Process: 242/2015-T

Date: November 23, 2015

Tax Type: IRC

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This arbitration case concerns the legality of additional Corporate Income Tax (IRC) assessments totaling €37,348.95 and €368.09 for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 against A…, a non-profit entity organizing the Queima das Fitas cultural event. The dispute arose from a tax inspection that reclassified beverage-related expenses as common costs requiring pro-rata allocation between exempt cultural/recreational activities and taxable commercial activities under Article 54 of the IRC Code. The Tax Authority argued that beverages sold at the closed-venue event constituted costs transversal to both exempt entertainment activities and taxable commercial operations, requiring proportional allocation. A… challenged this interpretation, arguing it acted merely as an intermediary in beverage sales between suppliers (B… and others) and space concessionaires, conducting an exclusively commercial activity carried out only incidentally to the main cultural event. The claimant contended these expenses had an essential, exclusive, and immediate connection to taxable income, warranting full attribution to the taxable activity rather than pro-rata distribution. After its administrative complaint (reclamação graciosa) was denied on January 12, 2015, A… filed an arbitration request with CAAD on April 8, 2015. The Respondent raised preliminary procedural exceptions of untimeliness and partial res judicata regarding the arbitration request. The case raises fundamental questions about cost allocation methodologies for hybrid entities conducting both exempt and taxable activities, the interpretation of Article 54's attribution rules, and the proper procedural path when challenging IRC assessments following rejected administrative complaints. The tribunal must determine whether beverage intermediation constitutes a sufficiently independent commercial activity to justify exclusive cost attribution or whether the integrated nature of the event requires pro-rata allocation as the Tax Authority maintains.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

Claimant: A…

Respondent: Treasury

I – REPORT

  1. A…, with registered office at Rua …, nº …, … Porto, holder of the NIPC, …, filed a request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal on 08/04/2015, "pursuant to paragraph a) of item 1 of article 10 and paragraph a) of item 3 of article 5, both of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, called Legal Regime of Tax Arbitration (LRTA)", requesting, in fine, the annulment "…of the ex officio assessments of CIT identified in this request for determination…".

  2. The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the Honourable President of CAAD.

  3. Pursuant to item 1 of article 6, and paragraph a) of item 1 of article 11 of the LRTA, the Deontological Council of CAAD appointed the signatory sole arbitrator of the arbitral tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the assignment within the legally stipulated period, with the Sole Arbitral Tribunal having been constituted on 19/06/2015, and the parties being notified on the same date.

  4. The Tribunal is regularly constituted and is materially competent to examine and decide on the subject matter of the case.

II – GROUNDS

A – On the Request

  1. A… (Claimant) submitted a request for determination concerning the legality of the additional CIT assessments for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011, on 8/04/2015, after having seen dismissed an Administrative Complaint that it had filed with the Tax Authority with the same grounds and subject matter, whose decision was notified on 2015/01/12.

  2. It expressly states in the request that: "It is requested that this Tribunal make a determination for the declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of the CIT assessments, above identified…".

  3. It does not again address the issue of the Administrative Complaint nor any fact related to it in the request.

  4. The Claimant with the present request for determination, delimited in these terms by itself, requests, specifically, that the additional CIT assessments effected with reference to the fiscal years 2010 and 2011, be annulled in the amounts, respectively, of 37,348.95€ and 368.09€, on grounds of illegality - defect of violation of law - namely violation of article 54 of the CIT Code.

  5. It alleged, in summary, that it filed timely the Mod. 22 CIT statements of each of those fiscal years, and that it was as a result of an inspection action carried out by the Tax Inspection Service of the Finance Directorate of … that the aforementioned additional assessments arose.

  6. In the view of the Claimant, the additional assessments were based on the value of the correction proposed for taxable matter of the two fiscal years by the Tax Administration (TA) on the grounds that "… the beverages sold in the Queima das Fitas by A…, constitute common costs to all activities developed in Queima subject and not exempt from CIT";

  7. This is because, also in the view of the TA, "being the expenses with bands and artists to be considered attributable to all activities carried out in those events, subject and exempt from CIT, by analogy, the expenses with beverages sold in those events will also be, taking into account the synergies resulting from the diversified supply of services in a single space";

  8. On the basis of this understanding the taxable matter was corrected because a pro-rata allocation of these costs must be made between the exempt activity and the subject activity that is developed in Queima das Fitas.

  9. The Claimant completely disagrees with this interpretation of article 54 of the CIT Code, whereby the correction should be eliminated and consequently the assessment annulled "…given that what is at issue is that the expenses incurred with beverages correspond to expenses exclusively incurred with a subject activity and, as such, the same should be considered as attributable to the subject activity and not distributed between the subject activity and the activity exempt from tax";

  10. This is because, "… the A… is a taxpayer that does not carry out as principal activity any commercial, industrial or agricultural activity being taxed under CIT in the terms provided in paragraph a) of item 1 and item 3 of article 2, paragraph b) of item 1 of article 3, paragraph b) of item 1 of article 15, articles 53 and 54 of the CIT Code, being taxed at the rate provided in item 5 of article 87 of the same Code.

  11. Thus, and as provided in items 1 and 2 of article 11 of the CIT Code, are exempt from this tax the income directly derived from the exercise of cultural, recreational and sporting activities, not being considered, for this purpose, that deriving from any commercial, industrial or agricultural activity carried out, even if only incidentally, in connection with those activities and, in particular, that deriving from advertising, rights concerning any form of transmission, real property, financial applications and bingo gaming.

  12. In truth, "Regarding the beverages sold during the Queima das Fitas, it is important to clarify that A… is configured as a mere intermediary in the sale of beverages by B… and other beverage distributors to the concessionaires of spaces in Queima.

  13. In this manner, the beverages acquired by the concessionaires of the spaces from B… and other beverage distributors, through intermediation by A…, are sold by the concessionaires during the Queima das Fitas at market values.

  14. In fact, A… does not even possess any stock of beverages, nor assumes any stock risk, being that its income results from the mere exercise of intermediation in the purchase and sale of beverages and incidental to the activities of Queima das Fitas.

  15. Thus, the exercise of this activity by A… constitutes a commercial activity carried out merely incidentally, constituting as such an income subject and not exempt from CIT, just as the TA itself considers in the course of the Final Report of the Inspection Report."

  16. In this manner, and given the essential, exclusive and immediate connection between the expenses (cost with the acquisition of beverages from B… and other beverage distributors) and the income subject and not exempt from tax (sale of beverages to the concessionaires), A… understands as straightforward, that the respective expenses should also be attributed in their totality to the subject activity and not exempt from CIT.

  17. Moreover, the arguments invoked by the TA, in which it refers that the Queima das Fitas event occurs in a closed venue where through the acquisition of a ticket one can enjoy a series of integrated services of culture, diversion, entertainment and other services such as beverage sales and catering,

  18. Further alleging that the one who wishes to enter the venue solely to drink a beverage cannot do so without acquiring a ticket,

  19. In no way obstruct the understanding of A…, given that, whoever buys a ticket for that event has the objective of attending a show and accessing those services of culture, diversion and entertainment and will not do so (certainly!) solely because they wish to consume a beverage".

  20. Regarding the procedure of the Administrative Complaint nothing did the claimant say.

B – On the Response

  1. The Respondent was notified of the request for determination on 22/06/2015, and presented its Response, attaching thereto the administrative file, on 04/09/2015.

  2. It invoked the existence of the preliminary exceptions of untimeliness of the request for determination and the verification of partial res judicata.

  3. It also presented detailed objection on the substance of the request, in the following terms:

"The expenses with the acquisition of beverages (whether for resale or for direct sale to the public) were costs transversal to the holding of the event Queima das Fitas and other similar events by the Claimant. And they are transversal costs for several reasons:

First, because the sale of beverages is an inseparable component of a cultural and/or entertainment activity carried out in a closed venue, as is the case of Queima das Fitas. Indeed, occurring the said event in a closed venue (to which access is only possible through the acquisition of a ticket), the users are necessarily circumscribed to enjoy in an inseparable manner not only a set of integrated services of culture, diversion and entertainment, but also catering services (which includes beverage sales):

«Although no values are published regarding the amounts of food and beverage expenditure in festivals, in the United Kingdom it is generally considered that this amount is about 80% of the amount spent on tickets, which would raise the economy of these seven festivals in 2014 to nearly 72 million euros.»

Second, because if the event were to be limited exclusively to activities of culture, diversion and entertainment, for reasons of evidence the number of users that would move to that event would with all certainty be much smaller.

Which, consequently, would be reflected not only in the diminishment of box office revenue, as well as in the revenue deriving from sponsorships, concession of spaces, among others.

Third, because without the organization of an attractive lineup the event itself would not have had the user attendance that it did. Which, naturally, would be reflected not only in the diminishment of box office revenue, as well as in box office revenue, advertising, sale of beverages, among others. Indeed, only through the association between the event and the beverage brands sold does the Claimant manage to offer to users the shows in question, since the sales and resales of beverages constitute a way for that entity to offer users a low price of tickets given the fees of the artists that perform in the venue.

Fourth, because the user who wishes only to enter the venue to drink a beverage can only do so by acquiring a ticket.

In summary, the expenses with beverages are expenses attributed to ALL activities carried out in the closed venue of Queima das Fitas taking into account the synergies resulting from the diversified supply of services (notably, culture, diversion, entertainment and catering) in a single space.

Indeed, if it is true that whoever accesses the closed venue of Queima das Fitas does not do so only for the reason of acquiring a beverage, no less true is it also that few would access that venue only for the events of culture, diversion and entertainment in themselves.

As is evident and is of public knowledge, users who buy a ticket to access an event carried out in a closed venue, as in the present case, have in view the enjoyment of an entire setting that brings together all the necessary means, including those aimed at satisfying basic human needs, as is the case of the provision of liquids".

  1. It concluded requesting the dismissal of the action, with the preliminary exceptions recognized, or, if not so understood, the declaration of lack of merit of the request on the grounds that the tax act was performed in accordance with the legal norms in force at the date.

III – HEARING/CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES

On 14/10/2015 the hearing of article 18 of the LRTA took place, in which, after hearing the parties on all matters of the case, favourably accepted the withdrawal of the examination of the witnesses listed by the TA, and it was decided that the examination of the exceptions would take place in the final decision, without prejudice to the parties being able to submit written arguments on such matter in 5 days.

The Parties submitted arguments.

The arbitral tribunal was regularly constituted and is competent. The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate (article 4 and 10, item 2, of the same statute and article 1 of Regulation no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March) and are properly represented.

The case does not suffer from nullities.

IV - PROVEN AND UNPROVEN FACTS

The following facts duly supported in the documents filed by the parties are considered proven:

  • The Claimant was notified of the additional CIT assessments for the years 2010 and 2011 following an inspection procedure that corrected the taxable matter of those fiscal years, being the amounts to be paid, respectively, of 37,348.95€ and 368.09€;

  • The period for voluntary payment ended on 26/08/2013;

  • On 23/12/2013 the claimant filed an Administrative Complaint;

  • The Administrative Complaint was dismissed and the decision was notified on 12/01/2015;

  • On 8 April 2015 it filed a request for determination.

There is no situation of unproven facts.

It is necessary to decide.

IV - ON THE EXCEPTIONS

Exception of Untimeliness

1 – The following facts are proven, with relevance for the examination of this exception:

  • The Claimant saw the declared taxable matter of the fiscal years 2010 and 2011 altered following the examination of the records by the Inspection Service of the TA.

  • On the basis of this external inspection procedure, the TA made an additional CIT assessment for each of those fiscal years, in relation to which the Claimant, as it did not agree, filed an Administrative Complaint on 2013/12/23, which was dismissed, and notified on 12/01/2015.

  • Not conforming to the decision taken in the context of the Administrative Complaint, the Claimant filed a request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal that gave rise to the present case, requesting expressly, and only, that "be annulled the additional CIT assessments effected for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011, in the amounts of 37,348.95€ and 368.09€, respectively, on grounds of illegality - defect of violation of law - namely of article 54 of the CIT Code".

2 - The TA, in turn, understands that the Claimant submitted this request for determination in the context of an arbitral tribunal beyond the period provided in item 1 of article 10 of the LRTA because, in essence,

"… as article 10 of the LRTA determines with respect to assessment/self-assessment acts, the period for submitting the request for determination is 90 days, referring, as to the moment of the beginning of the counting, to what is shown to be prescribed in article 102, items 1 and 2, of the Tax Code of Procedure and Process ("TCPP"). From the latter normative, and with relevance for the case at hand, is extracted that the stipulated period of 90 days would have as starting point the day following the end of the period for voluntary payment of the tax debt [article 102/1-a) of the TCPP].

Taking into account Document 1 attached to the request, from there is extracted that the deadline for payment of the two additional assessments (and not "ex officio assessments" as certainly by lapse the Claimant indicates) was the day 2013-08-26. Now, the request for determination was submitted by the Claimant on 2015-04-08, that is, well beyond the 90-day period counted from 2013-08-26.

Therefore, the request formulated is clearly untimely and the Sole Arbitral Tribunal cannot know of it.

…

It is true that the Claimant deduced an Administrative Complaint against the two additional assessment acts, which originated the file no. …2013… (cfr. Administrative File of Administrative Complaint). As is equally true the fact that the Respondent completely dismissed that Administrative Complaint (cfr. Administrative File of Administrative Complaint).

However, besides not having made any allusion in the request for determination to the process of Administrative Complaint, the Claimant did not formulate any request aimed at the annulment of what was decided in the context of the Administrative Complaint procedure.

…

Now, having the Claimant not brandished any objection or contestation to the arguments made by the Respondent and which culminated with the dismissal of the Administrative Complaint, it becomes necessary to conclude that there is no ground on which to establish the timeliness of the request and, consequently, the possibility of the Sole Arbitral Tribunal examining the request formulated with respect to the assessment acts."

3 – The Claimant responded to this exception by stating, in particular, that,

"… as the Respondent itself expressly assumes in its response, "it is true that the Claimant deduced an Administrative Complaint against the two additional assessment acts, which originated the file no…2013…."

From which no doubts subsist that an Administrative Complaint was submitted by the Claimant with respect to the additional assessment acts, being true that the same was declared completely unmeritorious, making possible as the Respondent itself well refers JORGE LOPES DE SOUSA, moreover cited by the Respondent in items 24 and 25 of its response, the submission of the present request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal following the dismissal of the Administrative Complaint deduced.

…

And let it not be said, as the Respondent seems to wish to demonstrate, that the Claimant by not making any allusion to the process of Administrative Complaint, did not formulate any request aimed at the annulment of what was decided in that context.

…

As above was transcribed, such mention is made expressly in the article submitted, being that from the reading of the same, it is apparent that the present request arose, obviously, following the dismissal of such Administrative Complaint.

…

It is manifest that with the constitution of the arbitral tribunal it is intended, ultimately, the annulment of the additional CIT assessments, however such request arises as a consequence of the request of illegality of the Administrative Complaint that confirmed the assessment act, reason for which it is indisputably timely the request for determination.

…".

Examination

From article 10 of the LRTA it follows that interested parties may request the constitution of an arbitral tribunal within the period of 90 days counting from the facts enumerated in article 102, items 1 and 2[1] of the Tax Code of Procedure and Process (TCPP).

The claimant was notified, in time, to effect payment of additional CIT assessments with reference to the fiscal years 2010 and 2011, whose period for voluntary payment of those same assessments ended on 26/08/2013.

We understand that, from the consultation of the administrative file, the Claimant by not agreeing with those corrections filed an Administrative Complaint of the assessments, within the legal period, and the decision of dismissal was notified on 12/01/2015.

Following the dismissal of the Administrative Complaint, the Claimant filed a request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal on 2015/04/08, that is, before 90 days had elapsed as provided for in item 1 of article 10 of the LRTA.

The Respondent Treasury sustains that it is manifest that the impugned acts are two CIT assessments (2010 and 2011 - above identified) and that the Claimant did not attribute to the act of decision delivered in the context of Administrative Complaint any illegality, that is, did not make any reference to the legality of the Administrative Complaint procedure whose object was "…the said assessments" despite the same having been completely dismissed.

In the view of the TA the request for determination should have been directed directly at the illegality of the decision or order of the Administrative Complaint and indirectly at the legality of the impugned assessments.

Having the request for determination been directed only at the legality of the additional CIT assessments, then the period for examining such illegalities in the context of an arbitral tribunal is exceeded because the period for that effect ended 90 days after the end of the period for voluntary payment of the said additional assessments.

It is known that article 10 of the LRTA prescribes that interested parties may submit a request for determination within the period of 90 days, counted from the facts provided in items 1 and 2 of article 102 of the TCPP, or from the end of the period for voluntary payment or notification, in this case, notification of the Administrative Complaint.

The TA, in turn, argues that the beginning of the period occurred shortly after the end of the period for voluntary payment, however, the Claimant understands that the beginning of the period for submission of the arbitral request occurred after the notification of the Administrative Complaint.

The tribunal is bound in its decision by the delimitation that the Claimant makes of the subject matter of the case, with the cognitive and decision-making powers of the tribunal being defined in accordance with what is established in articles 608 and 609 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

What is objective is that the Claimant wishes to have examined in this action the legality of the tax acts corresponding to the CIT assessments above identified without having come to present, effectively, any circumstance that has to do with the legality of the decision delivered in the context of Administrative Complaint.

Now, to requests for determination that have as their basis assessment acts are applicable, by referral, insofar as refers to the period for respective submission, the period counting deriving from paragraph a) of item 1 of article 102 of the TCPP, that is, the period of 90 days counted from the "end of the period for voluntary payment of the tax debts legally notified to the taxpayer".

Hence, referring the Claimant expressly that it submits to the examination of the arbitral tribunal the illegality of the additional CIT assessments of 2010 and 2011, although it comes to do so after having seen dismissed an Administrative Complaint with the same object, it is understood, moreover, following the settled jurisprudence of this tribunal and even of the SAC, that it cannot benefit from the period referred to in paragraph b) of item 1 of article 102 of the TCPP for the submission of the request for determination because with respect to said Administrative Complaint it alleges nothing on its possible illegality, being only noted the proven reference to its existence.

And this conclusion results objectively from the request when in its conclusions the Claimant says:

"In this manner, A… understands that with the foregoing it is duly established the global attribution of the expenses incurred with beverages to the subject activity and not exempt from CIT.

In fact, and looking in a necessarily global manner at the activity developed and taking into account all its procedure with respect to its expenses and income and respective attribution to its subject and exempt activity, it is required, as already mentioned, compliance with the principles of equity and tax justice, in the distribution of the same. In such terms should the present request for determination be considered entirely meritorious, as proven, and in consequence be annulled the ex officio CIT assessments, identified in the present request for determination, with the legal consequences."

Hence, the object of the request, expressly delimited by the Claimant, is the invoked illegality of the additional CIT assessment acts and not the dismissal of the Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, it is noted, therefore, that at no moment of the petition or even of the arguments submitted does the Claimant make mention of possible illegalities of the decision rendered therein, saying nothing about this tax procedure.

Being the cognitive powers of the tribunal delimited by the facts alleged by the parties, as above was stated, the judge cannot decide on questions not raised by the same, nor condemn in object different or in quantity superior to the request, as determined by the cited articles 608 and 609 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Therefore, these proceedings have as object the annulment of the additional CIT assessments of 2010 and 2011, whereby the period for the impugnation in the context of arbitration of their possible illegality ended with the elapsed of 90 days after the end of the period for voluntary payment of those assessments, which was 2013-08-26. The request for determination was submitted on 8/04/2015, being, therefore, manifestly beyond the period legally provided.

In this conformity the exception of untimeliness invoked by the Respondent is upheld, being therefore prejudiced the examination of the other exception and the remaining matters raised in the present case.

DECISION

In these terms, the tribunal decides:

  • to uphold the exception of untimeliness with regard to the request for declaration of illegality of the additional CIT assessments of the fiscal years 2010 and 2011;

  • to dismiss the action as against the Tax and Customs Authority.

In accordance with the provisions of article 97-A, item 1, paragraph a), of the TCPP and 3, item 2, of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of 37,717.04€ is assigned to the case.

Costs to be borne by the Claimant, in accordance with article 22, item 4, of the LRTA, which are fixed in the amount of €1,836.00, in accordance with Table I attached to the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.

Lisbon, 2015-11-23

The Sole Arbitrator

(José Ramos Alexandre)

[1] Meanwhile, paragraph d) of article 16 of Law no. 82-E/2014, of 31/12/2014, repealed the aforementioned item 2.

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

What are the deadlines for filing an arbitration request against IRC additional assessments after a denied gracious complaint?
Under the Legal Regime of Tax Arbitration (RJAT - Decree-Law 10/2011), a taxpayer has 90 days to file an arbitration request after notification of the decision on a gracious complaint (reclamação graciosa). In this case, the taxpayer filed the arbitration request on April 8, 2015, after being notified of the denied administrative complaint on January 12, 2015, which falls within the statutory 90-day period. The arbitration request must be filed pursuant to Article 10(1)(a) of the RJAT, which allows challenging additional IRC assessments through arbitration after exhausting or receiving decision on the prior administrative complaint.
How does Portuguese tax law treat common costs shared between taxable and exempt IRC activities?
Portuguese tax law, specifically Article 54 of the IRC Code, requires that entities conducting both taxable and exempt activities must allocate common costs proportionally between these activities. For non-profit entities taxed under the special regime (Articles 2, 3, 15, 53-54 IRC Code), only income from commercial, industrial, or agricultural activities carried out incidentally to cultural, recreational, or sporting activities is subject to IRC. When costs cannot be directly and exclusively attributed to either the exempt or taxable activity, they must be allocated pro-rata based on the relationship between exempt and taxable revenues. The Tax Authority applies this principle by treating integrated event costs as common costs requiring proportional distribution, while taxpayers may argue for exclusive attribution when demonstrating a direct, exclusive, and immediate connection between specific costs and taxable income.
Can additional IRC assessments based on tax inspection corrections to shared beverage costs be annulled under Article 54 of the IRC Code?
Additional IRC assessments based on tax inspection corrections regarding beverage costs can potentially be annulled under Article 54 of the IRC Code if the taxpayer successfully demonstrates that the expenses have an exclusive, direct, and immediate connection to the taxable commercial activity rather than being common costs. The key issue is whether the beverage operation constitutes a genuinely separate commercial activity (mere intermediation between suppliers and concessionaires) or an integrated component of the overall exempt cultural event. If the tribunal accepts that the taxpayer acted solely as an intermediary without stock ownership or risk, conducting a purely incidental commercial activity distinct from the exempt entertainment activities, the costs could be exclusively attributable to taxable income, potentially justifying annulment of the assessments. However, if beverages are deemed inseparable from the integrated event experience, the pro-rata allocation would be upheld.
What is the CAAD arbitration procedure when challenging IRC assessments following a rejected gracious complaint (reclamação graciosa)?
The CAAD arbitration procedure following a rejected gracious complaint (reclamação graciosa) requires: (1) filing the arbitration request within 90 days of notification of the administrative decision pursuant to Article 10(1)(a) of RJAT; (2) acceptance by the CAAD President; (3) appointment of arbitrator(s) by the Deontological Council under Articles 6 and 11 of RJAT; (4) constitution of the arbitral tribunal with notification to parties; (5) respondent (Treasury) files a response with the administrative file; (6) the tribunal examines its competence and any preliminary exceptions; and (7) proceeds to substantive analysis. In this case, the tribunal was constituted on June 19, 2015, the Treasury raised preliminary exceptions of untimeliness and partial res judicata, and submitted its response with the administrative file on September 4, 2015. The arbitral tribunal has material competence to examine IRC assessment legality under the RJAT framework.
What happens when a taxpayer's arbitration request only challenges the legality of IRC assessments without contesting the prior administrative decision?
When a taxpayer's arbitration request challenges only the legality of IRC assessments without explicitly contesting the prior administrative complaint decision, the request is construed according to its specific delimitation by the claimant. In this case, the taxpayer expressly requested 'declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of the CIT assessments' and did not address the administrative complaint or related facts in the arbitration request. This selective framing may create procedural complications, as the Respondent can raise exceptions of res judicata (claim preclusion) if the administrative complaint covered the same grounds and subject matter. The tribunal must determine whether the arbitration constitutes a new challenge to the assessments themselves (permissible) or an impermissible re-litigation of issues already decided in the administrative complaint. The specific delimitation of the arbitration request by the claimant defines the tribunal's scope of review, but preliminary exceptions regarding procedural regularity and res judicata must be resolved before substantive examination.