Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
THE PARTIES
Claimant: A…, SA, NIPC PT …, with registered office at Rua …, Lisbon.
Respondent: Tax and Customs Authority (AT).
DECISION
REPORT
On 20.03.2014, the joint-stock company …, SA, NIPC PT …, (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) filed with the CAAD a request seeking, pursuant to the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters (RJAT), the constitution of a Singular Arbitral Tribunal (TAS).
The request is signed by a lawyer whose power of attorney was attached.
THE REQUEST
The Claimant petitions for the annulment of the assessment of Stamp Tax (IS) under item 28.1 of the GIST, for the year 2012, with document identification 2013 …, dated 14.07.2013, generating a collection of 12,171.00 €, relating to the urban property of which it is the owner, of the type "land for construction", registered in the urban property registry of the Municipality of Lisbon, Parish of … under article …º (former article …º of the Municipality of Lisbon – Parish of … (extinct).
It states that the tax act under scrutiny suffers from illegality embodied in an erroneous interpretation of item 28.1 of the GIST, noting that "the lack of legal basis required constitutes a defect that taints the act with illegality, in view of subparagraph c) of article 99.º of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process (CPPT)" and further: "imposing without legal basis therefor, the collection of a tax considered …non-exigible";
and that, should the interpretation of the law as implemented by the AT be correct, it violates the "principle of interpretation in conformity with the Constitution, notably, because it does not comply with the principle of equality and legality", considering that it is "facing double taxation, undermining the principles of justice and proportionality".
THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
The request for arbitral decision was accepted by the President of the CAAD and automatically notified to the AT on 24.03.2014.
By the Deontological Council of the CAAD, the signatory of this decision was designated as arbitrator, with the parties being notified thereof on 23.05.2014.
Whereby the Singular Arbitral Tribunal (TAS) has been, since 29.05.2014, duly constituted to assess and decide the subject matter of this dispute.
All of these acts are documented in the communication of constitution of the TAS dated 29.05.2014, which is hereby reproduced.
Since identical questions to those already raised in many other cases already decided at the CAAD are raised in this proceeding, the TAS by order of 06.07.2014 decided to dispense with the meeting of parties referred to in article 18º of the RJAT, following a proposal submitted by the AT by means of a request dated 04.07.2014, should the Claimant not object thereto.
In the TAS order mentioned in the preceding sentence, the parties were invited to rule on whether they also waived the holding of arguments, with the absence of a position being understood as waiving such arguments.
Both the Claimant and the AT gave their express or tacit consent to the non-holding of the meeting of parties referred to in article 18º of the RJAT and likewise, as to the unnecessary nature of producing additional arguments.
Whereby the meeting provided for in article 18º of the RJAT was not held, nor were arguments by the parties produced.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Capacity, legitimacy and representation - the parties possess legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are duly represented.
Contradictory process - the AT submitted its response to the request for decision filed by the Claimant on 01.07.2014. All TAS orders and all requests and documents submitted by the parties were duly notified.
Dilatory exceptions - the proceeding is free of nullities and the request for arbitral decision is timely as it was filed within the prescribed period in subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of article 10.º of the RJAT, taking into account the deadline for payment of the assessment notice.
SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMANT'S POSITION
As to the illegality embodied in a possible erroneous interpretation of item 28.1 of the GIST
The Claimant understands that item 28.1 is inapplicable to the ownership of the real property indicated above, as it is land for construction, since "the urban property in question has no building or construction erected on its soil".
And that "this reality is also confirmed by the description of the urban property in question, contained in the property record … as 'urban land for construction with an area of 3,538 m2, … in accordance with the legal terms provided for in article 6.º, paragraph 3 of the Municipal Property Tax Code'".
Concluding that "… on land for construction there does not yet exist, by its own elementary nature, any real property capable of being used for residential, commercial, services purposes, etc., there being only a mere potential or merely virtual expectation of such occurring". And adding: "… land for construction is not yet a real property allocated to housing".
It further argues that "the taxation provided for in the referred item 28 is not coherent with the purpose that has been given to the Stamp Tax, namely, that of taxing transactions, thus constituting a distortion of the Portuguese tax system".
As to the illegality embodied in a possible non-conformity with the constitutional text in the interpretation implemented by the AT of item 28.1 of the GIST
The Claimant contends the non-conformity with the constitutional text of item 28.1 of the GIST, in the interpretation implemented in the contested tax act, since "… for the same reality (the ownership of a property with an attributed tax value), two different taxes apply – Stamp Tax and IMI – that is, the same reality is taxed twice".
and for the reason that "… only some of the resident taxpayers will suffer this double taxation, contrary to constitutionally protected principles, namely, the principle of equality between citizens, provided for in articles 13.º and 104.º of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic".
The Claimant questions: "What is the justification, in light of the principle of equality, for taxing a taxpayer who owns real property with a tax value equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000 with residential allocation and not taxing, on the other hand, another taxpayer who owns real property with a tax value equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000 with commercial allocation?". "Or, furthermore, what is the justification, in light of the principle of equality, for taxing a taxpayer who owns real property with a tax value equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000 with residential allocation and not taxing, on the other hand, another taxpayer who owns real property with a tax value equal to or exceeding € 500,000.00 with residential allocation?"
The Claimant concludes: "… this law violates the principle of interpretation in conformity with the Constitution, namely, because it fails to comply with the principle of equality and legality", considering "… to be facing double taxation, undermining the principles of justice and proportionality".
SUMMARY OF THE TAX AUTHORITY'S POSITION
As to the illegality embodied in a possible erroneous interpretation of item 28.1 of the GIST
The AT contends that "the notion of allocation of the urban property is grounded in the part relating to the valuation of real property, which is understandable since the valuation of the real property (purpose) incorporates value to the real property, constituting a determining fact of distinction (coefficient) for valuation purposes".
"As results from the expression 'value of authorized buildings', contained in article 45º-2 of the CIMI, the legislator chose to determine the application of the valuation methodology of real properties in general, to the valuation of land for construction, therefore being applicable to them the allocation coefficient provided for in article 41º of the CIMI".
And it argues that "for purposes of determining the tax value of land for construction, the application of the allocation coefficient is clear for valuation purposes, whereby its consideration for purposes of applying item 28-1 of the GIST cannot be ignored".
It clarifies that "the allocation of the real property (fitness or purpose) is a coefficient that contributes to the valuation of the real property, in the determination of the tax value, applicable to land for construction".
Summarizing its reasoning, it ultimately expresses: "that the very item 28 of the GIST refers to the expression 'real properties with residential allocation', calling for a classification that overlaps the types provided for in paragraph 1 of article 6.° of the CIMI."
The AT understands that "the concept of 'real properties with residential allocation', for purposes of the provision in item 28 of the GIST, comprises both built real properties and land for construction, notably taking into account the literal element of the norm", since "the legislator does not refer to 'real properties intended for housing', having opted for the notion of 'residential allocation', an expression different and broader whose meaning must be found in the necessity of integrating other realities beyond those identified in article 6.°- 1, subparagraph a), of the CIMI".
As to the illegality embodied in a possible non-conformity with the constitutional text in the interpretation implemented by the AT of item 28.1 of the GIST
The AT argues that there is no non-conformity with constitutional principles in the interpretation of the law that led to the contested act, both because the tax law in this case is general and abstract and respects the principle of isonomy (treating equally what is equal and differently what is different), applying indistinctly to all holders of real properties with residential allocation valued at over € 1,000,000.00, with only arbitrary, unreasonable discriminations not being permitted, that is, those that lack justification and sufficient material foundation.
It further states: "The different fitness of real properties (housing/services/commerce) sustains the different treatment, having constituted an option of the legislator, for political and economic reasons, to exclude from the incidence of IS real properties intended for purposes other than residential".
And that "… taxation in stamp tax form obeys criteria of adequacy, applying indistinctly to all holders of real properties with residential allocation valued at over € 1,000,000.00, affecting the wealth embodied and manifested in the value of real properties".
It concludes in favor of the legality of the assessment act against the CIS and the CRP, whereby the contested assessment should be maintained in the legal order, as it constitutes a correct application of the law to the facts.
II - ISSUES FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO RESOLVE
The issues raised before the Tribunal are only related to the interpretation and application of rules of law.
On this specific matter, the CAAD has already ruled in various decisions in which the underlying issue is the same and likewise the STA itself, that is, the scope of the provision of the rule of incidence of items 28 and 28-1 of the GIST is discussed.
The limit of interpretation is the letter, the text of the norm. What follows is the "task of interconnection and assessment that escapes the literal domain".
Starting from the premise that every norm has a provision and an enactment, the issue raised here is to ascertain, delimiting, whether the rule of incidence, as it is written – in its provision - (urban real properties … with residential allocation), encompasses or not the legal-fiscal reality defined in law as "land for construction".
Or rather, in this proceeding, taking into account the manner in which the Claimant places the grounds/arguments of the request (in a linked, but separate manner), namely:
It petitions, in the first place, the annulment of the stamp tax assessment, based on the illegality of the assessment/inapplicability of item 28.1 of the GIST, for the reason "the urban property in question has no building or construction erected on its soil", which is withdrawn from "the description of the urban property in question, contained in the property record … as 'urban land for construction with an area of 3,538 m2', … in accordance with the legal terms provided for in article 6.º, paragraph 3 of the Municipal Property Tax Code", concluding that "… on land for construction there does not yet exist, by its own elementary nature, any real property capable of being used for residential, commercial, services purposes, etc., there being only a mere potential or merely virtual expectation of such occurring". And adding: "… land for construction is not yet a real property allocated to housing" (passages q), r) and s) of the Report);
whereby, what should first be ascertained is whether the tax assessment act of IS now contested suffers from any illegality, any non-conformity with ordinary law, in particular "error in the qualification of the tax fact" that affects its maintenance in the tax legal order.
The other ground(s) that could lead to the sanction of annulment (namely non-conformity with the "grundnorm"), being presented as they have been, should only be appreciated should it be concluded that there is no non-conformity of the contested tax act with ordinary law in itself, which, it is noted, affects its maintenance in the tax legal order.
In this regard, it appears to the TAS that the issue that should be resolved, in the first place, is the following:
Does the tax assessment act of IS now contested suffer from any non-conformity with the law, in particular "error in the qualification of the tax fact" that affects its maintenance in the tax legal order?
The AT did not attach the Tax Assessment File (PA), basically accepting that documents 1 and 2 attached by the Claimant with the request for decision, make up what would be its content.
III. PROVEN AND UNPROVEN FACTS. REASONING
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 request and the AT's response as to the facts admitted by agreement, as grounds:
Proven Facts
The Claimant is listed as the owner of the full property of the urban real property of the type "land for construction" registered in the urban property registry of the Municipality of Lisbon, Parish of …under article …º (former article …º of the Municipality of Lisbon – Parish of … (extinct) – Document no. 2 (urban property record) attached with the request for decision, article 10º of the request for decision;
The description of the urban property is made as follows: "Type of property: land for construction" - Document no. 2 (urban property record) attached with the request for decision;
Document no. 2 (urban property record) attached with the request for decision in "valuation data" refers to "type of location coefficient: housing" and contains a grid indicating "Ca – 1.00";
The property has a tax value (CIMI) of 1,217,100.00 euros determined in 2012 - Document no. 2 (urban property record) attached with the request for decision;
And such tax value resulted from "IMI Form 1 no. 6032697 filed on 2013.01.15, valuation sheet 8943923, valued on 2013.01.28" - Document no. 2 (urban property record) attached with the request for decision;
The Claimant was notified on 18.10.2013 of the assessment of Stamp Tax (IS) under item 28.1 of the GIST, for the year 2012, with document identification 2013 …, dated 14.07.2013, generating a collection of 12,171.00 € - article 2º of the request for decision and Document no. 1 attached with the request for decision;
This tax assessed on the basis (without any other type of grounds) of item 28.1 of the GIST, with the wording introduced thereto by Law 55-A/2012, of 29 October - articles 2º of the request for decision, Document no. 1 attached with the request for decision and overall position of the AT in its response.
Unproven Facts
There is no other factuality alleged that is relevant for the correct resolution of the procedural dispute. The evidentiary assessment of the documents attached to the proceeding by the Claimant was not challenged.
IV. ASSESSMENT OF THE ISSUES FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO RESOLVE
It appears to us that with the creation of a new item in the GIST, item 28, (by article 4º of Law 55-A/2012, of 29.10) essentially creating a new "fact or legal situation" subject to tax, it was merely intended to extend the incidence of stamp tax to a new legal-factual reality, without altering the division of the various types of urban real properties that exist.
It was not intended, as it appears to us, to create a new classification of urban real properties overlapping the types provided for in paragraph 1 of article 6º of the Municipal Property Tax Code.
The tax act in question occurred during the validity of the previous wording of item 28.1 of the GIST, whereby the current wording given thereto by article 194.º of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget for 2014) is not applicable here, as it only comes into effect as of 1 January 2014.
We are thus, as referred to above, only and exclusively, within the scope of the activity of interpretation and application of norms, that is, in the task of delimiting the legal-factual situations that should be understood as encompassed in the rule of incidence of this new tax and which results from the combination of items 28 and 28-1 of the GIST.
However, the law, in its literal element which is always the limit of any interpretation, in item 28-1 GIST, comes to add "… for real property with residential allocation".
That is, this concrete rule of incidence of the tax, should not then be interpreted, delimited, as if it had the literalness of "residential urban real properties", because the interpreter, in respect of the command of paragraph 3 of article 9º of the Civil Code, cannot start from the assumption that the legislator did not know the exact terms of paragraph 1 of article 6º of the CIMI which makes the division of the various types of urban real properties.
But it also does not appear that it can be understood that in the rule of incidence automatically falls, beyond the type of urban real properties "residential", the type "land for construction".
It seems to us, therefore, that in light of the literal element of the rule of incidence (revealing the legislator's intent) chosen by the legislator: "urban real properties … with residential allocation" it was intended to reach other types of urban real properties, beyond "urban real properties …residential" according to the division in paragraph 1 of article 6º of the Municipal Property Tax Code.
We do not mean, however, by this to signify that the type of urban real properties "land for construction" (or any other type of urban real property) is clearly and without more (that is, "ope legis"), encompassed in the rule of incidence of item 28-1 of the GIST.
On this point, we transcribe, with a view to simplification and standardization, what is referred to in arbitral decision CAAD Case 48/2013-T (by way of example), in the part to which we adhere:
"The subjection to stamp tax of real properties with residential allocation resulted from the addition of item 28 of the General Table of Stamp Tax, carried out by article 4º of Law 55-A/2012, of 29/10, which typified the following tax facts:
28 – Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban real properties whose tax value contained in the registry, according to the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), is equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000 – on the tax value used for purposes of IMI:
28-1 – For real property with residential allocation- 1%;
28-2 – For real property, when the taxpayers that are not natural persons are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax scheme, contained in the list approved by ordinance of the Minister of Finance – 7.5%.
…
With respect to the situations typified in item 28.1, only real properties with residential allocation are subject to tax.
Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, in no place clarifies what is meant by real properties with residential allocation. However, in paragraph 2 of article 67º of the Stamp Tax Code, added by the said legislation, it was stipulated that 'as to matters not regulated in the present Code relating to item 28 of the General Table, the CIMI applies, subsidiary'.
The CIMI also does not clarify what is meant by real properties with residential allocation, but only what are the various types of real properties, with paragraph 2 of article 6º qualifying as 'residential, commercial, industrial or services buildings licensed as such or, in the absence of a license, which have as normal purpose each of these ends'.
That is, for the CIMI, both real property licensed for housing, even if not being put to that use, as well as, in the case of absence of a license, which have as normal purpose that end, are residential.
As for land for construction, which is of interest in the present case, given the assessment carried out and contested on land for construction, the CIMI, in paragraph 3 of article 6º, tells us that 'these are those located within or outside an urban settlement, for which a license or authorization for subdivision or construction operation has been granted, and also those that have been so declared in the acquisition title, excepting those lands in which the competent entities prohibit any of those operations, in particular those located in green areas, protected areas or which, in accordance with municipal territorial planning plans, are allocated to public spaces, infrastructure or equipment'."
From the two norms transcribed above, it is not possible to extract what the legislator intended to say when speaking of real properties with residential allocation.
Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29/10, has no preamble whatsoever, whereby from the same it is not possible to extract the legislator's intention.
This law of the Assembly of the Republic originated from bill no. 96/XII (2nd), which, in its explanatory memorandum, speaks to the introduction of fiscal measures inserted in a broader set of measures to combat the budget deficit.
In the explanatory memorandum of the said bill, it is stated that, "these measures are fundamental to reinforce the principle of social equity in austerity, guaranteeing an effective distribution of the sacrifices necessary to fulfill the adjustment program. The Government is strongly committed to ensuring that the distribution of these sacrifices will be made by all and not just by those who live on the income of their work. In accordance with this purpose, this legislation expands the taxation of capital and property, equitably covering a broad set of sectors of Portuguese society".
In that explanatory memorandum it is also stated that, beyond the increase in taxation of capital income and securities gains, a rate is created in stamp tax applying to urban real properties of residential allocation whose tax value is equal to or exceeding one million euros.
That is, in such explanatory memorandum, it is also not clarified what is understood by urban real properties with residential allocation.
…
In his intervention in the Assembly of the Republic, in the presentation and discussion of the said bill, the Secretary of State for Tax Affairs made the following statement:
"The Government chose as a priority principle of its tax policy social equity. This is even more important in times of rigor as a way to guarantee the fair distribution of tax effort.
In the demanding period the country is experiencing, during which it is bound to comply with the economic and financial assistance program, it becomes all the more pressing to assert the principle of equity. It cannot always be the same ones - employees and pensioners, bearing the tax burdens.
For the tax system to be fairer, it is decisive to promote the expansion of the tax base requiring increased effort from taxpayers with higher income and thus protecting Portuguese families with lower income.
For the tax system to promote more equality, it is fundamental that the effort of budget consolidation be distributed among all types of income, covering with special emphasis capital income and high-value properties. This matter, it should be recalled, was extensively addressed in the Constitutional Court ruling.
Finally, for the tax system to be more equitable, it is crucial that all be called upon to contribute according to their tax capacity, giving the tax administration enhanced powers to control and supervise situations of fraud and tax evasion.
In this sense, the Government presents, today, a set of measures that effectively strengthen a fair and equitable distribution of the adjustment effort among a broad and comprehensive set of sectors of Portuguese society.
This proposal has three essential pillars: the creation of special taxation on urban real properties valued at more than 1 million euros; the increase in taxation on capital income and securities gains and the strengthening of the rules to combat fraud and tax evasion.
Firstly, the Government proposes the creation of a special rate on the highest value residential urban real properties. It is the first time in Portugal that special taxation is created on high-value properties intended for housing. This rate will be 0.5% to 0.8% in 2012, and 1%, in 2013, and will apply to houses valued at equal to or exceeding 1 million euros. With the creation of this additional rate the tax effort required of these owners will be significantly increased in 2012 and 2013".
In their interventions, in the discussion of such bill, deputies Pedro Filipe Soares, of BE, and Paulo Sá, of the PCP, speak of the taxation of luxury real estate assets, even being made references to previous bills on the same subject that were not approved."
In the first place, there is no doubt that the type of urban real properties considered "residential" (subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of article 6º of the CIMI) which are "… buildings or structures licensed for such or, in the absence of a license, which have as normal purpose that end", automatically fall within the provision of the rule of incidence of items 28 and 28-1 of the GIST.
But from the simple consideration of the literal element of the law it will result that it was intended to encompass more than this legal-factual reality encompasses.
Since, as already mentioned, by virtue of the command of paragraph 3 of article 9º of the Civil Code, it does not appear possible for the interpreter to understand that the expression "urban real properties … with residential allocation" has the same practical scope (field of application) as if it said "residential urban real properties", starting from the assumption that it was intended to encompass more than would be encompassed through the use of the first literal element.
In the case before us, the AT argues that "the notion of allocation of the urban real property is grounded in the part relating to the valuation of real property, which is understandable since the valuation of the real property (purpose) incorporates value to the real property, constituting a determining fact of distinction (coefficient) for valuation purposes" and for this reason should be resorted to article 41º (allocation coefficient) of the Municipal Property Tax Code.
And it further states: "the tax law considers as an element forming part for purposes of valuation of land for construction the value of the implantation area, which varies between 15% and 45% of the value of authorized or projected buildings based on the urbanization and construction project".
That is, it understands that the "residential allocation" of the urban real property in question is clear given what appears in the property record that resulted from a declaration by the taxpayer (IMI form 1 – declaration) – matter which was above taken to proven facts (passages 2) to 5) of Part III of this Decision).
But then does the expression "urban real properties … with residential allocation" encompass or can it encompass "land for construction" as unbuilt urban real properties but with constructive capacity for housing real property?
Now, only with the elements contained in the property registry, as is the case, in which a mere constructive or building potential is demonstrated, it appears to us that without additional grounds for the tax act, without demonstration that the type of urban real property "land for construction" already has any economic utility at the level of residential allocation, it will not be possible to consider it encompassed in the rule of incidence of items 28 and 28-1 of the GIST.
This means to say that the expression "urban real properties … with residential allocation" cannot encompass "land for construction" as unbuilt urban real properties but with constructive capacity for housing real property?
It appears to us that cases may occur in the immense complexity of the economy, of economic utility, including informal, situations of subjection, in light of the commands that are placed to the interpreter contained in paragraph 3 of article 9º of the Civil Code and paragraph 3 of article 11º of the General Tax Law.
Only that as to "land for construction" as unbuilt urban real properties but with constructive capacity for housing real property, it appears to us that it is not sufficient to demonstrate the "residential allocation" the elements that appear in the registry. Another basis will be necessary, other factual matter, beyond what appears in the registry, that evidences economic utility with that specific purpose.
It does not appear possible to us through extensive interpretation, using reasoning by analogy with the buildings considered residential urban real properties, to conclude, without more, that the type of urban real properties considered "land for construction" falls "ope legis" within the scope of the tax rule of incidence, sufficing to allege the legal-formal qualification and the elements of the registry, since, it is noted, it will be necessary to demonstrate its "residential allocation" in concreto.
The Claimant raises the non-conformity of the tax act against the law of erroneous qualification of the tax fact, in addition to the lack of grounds.
In truth, even if it is understood, as it appears to us it should be understood, in general and abstract terms, that "land for construction" as indeed any other urban real property beyond the type of urban real properties "residential" (because these always have residential allocation by definition) can have, in terms of practical, economic and functional utility a "residential allocation" in concreto (even in the informal economy), the truth is that its consideration "ope legis" as having "residential allocation" starting only from the elements of the registry and the fact that its valuation is carried out with reference to the coefficients applicable to residential urban real properties, constitutes non-conformity with the rule of incidence of items 28 and 28-1 of the GIST, with the illegality provided for in subparagraph a) of article 99º of the CPPT thereby occurring, and the one provided for in subparagraph c) of article 99º of the CPPT is also verified as there is an absence of grounds that the law, in the interpretation that was above expressed, requires.
The contested act contains no grounds in the sense referred to above, beyond the consideration that it is an urban real property of the type "land for construction" "with constructive capacity for housing real property" in hypothetical terms, which is deemed to be insufficient.
As a consequence of the above, it shall be judged that the request formulated by the Claimant before the TAS is well-founded, since the stamp tax assessment carried out by the AT is not in conformity with the law.
Since the first ground of the request formulated by the Claimant in the request for decision (passage d) of the Report) is upheld, it becomes unnecessary to assess the other grounds (namely those of passage e) of the Report).
V. DECISION
In view of and with the grounds set out above, it is judged that the request of the Claimant seeking the annulment of the assessment of Stamp Tax (IS) under item 28.1 of the GIST, for the year 2012, with document identification 2013 …, dated 14.07.2013, generating a collection of 12,171.00 €, relating to the urban real property of which it is the owner, of the type "land for construction", registered in the urban property registry of the Municipality of Lisbon, Parish of … under article …º (former article …º of the Municipality of Lisbon – Parish of … (extinct), is well-founded, thereby annulling the tax act expressed in this document, for being in non-conformity with the rule of incidence of IS contained in items 28 and 28-1 of the GIST.
Process value: in accordance with the provision in article 3.º, paragraph 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (and subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of article 97ºA of the CPPT), the process is valued at 12,171.00 €.
Costs: in accordance with the provision in article 22.º, paragraph 4, of the RJAT, the amount of costs is fixed at 918.00 €, according to Table I attached to the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be borne by the Respondent.
Notify.
Lisbon, 29 August 2014
The Singular Arbitral Tribunal,
Augusto Vieira
Text prepared on computer in accordance with the provision in article 138.º, paragraph 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference from article 29.º of the RJAT.
The drafting of this decision is governed by the spelling prior to the Orthographic Agreement of 1990.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created