Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
CAAD: Tax Arbitration
Case No. 256/2014– T
Matter:
REPORT
a) On 11.03.2014, A..., NF …, resident at Rua …, Porto (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) filed a petition with the CAAD, requesting, under the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters (RJAT), the establishment of a Singular Arbitral Tribunal (TAS).
b) The petition is signed by a lawyer whose power of attorney was attached.
c) The Claimant petitions for the annulment of IMI assessments for the years 2009 (Document 2009 ...), 2010 (Document 2010 ...), 2011 (Document 2011 ...) and 2012 (Document 2012 ...), corresponding to a total collection of 860.75 euros, resulting from the fact that he is the registered owner on the last day of the respective years of the urban property situated at Rua …, registered in the property registry of the parish of ... – Porto under article ...º corresponding to the current article ...º of the Union of Parishes of …, …, … and ….
d) He alleges that the tax act under scrutiny suffers from illegality embodied in an erroneous reading of the law (subparagraph n) of section 1, subparagraph d) of section 2 and section 5 of article 44º of the EBF) because, on the one hand, he understands that the requirements for automatic IMI exemption are met and on the other "there is no minimal foundation for the decision to cease the exemption which the property had been enjoying since 2006".
e) In addition to the petition for annulment of the IMI assessment acts, he petitions for the condemnation of the AT to pay the respective interest, since he has already paid the assessed amounts.
OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
f) The petition for establishment of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of the CAAD and automatically notified to the AT on 14.03.2014.
g) By the CAAD's Deontological Council, the signatory of this decision was appointed as arbitrator, and the parties were notified thereof on 30.04.2014.
h) Thus, the Singular Arbitral Tribunal (TAS) has been, since 19.05.2014, regularly constituted to hear and decide the subject matter of this dispute.
i) All these acts are documented in the communication of establishment of the TAS dated 19.05.2014, which is hereby deemed reproduced.
j) The meeting of the parties referred to in article 18º of the RJAT took place on 05.09.2014. By consensus of the parties regarding the submission of written submissions, the TAS set a period of 10 days for successive written submissions.
k) The Claimant attached to the case on 23.09.2014 the document he had protested attaching and also a mechanical reproduction of the property register, and the AT was notified to exercise the right of reply.
l) On 15.09.2014, the Claimant presented the written submissions and attached the "facsimile" proving his notification to the AT on that date.
m) On 29.09.2014, the AT presented the written submissions and the Claimant was notified thereof on that date.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
n) Capacity, legitimacy and representation - the parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are duly represented.
o) Adversarial principle - the AT attached to the case on 18.06.2014 the response to the petition for pronouncement presented by the Claimant. It also attached the PA comprising 9 pages. All orders of the TAS and all requests and documents attached by the parties were regularly notified to the opposing party.
p) Dilatory exceptions - the case does not suffer from nullities and the petition for arbitral pronouncement is timely, since it was presented within the deadline prescribed in subparagraph a) of section 1 of article 10º of the RJAT, taking into account the deadline for payment of the assessment notices.
SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMANT'S POSITION
Regarding the alleged illegality of the assessments based on erroneous reading of the law (subparagraph n) of section 1, subparagraph d) of section 2 and section 5 of article 44º of the EBF)
q) The Claimant maintains that the non-conformity with the law of the assessment acts results from the fact that, in his understanding, the amendment to the wording of subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 44º of the EBF (current wording introduced by Law 53-A/2006, of 29.12) adding the expression "individually", in comparison to the previous wording of the provision, "does nothing ... alter the meaning, purpose and raison d'être of the exemption".
r) And for the reason that the property in question "is classified as immovable property, not only of public interest, but of national interest ... precisely because it forms an integral part of the set denominated Historic Zone of Porto", because the "Zone without properties is an abstract entity and merely enunciative or delimitative".
s) And because another property next to one of which he is also the owner, with the property registry article ...º, equal in all details to the subject of this case, obtained tax exemption on 12.10.2010.
t) He alludes to the automatic character of the statutory exemption provision – operation "ope legis" – in light of the wording of section 5 of article 44º of the EBF introduced by Law 3-B/2010, of 28.04, (reproducing what he refers to as being the understanding of the Attorney General's Office) to the effect that the exemption in question operates with the "individualized classification as immovable property of public interest".
u) In his submissions, the Claimant refers, alluding to the property subject of this case and the one referred to in subsection s) of this Report, that the "classification of the two properties was granted as early as 1997, by article 1º, subparagraph b) of Decree 67/97, published in DR Series B no. 301 of 31.12.1997" and such classification of both properties as "immovable properties of public interest is also contained in the Master Plan of the City of Porto, at page 818".
v) He adds that what was classified was not the "zone" but the "properties" contained in Annex II of that Decree" (referring to the statute cited in the previous subsection).
w) He attached with the petition of 23.09.2014 a certificate issued by the Regional Directorate of Culture of the North which states that the property in question "is classified as immovable property of public interest (IIP) through Decree no. 67/97 – DR 301 of 31.12.1997"
SUMMARY OF THE TAX AUTHORITY'S POSITION
Regarding the scope of the submissions presented by the Claimant and attachment of a document relating to the property registry article of a property adjacent to article ...º corresponding to the current article ...º of the Union of Parishes of …, …, …, … and ….
x) The AT proposes that "the Submissions presented – by the Claimant – be removed from the record, as they refer indiscriminately to both properties, attaching documents that refer to the property registered under article ....º, exceeding the scope of the present proceedings and creating confusion about the facts that are truly at issue in this action, the immovable property registered in the property registry under no. ....º "
Regarding the alleged illegality of the assessments based on erroneous reading of the law (subparagraph n) of section 1, subparagraph d) of section 2 and section 5 of article 44º of the EBF)
y) The AT considers that the "subject matter of the petition" consists in determining the "… legality of the additional IMI assessments for the years 2009 to 2012 of the property registered in the urban property registry with article ....º of the Union of Parishes of …, …, … and … in the amount of 860.75 €"
z) And that this objective is determined by resolving, in the first place, whether the immovable property that gave rise to the assessments "which is located in the "Historic Centre of Porto" can benefit from the IMI exemption provided for in art. 44º of the Tax Benefits Statute (EBF)".
aa) And that, given the attachment by the Claimant of the document referred to in subsection w) of this Report, evidencing that he had requested on 11.09.2014 from the Regional Directorate of Culture of the North the cultural heritage certification of the said immovable property, which occurred on 19.09.2014, only from that date onwards did the Regional Directorate of Culture pronounce itself on the Claimant's immovable property and on the cultural heritage classification that bears upon it.
bb) Concluding that "… on the date the order ceasing the IMI exemption was issued by the Tax Authority: on 17.12.2013, this property was not certified nor classified in terms of cultural heritage by the competent authorities", "therefore, IMI exemption cannot be granted to the Claimant's property for the period 2009 to 2012 pursuant to subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 44º of the EBF since it does not meet the legally prescribed requirements".
cc) Adding further that "…at the date of cessation of the exemption, the Claimant's property was not individually classified" and is not currently, for the reason that in Annex II to which article 2º of Decree-Law no. 67/87 and 31.12 (immovable properties of public interest) refers, concerning the immovable properties of public interest in the municipality of Porto, the legal diploma does not classify them in an individualized and specific manner, only certifying, in the case of the Claimant's property, that it is integrated in the Historic Zone of Porto and that the Historic Zone is classified as immovable property of public interest.
dd) Concluding that since "… for purposes of IMI exemption this individualized classification is necessary" and "… since the Claimant's immovable property is not individually classified, it cannot benefit from the IMI exemption as it does not meet the legal requirements expressly established in the applicable law".
ee) The AT clarifies that from section 1 of article 56º of Decree-Law 309/2009, of 23.10 (procedure for classification of immovable property of cultural interest) it follows that the individual classification of an immovable property does not arise from its integration in a set declared of "public interest", individual classification procedures being possible to exist, drawing from this that "in a classified set there may exist individually classified properties and properties that are not individually classified", and that those "… that are individually classified are only those immovable properties that were the subject of an individualized classification act specifically directed at a concrete immovable property".
ff) The AT further states that "in the context of individual classification, the cultural heritage interest is analyzed in that concrete immovable property, for that concrete immovable property and based on the parameters enshrined in Portuguese law for the classification of immovable heritage (Decree-Law no. 309/2009, article 21º, section 1), the prescribed cultural heritage interests being: historical, paleontological, archaeological, architectural, artistic, ethnological, scientific, social, industrial and technical, and the values of memory, antiquity, authenticity, originality, rarity, singularity or exemplarity must be evidenced.
gg) The Respondent contends that, because the Claimant's immovable property "is not individually classified pursuant to cultural heritage legislation" as happened with the "Colosseum of Porto and the Palace of the Viscount of Vila Allen", he is not entitled to the tax benefit and therefore the assessment acts are in conformity with the law, and therefore should be maintained in the tax legal order, as they constitute a correct application of the law to the facts.
II - QUESTIONS FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO SOLVE
The questions that arise before the Tribunal essentially concern only the interpretation and application of rules of law.
Removal from the record of the Claimant's submissions and accompanying document
The first question to be resolved is that which results from the fact that the AT, in its submissions, raises the removal from the record of the submissions presented by the Claimant insofar as they make considerations regarding the property adjacent to the subject matter of this case, attaching documents that refer to the property registered under article ....º, clearly exceeding the scope of the present proceedings.
In fact, the property registered in the matrix under article ...º - Parish of ..., is extraneous to these proceedings, insofar as no tax assessment relating to it is discussed here. However, removing a procedural document merely because it partially concerns a property that is adjacent, in which the allegation or allegations arise in a comparative logic (since they will be architecturally similar properties, at least in the external façade), seems to us somewhat excessive, especially as the submissions concern, in their essential segment, the "thema decidendum". The AT itself followed this form of defense of its point of view, when in section 14 of its submissions, it adduces two situations, as an element of comparison that we referred to above.
The same applies to the document attached by the Claimant concerning the two properties of which he is the owner. The document also concerns the immovable property that is part of the property registry article generating the IMI that is being discussed in this case.
In any event, insofar as the submissions or the attached document are extraneous to this dispute, the TAS will not take cognizance thereof.
Potential illegality of the assessments based on erroneous reading of the law (subparagraph n) of section 1, subparagraph d) of section 2 and section 5 of article 44º of the EBF)
The property referred to in c) of this Report has benefited from IMI exemption since 2006, as results from the position of the parties and from the page marked as no. 43 of the PA.
The grant of the tax benefit with commencement in 2006
The fact interrupting taxation (the exemption) now in dispute was registered in the property registry and was assessed in light of subparagraph n) of section 1 of the then article 40º of the EBF (as amended by Law no. 60-A/2005, of 30.12) which states that "the following are exempt from IMI:
"Properties classified as national monuments or immovable properties of public interest and likewise those classified as immovable properties of municipal value or as cultural heritage, pursuant to applicable legislation".
According to subparagraph d) of section 2 of the then article 40º of the EBF, this exemption commences: "… in the year, inclusive, in which the classification occurs". (new subparagraph added by Law no. 109-B/01, of 27/12 - OE/2002)
And according to section 5 of the then article 40º of the EBF "The exemption … is recognized by the chief of finance of the area where the property is situated, upon properly documented request, which must be submitted by taxpayers within 90 days counted from the verification of the fact determining the exemption" (as amended by Law no. 60-A/2005, of 30 December).
This was the legal framework that led to the express act of the AT granting the tax benefit that came to be registered in the property registry. It was a tax benefit "dependent on recognition" within the scope of article 5º of the EBF and which certainly followed the procedure of the rules currently contained in article 54º section 1 subparagraph d) of the LGT and in article 65º of the CPPT, or the statutory provisions that preceded these provisions.
The procedure for cessation of the tax benefit in 2013
In October 2013, the AT decided to initiate the procedure of subparagraph d) of section 1 of article 54º of the LGT and the current subparagraph d) of section 1 of article 44º of the CPPT, with a view to ceasing the tax benefit referred to above, based on the current wording of subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 44º of the EBF, according to which "the following are exempt from municipal tax on immovable property:
"Properties classified as national monuments and properties individually classified as of public interest or of municipal interest, pursuant to applicable legislation" (Wording that results from article 82º of Law no. 53-A/2006 of 29 December - State Budget for 2007)
And according to subparagraph d) of section 2 of article 44º of the EBF these exemptions commence "… in the year, inclusive, in which the classification occurs".
But according to section 5 of article 44º of the EBF: "The exemption … is of an automatic character, operating through communication of classification as national monuments or of individualized classification as immovable properties of public interest or of municipal interest, to be made by the Institute for Management of Architectural and Archaeological Heritage, I. P., or by the municipal councils, in force while the properties are classified, even if these come to be transferred". (As amended by Law no. 3-B/2010-28/04)
According to section 6 of article 44º of the EBF: "… the services of the Institute for Management of Architectural and Archaeological Heritage, I. P. and the municipal councils shall proceed with the aforementioned communication, regarding properties already classified on the date this law enters into force: (As amended by Law no. 3-B/2010-28/04)
a) Officially, within 60 days; or
b) At the request of the owners of the properties, within 30 days from the date of entry of the request in the respective services".
It is also noted that this tax benefit, according to the wording given to section 5 of the then article 40º of the EBF, by article 82º of Law no. 53-A/2006 of 29 December (State Budget for 2007) was already automatic from 01.01.2007, in certain situations and dependent on recognition in others:
"The exemption … is of an automatic character in the case of a property that has benefited from the exemption provided for in subparagraph g) of article 6º of the Code of Tax on Onerous Transfer of Immovable Property, and in the remaining cases must be recognized by the chief of finance of the area where the property is situated, upon properly documented request, which must be submitted by taxpayers within 90 days counted from the verification of the fact determining the exemption".
We can then conclude that the tax benefit granted in 2006, regarding the immovable property in question in this case, was "dependent on recognition" in the terms indicated above.
In an annotation of article 65º of the annotated CPPT, authored by Jorge Lopes de Sousa, Volume I - 6th Edition – year 2011, the following is written:
"In these cases of benefits dependent on recognition, the challenge of the act resulting from the request for recognition is autonomous in relation to the challenge of the assessment act, and the question of the right to the benefit cannot be discussed in the impugnation process".
Naturally, the means of jurisdictional reaction of taxpayers before the acts of the AT that deny them tax benefits (dependent on recognition merely declaratory) will be the same, and, it should be added, with the same regime, applicable to the acts of the AT that revoke, rectify, reform or convert them (using the adjectives of subparagraph d) of section 1 of article 44º of the CPPT). This results from the simple reading of article 54º section 1 subparagraph d) of the LGT and article 60º section 1 subparagraph c), also of the LGT.
That is to say, before this administrative activity (which in substance is control of tax exemptions) of the AT, taxpayers only have one jurisdictional means at their disposal: to act before the judicial courts through the respective special administrative action, insofar as the arbitral tribunals, by virtue of the delimitation of jurisdiction resulting from section 1 of article 2º of the RJAT, cannot resolve this type of specific question.
This means that this TAS will not pronounce itself, nor is it, moreover, expressly petitioned to do so, on the act of cessation of the tax benefit to which reference is made, in an instrumental manner, in the procedural documents of the parties. What is at issue here is solely to ascertain the legality of the IMI assessments, assuming the verification of the existence or otherwise of the tax benefit itself, a mere factual presupposition of taxation, of the tax process.
But it seems to us that the TAS has the power/duty to appreciate the legality of the IMI assessments, ascertaining – by means of the "constituted law" pursuant to section 2 of article 2º of the RJAT - whether the IMI exemption that was granted to the Claimant in 2006, regarding the property generating the tax, is maintained or not in the Portuguese legal order, independently of the procedure that occurred in 2013, carried out by the AT, which it is not incumbent upon here to expressly examine, especially under section 4 of article 14º of the EBF (and article 141º of the CPA ex vi article 2º of the CPPT and namely the judgment of the STJ of 15-05-2013 – case 0566/12 – 2nd Section, Rapporteur Dulce Neto) whose means of jurisdictional reaction of the taxpayer is autonomous from this process.
Therefore, the key question to which the TAS must respond is as follows:
Does the tax benefit granted by the AT commencing in 2006, based on subparagraph n) of section 1 of the then article 40º of the EBF then in force, regarding the property registered in the property registry under article ...º corresponding to the current article ...º of the Union of Parishes of …, …, … and …, in light of the "constituted law", remain in force or not in the tax legal order?
The outcome of the answer given to this question will determine the success or failure of the petition for arbitral pronouncement.
III. PROVEN AND UNPROVEN FACTS. GROUNDS
With relevance to the decision to be adopted, these are the facts that are considered proven, indicating the respective documents and/or the articles of the Claimant's petition and the AT's response regarding the facts admitted by agreement, as grounds:
Proven Facts
-
The Claimant appears as holder of full ownership of the urban property situated at Rua … nos. 69 to 71, registered in the property registry of the parish of ... – Porto under article ...º corresponding to the current article ...º of the Union of Parishes of …, …, … and … – Pages marked with numbers 43 to 45 of the PA attached by the AT with its response (Details of urban property historical record and details of urban property);
-
At a date not precisely determined, the Claimant was notified of IMI assessments for the year 2009 (Document 2009 ...), for the year 2010 (Document 2010 ...), for the year 2011 (Document 2011 ...) and for the year 2012 (Document 2012 ...), generating a total collection of 860.75 euros, the deadline for payment of which was 31-01-2014 – page marked with number 37 of the PA attached by the AT with its response;
-
It was recorded in the "details of urban property historical record", commencing in 2006, the permanent IMI exemption regarding the tax patrimonial value of the property indicated in 1), under subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 40º of the EBF in force in 2006 - page marked with number 37 of the PA attached by the AT with its response;
-
The AT initiated in late 2013 the procedure provided for in article 54º section 1 subparagraph d) of the LGT and in article 60º section 1 subparagraph c), also of the LGT, with a view to the extinction of the tax benefit indicated in the previous subsection, culminating in the notification of the final decision to the Claimant, dated 17.12.2013 – Numbers 6 to 7 of the AT's response and numbers 1 and 2 of the petition for pronouncement;
-
The Claimant paid the amount of 860.75 euros referred to in 1) – Final part of the petition for pronouncement and no contestation by the AT in its response;
-
The Regional Directorate of Culture of the North issued certification for "proceedings for obtaining tax benefits (IMI exemption – section 6 of article 31º of DL no. 287/2003 and subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 40º of DL no. 215/89, of 1 July – IMT exemption – subparagraph g) of article 6º of CIMT, contained in Annex II of DL no. 287/2003)", expressing regarding the property identified in section 1): "I certify that the property identified in … is classified as immovable property of public interest (IIP) through Decree 67/97, DR 301 of 1997.12.31", document signed by the Regional Director, containing the notation of a technician, which states: "The Technician who verified … on 2014.09.11" – Document attached with the Claimant's petition of 23.09.2014 and no specific challenge of its probative force by the Tax Authority.
Unproven Facts
There is no other allegation of factuality that is relevant to the correct resolution of the procedural dispute, as we have configured it here. The parties did not place in question the probative valuation of the documents that served to establish the factual matter and which are expressed above.
IV. APPRECIATION OF THE QUESTIONS FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO SOLVE
Without losing sight of what was stated above regarding the subject matter that the TAS cannot (is not able to) cognize, it seems to us that the core question assumes some simplicity.
The crux of the dispute stems from the amendment to the wording of subparagraph n) of section 1 of the then article 40º of the EBF that occurred in 2007, in force from 01.01.2007 (Law no. 53-A/2006 of 29.12), now subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 44º of the EBF.
The AT contends that, based on the new wording of the current subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 44º of the EBF (provision, it bears noting, which succeeded the previous article 40º of the EBF), the Claimant has no right to the tax benefit and therefore carried out the procedure expressed in subsection 4) of the proven facts. A question that, as stated, it is not incumbent upon the TAS to expressly examine.
A different question is whether the AT followed a procedure for the extinction of the tax benefit when it should have followed another, with another deadline, because the law so required. This event, this fact, seems lawful for the TAS to cognize (because it is obliged to decide according to "constituted law"), with a view to ascertaining the requirements of taxation, as a mere fact of the tax process: incidence – exemption – determination of the taxable matter – assessment – collection – payment.
If in a given tax operation, a given exemption, as a fact interrupting taxation, exists (because, e.g., it may not have ceased by the adequate legal means, the statutory deadline was not met or the procedure adopted was not valid), in light of "constituted law", the other operations of the tax process, subsequent, to be carried out, will be in non-conformity with legality.
Now, let us see what the law states regarding the procedure to be adopted by the AT in light of the amendment to the wording of subparagraph n) of section 1 of the current article 44º of the EBF (then subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 40º) which occurred from 01.01.2007.
According to subparagraph c) of article 88º of Law no. 53-A/2006, of 29/12 (State Budget for 2007):
"The tax authority notifies, within 180 days after the entry into force of this law, all taxpayers who are benefiting from the exemption referred to in subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 40º of the Tax Benefits Statute, of the cessation of this benefit due to alteration of its requirements"
Subparagraph d) of article 88º of Law no. 53-A/2006, of 29/12 (State Budget for 2007) states the following:
"The taxpayers referred to in the previous subparagraph may, within 90 days from the date of notification, request the exemption referred to in article 42º of the Tax Benefits Statute if they meet all the requirements referred to therein and if for the same property they have not yet benefited from this scheme"
Article 42º of the EBF, in the wording then in force, referred to "urban properties built, enlarged, improved or acquired for valuable consideration intended for housing".
Now, in this case of impugnation of IMI assessments, it has neither been demonstrated nor alleged that the AT followed the specific procedure provided for in subparagraph c) of article 88º of Law no. 53-A/2006, of 29/12 (State Budget for 2007) with a view to the cessation of this concrete benefit due to alteration of its requirements, within the deadline indicated in the law.
Being this a specific procedure for a concrete legal situation, it would be the sole legal means to revoke, rectify, reform or convert this concrete type of tax exemptions, granted based on the wording prior to the current subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 44º of the EBF, within the specific deadline granted by the law.
Having verified this fact, only one conclusion can be drawn, in light of the "constituted law" to which the TAS is subordinated, that the tax benefit attributed to the Claimant in 2006 by the AT – subsection 3 of the proven facts – continues in force, because it was not extinguished by revocation, rectification, reform or conversion, by the specific legal means directed to that objective, since the attribution and cessation of tax benefits is subject to the principle of legality (resulting from the relative legislative reserve of Parliament), in this case, within a set deadline.
As a consequence of the foregoing, the petition formulated by the Claimant before the TAS must be judged to be successful, since the IMI assessments were carried out by the AT, without taking into account the existence of the IMI exemption from which the tax patrimonial value of the property in question benefits (a fact interrupting taxation) which results directly from the law, since the exemption was not extinguished by the legally available means and within the deadline fixed in the law.
Request for Interest
In the legislative authorization on which the Government based itself to approve the RJAT, granted by article 124º of Law no. 3-B/2010, of 28.04, it states that "the tax arbitration process should constitute an alternative procedural means to the judicial impugnation process and to the action for recognition of a right or legitimate interest in tax matters".
Although subparagraphs a) and b) of section 1 of article 2º of the RJAT use the expression "declaration of illegality" to define the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals operating in the CAAD and do not make reference to constitutive (annulment) and condemnatory decisions, it should be understood, in line with the aforementioned legislative authorization, that their jurisdictions include the powers that in impugnation proceedings are attributed to tax tribunals in relation to acts whose assessment of legality falls within their jurisdictions.
Therefore, a condemnation of the tax administration to pay compensatory interest may be pronounced here.
Article 43º of the LGT "does nothing but establish an expeditious and, so to speak, automatic means of indemnifying the injured party. Independent of any allegation and proof of damages suffered, he is entitled to the indemnification established therein, expressed as compensatory interest in cases included in the provision (…)" Judgment of the STA of 2-11-2006, case 604/06, available at www.dgsi.pt"
In the case at hand, the Claimant alleged that he has already paid the amount of the IMI assessments, totaling 860.75 euros. The AT did not challenge this fact, and therefore it was included in the proven facts (subsection 5 of the settled factual matter), such that he is entitled to compensatory interest counted from the date of payment, in full or in part, of the tax assessments now annulled until the date of issuance of the respective tax credit note, counting the deadline for this payment from the beginning of the deadline for spontaneous execution of this decision (article 61º, sections 2 to 5, of the CPPT), at the rate determined in accordance with the provision of section 4 of article 43º of the LGT.
V. DECISION
Based on the grounds set out above, the following are deemed successful:
a) The petition seeking the annulment of the IMI assessments for the year 2009 (Document 2009 ...), the assessment for the year 2010 (Document 2010 ...), the assessment for the year 2011 (Document 2011 ...) and the assessment for the year 2012 (Document 2012 ...), corresponding to a total collection of 860.75 euros, annulling the tax acts expressed in these documents, as they are in non-conformity with subparagraph n) of section 1 of article 40º of the EBF (wording in force on 31.12.2006) and with subparagraph c) of article 88º of Law no. 53-A/2006, of 29/12 (State Budget for 2007);
b) The petition for condemnation of the AT to pay compensatory interest, counted from the date of payment of the tax obligation(s), until the date of issuance of the respective tax credit note, counting the deadline for this payment from the beginning of the deadline for spontaneous execution of this decision (article 61º, sections 2 to 5, of the CPPT), at the rate determined in accordance with the provision of section 4 of article 43º of the LGT.
Value of the case: in accordance with the provision of article 3º, section 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (and subparagraph a) of section 1 of article 97ºA of the CPPT), the value of the case is set at 860.75 €.
Costs: in accordance with the provision of article 22º, section 4, of the RJAT, the amount of costs is set at 306.00 €, according to Table I attached to the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to the account of the Respondent.
Notify.
Lisbon, 06 October 2014
The Singular Arbitral Tribunal,
Augusto Vieira
Text produced by computer, pursuant to section 5 of article 131º of the CPC, applicable by reference from subparagraph e) of section 1 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20/01.
The wording of this decision is governed by the old Portuguese spelling.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created