Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
The Arbitrators Judge José Poças Falcão (Presiding Arbitrator), Dr. Olívio Mota Amador (Arbitrator Member) and Dr. André Festas da Silva (Arbitrator Member), appointed by the Administrative Arbitration Centre to form an Arbitral Tribunal hereby agree as follows:
1. - Report
1.1
A... Lda., legal entity no. ..., with registered office at Av. ... no. ..., ..., ...-... Lisbon, (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant") filed, on 10-01-2019, a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, pursuant to article 2.º no. 1, paragraph a) and 10.º, nos 1, and 2 of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, provided for in Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228.º of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December (hereinafter abbreviated as "RJAT") and articles 1.º and 2.º of Order no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March, to declare the illegality and consequent annulment of the tax assessment act for Municipal Tax on Onerous Property Transfers ("IMT") no. ..., of 15-02-2018, as well as the act of implicit refusal of the request for official revision.
1.2
The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted, on 11-01-2019, and automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent").
1.3
The Claimant did not proceed to appoint an arbitrator, wherefore, pursuant to the provision in paragraph a) of no. 2 of article 6.º and paragraph a) of no. 1 of article 11.º of the RJAT, the President of the Deontological Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre appointed the presiding arbitrator and the auxiliary arbitrators of the collective arbitral tribunal, with the undersigned having communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable time limit.
1.4
The parties were notified of the appointments of the presiding arbitrator and auxiliary arbitrators, on 04-03-2019, and did not express any intention to challenge any of them.
1.5
In accordance with the provision in paragraph c) of no. 1 of article 11.º of the RJAT, the Collective Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 25-03-2019.
1.6
The Respondent, duly notified for this purpose through the arbitral order of 26-03-2019, presented its response on 06-05-2019, attaching, as Document no. 1 annexed to said Response, the Opinion of the Tax Studies Centre, dated 22-06-2018, endorsed by the Deputy Director-General for the Heritage Area, in the context of Official Revision procedure no. ...2017....
1.7
The Arbitral Tribunal, by order of 13-06-2019, determined the following: (i) Unless express and reasoned opposition by either party within 5 (five) days, the meeting provided for in article 18.º of the RJAT was waived, considering that this is a case not subject to definition of specific procedural arrangements, different from those commonly followed by the Administrative Arbitration Centre in the generality of arbitral cases and that there are no exceptions or preliminary matters to consider and decide nor witnesses to examine; (ii) Given that there are no other evidentiary steps to take, both parties shall present, within the simultaneous period of 20 (twenty) days, written submissions on facts (essential facts which they consider proven and not proven) and law; (iii) 15-08-2019 is fixed as the foreseeable deadline for the rendering and notification of the final arbitral decision; (iv) The Claimant must provide timely compliance with the provision in article 4º-3, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings; (v) In light of the principle of cooperation [cfr article 7º, of the Code of Civil Procedure], both parties are invited to send to the Administrative Arbitration Centre copies of their respective submissions and report mentioned, in editable format (Word) with a view to facilitating and shortening the task of preparing the final award as it especially concerns matters of fact.
1.8
The Claimant, on 10-07-2019, dispensed with the presentation of written submissions.
1.9
The position of the Claimant, in accordance with the provision in the request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, is, in summary, as follows:
1.9.1
The Claimant submits that it should benefit from the exemption and reduction of the IMT rate referred to in article 49.º of the Tax Benefits Statute (EBF) in force at the date of acquisition, having acquired the property from an Open Real Estate Investment Fund in 2015, whereby the rate should be 3.25%.
1.9.2
Pursuant to article 12.º of the EBF, "[t]he right to tax benefits must be dated to the date of verification of the respective conditions (...)", save when the law provides otherwise. Now, at the date of verification of the facts subject of the present request (2015), the tax benefit in question (reduction of IMT rate by half) was applicable to: i. operations of acquisition of real property; ii. integrated/included in the real estate patrimony of funds with characteristics similar to those of open real estate investment funds.
1.9.3
The essential conditions for the granting of the tax benefit in question are fully met, in that i) the Claimant acquired a set of real properties ii) which were an integral part of the patrimony of an open real estate investment fund – the B... – Open Real Estate Investment Fund.
1.9.4
Since the IMT tax assessment act is manifestly illegal, the Claimant should consequently be reimbursed for the partial value of the tax indebted and assessed, and the respective indemnificatory interest paid, pursuant to article 24.º, nos 1, paragraph b), and 5 of the RJAT and articles 43.º and 100.º of the General Tax Law (LGT).
1.10
The position of the Respondent, expressed in the response, can be summarized as follows:
1.10.1
The disputed assessment is correct, in that the property was part of the B... – Open Real Estate Investment Fund prior to the amendment to article 49.º (former article 46.º) of the EBF introduced by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, and according to the transitional regime contained in article 209.º of said legal instrument, the new regime applied only "to properties that, at the moment of entry into force of this law, are part of open or closed real estate investment funds of public subscription, pension funds and retirement savings funds that are established and operated in accordance with national legislation, as well as properties that come to be part of these entities".
1.10.2
It thus follows from the interpretation of article 46.º/49.º of the EBF developed in the Opinion of the Tax Studies Centre, dated 22-06-2018, that from the provision of article 209.º of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, "it clearly results that the legislator considers that the requirement of establishment of investment funds (...) is an essential condition for the application of the benefit, and that, in this case, the new regime applies to funds that are established after the entry into force of the new provision, whereby, as a consequence, the benefit of rate reduction applied to properties that would come to be integrated in investment funds, in the future, during its validity".
1.10.3
In conclusion, the act at issue does not suffer from any illegality, whereby the Claimant's claim for annulment of the IMT assessment act should be considered unfounded.
1.10.4
Since there was no error on the part of the Tax Authority's services, the prerequisites provided for in article 43.º of the LGT are not present for recognition of the right to the indemnificatory interest claimed.
1.11
The Arbitral Tribunal is materially competent and is regularly constituted, pursuant to articles 2.º, no. 1, paragraph a), 5.º and 6.º, no. 1, of the RJAT.
The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are regularly represented, in accordance with the provisions of articles 4.º and 10.º, no. 2, of the RJAT and article 1.º of Order no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.
No exceptions that merit consideration were raised.
The case is not affected by nullities.
Thus, there is no obstacle to the consideration of the case.
2. Matters of Fact
2.1 Facts Established as Proven
A) The Claimant is a commercial company limited by shares whose corporate purpose is the provision of real estate consultancy services and investment planning, conduct of market studies and marketing and advertising services for the real estate sector, management services of own or third-party real property, real estate investments, including acquisition, leasing, sale and resale of real property. (vd., no. 24 of the request for arbitral pronouncement and p. 1 of the deed of purchase and sale attached as Document no. 2 annexed to said request);
B) On 16-12-2015, at the Notarial Office of C..., in Lisbon, a deed of purchase and sale was executed, whereby the Claimant acquired from B... – Open Real Estate Investment Fund, NIF ..., for the total price of € 4,075,000.00 the autonomous fractions designated by the letters "A", "B" and "C" of the urban property located at ..., number ..., with street frontage to Street ... nos ... to ..., lot ..., registered under article no. ..., located in the Union of Parishes of ... and ..., municipality of Loures, subject to the horizontal property regime and described in the ... Registry Office of ... under no. ... (vd., p. 1 of the deed of purchase and sale attached as Document no. 2 annexed to the request for arbitral pronouncement);
C) The autonomous fractions identified in the previous paragraph were sold for the following amounts: (i) autonomous fraction designated by letter "A": €1,228,000.00 (ii) autonomous fraction designated by letter "B": €1,423,500.00 (iii) autonomous fraction designated by letter "C": €1,423,500.00 (pp. 2 and 3 of the deed of purchase and sale attached as Document no. 2 annexed to the request for arbitral pronouncement);
D) Regarding the purchase and sale identified in the previous paragraphs, the Tax Authority issued, on 15-12-2015, the IMT tax assessment act no. ... in the global amount of € 264,875.00, which includes: (i) autonomous fraction designated by letter "A": Taxable Amount: € 1,228,000.00 Rate: 6.5% Tax: € 79,820.00 (ii) autonomous fraction designated by letter "B": Taxable Amount: € 1,423,000.00 Rate 6.5% Tax € 92,527.50 (iii) autonomous fraction designated by letter "C": Taxable Amount: € 1,423,500.00 Rate 6.5% Tax € 92,527.50 (vd., Document no. 3 annexed to the request for arbitral pronouncement);
E) The Claimant proceeded to payment of the IMT assessment identified above (vd., p. 6 of the deed of purchase and sale attached as Document no. 2 annexed to the request for arbitral pronouncement);
F) The Claimant addressed the Director of the Service Department for Municipal Tax on Onerous Property Transfers, Stamp Duty, Single Circulation Tax and Special Contributions, on 23-07-2018, a request for official revision of the IMT assessment identified above, pursuant to and for the purposes of article 78.º of the LGT and articles 41.º and 42.º of the IMT Code, (vd., Document no. 1 annexed to the request for arbitral pronouncement);
2.2 Facts Established as Not Proven
With relevance to the decision, there are no facts that should be considered as not proven.
2.3 Justification for Matters of Fact Proven and Not Proven
Regarding matters of fact, it is the duty of the Tribunal to select the facts that matter for the decision and discriminate between proven and not proven matters, not being required to pronounce on everything that was alleged by the parties (cfr. article 123.º, no. 2, of the Tax Procedure Code and article 607.º, no. 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable ex vi article 29.º, no. 1, paragraphs a) and e), of the RJAT).
Thus, the facts pertinent to the judgment of the case are chosen and selected according to their legal relevance, which is established taking into account the various plausible solutions of the legal questions raised (cfr. article 596.º of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable ex vi article 29.º, no. 1, paragraph e), of the RJAT).
In these terms, having regard to the positions assumed by the parties, in light of article 110.º, no. 7, of the Tax Procedure Code, and the documentary evidence attached to the case, the facts enumerated above were considered proven, with relevance to the decision.
3. Law
3.1 Art. 49º, no. 1 of the EBF
Given the factual situation under analysis in the present case and the submissions of the parties, the question that must be addressed is as follows: is the alienation of three real properties on 16.12.2015 by an open real estate investment fund to the Claimant subject to IMT at reduced rates of half?
In 2015, Real Estate Investment Funds benefited from a special taxation regime in the context of IMT, provided for in several articles of the Tax Benefits Statute (EBF), in particular in art. 49º of the EBF.
Taking as the temporal limit the date of 16.12.2015 (date of the tax event), this article was amended by the following laws:
- Amendment to the EBF by D.L. no. 189/90, of 8 June;
- Law no. 39-B/94, of 27/12;
- Decree-Law no. 198/2001, of 3/07 – renumbering;
- Law no. 32-B/2002, of 30/12;
- Law no. 53-A/2006, of 29/12;
- Decree-Law no. 108/2008 of 26.06;
- Law no. 3-B/2010, of 28/04;
- Law no. 55-A/2010, of 31/12;
- Law no. 83-C/2013 - 31/12.
The incidence of IMT is regulated by the legislation in force at the time the tax obligation is constituted (art. 5.º, nos 1 and 2 of the IMT Code). Pursuant to article 12.º of the EBF, "[t]he right to tax benefits must be dated to the date of verification of the respective conditions (...)".
Thus, notwithstanding the constant legislative amendments, in the case at issue only the Law in force at the date of the transfer of the properties is relevant – 16/12/2015. At the date of the tax event (art. 36.º, no. 1 of the LGT), the version in force of art. 49º of the EBF was as follows:
"1 - The rates of municipal tax on real property and municipal tax on onerous property transfers applicable to real properties integrated in open or closed real estate investment funds of public subscription, in pension funds and in retirement savings funds that are established and operated in accordance with national legislation are reduced by half.
2 – (repealed)"
It is also important to bear in mind the transitional provision provided for in art. 209º of Law no. 83-C/2013 of 31.12:
"The tax regime resulting from the new wording given to no. 1 of article 49.º of the EBF, approved by Decree-Law no. 215/89, of 1 July, applies to real properties that, at the moment of entry into force of this law, are part of open or closed real estate investment funds of public subscription, pension funds and retirement savings funds that are established and operated in accordance with national legislation, as well as to real properties that come to be part of these entities."
In accordance with the Law, tax benefits should be considered as measures of an exceptional character, instituted for the protection of relevant extrafiscal public interests and that are superior to those of the taxation they prevent (art. 2º of the EBF).
From a legal point of view, and in the context of the tax legal relationship, tax benefits embody, first and foremost, facts that, being subject to taxation, are preventive of the birth of the tax obligation or, at least, of it arising in full form. In truth, as a preventing fact, the tax benefit manifests itself always in situations that are subject to taxation, that is, that are subsumable to the legal rules that define the objective and subjective incidence of the tax.
It is today well-established that tax laws are interpreted as any others, and their true meaning must be determined according to the techniques and interpretive elements generally accepted by doctrine. (Cfr. Art. 11º of the LGT and art. 9º of the Civil Code)
Specifically, the rules that establish tax benefits are not susceptible to analogical integration, although they do admit extensive interpretation (art. 10º of the EBF).
Given the foregoing, with respect to hermeneutic rules we should resort, by referral of art. 11º, no. 1 of the LGT, to the provisions of the Civil Code. Art. 9º, no. 1 of the Civil Code establishes the following:
"1. Interpretation shall not be confined to the letter of the law, but shall reconstruct from the texts the legislative intent, taking above all into account the unity of the legal system, the circumstances in which the law was elaborated and the specific conditions of the time in which it is applied."
Thus the letter is naturally assumed as the starting point of interpretation, with it having, from the outset, a negative function, namely, that it cannot "be considered as comprised among the possible meanings of the law that legislative intent (spirit, meaning)" which does not have in the letter of the law a minimum of verbal correspondence, even if imperfectly expressed"" Also as OLIVEIRA ASCENSÃO refers, "the letter is not only the starting point, it is also an irremovable element of all interpretation. That is to say that the text also functions as a limit of the search for the spirit"
The partial exemption from IMT provided for in art. 49º, no. 1 of the EBF is subject to the cumulative verification of three conditions:
a) that the real properties are integrated in open or closed real estate investment funds of public subscription, in pension funds and in retirement savings funds;
b) that these entities are established in accordance with national legislation;
c) that these entities operate in accordance with national legislation.
Applying the interpretive rules set out above to the case under analysis, it is important to consider the literal element.
As to the first condition, it is necessary that the real property be "integrated" in a fund. The legislator used the verb "integrate" in the present indicative, which expresses an already existing reality. Real properties integrated in a fund are nothing other than those which that fund has already acquired, which leads to the conclusion that the exemption refers to their alienation by the fund to a third party and not to their acquisition by the fund.
Regarding the interpretation of art. 49º, no. 1 of the EBF, former 46º of the EBF, citing Dr. João Espanha: "c) The transfer/alienation of real property integrated in a Real Estate Investment Fund represented by the managing company is exempt from IMT".
The interpretation that no exemption from IMT results from this rule is contrary to the letter of the Law since this expressly states that the rates of IMT are reduced by half. Pursuant to art. 9º, no. 3 of the Civil Code the interpreter should presume that the legislator established the most correct solution and knew how to express his intent in adequate terms. Having the legislator made express allusion to partial IMT exemption, we should conclude that the transfer of the property by the fund to the Claimant is partially exempt, especially since the acquisition of the property by the fund was, at the date of the tax event, exempt from IMT under the provision of art. 1º of D.L. no. 1/87 of 03 January. This is the only interpretation compatible with the letter of the Law.
This question has already been addressed in this sense by abundant arbitral jurisprudence (cases no. 544/2016-T, of 28 April 2017; no. 677/2016-T, of 26 June 2017; no. 440/2017-T, of 15 January 2018, no. 547/2017-T, of 15 March 2018, no. 630/2018 of 13.05.2018, no. 478/2018 of 28.02.2019 and no. 317/2018 of 13.05.2019).
Also with regard to the first condition, given the facts established as proven, we find that the transfer of the properties to the Claimant was carried out by an open real estate investment fund. In the case at issue, we understand that the first condition for the recognition of partial IMT exemption is met.
With regard to the second condition, it is necessary that the funds be established in accordance with national legislation. The Respondent submits that this condition is only applicable to real properties integrated in funds on a date subsequent to the entry into force of the rule, not applying to real properties already integrated in those funds.
Now, with all due respect, this interpretation does not correspond to the letter of the law.
Beginning our analysis by examining the literal elements of the rule, we find that the verb "establish", which expresses an action, in art. 49º, no. 1 of the EBF is applicable to funds and not to properties as the Respondent interprets. Thus, this condition relates to the funds. There is partial exemption provided that the funds, and not the properties, are established in accordance with national legislation.
Moreover, the verb establish is used in the present conditional mode (establish) and not in the future conditional mode (would establish). The conditional mode is used to convey the possibility of realisation of an action under condition, whether realised or not. The legislator used the verb to be interpreted in the present tense and not in the future. Whereby, the legislator situates the fact enunciated at the moment of its enunciation and not for a later moment.
Whereby, the partial IMT exemption is applicable to existing funds created in accordance with national legislation and not only to funds created or to properties to be integrated in funds on a date subsequent to the entry into force of the rule.
Any other interpretation than this would, in our view, be difficult to reconcile with the principle of equality. The principle of tax equality is not expressly enshrined in the current Constitution, deriving from the general principle of equality provided for in its article 13.º of the Portuguese Constitution.
According to the Constitutional Court (Decisions nos 232/2003, 96/2005, 99/2010, 255/2012 and 294/2014 TC) and doctrine, the principle of equality encompasses, fundamentally, two aspects: a) prohibition of discrimination; b) obligation of differentiation.
The prohibition of discrimination imposes equal treatment for equal situations and the interdiction of equal treatment for manifestly unequal situations, so as to prevent any intolerable discrimination. It thus implies a negative sense (not introduce inequalities in what should be equal nor equality in what should be unequal) and a positive sense (treat equally what should be equal and prevent others from treating unequally what should be equal).
The prohibition of discrimination imposes equal treatment for equal situations and the interdiction of equal treatment for manifestly unequal situations, so as to prevent any intolerable discrimination. It thus implies, on the one hand, a requirement of equal treatment of taxpayers in the same circumstances and on the other hand a requirement of differentiated treatment of taxpayers in different circumstances.
In the case at issue, the application of the partial IMT exemption only to funds to be established or to properties to be integrated in funds after the entry into force of the rule and not to funds already established or to properties already integrated in funds are not distinct factual realities that merit different treatment. Whereby, it seems to us that their different fiscal treatment, as proposed by the Respondent, could configure a violation of the principle of equality in a positive sense. Being equal factual situations, and especially because we have not found anything that justifies differentiated treatment, the principle of equality in a negative sense imposes that they be treated equally.
Moreover, the transitional provision provided for in art. 209º of Law 83-C/2013, of 31/12 removes, without a shadow of doubt, the interpretation of the Respondent because it expressly states that this regime applies "(...) to real properties that, at the moment of entry into force of this law, are part of the investment funds (...), as well as to properties that come to be part of these entities". It is unequivocal that this regime applies not only to properties already integrated in funds but also to those that will integrate in the future.
Thus, since the alienating fund of the properties was established in accordance with national legislation at the date of the tax event, this Tribunal understands that the second condition for the partial IMT exemption provided for in art. 49º, no. 1 of the EBF is met in the case at issue.
Finally, with regard to the third condition, once again the legislator used the verb, now, "operate" in the present conditional mode (operate) and not in the future conditional mode (would operate).
Whereby, for the same reasons stated above, the partial IMT exemption is applicable to existing funds that have activity in accordance with national legislation and not only to funds that will operate in the future in accordance with national legislation.
Subsuming to the case at issue, we find that the third condition for the partial exemption is also met since the open fund operated at the date of the tax event in accordance with national legislation.
In conclusion, in the case being judged, the three conditions required by art. 49º, no. 1 of the EBF, with the wording in force at the date of the tax event, are met for the partial IMT exemption (reduction of rates by half) to be recognised.
The IMT tax assessment act relating to the acquisition of three real properties by the Claimant is illegal due to violation of the provision in said article 49.º, no. 1, of the EBF, as worded in Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December.
In light of the foregoing, the IMT tax assessment act identified under no. ..., of 15 December 2015, in the amount of €264,875.00 is voidable for the defect of breach of law, in accordance with article 135.º of the Code of Administrative Procedure ("CPA"), with correspondence in article 163.º, no. 1 of the new CPA, applicable by referral of article 29.º, no. 1, paragraph d) of the RJAT.
Also illegal is the implicit refusal of the Request for Official Revision lodged against the aforementioned tax assessment act.
3.2 INDEMNIFICATORY INTEREST
Where there is involved the erroneous interpretation and application by the Respondent of tax incidence rules, it has been peacefully understood that Tax Arbitral Tribunals have competence to deliver condemnatory pronouncements in modes identical to those admitted in judicial challenge proceedings, thus including those deriving from the recognition of the right to indemnificatory interest, under the provision of articles 24.º, no. 1, paragraph b) and no. 5 of the RJAT and 43.º and 100.º of the LGT.
In harmony with the provision in paragraph b) of article 24.º, no. 1 of the RJAT, the arbitral decision on the merits of the claim for which no appeal or challenge lies binds the Tax Authority, in the exact terms of the success of the arbitral decision in favour of the subject to tax, with the duty to "reestablish the situation that would have existed if the tax act subject of the arbitral decision had not been performed, adopting the acts and operations necessary for the effect". Which is in line with the provision in article 100.º of the LGT, applicable by force of the provision in paragraph a) of no. 1 of article 29.º of the RJAT.
Also pursuant to no. 5 of article 24.º of the RJAT "payment of interest, regardless of its nature, is due, pursuant to the provisions of the General Tax Law and the Tax Procedure and Process Code", which refers to the provisions of articles 43.º, no. 1, of the LGT and 61.º, no. 5, of the Tax Procedure Code.
The right to indemnificatory interest depends on a set of constitutive conditions, it being essential that the Claimant has previously proceeded to payment of the tax regarding which it claims the accrual of interest.
In the situation before us, the Claimant proved the full payment of the assessment act. It is further demonstrated that the tax assessment act suffers from an error of law attributable to the Tax Authority which should not have proceeded to the assessment of IMT with the normal rates, whereby the claim for condemnation of the Tax Authority to payment of indemnificatory interest is well-founded, calculated on the amount paid in excess of the legally due (€ 132,437.50 - 50% of the assessment amount).
However, in the concrete situation, being an official revision procedure at the initiative of the taxpayer, having passed the time limit for lodging a voluntary revision claim, the provision in article 43.º, no. 3, paragraph c) of the LGT applies, according to which indemnificatory interest is due "when revision of the tax act at the initiative of the taxpayer takes place more than one year after the taxpayer's request".
Thus, the counting of the time limit begins one year after the submission of the request, that is, one year after 23 July 2018, and not pursuant to the provision in article 61.º, no. 5 of the Tax Procedure Code, that is, from the date of payment of the undue tax. In this sense the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court also pronounces, in particular in cases nos 560/05, of 6 July 2005; 890/16, of 18 January 2017, and 159/14, of 10 May 2017.
Thus, the interest claimed by the Claimant is only due from 23 July 2019.
Indemnificatory interest is due at the legal rate, on the amount of €132,437.50, counted from 23 July 2019, having regard to the provision in article 43.º, no. 3, paragraph c) of the LGT.
4. Decision
The decision is as follows:
a) To hold the request for arbitral pronouncement well-founded and to annul the tax assessment act for municipal tax on onerous property transfers no. ... of 15.12.2015, as well as the act of implicit refusal of the request for official revision;
b) To condemn to payment of indemnificatory interest from 23.07.2019 until the date of issuance of the credit note, pursuant to articles 43.º, no. 3, paragraph c) of the LGT.
Value of the Case
The value of the case is fixed at € 132,437.50, pursuant to article 97º-A, no. 1, paragraph a) of the Tax Procedure and Process Code, applicable by force of paragraphs a) and b) of no. 1 of article 29º of the RJAT.
Costs
Pursuant to articles 12.º, no. 2, and 22.º, no. 4, of the RJAT, and 3.º, no. 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings and Table I annexed to that Regulation, the amount of the costs is fixed at € 3,060.00, which shall be borne by the Respondent.
Notify accordingly.
Lisbon, 7 September 2019
The President of the Arbitral Tribunal
(José Poças Falcão)
The Arbitrator Member
(Olívio Mota Amador)
The Arbitrator Member
(André Festas da Silva)
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created