Process: 15/2016-T

Date: August 9, 2016

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This arbitral decision concerns the application of stamp tax under Verba 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (TGIS) to construction land held in co-ownership. Two co-owners challenged stamp tax assessments of €25,928.20 each for 2014, arguing the tax should apply only to the housing-designated portion of their property (€3,266,985.55) rather than the full patrimonial value of €5,185,640.00. The land, totaling 9,010 m2 with a building footprint of 5,180 m2, was classified as mixed-use: €3,266,985.55 for housing and €1,918,652.78 for other purposes. The claimants contended that stamp tax should be limited to the housing component. The Tax Authority raised a preliminary defense of res judicata, citing a previous arbitral decision (Case 509/2015-T) that allegedly resolved the same substantive issue. On the merits, the Authority argued that construction land destined for housing falls squarely within Verba 28.1, particularly after Law 83-C/2013 expressly clarified that building land constitutes an objective element of the tax. The Authority emphasized that classification depends on authorized or planned use, not actual current use, and that an approved building project from 2009 contemplated housing construction on the property. The property valuation methodology considers both the authorized construction area and intended use. The tribunal noted that each co-owner held a 50% share by year-end 2014, following a gift deed that increased their ownership from 1/6 each. The case raises critical questions about the scope of Verba 28.1, the taxable base calculation for mixed-use construction land, res judicata applicability in tax arbitration, and co-ownership liability principles.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

The Arbitrator, Dr. Henrique Nogueira Nunes, appointed by the Deontological Board of the Centre for Administrative Arbitration ("CAAD") to form the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted on 29 March 2016, agrees as follows:

1. REPORT

1.1 A…, with tax identification number …, and B…, with tax identification number …, hereinafter designated as "Claimants", requested the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to Articles 2, No. 1, paragraph a) and 10 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (hereinafter "RJAT").

1.2 The request for arbitral ruling concerns the declaration of illegality of the stamp tax assessment acts more specifically identified under the collection documents issued with numbers 2015…, in the amount of € 25,928.20, and 2015…, in the amount of € 25,928.20, effected pursuant to item 28.1 of the TGIS, referring to the year 2014.

1.3 To substantiate their request, the Claimants allege, in summary, the following defect:

(i) That given the land in question in the proceedings has a total area of 9,010 m2, the area of building footprint is only, they claim, 5,180 m2, and that having been determined by the Respondent a property value of € 3,266,985.55 for the part of the land intended for housing and € 1,918,652.78 for the remaining part intended for other use, the stamp tax in question in the proceedings should only apply to the portion referring to the value of € 3,266,985.55, as this is the value of the land that they maintain could be built upon for housing purposes.

(ii) For which reason they invoke that the assessments in question in the proceedings are incorrect and should be annulled, or at best replaced by others that would have as their basis of incidence the value of € 3,266,985.55, since only there could housing be constructed.

1.4 The Tax and Customs Authority, hereinafter designated as "Respondent" or "AT", responded, in summary, as follows:

(i) It raises a matter of exception, on verification of res judicata, by considering that the substantive question was already decided in a previous Arbitral Decision, in the proceeding that was processed under No. 509/2015-T, a situation which it says constitutes a dilatory exception of ex officio knowledge that bars consideration of the merits of the case and which entails absolution of the instance.

(ii) Additionally, and in opposition, it contends that it is clear that in the evaluation of building land, regard is had to the authorized area for construction and to the use to be given to such construction, that is, to the characteristics of the urban property that will be constructed on it.

(iii) And that the determination of the Tax Property Value of building land presupposes the determination of the value of the authorized or planned buildings, for which regard must be had to the use of such buildings.

(iv) And that Article 6 of the IMI Code classifies properties according to their licensing or normal purpose and not according to their use (a concept inherent to their respective valuation).

(v) It states that well before the actual construction of the property, it is already possible to determine and assess the use of the land for construction.

(vi) It likewise contends that the concept of properties with "housing use", with the wording in force at the date of the tax facts, for the purposes of item 28 of the TGIS, encompasses building land, as urban properties intended for housing.

(vii) And that no doubt can remain regarding the year in question in the proceedings, since, it says, with Law No. 83-C/2013 of 31-12-2013, the wording of that provision was altered to expressly include building land as an objective element of incidence of the rule, so that necessarily any attempt to bring any interpretative question about the wording of the law fails.

(viii) For all the above stated, it understands that there is no foundation for the alleged illegality that the Claimants seek to impute to the assessments in question in the proceedings, having acted in strict compliance with the law, to which it is bound.

(ix) It concludes by stating that there is no error in the matrix and in its respective use since the approved building project contained in proceedings No. …/EDIF/… of 07.07.2009 of the Municipal Chamber of …, contemplates "the construction (…) of three buildings intended for housing (…)" and that this was proven in the arbitral proceeding No. 509/2015-T in light of the PA attached by the Respondent and Document No. 6 attached by the Claimants.

(x) For which reason the assessments in question constitute a correct interpretation and application of law to the facts, suffering from no defect of violation of law, and should, in consequence, the claim be judged unfounded and the Respondent absolved of the request.

1.5 The Tribunal understood to dispense with the holding of the first meeting of the Arbitral Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the RJAT, which met with no opposition from the parties. An exception was identified that will be considered and decided in the present decision. The parties were notified to present arguments, should they wish to do so, both deciding to do so, reinforcing, in essence, the positions previously expressed and the Claimants responding to the matter of exception raised by the Respondent.

A deadline was set for delivery of the arbitral decision by 15 August 2016.

1.6 The Tribunal was regularly constituted and is competent ratione materiae, in accordance with Article 2 of the RJAT.

The parties have standing and legal capacity, show themselves to be legitimate and are regularly represented (cf. Articles 4 and 10, No. 2 of the RJAT and Article 1 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March).

No procedural defects were identified.

2. QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED

In the arbitral petition, the Claimants present the following question:

  1. Should the stamp tax assessment acts in question be annulled, as illegal, for applying to the tax property value of € 5,185,640.00, instead of applying to the value of € 3,266,985.55?

In the Response, in addition to defending by opposition, the Respondent raises a preliminary question, on the matter of exception of res judicata.

3. FACTUAL MATTERS

With relevance to the consideration and decision on the merits, the following facts are found to be proven:

A) The Claimants are co-owners in ½ of building land located at …, parish of …, municipality of Lisbon, registered in the respective matrix under article …, with the property value of € 5,185,640.00 (cf. Document No. 1 attached with the Arbitral Petition).

B) The Claimants were notified on 20 October 2015 of the stamp tax assessments issued with numbers 2015…, in the amount of € 25,928.20, and 2015…, in the amount of € 25,928.20, effected pursuant to item 28.1 of the TGIS, referring to the year 2014 (cf. Documents No. 2 and 3 attached with the Arbitral Petition).

C) Such assessments resulted from the application of item 28.1 of the TGIS of the Stamp Tax Code to the tax property value of € 5,185,640.00. (cf. Documents Nos. 2 and 3 attached with the Arbitral Petition).

D) Until 04-11-2014, the Claimants had been co-owners of the property in question in the proceedings in the proportion of 1/6 each.

E) On 5-11-2014, by public deed of gift, Mrs. C…, another co-owner of the property in question in the proceedings, gifted her share (2/3) to the Claimants in equal parts (cf. Document No. 1 attached by the Respondent with its Response).

F) On 01-12-2014 the Claimants proceeded with the said declaration for purposes of stamp tax (declaration No.…) at the Lisbon Finance Service … (cf. Document No. 1 attached by the Respondent with its Response).

G) On 31-12-2014, the Claimants were co-owners in 50% of the property in question in the proceedings.

H) On 24-03-2015, when the Claimants were already co-owners of the property in ½, the Respondent's collection system proceeded to assess the Stamp Tax of Item 28 of the TGIS, and collection notes (commonly 1st and 2nd installment) were created and subsequently issued in the amount of € 2,880.91 for each taxpayer (cf. Document No. 3 attached by the Respondent with its Response).

I) In April 2015, when the urban property matrix was updated, the Respondent proceeded to update the co-owners and their respective percentage in the co-ownership rights, in conformity with the gift made.

J) Following the said update to the matrix, the AT's collection system proceeded to rectify the stamp tax assessment, thus reflecting the ownership of the property in question in the proceedings as of 31 December 2014.

K) In the arbitral proceeding that was processed at the CAAD under No. 509/2015-T, a proceeding which has concluded, the same Claimants raised the question of the legality of the Stamp Tax assessments effected pursuant to item 28.1 of the TGIS and with reference to the year 2014, seeking to impute to them a set of defects that would affect their legality, including, precisely, the same defect that they now impute in the present arbitral proceeding.

L) In that arbitral proceeding the claim formulated by the then Claimants was judged entirely unfounded by the Arbitral Tribunal.

M) The stamp tax assessments whose annulment is petitioned in the present arbitral proceedings result from the application of item 28.1 of the TGIS to the same tax property value previously determined of the land in question in the proceedings, arising from mere updating of the matrix as of 31-12-2014 to reflect the current co-owners and their respective co-ownership rights.

O) On 18-01-2016 the Claimants submitted a request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal to the CAAD – cf. electronic request in the CAAD system.

4. UNPROVEN FACTS

There are no facts with relevance to the decision of the case that have not been proven.

5. RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION ON FACTUAL MATTERS

As to the essential facts, the settled matter is formed identically by both parties and the Tribunal's conviction was formed on the basis of the official documentary elements attached to the proceedings and discriminated above, whose authenticity and veracity was not questioned by either party.

6. THE LAW

In accordance with the questions set out, which appear in point No. 2 of the present Decision, and taking into account the factual matter established in point No. 3, it is now necessary to determine the applicable law.

Foremost, it is necessary to first consider the question of the dilatory exception raised by the AT in its response, concerning the verification of res judicata.

The AT invokes that regarding these acts, referring to the same property now in question, the Claimants already resorted to this Tribunal, and the request for arbitral ruling was filed under No. 509/2015 – T CAAD.

And that, in the present case, res judicata is verified regarding the Stamp Tax assessments - Item 28.1 TGIS - with respect to the substantive question, now newly invoked, brought to this Tribunal, since the assessments impugned in the present arbitral proceedings reflect mere updating of the matrix of the urban property, which only occurred in April 2015, and the Respondent limited itself to correcting the respective co-ownership of each of the Claimants in conformity with the gift made.

A situation which in the Respondent's understanding constitutes a dilatory exception of ex officio knowledge that bars consideration of the merits of the case and which entails absolution of the instance, under the terms and for the effects of No. 2 of Article 576, paragraph i) of Article 577, Article 578 of the CPC, applicable ex vi by paragraph e), No. 1 of Article 29 of the RJAT.

In response to this exception, the Claimant came, already in the pleading phase, to contest this position, contending that in the present case, the exception of res judicata is not verified, since there is no identity of claim and cause of action.

And that the present arbitral action seeks to obtain the complete annulment of the tax and not merely a part of the same, which tax would have been assessed initially by the Respondent.

Let us examine this.

Material res judicata is the special authority that a decision acquires within the process and outside it when it is no longer susceptible to ordinary appeal (cf. Article 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure "CPC").

This is a procedural effect of the judgment that projects itself especially on those holding judicial function, either preventing courts from pronouncing themselves in the future on the substantive question already decided, or binding them to accept and apply the definition that has passed into judgment, when the same question is submitted to them.

Res judicata aims, essentially, at the unmodifiability of the decision that has passed into judgment and the non-repetition of the judgment contained in the decision. As Manuel de Andrade taught, res judicata prevents "a judge in a new proceeding from validly deciding differently on the law, situation or concrete legal position defined by a prior decision, and therefore, disregarding in whole or in part the assets recognized and protected by it" (cf. Elementary Notions of Civil Procedure, page 317).

For this reason, faced with the filing of a new action on the same question, the judge (in this case the arbitrator) must refuse to render a new autonomous decision, under pain of ineffectiveness of the new decision (cf. Article 625 of the CPC).

The operative effect of the exception of res judicata thus depends on the relationship existing between what has already been judged and what is submitted for decision as the new action. Since the decision must resolve all questions that the parties have submitted for consideration to the judge (in this case, arbitrator), and only these, save those of ex officio knowledge (cf. Article 608, No. 2 of the CPC), the effectiveness of res judicata must be limited to the decision taken on such questions.

Article 621 of the CPC provides that it is "in the precise limits and terms in which judgment is rendered" that the scope of res judicata is determined, subjective and objective limits which, by reference from No. 1 of Article 619, are defined in Articles 580 and 581 of the CPC.

The objective limits of res judicata are defined by reference to the object of the proceeding. As prescribed in Articles 580 and 581 of the CPC, there must exist the "repetition of a cause" after the "first cause has been decided by a judgment that no longer admits ordinary appeal", in which "the court is placed in the alternative of contradicting or reproducing a prior decision", which happens "when an action identical to another is filed as to the parties, the claim, and the cause of action".

Therefore, the object of the proceeding and the objective scope of res judicata are identified through the claim and the cause of action, but what is fundamental to discern is to assess the pretension of the party challenging, which is identified as the legal effect sought (No. 3 of Article 581 of the CPC), that is, the remedy requested from the court (immediate claim) and the material legal position to be protected by this means (remote claim).

The cause of action serves only to individualize the subjective position that the plaintiff seeks to effect with the remedy requested. As Antunes Varela states, "the order by which, understandably, the law enumerates the three identities characterizing res judicata (the identity of the claim, before the identity of the cause of action) shows that it is regarding the plaintiff's pretension, in light of the fact invoked as its basis, that res judicata is formed" (cf. Manual of Civil Procedure, page 712).

The fact that the tax act (in the present case, the stamp tax assessments in question in the proceedings) is an essential element of the impugning arbitral action does not permit the conclusion that the object of the proceeding is restricted to or identified with it.

Indeed, although the Claimants seek, in the first place, the annulment of the assessment acts, which they deem illegal, they do so on a single basis, with a single cause of action, precisely and in all respects rigorously identical to that which was decided in the arbitral proceeding that was processed at the CAAD under No. 509/2015-T.

The objective effectiveness of res judicata is not delimited, tout court, by the question of the validity or invalidity of an act, determining, in an unmodifiable manner, its removal from the legal order or its confirmation, but should, instead and in the first place, regard the material relationship in which the impugned act is inscribed.

But, if the subject being discussed in the proceeding is the determination of the value (in €) of the constructed area in relation to the property identified in the proceedings, on which the Respondent applied item 28.1 of the TGIS, then there will be identity of object if there already exists a decision that has passed into judgment that considered the concrete factual and legal bases on which the pretension for annulment of the impugned acts is founded.

If the Claimants already disputed the value in question, seeking its reduction, and if in that arbitral action an arbitral pronouncement was issued that denied that pretension, then there already exists a determination of the power manifested by the impugned act that cannot be repeated, under pain of violation of res judicata.

Now in the prior arbitral action that was processed under No. 509/2015-T, it was precisely this that the Claimants did.

Through a reading of pages 9 and 10 (especially the latter) of the arbitral decision rendered in that proceeding, it is verified that the Claimants had already raised before the Arbitral Tribunal that it pronounce itself on the pretension of only seeing item 28.1 of the TGIS applied to the value of € 3,266,985.55, by reference to the same property identified in the proceedings and with regard to the same year of 2014, precisely the year whose tax they now impugn, in a repetition entirely identical to the argument used in the arbitral petition referring to the proceeding that was processed at the CAAD under No. 509/2015-T, which was judged unfounded by a decision that has passed into judgment[1].

That is, the Claimants do not present in the present action factual and legal bases different from those invoked in the above-mentioned proceeding.

It is true that the Respondent issued new tax assessments[2], annulling the prior ones[3], but it did so, solely, as a direct consequence of the updating of the urban property matrix, by way of submission of Declaration Form 1 by the Claimants, which only occurred in April 2015[4], and the Respondent limited itself to correcting the respective co-ownership of each of the Claimants in conformity with the gift made.

And such occurred thus because, as of the date of the tax fact, that is, 31-12-2014, the Claimants were already co-owners in 50% (1/2) of the property and not 1/6, so that the assessments previously issued and impugned within the scope of arbitral proceeding No. 509/2015-T did not reflect the totality of the Claimants' co-ownership as of the date of the tax fact in question in the proceedings.

It should be said that the assessments in question in the present arbitral proceedings limit themselves to reflecting the percentage of the Claimants' co-ownership in the property in question in the proceedings as of the date of the relevant tax fact, in no way modifying the property tax value thereof or the tax rate applied, which is the same.

Now, given that there exists an arbitral decision that has passed into judgment on that material question, the annulment of the assessment acts petitioned could only be considered if the bases of invalidity were different.

The present action, as presented by the Claimants, seeks one of the legal effects that arbitral decision No. 509-2015-T precisely came to decide.

There was, thus, a judgment of unfoundedness that had the scope of declaring with imperative force that the pretension formulated has no basis, that is, that the value (in €) on which item 28.1 of the TGIS should apply does not suffer from the illegality that the Claimants imputed to it, not warranting any reduction.

The specific illegality invoked there is entirely identical to that invoked and formulated in the present proceeding. If the proceeding were to continue, there would be the risk that the Arbitral Tribunal could contradict or confirm the prior decision rendered regarding the determination of the value on which the tax should be based, since, despite being faced with "new"[5] tax acts, the illegality invoked and the pretension for annulment are exactly the same.

In the two arbitral actions the same substantive question[6] is under discussion, it being certain that in the first it was already decided that there is no cause for any reduction of the value on which the tax should apply, as it was then understood that there is no cause for any division of the construction project presented[7].

And there being no other defect to consider in the proceeding, it must, necessarily, be found that the exception of res judicata is well founded, the essential reason for being of which is to prevent the indefinite renewal of disputes between the same persons, for the same reasons and regarding the same subject, whence would result the lack of confidence and social tranquility and the possibility of contradictory decisions with the loss of prestige for justice, whether judicial or arbitral.

In these terms the exception of res judicata is found to be well founded and the absolution of the instance by the Respondent is determined.

Given the absolution of the instance, there is no occasion for consideration of the substantive question raised by the Claimants and identified in point 2.1 above of the present Decision - (cf. Article 576, No. 2 of the CPC applicable, ex vi, by paragraph e) of No. 1 of Article 29 of the RJAT).

7. DECISION

In view of the above stated, this Singular Arbitral Tribunal agrees to:

  • Find verified the dilatory exception of res judicata, determining the absolution of the instance by the Respondent, with the legal consequences thereof.

The value of the case is set at Euro 51,856.40, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 3, No. 2 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (RCPAT), 97-A, No. 1, paragraph a) of the CPPT and 306 of the CPC.

The amount of costs is set at Euro 2,142.00, under Article 22, No. 4 of the RJAT and Table I attached to the RCPAT, to be borne by the Claimants, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 12, No. 2 of the RJAT and 4, No. 4 of the RCPAT.

Let notice be given.

Lisbon, 09 August 2016.

The Arbitrator,

Dr. Henrique Nogueira Nunes

Text prepared by computer, under Article 131, No. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference from Article 29, No. 1, paragraph e) of the RJAT.

The drafting of the present arbitral decision is governed by the spelling prior to the 1990 Orthographic Agreement.

[1] Although there is no express reference in the decision regarding proceeding No. 509/2015-T, dated 11 January 2016, available at https://caad.org.pt/tributario/decisoes/, to its passage into judgment, neither of the parties came to put this fact into dispute, so it is taken as proven, considering that in that proceeding the parties were the same.

[2] In the strict sense.

[3] Which had been the subject of arbitral proceeding No. 509-2015-T.

[4] Although the AT should have done so somewhat earlier.

[5] Although issued within the circumstances that have already been detailed.

[6] Although in arbitral proceeding No. 509/2015-T the Claimants had imputed other defects to the tax assessments, in addition to the defect that they now repeat.

[7] And whether or not in agreement with such decision, this Tribunal must respect it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

How does Verba 28.1 of the TGIS apply to construction land (terrenos para construção) for stamp tax purposes?
Verba 28.1 of the TGIS applies stamp tax annually to properties with housing use (prédios com uso habitacional), which expressly includes construction land (terrenos para construção) destined for housing purposes. Following Law 83-C/2013 of December 31, 2013, the provision was clarified to remove any interpretative doubt: building land classified as urban property intended for housing construction falls within the scope of this tax. The classification depends on the authorized or planned use according to licensing and building permits, not on actual current use. Tax authorities determine the applicability by examining approved building projects and urban planning designations. The tax base is the patrimonial tax value (valor patrimonial tributário) as determined under the Property Tax Code (Código do IMI), and the rate is 1% annually on this value. Even before actual construction begins, land approved for housing development is subject to this stamp tax obligation.
Can res judicata (caso julgado) be raised as a defence in CAAD arbitration proceedings involving repeated stamp tax assessments?
Yes, res judicata (caso julgado) can be raised as a dilatory exception in CAAD arbitration proceedings. The Tax Authority invoked this defense by referencing a previous arbitral decision (Case 509/2015-T) that allegedly decided the same substantive issue between the parties. Res judicata is an ex officio matter (conhecimento oficioso) that the tribunal must consider, meaning it can be raised by the parties or addressed by the tribunal on its own initiative. When verified, res judicata constitutes a procedural bar that prevents re-litigation of the same dispute, leading to absolution from the instance (absolvição da instância) without consideration of the merits. For res judicata to apply, there must be identity of parties, cause of action, and object between the previous and current proceedings. In stamp tax cases, this defense is particularly relevant when taxpayers challenge repeated annual assessments based on the same legal arguments, as Verba 28.1 creates recurring annual obligations that could generate multiple disputes over identical legal interpretations.
Is stamp tax under Verba 28.1 calculated on the full patrimonial value or only the housing-designated portion of a construction plot?
Under Verba 28.1, stamp tax is calculated on the full patrimonial tax value of construction land, not limited to the housing-designated portion when the land has mixed-use zoning. The Tax Authority's position, supported by the legal framework, holds that when property is classified as construction land with authorized housing use, the entire patrimonial value serves as the tax base, even if portions are designated for other uses. The Property Tax Code (Código do IMI) classifies properties according to their licensing or normal purpose, and the valuation methodology for construction land considers the authorized construction area and planned buildings' characteristics. When determining the tax property value of building land, authorities assess the value of authorized or planned structures, considering their intended use. The legislation does not provide for proportional taxation based on partial housing designation within a single property unit. Therefore, if land is classified as having housing use based on approved building projects, the full patrimonial value of €5,185,640.00 would constitute the taxable base, resulting in annual stamp tax of 1% of this amount, rather than the limited value of €3,266,985.55 that claimants argued should apply.
What are the rules for stamp tax liability when construction land is held in co-ownership (compropriedade)?
When construction land is held in co-ownership (compropriedade), each co-owner is individually liable for stamp tax under Verba 28.1 proportional to their ownership share. The tax obligation is personal to each co-owner based on their fraction of ownership as of December 31 of the relevant tax year. In this case, each claimant held a 50% share by year-end 2014, resulting in individual assessments of €25,928.20 (1% of half the total patrimonial value). Co-ownership does not create joint and several liability; rather, each owner's obligation is determined by multiplying the total tax due (1% of €5,185,640.00 = €51,856.40) by their ownership percentage. Changes in ownership during the year affect the year-end liability determination—here, the claimants increased their shares from 1/6 each to 1/2 each through a November 2014 gift deed, establishing their 50% ownership for the December 31, 2014 reference date. Co-owners must file stamp tax declarations when acquiring or increasing their ownership interests. Each co-owner receives a separate assessment notice and must independently fulfill payment obligations, and each has separate rights to challenge assessments through administrative or arbitral proceedings.
How is the taxable base (base de incidência) determined for stamp tax on construction land with mixed-use zoning?
The taxable base (base de incidência) for stamp tax on construction land with mixed-use zoning is determined by the total patrimonial tax value (valor patrimonial tributário) as assessed under the Property Tax Code (Código do IMI), without proportional reduction based on use designation. The valuation process considers: (1) the total authorized construction area according to building permits and licenses; (2) the characteristics and intended use of planned buildings as reflected in approved projects; (3) the classification of the property according to its licensing or normal purpose; and (4) urban planning regulations governing the land. While property valuations may internally differentiate between housing and non-housing components for calculation purposes (as occurred here with €3,266,985.55 for housing and €1,918,652.78 for other use), the stamp tax under Verba 28.1 applies to the aggregate value when the property includes authorized housing construction. The concept of 'properties with housing use' encompasses construction land destined for housing development, and mixed-use designation does not trigger proportional taxation. Tax authorities rely on municipal building permits and approved architectural projects to determine the intended use, establishing the taxable base well before actual construction commences.