Process: 193/2013-T

Date: January 15, 2014

Tax Type: IMI

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

Process 193/2013-T addresses critical procedural issues in IMI arbitration proceedings before the CAAD. The taxpayer challenged an IMI assessment of €26,515.68 relating to urban properties across three municipalities. During proceedings, the Tax Authority revoked €9,536.97 of the assessment for one specific property and argued the dispute had become moot. The case centers on three fundamental exceptions: (1) supervening lack of purpose due to partial revocation, (2) material incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal to conduct abstract constitutional review of IMI Code provisions, citing Article 281 of the Portuguese Constitution which reserves such jurisdiction exclusively to the Constitutional Court, and (3) lack of standing and legitimate interest of the taxpayer to proceed after partial satisfaction of claims. A critical interpretive dispute emerged regarding the scope of the original petition—whether it covered only the revoked property or all properties listed in the collection notice. The taxpayer maintained interest in proceeding with unrevoked portions and additionally sought €800 compensation for undue guarantees under Article 171(2) CPPT. The Tribunal found itself properly constituted with jurisdiction ratione materiae per Article 2 RJAT, but needed to resolve whether the petition's textual references to specific property articles limited its scope or whether the reference to the full collection notice amount governed. This decision establishes important precedents for determining petition scope in multi-property IMI disputes and the boundaries of tax arbitral jurisdiction regarding constitutional questions.

Full Decision

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

I - REPORT

1 – A... Ltd. (hereinafter claimant) with Tax Identification Number …, with registered office at Rua …, in … filed, on 29 July 2013, a petition for establishment of an Arbitral Tribunal and a petition for arbitral decision, pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) and Article 10(1)(a) of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (RJAT[1]), naming the Tax and Customs Authority[2] (AT) as respondent, seeking a declaration of illegality of part of the Municipal Property Tax (IMI) assessment in the amount of €26,515.68, relating to urban properties located in the Municipalities of …, … and … in accordance with collection notice No. 2012 … in the total amount of €26,520.10 (excluding only the rural properties indicated therein).

  1. The petition for establishment of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by His Excellency the President of the Administrative Arbitration Centre[3] (CAAD) and automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority on 30 July 2013. Pursuant to Article 6(1) of RJAT, by decision of the President of the Deontological Council, duly communicated to the parties within the applicable legal deadlines, Dr. Arlindo José Francisco was appointed as arbitrator, who communicated acceptance of the assignment to the Deontological Council and the Administrative Arbitration Centre within the applicable deadline.

3 – On 9 September 2013, pursuant to Article 13(1) of RJAT, the respondent filed a statement to the effect that:

"the claim raised by the claimant in the scope of the petition for arbitral decision – namely the review of part of the IMI assessment in the amount of €9,536.97, relating to the property located at Avª …, registered in the urban property registry of the parish of …, municipality of …, under Article …, was totally granted, with the granting of the appeal, there is no basis for continuation of the present dispute, thus considering the claimant's claim entirely satisfied"

4 – On 20 September 2013, the Claimant declares that it maintains interest in proceeding, as already petitioned, with the proceedings relating to the part of the act subject to the present petition for decision that was not revoked by the respondent, additionally seeking condemnation of the respondent, pursuant to Article 171(2) of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process[4] (CPPT), as petitioned in Articles 8 to 12 of the initial petition, to payment to the Taxpayer of compensation in the amount of €800.00, for the provision of undue security.

5 – The Tribunal was constituted on 7 October 2013 and on the same date rendered the Order referred to in Article 17(1) of RJAT.

As a consequence thereof, the respondent filed its reply accompanied by the respective administrative file, arguing:

The termination of the proceedings due to supervening lack of purpose of the dispute, as provided in Article 277(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure[5] (CPC);

That it should be judged and found that the Tribunal lacks material jurisdiction, given that it is not competent to conduct abstract review of the norms of the IMI Code[6] (Article 2(1) and Article 9(d) and (e)), given the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court in this matter, Article 281 of the Constitution;

That the respondent should be absolved of the proceedings given that the claimant lacks procedural standing and legal interest to sue, in accordance with Article 281 of the Constitution and Article 278(d) and 577(e) of the CPC;

And should this not be upheld, that the petition for arbitral decision be judged unfounded;

6 – By Order of 7/11/2013, the Tribunal scheduled 09/12/2013 for the hearing referred to in Article 18 of RJAT, which took place at the headquarters of CAAD, at 10:30 hours.

Having heard the parties and with their agreement, the Tribunal dispensed with the examination of witnesses and oral arguments.

Regarding the exceptions raised by the respondent, both parties maintained their positions.

II - INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT

The Tribunal was regularly constituted and has jurisdiction ratione materiae, in accordance with Article 2 of RJAT.

The parties have legal personality and capacity and are duly standing (Articles 4 and 10(2) of RJAT and Article 1 of Order No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March).

The proceedings do not suffer from any nullities.

The respondent raised the following exceptions:

  • Lack of subject matter of the petition for decision with consequent supervening lack of purpose of the dispute;

  • Material incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal; and

  • Lack of standing and legal interest to sue on the part of the claimant.

Being central questions for determining the procedural viability of the claimant's claim, their examination must be undertaken with priority, which we shall do as follows:

1 - Lack of subject matter of the petition for arbitral decision and consequent supervening lack of purpose of the dispute

The respondent submits that the claimant submitted to the Tribunal's consideration the part of the IMI[7] assessment in the amount of €9,536.97, relating to the property located at Avª ..., registered in the urban property registry of the parish of … Municipality of … under Article …, units A, B, C, F, I, K, L, M, N, P, Q and R.

That following the petition for decision and within the deadline provided in Article 13(1) of RJAT, the respondent submitted to this Arbitral Tribunal a petition in which it argued the non-existence of grounds for continuation of the present dispute, given that the act under scrutiny would have been totally revoked by order of 30/08/2013 of Her Excellency the Deputy Director General of IMI.

Subsequently, the claimant objected to the respondent's position, reiterating its petition for arbitral decision, declaring that it maintains interest in proceeding, as petitioned.

What is at issue here is whether the petition for decision is confined to the IMI of the property registered in the urban property registry of the parish of … under Article … as the respondent argues and seeks to demonstrate with excerpts from the claimant's petition, citing as examples the following:

  • "that the establishment of the Tribunal is for consideration and judgment of the petition for decision that follows regarding the part of the Municipal Property Tax assessment";

  • "both as to matters of fact and of law, refers, exclusively, to the IMI assessment in the amount of €9,536.97, relating to the property located at Avª ..., registered in the urban property registry of the parish of …, municipality of … under Article …, units A, B, C, F, I, K, L, M, N, P, Q and R";

  • "It should be said that the assessment would be partially affected by illegality, regarding the urban property registered in the registry under Article … of the parish of …, municipality of …";

  • "in assessing IMI for 2012 regarding the urban property registered in the registry under Article …, units A, B, C, F, H, I, K, L, M, N, P, Q and R of the parish of …, municipality of …, of the claimant's ownership, the AT violated the law, namely it violated Article 9(1)(e) of the IMI Code, under which the claimant has the right that such property not be subject to taxation under IMI until the third year following, inclusive, that in which the property came to be included in its inventory as a product intended for sale, that is, until 2014, inclusive".

Regarding what has been stated, see the submissions in the reply, points 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21;

Or alternatively to establish whether the petition covers, in addition to the urban article … of the parish of …, municipality of …, all remaining urban articles located in the municipality of … and also those of the municipalities of … and … in accordance with collection notice No. … corresponding to the IMI in the amount of €26,515.68.

The file demonstrates that the complaint filed by the claimant with the Head of the Tax Service of the …th Tax District and its hierarchical appeal refer exclusively to the urban article … of the parish of … of the municipality of … corresponding to IMI of €9,536.97.

However, in the petition for decision, the amount in dispute is shown as €26,515.68 and in its arguments (Nos. 2, 3 and 4) the claimant states that: "it does not agree with the assessment, as regards all urban properties located in the municipalities of …, … and … set forth in collection notice No. …, which represent a value of €26,515.68 of the total assessment value referred to above."

From this, in the Tribunal's view, the only IMI amount that it does not seek to have reviewed is that relating to rural properties, a residual amount of €4.42.

As can be seen in the arguments of the petition, notably in question 20, all urban properties held by the claimant for sale in the municipalities of …, … and … are listed.

The claimant considers that the assessment regarding those identified urban properties may, from the claimant's perspective, be unconstitutional, while at the same time the IMI

Relating to the units of the urban property … of the parish of … of the municipality of …, is illegal, given that such units would be in a situation of non-subjection to IMI.

In the Tribunal's view, it has not been proven that the petition for decision is reduced exclusively to the property located in the municipality of …, therefore it considers that it

covers all urban properties set forth in collection notice …, for the reasons already previously stated, declaring the exception of lack of subject matter of the petition for arbitral decision and consequent supervening lack of purpose of the dispute, entirely unfounded.

2 - Material incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal

The respondent argues that although the Tribunal is competent to assess the constitutionality of a norm in light of the concrete case, in accordance with Article 25(1) of RJAT, the claimant's argument goes beyond the non-application of IMI norms; rather, it focuses on abstract review of such norms, a competence that belongs exclusively to the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 281 of the Constitution.

The respondent further argues that the claimant, although fictitiously seeking the non-application of IMI norms by the Tribunal, with the consequent annulment of the assessment, its entire argumentative construction is based on assessment of the abstract constitutionality of the IMI norms in Article 2(1), Article 9(1)(d) and (e), illustrating its point of view with the content of Article 72 of the petition for arbitral decision, concluding that it does not demonstrate that all properties in the collection notice are in the situations provided for in Article 9(1)(d) and (e) of the IMI Code.

However, in the Tribunal's view, what the claimant did was a breakdown of the situations:

On one hand, it raised the illegality of the assessment regarding the property registered in the urban property registry under Article … of the parish of … of the municipality of …, which came to be recognized by the AT prior to the constitution of this Tribunal;

As to the remaining urban properties located in the same municipality as well as those located in the municipalities of … and …, it raised the question of constitutionality and as to these, the claimant in fact makes a lengthy argumentative exposition (Articles 35 to 71 of the petition) in order to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the referred norms by violating, in its view, the constitutional principle of tax equality and arising from this the principle of contributive capacity, seeking their non-application to its concrete case.

At no time does the claimant ask the tribunal to conduct abstract review of the norms in question.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 25(1) of RJAT, the Tribunal considers itself materially competent to assess the constitutionality of the IMI Code norms challenged when applied to the concrete case, therefore it declares the raised exception unfounded.

3 - Lack of standing and legal interest to sue

Given that the Tribunal declared the exception of material incompetence unfounded, the logical consequence can only be to also declare unfounded the exception raised by the respondent of lack of standing and legal interest to sue.

Thus nothing prevents the Tribunal from hearing the merits of the case.

III - FACTUAL MATTERS

Facts found to be proven:

1 – The claimant's corporate purpose includes "activities of building construction and purchase and sale of real estate";

2 – Correct accounting of real estate as inventory, finished products for sale;

3 – In the year 2012, the claimant held for sale the real estate enumerated in Article 20 of the petition, and the same were taxed under IMI for the year 2012, in accordance with collection notice 2012 … in the amount of €26,520.10;

4 – The property located at Avª … in … registered in the urban registry of the parish of … under Article …, was allocated to sale and was transferred to the company's current assets in March 2012;

5 – Timely notification was made as referred to in Article 9(4) of the IMI Code;

6 – The claimant filed a petition for arbitral decision on 13/07/2013 which was accepted on the same date;

7 – On 07/08/2012, the claimant was notified of the final decision denying suspension of taxation regarding Article …, and on 05/09/2012 filed a hierarchical appeal of this decision which was granted by order of Her Excellency the Deputy Director General on 30/08/2013;

8 – On 7/09/2013, I communicated acceptance of appointment as sole arbitrator in the present case;

9 – On 09/09/2013, I was informed that the AT had communicated pursuant to Article 13 of RJAT the decision to totally revoke the tax acts challenged, therefore my appointment would become void and the Tribunal would not be constituted;

10 – On 19/09/2013, the claimant communicates that it seeks continuation of the proceedings and declares:

"that it maintains interest in proceeding, as already petitioned, with the proceedings regarding the part of the act subject to the present petition for decision that was not revoked by the respondent";

11 – The Tribunal was only constituted on 07/10/2013;

12 – By obvious consideration, the difficulty of selling real estate is proven, for the reasons exposed by the claimant, namely, lack of financing, market saturation, reduced demand, moreover as has been recognized in the Final Report of the "Group for Study of Tax Policy, Competitiveness, Efficiency and Justice of the Tax System" for the generality of these companies.

Facts that the Tribunal did not find to be proven:

1 – That all properties listed in Article 20 of the petition are completely free and unoccupied;

2 – That the claimant only sought annulment of the IMI assessment regarding the property in the municipality of …;

3 – That voluntary mortgage was the only means to suspend enforcement.

IV - LEGAL ANALYSIS

On the unconstitutionality of the norms

The claimant seeks annulment of the debt relating to urban properties set forth in collection notice … in the amount of €26,515.68, considering that taxation under IMI of properties held by companies whose business includes construction or sale of real estate is, in its view, unconstitutional, even after the deadlines for suspension of taxation provided in Article 9(1)(d) and (e) have passed, as this norm frontally violates the constitutional principle of tax equality and further, arising from this, the principle of contributive capacity.

It argues that such provision discriminates these companies relative to others that engage in assembly, production and sale of any other goods.

Drawing on distinguished tax law scholars such as Nuno Sá Gomes, in Lessons of Tax Law, Vol. II of 1984 and Casalta Nabais, cited in Constitutional Court Decision No. 306/2010, the claimant seeks to support its argument in the direction of fulfilling those principles which it considers violated by the IMI Code norms challenged by it. However, it is evident that the comparison made by the claimant is about completely different realities.

One cannot expect that there be equal taxation for different economic realities. The IMI Code regulates taxation of real estate property which, in its first article, establishes its scope of application over the taxable property value of rural and urban properties located in Portuguese territory, and in its second article establishes the concept of property, being for purposes of IMI taxation "any portion of territory including therein waters, plantations, buildings and constructions of any nature incorporated or situated therein with permanent character" and further requires by this norm that such reality belongs "to the property of a natural or legal person and that under normal circumstances has economic value".

Article 9 of the IMI Code establishes the commencement of taxation which differs according to the realities. In the case of property that "has come to be included in the current assets of a company whose purpose is its sale," taxation begins "from the third year following, inclusive," that occurrence.

In the context of IMI, comparing a company whose activity is the construction and/or sale of real estate and others that engage in construction, assembly, production and sale of any other goods is comparing different economic realities, as has been stated, and while the first falls within the scope of application of Article 1 of the IMI Code and therefore is subject to taxation in the terms provided therein, others can never be, as they are completely outside the scope of application of the norms of that Code.

Nor can it be said that there is absolute equality of circumstances, in the tax context, between those who construct or hold real estate for sale and those who construct, produce or hold for sale other types of goods. The circumstances are immediately different by the nature of the goods; the legislator intended to tax under IMI only real estate and not others, therefore one cannot say that there is equality of circumstances.

Seeking, through different economic realities, to challenge the norms of application of the IMI Code and conclude that these violate the constitutional principles of tax equality and contributive capacity is reasoning that we do not follow.

The principle of tax equality may be translated into the obligation of all citizens or legal persons to be bound by the payment of taxes, prohibiting arbitrariness so that equal situations have equal treatment and different situations have different treatment. From this arises contributive capacity, which requires that the tax be equal for those in equal situation and different for those in different situation.

In the Tribunal's view, the applicable constituted law in the concrete case of the file, Article 9(1)(d) and (e) of the IMI Code, in no way disrespect either the principle of tax equality or that of contributive capacity, therefore its application has full constitutional support.

The legislator treats this taxation under IMI of companies that engage in this branch of activity, in a special manner, granting to the property holder a period considered reasonable for its sale, not subjecting it to IMI during that period.

It may be said that we are faced with abnormal circumstances, such as market saturation, lack of financing and lower purchasing power of potential clients, and that the period of non-subjection granted is insufficient and will lead property holders to dramatic situations that could reach insolvency.

But there would have to be intervention by the legislator, revisiting the law, if it so chooses, and considering the need to constitute new law that addresses these or other situations, in order to avoid greater prejudice. But until then it will be necessary to observe the applicable law which, in the Tribunal's view, is not tainted by unconstitutionality as is contended.

Moreover, the claimant made use of the same norms to review the IMI taxation of the property located at Avª …, registered in the registry under Article … of the municipality of …, used them both in the complaint and in the hierarchical appeal, without at any time questioning their unconstitutionality.

On the illegality of the assessment regarding the urban article of the … Municipality

The hierarchical appeal filed against the denial of the complaint filed against the IMI assessment relating to this urban article, came to deserve total grant, which the respondent communicated, pursuant to Article 13 of RJAT, the revocation of the challenged acts regarding this property, in the amount of €9,536.97, occurred prior to the constitution of the Tribunal.

Therefore we consider it unnecessary to continue the analysis of this concrete situation as it was resolved favorably for the claimant, as has already been seen, prior to the constitution of the Tribunal.

In truth, on 19/09/2013, the claimant communicates that it seeks continuation of the proceedings only regarding the part that had not been revoked by the respondent and the Tribunal was only constituted on 07/10/2013.

On compensation in case of undue security

The claimant sought, pursuant to Article 171(2) of the CPPT, condemnation of the respondent to payment to the taxpayer of compensation estimated at €800.00 for the provision of undue security (voluntary mortgage on the autonomous unit designated by the letter B, corresponding to the ground floor store B, of the property located at Rua …, registered in the registry under Article … of the parish of …, municipality of …) in order to suspend fiscal enforcement.

In truth, the norm invoked provides for such compensation in situations where the provision is undue. In the concrete case, there is annulment of IMI in the amount of €9,536.97 relating to urban article … of the municipality of ….

But it should also be said that we are dealing with a voluntary mortgage which is not the sole means capable of suspending enforcement.

The claimant could have offered the same property for attachment without any cost, given that the debt came to be annulled.

However, if we examine the content of Article 171(1) of the CPPT, it speaks of bank guarantee or equivalent. Is a voluntary mortgage equivalent to a bank guarantee?

We think not.

According to Jorge de Sousa, in CPPT annotated and commented, 6th edition, "Equivalent to a bank guarantee, for purposes of this article, will be all forms of guarantee that require the interested party to bear an expense whose amount increases as a function of the period of time during which it is maintained. Of the means of guarantee expressly provided in Article 199 of the CPPT, this would be the case of guarantee insurance (…)".

Now a voluntary mortgage, having only constitution costs quite different from a bank guarantee, will in no way be equivalent thereto, therefore we consider the request unfounded, in the terms formulated.

V - OPERATIVE PART

Given the foregoing, the Tribunal decides as follows:

1 – To find unfounded the exceptions of:

Lack of subject matter of the petition for arbitral decision and consequent supervening lack of purpose of the dispute;

Material incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal; and

Lack of standing and legal interest to sue on the part of the claimant.

All raised by the respondent.

2 – To find unfounded the claimant's petition for non-existence of taxable fact, considering non-existent the unconstitutionalities and illegalities alleged by it;

3 – To declare that the IMI amount of €9,536.97, relating to the urban property registered in its respective registry of the parish of … under Article …, was annulled by the respondent prior to the constitution of the Tribunal;

4 – To find the IMI assessment partially valid, in accordance with collection notice … in the amount of €16,978.71 relating to urban properties of …, … and … (except that referred to in point 3);

5 – To find unfounded the claimant's petition for compensation for undue security.

Amount in dispute:

Fixed at €16,978.71 in accordance with Article 3(2) of RCPAT[8], Article 97-A(1) of CPPT and Article 299(4) of CPC.

Costs in the amount of €1,224.00 charged to the claimant, in accordance with Article 12(2) of RJAT and Article 4(4) of RCPAT.

Notify

Lisbon 15 January 2014

Text prepared on computer, pursuant to Article 131(5) of CPC, made applicable by Article 29(1)(e) of RJAT, with blank lines and revised by me.

The preparation of this decision is governed by spelling prior to the Orthographic Agreement.

The sole arbitrator,

Arlindo José Francisco

[1] Acronym for Statutory Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters
[2] Acronym for Tax and Customs Authority
[3] Acronym for Administrative Arbitration Centre
[4] Acronym for Code of Tax Procedure and Process
[5] Acronym for Code of Civil Procedure
[6] Acronym for Municipal Property Tax (IMI)
[7] Acronym for Municipal Property Tax (IMI)
[8] Acronym for Regulations on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

What happens when the Tax Authority revokes part of an IMI property tax assessment during arbitration proceedings?
When the Tax Authority revokes part of an IMI assessment during arbitration proceedings, it does not automatically terminate the dispute if multiple properties or issues remain contested. In Process 193/2013-T, the AT revoked €9,536.97 for one property and argued for supervening lack of purpose under Article 277(e) CPC. However, the taxpayer maintained interest in proceeding regarding remaining unrevoked assessments and sought compensation for undue guarantees. The key determination involves interpreting the petition's scope—whether it covered only the revoked property or all properties in the collection notice totaling €26,515.68. The Tribunal must examine the petition's language, referenced collection notices, and administrative appeals to determine if partial revocation extinguishes the entire dispute or only resolves specific contested items.
Can the CAAD Arbitral Tribunal rule on the abstract constitutionality of IMI Code provisions?
No, the CAAD Arbitral Tribunal cannot rule on the abstract constitutionality of IMI Code provisions. Article 281 of the Portuguese Constitution grants exclusive jurisdiction for abstract constitutional review to the Constitutional Court. In Process 193/2013-T, the respondent raised material incompetence, arguing the Tribunal lacked authority under Article 2(1) and Article 9(d) and (e) RJAT to conduct abstract review of IMI Code norms. While tax arbitral tribunals have jurisdiction over the legality of specific tax acts and their application of law to concrete cases, they cannot declare legal provisions unconstitutional in the abstract. However, tribunals may examine whether specific tax assessments comply with constitutional principles as applied to particular factual circumstances, which differs from abstract constitutional review.
What are the grounds for material incompetence of a Tax Arbitral Tribunal in IMI disputes?
Grounds for material incompetence of a Tax Arbitral Tribunal in IMI disputes include: (1) requests for abstract constitutional review of IMI Code provisions, which falls under the Constitutional Court's exclusive jurisdiction per Article 281 of the Constitution and Article 9(d) and (e) RJAT; (2) matters falling outside Article 2(1) RJAT's defined scope of arbitrable tax disputes; and (3) claims requiring powers beyond those granted to tax arbitral tribunals. In Process 193/2013-T, the respondent invoked material incompetence arguing the Tribunal could not conduct abstract review of IMI Code norms. The Tribunal found itself properly constituted with jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article 2 RJAT, distinguishing between reviewing the legality of specific tax acts (within jurisdiction) and abstract constitutional review (outside jurisdiction).
Does a taxpayer retain standing and legitimate interest to proceed after partial satisfaction of their arbitral claim?
A taxpayer may retain standing and legitimate interest to proceed after partial satisfaction of their arbitral claim, depending on whether the petition encompassed multiple contested issues or properties. In Process 193/2013-T, after the AT revoked €9,536.97 of a contested €26,515.68 assessment, the taxpayer declared continued interest in proceeding with remaining unrevoked portions. The respondent argued lack of standing and legal interest under Article 278(d) and 577(e) CPC and Article 281 of the Constitution. The determination depends on petition scope: if limited to the revoked property, standing would be lost; if covering all properties in the collection notice, standing continues for unrevoked assessments. The taxpayer's administrative complaint and hierarchical appeal scope also inform this analysis.
Can a taxpayer claim compensation for undue guarantees provided in IMI arbitration under Article 171(2) of the CPPT?
Yes, a taxpayer can claim compensation for undue guarantees provided in IMI arbitration under Article 171(2) CPPT, which provides for compensation when guarantees are furnished and the contested act is subsequently revoked or declared illegal. In Process 193/2013-T, the claimant sought €800 compensation for provision of undue security after the AT revoked part of the assessment. Article 171(2) CPPT establishes the right to compensation when taxpayers provide guarantees to suspend collection of tax debts that are later found to be illegally assessed. The compensation covers costs and expenses incurred in providing the security. However, the claim's viability depends on whether the taxpayer actually provided guarantees and whether the assessment's illegality or revocation is established for the amounts secured.