Summary
Full Decision
Arbitral Decision
Report
A… REAL ESTATE COMPANY, SA, TIN …, a commercial company with registered office at Av. …, in Lisbon, better identified in the record, filed an application for arbitral ruling, under the terms of Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (RJAT) and Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March, for a declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of the Stamp Tax assessments (relating to item 28.1 of the corresponding General Table), for the year 2012, in the total amount of €13,845.90 (thirteen thousand, eight hundred and forty-five euros and ninety cents).
The Tax and Customs Authority (AT) is the respondent.
The claimant did not designate an Arbitrator. For this purpose, the President of the Deontological Council of the Centre for Administrative Arbitration appointed the undersigned, who expressly accepted this appointment. The parties were duly notified thereof and expressed no intention to refuse it.
The arbitral tribunal was thus constituted on 28 May of this year.
The AT timely filed its answer, pleading for the complete dismissal of the claim and consequent absolution of the respondent.
The parties waived the holding of the meeting provided for in Article 18 of the RJAT.
The Tribunal was regularly constituted and is materially competent.
The parties have legal standing and judicial capacity and are entitled to be parties.
The case is free of nullities, and no questions were raised that could impede the examination of the merits of the case.
Object of the Dispute and Factual Matters
In 2012, the claimant owned a property registered in the real estate register of the parish of …, in Lisbon, under article …, to which corresponded a total tax-assessed value (VPT) of €1,754,280.
Said property corresponds to a residential building, in sole ownership, not constituted as a horizontal property regime, with eleven floors and 19 units capable of independent use, seventeen of which dedicated to residential use and two to commercial use. Each of these units constitutes autonomous registration units (urban articles No. 837), having been subject to separate determination of their respective VPT, such that none of these registration units corresponds to a VPT equal to or exceeding one million euros. Excluding the two registration units dedicated to commercial use, the total VPT of the remaining registration units that make up said property, which as noted are dedicated to residential use, amounts to €1,384,590.
The assessments in question, seventeen in total, corresponding to each of the aforementioned registration units, result from the application of the aforementioned Stamp Tax item (IS) to the residential units of said property, amounting to the aforementioned total amount of €13,845.90, dated 14 July 2013 and were duly notified to the claimant in November of that year, with a payment deadline of December of the same year.
There are no facts relevant to the examination of the merits of the case that are not proven.
The proven facts are based on documents provided by the parties, whose correspondence to reality is not disputed.
The following are the tax acts now in question:
[TABLE OF ASSESSMENTS - details omitted in this summary]
Matters of Law
Position of the Parties
The issue at hand concerns the application, in situations of the so-called vertical property ownership, of the new Stamp Tax taxation affecting urban properties with residential use and a VPT equal to or exceeding one million euros. This new taxation was introduced in 2012 to reinforce budgetary control measures on the revenue side, within a framework of financial (or economic-financial) necessity (cf. Sustainability and Solidarity in Times of Crisis, Suzana Tavares da Silva, in Fiscal Sustainability in Times of Crisis, Coord. José Casalta Nabais and Suzana Tavares da Silva, pp. 61 et seq).
As is well known, this new Stamp Tax has raised strong doubts and considerable controversy. This is not only for specific cases of its application (e.g., vertical property ownership, co-ownership, building land or its application to the year 2012), but also in general terms, due to its possible unconstitutionality, whether of its general regime or its transitional regime (see Luís Menezes Leitão, On the Stamp Tax on Luxury Real Estate (item 28.1 TGIS), in Tax Arbitration No. 1, pp. 44 et seq).
The claimant comes forward precisely to contest the application of said taxation resulting from the application of the new item 28.1 of the TGIS to urban properties not constituted in a horizontal property regime, but which include units capable of independent use, in which the minimum value fixed in the tax law is reached by the sum of the VPT of the registration units corresponding to the various units, but not by any one of them individually considered. Should this understanding not prevail, the claimant further pleads for the unconstitutionality of the norm, both in general and in particular in its application to the year 2012.
Indeed, the claimant argues that it is not the owner of a property with a VPT equal to or exceeding the aforementioned amount, but merely the owner of a property in vertical ownership in which the VPT exceeding this value is only reached by the sum of the VPT of the units capable of independent use dedicated to residential use, without any of them, considered individually, reaching this minimum threshold of tax relevance. For this reason, according to the claimant, the assessments in question are vitiated by a violation of law, which renders them annullable. Additionally, it also considers violated the transitional regime (Article 6 of Law 55-A/2012), as it understands that the provisions of Article 6(1) and not those of Article 6(2) apply to the year 2012.
Moreover, even if this were not the case, the claimant also believes that the norm in question is unconstitutional due to violation of the principle of equality (Articles 13 and 104(3) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic – CRP).
And it further challenges the constitutionality of the interpretation of the transitional regime of the new taxation for the year 2012, due to violation of the principle prohibiting retroactive tax obligations (Article 103(3) of the CRP).
Conversely, the respondent contests this understanding, arguing for the maintenance of the assessment. In support of its position, it emphasizes, in summary, that total ownership, or vertical ownership, corresponds to a property, and this is the reality to be considered in determining whether the minimum value contained in the tax rule is met. For the respondent, the VPT relevant for purposes of tax incidence is therefore the VPT of the urban property and not the VPT of each of the parts that make it up, even if capable of independent use, since they are dedicated to residential use. In support of this position, it emphasizes that the unity of the property is not affected, and its distinct parts cannot be legally equated to the autonomous units of horizontal property ownership, particularly because their ownership must necessarily be vested in a single owner, with the obvious exception of cases of co-ownership.
It further adds that a different understanding (i.e., that the VPT relevant to the tax rule would correspond to the VPT of each floor or unit capable of independent use) would be unconstitutional, due to violation of the principle of tax legality (inherent in Article 103(2) of the CRP). And it adds that since horizontal and vertical property ownership are differentiated legal institutions, the former being legally more evolved than the latter, the legislator may have intended to positively discriminate in favor of the former, discouraging vertical property ownership, which may even be determined by the need to impose coherence to the tax system, without such discrimination necessarily being considered arbitrary.
The respondent further argues that the general regime of taxation, and not the transitional regime, should apply to the assessments in question.
Summary of Contested Issues
In summary, in the present case, four legal issues are thus contested:
-
whether in cases of vertical property ownership the minimum VPT provided for in the tax rule should be assessed by reference to each unit dedicated to residential use and capable of independent use, or rather by the sum of the VPT corresponding to all such units that make up the same property;
-
whether in this case the transitional regime or the general regime applies;
-
whether this transitional regime is vitiated by unconstitutionality due to retroactivity;
-
whether finally the regime itself is vitiated by unconstitutionality due to violation of the principle of equality.
Legislative Review
For purposes of clarity of exposition, it is deemed useful to now transcribe the essential legal provisions of Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, which, among others, amended the Stamp Tax Code, doing so in the following terms:
Article 3
Amendment to the Stamp Tax Code
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 22, 23, 44, 46, 49 and 67 of the Stamp Tax Code, approved by Law No. 150/99, of 11 September, shall have the following wording:
(…)
Article 2
[...]
1 - ...
2 - ...
3 - ...
4 - In situations provided for in item No. 28 of the General Table, the tax subjects are those referred to in Article 8 of the CIMI.
Article 23
[...]
1 - ...
2 - ...
3 - ...
4 - ...
5 - ...
6 - ...
7 - In the case of the tax due by situations provided for in item No. 28 of the General Table, the tax is assessed annually, in relation to each urban property, by the central services of the Tax and Customs Authority, applying, with necessary adaptations, the rules contained in the CIMI.
Article 67
[...]
1 - (Previous text of the article.)
2 - For matters not regulated in this Code concerning item No. 28 of the General Table, the provisions of the CIMI shall apply subsidiarily."
Article 4
Addition to the General Table of Stamp Tax
Item No. 28 is added to the General Table of Stamp Tax, appended to the Stamp Tax Code, approved by Law No. 150/99, of 11 September, with the following wording:
"28 - Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose tax-assessed value contained in the register, pursuant to the Municipal Tax on Real Estate Code (CIMI), is equal to or exceeding (euro) 1,000,000 - on the tax-assessed value used for purposes of IMI:
28.1 - Per property with residential use - 1%;
28.2 - Per property, where the tax subjects that are not natural persons are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime.
Article 6
Transitional Provisions
1 - In 2012, the following rules must be observed with reference to the assessment of the Stamp Tax provided for in item No. 28 of the respective General Table:
a) The tax event occurs on 31 October 2012;
b) The tax subject is the one mentioned in Article 2(4) of the Stamp Tax Code on the date referred to in the preceding subparagraph;
c) The tax-assessed value to be used in the assessment of the tax corresponds to that resulting from the rules provided in the Municipal Tax on Real Estate Code by reference to the year 2011;
d) The assessment of the tax by the Tax and Customs Authority must be carried out by the end of November 2012;
e) The tax must be paid, in a single installment, by the tax subjects by 20 December 2012;
f) The applicable rates are the following:
i) Properties with residential use assessed pursuant to the Municipal Tax on Real Estate Code: 0.5%;
ii) Properties with residential use not yet assessed pursuant to the Municipal Tax on Real Estate Code: 0.8%;
iii) Urban properties where the tax subjects that are not natural persons are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime, listed in the list approved by ordinance of the Minister of Finance: 7.5%.
2 - In 2013, the assessment of the Stamp Tax provided for in item No. 28 of the respective General Table must be based on the same tax-assessed value used for purposes of the assessment of the Municipal Tax on Real Estate in that year.
3 - Failure to deliver, in whole or in part, within the time indicated, of the sums assessed as Stamp Tax constitutes a tax infraction, punished under the law.
Article 7
Entry into Force and Effective Date
1 - This law enters into force on the day following its publication.
2 - The amendments to Article 72 of the Personal Income Tax Code and to Article 89-A of the General Tax Law take effect as of 1 January 2012.
Vertical Property Ownership
On the issue of determining the (minimum) VPT relevant for the application of item 28.1 of the TGS in cases of vertical property ownership, among others, the decisions of the CAAD rendered in proceedings numbered 50/2013-T, 132/2013, 181/2013-T, 183/2013-T, 272/2013-T, 280/2013-T, 26/2014-T, 30/2014-T, 88/2014-T, 177/2014-T and 206/2014-T have already addressed this.
In all of them, the question lay, as in the present case, in determining whether the VPT relevant to the tax rule (28.1 of TGIS) is the VPT corresponding to the unit capable of independent use or whether, by contrast, the relevant VPT should correspond to the sum of all such units of the same property, since such units are dedicated to residential use. And the answer in those decisions was always in favor of the first option.
The Stamp Tax Code
The new item was inserted into the Stamp Tax Code, a choice that provides no significant contribution to systematically categorizing the new tax, since that tax "affects a heterogeneous multiplicity of facts or acts … without a common feature conferring identity upon them," a situation which was moreover exacerbated by the 2003/2014 Patrimony Taxation Reform, making even more complex "the problem of classifying this tax" (cf. José Maria Fernandes Pires, Op. Cit., p. 422).
However, it is known that this new item was introduced as a means of reinforcing budgetary control measures on the revenue side, within a framework of financial (or economic-financial) necessity (cf. Sustainability and Solidarity in Times of Crisis, Suzana Tavares da Silva, in Fiscal Sustainability in Times of Crisis, Coord. José Casalta Nabais and Suzana Tavares da Silva, pp. 61 et seq), with the purpose of identifying new manifestations of contributive capacity that could be called upon to contribute to such purpose.
And it did so by choosing to impose the new taxation exclusively on certain goods, thus implying a strong negative discrimination of these, which calls for an enhanced explanation of this choice, so as not to imperil the principle of equality, or equity in the terminology of Glória Teixeira, whether in its sense of horizontal equity or vertical equity (Glória Teixeira, Manual of Tax Law, p. 56, 2nd ed., Almedina).
It appears that in the legislator's thinking there is an intention to identify in luxury properties intended for residential use, a non-arbitrary reference point, of an additional contributive capacity, capable of broadening the spectrum of contributions to the desired and necessary budgetary balance.
In this context, the question to be decided is whether a property constituted in sole ownership or vertical ownership, but with floors or units with independent uses, is a "property with residential use" for purposes of the application of Article 1 of the Stamp Tax Code and item 28.1 of the TGIS, added by Article 4 of Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October.
For this purpose, it is important to bear in mind that each floor or part of a property capable of independent use is considered separately in the real estate registration, which also itemizes the respective tax-assessed value (Article 12(2) of the CIMI), and the IMI is assessed individually in relation to each floor or part of a property capable of independent use (Article 119(1) of the CIMI).
And if this is so in IMI, it should also be so in Stamp Tax. Let us see why.
Literal Interpretation
As stated in the decision rendered in proceeding 206/2014-T: "Since the Stamp Tax Code refers to the CIMI, it must be concluded that the registration in the real estate register of properties in vertical ownership, constituted by different parts, floors or units with independent use, follows the same registration rules as those of horizontal ownership."
Since IMI and Stamp Tax are "assessed individually in relation to each of the parts," the "legal criterion for defining the incidence of the new tax must also be the same." Consequently, there will be incidence of item 28.1 of the TGIS if any of these parts, floors or units capable of independent use has a VPT at least equal to the amount provided for in the tax rule.
Also in the decision rendered in proceeding 272/2013-T (CAAD) it is stated that "considering that the registration in the real estate register of properties in vertical ownership, constituted by different parts, floors or units capable of independent use, pursuant to the CIMI, follows the same registration rules as properties constituted in horizontal ownership, with the respective IMI, as well as the new Stamp Tax, being assessed individually in relation to each of the parts, it offers no doubt that the legal criterion for defining the incidence of the new tax must be the same." Moreover, it states that the position of the AT "finds no legal support and is contrary to the criterion that applies in the context of the CIMI and, by referral, in the context of Stamp Tax," for which reason "the adoption of the criterion advocated by the AT violates the principles of legality and tax equality, as well as the principle of the prevalence of material truth over legal-formal reality."
And in the same sense it is stated in the arbitral decision of proceeding 30/2014-T (CAAD) that the AT's doctrine contains a "non-conformity with the literal element of the final part of the tax rule (item 28 of TGIS) which states that the tax affects "the tax-assessed value used for purposes of IMI" and therefore should not affect the sum of tax-assessed values of properties, parts of properties or floors, having no legal support the operation of adding the tax-assessed values of floors or parts of property capable of independent use, dedicated to residential use, separated from the VPT of others with different purposes, so as to reach the taxable threshold of 1,000,000.00 euros or more."
However, as stated in the arbitral decision rendered in proceeding 30/2014-T (CAAD), what happens with respect to urban properties with residential use, in vertical ownership, with floors or units capable of independent use, is that the AT proceeds, in the Stamp Tax assessment operations, as it proceeded in the present case, to adapt the rules of the CIMI. And this "adaptation" corresponds to "summing the VPT of each floor or independent unit dedicated to residential purposes (separated from the VPT of the floors or units intended for other purposes), creating a new legal reality, without legal support, which is a global VPT of urban properties in vertical ownership, with residential use," which goes "against the literal element of the tax rule": incidence on "the tax-assessed value used for purposes of IMI." Wherefore "in urban properties with residential use, in vertical ownership, with floors or units capable of independent use," the tax-assessed value should be considered "that results exclusively from Article 12(3) of the CIMI. Both for IMI and for this Stamp Tax."
Specifically, as was concluded in the decision rendered in proceeding 26/2014-T of the CAAD, "for purposes of applying item 28 of TGIS to properties in vertical ownership, the same rules of the CIMI that apply to properties in horizontal ownership are applied, and similarly the VPT for purposes of applying the item is the individual VPT of each independent residential unit, such that in the present case none of the units exceeds the incidence criterion of 1,000,000.00€," as occurs in the case of the present proceedings.
It is thus concluded, in summary, as clearly follows from the cited decisions, that the literal interpretation of the new item of the TGIS cannot be other than that sustained by the AT, indeed the opposite, given the clear and indisputable referral to the rules of the CIMI.
Economic Substance
However, as is correctly stated in Judgment 117/2013 T of the CAAD, "interpretation based exclusively on the literal sense.... cannot be accepted, since in the interpretation of tax norms the general rules and principles of interpretation and application of laws are observed (Article 11(1) of the LGT) and Article 9(1) expressly prohibits interpretations based exclusively on the literal sense of the norms in stating that "interpretation must not be limited to the letter of the law," but rather "must reconstruct from the texts the legislative intent, having especially in account the unity of the legal system, the circumstances in which the law was enacted and the specific conditions of the time in which it is applied." For there to be correspondence between the interpretation and the letter of the law it will suffice that there be "a minimum of verbal correspondence, even if imperfectly expressed" (Article 9(3) of the Civil Code), which will only prevent the adoption of interpretations that cannot in any way be reconciled with the letter of the law, even acknowledging therein imperfection in the expression of the legislative intent."
But if we now look to the economic substance of the tax facts, in compliance with Article 11(3) of the LGT, without thereby adhering to an economic interpretation of the norms of tax law, today condemned by doctrine (cf. Taxes, General Theory, Américo Fernando Brás Carlos, p. 196, 2014, 4th ed. Almedina), we must equally recognize that the expression "each urban property" used in Article 23(7) encompasses not only urban properties in horizontal ownership, but also floors, units or parts of urban properties in vertical ownership, provided they are dedicated to residential purposes, starting always, in any case, from a single taxable base for all legal purposes: the tax-assessed value used for purposes of IMI (final part of item 28 of TGIS), as was concluded in the arbitral decision of proceeding 177/2014-T (CAAD).
Or, as is emphasized in the decision rendered in proceeding 272/2014-T of the CAAD, "from the legislator's perspective, what matters is not the legal-formal rigor of the concrete situation of the property but rather its normal use, the purpose to which the property is devoted," wherefore "for the legislator the situation of the property in vertical ownership or in horizontal ownership was not relevant, since no reference or distinction is made between one and the other. What is relevant is the material truth underlying its existence as an urban property and its use."
Cohesion of the System
And if we look at the entirety of the tax system we will find no indications that call into question the conclusion drawn thus far.
As stated in the Judgment rendered in proceeding 26/2014-T of the CAAD, no condemnation of the legislator regarding vertical property ownership is apparent. Indeed, "it might be said, not without reason, that the legislator, for purposes of taxation under the IMI, chose to confer autonomy, independence, upon each of the parts or each of the floors of a single property, provided that one and the other show themselves capable of independent use, to the point of foreseeing the individualized registration in the real estate register of each of these independent parts and imposing on taxation under the IMI an autonomous collection as well. Notwithstanding the legal existence of a single property, it is the legislator itself that not only recommends but requires the autonomous consideration of each of the independent parts, for purposes of taxation of assets." Moreover, as would follow from an economic interpretation of the fact, with prevalence of its substance over its form, as was seen above. And if such is the case in IMI, it would not be understood why the same would not also be the case in Stamp Tax, specifically in the case of the new taxation on luxury properties (houses, more properly).
Thus, as was decided in proceedings 26/2014-T and 272/2014-T of the CAAD, "the current legal regime does not impose the obligation to constitute horizontal property ownership," for which reason "the discrimination operated by the AT translates into arbitrary and illegal discrimination," since "the AT cannot distinguish where the legislator itself understood not to do so, on pain of violating the coherence of the tax system, as well as the principle of tax legality provided for in Article 103(2) of the CRP, and also the principles of justice, equality and tax proportionality."
That is, the literal interpretation initially reached continues to hold.
Legislative Intent
And it is certain that nothing induces the interpreter to conclude that the legislator of the new item of the TGIS, unlike the legislator of the IMI, intended to discriminate vertical property ownership as against horizontal. As is well recalled in the Judgment rendered in the already-cited proceeding 26/2014-T of the CAAD, "when presenting and discussing in Parliament the bill No. 96/XII (2nd), the State Secretary for Tax Affairs expressly stated: 'The Government proposes the creation of a special rate on residential urban properties of higher value. It is the first time that Portugal has created a special tax on high-value properties intended for residential use. This rate will be 0.5% to 0.8% in 2012 and 1% in 2013, and will apply to houses valued at 1 million euros or more'" (cf. DAR I Series No. 9/XII-2, of 11 October, p. 32). Now, as is emphasized in that Judgment, "the State Secretary for Tax Affairs presents this bill referring without hesitation to the expression 'houses'… valued at 1 million euros or more," for which reason "it follows with crystal clarity that item 28.1 of the TGIS cannot be interpreted in the sense that each of the floors, units or parts capable of independent use are included therein when only from their sum does a VPT greater than that provided for in the same item result." This is because, in that case, "none of the 'houses'… presents, per se, 'value equal to or greater than 1 million euros'."
It is therefore clear, as is stated in the aforementioned decision 272/2014-T, that for the legislator only that value of one million euros, or a higher value, provided it is dedicated "to a residence (house, autonomous unit or floor with independent use) reflects a contributive capacity above the average and, as such, capable of determining a special contribution to ensure the fair distribution of the tax burden."
And if this is so, then, to that end, we must attend to the concept of "house" as a unit capable of independent use, for it is in this economic reality that we will find the identification of the manifestation of contributive capacity that the legislator considered relevant. Moreover, if this were not so, the legislator would be making a discrimination that would not be justified, for as has been seen, the system contains no condemnation of vertical property ownership when compared with horizontal. Moreover, this distinction would clash with a necessary equity between identical manifestations of the same contributive capacity.
Contributive Capacity and Interpretation in Conformity with the Constitution
It is certain that the tax legislator is subordinate to the principles of equality, which, as Sérgio Vasques correctly notes (Manual of Tax Law, pp. 249 et seq, 2011, Almedina), is more than a mere negative limit and imposes something more than the mere prohibition of arbitrariness, instead requiring a distribution of taxes in accordance with the criterion of contributive capacity, wherefore the legislator must anchor taxation in reasonable and non-arbitrary economic elements, capable of justifying the tax claim in a contributive capacity concretely manifested by the tax subject.
It is thus imperative to seek in the text of the new norm a reading that gives effect to those principles. Or, which amounts to the same, not to seek in that text a meaning that violates such principles.
Now, the contributive capacities manifested by the ownership of a property composed of a set of autonomous units in horizontal property ownership or by a set of units of independent use under a vertical property regime cannot but be considered identical, if not even, possibly, lesser in the case of the second hypothesis. That is, a property does not surely have a greater market value because it is organized as vertical property. The same value applies, if not even less, since the alternatives for transferability are fewer. And we know that the VPT is intended to be an approximation, precisely, to the market value of properties.
Thus, the interpretation advocated by the AT would lead to manifest inequality between owners of properties in horizontal ownership and in vertical ownership and it has been seen that no punitive intention toward the latter is apparent, even if one were to admit that such were constitutionally permissible. In this same sense, as is correctly emphasized in the decision of proceeding 272/2014-T of the CAAD, the "existence of a property in vertical or horizontal ownership cannot, by itself, be an indicator of contributive capacity. On the contrary, from the law it follows that both must receive the same tax treatment in obedience to the principles of justice, tax equality and material truth."
Concluding, as is concluded in the decision rendered in proceeding 26/2014-T of the CAAD, "the material truth is what imposes itself as the determining criterion of contributive capacity and not the mere legal-formal reality of the property, since the constitution of horizontal property ownership implies merely a legal alteration of the property imposing not even a new assessment." And this fact "does not appear coherent with the decision of the AT to tax the residential parts of a property in vertical ownership, based on the global VPT of the property and not on what is actually attributed to each part." Thus and as has already been transcribed above, "the AT cannot distinguish where the legislator itself understood not to do so, on pain of violating the coherence of the tax system, as well as the principle of tax legality … and also the principles of justice, equality and tax proportionality."
In these terms, the tax acts in question are vitiated by a violation of law, due to error in the legal assumptions, since no part of the property possesses a VPT of value equal to or exceeding the threshold resulting from the applied norm, which makes said tax acts annullable.
Transitional Regime and Unconstitutionality
Examination of the remaining defects alleged is thus rendered moot: violation of law due to application of the general regime and not the transitional, unconstitutionality of the transitional regime (principle of non-retroactivity) and of the general norm itself (principle of equality), since the understanding of the applicability of item 28.1 of the TGIS to the present case was not accepted, rendering procedurally superfluous the examination of those other issues.
Ruling
As a result of the foregoing, this Single Tribunal decides to render judgment in favor of the claim and, consequently, annuls the assessment acts in question, on the ground of violation of law, corresponding to error in the legal assumptions.
Value of the Proceedings
In accordance with Articles 306(1) and (2) of the CPC and 97-A(1)(a) of the CPPT and Article 3(2) of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the proceedings is set at €13,845.90.
Costs
Pursuant to Article 22(4) of the RJAT, the amount of costs is set at €918.00 (nine hundred and eighteen euros), in accordance with Table I appended to the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be borne by the Tax and Customs Authority.
Lisbon, 27 November 2014
Text prepared by computer, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), applicable by referral of Article 29(1)(e) of the RJAT, governed by the orthography prior to the Orthographic Agreement of 1990, with blank lines and reviewed by the undersigned arbitrator.
The Arbitrator
(Jaime Carvalho Esteves)
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created