Process: 149/2017-T

Date: February 9, 2018

Tax Type: IMI

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

CAAD Arbitral Tribunal Decision 149/2017-T addresses the application of the IMI (Municipal Property Tax) safeguard regime under Article 15-N of Decree-Law 287/2003 to non-residential leases. A British entity resident in Portugal challenged an IMI assessment of €129,459.50 for 2013, arguing entitlement to the protective regime for properties leased under a 1953 non-residential lease agreement. The safeguard regime limits the taxable property value (VPT) to the capitalization of annual rent using a factor of 15, protecting long-term lessors from excessive tax burdens following general property reassessments. The claimant contended it submitted all required documentation and met procedural requirements for the regime's application. The Tax Authority raised multiple procedural defenses, including untimeliness of the arbitral request (filed February 2017 when the payment deadline was October 2016), failure to challenge the dismissal of the prior administrative claim, and argued that the safeguard regime requires definitive assessment of the properties. The AT further contended that alleged matrix irregularities did not affect assessment legality and that matrix corrections require a separate complaint under Article 130 of CIMI through administrative action proceedings. The case illustrates critical procedural complexities in challenging IMI assessments at CAAD, including jurisdictional issues, timeliness requirements, and the interplay between general property assessments and special protective regimes for legacy lease agreements. The tribunal had to clarify pleading defects and issued orders requiring reformulation of the initial petition to properly identify challenged acts and legal violations, demonstrating CAAD's procedural rigor in tax arbitration matters involving foreign entities and complex property tax issues.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL AWARD

The arbitrators José Poças Falcão (arbitrator-president), Jorge Bacelar Gouveia and António Franco (co-arbitrators), designated by the Ethics Council of the Centre for Administrative Arbitration (CAAD) to form the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted on 15 May 2017, agree as follows:

I – Report

A…, LIMITED. ("A…"), an English entity resident in Portugal, holder of the tax identification number … has requested the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 10 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, which approved the Legal Regime for Arbitration in Matters of Taxation ("RJAMT").

The request for arbitral decision, presented has as its object a decision regarding the legality of the IMI assessment No. 2015-…, referring to the year 2013, in the total amount of €129.459,50.

The Claimant chose not to designate an arbitrator.

The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of CAAD and notified to the Tax Authority (AT) within the prescribed timeframe and terms.

The undersigned were designated by the President of the Ethics Council of CAAD as arbitrators of the collective arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of RJAT, and notification of acceptance of duties was communicated within the applicable timeframe.

The Parties were notified of this designation and did not object to it, pursuant to the combined provisions of Article 11, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and b) of RJAT and Articles 6 and 7 of the Code of Ethics of CAAD.

Thus, in conformity with what is prescribed in subparagraph c) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of RJAT, the collective arbitral tribunal was formally constituted on 15 May 2017.

The Respondent was notified to, pursuant to Article 17, paragraph 1 of RJAT and within 30 days, present its answer and, if it so wished, request the production of additional evidence.

The Respondent was further notified to, within the same timeframe, present a copy of the administrative file (PA) referred to in Article 111 of the Tax Procedure and Process Code (CPPT).

The Respondent presented its Answer on 19-6-2017, defending itself by way of objection after raising certain questions relating to the form and requirements of the initial petition, arguing for the dismissal of the request for arbitral decision with consequent absolution.

On the same date it presented a copy of the administrative file.

On 27-7-2017, the president of the Tribunal issued the following order:

"(...) I - Having preliminarily examined the request for arbitral decision (initial request), the Tribunal considers necessary a clarification of its content and of the formulation of the request [which cannot be the administrative request for "request for note of the assessment"], pursuant to Article 10-2/b), c) and d)

Considering what has been summarily set out above and the principle of the Tribunal's autonomy [Article 16-c)] and accepting that it may prove unnecessary to hold the meeting provided for in Article 18 of RJAT, the Claimant is invited to present, within 10 (ten) days, a new corrected procedural document [cf. Article 18-c) of RJAT], signed by an attorney and from which clearly and specifically appear the tax act or acts impugned, the specific defects attributed to it (them) and their consequences, as well as the legal provisions or legal principles that are considered to have been violated.

The principle of adversarial procedure shall always be ensured through timely notification of the Respondent to present a new answer.

II – In due course and after a statement by the Respondent within 10 days, the request for admissibility of the request (and documents), submitted on 21-7-2017, shall be considered (...)"

On 9-8-2017 a new corrected petition was presented in compliance with the order of 27-7-2017;

On 17-8-2017, the AT was ordered to be notified to, if it so wished, present an answer, within 30 days, to the new petition, which did not occur;

On 11-9-2017 the AT came to request of the Collective Tribunal conference the issuance of an order for revocation, on the grounds of alleged nullity and illegality of point I of the order of the president of the Collective transcribed above, in section 11;

By order of 3-11-2017, the meeting provided for in Article 18 of RJAT was dispensed with, as unnecessary or futile, and the parties were notified to submit final submissions;

Considering the vicissitudes of the case and the exceptional number of incidents that delayed it, the Tribunal decided, by order of 8-1-2018, to extend the deadline for the decision pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 2 of RJAT, fixing as the deadline 28-2-2018.

The parties presented final written submissions, maintaining, in substance, the positions defended in their respective pleadings.

The arbitral tribunal was regularly constituted and is materially competent, in light of the provisions of Articles 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph a), and 30, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January.

The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are represented (Articles 4 and 10, paragraph 2, of the same statute and Article 1 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March).

The case is not subject to nullities.

The respondent raises a preliminary question [Articles 101 et seq. of the Answer] and the following exceptions: timeliness of the request for arbitral decision [Articles 36 et seq. of the said answer pleading] and partial impropriety of the procedural means "(...) and of the consequent partial material incompetence of the Collective Arbitral Tribunal (...)" [Articles 80 et seq. of the same pleading].

In substance and very briefly, the Claimant alleges to support the request:

It was notified of the IMI assessment made on 26-2-2016, relating to properties located in the Municipality of … of which it is the owner;

This assessment relates to the years 2013 and 2014;

It alleges illegality of this assessment for not having taken into account the special regime for rents provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 15-N of Decree-Law No. 287/2003, applicable to the case;

This application results from the following:

The properties in question are covered by the general assessment;

There is a lease contract for non-residential purposes executed in 1953 which was delivered;

All legal procedures were complied with for application of the regime and all relevant documentation was delivered.

The VPT for purposes exclusively of IMI could not exceed the amount resulting from the capitalization of the annual rent through capitalization of the factor 15.

Answer of the Respondent

In the Answer presented pursuant to the legal terms and timeframe – which was maintained in totum after the presentation of the reformulated arbitral decision petition pursuant to the aforementioned terms -, the Respondent also alleges, very briefly and in substance, that:

The request is untimely because the deadline for payment of the assessment occurred on 31-10-2016 and the request for arbitral decision was presented on 28-2-2017;

Having presented the gracious claim No. …2016…, dismissed by express act, the claimant did not make any request for annulment of this administrative decision;

The existence of alleged irregularity in the property matrices does not imply illegality in the assessment because such had no influence on the determination of the assessment;

On the other hand, the correction of the matrices is preceded by submission of a complaint pursuant to Article 130 of CIMI, being administrative action the appropriate judicial means for consideration of this matter;

The application of the special safeguard regime provided for in Article 15-N of Decree-Law No. 287/2003 always presupposes the definitiveness of the assessment of the properties in question;

Not having agreed with the result of the general assessment of two properties, the Claimant submitted a new request for assessment whose result has not yet been consolidated in the legal order;

Therefore, the procedure for new assessment of the two properties in question in this case constitutes a preliminary question with respect to the request for arbitral decision;

The assessment of the two properties, given their specificities [petroleum installations] was, at first, suspended for determination of its tax patrimonial value (VPT);

This suspension was maintained until early 2016, at which time it was decided to reactivate the property registration articles … and … of the parish of … (and not articles … and … of the Union of Parishes of … and …, resulting from the administrative reorganization that took place in 2013)

A gracious claim was presented relating to the IMI assessment No…, issued on 11-3-2016, which was dismissed by order of 30-12-2016;

It is a prerequisite for the application of the regime provided for in Article 15-N of Decree-Law No. 287/2003, as amended by Law No. 60-A/2011, that the properties already be assessed pursuant to CIMI, through general assessment;

In this case, the income disclosures made by the Claimant were not validated;

The IMI assessment impugned, although not updated, does not suffer from any defect so long as the VPT of the properties has not been determined through the mechanism of Article 15-N cited.

II – Statement of Reasons

A – Proven Facts

The following essential facts (and some instrumental ones) relevant to the subject matter of the dispute are considered proven:

The Claimant (hereinafter A…) was notified of the IMI assessment No. 2015…, of 26-2-2016, relating to properties located in the Municipality of…, former parish of …, property registration articles ex-U-… and ex U-… ...

... having the AT determined IMI to be paid in the amount of €129.437,27, relating to 2013 and 2014, with the installment of €83.892,58 to be paid during October 2016, the installment of €45.541,69 during April 2017 and the installment of €25,64, during October 2017 – cf. doc 1, attached to the petition for arbitral decision (PPA);

These properties currently correspond [since the reorganization of parishes effected by Law No. 11-A/2013, of 28 January] to property registration articles U-… and U-… of the Union of Parishes of … and … and...

... were the subject of a lease contract for non-residential purposes (petroleum installations) that A… (formerly B…) executed, as lessor, on 1 October 1953, with C…, SA (formerly denominated D…, SA);

A… presented on 21 September 2016 a gracious claim relating to the assessment mentioned above, in a. and b.;

The AT had not pronounced itself on this claim as of 28-2-2017, the date the present request for arbitral decision was presented;

This aforementioned claim was based, in summary, on the circumstance that the AT did not take into account the special regime for updating the tax patrimonial values applicable to properties leased pursuant to Decree-Law No. 287/2003, in particular, in its Article 15-N;

On 22-12-2016 A… was notified on 22-12-2016 of the first general assessment of the matrices, having the AT attributed the VPT of €118.660,00 to article 1451 and of €11.866.000,00 to article 1021;

An assessment procedure, raised by the claimant, relating to the properties that served as the basis for the IMI assessment now impugned, is still ongoing in the respective Services of the AT.

The Claimant proceeded to disclose the rents relating to the properties referred to in a. and b., between 2012 and 2016;

On 21-6-2017 the appraiser sent an email from which the following stands out: "(…) Given the possibility that the amounts payable relating to IMI might prescribe, in late 2016 I chose to assess the aforementioned articles with the values inscribed up to that time in the property notebooks (…)";

In the CAAD arbitral proceeding No. 722/2016-T, which had as its object the assessments of the same IMI but now relating to the year 2015, the annulment of those assessments was decided, on grounds of illegality, with deletion of urban property matrices Nos. … and … of the extinct parish of …;

The IMI assessment at issue relates to property registration articles of parishes extinguished pursuant to Law No. 11-A/2013, of 28 January

The present request for arbitral decision was presented on 28-2-2017

B – Unproven Facts

There are no other essential facts, proven and/or unproven, relevant to the subject matter of the dispute

C - Statement of Reasons

It is recalled preliminarily that the Tribunal is not required to pronounce on everything alleged by the parties, but rather has the duty to select the facts that matter for the decision and distinguish the proven from the unproven facts [cf. Article 123, paragraph 2 of CPPT and Article 659, paragraph 2 of CPC, applicable ex vi Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and e), of RJAT].

In this manner, the facts pertinent to the judgment of the case are selected and determined based on their legal relevance, which is established in light of the various plausible solutions to the question(s) of Law (cf. Article 511, paragraph 1 of CPC, applicable ex vi Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraph e), of RJAT).

In light of the foregoing, the factual framework relevant in the case sub judice is as described above.

To establish it, the Tribunal considered the positions of the parties in their respective pleadings as well as all the documentary evidence incorporated in the case, in the consideration that, within the scope of tax law, the burden of proof does not have the subjective dimension of other branches of law, but rather an objective one, in the sense that what matters for the decision on the merits of the case, whether in the administrative procedure or in the judicial process, is what results from the truth of the facts found, regardless of the party bearing the burden of such proof, given the predominance of the inquisitorial principle contained in Articles 99 of LGT and 13 of CPPT; however, when such proof is not achieved and in the impossibility of the tribunal being left with a non liquet – cf. Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code – then the case must be decided against the party burdened with this burden of proof.

Thus, having considered the foregoing and the positions assumed by the parties, the documentary evidence considered proven and unproven, with relevance to the decision, the facts listed above.

It should be noted, in passing, that the Tribunal was confronted with evidentiary material that has nothing to do with the assessment at issue.

Thus it is that, in the instructing administrative file, there is treatment of a gracious claim that has as its object the annulment of the IMI assessment note No…, in the amount of €14.782,60, relating to the first installment of IMI for the year 2015 and the IMI assessment note No…, in the amount of €14.782,60 relating to the 2nd installment of IMI for the year 2015.

Also in the AT's Answer this IMI assessment No. … is referred to (Articles 23 et seq.) which is manifestly not the one that is the subject of the present impugnation.

On the other hand, although the administrative file submitted by the AT does not reveal it, the truth is that the Claimant alleged and documented, without impugnation by the opposing party, that it presented on 21 September 2016 a gracious claim relating to the assessment mentioned above, in a. and b., of the proven facts, and that the AT had not pronounced itself on this claim as of 28-2-2017, the date the present request for arbitral decision was presented.

This silence of the AT brought about, as will be better seen below, the so-called "tacit dismissal act" of the claim as of 21 January 2017 (cf. Article 57, of LGT) and the consequent opening of the deadlines for judicial challenge or arbitral decision.

II STATEMENT OF REASONS (CONTINUED)

THE LAW

A – Exception: Timeliness of the Request

The respondent AT alleges that the request for arbitral decision was presented when the deadline legally provided for in Article 10 of RJAT had been exceeded, because, in substance, the initial term occurred at the limit of the deadline for voluntary payment of the tax liability [31-10-2016 - Article 102, paragraph 1/a) of CPPT] and the presentation of the request for arbitral decision was made on 28-2-2017, that is to say, far beyond the 90 days to which the provision of the cited Article 10 of RJAT refers.

It is without merit.

As was demonstrated, the Claimant preceded the PPA with a gracious claim and in this administrative procedure, the so-called "tacit dismissal act" was formed (or more precisely, the presumption of tacit dismissal[1]).

Now and as is well known, before the dismissal of a gracious claim, express or tacit, a 90-day deadline opens for requesting the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal (and 3 months for challenging it in state courts). The dies a quo is also identical since subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 10 of RJAT refers to paragraph 1 of Article 102 of CPPT.

Consequently, the tacit dismissal act having been formed on 21 January 2017 (cf. Article 57 of LGT) and the request for arbitral decision having been presented on 28 February 2017, the timeliness of this is obvious in light of the cited Articles 10, paragraph 1/a) of RJAT and 102 of CPPT.

The allegation of the exception is therefore without merit.

Consequently, the request for arbitral decision was timely.

B – Exception: Alleged "Partial Impropriety of the Procedural Means and of the Consequent Partial Material Incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal"

In its Answer the AT raises this question based on the content of the request for arbitral decision prior to the presentation of a new reformulated request following the order of improvement issued by the Tribunal.

The respondent seeks recognition of the necessity of prior and, allegedly, necessary complaint of the matrices, a matter for which the Arbitral Tribunal will be materially incompetent (Article 97, paragraph 2 of CPPT).

It is without merit.

In the request reformulated on 8-9-2017 it is evident that the object of the proceeding is the IMI assessment No. 201….

And the request is for a declaration of illegality of this assessment, maintained in the legal order with the tacit dismissal of the gracious claim presented on 21-9-2016.

Now if the request is restricted to consideration of the conformity of the assessment with the Law, the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal is manifest.

The exception is therefore without merit.

C – Of the Alleged "Preliminary Question"

The AT alleges that the second ground for the request for arbitral decision consists of the failure to apply the special regime of rent disclosures (Articles 30 et seq. of the PPA) because in its respective calculation account was not taken of the application of the cited regime (Article 15-N of Decree-Law No. 287/2003, in the wording of Law No. 60-A/2011)

The AT further holds that the assessment could never have been based on this special safeguard regime for a reason that it considers evident: Article 15-N of Decree-Law No. 287/2003 always presupposes the definitiveness of the assessment of the properties in question and, in the case, the conclusion of the procedures for assessment and consolidation in the legal order of the result of the general assessment of the two properties in question is still pending.

The AT is without merit.

It is certain that an administrative assessment procedure of the properties in question in the IMI assessment object of this case is still pending in the respective Services.

Whether such assessment must be consolidated in the legal order for activation of the special safeguard regime is a matter that this Tribunal will decide in considering the merits of the request for impugnation of the aforementioned assessment, also considering the question of whether this assessment did not occur because, as the Claimant alleges, the AT took almost 5 years to notify A… in 2016 of the general assessment and as a way to prevent the expiration of the tax.

In any event, it is advanced that it does not result from the Law or the interpretation thereof the necessity or mandatory prior fixing in the legal order of the result of the assessment for taxpayers beneficiaries of the cited safeguard regime to be able to avail themselves of it.

And even less will it be admissible that, in the meantime, they bear the IMI based on the VPT of the leased properties, with disregard, albeit temporary, of the safeguard regime that should have benefited them.

If it were so, this would constitute a manifest increase in treasury for the public purse, with financial sacrifice for taxpayers to whom the legislator had recognized the legitimate right to benefit from special taxation in the IMI context.

The claim of preliminary question is therefore dismissed.

D – On the Merits of the Request

As a preliminary approach to legal reasoning, it should be noted what has long been the understanding of Jurisprudence as to the duty of considering the arguments presented by the parties and which translates into the non-obligation (emphasis ours) of the Courts to consider all the arguments formulated by the parties (Cf., inter alia, Decision of the Plenary of the 2nd Section of the STA, of 7 June 95, appeal 5239, in DR – Appendix of 31 March 97, pages 36-40 and Decision STA – 2nd Section – of 23 April 97, DR/AP of 9 October 97, page 1094).

The fundamental question at issue in this case is to know, on one hand, if, with the extinction of the parishes and the matrices contained in the IMI assessment and if, on the other hand, the IMI assessment relating to two properties given in lease by the claimant in 1953, suffers from this act an illegality for, beyond its incidence on property registration articles of extinct parishes, having above all disregarded in the tax base the safeguard regime provided for in Article 15-N of Decree-Law No. 387/2003, of 12 November, in the wording of Law No. 60-A/2011, of 30 November.

Law No. 60-A/2011, of 30 November, with entry into force on 1 December 2011, amended Articles 15-A to 15-P to Decree-Law No. 287/2003, of 12 November, which regulate the regime of General Assessment of Urban Properties.

This regime aimed to conclude the reform of taxes on urban real property, proceeding to the general assessment of all properties not assessed within the scope of the Code of the Municipal Tax on Real Property (CIMI), with the tax patrimonial value (VPT) resulting from this general assessment having an impact on the payment of IMI for the years 2012 and following and to be collected from the year 2013.

The general assessment covered urban properties that, on 1 December 2011, had not yet been assessed pursuant to CIMI and in relation to which no assessment procedure had been initiated pursuant to that Code.

In the case of urban property or part of urban property covered by the general assessment that is leased by a lease contract for housing executed prior to the entry into force of the Urban Lease Regime, approved by Decree-Law No. 321-B/90, of 15 October, or by a lease contract for non-residential purposes executed prior to the entry into force of Decree-Law No. 257/95, of 30 September, the tax patrimonial value, for purposes exclusively of IMI, is determined according to a special regime.

In these cases, if the result of the general assessment is higher than the amount resulting from the capitalization of the annual rent through application of the factor 15, it will be the latter amount that will serve as the basis (VPT) for the IMI assessment.

This is here to establish a safeguard regime intended to mitigate taxation in the IMI context for some leased properties in cases where the annual rent multiplied by the factor 15 is less than the VPT determined pursuant to the general assessment.

In these circumstances and for purposes exclusively of taxation in the IMI context, the tax base is not the VPT but the amount of the annual rent increased by the legal factor indicated.

Hence the AT cannot ignore Article 15-N of the cited Decree-Law No. 387/2013 when it has and cannot ignore – as is the case in this matter - all the prerequisites for its application, namely based on the fact that the information provided by the taxpayer was not processed.

It is certain that an assessment procedure, raised by the claimant, relating to the properties that served as the basis for the IMI assessment now impugned is still pending in the respective Services of the AT.

This circumstance cannot serve as a basis for taxation with complete disregard of the safeguard regime provided for, namely, based on the VPT tout court.

As has been stated in earlier CAAD Jurisprudence (cf., e.g., the Decision issued on 4-10-2017, in case No. 96/2017, with a copy attached to the case), "(…) in assessing the IMI contrary to what is established in Article 15-N of Decree-Law No. 387/2003, of 12 November, the Respondent admitted that it could dispose of the tax legal relationship, of the quantification of the tax, thus conceiving that it could be she who chooses the moment from which the established safeguard clause will be able to benefit the owners of the leased properties (…)"

Thus it is that, without others, unnecessary, considerations also concludes, just as in the cited case No. 96/2017-T, the illegality of the assessment sub judice for this suffering or being based on error as to the prerequisites of law.

III – DECISION

As a consequence of the foregoing, the Arbitral Tribunal agrees as follows:

To dismiss the exceptions and preliminary question raised by the Tax and Customs Authority (AT);

To wholly uphold the request for declaration of illegality of the IMI assessment No. 2015… of 26-2-2016, relating to the years 2013 and 2014, in the total amount of €129.434,27, with the consequent annulment, and

To condemn the Tax and Customs Authority to pay the costs of this proceeding.

Value of the Case: In accordance with the provisions of Article 306, paragraph 2 of CPC and Article 97-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph a) of CPPT and 3, paragraph 2 of the Regulation of Costs in Proceedings of Tax Arbitration, the value of the case is fixed at € 129.434,27

Costs: The amount of costs is fixed at € 3.060,00 (Table I attached to the Regulation of Costs in Proceedings of Tax Arbitration), the payment of which is to be borne by the Tax and Customs Authority (Article 22, paragraph 4 of RJAT) as previously decided.

Lisbon and CAAD, 9 February 2018

The Collective Arbitral Tribunal

José Poças Falcão

(President)

Jorge Bacelar Gouveia

(Member)

António Franco

(Member)

[1] Cf. above, in proven facts:

"(…) e. A… presented on 21 September 2016 a gracious claim relating to the assessment mentioned above, in a. and b.;

f. The AT had not pronounced itself on this claim as of 28-2-2017, the date the present request for arbitral decision was presented (…)"

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

What is the IMI safeguard regime under Article 15-N of Decree-Law 387/2003 for non-residential leases?
The IMI safeguard regime under Article 15-N of Decree-Law 287/2003 protects lessors of non-residential properties subject to long-term lease agreements executed before general property reassessments. This regime limits the taxable property value (VPT) exclusively for IMI purposes to the amount resulting from capitalizing the annual rent by a factor of 15, preventing excessive tax increases that would otherwise result from updated property valuations. The regime requires proper documentation of the lease agreement and compliance with specific procedural requirements to qualify for this protective limitation.
How does the CAAD arbitral tribunal assess the legality of an IMI tax assessment for leased commercial properties?
The CAAD arbitral tribunal assesses IMI assessment legality by examining procedural compliance, substantive application of tax law, and whether the Tax Authority correctly applied applicable exemptions or special regimes. The tribunal verifies whether property valuations followed legal methodology, whether special regimes like the Article 15-N safeguard for non-residential leases were properly considered, and whether the taxpayer met documentary and procedural requirements. The tribunal also evaluates preliminary issues including timeliness, jurisdiction, legitimacy of parties, and procedural propriety before reaching merits determinations.
Can a foreign entity resident in Portugal challenge an IMI property tax liquidation through tax arbitration?
Yes, foreign entities that are tax residents in Portugal can challenge IMI property tax assessments through CAAD arbitration under Article 10(1)(a) of Decree-Law 10/2011 (RJAMT). The entity must hold a Portuguese tax identification number and demonstrate legal personality, capacity, and proper representation (typically through a Portuguese attorney). In this case, a British limited company resident in Portugal successfully invoked CAAD jurisdiction to contest an IMI liquidation, demonstrating that foreign entities with Portuguese tax residency have full access to administrative tax arbitration mechanisms for property tax disputes.
What procedural requirements must a taxpayer meet when filing an arbitral petition against an IMI assessment at CAAD?
Taxpayers filing arbitral petitions against IMI assessments at CAAD must meet strict procedural requirements: (1) the petition must be signed by an attorney; (2) clearly identify the specific tax act(s) being challenged; (3) specify the alleged defects and their legal consequences; (4) cite the legal provisions or principles allegedly violated; (5) comply with timeliness requirements (generally within the deadline for voluntary payment or following dismissal of administrative claims); (6) demonstrate legal personality, capacity, and legitimacy; and (7) pay applicable arbitration fees. The tribunal may order clarification or reformulation if initial petitions contain defects, as occurred in this case.
What are the legal grounds for contesting an IMI liquidation of €129,459.50 under the non-residential lease safeguard regime?
Legal grounds for contesting the €129,459.50 IMI liquidation include: (1) failure to apply the Article 15-N safeguard regime limiting VPT to capitalized rent (factor 15) for properties under non-residential leases; (2) alleged irregularities in property matrices affecting assessment validity; (3) non-compliance with legal requirements for general property assessment; (4) violation of procedural rights in assessment determination; and (5) failure to properly consider submitted documentation evidencing the 1953 lease agreement and entitlement to protective regime. The claimant must prove that all conditions for the safeguard regime were met, including proper lease documentation and timely submission of required evidence to the Tax Authority.