IUC Tax on Foreign-Registered Recreational Vessels: CAAD Ruling on Objective Incidence

ARBITRATION DECISION

I. Report

1. A…, taxpayer no. …, resident at Rua da …, n.º …, …, …-… …, requested the establishment of an arbitration tribunal in tax matters, submitting a request for arbitration judgment against the tax assessment act for Single Vehicle Circulation Tax (IUC), relating to the tax period 2016 and the recreational vessel, owned by him, registered in accordance with the International Certificate of Registry, under the Dutch flag, under no. U….

2. As the basis for the request, submitted on 24-05-2017, the Claimant invokes the illegality of the contested assessment, alleging, in summary, that the vessel in question is not subject to Single Vehicle Circulation Tax because it is registered in the Netherlands, and therefore the objective element of the incidence of the aforementioned tax is not met, in accordance with the provision of article 2 of the respective Code.

3. In response to the request, the Respondent (AT) expressed itself to the effect of the dismissal of the present request for arbitration judgment, expressing understanding to the effect that the tax act contested should be maintained in the legal order and, accordingly, the tribunal should pronounce itself for the absolution of the respondent entity.

4. The request for establishment of the arbitration tribunal was accepted by the President of CAAD and automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority on 31-05-2017.

5. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph a) of section 2 of article 6 and paragraph b) of section 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20/01, with the wording introduced by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31/12, the Ethics Council appointed as arbitrator of the singular arbitration tribunal the undersigned, who communicated acceptance of the office within the applicable period, and notified the parties of that appointment on 14-07-2017.

6. Duly notified of that appointment, the parties did not express willingness to refuse the appointment of the arbitrator, in accordance with the combined provisions of article 11, section 1, paragraphs a) and b) of the RJAT and articles 6 and 7 of the Code of Ethics.

7. Therefore, in accordance with the provision of paragraph c) of section 1 of article 11 of the RJAT, as worded by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31/12, the singular arbitration tribunal was established on 31-07-2017.

8. The regularly established arbitration tribunal is materially competent, given the provision of article 2, section 1, paragraph a) of the RJAT.

9. The parties have legal personality and capacity and have standing (articles 4 and 10, section 2, of the RJAT, and article 1 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011, of 22/03).

10. Considering that the matter is essentially one of law and given the knowledge that emerges from the procedural documents attached to the case, which is deemed sufficient, the tribunal decided to dispense with the meeting referred to in article 18 of the RJAT.

II. Facts

11. With relevance to the assessment of the issue raised, the following factual elements stand out which, based on the elements in the present case, are considered proven:

11.1. The assessment now contested concerns a vessel registered in the port of … – Netherlands, with the registration "Registration No U…", "Name B…" (International Certificate), in accordance with the respective International Certificate of Registry under the Dutch flag.

11.2. The vessel in question remained moored at pontoon A of the marina of … throughout the entire year 2016, with only brief outings to sea being recorded.

11.3. The mooring location of the said vessel is approximately 10 meters from the maritime means of the Maritime Police of the Local Command of…, which allowed the said authorities to become aware of these facts.

11.4. At 09:36 on 05-01-2017, the said vessel was approached at sea, at the geographic position (Datum WGS 84) 41º 36.07N and 008º…, being crewed by the present Claimant, its owner, who at the time of inspection showed the respective International Certificate of Registry.

11.5. During the inspection, Mr. A… further stated that, since the moment of acquisition of the vessel, it had not left Portugal, as extracted from the documentation produced by the Maritime Police of the Local Command of….

11.6. On 09-02-2017, an administrative violation proceeding no. …2017… was initiated against the Claimant for non-payment of Single Vehicle Circulation Tax (IUC) for the year 2016 and the aforementioned vessel, based on a notice of infraction raised on 05-01-2017 by the Maritime Police.

11.7. As described in the notice of infraction, on 05-01-2017, at 09:36, the recreational vessel called "B…", with registration no. …, registered in the port of … – NETHERLANDS, which was being piloted by its owner, the present Claimant, was intercepted by the Maritime Police at sea, at the geographic position (Datum WGS 84) 41º 36.07'N 008º…, municipality of ….

11.8. In the act of verification of the onboard documents, the respondent was asked for proof of payment of IUC, to which he replied that he did not have such a document since that vessel was exempt, as it was not registered in national territory.

11.9. It was further ascertained by the Maritime Police that the aforementioned vessel was in violation, since it remained in national territory throughout the year 2016, without being taxed for IUC to which it was subject, in accordance with the provision of paragraph f) of section 1 of article 2, combined with section 2 of article 6, of the respective Code.

11.10. Based on the elements collected, contained in the said administrative violation proceeding, an ex officio assessment of the tax owed was made, in the amount of € 294.16, which was notified to the present Claimant through the notice no. SF…/…/2017 of the Finance Service of…, of 09-02-2017, with the payment deadline being the 24th of the same month (cf. doc.1).

11.11. On 20-02-2017, a defense petition was submitted to the Finance Service of …, under article 70 of the General Regime of Tax Violations (RGIT).

11.12. In response to said petition, information was prepared by the Maritime Police services, which includes photographic records relating to the location where the vessel remained moored at the marina of….

11.13. From which it appears that, in addition to the permanence of the vessel moored at pontoon A of the marina of … being verified throughout the year 2016 by the inspection agents, the respondent himself, the present Claimant, declared during the inspection carried out on 05-01-2017 that, since the moment of acquisition of the vessel, it had not left Portugal.

11.14. As stated in the International Certificate issued by the Royal Dutch Association of Navigation, the vessel has been registered in the name of the Claimant since 03-02-2016 (cf. doc.2).

12. There are no facts relevant to the decision on the merits that have not been proven.

III. Law

13. In the request for arbitration judgment, the Claimant submits to the appreciation of this tribunal the legality of the act of assessment of IUC, relating to the period 2016 and the recreational vessel called "B…", registered in the port of … – NETHERLANDS – Registration no. …-, which remained moored at the marina of … throughout the year 2016, with brief outings to sea.

14. According to what the Claimant understands, the assessment in question is tainted with illegality because, as results from the facts given as proven, the vessel to which it refers, of his ownership, is registered in the Netherlands and not in Portugal, and therefore is not covered by the incidence of IUC.

15. Advocating for the declaration of illegality, and consequent annulment, of the questioned assessment, the Claimant bases his request on the following terms:

"13. In accordance with paragraph f) of section 1 of article 2 of the Code of IUC (CIUC), "the single vehicle circulation tax applies to vehicles of the following categories, registered in Portugal: (...)

"f) Category F: Recreational vessels for private use with engine power equal to or greater than 20 kW, registered since 1986;"

Thus,

14. As a general rule, only vehicles registered here are subject to IUC in Portugal or, in the case of vessels, as we will see, those registered here.

However,

15. Law no. 82-D/2014, of 31 December (diploma which approved the State Budget for 2015), introduced a new rule in section 2 of article 2 of the CIUC, establishing an exception to that rule: "2 - the single vehicle circulation tax also applies to the vehicles referred to in the previous section that, not being subject to registration in Portugal, remain here for a period exceeding 183 days, consecutive or interpolated, in each calendar year, with the exception of cargo vehicles with a gross weight equal to or greater than 12 tons."

16. Extracting from the elements provided by the Tax Services that the contested assessment is based on the rule of section 2 of article 2 of the CIUC, combined with that of paragraph f) of section 1 of the same article, the Claimant concludes that such interpretation is manifestly illegal.

17. According to what the Claimant maintains, a correct interpretation of the rule of section 2 of article 2 of the CIUC, added by Law no. 82-D/2014, of 31/12, leads to the conclusion that recreational vessels that are not subject to registration in Portugal but rather to registration are excluded from its scope of application.

18. Basing the interpretation it makes of the rule in question, the Claimant states:

"24. Vehicles that are not subject to registration in Portugal, but that remain here for a period exceeding 183 days, consecutive or interpolated, are also subject to tax.

25. However, it is important to clarify which "vehicles referred to in the previous section" are covered by this rule of incidence.

Now,

26. Section 1 of article 2 of the CIUC provides that, 1 - The single vehicle circulation tax applies to vehicles of the following categories, registered in Portugal:

a) Category A: Light passenger automobiles and light utility automobiles with a gross weight not exceeding 2500 kg registered from 1981 to the date of entry into force of the present code;

b) Category B: Passenger automobiles referred to in paragraphs a) and d) of section 1 of article 2 of the Vehicle Tax Code and light utility automobiles with a gross weight not exceeding 2500 kg, registered after the date of entry into force of the present code;

c) Category C: Cargo automobiles and utility automobiles with a gross weight exceeding 2500 kg, allocated to private cargo transportation, to transportation on own account, or to rental without driver that has these purposes;

d) Category D: Cargo automobiles and utility automobiles with a gross weight exceeding 2500 kg, allocated to public cargo transportation, to transportation on behalf of others, or to rental without driver that has these purposes;

e) Category E: Motorcycles, mopeds, three-wheelers and four-wheelers, as these vehicles are defined by the Road Code, registered since 1992;

f) Category F: Recreational vessels for private use with engine power equal to or greater than 20 kW, registered since 1986;

Category G: Aircraft for private use,

27. The law thus enumerates which vehicles are covered by the scope of objective incidence.

28. Specifying that these are vehicles "registered in Portugal".

Immediately,

29. It is thus important to distinguish which vehicles are subject to registration and which vehicles are subject to registration.

30. In accordance with article 117 of the Road Code, "motor vehicles and their trailers are only admitted in circulation if registered, except as provided in sections 2 and 3,"

On the other hand,

31. In accordance with article 19 of the Regulation of Recreational Navigation "1 - Without prejudice to the provisions of article 22, recreational vessels (RV) are mandatorily subject to registration and may only be used after being duly registered."

From which one may conclude that,

32. Land vehicles are subject to registration and recreational vessels are subject to registration.

Now,

33. This distinction is fundamental for understanding the scope of application of section 2 of article 2 of the CIUC, which extends the objective incidence of the Tax "to the vehicles referred to in the previous section that, not being subject to registration in Portugal, remain here for a period exceeding 183 days (…)."

34. Section 2 of article 2 of the CIUC thus refers to the list of vehicles described in section 1 of article 2,

However,

35. It restricts that reference only to vehicles subject to registration in Portugal.

Now,

36. As we have seen, recreational vessels are not subject to registration in Portugal, but rather to registration.

For which reason,

37. One must necessarily conclude that recreational vessels, not subject to registration in Portugal and that remain here for a period exceeding 183 days, consecutive or interpolated, are not covered by the rule of incidence of the single vehicle circulation tax."

19. In support of the thesis adopted, the Claimant further adds that:

"38. If we analyze the entire Code of IUC, we verify that, in accordance with the regulation of recreational vessels, this Code always refers to the registration of vessels and not to the registration of vessels.

39. By way of example, see the provisions of the following articles:

• Article 2, section 1, paragraph f) — "Category F: Recreational vessels for private use with engine power equal to or greater than 20 kW, registered since 1986.

• Article 4, section 3 —"The tax is owed until the cancellation of the registration or registration by virtue of scrapping carried out under the law

• Article 5, section 4 —"The exemption referred to in paragraph c) of section 1 must be verified in any finance service, for each year to which it applies, by means of a request submitted within the period for payment of the tax accompanied by the title of ownership and document of identification or certificate of registration or registration of the vehicle"

• Article 6, section 1 — "The tax event is constituted by the ownership of the vehicle, as attested by the registration or registration in national territory."

20. From the foregoing, the Claimant extracts that, "The use of the expression vehicles 'not (…) subject to registration in Portugal' in section 2 of article 2 of the CIUC can only mean that the legislator wished to exclude vessels from the incidence of the tax provided for in this provision."

21. Continuing along the line of interpretation it exposes in more detail, supported by rules of the Civil Code and the General Tax Law relating to the interpretation of tax law, namely the prohibition on resorting to analogy in the case of provisions covered by the constitutional principle of tax legality, the Claimant concludes that:

"59. It is demonstrated that vessels not registered in Portugal that remain here for more than 183 days are outside the scope of incidence of IUC,

60. The interpreter cannot come to apply analogically to the present case the rule provided for vehicles not registered in Portugal (cf. paragraphs a) to e) of section 1 of article 2 of the CIUC), as the analogical integration is expressly prohibited in accordance with section 4 of article 11 of the LGT.

From which it results that,

61. Since the Claimant's vessel is not registered in Portugal, as demonstrated above, it cannot be subject to taxation in the IUC, as there is no rule of incidence that authorizes the Tax Services.

In this sense,

62. The ex officio assessment of Circulation Tax (IUC), identified by the services by document no. 2016 … of the period 2016, in the amount of €294.16 (two hundred and ninety-four euros and sixteen cents), relating to the vessel registered under number 2016…, is manifestly illegal as it violates the provision of article 2 of the Code of IUC."

22. In response to what was alleged by the Claimant, the Respondent (AT) considers that the request should be judged dismissed, with the tax act now contested remaining in the legal order, as it represents a correct application of the law to the facts ascertained.

23. Basing such understanding, the Respondent maintains that:

"25. From the wording of the rule contained in section 1 (of article 2 of the CIUC) it is absolutely explicit which vessels are within the scope of the objective incidence of the tax, considering as such: (i) recreational vessels, (ii) for private use, (iii) with engine power equal to or greater than 20 kW, (iv) registered since 1986.

26. Along with this objective determination by virtue of the characteristics of the vehicles, namely of the vessels, in accordance with section 2 of the same article and in the wording given to it by Law no. 82-B/2014, of 31/12 (aforementioned), the single vehicle circulation tax also applies to the vehicles referred to in the previous section that, not being subject to registration in Portugal, remain here for a period exceeding 183 days, consecutive or interpolated, in each calendar year, with the exception of cargo vehicles with a gross weight equal to or greater than 12 tons.

27. In accordance with this delimitation of the objective incidence of the tax, the tax event for IUC is:

- ownership as attested by registration or registration in national territory (including also cases of leasing, purchase with reservation of ownership, as well as other holders of the right to purchase option by virtue of the lease contract, duly registered).

or

- permanence in Portuguese territory for a period exceeding 183 days, consecutive or interpolated, in each calendar year (cf. article 6, sections 1 and 2 of the CIUC).

28. As is set out in article 6, sections 1 and 2 of the CIUC:

"1 - The tax event is constituted by the ownership of the vehicle, as attested by the registration or registration in national territory.

2 - The permanence in national territory for a period exceeding 183 days, consecutive or interpolated, in each calendar year, of vehicles not subject to registration in Portugal and that are not cargo vehicles with a gross weight equal to or greater than 12 tons, is also considered a tax event." (Wording of Law no. 82-B/2014, of 31/12).

29. Nothing in the wording of the law allows us to conclude that it was the intention of the legislator, in making reference in section 2 of article 2 only to vehicles not subject to registration (and not to registration) in Portugal, to determine the non-subjection of the said vessels to IUC in Portugal.

30. In fact, from the combination of the rule contained in section 1 with the rule contained in section 2, one can only conclude, through a literal interpretation, that the single vehicle circulation tax applies to the vehicles referred to in the previous section" (i.e., section 1 of article 2), that is, to all vehicles, registered in Portugal of Category A, Category B, (…) Category F: Recreational vessels for private use with engine power equal to or greater than 20 kW, registered since 1986; (…) that, not being subject to registration in Portugal, remain here for a period exceeding 183 days, consecutive or interpolated, in each calendar year, with the exception of cargo vehicles with a gross weight equal to or greater than 12 tons.

31. That is, section 2 of article 2 expressly refers to the fact that the single vehicle circulation tax also applies to the vehicles referred to in the previous section, with the exception of cargo vehicles with a gross weight equal to or greater than 12 tons.

32. Now, if the legislator uses as terminology "the vehicles referred to in the previous section, that are not cargo vehicles with a gross weight equal to or greater than 12 tons", it means that all vehicles referred to in section 1 are subject to IUC, with the exception of those expressly excluded from such incidence (cargo vehicles with a gross weight equal to or greater than 12 tons).

33. And not, as the Claimant argues, only vehicles not registered in Portugal, as opposed to those not registered in Portugal (as is the case with vessels).

34. Such interpretation is totally biased and erroneous.

35. Although it may be admitted that in section 2 of article 2, the legislator could have maintained the terminology used in section 1 of the same provision in which it makes reference to "vehicles registered in Portugal", instead of using the terminology "vehicles not subject to registration in Portugal", this does not by any means allow one to extrapolate to the conclusion drawn by the Claimant that the non-use of the word "registered" implies a deliberate intention of the legislator not to subject to IUC recreational vessels for private use subject to registration in Portugal, that remain here for a period exceeding 183 days, consecutive or interpolated, in each calendar year.

36. First, because if that were the case, the legislator would not have made reference in section 2 of article 2 to all vehicles referred to in section 1, but only to the specific paragraphs that it intended to subject to IUC by virtue of permanence in Portugal,

37. Second, because if it were the deliberate intention of the legislator to exclude from the incidence of IUC, recreational vessels for private use with engine power equal to or greater than 20 kW, registered since 1986, it would have done so, excepting them expressly, as it did for cargo vehicles with a gross weight equal to or greater than 12 tons. Therefore, also by the systematic element of interpretation, the interpretation advocated by the Claimant is to be rejected as contrary to the unity of the Code of IUC itself.

38. And third, because, in addition to such interpretation having no basis in the wording of the law, it is also completely contrary to the "legislative intent", as we will better demonstrate below.

...

41. Even admitting that there are doubts about the tax regime applicable to the case given the wording of the law (more specifically the rules contained in sections 1 and 2 of article 2 of the CIUC), to which we do not concede, and only for caution do we admit,

42. Then, in that case, should the interpreter not confine itself to the wording of tax law, but reconstruct, from the texts, the legislative intent, taking into account the unity of the legal system in its entirety, the circumstances in which the law was elaborated and the specific conditions of the time in which it is applied (VASQUES, SÉRGIO, Manual de Direito Fiscal, Almedina, Coimbra p. 307).

43. That is, although it seems to us absolutely unequivocal that, both the wording of the law and the unity of the legal system are clear to the effect that this is the tax regime applicable to the situation in question,

44. If doubts remain, to which we do not concede, then the teleological element of interpretation of the Law will definitively dissipate them, because, in this case, it is absolute and doubly decisive.

Let us see how,

45. First, the rule contained in section 2 of article 2 of the CIUC, similar to what occurs in the Vehicle Tax regime (cf. article 30, section 1 of CISV), was aimed at (and aims to) essentially prevent tax evasion from the single vehicle circulation tax by "use" in national territory of vehicles registered in foreign countries.

46. In this sense, see Afonso, A. Brigas and Fernandes, Manuel T., in "Vehicle Tax and Single Vehicle Circulation Tax – Annotated Codes", 2009, Coimbra Editora, pages 121 to 124: "The main concern, at the fiscal level, is to prevent the daily use in Portugal of a vehicle registered in a Member State where there is no taxation, or there is reduced taxation, at the phase of vehicle registration (…)"

47. Being this the ratio underlying the rule in question, it is absolutely unequivocal that the legislator of the CIUC did not intend to exclude from subjection to IUC vessels not registered in Portugal that remain here for more than 183 days, because such interpretation would be totally contrary to the intention to prevent tax evasion from the single vehicle circulation tax by "use" in national territory of vehicles registered in foreign countries. And to the intention to prevent the daily use in Portugal of a vehicle registered in a Member State where there is no taxation, or there is reduced taxation, at the phase of vehicle registration.

...

49. Second, and doubly enlightening, from the point of view of the teleological element of interpretation of the rule contained in section 2 of article 2, to the extent relevant to the case under review: In the situation provided for in section 2 of article 2 of the CIUC, the tax event is not the ownership of the vehicle as attested by registration or registration, but rather the permanence of the vehicle in Portuguese territory for a period exceeding 183 days.

24. Still appealing to the principle of equivalence which, in accordance with article 1 of the Code of IUC, informs this tax, the Respondent maintains that:

"53. ... being the intention transversal to the entire CIUC, that of burdening taxpayers in the measure of the costs that they cause to road infrastructure and the environment, it would be totally contrary to the objective advocated by the legislator to understand that vessels not registered in Portugal that remain here for more than 183 days are not subject to IUC,

54. Because this would correspond to directly contradicting the legislative intention to burden taxpayers for the costs, in this case, especially environmental, resulting from permanence for more than 183 days in national territory (in many cases, the entire year, or we would even say, always, since the moment of acquisition of the vessel, as happens, in fact, in the case of these proceedings).

55. Thus, in the case in question, the teleological element can only prove to be absolute and doubly decisive, and the tax law must be interpreted in respect of the teleological element, in order to realize and impose the objective advocated by the legislator of prevention of situations of tax evasion, and, on the other hand, in obedience to the principle of equivalence, promoting the taxation of taxpayers, according to the costs caused by them.

56. Any other interpretation than this will always be, irremediably, tainted with unconstitutionality, due to non-conformity with the principles of equivalence, tax equality and contributive capacity, promoting pernicious situations, such as that of the Claimant in these proceedings, whose vessel is not registered in Portugal, but under the Dutch flag, and yet it is verified that since the date of its acquisition, it has always remained in Portugal.

57. To accept the understanding adopted by the Claimant would be equivalent to endorsing a thesis, according to which, a taxpayer whose vessel has remained (and remains) always in Portugal, is not subject to IUC, by the mere fact that his vessel is registered in a foreign country."

25. With the positions of the parties exposed, essentially contained in the excerpts transcribed above, it is extracted that the central issue to be assessed in the present proceedings consists solely in the interpretation of the rule of section 2 of article 2 of the Code of Single Vehicle Circulation Tax (CIUC), relating to the tax connection of this tax assessed in the light of the permanence of the taxable vehicles in national territory.

26. As can be seen from reading the rule of section 1 of article 2 of the said Code, the incidence of this tax, in the territorial sphere, is defined, from the outset, as a function of the registration or registration of the taxable vehicles: "1 - The single vehicle circulation tax applies to vehicles of the following categories, registered in Portugal:." (initial wording of Law no. 22-A/2007, of 29/06).

27. In the initial formulation of the Code of IUC, it was, therefore, only the registration or registration in Portugal of the taxable vehicles that was relevant as an element of tax connection, leaving outside the scope of incidence vehicles that, despite remaining in national territory, were not subject in the same, as appropriate, to one of these formalities.

28. Such a lacuna was to be filled through Law no. 82-B/2014, of 31/12, through the addition to that article of a section 2, taking as a reference, for purposes of incidence in the territorial sphere, the permanence of vehicles in national territory.

29. In accordance with the said rule, "The single vehicle circulation tax also applies to vehicles referred to in the previous section that, not being subject to registration in Portugal, remain here for a period exceeding 183 days, consecutive or interpolated, in each calendar year, with the exception of cargo vehicles with a gross weight equal to or greater than 12 tons."

30. From the reading of the transcribed rule made by the Claimant, it results that the same, when referring to vehicles "not subject to registration in Portugal" refers exclusively to land vehicles and aircraft, because only these vehicles are capable of being registered, leaving out vessels, not subject to such formalism but, under the legal terms, to registration.

31. From such reading it follows, thus, that in omitting reference to "registration" it would have been the intention of the legislator to exclude from the scope of incidence of IUC vessels which, although remaining in national territory for a period exceeding 183 days in each calendar year, were not registered in Portugal.

32. In support of such understanding, the Claimant resorts to other rules of the Code of IUC to signify that the legislator whenever it intended to include vessels in its scope used the term "registered" alongside "registered". In that sense, it refers, expressly, to articles 2, section 1, paragraph f), 4, section 3, 5, section 4 and 6, section 1, of the cited Code, whose text includes, in all cases reference to vehicles "registered or registered".

33. Being this the basis on which the interpretation made by the Claimant of the rule of section 2 of article 2 of the CIUC is supported, it seems to us manifestly insufficient to conclude therefrom that it was the express intention of the legislator to subtract from the incidence of IUC recreational vessels, defined on the basis of permanence in national territory.

34. In fact, in the cited Code other provisions can be found which, referring to taxable vehicles in general, use only the term "registered". This will be, for example, the case of paragraph a) of section 3 of its article 16, relating to the assessment of the tax in question.

35. As the Respondent correctly points out, if it were the intention of the legislator to exclude from the scope of incidence vessels registered abroad – which is not apparent – it would have done so expressly, as it did, moreover, with regard to cargo vehicles with a gross weight equal to or greater than 12 tons, in accordance with the provision of article 3 of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Directive "Eurovignette"), which reserves the competence for the taxation of those vehicles exclusively for the State of registration.

36. Thus, following the position of the Respondent, as well as the basis on which it rests, it only remains for the tribunal to pronounce itself on the legality of the tax act contested, and, consequently, to judge the request for arbitration judgment formulated to be dismissed.

IV. Decision

In these terms, and with the bases exposed, the Arbitration Tribunal decides to judge totally unfounded the request for arbitration judgment formulated and, consequently, to condemn the Claimant in the costs of the proceedings fixed below,

Value of the proceedings: € 294.16

Costs: Under the provision of article 22, section 4, of the RJAT, and in accordance with Table I annexed to the Costs Regulation in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, I fix the amount of costs at € 306.00, to be borne by the Claimant.

Lisbon, 27 October 2017,

The Arbitrator, Álvaro Caneira.