Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRATION DECISION
1. Report
1.1
A... and B..., hereinafter referred to as the "Claimants", taxpayers nos. ... and ..., respectively, residents at Rua ..., ..., in ..., requested the constitution of a sole arbitral tribunal, under the combined provisions of Article 2, No. 1, subparagraph a) and Article 10, both of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime for Tax Arbitration, hereinafter referred to as "LRTA") and Articles 1 and 2 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March, in which the Tax and Customs Authority (TCA) is the Respondent.
1.2
The request for arbitral pronouncement, filed on 12 April 2018, concerns the dismissal decision issued by the Head of the Tax Justice Division – Litigation of the Finance Department of ..., of 16-01-2018, issued in the amicable complaint process No. ...2017..., in the exercise of delegated powers by the deputy director of finances, and the consequent partial annulment of the Income Tax (IRS) assessment No. 2017..., in the amount of EUR 12,764.88 (twelve thousand, seven hundred and sixty-four euros and eighty-eight cents), relating to the year 2016.
1.3
They further request the condemnation of the Respondent to reimburse the amount paid with respect to part of the said assessment, in the amount of EUR 9,136.97, plus the respective default interest, under the terms of Articles 43, No. 1 of the General Tax Code (GTC) and 61 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process (CTPP), calculated from the date of the unjustified tax payment to the date of processing of the respective credit note.
1.4
The Claimants chose not to appoint an arbitrator.
1.5
The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of CAAD and notified to the TCA on 18 April 2018.
1.6
The undersigned was appointed by the President of the Deontological Council of CAAD as arbitrator of the sole arbitral tribunal, under the terms of Article 6 of the LRTA, and acceptance of the appointment was communicated within the applicable period.
1.7
On 05 June 2018, the Parties were notified of this appointment, having raised no objection thereto, under the combined terms of Article 11, No. 1, subparagraphs a) and b) of the LRTA and Articles 6 and 7 of the CAAD Code of Ethics.
1.8
Thus, in accordance with the provision of Article 11, No. 1, subparagraph c) of the LRTA, the sole arbitral tribunal was constituted on 25 June 2018.
1.9
The Respondent was notified, by an arbitral order of the same date, under the terms of Article 17, No. 1 of the LRTA, to, within a period of 30 days, submit a response, if so wished, and request the production of additional evidence.
1.10
It was further notified to, within the same period, submit the administrative file (AF) referred to in Article 111 of the CTPP.
1.11
On 06 September 2018, the Respondent submitted its Response, defending itself by objection, arguing for the dismissal of the request for arbitral pronouncement.
1.12
On the same date, it attached the respective AF to the case file.
1.13
Considering that the Parties did not request the production of any evidence other than the documentary evidence that the Claimants attached to the request for arbitral pronouncement, the Arbitral Tribunal, in light of the principles of autonomy in the conduct of the process, expedition, simplification and procedural informality, inherent in Articles 16 and 29, No. 2, of the LRTA, by an order of 07 September 2018, dispensed with the holding of the meeting provided for in Article 18 of the same statute and determined that the process should proceed with written submissions by the Claimants, since the Respondent declared it did not wish to make submissions.
1.14
In the same order, it was determined that the arbitral decision would be rendered by the deadline referred to in Article 21/1 of the LRTA.
1.15
The Parties were notified of this order on 07-09-2018.
1.16
On 18-09-2018 the Claimants submitted their submissions.
2. Position of the Parties
2.1 Of the Claimants
They support their request for arbitral pronouncement, briefly, as follows:
Claimant A..., in the year 2016, exercised the profession of lawyer, and the respective income was determined, by choice, on the basis of accounting records.
In addition to the other income of the couple, he also sold various pine trees through an invoice issued on 12-02-2016, in the amount of EUR 22,500.00, this operation constituting a genuine isolated act, as it falls within the provision of No. 3 of Article 3 of the IRS Code, since such income does not result from a foreseeable or repeated practice.
However, the income was included in annex "C" (field 506) of the income tax return model 3, because the computer system did not allow him to declare it as an isolated act.
In this case, not only was he exempted from having to maintain organized accounting records for that act, but in determining the taxable income, the coefficient of 0.15 provided for the simplified regime should be applied, by the combination of subparagraph a), No. 2, Article 30 and subparagraph a), No. 1, Article 31 of the IRS Code, since the annual gross income was EUR 22,500.00, that is, less than EUR 200,000.00.
Whence it would result that the tax to be paid would be only EUR 3,627.91, and not EUR 12,764.88, whereby the amount of EUR 9,136.97 was assessed in excess.
They conclude by arguing for the success of the request for arbitral pronouncement and through this for the partial annulment of the disputed assessment, with all the consequences provided for in law, that is, for the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 9,136.97, plus the respective default interest calculated from the date of the unjustified tax payment to the date of its return.
2.2 Of the Respondent
Defending itself by objection, it invokes the following arguments:
An isolated act is practised by taxpayers who, not engaging in any independent professional or business activity, practise a single act, occasional in nature, without character of continuity. Thus, Claimant A..., because he engages in professional activity on his own account, does not meet this provision.
Although the same claims that the sale of pine trees occurs every 7 years, or in an even more spaced manner, with sporadic sales of trees, upon examination of the IRS income tax returns, model 3, it is verified that in the years 2017, 2015 and 2014, income from the sale of pine trees amounted to EUR 14,605.00, EUR 23,500.00 and EUR 2,385.00, respectively, whereby such sales are foreseeable, constituting constant activity and exercised annually.
On the other hand, the fact that Claimant A... is assessed for an activity generating income of category B (lawyer), rules out the possibility that the sale of pine trees, also generating business income, can be considered the practice of an isolated act, in accordance with the provision of Article 30 of the IRS Code.
This would only be the case if the income generated by the sale of pine trees did not result from a foreseeable or repeated practice, earned by a taxpayer who obtained income only from other categories.
In this way, in terms of the tax base, under Article 3 of the IRS Code, the income obtained by Claimant A..., whether from his professional activity (lawyer) or from silvicultural activity (sale of pine trees), have a common characteristic, that of being considered income of category B, whereby the treatment for purposes of determining the net amount of the category is uniform.
Thus, and since Claimant A... is covered by the organized accounting regime due to the exercise of the profession of lawyer (category "B" of income), it is this regime that applies to all income of that category, obtained or to be obtained, regardless of whether they result from activities with different natures.
It concludes by arguing for the total dismissal of the request for arbitral pronouncement and absolution of the Respondent, since the disputed assessment constitutes a correct interpretation and application of law to the facts, not suffering from defect of violation of law.
3. Procedural Clarification
3.1
The Parties have legal capacity and standing, show themselves to be legitimately interested and are regularly represented (Articles 4 and 10, No. 2, of the LRTA and Article 1 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March).
3.2
The process does not suffer from nullities, the request was presented in time and no exceptions were raised.
3.3
The Arbitral Tribunal is regularly constituted and is materially competent to know and decide the request, cf. Article 2, No. 1, subparagraph a) of the LRTA.
3.4
There are no other circumstances that prevent consideration of the merits of the case.
4. Grounds
4.1 Facts Established
With relevance to the appreciation and decision of the substantive question raised, the following facts are deemed established and proven:
4.1.1
Claimant A..., in the year 2016, exercised the profession of lawyer, not engaging in silvicultural exploitation, and the respective income was determined, by choice, on the basis of accounting records.
4.1.2
On 12-02-2016, he issued invoice No. 1000000, in the amount of EUR 22,500.00, relating to the sale he made to the company "C..., Ltd.", taxpayer No. ..., of standing timber of pine and eucalyptus from the property of ..., parish of ..., municipality of ..., which he inherited from his parents, and on which he carried out various work of conservation and clearing of undergrowth, pruning of trees and arrangement of the property.
4.1.3
On 30-05-2017 the Claimants submitted an IRS model 3 return, for the year 2016, to which was assigned the No. ... – 2016 –...–..., having attached annexes "A", "C", "G", "G1" and "H".
4.1.4
In annex "C", intended for category "B" income under the organized accounting regime, the net result for the period was declared, in the amount of EUR 42,572.55 (table 4, field 408), corresponding to EUR 20,072.55 as taxable profit from professional, commercial and industrial activities (table 5, field 502) and EUR 22,500.00 from agricultural, silvicultural and livestock activities (table 5, field 506).
4.1.5
On 02-06-2017 the Tax Authority, on the basis of the submitted return, proceeded to assess IRS No. 2017..., for the year 2016, in the amount of EUR 12,764.88, paid in due time on 30-08-2017.
4.1.6
The global income shown in the respective assessment statement is EUR 113,646.76.
4.1.7
On 27-10-2017 the Claimants submitted an amicable complaint against the said assessment, which served as the basis for the institution of the respective process with the No. ...2017..., having petitioned "(…) for the foregoing reasons, this complaint should be deemed well-founded and the IRS assessment should be rectified so that the declared income from silvicultural activity is considered for purposes of determining the taxable base only by 15%, with all the consequences flowing therefrom".
4.1.8
By order of 16-01-2018 from the Head of the Tax Justice Division – Litigation of the Finance Department of ..., in the exercise of delegated powers by the deputy director of finances, the amicable complaint was dismissed, maintaining the disputed assessment, with the Complainants being notified through an official notice from the Finance Department of ..., of 17-01-2018.
4.2 Unproven Facts
There are no facts relevant to the decision of the case that should be considered unproven.
4.3 Reasoning
With respect to matters of fact, the Tribunal does not have the duty to pronounce on all the matters alleged, but rather has the duty to select those that are relevant to the decision, taking into account the cause (or causes) of action that substantiate the claim filed by the plaintiff [cf. Articles 596, No. 1 and 607, Nos. 2 to 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), applicable by reference to Article 29, No. 1, subparagraphs a) and e) of the LRTA)] and to state whether it considers it proven or unproven (cf. Article 123, No. 2 of the CTPP).
According to the principle of free appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal bases its decision, with respect to the evidence produced, on its intimate conviction, formed from the examination and evaluation it makes of the means of proof brought to the case and in accordance with its experience of life and knowledge of persons (cf. Article 607, No. 5 of the CCP). Only when the probative force of certain means is pre-established in law (e.g. full probative force of authentic documents, cf. Article 371 of the Civil Code) does the principle of free appreciation not dominate in the appreciation of the evidence produced.
Thus, the Tribunal's conviction was based on the set of documents attached to the case file as well as on the positions assumed by the parties.
4.4 Substantive Law (Grounds for Decision)
Object of the Dispute
There are two questions that constitute the thema decidendum.
The first, to determine whether, in the specific case, the income earned from the sale of pine and eucalyptus trees constitutes a genuine commercial act and, if so, whether it is isolated; and
The second, whether the income from isolated acts concerning commercial, industrial, agricultural, silvicultural or livestock activity (subparagraph h), No. 2, Article 3 of the IRS Code), practised by taxpayers who, with respect to those acts, do not have organized accounting records, but who, simultaneously and normally, engage in one of the said activities with organized accounting (subparagraph b), No. 1, Article 28 of the IRS Code), are determined, for purposes of taxation in IRS, in accordance with the provision of No. 2 of Article 30 of the IRS Code, or according to the rules established in the Corporate Income Tax Code (CITC), by reference to Article 32 of that code, with respect to all category "B" income.
Questions to be Decided:
- The (il)legality of the disputed assessment; and
- The request for payment of default interest.
Regarding the (il)legality of the Disputed Assessment
As to the first question, it is important to note from the outset that lawyers, as liberal professionals, that is, individuals who exercise in a habitual and autonomous manner activities primarily intellectual in nature, susceptible to their own regulation and control largely by public associations (bar associations, chambers)[1] – are not merchants, since the factors of production they use do not constitute a true organization, it is not a self-sufficient and autonomous system, it is not something that can be separated from the respective subject while maintaining identical efficiency and identity.
As to the sale of pine and eucalyptus trees, the same constitutes the practice of a commercial activity. Indeed, as stated in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, of 24-02-2016 (P. 0580/15), which we endorse, "Tax law does not define what constitutes the exercise of a commercial or industrial activity, and the long-established jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court has accepted that commercial activity is revealed in an action of mediation between supply and demand with susceptibility to generate profits, gains, income for those who engage in it, a susceptibility that may ultimately not materialize and may even generate losses, while industrial activity is an activity of construction or alteration of goods. (…) The concept of commerce adopted by the legislator does not coincide with the private law concept of the Commercial Code, being a concept of its own, of an economic nature where all activity is inscribed (even if expressed in a single act) that has as its objective purpose a profit. (…) As long as there exists an increase in value accruing to an asset by virtue of the exercise of an economic activity (even if expressed in a single act) translated into the creation of economic utility, resulting from some relationship of the agent/taxpayer with a third party in which, satisfying the economic needs of the latter, the patrimony of the former is increased (mediation between supply and demand), there will be a commercial activity, and if there exists the incorporation of new utilities in the good that is the object of the activity in question, there will be an industrial activity (…)".
Thus, there is required the existence of an increase in value accruing to an asset by virtue of the exercise of an activity (even if expressed in a single act) translated into the creation of economic utility, the object of exchange, resulting from some relationship of the agent/taxpayer with a third party, cf. as stated in the judgment of the Superior Administrative Court of 18-04-2018 (P. 264/13-0BEALM).
Indeed, the sale of pine and eucalyptus trees from the property of ..., parish of ..., municipality of ..., which he inherited from his parents, resulted for Claimant A... in a counterpart, the price, in the amount of EUR 22,500.00, from which we would have to deduct the inherent costs associated with it such as clearing of undergrowth, pruning of trees, forestry arrangement and others, to determine the profit from the sale.
However, this sale undoubtedly constitutes a mere isolated act.
The concept of isolated act, for purposes of subparagraph h) of No. 2 of Article 3 of the IRS Code, is found in No. 3 of the same article, which states: "(…) income from isolated acts are those that do not result from a foreseeable or repeated practice" (emphasis and underlining, ours).
In turn, No. 2 of Article 3 of the IRS Code states: "Income from the following are also considered of this category: h) Income from the practice of isolated acts concerning activity covered by subparagraph a) of No. 1 (business and professional income resulting from the exercise of any commercial, industrial, agricultural, silvicultural or livestock activity)".
Isolated acts are, therefore, those that do not assume the character of professionalism or habituality, as stated, among others, in the judgments of the Superior Administrative Court of 18-04-2018 mentioned above, as well as that of 03-12-2015, of the same Court, delivered in Process No. 07639/14.
Characteristics that we do not find in the case sub judice. The Claimant is a lawyer, does not engage in silvicultural exploitation, and the trees sold were planted on property that he inherited.
As stated in the judgment of the High Administrative Court of 18-06-2009 (P. 00010/00), "(…) it is also important to note that the reference to an isolated act of a commercial nature does not correspond to a binding reference to the notion of an act of commerce, inscribed in Article 2 of the Commercial Code, but rather encloses the idea of an act not inserted in any activity, but that, if it were, would originate a commercial or industrial activity. That is, following the foregoing exposition, one must consider the hypothesis of being confronted with the existence of an isolated act of a commercial nature incapable, however, of being qualified as an act of commerce. (…) To characterize appropriately an isolated act as commercial, it is necessary to find underlying it, even if in an indicative form, the intention of engaging in an activity of a commercial nature, with the motive of obtaining a gain. (…) It thus appears decisive the requirement of the performance of activities, performances of a determined character, in which one finds the common denominator of addition, of promotion, of increase in value, of new potential, increased by the pursuit of a specious purpose, of a marked and unequivocal objective, the receipt of profit, the pursuit of patrimonial increase. (…) In straightforward terms, to assert the presence of an isolated act with a commercial nature, in an IRS return, it is not sufficient to determine profit accounting, but it is necessary that such gain be, in some measure, the result, effect, of activities capable of promoting an increase in the initial value of the realities involved" (underlining ours).
Moving to the case at hand, it is proven that the Claimant practised acts that increased the initial value of the trees sold, felled on property that he inherited from his parents, in addition to the clearing of undergrowth, pruning of trees and arrangement of the property, these latter being the result of legal obligation on the part of forest owners, cf. Decree-Law No. 124/2006, of 28-06, as amended by Law No. 76/2017, of 17-08, non-compliance with which has contributed drastically and severely to the occurrence of numerous forest fires.
On the other hand, the sale of trees resulted from a single operation practised in the year 2016, notwithstanding the fact that it also occurred in previous years (possibly in the same manner).
Thus, the income does not result from a foreseeable or repeated practice, whereby the said sale meets the requirements provided for in No. 3 of Article 3 of the IRS Code, to apodictically be considered as a commercial isolated act.
Regarding the Second Question
That is, whether income from isolated acts concerning commercial, industrial, agricultural, silvicultural or livestock activity (subparagraph h), No. 2, Article 3 of the IRS Code), practised by taxpayers who, with respect to those acts, do not have organized accounting records, but who, simultaneously and normally, engage in one of the said activities with organized accounting (subparagraph b), No. 1, Article 28 of the IRS Code), are determined, for purposes of taxation in IRS, in accordance with the provision of No. 2 of Article 30 of the IRS Code, or according to the rules established in the CITC, by reference to Article 32 of that code, with respect to all category "B" income.
Let us begin by transcribing the provisions of the IRS Code, as worded at the date of the facts (2016), relevant for the appreciation and decision of the disputed question:
"Article 28 - Forms of Determination of Business and Professional Income
1 - The determination of business and professional income, except in the case of the allocation provided for in Article 20, is made:
a) On the basis of the application of the rules resulting from the simplified regime;
b) On the basis of accounting records.
2 - Taxpayers whose income from this category does not exceed an annual amount of EUR 200,000 in the immediately preceding tax period are covered by the simplified regime.
3 - Taxpayers covered by the simplified regime may choose the determination of income on the basis of accounting records.
4 to 8 and 10 – …………………………………………………………………"
"Article 30 - Isolated Acts
1 - Taxpayers who practise isolated acts are always exempted from maintaining organized accounting records with respect to those acts.
2 - In determining the taxable income from isolated acts:
a) The coefficients provided for the simplified regime are applied, when the respective annual gross income is less than or equal to EUR 200,000;
b) If the annual gross income exceeds EUR 200,000, the rules applicable to taxpayers with organized accounting are applied, with the necessary adaptations"
"Article 31 - Simplified Regime
1 - Within the scope of the simplified regime, the determination of taxable income is obtained through the application of the following coefficients:
a) 0.15 for the sale of merchandise and products, as well as for the provision of services within the scope of hotel and similar activities, catering and beverages;
b) to g) - ………………………………………………………………………………...
3 - Taxable income is subject to aggregation and taxed according to general rules.
4 to 6 and 8 to 12 – …………………………………………………………………."
"Article 32 - Reference
In determining business and professional income not covered by the simplified regime, the rules established in the Corporate Income Tax Code are applied, with the exception of those provided for in Articles 51, 51-A, 51-B, 51-C and 54-A, with the adaptations resulting from this Code".
Here we arrive at the need to analyze how the taxable income from isolated acts is determined.
With respect to the income earned in the exercise of the profession of lawyer, the Claimant has organized accounting records, under the terms of subparagraph b), No. 1 of Article 28 of the IRS Code, whereby the determination of taxable income was made under the terms of the CITC, by express reference in Article 32 of that code and with the exceptions provided therein, from which resulted a tax profit of EUR 20,072.55, recorded in table 5, field 502 of annex "C" to the IRS model 3 return.
But as for isolated acts, No. 1 of Article 30 of the IRS Code exempts taxpayers from maintaining organized accounting records, with respect to that income, even if exceeding EUR 200,000.00, the rules applicable to taxpayers with organized accounting being applied in this case, with the necessary adaptations. In this sense, one may refer to the IRS Reform Project (point 5.1.6, pp. 37/38) of the Commission for the Reform of Income Tax of Individuals, of September 2014, where it states: "Category B – Isolated Acts - The objective of the proposed legislative amendment is to clarify that taxpayers who obtain income exceeding EUR 200,000.00 as a result of an act of this nature are not obligated to maintain organized accounting records, notwithstanding the fact that their taxable income is determined according to the rules provided for the accounting regime".
Thus, not having the Claimant organized accounting records with respect to the isolated act, taxable income is determined under the terms of subparagraph a), No. 2 of Article 30 of the IRS Code, since the annual gross income obtained of EUR 22,500.00 is less than EUR 200,000.00, the coefficients provided for the simplified regime being applied.
Of these, the one of 0.15 shall be applicable, as, according to the provision of subparagraph a), No. 1 of Article 31 of the IRS Code, it concerns the sale of merchandise and products.
Thus, the taxable income from the isolated act is EUR 3,375.00 (EUR 22,500.00 x 0.15).
Let it be said from the outset that the literal wording of the provisions under consideration – No. 1 of Article 30 of the IRS Code and, especially, subparagraph a) of No. 2 of the same article – is sufficiently clear, lending itself to no interpretive doubt, whereby, being the letter of the law, or grammatical element, the first element to be invoked in legal hermeneutics, it will not be necessary for us to resort to other elements from among those available in the hermeneutic range, particularly because, according to No. 3 of Article 9 of the Civil Code, it is presumed that the legislator knew how to express his intention in adequate terms.
Whereby, as stated by João Baptista Machado: "(…) in the absence of other elements that induce the selection of the less immediate sense of the text, the interpreter should choose in principle that sense which best and most immediately corresponds to the natural meaning of the verbal expressions used, and in particular to their technical-legal meaning, on the assumption (not always correct) that the legislator knew how to express his intention correctly."[2] In this sense, the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29-10-2014 (P. 0620/14).
Finally, note that what is stated in Article 17 of the TCA's Response to the Request for Arbitral Pronouncement ("Consequently, and because with respect to category B income, with the exercise of the profession of lawyer, Claimant A... is covered by the organized accounting regime, it is this regime that applies to all income of that nature, which he may have obtained or may obtain, regardless of whether they result from activities with different natures") is in flagrant violation of the provision of No. 1 of Article 30 of the IRS Code, concerning the option of adopting organized accounting by the Claimant.
In light of the foregoing, it is to be concluded that the disputed assessment as well as the decision of the amicable complaint suffer from a defect of violation of law due to error in the legal assumptions, having been based on an incorrect interpretation of subparagraph a), No. 2 of Article 30 of the IRS Code.
Regarding the Request for Condemnation to Payment of Default Interest
The Claimants further request that they be paid default interest, due to error of the services, under the terms of Article 43, No. 1 of the GTC, having proven the payment of the assessed amount.
This provision, applicable subsidiarily to the tax arbitration process, by virtue of the provision of Article 29, No. 1, subparagraph a) of the LRTA, states: "Default interest is due when it is determined, in an amicable complaint or judicial challenge, that there was error attributable to the services from which resulted payment of the tax debt in an amount higher than that legally due."
The existence of error attributable to the services is considered verified, according to uniform jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court[3], whenever the success of the amicable complaint or judicial challenge to the assessment act is verified (in the same sense, the decision in arbitration process No. 218/2013-T).
Having demonstrated the erroneous application of the rule of objective tax base contained in subparagraph a), No. 2 of Article 30 of the IRS Code, which justifies the partial annulment of the disputed assessment, the right of the Claimants to default interest is recognized at the statutory subsidiary rate, under the terms of Articles 43, Nos. 1 and 4, and 35, No. 10, of the GTC, Article 559, No. 1, of the Civil Code and Ordinance No. 291/2003, of 8 April, from the date of effective payment to the date of processing of the respective credit note, as provided for in No. 5 of Article 61 of the CTPP.
5. Decision
In light of the foregoing, it is decided:
a) To uphold the request for partial annulment of the IRS assessment No. 2017..., for the year 2016, due to a defect of violation of law due to error in the legal assumptions and erroneous qualification and quantification of the tax fact, the taxable income relating to agricultural, silvicultural and livestock activities, in the amount of EUR 22,500.00, contained in table 5, field 506 of annex "C" to the IRS model 3 return, being determined through the application of the coefficient 0.15, with all the consequences flowing therefrom;
b) To uphold the request for annulment of the order issued by the Head of the Tax Justice Division – Litigation of the Finance Department of ..., issued in the amicable complaint process No. ...2017..., in the exercise of delegated powers by the deputy director of finances, of 17-01-2018; and
c) To uphold the request for condemnation of the Tax and Customs Authority to reimburse the amounts unjustly paid by the Claimants, plus interest, at the statutory rate, from the date of the payments to the date of processing of the respective credit notes.
6. Value of the Process
In accordance with the provisions of Articles 306, No. 2, of the CCP, 97-A, No. 1, subparagraph a) of the CTPP and 3, No. 2 of the Regulations for Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (RCTAP), the process is assigned the value of EUR 9,146.97, which the Claimants indicated and the Respondent did not contest.
7. Costs
Under the terms of Article 22, No. 4 of the LRTA, the amount of costs is fixed at EUR 918.00, in accordance with Table I, attached to the RCTAP, charged to the Tax and Customs Authority.
Notify.
Lisbon, 30 October 2018.
The Arbitrator,
(Rui Ferreira Rodrigues)
Text prepared by computer, in accordance with the provision of Article 131, No. 5, of the CCP, applicable by reference to Article 29, No. 1, subparagraph e), of the LRTA.
[1] Jorge Manuel Coutinho de Abreu, in "Course of Commercial Law", vol. I, 3rd ed., Almedina, p. 103
[2] Baptista Machado, João, in "Introduction to Law and Legal Discourse Legitimation", 12th reprint, Almedina, p. 182.
[3] Judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 22-05-2002, Process No. 457/02; of 31.10.2001, Process No. 26167; of 2.12.2009, Process No. 0892/09
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created