CAAD Case 114/2019-T: IUC Tax Liability Challenge Dismissed Due to Untimely Review Request

ARBITRAL DECISION[1]

The arbitrator, Dr. Sílvia Oliveira, appointed by the Ethics Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre (CAAD) to form the Single Arbitral Tribunal, constituted on 2 May 2019, decided as follows:

REPORT

A..., Lda., legal entity no. ..., with registered office in ..., ..., ... (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant"), submitted a request for arbitral decision and constitution of a Single Arbitral Tribunal on 20 February 2019, pursuant to article 2, no. 1, paragraph a) and article 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011 of 20 January [Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters (RJAT)], in which the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") is the opposing party.

The Claimant petitions that this request be judged admissible and, as a consequence, declares the illegality "(…) of the assessment act for Single Circulation Tax and compensatory interest for the years 2008, 2013 and 2014, concerning the vehicle registered as ..., (…), in the total amount of € 1,141.07 (…)".

1.4. The request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was accepted by the Esteemed President of CAAD on 21 February 2019 and notified on the same date to the Respondent.

1.5. Given that the Claimant did not proceed with the appointment of an arbitrator, pursuant to article 6, no. 1 of the RJAT, the undersigned was appointed as arbitrator on 9 April 2019 by the President of the Ethics Council of CAAD, with the appointment being accepted within the legally prescribed time and terms.

1.6. On the same date, both Parties were duly notified of this appointment and did not manifest their intention to refuse it, in accordance with article 11, no. 1, paragraphs a) and b) of the RJAT and articles 6 and 7 of the Ethics Code.

1.7. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph c) of no. 1 of article 11 of the RJAT, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 2 May 2019, with an arbitral ruling being issued on the same date directing the Respondent to, pursuant to article 17, no. 1 of the RJAT, submit a Response within a maximum period of 30 days and, should it wish, request the production of additional evidence.

Additionally, it was further stated in that arbitral ruling that the Respondent should submit to the Arbitral Tribunal, within the Response deadline, a copy of the administrative file.

On 31 May 2019, the Respondent submitted its Response, defending itself through objection and concluding that "the present request for arbitral decision should be judged inadmissible, with the contested tax assessment acts remaining in the legal order and the Respondent being absolved accordingly from the claim".

Additionally, the Respondent requested in its Response, "(…) the waiver of the meeting referred to in article 18 of the RJAT, and if the Claimant does not object, that the case proceed directly to judgment".

On the same date, the Respondent attached the administrative file to the record.

By arbitral ruling dated 3 June 2019, both Parties were notified of an arbitral ruling with the following content:

"Taking into consideration:

a) The Response submitted by the Respondent on 31 May 2019, without any preliminary objection being raised;

b) The request for waiver of the meeting provided for in article 18 of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration (RJAT), as well as the request for waiver of oral submissions formulated by the Respondent in its Response;

c) The fact that the position of the Parties is fully defined in the record and supported by the documentary evidence presented;

In this context, there is no utility in holding the meeting provided for in article 18 of the RJAT.

Under the principles of autonomy of the Arbitral Tribunal in the conduct of the proceedings, expedition, procedural simplification and informality (articles 19, no. 2, and 29, no. 2, of the RJAT), as well as considering the principle of limitation of useless acts provided for in article 130 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), applicable by virtue of article 29, no. 1, paragraph e) of the RJAT, this Arbitral Tribunal decided:

1. To waive the holding of the meeting referred to in article 18 of the RJAT;

2. To determine that the proceedings continue with optional written submissions, to be presented within the successive period of 10 days, counting from notification of this ruling;

3. To designate 15 July 2019 for purposes of issuing the arbitral decision.

Additionally, and as a result of a summary analysis of the arbitral request, the Claimant is notified that, within the same period of 10 days, it should clarify the scope and extent of the arbitral request submitted. (…)"

Additionally, in the same ruling, the Arbitral Tribunal warned "(…) the Claimant that, until the date of issuance of the arbitral decision, it must proceed with payment of the subsequent arbitral fee, pursuant to no. 3 of article 4 of the Fee Regulations in Tax Arbitration Proceedings and communicate this payment to CAAD" (which it did on 19 June 2019).

By arbitral ruling of 4 June 2019, both Parties were notified of a ruling with the following content:

"Following the arbitral ruling of 03 June 2019, this Arbitral Tribunal verified that, within the scope of the arbitral request, there may be the issue of the untimeliness thereof, which if verified constitutes a matter of preliminary objection that should be raised sua sponte by the Arbitral Tribunal, as proceeding therewith will result in the absolution of the Respondent from the action.

Indeed, taking into account, with necessary adaptations, in particular the content of the Decision of TCAS (case no. 07644/14) of 23-03-2017, to the effect that "where an administrative appeal is out of time on the date it was submitted (…) and regardless of whether it was decided or not, judicial challenge will also be untimely", in the present case, the dismissal of the request for official review of the IUC assessment acts for 2008, 2013 and 2014 due to untimeliness and the decision of the Hierarchical Appeal which upheld it, may have repercussions on the timeliness of the arbitral request itself.

In these terms, both Parties are notified that, within the 10-day period granted by the arbitral ruling of 3 June 2019 (for optional successive submissions), they should comment on the content of this preliminary objection".

On 14 June 2019, the Respondent submitted a request to respond to the matter of preliminary objection raised by the Arbitral Tribunal in the ruling of 4 June 2019, arguing that "in the situation at hand, the request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal submitted by the Claimant (…) is untimely", concluding that "untimeliness constitutes a peremptory objection (…) which requires the absolution of the Tax Authority from the claim, since it prevents the legal effect of the facts alleged by the Claimant".

Additionally, regarding submissions, the Respondent reiterated that "(…) it maintains, in its entirety (…) the content of its Response duly submitted", concluding that "the objection of untimeliness of the arbitral request should be judged admissible (…)" and, as a consequence, the Respondent be absolved from the claim and, should this not be the case, "the present request for arbitral decision should be judged inadmissible, with the contested tax assessment acts remaining in the legal order and the Respondent being absolved accordingly from the claim".

On 12 June 2019, the Claimant submitted a request to respond to the matter of preliminary objection raised by the Arbitral Tribunal in the ruling of 4 June 2019, stating that "from the analysis of the hierarchical appeal, the legality of the IUC tax acts for the years 2008, 2013 and 2014 was examined, and the Tax Authority concluded they were legal (…)", concluding that "(…) in line with the understanding expressed in the arbitral decision issued in case 346/2017-T, the Claimant understands that the objection of untimeliness does not apply, and the legality of the IUC assessments should be examined".

GROUNDS OF CLAIM

2.1. The Claimant begins by stating that "(…) it became aware of the IUC assessment statements for the years 2008, 2013 and 2014, with nos. 2008 ..., 2013... and 2014..., concerning the vehicle registered as ..., assessments where tax (…) payable and compensatory interest were calculated in the amounts of € 385.68, € 382.95 and € 372.44 (…)" and, not agreeing with them, "(…) submitted a request for official review (…) against the aforesaid assessments, which was rejected summarily due to untimeliness by the Director of Finance of the Finance Office of ... (…)".

2.2. The Claimant, "not agreeing with the ruling issued (…) submitted a hierarchical appeal on 10/02/2017 (…)", which was "(…) examined by the Service Directorate for IMT, IS, IUC and Special Contributions, with a dismissal ruling being issued (…) on 19/11/2018 (…)".

2.3. The Claimant further states that in the decision of the "(…) hierarchical appeal, in addition to the preliminary issue of untimeliness, the legality of the tax assessment acts for IUC was analyzed, whose review was requested (…)" because it states that "upon consultation of the computer system, it is verified that the entity A..., LDA. is the owner of the vehicle ..., during the tax periods; All the accounting information that the taxpayer alleges has no implication whatsoever in the vehicle registration database. (…) The tax authority was not informed of the alienation/dismantling of the vehicle during the years 2001 and following; the IMT was only informed of the cancellation on 2014-03-04, with its effect being reflected on the date 2014-02-27 (…)".

2.4. The Claimant states in the arbitral request that "(…) it does not agree with the decision to dismiss the hierarchical appeal, which considered the assessments of the tax and compensatory interest for the years 2008, 2013 and 2014 as due (…)" because "the vehicle registered as ... has not been in the Claimant's possession since at least 2002" as it was, according to the Claimant, "(…) sold for parts (…)", in accordance with what it describes, with the sale of the parts being declared "(…) both in 2001 and in 2003 (…)".

2.5. Thus, according to the Claimant, "(…) in the years 2008, 2013 and 2014 it was no longer the owner of the vehicle (…)" identified by which it understands that "(…) it cannot be considered a taxpayer for the tax, pursuant to the provisions of the (…) CIUC".

2.6. The Claimant further states that "(…) it submitted an arbitral request aimed at the annulment of the IUC assessments for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, to which corresponds no. 89/2015-T, a request that was examined on 12 June 2015 (…)" having been decided, in that proceeding, "(…) to annul the IUC assessments for the years 2009 to 2012, as the transmission of the property of the vehicle in 2001 and 2013 was proven (…)".

2.7. Finally, the Claimant also states that the arbitral request is timely having regard to the date of notification of the dismissal of the hierarchical appeal (21 November 2018) and the three-month period provided "pursuant to no. 1 of article 102 of the CPPT (…)".

RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT

3.1. The Respondent, in the Response submitted, begins by stating that "the Claimant submitted the request for review of the tax act no. ...2015... of the IUC assessments nos. 2008..., 2013... and 2014..., concerning the years 2008, 2013 and 2014, which was considered untimely" because, according to the Respondent, given that it was submitted "(…) on 2015-02-26, when it should have been submitted by 2013-05-09 (…)" it was "(…) well past the 120-day period counting from the end of the IUC payment deadline (2013-01-09 and 2014-06-27)".

3.2. However, according to the Respondent, "not accepting the untimeliness of the review request submitted, the Claimant submitted a hierarchical appeal", alleging that "(…) the vehicle registered as ... was not in its possession from 2001 and 2003, the date on which it proceeded to sell it for parts, so the Tax Authority made an error when it processed the IUC assessments now challenged", a position with which the Respondent does not agree.

3.3. In this regard, the Respondent argues that "the Claimant's arguments are without merit (…)", because "(…) the IUC is assessed according to the information duly transmitted (…)" by the Tax Authority, by the IRN and by the IMT, "(…) the Tax Authority not having any competence regarding registration".

3.4. However, given that "on the date of assessment of the IUC in question, the vehicle was registered in the Claimant's name, (…) the challenged assessments were issued in accordance with the rules of subjective and objective scope of the tax generating fact", and thus, according to the Respondent, they must be considered as validly issued.

3.5. Thus, the Respondent considers that "the understanding advocated by the Claimant errs not only in a biased reading of the letter of the law, but also in the adoption of an interpretation that disregards the systematic element, violating the unity of the scheme established throughout the CIUC and, more broadly, throughout the entire tax and legal system and further derives from an interpretation that ignores the rationale of the scheme established in the article in question, and likewise throughout the CIUC" because, the Respondent understands that article 3, no. 1 of the IUC Code "(…) does not contain any legal presumption (…)".

3.6. And, according to the Respondent, "also the systematic element of interpretation of the law demonstrates that the solution advocated by the Claimant is untenable, with the understanding endorsed by the latter finding no support in the law".

3.7. The Respondent further states that "this results not only from the aforementioned no. 1 of article 3 of the CIUC, but also from other provisions established in the said Code", namely, from the provisions of article 6 of the IUC Code, when it states in no. 1 that "the tax generating fact is constituted by ownership of the vehicle, as attested by the registration or registration in national territory"

3.8. Now, according to the Respondent, "from the articulation between the scope of subjective scope of the IUC and the constitutive fact of the corresponding tax obligation, it follows unequivocally that only legal situations subject to registration (…) generate the birth of the tax obligation".

3.9. In these terms, the Respondent argues that "(…) the failure to update the registration (…) will be attributable in the legal sphere of the taxpayer for IUC and not in that of the Portuguese State, as the active subject of this Tax" and that "with the taxpayer for IUC determined as a function of the persons in whose names the vehicle in question is registered with the Motor Vehicle Registration Office, the Respondent proceeds to assess the IUC for these".

3.10. Thus, according to the Respondent "even if one were to admit that, from the point of view of the rules of civil law and property registration, the absence of registration does not affect the acquisition of the status of owner and that registration is not a condition for the validity of contracts with real effect, pursuant to what is established in the CIUC (…) the tax legislator intentionally and expressly wanted those to be considered as owners (…) the persons in whose names the vehicles are registered" for which it reiterates, "(…) the IUC became due by the persons who appear in the register as owners of the vehicles" (bold and underlined by the Respondent).[2]

3.11. In these terms, for the Respondent "(…) it is clear that the contested tax acts do not suffer from any vice of violation of law, in that in light of the provisions of article 3, nos. 1 and 2, of the CIUC and article 6 of the same code, it was the Claimant, in the capacity of owner, who was the taxpayer for the IUC" for which it requests that the request for arbitral decision be judged inadmissible (bold by the Respondent).

3.12. Finally, the Respondent requested in the Response "(…) the waiver of the meeting referred to in article 18 of the RJAT, and if the Claimant does not object, that the case proceed directly to judgment".

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

4.1. The Tribunal is competent and regularly constituted pursuant to article 2, no. 1, paragraph a), articles 5 and 6, all of the RJAT.

4.2. The parties have legal capacity and standing, are legitimate regarding the request for arbitral decision and are duly represented, pursuant to articles 4 and 10 of the RJAT and article 1 of Order no. 112-A/2011 of 22 March.

4.3. The joinder of claims effected by the Claimant is legal and valid, pursuant to article 3, no. 1 of the RJAT, given that the admissibility of the claims depends essentially on the examination of the same factual circumstances and the interpretation and application of the same principles or rules of law.

4.4. The Arbitral Tribunal raised sua sponte the objection of untimeliness of the request, the analysis of which will be conducted after the establishment of the Statement of Facts (see Chapter 6 - Preliminary Issues).

4.5. There are no irregularities requiring examination.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5.1. Preliminarily, and with regard to the statement of facts, it is important to note that the Tribunal need not rule on everything alleged by the Parties; rather, it has the duty to select the facts relevant to the decision and distinguish the proven facts from the unproven ones [see article 123, no. 2, of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process (CPPT) and article 607, nos. 3 and 4, of the CPC (applicable pursuant to article 29, no. 1, paragraphs a) and e), of the RJAT].

5.2. In this manner, the facts relevant to judgment of the case are selected and determined according to their legal relevance, which is established in view of the various plausible solutions to the question(s) of Law.

Of the Proven Facts

5.3. The Claimant was notified, via CTT, of the official IUC assessments for the years 2008, 2013 and 2014, as well as the assessments regarding interest on the vehicle ..., in the total amount of EUR 1,141.07, which are identified below.

5.4. The Claimant did not proceed to pay the said assessments within the voluntary payment period and submitted, on 26-02-2015, a request for official review of the same on the grounds that "as in the years 2008 to 2014 it was no longer the owner of the vehicle, it cannot be considered a taxpayer for the tax, which determines the illegality of the contested assessments and consequently their annulment".

5.5. The Claimant's representative was notified by Office of 16-03-2015 from the Finance Service of ..., regarding the draft decision to dismiss the request for official review submitted, in the following terms:

"(…)

From the facts:

• On 2012-11-28 the Claimant was notified (…) of the official assessment of IUC for 2008, vehicle ... – in the total amount of 385.68€ (…);

• On 2014-05-21 the Claimant was notified (…) of the official assessment of IUC for 2013 and 2014, in the total amount of 382.95€ (…) and in the total amount of 372.44€ (…);

• The claimant had 120 days to lodge an administrative appeal regarding the assessment pursuant to article 70 of the CPPT, on the grounds of article 99 of the CPPT, and based on the facts provided in article 102 of the CPPT, or within three months to challenge pursuant to article 102 of the CPPT;

• The Claimant could further submit a petition for official review pursuant to article 78 of the General Tax Code, within the scope of the taxpayer's initiative, provided that:

9.1. it is submitted within the administrative appeal period (…);

9.2. it has as its basis any illegality.

From the analysis of the Facts:

• The Claimant chose to submit (…) a petition for official review pursuant to article 78 of the General Tax Code;

• At the moment, it appears that the submitted petition is not timely, as the appeal periods available to the Claimant have been exhausted;

• The Claimant was notified of the assessments for 2008 and for 2013 and 2014 on 24-12-2012 and 2014-06-16, respectively;

• Since it had 120 days to appeal or submit official review on its own initiative, this period ended, for the 2008 assessment, on 23-04-2013 and for those relating to 2013 and 2014 on 2014-10-04;

• Periods which it did not take advantage of, as it submitted this review petition on 2015-02-26;

• Given that compliance with that period is an essential legal requirement for the examination of the merits;

• On the other hand, the four-year period or the full period referenced in the second part of article 78 of the General Tax Code is exclusive to the initiative of the tax administration when faced with an error attributable to the services. However, the contested assessments do not appear to suffer from an error attributable to the Tax Authority services;

• And their existence also does not appear to suffer from any illegality;

From the conclusion:

• Taking into account the foregoing, it appears that the Claimant's petition is untimely;

• Wherefore the present official review should be summarily rejected, with the facts substantiating it not being examined. However, it will be better decided at a higher level.

(…).

RULING

(…)

• Taking into account the above information, with which I agree, notify the taxpayer of its right to prior hearing (…), remaining aware that the draft decision points to the dismissal or summary rejection of the submitted petition. (…)" (bold and underlined by the Tax Authority).

5.6. The Claimant was further notified to, within 15 days, should it wish to exercise its right to hearing in writing.

5.7. The Claimant did not exercise its right to hearing.

5.8. The Claimant's representative was notified by Office no. ..., of 2015-04-02, from the Finance Service of ..., regarding the decision to summarily dismiss the request for official review of the IUC assessments for 2008, 2013 and 2014 and respective interest, relating to vehicle ... .

5.9. The Claimant submitted a Hierarchical Appeal (procedure no. ...2015...), on 21-04-2015, regarding the decision to summarily dismiss the request for official review of IUC identified in the previous point, on the grounds of "erroneous qualification and quantification of the tax facts" and "lack of competence regarding subject matter / regarding territory".

5.10. By Office dated 23-04-2015, the Director of Finance of ... was notified of the submission of the Hierarchical Appeal identified in the previous point.

5.11. By Office dated 26-06-2015, the Director of the Directorate of the Service for Municipal Transfer Tax, Stamp Tax, Single Circulation Tax and Special Contributions (DSIMT) was notified of the submission of the Hierarchical Appeal identified in point 5.9 above.

5.12. By Office no. ..., of 02-09-2016, from DSIMT, the Finance Office of ... was notified of the ruling, dated 2016-08-31, from the Director of Services, in the exercise of subdelegated powers, regarding the decision of the Hierarchical Appeal procedure (to which was assigned case no. ...2015..., with the grounds stated in Information no. ... of that Directorate of Services, for purposes of notifying the decision to the appellant and returning the official review file to the competent entity for decision.

5.13. The Claimant's representative was notified by Office no. ..., of 2016-09-07, of the ruling allowing the Hierarchical Appeal referred to in the previous point and that the official review file would be (re)examined by the competent entity.

5.14. The Claimant's representative was notified by Office no. ..., of 2016-11-22, from the Finance Office of ..., regarding the ruling of 17-11-2016 from the Director of Finance of ... (in the exercise of subdelegated competencies), to the effect of summarily dismissing, due to untimeliness, the request for official review submitted regarding the IUC assessments identified in point 5.3 above.

5.15. The Claimant's representative was notified by Office no. ..., of 2016-11-22, from the Finance Office of ..., regarding the ruling of 17-11-2016 from the Director of Finance of ... (issued in the exercise of subdelegated competencies), to the effect of summarily dismissing, due to untimeliness, the request for official review submitted regarding the IUC assessments identified, as well as to notify the Claimant "(…) that, if it wishes, within fifteen days (…), it may exercise in writing the right to hearing that (…) is granted by paragraph b) of no. 1 and no. 5 of article 60 of the General Tax Code (…)", in the following terms:

"(…)

INFORMATION/DRAFT

• The Claimant, (…), came, on 26-02-2015 (…), to request, pursuant to article 78 of the General Tax Code, the annulment of the official assessments of IUC for 2008, 2013 and 2014 concerning the vehicle (…) registered as ..., on the grounds that the fact that it no longer had possession of the vehicle determines the illegality of the assessments.

(…)

• Article 78 of the General Tax Code provides for four distinct situations of review, subject to different periods:

• Review of the tax act on the initiative of the taxpayer to be carried out within the appeal period, on the grounds of any illegality (…);

• Review of the tax act on the initiative of the Tax Authority, to be carried out within four years of assessment or at any time if the tax remains unpaid, on the grounds of error attributable to the services (…);

• Review of the tax act due to double collection, to be carried out within four years, whatever the grounds (…);

• Exceptional review of the taxable base, upon authorization of the head of the service, to be carried out within three years after the tax act, on the grounds of gross injustice or notoriety (…)

• In requesting the annulment of the official assessments of IUC (…), on the grounds that the fact of no longer having possession of the vehicle determines the illegality of the assessments, the request only fits within the first part of no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code

• Indeed, the situations referred to in paragraphs b), c) and d) of point 4 do not apply to the case in question, because (…) it is not a situation of error attributable to the services but rather of the alleged illegality of the assessments; (…) it is not a situation of double collection; (…) it is not a question of determination of the taxable base.

Thus, analyzing the request in light of the first part of no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code:

• The assessments now in question were delivered to the electronic mailbox – via CTT – of the Claimant on 29-11-2012, regarding the 2008 IUC and on 22-05-2015, regarding the 2013 and 2014 IUCs (…).

• And, in the event of failure to access the electronic mailbox, notification is deemed to have been made on the 25th day following its sending (…).

• The presumption can only be rebutted by the notified party when, due to a fact not attributable to it, notification occurs on a later date than presumed and in cases where it is proven that the taxpayer communicated the change (…).

• Thus, in the present case, the Claimant is deemed to have been notified of the 2008 IUC on 24-12-2012 and of the 2013 and 2014 IUCs on 16-06-2014.

• And the voluntary payment period ended on 09-01-2013 for the 2008 IUC and on 27-06-2014 for the 2013 and 2014 IUCs.

• Therefore, when requested on 2015-02-26 (date of postal receipt), the review was requested beyond the legal period, as pursuant to no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code, the review request must be made within the administrative appeal period.

• Now, pursuant to no. 1 of article 70 and paragraph a) of no. 1 of article 102, both of the CPPT, the period for lodging an administrative appeal is 120 days from the end of the voluntary payment period for tax payments legally notified to the taxpayer.

• Therefore, the period for requesting review pursuant to the 1st part of no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code ended on 09-05-2013 for the 2008 IUC and on 27-10-2014.

• And the untimeliness of the request prevents examination of the merits of the case.

CONCLUSION

• In light of the foregoing, we understand that the present request for review of the tax act should be summarily rejected due to untimeliness.

• And the Claimant should be notified that, if it wishes, it may exercise the right to hearing granted to it by article 60 of the General Tax Code.

(…)".

5.16. The Claimant did not exercise its right to hearing.

5.17. The Claimant's representative was notified by Office no. ..., of 11-01-2017, from the Finance Office of ..., regarding the ruling of 28-12-2016 from the Director of Finance of ... (in the exercise of subdelegated competencies), to the effect of maintaining the content of the draft decision (see point 5.14 above) and thus summarily dismissing the request for official review submitted regarding the IUC assessments of the vehicle identified, relating to 2008, 2013 and 2014.

5.18. Additionally, by Office identified in the previous point, the Claimant was also notified of the means of challenge against said dismissal ruling.

5.19. Consequently, the Claimant submitted, on 10-02-2017, a Hierarchical Appeal (no. ...2017...) of the decision referred to in points 5.17 above, which summarily dismissed (on the grounds of its untimeliness) the request for official review of the IUC assessments identified in point 5.3 above.

5.20. Within the scope of the Hierarchical Appeal identified in the previous point, the Claimant argues, in summary, that "(…) there was an error attributable to the services when making the assessments placed in question. This is because the Tax Authority made the assessments without taking into account the situation of the appellant in light of the information collected" because "the appellant, in the years 2008, 2013 and 2014 was no longer the owner of the vehicle (…), and therefore cannot be considered a taxpayer for the tax (…)", concluding that "the Tax Authority when making the assessments now contested made an error, an error which is attributable to the services, since the Tax Authority cannot ignore the transmission of ownership of the vehicle, as the sale was declared in model 22 statements for 2001 and 2003. Furthermore, the IUC assessments made (…) are manifestly excessive and inadequate since the appellant is no longer the owner of the vehicle as of 2003. The Tax Authority is considering the appellant a taxpayer for tax purposes when this does not correspond to the truth since 2003, hence the assessments in question represent a gross and notorious injustice. In light of the foregoing, the appellant understands itself to be in time to submit a request for official review, therefore this appeal should be admitted and a decision on the merits should be rendered, given the illegality of the assessments now contested. (…)".

5.21. On 30-03-2017, Office no. ..., from the Finance Office of ..., was issued regarding the submission to the Director of Services for examination and decision of the Hierarchical Appeal submitted by the Claimant, and respective ruling for summary dismissal due to untimeliness and superior decision, based on the attached draft decision, the content of which is transcribed below:

"(…)

Object of the appeal: ruling for summary dismissal due to untimeliness of the request for official review (…)

• The taxpayer, (…), came, on 10-02-2017 (…), to submit a hierarchical appeal against the ruling for summary dismissal due to untimeliness of the request for official review no. ...2015... (…), claiming that it understands itself to be in time to submit the request for official review, therefore this appeal should be admitted and a decision on the merits should be rendered, given the illegality of the assessments (…) now contested.

(…).

(…)

• On 26-02-2015 (…) the appellant came to request, pursuant to article 78 of the General Tax Code, the annulment of the official assessments of IUC for 2008, 2013 and 2014 concerning the vehicle (…) registered as ..., on the grounds that the fact that it no longer had possession of the vehicle determines the illegality of the assessments.

• Article 78 of the General Tax Code provides for four distinct situations of review, subject to different periods:

• Review of the tax act on the initiative of the taxpayer to be carried out within the appeal period, on the grounds of any illegality (…);

• Review of the tax act on the initiative of the Tax Authority, to be carried out within four years of assessment or at any time if the tax remains unpaid, on the grounds of error attributable to the services (…);

• Review of the tax act due to double collection, to be carried out within four years, whatever the grounds (…);

• Exceptional review of the taxable base, upon authorization of the head of the service, to be carried out within three years after the tax act, on the grounds of gross injustice or notoriety (…)

• In requesting the annulment of the official assessments of IUC (…), on the grounds that the fact of no longer having possession of the vehicle determines the illegality of the assessments, the request only fits within the first part of no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code

• Indeed, the situations referred to in paragraphs b), c) and d) of point 4 do not apply to the case in question, because (…) it is not a situation of error attributable to the services but rather of the alleged illegality of the assessments; (…) it is not a situation of double collection; (…) it is not a question of determination of the taxable base.

Thus, analyzing the request in light of the first part of no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code:

• The assessments now in question were delivered to the electronic mailbox – via CTT – of the Claimant on 29-11-2012, regarding the 2008 IUC and on 22-05-2015, regarding the 2013 and 2014 IUCs (…).

• And, in the event of failure to access the electronic mailbox, notification is deemed to have been made on the 25th day following its sending (…).

• The presumption can only be rebutted by the notified party when, due to a fact not attributable to it, notification occurs on a later date than presumed and in cases where it is proven that the taxpayer communicated the change (…).

• Thus, in the present case, the Claimant is deemed to have been notified of the 2008 IUC on 24-12-2012 and of the 2013 and 2014 IUCs on 16-06-2014.

• And the voluntary payment period ended on 09-01-2013 for the 2008 IUC and on 27-06-2014 for the 2013 and 2014 IUCs.

• Therefore, when requested on 2015-02-26 (date of postal receipt), the review was requested beyond the legal period, as pursuant to no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code, the review request must be made within the administrative appeal period.

• Now, pursuant to no. 1 of article 70 and paragraph a) of no. 1 of article 102, both of the CPPT, the period for lodging an administrative appeal is 120 days from the end of the voluntary payment period for tax payments legally notified to the taxpayer.

• Therefore, the period for requesting review pursuant to the 1st part of no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code ended on 09-05-2013 for the 2008 IUC and on 27-10-2014.

• And the untimeliness of the request prevents examination of the merits of the case.

• In light of the foregoing, we understand that the decision appealed is to be upheld.

• And, in accordance with article 66 of the CPPT, the hierarchical appeal procedure should be sent to DSIMT for examination and decision.

(…)".

5.22. DSIMT prepared Information no. ..., of 29-01-2019, regarding case no. 2017..., concerning the draft decision of the Hierarchical Appeal identified above (...2017...), with the following content:

"1. Introduction

On 2017-02-10, the Appellant (…) submitted a Hierarchical Appeal against the ruling for summary dismissal due to untimeliness of the request for official review no. ...2015... in which it requested the annulment of the official assessments of Single Circulation Tax (…), relating to the years 2008, 2013 and 2014, respectively, of the vehicle registered as ... .

Request

As grounds for the appeal for revocation of the decision dismissing the request for official review due to untimeliness and with relevance to the situation in question, the now appellant comes to claim in summary that:

• The vehicle registered as ... was no longer in the possession of the appellant from 2001 and 2003, and there was an error of the services in the issuance of the official assessments (2008, 2013 and 2014) (…);

• The vehicle had been sold for parts in 2001 and 2003 (…);

• The sale of parts was declared in model 22 statements for 2001 and 2003;

• For the years 2009 to 2012, the IUC assessments were annulled (…);

• Requests the annulment of the assessments for 2008, 2013 and 2014, on the grounds that it is not the owner of the vehicle (…) and consequently cannot be considered a taxpayer;

(…)

1. Facts

From the elements contained in the present Hierarchical Appeal procedure, the facts with relevance for the decision are set out:

• In the database, we verified that the vehicle has a registration date of 1968-01-31 and was cancelled on 2014-02-27 (…);

• In the database, more specifically in the registration history, we verified that the vehicle is registered in the name of entity A..., Lda. For the period 1990-11-21 to 2014-02-27 (…);

• The tax facts occurred on the following dates

• Upon consultation of the tax management database, we encountered the official assessments (…), concerning the years 2008, 2013 and 2014 (…);

• The IMT cancelled the registration of Vehicle ..., effective 2014-02-27, with the following description: cancellation due to end of life without destruction certificate (…);

• The taxpayer did not request cancellation of the registration from the IMT prior to the tax facts;

• The tax returns which the taxpayer is required to file annually do not prove/reflect that the vehicle was alienated or dismantled. In accounting and administrative terms, there will always be a need for input from the taxpayer to reference the cancellation of the registration;

(…)

• On 2015-02-26, a request for official review was submitted pursuant to article 78 of the General Tax Code (…) requesting the annulment of the said assessments.

1. Examination

(…)

The cadastral database for IUC purposes is thus constituted by the elements provided by these two entities (IRN, IP and IMT), to whom it falls to maintain them as well as to make their respective alterations, whether in the matter of property registration or cancellation of registrations. (…).

In this sense, article 3, no. 1 of the IUC Code establishes that the taxpayers for the tax are natural or legal persons (…) in whose names the property of the vehicles is registered, with the registration being issued by the Institute of Registries and Notariats (IRN, IP), in their respective Motor Vehicle Registration Offices, it not falling to the Tax Administration (…) to register or alter the ownership thereof. The said tax is due until the cancellation of the registration or registration due to scrapping effected pursuant to law (…), the responsibility of the IMT or of the IRN, IP, respectively. The Tax Authority only assesses the tax according to the elements constituting the IUC database, the updating of which is carried out through the sending of files by the said entities (underlined by us).

Pursuant to article 6 of the IUC Code, the tax generating fact is constituted by ownership of the vehicle, as attested by the registration or registration in national territory.

However, what is under examination in the present hierarchical appeal is the verification of the untimeliness of the request for official review of the tax acts – IUC assessments for 2008, 2013 and 2014, therefore, it will be this decision that will be subject to our examination, in order to assess the possibility, or not, of its alteration.

Let us see then,

Article 78 of the General Tax Code provides for four distinct situations of review, subject to different periods:

• Review of the tax act on the initiative of the taxpayer, to be carried out within the appeal period (120 days), on the grounds of any illegality (…);

• Review of the tax act on the initiative of the Tax Authority, within four years of assessment or at any time if the tax remains unpaid, on the grounds of error attributable to the services (…);

• Review of the tax act due to double collection, to be carried out within four years, whatever the grounds (…);

• Exceptional review of the taxable base when authorized by the head of the service, within three years after the tax act, on the grounds of gross injustice or notoriety (…).

In the present case, in light of the facts, we must state that the situations in paragraphs c) and d) of point 4 do not apply to the case in question, taking into account that:

• It is not a situation of double collection;

• It is not a question of determination of the taxable base.

Regarding the matter of error attributable to the service, which the appellant alleges, we must ensure that it also does not occur, because:

• Upon consultation of the computer system, it is verified that the entity A..., Lda. is the owner of the vehicle ..., during the tax facts;

• All the accounting information that the taxpayer alleges has no implication whatsoever in the vehicle registration database. (…) only through internal consultation of the asset file (…) can it be attested that that asset (…) was alienated/dismantled;

• The tax authority was not informed of the alienation/dismantling of the vehicle during the years 2001 and following;

• The IMT was only informed of the cancellation on 2014-03-04, with its effect being reflected on the date 2014-02-27;

Thus, it remains for this Directorate of Services to verify the 1st part of no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code, where the initiative of the review request comes from the taxpayer.

(…)

Now, the 120-day period for submission of the request for official review of the assessment, on the initiative of the taxpayer, was clearly surpassed, since the request was submitted on 2015/02/26. It should be added that on the date of the tax facts the registration was active and registered in the appellant's name, with no error attributable to the services that would justify the 2nd part of no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code.

In light of the reasons set forth above, the only position that the tax administration can take is to maintain the decision dismissing the official review, as well as, furthermore, the assessments, in that they comply with the principle of legality and demonstrate the verification of the requirements for exigibility of the tax from the appellant here, with the latter having failed to demonstrate otherwise.

1. Conclusion/Proposed Decision

In light of the foregoing, it is considered that the Appellant has no merit, wherefore it is proposed to dismiss the present hierarchical appeal, with the consequent maintenance of the act now appealed.

(…)".

5.23. The Claimant was notified, by Office no. ..., of 20-11-2018, that the ruling deciding the hierarchical appeal identified in point 5.19 above had been sent to its representative on the same date.

5.24. The Claimant's representative was notified by Office no. ..., of 20-11-2018, from the Directorate of Services for IMT, regarding the ruling of dismissal of 19-11-2018, with waiver of the exercise of the right to hearing, from the Central Service Director, issued pursuant to subdelegation of competencies, as well as of the means available to the Claimant to challenge it.

5.25. The Claimant submitted a request for arbitral decision on 20 February 2019 in order to obtain the "(…) declaration of illegality of the tax act for assessment of Single Circulation Tax and compensatory interest, relating to the years 2008, 2013 and 2014, concerning the vehicle registered as ..." and review of the decision dismissing the Hierarchical Appeal it submitted against the decision dismissing the review request of the said IUC assessments (see point 5.19 above).

Reasoning as to the Statement of Facts

5.26. Regarding the proven statement of facts, the Tribunal's conviction was based, in addition to the free assessment of the positions taken by the Parties (on factual matters), on the content of the documents attached to the record by both Parties, as well as on the analysis of the administrative file submitted by the Respondent.

Of the Unproven Facts

5.27. There were no facts proven to be unproven with relevance to the arbitral decision.

QUESTIONS OF LAW

6.1. With the statement of facts established as proven, it is now necessary to determine the law applicable to the underlying facts, in accordance with the issues to be decided.

6.2. In the record, the claim formulated by the Claimant is to the effect that the IUC assessments identified be annulled, in the total amount of EUR 1,141.07, on the grounds that the Claimant understands them to be, allegedly, illegal given that "(…) in the years 2008, 2013 and 2014 it was no longer the owner of the vehicle (…)" identified and that, for this reason, "(…) it cannot be considered a taxpayer for the tax, pursuant to the provisions of the (…) CIUC".

Preliminary Issues

6.3. Preliminarily, having regard to the fact that this Arbitral Tribunal raised sua sponte the objection of untimeliness of the request, it becomes necessary to begin by analyzing this objection since the grounding thereof will have consequences on the examination of the merits of the arbitral request.

6.4. In general terms, pursuant to article 576, 3 of the CPC, "peremptory objections result in the full or partial dismissal of the claim and consist of the invocation of facts that prevent, modify or extinguish the legal effect of the facts alleged by the plaintiff".

6.5. Article 579 of the CPC states that "the court shall examine sua sponte peremptory objections whose invocation the law does not make dependent upon the will of the interested party".

Of the Objection of Untimeliness of the Request

6.6. Considering that the untimeliness of the request constitutes a peremptory objection, pursuant to article 576 of the CPC (applicable subsidiarily by article 29 of the RJAT), which if proven would result in the absolution (in this case, full) of the Respondent from the claim presented, as it prevents the legal effect of the facts alleged by the Claimant, the Arbitral Tribunal raised sua sponte that objection in the arbitral ruling dated 4 June 2019, as it understood that, given the underlying factuality of the request, "(…) the dismissal of the request for official review of the IUC assessment acts for 2008, 2013 and 2014 due to untimeliness and the decision of the Hierarchical Appeal upholding it may have repercussions on the timeliness of the arbitral request itself".

6.7. Both Parties having been notified to comment, within the period granted for submissions, on the possible grounding of this peremptory objection, the Respondent came to state that, in a request dated 12 June 2019, "the grounds for challenge in the arbitral tribunal was the ruling dismissing due to untimeliness the official review submitted", from which "(…) the Claimant submitted a hierarchical appeal maintaining the grounds for dismissal stated in the official review" but, the Respondent understands that "(…) the Claimant can never seek to justify the timeliness of the request for arbitral decision based on the dismissal of the untimely review request" as, in this manner "(…) the path would be open to continue to discuss the legality of tax acts as to which the respective periods for challenge have already ended".

6.8. Additionally, the Respondent states that the tribunal cannot "(…) fail to examine the issue of timeliness of the review request, for purposes of examination and decision regarding the timeliness of the request for arbitral decision", concluding that "the objection of untimeliness of the arbitral request should be judged admissible (…)" and, as a consequence, the Respondent be absolved from the claim.

6.9. By request dated 14 June 2019, the Claimant came to respond to the matter of preliminary objection raised by the Arbitral Tribunal in the ruling of 4 June 2019, stating, in summary, that "the Claimant submitted the present request for arbitral decision on 20/02/2019, following the dismissal of the hierarchical appeal", clarifying that "initially, the Claimant submitted a review request (…) requesting the annulment of the IUC assessments for the years 2008, 2013 and 2014 (…)" concerning the identified vehicle, a request that "(…) was dismissed on the grounds of untimeliness".

6.10. Now, the Claimant understands that, "from the analysis of the hierarchical appeal, it appears that the Tax Authority, in addition to ruling on the question of (in)timeliness, proceeded to examine the request, and even ruled on the documents submitted by the Claimant", "that is, in the hierarchical appeal the legality of the IUC tax acts for the years 2008, 2013 and 2014 was examined, and the Tax Authority concluded their legality (…)" understanding to be "(…) maintaining the decision dismissing the official review, as well as, furthermore, the assessments, in that they comply with the principle of legality and demonstrate the verification of the requirements for exigibility of the tax from the appellant, with the latter failing to demonstrate otherwise".

6.11. Additionally, the Claimant refers to "(…) the arbitral decision issued in case no. 346/2017-T, where the objection of untimeliness of the arbitral action was judged inadmissible based on the alleged untimeliness of the review request", concluding that "(…) the objection of untimeliness should be judged inadmissible, and consequently the request formulated by the Claimant should be examined, annulling the IUC assessments for the years 2008, 2013 and 2014 (…)" identified.

6.12. Now, regarding the matter of ascertaining the possible untimeliness of the arbitral request, having regard to the fact that the subject of this request concerns the declaration of illegality of the ruling dismissing the hierarchical appeal submitted regarding the ruling dismissing the request for official review of the IUC assessment acts relating to 2008, 2013 and 2014, as well as the declaration of illegality of the said assessment acts, it becomes necessary to analyze whether the request for official review of the said assessment acts, submitted on 26 February 2015, was or was not timely submitted.

6.13. And, should it be considered that said request was submitted out of time, then it will be necessary to decide on the legality of the dismissal, due to untimeliness thereof, which entails that that request, by means of the review of the decision of the Hierarchical Appeal that upheld it, cannot (re)open the contentious avenue for challenge of the underlying IUC assessments, this being the issue which, in the present case, falls to be examined.[3]

6.14. The request for review of the tax acts in question was submitted by the Claimant on 26 February 2015 and had as its basis the fact that "as in the years 2008 to 2014 it was no longer the owner of the vehicle, it cannot be considered a taxpayer for the tax, which determines the illegality of the contested assessments and consequently their annulment".

6.15. The request for review of the tax acts is subject to the periods established in article 78 of the General Tax Code (General Tax Code), as transcribed below (as in the version in force on the date the request for official review identified in the record was submitted):

"Article 78

Review of Tax Acts

1 – Review of tax acts by the entity that issued them may be effected on the initiative of the taxpayer, within the administrative appeal period and on the grounds of any illegality, or, on the initiative of the tax administration, within four years of assessment or at any time if the tax has not yet been paid, on the grounds of error attributable to the services.

2 – Without prejudice to the legal burden of appeal or challenge by the taxpayer, error attributable to the services is considered, for purposes of the preceding number, the error in self-assessment (number now repealed by Law no. 7-A/2016 of 30 March).

3 – Review of tax acts pursuant to no. 1, regardless of whether it is a material or substantive error, entails its respective recognition duly substantiated pursuant to no. 1 of the preceding article.

4 – The head of the service may exceptionally authorize, within three years following the year of the tax act, review of the taxable base determined on the grounds of gross injustice or notoriety, provided that the error is not attributable to negligent conduct of the taxpayer.

5 – For purposes of the preceding number, only patent and unequivocal injustice is considered notorious and gross injustice is that resulting from manifestly excessive and disproportionate taxation in relation to reality or that has resulted in significant loss to the National Treasury.

6 – Review of the tax act due to double collection may be effected, whatever the grounds, within four years.

7 – The period for official review of the tax act or the taxable base is interrupted by the taxpayer's request directed to the competent body of the tax administration for its accomplishment".

6.16. First and foremost, it should be noted that, in general terms, in cases provided for in the rule regarding official initiative for review, taxpayers may request the review to be undertaken by the Tax Authority, as review is understood to be a power-duty, as the principles of justice, equality and legality, which the Tax Authority must observe in the entirety of its activity (articles 266, no. 2 of the Constitution and 55 of the General Tax Code), impose that all errors in assessments that have resulted in the collection of tax in an amount greater than that which would be due under law be officially corrected.

6.17. Now, excluding nos. 2 (in the interim already repealed), 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of article 78 of the General Tax Code, due to manifest non-application to the case under analysis, attention must be paid to the periods established in no. 1 of that article.

6.18. Indeed, in no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code two situations are provided for subject to different periods:

6.18.1. On the one hand, review of the tax act on the initiative of the taxpayer, to be effected within the 120-day period provided for administrative appeal, on the grounds of any illegality (1st part of no. 1);

6.18.2. On the other hand, review of the tax act on the initiative of the Tax Authority, within four years of assessment or at any time if the tax has not yet been paid, on the grounds of error attributable to the services (2nd part of no. 1).

6.19. Regarding the interpretation of article 78, no. 1 of the General Tax Code, it is settled jurisprudence that review of tax acts by the Tax Administration may also be requested by taxpayers within four years on the grounds of error attributable to the services (2nd part).

6.20. In this regard, see the decision by the Supreme Administrative Court in the Decision of 04-05-2016 (issued in case no. 407/15), pursuant to which it is stated that "it is now consolidated jurisprudence that, as the Tax Authority, on its own initiative, may proceed to official review of the tax act, within four years of assessment or at any time if the tax has not yet been paid, on the grounds of error attributable to the services (…), the taxpayer may also, within that period for official review, request this same review on that grounds" (underlined by us).[4]

6.21. In other words, the taxpayer may take advantage of the four-year period provided in the second part of no. 1 of article 78 of the General Tax Code, provided that the request for official review is formulated on the grounds of error attributable to the services.

6.22. In this regard, and in accordance with what is stated in Arbitral Decision no. 414/2017-T of 30 January 2018, "the institute of review constitutes a materialization of the duty to revoke illegal acts and, as such, the Tax Authority (Tax and Customs Authority) must proceed in this manner in cases where errors in assessments occur that result in the collection of taxes in an amount greater than that legally provided for. The principles of justice, equality and legality that inform the activity of the Tax Authority impose such correction ex officio. Thus, while it is admissible on the one hand for the act to be reviewed on the initiative of the taxpayer within the administrative appeal period, on the other, the Tax Authority, at the impulse of the taxpayer, may also promote the so-called official review".

6.23. Thus, it is essential that the Arbitral Tribunal determine whether, in the present case, there was or was not error attributable to the services, as from this flows the determination of the period for submission of the review request, which will ultimately condition the period for submission of challenge at CAAD, via the request for arbitral decision.

6.24. Now, for purposes of determination of what should be understood as error attributable to the services, reference is made in particular to the content of the Decision of TCAS (case no. 1349/10.0BELRS) of 23-03-2017, pursuant to which it is stated that "the tax act always has as its basis a concrete factual situation, which is provided for abstractly and typologically in tax law as generating entitlement to the tax. That factual and concrete situation is defined as the tax fact, which only exists once all the legal prerequisites for such are met. The tax norms that contemplate the tax fact are those relating to real scope, which define its objective elements. Only with the occurrence of the tax fact does the tax obligation arise. The existence of the tax fact thus constitutes a sine qua non condition for the determination of the taxable base and of the assessment effected. The regime for review of the tax act provided for in article 78 of the General Tax Code constitutes one of four possibilities for reaction available to the taxpayer, the others being administrative appeal, judicial challenge and the request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal (…). In addition to the request for review to be lodged within the administrative appeal period and on the grounds of any illegality, pursuant to article 78, no. 1 of the General Tax Code, the taxpayer also has the faculty of requesting the so-called official review of the act, within the periods in which the Tax Administration may effect it, provided for in article 78 of the General Tax Code. However, in these cases, the request for review may not have as its grounds any illegality, as is the case with appeal lodged within the administrative appeal period, but only error attributable to the services (see second part of no. 1 of article 78), gross injustice or notoriety (see no. 4 of article 78) or double collection (see no. 6 of article 78 of the General Tax Code). (…). The concept of error attributable to the services referred to in article 78, no. 1, 2nd part, of the General Tax Code, although not encompassing all and any vice (particularly formal or procedural vices) but only errors, does encompass error in factual and legal presuppositions, this imputability to the services being independent of demonstration of fault of the officials involved in the issuance of the act affected by the error. In other words, said error attributable to the services concretizes any illegality not attributable to the taxpayer through negligent conduct, but to the Tax Administration, furthermore, such error must be of relevant character, generating actual prejudice, by virtue of the erroneous determination of the taxpayer's tax situation, hence its essential character. (…)".[5]

6.25. Indeed, in accordance with the content of the Arbitral Decision referred to above in point 6.22, "the request for review must also be grounded in error attributable to the services and be submitted within four years. Now, that error encompasses the lapse, the material or factual error, as well as the error of law. In support of the latter conclusion jurisprudence further states that (…) the Supreme Administrative Court has long held in settled fashion that, where there exists an error of law in an assessment effected by the tax administration services, and such erroneous application of the law does not result from any information or statement by the taxpayer, the error in question is attributable to the services, as both no. 2 of article 266 of the Constitution and article 55 of the General Tax Code establish the generic obligation for the tax administration to act in full compliance with the law (…)".[6]

6.26. Thus, "where the period for judicial challenge or administrative appeal has been surpassed, article 78, no. 1 (…) of the General Tax Code establishes as an essential requirement of official review that the error be attributable to the services. Error attributable to the services admits the pathology of fact and law; however, the illegality cannot be attributable to the taxpayer through negligent conduct, but to the Tax Authority.[7]

6.27. Note that, as the Tax Authority cannot claim to be unaware of the law, according to Paulo Marques (cited work, Almedina, 2019, Revised and Updated Edition, page 220), "we do not consider that all and any error of law be attributable to the services, as in cases of differing doctrinal or jurisprudential interpretation of the applicable norm, it cannot be argued that such circumstance is necessarily attributable to the tax administration (…), which is responsible for applying the law approved by the constitutionally competent bodies (…), under penalty of violation of the principle of separation of powers".

6.28. In its request for official review, the Claimant invoked article 78 of the General Tax Code (not referring, however, to any of its numbers in particular to support the request), arguing that "(…) given that in the years 2008 to 2014 it was no longer the owner of the vehicle (…), it therefore cannot be considered a taxpayer for the tax (…)", "which determines the