one hundred and four thousand eight hundred and fifty euros and seventy-nine cents), concerning two plots of land for construction of which it is the owner, registered in the urban real estate registry of the new Parish of …, municipality of Lisbon, under articles … and … (hereinafter referred to as the "Properties").

1.2. The assessments relating to the taxable event that occurred on 31.12.2012 were based on article 1 of the Stamp Duty Code (hereinafter the "SDC") and on item 28.1 of the respective General Table (the "GTSDT"), amended by article 4 of Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, and those relating to the taxable event that occurred on 31.10.2012, in addition to the aforementioned provisions, were also based on subparagraph i) of paragraph f) of section 1 of article 6 of the same Law, all having been properly notified to the Claimant.

1.3. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph a) of section 2 of article 6 and of paragraph b) of section 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Council of the Centre for Administrative Arbitration appointed as arbitrators the undersigned, and the Parties, after having been duly notified, did not object to such appointment.

1.4. By order of 05.03.2015, the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") proceeded to appoint Dr. B to intervene in the present arbitral proceedings, in the name and on behalf of the Respondent.

1.5. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph c) of section 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 30.04.2015.

1.6. On 05.05.2015, the highest official of the Respondent's service was notified to, within a period of 30 days, attach to the case file the administrative file that may exist and, if so desired, submit a reply and request additional evidence.

1.7. On 11.06.2015 the Respondent submitted its reply.

B – Position of the Claimant

1.8. The Claimant proceeded to pay the collection notices issued as a result of the stamp duty assessment acts (hereinafter "SD") now being contested, but, not being satisfied with said assessments, filed on 20.08.2014 a request for official revision, which was dismissed.

1.9. In procedural terms, the Claimant bases its request on the inconsistency between what was alleged by the official responsible for the case – who referred to the "suitability for habitation" of the building plots – and what was expressed by the finance chief who dismissed the request – who alluded to a building constructed on full property, which is manifestly not the case, an inconsistency that undermines the reasoning of the act dismissing the official revision request and, consequently, its validity.

1.10. The Claimant was notified of the dismissal of the official revision request, without having previously been given the opportunity, if so desired, to exercise the right to be heard, an omission that renders the act of dismissal of the official revision request invalid.

1.11. As regards the substantive aspects, the Claimant argues that there was an erroneous qualification of the taxable event insofar as the Properties are building plots intended for construction, and cannot be considered to be devoted to any other purpose – namely residential – other than construction, and do not have the characteristics of habitable properties, and that one cannot infer from the mere existence of a construction licence the guarantee that it will be carried out.

1.12. Consequently, the Property is not included within the scope of objective incidence of item 28.1 of the GTSDT since a building plot is not in itself a habitable property, that is, cannot be subsumed under the concept of "property with residential designation".

1.13. The Claimant further considers that the amendment introduced by Law No. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, to the wording of item 28.1 of the GTSDT unequivocally demonstrates that from 01.01.2014 there was an extension of the tax base of the SD.

C – Position of the Respondent

1.14. The Respondent argues that each of the Properties has the "legal nature of property with residential designation", and therefore defends the maintenance of the assessment acts subject to the request for arbitral decision.

1.15. The Respondent's position results from the circumstance that there is no definition in the Stamp Duty Code of the concepts of "urban property", "building plot" and "residential designation", which requires recourse to the Municipal Property Tax Code (the "MPTC"), in compliance with the provisions of section 2 of article 67 of the SDC, as amended by Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, making it necessary to conclude that the notion of designation of an urban property "is rooted in the part relating to the valuation of real property".

1.16. If, for the purposes of determining the tax assessed value of building plots, the clear application of the designation coefficient for purposes of valuation is evident, then "its consideration for the purposes of applying item 28 of the GTSDT cannot be ignored".

D – Conclusion of the Report and Case Management

1.17. By order of 14.08.2015, the arbitral tribunal dispensed with the hearing provided for in article 18 of the Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters (LRATM) as it considered there to be no procedural utility in its conduct, having fixed 28.09.2015 as the deadline for rendering the final decision.

1.18. The parties have legal personality and capacity and have standing pursuant to article 4 and section 2 of article 10 of the LRATM, and article 1 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.

1.19. The case does not suffer from any nullity and the Parties have not raised any exceptions that would prevent the consideration of the merits of the case, such that the conditions for rendering the arbitral decision are satisfied.

1.20. The joinder of claims made in the present request for arbitral decision, in deference to the principle of procedural economy, is justified insofar as the contested assessment acts are based on the same factual basis and call for the application of the same rules of law.

Findings of Fact

2.1. Proven Facts

2.1.1. The Claimant is the owner of the Properties (docs. nos. 2 and 3, attached with the request for arbitral decision, although numbered incorrectly therein, the contents of which are taken as reproduced).

2.1.2. The Properties are described as building plots (docs. nos. 2 and 3, attached with the request for arbitral decision, although numbered incorrectly therein).

2.1.3. Each of the Properties was assigned a tax assessed value exceeding €1,000,000.00 (one million euros) (docs. nos. 2 and 3, attached with the request for arbitral decision, although numbered incorrectly therein).

2.1.4. For the purposes of determining the respective tax assessed value, each of the Properties was assigned residential designation (docs. nos. 2 and 3, attached with the request for arbitral decision, although numbered incorrectly therein).

2.1.5. The Claimant was notified of the collection notices for the SD assessments relating to the Properties and concerning the taxable event that occurred on 31.10.2012, in the total amount of € 34,950.27 (thirty-four thousand nine hundred and fifty euros and twenty-seven cents), and proceeded to pay them on 20.12.2012 (docs. nos. 4 to 6, attached with the request for arbitral decision, the contents of which are taken as reproduced).

2.1.6. The Claimant was notified of the collection notices for the SD assessments relating to the Properties and concerning the taxable event that occurred on 31.12.2012, in the total amount of € 69,900.52 (sixty-nine thousand nine hundred euros and fifty-two cents), and proceeded to pay them in three instalments: (i) 30.04.2013; (ii) 08.08.2013; and (iii) 05.12.2013 (docs. nos. 7 to 17, attached with the request for arbitral decision, the contents of which are taken as reproduced).

2.2. Unproven Facts

There are no facts relevant to the consideration of the merits of the case that have been found unproven.

Matters of Law

3.1. Question to be Decided

It follows from what has been stated above that the question to be decided is, fundamentally, whether the Properties, which are building plots, are properties "with residential designation" for the purposes of applying article 1 of the SDC and item 28.1 of the GTSDT, amended by article 4 of Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October.

3.2. Item 28.1 of the GTSDT

Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, among various amendments it made to the SDC, added by its article 4, item 28 to the GTSDT, which reads as follows:

"28 - Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose tax assessed value shown in the register, pursuant to the Municipal Property Tax Code (MPTC), is equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000 - on the tax assessed value used for purposes of municipal property tax:

28.1 - For property with residential designation - 1%;

28.2 - For property, where the taxable persons who are not individuals are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favourable tax regime, listed in the ordinance approved by the Minister of Finance - 7.5%."

Under the heading "transitional provisions", article 6 of Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, and with relevance to what must be decided, established the following:

1 — In 2012, the following rules shall be observed with reference to the assessment of stamp duty provided for in item no. 28 of the respective General Table:

a) The taxable event occurs on 31 October 2012;

b) The taxable person of the tax is the one mentioned in section 4 of article 2 of the Stamp Duty Code on the date referred to in the preceding paragraph;

c) The tax assessed value to be used in the assessment of the tax corresponds to what results from the rules provided in the Municipal Property Tax Code with reference to the year 2011;

d) The assessment of the tax by the Tax and Customs Authority shall be carried out by the end of November 2012;

e) The tax must be paid, in a single instalment, by the taxable persons by 20 December 2012;

f) The applicable rates are as follows:

i) Properties with residential designation assessed pursuant to the Municipal Property Tax Code: 0.5%;

ii) Properties with residential designation not yet assessed pursuant to the Municipal Property Tax Code: 0.8%;

iii) Urban properties where the taxable persons who are not individuals are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favourable tax regime, listed in the ordinance approved by the Minister of Finance: 7.5%.

As can be seen, item 28.1 refers to "properties with residential designation". Now, not only is this concept not defined in any provision of the SDC, but it is also not used in the MPTC, a statute to which section 2 of article 67 of the SDC expressly refers when matters not regulated in the SDC concerning item 28 are at issue.

3.3. The Meaning and Scope of the Concept of "Property with Residential Designation"

The meaning and scope of the concept of "property with residential designation" cannot be established without keeping in mind the meaning of the word "designation" itself. And this must be found in dictionaries, drawing on the benefit of the careful study of lexicographers. Thus, "designation" [afectação], according to the Dictionary of Contemporary Portuguese Language, of the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon, is the action of devoting something to a determined use, and "to designate" [afectar], consequently, is synonymous with devoting to a use or a specific function.

a) The rules of interpretation of tax provisions

The question to be considered does not dispense with, but rather requires, that the meaning and scope of the concept of "property with residential designation" to which item 28.1 of the GTSDT appeals be grasped. In the absence of a legal definition, whether in the SDC or in any other statute, the interpreter-applicator of this provision has the duty to invoke the rules that govern the necessary hermeneutic exercise.

There is not truly a special regime for the interpretation of tax provisions. Section 1 of article 11 of the General Tax Law directs that, "in determining the meaning of tax provisions and in qualifying the facts to which they apply", the "general rules and principles of interpretation and application of laws" shall be observed.

The general principles of interpretation and application of laws are those established in article 9 of the Civil Code:

ARTICLE 9

(Interpretation of law)

  1. Interpretation should not limit itself to the letter of the law, but should reconstruct from the texts the legislative intent, paying particular attention to the unity of the legal system, the circumstances in which the law was enacted and the specific conditions of the time in which it is applied.

  2. The interpreter cannot, however, consider legislative intent that does not have in the letter of the law a minimum of verbal correspondence, even if imperfectly expressed.

  3. In determining the meaning and scope of the law, the interpreter shall presume that the legislator adopted the most appropriate solutions and knew how to express his intent in adequate terms.

It should be noted, however, that the interpretation of provisions, also of tax provisions, is not exhausted in a lexical exercise. It does not involve only, and not even especially, vocabulary dissection. So what is at issue is not knowing exactly what "property with residential designation" means, but rather grasping the meaning and scope of that concept within the scope of item 28.1 of the GTSDT. That is to say, to emphasize, there will be procedural utility to the hermeneutic effort, within the scope of this concrete request for arbitral decision, only if it is directed at discovering whether the legislator, with the wording chosen for item 28.1 of the GTSDT, intended to include therein urban properties classified as building plots.

b) "Residential designation" – residential properties and properties with residential designation

The Respondent argues that the designation of the property is a coefficient that contributes to its valuation, which we believe is indisputable. However, the question now at issue is whether item 28 of the GTSDT, in the wording which we must consider, encompasses both constructed buildings and building plots.

Section 1 of article 6 of the SDC, with taxonomic concern, distinguishes "residential properties" from "building plots". The former shall be, pursuant to the provisions of section 2 of the same article, buildings or constructions licensed for such purpose or, in the absence of such licence, those having that end as their normal destination. Building plots, on the other hand, as clarified in section 3 of the provision to which we have been making reference, are those for which a licence or authorization has been granted, prior notification admitted or a preliminary favourable opinion issued for a subdivision or construction operation, and also those that have been declared as such in the acquisition title, with some exceptions.

It is clear, therefore, that a building plot is not, according to this classification, a residential property. The question now is whether "property with residential designation", a concept used by item 28.1 of the GTSDT, corresponds, despite the verbal diversity, to "residential property", a notion employed in the classification just visited.

Designation, as we have learned from the lexicographers, invokes the purpose given to a certain asset. Now "residential" is relative to residence, this being, in turn, and according to the Dictionary we have been using, a place or house in which one lives or dwells. Now, residential designation cannot suggest any other meaning than the action of giving to a certain asset – in this case the Property, which is, let us recall, a building plot – the purpose of a house or place where one dwells.

It is known that the MPTC makes, in various provisions, use of the expression "designation". It does so, for example:

In article 3, when it refers, with respect to rural properties, to utilization generating agricultural income;

In article 9, when it imposes on taxable persons the duty to communicate to the finance services that a building plot has come to appear in the inventory of a company whose object is the construction of buildings for sale or that a property has come to appear in the inventory of a company whose object is its sale;

In article 27, when it relates certain buildings and constructions to the production of agricultural income.

In all the situations presented, as can be seen, designation is not referred to in potential terms, of vocation or expectation. It is precisely the opposite. It suggests an actual or direct purpose, to use an expression to which the legislator resorts in article 27.

However, the MPTC also makes abundant use of the expression "designation" when it sets forth the rules that must apply to the determination of the tax assessed value of urban properties (articles 38 and following of the MPTC). It is therefore important to see whether we can extract from the rules for determining tax assessed value any useful element that will allow us to grasp the meaning and scope of the concept of "property with residential designation".

c) The Relevance of the Rules for Determining Tax Assessed Value

The Respondent argues that the "notion of designation of urban property is rooted in the part relating to the valuation of real property" and, even more, that "for the purposes of determining the tax assessed value of building plots it is clear that the designation coefficient applies for purposes of valuation, such that its consideration for the purposes of applying item 28 of the GTSDT cannot be ignored".

It is true that for the determination of the tax assessed value of building plots, account has been taken, not without difficulty, of the "designation" of what may be built thereon.

However, as the Respondent rightly notes, "the mere establishment of a potential construction right immediately increases the value of the property in question", precisely in function of what may be built thereon. For this reason, as the Respondent explains very well, article 45 of the MPTC "requires separation of the two parts of the land": on the one hand, we must consider "the part of the land where the building to be constructed is to be built, [or more precisely, where it may come to be built], and on the other the area of free land. Once the amount of the first part has been calculated, the value determined is reduced to a percentage between 15% and 45% (…), by virtue of the construction not yet being effectuated". It is clear that the application of that percentage allows precisely for account to be taken of the circumstance that there is not yet construction, but does not authorize the legislator in ignoring that the economic, or market, value of a building plot is related to its construction capacity.

To say what precedes does not mean, however, that the legislator felt the need to impose automatic and necessary taxation, for purposes of Municipal Property Tax, on all building plots. One only needs to read what article 9, already referred to, of the MPTC provides:

ARTICLE 9

(Start of taxation)

  1. The tax is due from:

(…)

d) The 4th year following, inclusive, that in which a building plot came to appear in the inventory of a company whose object is the construction of buildings for sale;

(…)

That is, even if the legislator understands it to be reasonable, as it appears to be, to determine the tax assessed value of a building plot taking into account its construction capacity and, conceding for the sake of argument, the nature or vocation of what may be built thereon, it remains symptomatic that it opted, at the same time, to suspend that taxation in cases where those building plots appear in the inventory of a company whose object is the construction of buildings for sale. In cases where, one might also say, those urban properties form part of a productive process that tends to continue and to produce, downstream, fruits also subject to taxation.

If the primary meaning of "designation", as we have stated, suggests an actual, direct purpose given to a determined asset, we do not see how this understanding can be refuted by the finding that the legislator, within the scope of the valuation of building plots, authorizes the use of the designation coefficient, in view of what may come to be built thereon. In fact, it does not seem reasonable to admit in this scenario the resort to rules for determining the tax base to expand the scope of the rules of incidence.

d) Position Adopted

In light of the foregoing, the arbitral tribunal considers that it is necessary, in interpreting the provisions of item 28.1 of the GTSDT with the wording applicable to the case before us, to adopt the understanding that the residential designation of an urban property suggests that it be given that actual purpose, or that it may be directly given that purpose. Being as it appears to us, a building plot is not included in that item, in terms of objective incidence. It appears to us therefore that a building plot, by its very nature, cannot be associated with a residential designation such as that suggested by item 28.1 of the GTSDT.

It should not be said that this judgment collides with the possibility of seeing a designation coefficient applied to a construction plot to which reference is made in Section II of Chapter VI of the SDC. In fact, one thing is the rules that the legislator imposes for determining the tax assessed value of building plots, it not being strange that account be taken of their construction capacity and the nature and vocation of what may be built thereon, another, quite different, is claiming that those rules be invoked to delineate the scope of the normative provision of the rules of incidence.

Moreover, the interpretation adopted here is in harmony with consistent case law of the CAAD and with what appears to have been the intention of the Government, the author of the proposal that resulted in this rather imprecise legislative intervention.

When the bill No. 96/XII (2nd) was presented and discussed in Parliament, the State Secretary for Tax Affairs expressly stated[1]:

"The Government proposes the creation of a special tax on residential urban properties of higher value. It is the first time in Portugal that a special taxation on high-value properties intended for habitation has been created. This tax will be 0.5% to 0.8% in 2012 and 1% in 2013, and will apply to houses worth equal to or exceeding 1 million euros."

Now, the State Secretary for Tax Affairs presents this bill referring to the expressions "residential urban properties", which are those appearing in paragraph a) of section 1 of article 6 of the SDC, and "houses", and it is manifest that, in either case, building plots, referred to in paragraph c) of the cited provision, do not fall, without more, within those concepts.

Thus, despite the shortcomings in legislative technique and without prejudice to the wording now in force, it follows with utmost clarity that item 28.1 of the GTSDT, at the time of the facts, cannot be interpreted as including building plots, for the reasons set forth above. Rather it appears that the meaning and scope of the concept of "properties with residential designation" is equivalent to that of "residential properties" mentioned in paragraph a) of section 1 of article 6 of the SDC.

3.1.5. The Inconsistency of the Reasoning of the Act Dismissing the Official Revision Request and the Omission of the Prior Right to Be Heard

The Claimant raised the issues of the inconsistency of the reasoning of the act dismissing the official revision request and the omission of the prior right to be heard with respect to that same dismissal.

Since the arbitral tribunal does not consider this item to be applicable to the case at hand, the consideration of these issues becomes moot and procedurally unnecessary.

Decision

On the basis of the grounds and considerations set forth, the arbitral tribunal decides to grant the request for arbitral decision with the consequent annulment of the contested assessments, with all legal consequences.

Case Value

In accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 306 of the Code of Civil Procedure, paragraph a) of section 1 of article 97-A of the Code of Tax Procedure and also section 2 of article 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the case is valued at € 104,850.79 (one hundred and four thousand eight hundred and fifty euros and seventy-nine cents).

Costs

For the purposes of the provisions of section 2 of article 12 and section 4 of article 22 of the LRATM and section 4 of article 4 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs is fixed at € 3,060.00 (three thousand and sixty euros), pursuant to Table I annexed to said Regulation, to be borne entirely by the Respondent.

Lisbon, 28 September 2015

The Arbitral Tribunal

José Poças Falcão

(President)

Arlindo José Francisco

Nuno Pombo

Document prepared by computer, pursuant to section 5 of article 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference from paragraph e) of section 1 of article 29 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, and using the spelling prior to the 1990 Orthographic Agreement.

[1] See Parliamentary Records I Series No. 9/XII-2, of 11 October, p. 32.

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

Does Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) under Verba 28.1 of the TGIS apply to building land (terrenos para construção)?
The core issue in this case is whether Stamp Duty under Verba 28.1 of the TGIS applies to building land (terrenos para construção). The taxpayer argued that building plots are land intended for construction and cannot be considered 'properties with residential designation' since they are not habitable properties. However, the Tax Authority maintained that when building plots are assigned a residential designation coefficient for valuation purposes under the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMPT), they fall within the scope of item 28.1. The Authority argued that since the Stamp Duty Code does not define these concepts, Article 67(2) SDC requires reference to the CIMPT, where the designation determines the property's classification and valuation.
How is the taxable value determined for Stamp Tax on properties worth over €1,000,000 under Portuguese law?
For Stamp Duty purposes on properties worth over €1,000,000, the taxable value is the tax assessed value (valor patrimonial tributário) determined under the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMPT). This valuation incorporates various coefficients, including a designation coefficient (coeficiente de afetação) that reflects the property's intended use (residential, commercial, services, etc.). In this case, each building plot was assigned a tax assessed value exceeding €1,000,000 using a residential designation coefficient. Law 55-A/2012 introduced Stamp Duty at progressive rates on high-value properties under item 28.1 of the TGIS, with the tax base being the property's official valuation as of December 31 of each year.
Can taxpayers challenge Stamp Tax assessments on building land through CAAD arbitration proceedings?
Yes, taxpayers can challenge Stamp Tax assessments on building land through CAAD (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) arbitration proceedings. This case demonstrates the procedure: the taxpayer first filed a request for official review (pedido de revisão oficiosa) on August 20, 2014, which was dismissed. Subsequently, on February 19, 2015, the taxpayer filed a request for establishment of an arbitral tribunal under Decree-Law 10/2011, as amended. The arbitration proceedings provide an alternative to judicial courts for resolving tax disputes, with arbitrators appointed by CAAD's Deontological Council. Both parties have standing under Article 4 and Article 10(2) of the Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters (RJAT).
What was the legal basis for the 2012 Stamp Tax assessments under Article 4 of Law 55-A/2012?
The legal basis for the 2012 Stamp Tax assessments was Article 1 of the Stamp Duty Code (Código do Imposto do Selo) and item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty (TGIS), as amended by Article 4 of Law 55-A/2012 of October 29, 2012. This law introduced a new Stamp Duty levy on high-value properties with residential designation exceeding €1,000,000. For the taxable event occurring on October 31, 2012, the assessments were additionally based on subparagraph i) of paragraph f) of Article 6(1) of the same Law 55-A/2012, which established transitional rules for the first year of application. The tax was assessed annually on properties meeting the value threshold, with the taxable event occurring on December 31 of each year.
What is the procedure for filing a request for official review (revisão oficiosa) of Stamp Tax liquidations in Portugal?
The procedure for filing a request for official review (pedido de revisão oficiosa) of Stamp Tax liquidations involves submitting a written request to the Tax Authority challenging the assessment. In this case, the taxpayer paid the collection notices resulting from the Stamp Duty assessments and filed the official review request on August 20, 2014. The Tax Authority dismissed the request, after which the taxpayer was notified of the dismissal. The taxpayer alleged procedural irregularities, including failure to provide a prior hearing (direito de audiência prévia) before dismissal and inconsistencies in the reasoning provided by different officials. Following dismissal of the official review, taxpayers may seek arbitration through CAAD or judicial review in administrative courts within the applicable limitation periods under the Tax Procedure Code (Código de Procedimento e Processo Tributário).