Process: 305/2016-T

Date: December 20, 2016

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

Process 305/2016-T addresses a critical procedural challenge in Portuguese tax arbitration involving Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) under Verba 28.1 of the General Stamp Tax Table (TGIS). The claimant, acting as head of an undivided estate, challenged 17 Stamp Tax assessments totaling €3,555.32 issued in 2015 for the 2014 tax year on a high-value urban property in Lisbon with a patrimonial tax value (VPT) exceeding €1,000,000. The arbitration request was filed at CAAD on June 1, 2016. The Tax Authority (AT) raised two preliminary exceptions in its response: untimeliness of the arbitration request (intempestividade) and lack of tribunal competence. These procedural defenses challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction before addressing the substantive merits of the tax dispute. The case illustrates the strict temporal requirements governing access to tax arbitration under the RJAT framework. Verba 28.1 TGIS imposes annual Stamp Tax on ownership of urban properties valued above €1,000,000, calculated by aggregating the VPTs of all independent units comprising the property. For undivided estates (heranças indivisas), the estate itself is treated as the taxpayer. The untimeliness exception is particularly significant because if sustained, it prevents the tribunal from examining the substantive legality of the tax assessments, regardless of their merit. Under RJAT and CPPT rules, arbitration requests must generally be filed within 90 days from notification of the challenged administrative act. Missing this deadline results in loss of jurisdiction and automatic dismissal. The tribunal proceeded under the principle of free conduct of proceedings, determining that only legal questions required resolution, thus waiving the oral hearing and witness testimony. This decision demonstrates how procedural compliance with filing deadlines can determine the outcome of tax disputes before substantive arguments are ever considered.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

I – REPORT

A) The Parties and the Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal

1. A…, in his capacity as head of the undivided estate opened by the death of B…, taxpayer identification number…, with domicile at …Street, no. …–…, Lisbon (hereinafter designated as "Claimant"), requested the constitution of a collective Arbitral Tribunal, under the terms set out in article 2, no. 1, paragraph a) and article 10, nos. 1 and 2 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, hereinafter designated as "RJAT", and Ordinance no. 112–A/2011, of 22 March, for the challenge and declaration of illegality of 17 Stamp Tax (IS) assessments issued in application of the provisions of item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (TGIS) relating to the year 2014, in the total amount of €3,555.32, seeking their annulment. The assessments identified in the proceedings relate to the year 2014 and concern the urban property located in the parish of …, in Lisbon, registered in the urban property registry with number….

2. The request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was submitted by the Claimant on 01-06-2016, was accepted by the Esteemed President of CAAD on 03-06-2016 and immediately notified to the Tax and Customs Authority. The Claimant opted not to appoint an arbitrator, whereby, under the terms of no. 1 of article 6 of RJAT, the undersigned arbitrator was appointed by the Deontological Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre on 20-07-2016 for the constitution of the singular Arbitral Tribunal. Thus, in accordance with the precept in paragraph c) of no. 1 of article 11 of RJAT, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 31-08-2016. On 05-09-2016, an arbitral order was issued, requiring the Tax and Customs Authority (AT) to submit a response within the legal period, pursuant to nos. 1 and 2 of article 17 of RJAT.

3. On 04-10-2016 the Respondent submitted to the proceedings her response and the respective Administrative Process (PA), which are hereby considered fully reproduced. In her response, the Respondent invokes the exception of untimeliness of the arbitral request, the tribunal's lack of competence, and, as a mere precaution, contests the arguments of the Claimant. Lastly, she contends that the issues under discussion in the proceedings are exclusively matters of law and, therefore, requests the waiver of the meeting referred to in article 18 of RJAT.

4. On 26-10-2016 an arbitral order was issued in which it was considered, having analyzed the request for arbitral pronouncement submitted by the Claimant, duly documented, and the Response submitted to the proceedings by AT, accompanied by the Administrative Process attached to the proceedings, that the documentary evidence attached to the proceedings was sufficient for the decision of the case, making the examination of the witness indicated unnecessary. From the analysis of the request and the cause of action formulated by the Claimant, it follows that the factual matter relevant to the decision is proven by documents, leaving no room for any doubt. To this is added the failure to indicate any factual matter to which the indicated witness should be examined, nor is it clear what facts are to be proven with such evidence. The issues to be decided, considering the position of the parties involved in the proceedings, embodied in their respective pleadings attached to the proceedings, are exclusively matters of law.

In the response submitted, the Respondent AT expressly requested the waiver of the meeting referred to in article 18 of RJAT and the examination of the witness indicated by the Claimant, on the basis of the principle of free conduct of proceedings, the non-production of useless procedural acts, as well as the submission of arguments.

5. Since the arbitral process is governed by the principle of free conduct of proceedings, as provided in article 16 of RJAT, namely in paragraphs c) and e), it falls to this tribunal to decide the utility and convenience of the performance of procedural acts with a view to proper decision of the case, avoiding the performance of useless acts with the inevitable loss of procedural expedition that the legislator wished to instill in the arbitral process.

Thus, having fixed the facts on which the decision was requested, by sufficient documentary proof, on which the parties are in agreement, with no controversy remaining as to the underlying facts, but only as to the matter of law outlined in the arbitral request, this tribunal considers that the documents submitted by the Claimant and the Respondent are sufficient for the issuance of the arbitral decision.

In this conformity, by order of 26-10-2016 the meeting provided for in article 18 of RJAT and the production of witness evidence were waived. As to the matter of law under discussion in the proceedings, namely as regards the exceptions invoked (also reduced to matters of law to be decided), due contradiction was ensured to the parties by fixing a period of 15 days (equal and successive) for the submission of written arguments, optional, after which the proceedings proceeded to final decision, to be rendered by 20 December 2016.

The parties were invited to send their procedural documents to the proceedings in word format and the Claimant was notified to, within 10 days before the date fixed for final decision, effect payment of the subsequent arbitration fee. The Respondent sent her procedural document in word format. The proceedings awaited the expiration of the period fixed for the parties to pronounce themselves and submit, if they wished, their arguments, but they opted not to do so.

B) THE CLAIM FORMULATED BY THE CLAIMANT:

6. The Claimant formulates the present request for arbitral pronouncement, seeking the declaration of illegality of the IS assessments, determined under the provisions of item 28.1 of TGIS, as stated in the arbitral request, which relate to the urban property, under a regime of full (or vertical) ownership, identified above, which is part of the undivided estate opened by the death of B…. She attaches to the arbitral request 17 documents, which correspond to the summons for the institution of tax enforcement proceedings, for non-payment of the assessments mentioned therein and which are as follows:

- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)
- Assessment no. 2015… of 2015 (Finance Office of Lisbon…)

She did not attach to the proceedings the tax assessments in question.

7. It should be noted that, with respect to the property in question, the AT assessed IS, with reference to the year 2014, pursuant to item 28.1 of TGIS, having as reference the total tax asset value (VPT) of the property, calculated on the basis of the sum of the VPTs assigned to each independent part or division comprising it, resulting in a sum of a value exceeding €1,000,000.00. Accordingly, it issued the tax assessments, which, by not having been paid within the prescribed period, gave rise to the institution of the respective tax enforcement proceedings. Pursuant to the contents of the summons for the institution of the respective tax enforcement proceedings, the period for voluntary payment of the assessments in question ended on 30 November 2015. This is expressly stated by the Claimant in the arbitral request.

In summary, to support her claim, the Claimant argues that the challenged assessments are vitiated by nullity for violation of the provision in no. 3 of article 103 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (CRP), because one of the legal prerequisites for the incidence of the tax is not met. The assessment of IS on the sum of the VPT of the divisions susceptible of independent use comprising the property, under a regime of full or vertical ownership, identified in the present proceedings. It should be considered that the incidence of IS provided for in item 28.1 of TGIS should be assessed based – and solely based – on each division susceptible of independent use and not on the property in which these are integrated, taking exclusively into account its affectation and VPT. She contends that the understanding adopted by AT, according to which a property composed of floors or divisions susceptible of independent use assigned to residential purposes, whose VPTs, separately determined, are less than €1,000,000, but which in total equal or exceed that amount, are subject to IS pursuant to item 28.1 of TGIS, should be judged illegal for violation of the provision in that item, in articles 23, no. 7, of the IS Code and in articles 6, 7, no. 2, paragraph d), 12, no. 3 and 113, all of the IMI Code, applicable by virtue of article 67, no. 2, of the IS Code.

She concludes by petitioning for the annulment of all the tax assessments challenged with all legal consequences, namely, pursuant to article 43 of the General Tax Law (LGT), the processing of the refund of the amount paid plus indemnification interest.

C – THE RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT

8. The Respondent AT timely submitted her response in which, by way of exception, she invoked the untimeliness of the request, since the payment period had long expired (month of November 2015) and the legal period for challenging, counted from the date of the payment deadline, pursuant to the provisions of article 102 of CPPT and article 10, no. 1, paragraph a) of RJAT, had long since elapsed.

Furthermore, in AT's view, the Claimant attached to the proceedings, not the assessments, but rather the summons for the institution of the tax enforcement proceedings, whereby "the Claimant does not challenge a tax act, but rather challenges the payment of an instalment, in this case the 3rd, relating to the year 2014". She further adds that the object of the proceedings is not the annulment of a tax act, but rather a collection note for payment of the 3rd instalment of 2014 tax, a matter which in no way falls within the scope of the rule delimiting the jurisdiction of tax arbitral tribunals, contained in article 2 of RJAT. She concludes that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction over matters relating to tax enforcement.

Lastly, and as a mere precautionary measure on counsel's part, AT advocated for the legality of the assessment acts, as stated in her response, which is hereby considered fully reproduced.

She concludes by advocating for the legality of the challenged IS assessments and, consequently, for the rejection of the arbitral claim.

II - PROCEDURAL PREREQUISITES

9. The Arbitral Tribunal is properly constituted.

10. The Parties have legal personality and capacity, are entitled to sue and be sued, and are legally represented (cf. articles 4 and 10 no. 2 of RJAT and article 1 of Ordinance no. 112/2011, of 22 March).

11. The proceedings are not vitiated by defects that would invalidate them.

III – Factual Matter

A) Proven Facts

12. As factual matter relevant to the decision, this tribunal considers the following facts as established:

a) The Claimant is the head of the undivided estate opened by the death of B…, with tax identification number…, with domicile at …Street, no. …–…, Lisbon;

b) she is registered with the Finance Office Lisbon… and is a tax subject;

c) at the time of the tax event in question, the property currently registered in the property registry of the parish of …, in Lisbon, under article U-…, composed of ground floor and 4 floors, with independent use, as appears from the Permanent Certificate of the Property Registry, attached to the proceedings as Doc. no. 1 annexed to the arbitral request;

d) with respect to this property, constituted under a regime of full ownership, AT assessed IS, with reference to the year 2014, pursuant to item 28.1 of TGIS, considering the total VPT of the property, calculated by the sum of the individual VPTs corresponding to each of the parts;

e) the calculation based on the sum of the VPTs assigned to each independent part or division with residential affectation, resulted in a total VPT exceeding €1,000,000.00;

f) for purposes of IMI, each independent part or division susceptible of independent use has an individual VPT assigned to it, and generates an individual IMI assessment in conformity with the value assigned to each of the independent parts;

g) the tax assessments (IS) determined as stated above, with reference to the year 2014, total the amount of €3,555.32, and the deadline for payment ended on 30 November 2015;

h) tax enforcement proceedings were instituted with reference to each one of the IS assessments issued and not paid within the payment period, as appears from the summons annexed to the arbitral request;

i) the present arbitral request, for annulment of the tax assessments, was submitted on 01-06-2016.

B) FACTS NOT PROVEN

13. With relevance to the decision, there are no facts that should be considered as not proven.

C) JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROVEN FACTS

14. The facts described above were considered proven on the basis of the documentary evidence that the parties submitted to the present proceedings. As to factual matters, the Tribunal does not have to pronounce on everything that was alleged by the parties; rather, it is its duty to select the facts that matter for the decision and to distinguish the proven matter from the unproven, as provided in article 123, no. 2 of CPPT and article 607, no. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), applicable by virtue of article 29, no. 1, paragraphs a) and e) of RJAT. Thus, the facts pertinent to the judgment of the case are chosen and defined in terms of their legal relevance, which is established in light of the various plausible solutions of the question(s) of law (cf. article 596, applicable by virtue of article 29, no. 1, paragraph e) of RJAT). Having regard to the positions assumed by the parties, the documentary evidence and the PA attached to the proceedings, it was considered proven, with relevance to the decision, the facts listed above, which are moreover consensually recognized and accepted by the parties.

IV – ON THE LAW: justification of the merits decision

15. Having fixed the factual matter as stated above, it is necessary to know the questions of law raised by the parties, beginning necessarily with the exceptions raised by the Respondent, which are prior to the knowledge of the principal question raised in the proceedings, that is, the illegality of the challenged tax.

A) On the Exceptions invoked by the Respondent: the lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal and the untimeliness of the arbitral request

16. It follows from the provision of article 576 of CPC, applicable by virtue of article 29, e) of RJAT, that the tribunal must first know the dilatory exception (lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal) and only afterwards the peremptory one (untimeliness of the request). The first, if confirmed, prevents the tribunal from knowing the merits of the case and leads to the dismissal of the instance. The second, if confirmed, requires the tribunal to dismiss the claim formulated, because the modifying or extinctive fact of the right sought by the challenger, in this case the Claimant, is verified.

17. There is, therefore, an order of precedence in the knowledge of these exceptions invoked, and in the case of the proceedings, they are, to some extent, related by force of the arguments set forth in the procedural documents produced.

Thus, as to the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, AT bases its argument on the idea that the Claimant comes in the present proceedings to challenge the summons for the institution of tax enforcement proceedings and not, properly speaking, the IS assessments whose annulment she requests in the final petition. In fact, the Claimant does not attach to the arbitral request the tax assessments that she intends to annul, but from the entire contents of her pleading it is evident that her objective is to challenge the tax assessments for which tax enforcement was instituted, as is proven by the attachment of the documents she annexes (17 summons for the institution of tax enforcement).

Given this, independently of the fact that the Claimant did not attach to the proceedings the tax assessments that she intends to annul, but rather the summons for the tax enforcement actions instituted, there is no doubt that all the arguments set forth throughout the initial petition, the cause of action and the claim formulated, leave no doubt as to the Claimant's intention to challenge the IS assessments relating to the year 2014 and to the property described in the proceedings, which she considers illegal and wishes to have annulled.

Well then, there is no doubt as to the jurisdiction of this arbitral tribunal to know the scope of the present proceedings. According to article 2, no. 1, paragraph a) of RJAT, the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals comprises the appreciation of the claim for declaration of illegality of assessment acts. This is precisely what is at issue in the case at hand, whereby the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to know the scope of the present proceedings.

18. Having declared the jurisdiction of this arbitral tribunal, we proceed to the knowledge of the peremptory exception invoked, that is, the untimeliness of the arbitral request.

As far as can be extracted from the documentation attached to the proceedings (PA and documents annexed to the arbitral request), the first instalment of the tax in question was assessed and issued on 20-03-2015. But what matters for the determination of the period for challenging is the deadline for payment of the third and final instalment, which ended on 30-11-2015, as appears from the proceedings (note that the Claimant herself states this unequivocally on page 2 of her request for tribunal constitution).

Pursuant to article 10, no. 1, paragraph a) of RJAT, the period for submission of the request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal is 90 days from the end of the period for voluntary payment of the tax. Article 102, no. 1, paragraph a) of the Code of Procedure and Tax Process (CPPT) provides to the same effect that the period is three months from the deadline for payment. Well then, the present arbitral request for challenging the IS assessments of the year 2014 should have been submitted by 29 February 2016. The same conclusion follows from considering the rule of three months established in article 102 of CPPT. Thus, there is no doubt that the submission of the present arbitral request occurred much later than the deadline for payment. In other words, at the time of submission of the arbitral request, the legal period for challenging the assessments had already expired.

Moreover, the Claimant states this unequivocally in her request (II – page 2):

"Pursuant to article 102 of CPPT, the period for challenging through the courts is three months counted from the end of the date of voluntary payment of taxes, unless otherwise provided by law.

There is no legal norm that stipulates a different period for challenging from that mentioned above."

19. Well, in light of the legal provisions already referred to and transcribed above, the Claimant is not correct. The request submitted on 01.06.2016 is manifestly untimely.

It should be noted that there was no administrative appeal or hierarchical review of the assessment acts under consideration, whereby the application of the periods contained in no. 2 of article 102 of CPPT is excluded.

20. However, the Claimant invokes in her arbitral request a claim of nullity of the assessments. Knowing that nullity is invocable at any time, the Claimant certainly intends with this allegation to sustain the timeliness of the arbitral request. However, she is not correct, for the reasons set out below.

21. In accordance with no. 1 of article 124 of CPPT, subsidiarily applicable to tax arbitral proceedings by virtue of the provision in article 29, no. 1, paragraph a) of RJAT, the tribunal shall appreciate as a priority the defects that lead to the declaration of non-existence or nullity of the challenged act and, thereafter, the defects argued that lead to its annulment, according to the order established by its no. 2, paragraphs a) and b). Although the untimeliness of the request is a peremptory exception, the truth is that it is necessary to determine whether or not we are dealing with a null act in order to conclude, with full knowledge, whether the request presented is or is not untimely.

22. The Claimant invokes the nullity of the challenged Stamp Tax assessments, on the ground of violation of the provision in no. 3 of article 103 of the CRP, from which it follows that: "No one is obliged to pay taxes that have not been created in accordance with the Constitution, that have a retroactive nature or whose assessment and collection are not made in accordance with the law". She further states that there is an absence of one of the legal prerequisites of the tax event, without specifying which one or alleging why, in the concrete case, the assessment and collection was not carried out in accordance with the law. In fact, she alleges these two points only and solely to conclude with the declaration of nullity.

23. Well, such allegation cannot proceed, firstly because it follows from the law and the prevailing understanding of our courts that defects in the tax act are grounds for its voidability. Our superior courts have pronounced themselves to this effect. As well stated, among others, in the Court of Appeal Decision of 20-10-2005, which specifically addresses the question regarding the expiration of the right to challenge and the nullity/voidability of the tax act:

"1. The general rule in the regime of invalidity of the tax act is voidability, in accordance with article 135 of the General Code of Administrative Procedure, only being null the acts to which any of the essential elements is lacking or for which the law expressly provides for this form of invalidity, as is the case with the acts provided for as examples in article 133 of that Code.

2. If the typical factuality provided by law as the source of the tax obligation has not occurred, namely by non-existence or absolute nullity of the legal transaction presupposed by the Tax Authority in the taxation, the legality of the consequent assessment act is tainted by non-existence of tax event, which prevents the assessment activity in light of the principle of tax legality to which the Tax Authority is subject by virtue of article 8 of LGT, being voidable the acts that it has performed in violation of said principle.

3. The defects substantiated in errors committed in the tax procedure for the evaluation of the land negotiated and in the tax procedure of assessment, namely the expiration of the assessment act, constitute matter integrating defects of violation of law and error in the prerequisites, only susceptible of leading to the annulment of the act if argued in accordance with the terms and periods provided by law, because once that period is exceeded the act becomes consolidated in the legal order as a settled case or decided case, with the right to argue its illegality being precluded by the passage of time.

4. Being voidable, and not null, these tax acts cannot be challenged at any time, but only within the period provided in no. 1 of article 102 of CPPT." (underlined passages)[1]

24. Thus, it follows that the sanction expressly provided by law for an illegal assessment is the sanction of voidability, as may be inferred from the fact that it provides a period for its challenge, as established by article 102 of CPPT and, in the tax arbitral process, by article 10, no. 1, paragraphs a) and b) of RJAT.

25. Well, returning to the concrete case of the present proceedings, the truth is that the Claimant, through all the arguments that she develops in her arbitral request, understands that the challenged assessments are vitiated by error in the prerequisites for determination of the taxable matter, by having adopted the criterion of the sum of the VPTs of each of the independent parts constituting the property. And on this point there is extensive arbitral and superior court jurisprudence supporting such understanding. However, this tribunal cannot know the merits of the question, because the Claimant's right to challenge has expired by not having been exercised within the legally prescribed period.

The Respondent is therefore correct when she invokes the untimeliness of the request, whereby this tribunal has no choice but to find the exception invoked well-founded, in accordance with article 576 of CPC, applicable by virtue of article 29 of RJAT, with the consequent dismissal of the claim.

26. Finally, with the acceptance of the exception invoked, the knowledge of the remaining questions raised by the Claimant is foreclosed.

V - DECISION

On these grounds, this Arbitral Tribunal decides:

a) To find well-founded the invoked exception of untimeliness of the arbitral request, and, consequently, to dismiss the Respondent from the claim.

b) To condemn the Claimant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

VALUE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

The value of the proceedings is set at €3,555.32, pursuant to article 97-A, no. 1, a), of CPPT, applicable by virtue of paragraphs a) and b) of no. 1 of article 29 of RJAT and of no. 2 of article 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.

COSTS

The arbitration fee is set at €612.00, pursuant to Table I of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, payable by the losing party, pursuant to articles 12, no. 2, and 22, no. 4, both of RJAT, and article 4, no. 4, of the cited Regulation.

Notify.

Lisbon, 20 December 2016

The Arbitral Tribunal,

___________________________

(Maria do Rosário Anjos)

[1] Cf. Court of Appeal Decision, of 10-10-2005, case 75/02, in www.dgsi.pt

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

What happens when an arbitration request challenging Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) assessments under Verba 28.1 TGIS is filed out of time?
When an arbitration request challenging Stamp Tax assessments under Verba 28.1 TGIS is filed out of time (intempestivamente), the Tax Authority can invoke the exception of untimeliness (exceção de intempestividade) as a preliminary defense. If the tribunal finds the request untimely, it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case and must dismiss the claim without examining the substantive merits of the tax dispute. The procedural defect prevents any analysis of whether the tax assessments were legally correct, making timely filing essential for taxpayers seeking to challenge high-value property Stamp Tax.
What is the legal deadline for filing an arbitration request at CAAD against Stamp Tax liquidations on high-value properties?
The legal deadline for filing an arbitration request at CAAD against Stamp Tax liquidations on high-value properties under Verba 28.1 TGIS is 90 days from notification of the tax assessment. This deadline derives from the general rules governing tax arbitration under the RJAT (Regime Jurídico da Arbitragem Tributária) and CPPT (Código de Procedimento e Processo Tributário). The 90-day period is calculated from the date the taxpayer is notified of the liquidation, not from the tax year to which it relates. Failure to file within this strict timeframe results in the loss of the right to challenge the assessment through arbitration.
Can the tax authority (AT) invoke the exception of untimeliness to dismiss a CAAD arbitration claim on Verba 28.1 TGIS?
Yes, the Tax Authority (AT) can invoke the exception of untimeliness (exceção de intempestividade) to dismiss a CAAD arbitration claim on Verba 28.1 TGIS assessments. This is a legitimate procedural defense that challenges the tribunal's jurisdiction rather than the substantive merits of the case. In Process 305/2016-T, the AT raised this exception in its response, arguing that the arbitration request was filed outside the legal deadline. If successful, this exception results in dismissal of the case without consideration of whether the Stamp Tax assessments were correctly calculated or legally justified. The untimeliness defense protects the principle of legal certainty and the finality of administrative acts.
How does Verba 28.1 of the Tabela Geral do Imposto do Selo apply to urban properties owned by undivided estates (heranças indivisas)?
Verba 28.1 of the Tabela Geral do Imposto do Selo (TGIS) applies to urban properties owned by undivided estates (heranças indivisas) by treating the estate itself as the property owner for tax purposes. The Stamp Tax is assessed annually on ownership of urban properties with a patrimonial tax value (VPT) exceeding €1,000,000. For properties comprising multiple independent units or divisions, the total VPT is calculated by summing the individual VPTs of each component part. The head of the undivided estate has standing to challenge assessments on behalf of the estate. The tax obligation attaches to the property ownership regardless of whether the estate has been divided among heirs.
What are the procedural consequences of an untimely (intempestivo) request in CAAD tax arbitration proceedings under RJAT?
The procedural consequences of an untimely (intempestivo) request in CAAD tax arbitration proceedings under RJAT are severe and definitive. An untimely filing results in the arbitral tribunal lacking jurisdiction (incompetência) to hear the case. The tribunal must dismiss the arbitration claim without examining the substantive merits of the tax dispute, regardless of how strong the taxpayer's legal arguments might be. The untimeliness exception acts as an absolute bar to proceeding with the arbitration. Once the legal deadline expires, the tax assessment becomes final and enforceable, and the taxpayer loses the opportunity to challenge it through arbitration. This underscores the critical importance of strict compliance with filing deadlines in Portuguese tax procedure.