Stamp Tax on Vertical Property (Verba 28.1 TGIS) – Review Denial Overturned | CAAD 346/2017-T

Arbitral Decision

O árbitro, Dr. Henrique Nogueira Nunes, designado pelo Conselho Deontológico do Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa ("CAAD") para formar o Tribunal Arbitral, constituído em 24 de Agosto de 2017, acorda no seguinte:

The arbitrator, Dr. Henrique Nogueira Nunes, appointed by the Deontological Council of the Centre for Administrative Arbitration ("CAAD") to form the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted on 24 August 2017, hereby decides as follows:

1. REPORT

1.1. A…, S.A., with tax identification number …, hereinafter referred to as the "Claimant," requested the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal under Articles 2, No. 1, paragraph a) and 10 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011 of 20 January (hereinafter "RJAT").

1.2. The request for arbitral ruling concerns the dismissal order of the official review request issued on 11/05/2017 by Order of the Director of Finance of Faro of the Tax and Customs Authority, and, consequently, the annulment of the tax acts of assessment of Stamp Duty issued on the basis of item 28.1 of the General Table of the Stamp Duty Code, in the total amount of € 25,391.40 (twenty-five thousand, three hundred and ninety-one euros and forty cents), for the years 2014 and 2015, whose collection notices were attached by the Claimant with the arbitral petition, identified in documents 2 to 127 attached, and which are hereby considered articulated and reproduced for all legal purposes, which relate to the urban property identified under the matricial article …, belonging to the Union of Parishes of … and …, municipality of Silves and district of Faro, under the regime of full ownership, comprised of 23 floors or divisions capable of independent use, not constituted under the regime of horizontal property, all allocated to housing.

1.3. In support of its request, the Claimant argues, in summary, that the Tax Authority did not merely dismiss the official review request on the grounds of its untimeliness, but ruled on the legality of the tax acts in question in these proceedings, and that the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the arbitral request. It further considers that the order dismissing the official review request and the assessment acts suffer from error in the facts and law, and that the Stamp Duty assessment acts subject to this arbitral request suffer from the defect of violation of law by violation of the rule of incidence of item 28.1 of the GIST. It argues that it makes no sense to distinguish in law what the law itself does not distinguish, wherefore, it maintains, setting as the reference value for incidence the total TPV of the property has no legal support whatsoever. It argues, in sum, for the annulment of the act dismissing the request for official review presented, proceeding, consequently, to the annulment of the tax assessment acts in question in these proceedings, with reimbursement of the amounts paid, plus indemnity interest. It also seeks, alternatively, that item 28 of the General Table of the Stamp Duty Code be inapplicable in this case, on grounds of unconstitutionality, for violation of the constitutional principle of equality.

1.4. The Tax Authority, in turn, defends itself by exception, arguing the untimeliness of the request for arbitral ruling, insofar as it argues that the official review request should have been presented within 120 days from the date of payment of the stamp duty instalments in question in these proceedings, which was not done, wherefore the said request was considered untimely and dismissed summarily, and that the Claimant cannot justify the timeliness of the request for arbitral ruling on the basis of the dismissal of an untimely review request, this constituting a peremptory exception, which implies the absolution of the Tax Authority as to the request, since it prevents the legal effect of the facts articulated by the Claimant.

Without conceding, and by Way of Counter-Argument, it argues that the request for a declaration of illegality, and consequent annulment of the controversial assessment acts, should be judged unfounded, given that it contends that with regard to IMI assessment, in the case of properties in full ownership, the value serving as the basis for calculating the tax is, indisputably, that recorded in the property record as the total patrimonial value, and that, although the assessment of Stamp Duty under the conditions provided in item 28.1 of the GIST is carried out in accordance with the rules of the CIMI, the truth is that the legislator reserves those aspects that require appropriate adjustments.

It argues that this corresponds to the case of properties in full ownership, albeit with floors or divisions capable of independent use, for although IMI is assessed in relation to each part capable of independent use, for purposes of Stamp Duty the entire property is relevant, thus arguing for the legality of the tax acts because they constitute a correct application of law to the facts, concluding with the maintenance of the assessment acts and, consequently, with the dismissal of the Claimant's request. As for the request for indemnity interest, it argues that the same is not due, because at the date of the tax facts in question it merely applied the law to the facts, and one cannot speak of error attributable to the services.

1.5. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate, in accordance with what was petitioned by the Respondent, and which met with no opposition from the Claimant, to dispense with the holding of the first meeting of the Arbitral Tribunal, in accordance with Article 18 of the RJAT. An exception was identified, and the Claimant was notified by the Tribunal to, if it so wished, state its position in compliance with the principle of contradictory procedure, which it failed to do.

Both parties were likewise notified to present Arguments, if they so wished, which they failed to do.

A deadline was set for the issuance of the arbitral decision until 24 February 2018.

1.6. The Tribunal was regularly constituted and is competent ratione materiae, in accordance with Article 2 of the RJAT.

The parties have legal personality and capacity, are shown to be legitimate, and are regularly represented (cf. Articles 4 and 10, No. 2 of the RJAT and Article 1 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011 of 22 March).

No procedural nullities were identified.

2. QUESTION TO BE DECIDED

The thema decidendum is to determine, with reference to a property in full ownership, not constituted under the regime of horizontal property, comprised of various floors with independent use, in this case, with residential allocation, which Patrimonial Taxable Value (PTV) is relevant, assessing the correct criterion of incidence of the tax under law, in order to determine whether this should be assessed by the sum of the patrimonial taxable value attributed to the different floors (global PTV) or, rather, whether it should be attributed to each of the residential floors individually considered.

However, and because the Tax Authority raised a matter of exception in its Response, it is important first to address this, insofar as its success implies the absolution of the arbitral proceeding and the non-knowledge of the request.

3. FACTUAL MATTER

With relevance to the assessment and decision on the merits, the following facts are hereby found to be proven:

A) At the date of the assessments sub judice, the urban property subject of the controversial assessments, urban property identified under the matricial article …, belonging to the Union of Parishes of … and …, municipality of Silves and district of Faro, was under the regime of full ownership, comprised of 23 floors or divisions capable of independent use, not constituted under the regime of horizontal property, to which was attributed a total PTV of € 1,269,570.00, corresponding to the sum of the PTV of each of the divisions with independent use (cf. Stamp duty payment documents contained in documents 2 to 127 attached by the Claimant with the arbitral petition).

B) The above-identified property is comprised of 23 floors or divisions capable of independent use, all allocated to housing.

C) None of the floors capable of independent use, to which was attributed an autonomous PTV by the Respondent, has an individualized PTV that exceeds the value of €1,000,000.00 (cf. Stamp duty payment documents contained in documents 2 to 127 attached by the Claimant with the arbitral petition).

D) The Claimant was notified to pay the stamp duty levied on the basis of item 28.1 of the GIST on the said real estate (cf. Stamp duty payment documents with reference to the years 2014 and 2015 attached by the Claimant with the arbitral petition and better identified under numbers 2 to 127).

E) The total amount of Stamp Duty assessment with reference to the years 2014 and 2015 was € 25,391.40, which amount was paid by the Claimant as indicated in Article 25 of its petition, a fact not contested by the Tax Authority.

F) The Tax Authority, considering the global PTV attributed to the property in question in these proceedings, understood that the objective prerequisites for the assessment of Stamp Duty were verified, resulting from item No. 28 of the GIST.

G) The Claimant filed on 07/04/2017 a request for revision of the tax acts, on the basis of Article 78 of the LGT, invoking defects of violation of law, error in the legal prerequisites, and violation of constitutional principles and requesting the annulment of the assessments in dispute in these proceedings, which proceeded under the number …2017… .

H) The Tax Authority decided to dismiss such revision request, by summary rejection, by Order of the Director of Finance of Faro issued on 11/05/2017, albeit considering the defects that were imputed by the Claimant to the assessment acts in question in these proceedings (cf. Document No. 1 attached by the Claimant).

I) On 26 May 2017, the Claimant filed a request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal with the CAAD – cf. electronic request in the CAAD system.

4. FACTS NOT PROVEN

There are no facts with relevance to the decision on the merits that have not been proven.

5. REASONING FOR THE DECISION ON THE FACTUAL MATTER

As regards the essential facts, the matter resting is shaped identically by both parties, and the conviction of the Tribunal was formed on the basis of the documentary (official) elements attached to the proceedings and discriminated above, whose authenticity and veracity were not questioned by either party.

6. ON THE LAW

6.1. On the Matter of Exception: On the untimeliness of the request for arbitral ruling.

In accordance with Article 608, No. 1 of the CPC, applicable by virtue of Article 29 of the RJAT, "(…) the judgment shall address, in the first place, procedural questions that may determine the absolution of the instance (…)", the judge must "resolve all questions that the parties have submitted to his review, excepting those whose decision is prejudiced by the solution given to others (…)".

Emphasis added.

The request for revision of tax acts is subject to deadlines established in Article 78 of the LGT.

In the event that there is a need to assess an act dismissing an official review request, if it is considered that the request was presented outside the deadline and that, as such, it could never have been granted, then there must be a decision for the legality of the dismissal, for untimeliness of the request, which entails that the same request cannot reopen the contentious avenue of challenge.

This is the question that, in this case, falls to be analyzed.

The request for revision of the tax acts in question was presented by the Claimant on 07 April 2017 and was based on the invocation of a set of defects of law, error in the legal prerequisites, and violation of constitutional principles.

The impugned assessments were issued on 20/03/2015 and 05/04/2016.

Article 78, No. 1 of the LGT provides:

1 - The revision of tax acts by the entity that performed them may be carried out at the initiative of the taxpayer, within the administrative complaint period and on the grounds of any illegality, or, at the initiative of the tax administration, within four years after the assessment or at any time if the tax has not yet been paid, on the grounds of error attributable to the services.

It is established case law that the revision of tax acts by the Tax Administration may be requested by taxpayers within a four-year period.

See this judgment from the Supreme Administrative Court, in Judgment of 04-05-2016, rendered in case No. 407/15:

"It is now consolidated case law that, while the Tax Authority can, on its own initiative, proceed to the official revision of the tax act, within four years after the assessment or at any time if the tax has not yet been paid, on the grounds of error attributable to the services (Art. 78, No. 1, of the General Tax Law), also the taxpayer can, within that period of official revision, request this same revision with that ground.".

Emphasis added.

Arbitral case law has adopted this same doctrine, as evidenced by the arbitral decision rendered in case 27/2016-T of 29-06-2016.

Now, in this case, the assessments for which revision was requested were issued on 20/03/2015 and 05/04/2016, and if the request for revision thereof was presented on 07/04/2017, it must be concluded that the four-year period provided in the second part of No. 1 of Article 78 of the LGT had not been exhausted.

Furthermore, in order to benefit from the four-year period provided in the second part of No. 1 of Article 78 of the LGT, the request should be formulated on the grounds of error attributable to the services, which, in this case, appears to have occurred, given the Information/response of the Tax Authority to the revision request formulated and which contains its assessment (see, in this sense, points 24 to 34, inclusive).

It should be recalled that in cases provided for in the rule of official initiative for revision, taxpayers can provoke the revision to be carried out by the Tax Authority, as revision is understood as a power-duty, since the principles of justice, equality, and legality, which the Tax Authority must observe in the totality of its activity (Articles 266, No. 2, of the CRP, and 55 of the LGT), impose that all errors in assessments that have led to the collection of tax in an amount greater than what would be due under the law are officially corrected.

The concept of "error attributable to the services" to which Article 78, No. 1, second part, of the LGT alludes, although not comprising every "defect" (namely defects of form or procedure) but only "errors," these include error in the factual and legal prerequisites, and this attribution to the services is independent of the proof of culpability of the officials involved in the issuance of the act affected by the error. In other words, the said "error attributable to the services" embodies any illegality not attributable to the taxpayer by negligent conduct, but to the Tax Authority, and moreover such error should have a relevant character, generating an actual prejudice, by virtue of the erroneous determination of the taxpayer's tax situation, hence its essential character.

Now, an error of law as to the prerequisites is precisely the defect that the Claimant ascribes to the impugned assessments, an error that it sought to have remedied through the request for revision of those assessments.

That request having been dismissed on 11 May 2017, the Claimant had a period of 90 days to present a request for arbitral ruling, having done so on 26 May 2017, well before that period had elapsed.

Acts that decide administrative complaints, hierarchical appeals, or requests for revision of a tax act constitute second and third-degree acts insofar as they involve the assessment of legality of first-degree acts, that is, assessment acts, and as such, it is understood that the review of those acts falls within the scope of the competence of arbitral tribunals. Only in cases where the second or third-degree act assessed only and solely a preliminary question whose solution prevented the assessment of the legality of the primary act – such as, for example, untimeliness, lack of standing, or lack of jurisdiction – would they be outside the material scope of competence of arbitral tribunals that function with the CAAD.

It would only not be thus if the Tax Authority had refused to assess the official review request on the basis of any preliminary question that would prevent knowledge of the legality of the tax act, for, in this case, the tax act would have to be challenged by way of the special administrative action and, consequently, would fall outside the sphere of competence of the arbitral tribunal.

Now, a mere reading of the rather extensive content of the Information underlying the Tax Authority's response to the revision request presented, as well as the Order of the Director of Finance in rejecting it "in the proposed terms" leads us to conclude that the legality of the tax assessment acts for whose revision (and consequent annulment) the Claimant argued was analyzed.

Thus, the exception of untimeliness (forfeiture of the right of action) of the arbitral action based on the alleged untimeliness of the revision request whose dismissal is challenged in the present arbitral proceedings does not succeed.

6.2. On the legality of the Stamp Duty assessment acts.

Given the positions of the parties assumed in the pleadings presented, the central question for this arbitral tribunal to resolve consists of assessing the legality of the Stamp Duty assessment acts for the years 2014 and 2015.

The question to be decided concerns determining whether the patrimonial value relevant for purposes of objective incidence of item 28.1 of the GIST, when a property not constituted under horizontal property regime is at issue, is that of each floor or independent division autonomously considered, or whether, instead, it should correspond to the sum of the patrimonial taxable value attributed to each of those independent floors or divisions.

The question to be decided, in the terms and with the grounds here set forth, has been the subject of numerous decisions of the superior courts in the sense supported by the Claimant - by way of example, and for being recent, see the Judgment of the SAC No. 10090/17, of 22 November (Rapporteur: Cons. Dulce Neto) in which, moreover, one can read that "the position supported by the appellant [Tax Authority] directly contradicts the doctrinal thesis consecrated, in a peaceful and reiterated manner, by the Supreme Administrative Court, notably in the judgment on which the appealed sentence was anchored, rendered by this Section on 9/09/2015, in case No. 0899/14. It is further added that, beyond that judgment, numerous other judgments were drawn, e.g., those mentioned in conclusion 15 of the counter-arguments and, subsequently, the judgment uniformizing case law rendered by the Plenary of this Section on 29/03/2017, in case No. 0593/16.".

This is also the position of numerous decisions rendered by arbitral tribunals established within the scope of the CAAD.

The decisions issued by this same Arbitral Tribunal rendered in Cases No. 390/2016-T, 417/2016-T, and 483/2016-T shall be followed closely, which addressed the same fundamental legal question at issue in the present proceedings.

Law No. 55-A/2012 of 29 October amended Article 1 of the Stamp Duty Code and added to the General Table of Stamp Duty, Item 28, creating a new reality subject to tax, embodied in the ownership, usufruct, or surface right of urban properties whose patrimonial taxable value entered in the matrix, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.00.

For this reason, it is important to determine, when a property not constituted under the regime of horizontal property is at issue, whether the concept of "property with residential allocation" should be interpreted as corresponding to each unit autonomously considered and affect the respective patrimonial value or whether, instead, it should correspond to the totality of the autonomous units, and should consequently affect the sum of the patrimonial taxable value attributed to each of those units.

Item 28 of the GIST under review was added by Law No. 55-A/2012 of 29 October with the following wording:

"28 - Ownership, usufruct or surface right of urban properties whose patrimonial taxable value entered in the matrix, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000 — on the patrimonial taxable value used for IMI purposes: 28.1 — For property with residential allocation — 1%; 28.2 — For property, when the taxpayers who 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%.".

It happens, however, that neither the Stamp Duty Code nor Law No. 55-A/2012 of 29 October specify the concept of "urban property with residential allocation".

It follows from Article 67, No. 2 of the Stamp Duty Code that "To matters not regulated in the present Code regarding item No. 28 of the General Table, the provisions of the CIMI shall apply, subsidiarily." - Wording given by Article 3 of Law No. 55-A/2012 of 29 October.

In turn, in the IMI Code the concept of property is defined in No. 1 of its Article 2, from which it results that "For the purposes of this Code, property is any portion of land, comprising waters, plantations, buildings, and constructions of any nature incorporated in or based on it, with a character of permanence, provided that it forms part of the patrimony of a natural or legal person and, in normal circumstances, has economic value (…).".

And it is clarified in No. 4 of this legal provision that "For purposes of this tax, each autonomous fraction, under the regime of horizontal property, is regarded as constituting a property".

From the isolated reading of this legal provision we could be led, in a somewhat biased interpretation, to understand that under IMI, autonomous fractions, under the regime of horizontal property, would have a treatment distinct from the parts of a property capable of independent use.

It happens, however, that a more careful analysis of the regime allows us to conclude precisely the opposite.

As was highlighted by the Ombudsman to the Secretary of State for Tax Affairs, in a letter dated 2 April 2013, "the registration in the matrix of properties in vertical ownership, comprised of parts capable of independent use, follows the same rules as the registration of properties constituted under horizontal property, with the respective IMI, as well as the new Stamp Duty, being assessed individually in relation to each of the parts.".

Indeed, to this same effect, Article 12, No. 3 of the IMI Code provides, determining that "each floor or part of a property capable of independent use is considered separately in the matricial registration which likewise discriminates the respective patrimonial taxable value.".

In accordance with Article 119 of the IMI Code "The services of the Directorate-General of Taxes send to each taxpayer, by the end of the month prior to that of payment, the competent collection document, with discrimination of the properties, their parts capable of independent use, respective patrimonial taxable value, and the collection amount imputed to each municipality of the location of the properties.".

In light of all the foregoing, for purposes of taxation under IMI, each independent unit, even if integrating the same property, is considered separately, being assigned its own patrimonial value and being taxed autonomously.

Following the understanding endorsed in the Arbitral Decision rendered in Case No. 50/2013-T, according to which "if the legal criterion requires the issuance of individualized assessments for the autonomous parts of properties in vertical ownership, in the same manner as it establishes for properties in horizontal property, it has clearly established the criterion, which must be unique and unequivocal, for defining the rule of incidence of the new tax. Thus, there would only be occasion for the incidence of the new stamp duty if one of the parts, floors, or divisions with independent use presented a PTV greater than € 1,000,000.00.".

Having in mind that the registration in the matrix of properties in vertical ownership, for purposes of the IMI Code, follows the same rules of registration of properties constituted under horizontal property, with the respective IMI, as well as Stamp Duty, being assessed individually in relation to each of the parts, it does not seem to this tribunal that there is any doubt that the legal criterion for defining the incidence of the new tax will have to be the same.

In this context, if the law requires, with respect to IMI, the issuance of individualized assessment notices for the autonomous parts of properties in vertical ownership, in the same manner as it establishes for properties in horizontal property, it will require, in the same terms, with respect to the rule of incidence of Item No. 28 of the GIST.

And it is further said that this was indeed the understanding adopted by the Respondent, by issuing, as it did, individualized assessment notices, referring to each of the divisions or floors capable of autonomous use, demonstrating that, in its opinion, the aforementioned divisions, despite not being legally constituted under the regime of horizontal property, would be, for all purposes, independent of each other. However, it overlooked this latter fact that it could not, by virtue of the framework previously set forth, proceed to the sum of the individual PTVs of the aforementioned floors, seeking to reach a value that would already fall within the scope of the base of incidence of item No. 28 of the GIST.

In summary, the criterion established by the Tax Authority, of considering the value of the sum of individual PTV attributed to the parts, floors, or divisions with independent use, availing itself of the fact that the property in question in these proceedings is not constituted under the regime of horizontal property, finds, in the understanding of the tribunal, no legal support, being, in particular, contrary to the criterion applicable under IMI and, by referral (in the terms mentioned above), under Stamp Duty.

In this context, this tribunal considers that the criterion defended by the Respondent violates the principles of legality and tax equality.

Being, as it is, a property constituted under vertical ownership, the incidence of Stamp Duty should be determined, not by the patrimonial taxable value resulting from the sum of the patrimonial taxable value of all floors or divisions capable of independent use (individualized as such in the matricial article), but rather by the patrimonial taxable value attributed to each of those floors.

In this same sense has corresponded the majority of decisions issued by this Centre of Arbitration, and also by the Judicial Courts, standing out, by way of mere example, the Judgments issued by the Supreme Administrative Court in cases with the numbers 01534/15; 01354/15 and 047/15, 01219/16, to mention only a few.

In light of the foregoing, and considering that none of the floors or independent divisions that comprise the property in question in these proceedings has a patrimonial value greater than € 1,000,000, the controversial assessment is defective due to violation of law by error in the legal prerequisites, which justifies the declaration of its illegality and the corresponding annulment of all the tax acts in question in these proceedings with reference to the Stamp Duty illegally collected under item No. 28.1 of the GIST for the years 2014 and 2015.

In the judgment, the judge must pronounce upon all questions he should assess, abstaining from pronouncing upon questions of which he should not have knowledge (final segment of No. 1 of Article 124 of the CPPT), and the questions upon which the tribunal's powers of cognition fall are, in accordance with No. 2 of Article 608 of the CPC, applicable subsidiarily to the tax arbitral proceedings, by referral of Article 29, No. 1, paragraph e) of the RJAT, "the questions that the parties have submitted to his review, excepting those whose decision is prejudiced by the solution given to others (…).".

In light of the solution given to the questions relating to the determination of the PTV relevant for application of the rule of incidence contained in item 28.1 of the GIST, the knowledge of the question raised by the Claimant is prejudiced, namely that of the unconstitutionality of the said rule, for the same is not susceptible of the interpretation that, in this case, was made by the Tax Authority.

As for the right to indemnity interest, requested by the Claimant, it is appropriate to note that Article 24, No. 1, paragraph b) of the RJAT provides that the Arbitral Decision on the merits of the claim for which no appeal or challenge is available binds the Tax Administration from the end of the deadline provided for appeal or challenge, and the latter — in the exact terms of the success of the arbitral decision in favor of the taxpayer and until the end of the deadline provided for the voluntary execution of sentences of tax judicial courts — must restore the situation that would exist if the tax act subject of the arbitral decision had not been performed, adopting the acts and operations necessary for that purpose.

This provision is in line with the provisions of Article 100 of the LGT, applicable to this case by virtue of Article 29, No. 1, paragraph a) of the RJAT, in which it is established that "The tax administration is obliged, in case of total or partial success of complaints or administrative appeals, or of judicial proceedings in favor of the taxpayer, to the immediate and complete restoration of the situation that would exist if the illegality had not been committed, comprising the payment of indemnity interest, in the terms and conditions provided by law."

Article 43, No. 1 of the General Tax Law provides, in turn, that "indemnity interest is due when it is determined, in administrative complaint or judicial challenge, that there was error attributable to the services resulting in payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than legally due."

From the analysis of the evidentiary elements in the record it is possible to conclude that the Respondent had full and complete knowledge of the relevant factual elements for proceeding with the correct assessment of the tax, and failed to do so, choosing instead to maintain the assessments tainted with error as to the prerequisites, and for that very reason illegal, being thus obliged to indemnify.

Thus, in light of Article 61 of the CPPT and considering that the requirements for the right to indemnity interest are met, that is, verified the existence of error attributable to the services resulting in payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than legally due, as provided in No. 1 of Article 43 of the LGT, the Claimant is entitled to indemnity interest, at the legal rate, calculated on the amounts already paid, from the date on which payment was made until its full reimbursement.

7. DECISION

In light of the foregoing, this Single Arbitral Tribunal hereby decides:

• To judge the request for arbitral ruling well-founded and declare the illegality of the act dismissing the official review request presented by the Claimant, and likewise declare the consequent annulment, due to defect of violation of law by error in the legal prerequisites, of the Stamp Duty assessment acts for the years 2014 and 2015, better identified in the proceedings, in the total amount of Euro 25,391.40, with such amount to be reimbursed to the Claimant, plus indemnity interest, at the legal rate, calculated on the amounts already paid, from the date on which payment was made until its full reimbursement.

The value of the case is fixed at Euro 25,391.40, in accordance with Articles 3, No. 2 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (RCPAT), 97-A, No. 1, paragraph a) of the CPPT, and 306 of the CPC.

The amount of costs is fixed at Euro 1,530.00, under Article 22, No. 4 of the RJAT and Table I attached to the RCPAT, charged to the Respondent, in accordance with Articles 12, No. 2 of the RJAT and 4, No. 4 of the RCPAT.

Let notice be given.

Lisbon, 6 February 2018.

The Arbitrator,

Dr. Henrique Nogueira Nunes

Text prepared by computer, in accordance with Article 131, No. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by referral of Article 29, No. 1, paragraph e) of the RJAT.

The wording of this arbitral decision is governed by the spelling prior to the Agreement on Orthographic Convention of 1990.