Summary
Full Decision
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
SUMMARY:
I. It is not outside the scope of the competence of the arbitral tribunals operating at CAAD to assess the legality of acts of tax assessment, when such analysis also implies the formulation of a judgment on the applicability of a tax benefit.
II. Additional assessment is the correction of a deficient assessment as a consequence of errors or omissions, which may be the responsibility of either the tax authorities or the taxpayers.
III. The issuance of a Municipal Tax on Property Transfers (IMT) collection document "at zero," for purposes of calculating the statute of limitations period for the right to assessment, constitutes an act of assessment.
IV. The statute of limitations period for the right to assess IMT is 4 years, counted from the performance of the act of assessment to be corrected, in accordance with the provisions of no. 3 of article 31 of the IMT Code.
ARBITRAL DECISION
- Report
A - General
1.1. A..., taxpayer no. ..., resident at Rua ..., ..., ...-... Lisbon (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant"), submitted on 12.06.2015 a request for the constitution of a singular arbitral tribunal in tax matters, which was accepted, seeking: (i) the annulment of the acts of additional assessment of Municipal Tax on Property Transfers ("IMT") and Stamp Tax ("IS") that were notified to her by official letter no. ..., of 18.02.2015, (doc. no. 2 attached to the proceedings with the request for arbitral decision) and (ii) the condemnation of the Tax and Customs Administration to pay compensatory interest for undue payment of tax liabilities.
1.2. In accordance with the provisions of subparagraph a) of no. 2 of article 6 and subparagraph b) of no. 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Ethics Board of the Administrative Arbitration Center (CAAD) appointed Nuno Pombo as arbitrator, and the parties, after being duly notified, raised no objection to such appointment.
1.3. By order of 02.07.2015, the Tax and Customs Administration (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") proceeded with the appointment of Mr. Dr. B... and Ms. Dr. C... to intervene in the present arbitral proceedings in its name and on its behalf.
1.4. In accordance with the provisions of subparagraph c) of no. 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 31.08.2015.
1.5. On 03.09.2015 the highest-ranking official of the Respondent's service was notified to, if willing, within 30 days, submit a response and request the production of additional evidence.
1.6. On 29.09.2015 the Respondent submitted its response.
B – Position of the Claimant
1.7. The Claimant acquired, by public deed executed on 25.02.2010, for the price of €92,000.00 (ninety-two thousand euros), the right of surface of the autonomous fraction designated by the letters "CB" of the urban property under the scheme of horizontal property ownership identified as "D...", located at..., ..., ..., registered in the urban property matrix of the parish and municipality of ... under article ... (the "Property").
1.8. To D... was attributed tourism utility status on a provisional basis, under Decree-Law no. 423/83, of 05.12, as confirmed by order of the Minister of Tourism published in the Official Gazette, no. 269, III Series, of 16.11.2004.
1.9. Following a request for prior assessment submitted by the Claimant, the Respondent recognized, on 23.02.2010, under article 20 of Decree-Law no. 423/83, of 05.12, that the Claimant's acquisition of the Property benefited from IMT exemption and IS reduction (item 1.1.) to one-fifth.
1.10. By official letter no. ... of 07.01.2015, the Claimant became aware that the Tax Service of ... considered that the exemption and reduction granted on 23.02.2010 should be rendered ineffective and, consequently, that it intended to proceed with the respective additional assessment of IMT and IS.
1.11. Through official letter no. ... of 18.02.2015, the Claimant became aware that the Head of the Tax Service of ... had revoked the exemption and reduction previously granted, having been notified to proceed with payment of the additional assessment of €5,980.00 of IMT and €588.80 of IS.
1.12. The Claimant proceeded with payment of the amounts of €5,980.00 of IMT and €588.80 of IS on 17.03.2015.
1.13. The change in the understanding of the Tax Service of ... was due to the fact that it observed that the "tax benefit aims to encompass the construction/creation of establishments for promotion of tourism utility and not the acquisition of fractions even if integrated in undertakings with attribution of tourism utility" and to the change in case law orientation that meanwhile occurred (Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court no. 3/2013).
1.14. The tax benefits were recognized by the assessment of 23.02.2010, and the act of their revocation occurred on 18.02.2015, almost five years later.
1.15. Tax acts may be revoked within the period of their revision, as prescribed by no. 1 of article 79 of the General Tax Law (LGT), with the provisions of articles 138 et seq. of the Administrative Procedure Code (CPA) as amended at the date of the facts being applicable to revocation by virtue of article 2 of the same law.
1.16. However, under the terms of subparagraph b) of no. 1 and no. 2 of article 140 of the CPA, valid administrative acts are not freely revocable when, as is the case, they are "constitutive of rights or legally protected interests" and are not acts that have been "unfavorable to the interests of their recipients."
1.17. Even if it were admitted that the revocation performed aimed at an invalid act, such revocation, in accordance with the provisions of article 141 of the CPA, could only be based on its invalidity and occur within the period of the respective contentious appeal, which would long since have been barred, whatever the applicable rules - article 58 of the Code of Procedure in the Administrative Courts, article 102 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process (CPPT) or article 141 of the CPA.
1.18. Not even admitting a general mechanism for revocation or revision of tax acts, the temporal limitation relating to the possibility of additional IMT assessments being issued would always have to be respected, which could only occur "until four years have elapsed counted from the assessment to be corrected," in accordance with no. 3 of article 31 of the IMT Code, with the 8-year period provided for in article 35 of the same Code not being applicable.
1.19. The Claimant further requests the condemnation of the Respondent to pay compensatory interest for undue payment of tax liability, calculated from the date of payment until the date of execution of the competent annulment order.
C – Position of the Respondent
1.20. The Respondent, in its response, begins by noting that the IS assessment in question in the present proceedings had already been annulled, as was known to the Claimant.
1.21. The Respondent further defends itself by exception, expressing the understanding that the Claimant is challenging what it considers to be an illegal revocation of the order granting recognition of a tax benefit, which is not a matter related to a tax act in the proper sense, seeking to obtain from the arbitral tribunal a decision recognizing the IMT exemption.
1.22. This means that the procedural remedy used by the Claimant is not appropriate, and instead it should have resorted to a special administrative action.
1.23. The Respondent also considers the arbitral tribunal to be incompetent to assess the claim, since it is not within the scope of its material competence the cognition of the matter relating to the recognition of tax exemptions.
1.24. The Respondent, without prejudice to the exceptions raised, further contends that the Claimant acquired in 2010 the right of surface of an autonomous fraction of an undertaking that was already installed and whose tourism utility was recognized in 2004, concluding, therefore, that it acquired the aforementioned real right aiming not at the installation of a tourism undertaking (which in fact already existed) but at its operation.
1.25. For the Respondent, the provision of no. 4 of article 47 of the Tax Benefits Statute (EBF) requires that recognition of the exemption depend on the submission of a request by taxpayers within a period that is naturally associated with the installation of the undertaking.
1.26. Furthermore, no. 6 (and not no. 5 as mistakenly stated) of article 47 of the EBF expressly refers to the provisions of Decree-Law no. 423/83, of 5 December, and in this decree the emphasis of the tax exemption is on the purpose for which the fraction was acquired.
1.27. The Respondent further invokes the jurisprudence-standardizing decision no. 3/2013, of 23 January, which tends to hold that the legislator intended to grant an incentive only for acquisitions of immovable property with the objective of installing on them undertakings qualified as of tourism utility. There are, therefore, in the Respondent's view, two distinct procedures: that of installation and that of operation of tourism undertakings, and only the former justifies the benefits in question.
1.28. Finally, the Respondent contends that no compensatory interest is owed since the challenged act did not result in an obligation to pay a higher tax than due.
D – Conclusion of the Report and Case Management
1.29. Given that the Respondent raised the exceptions of impropriety of the procedural remedy employed and material incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal, in deference to the principle of due process, the Claimant pronounced itself on them, contending for their lack of merit, since the request for arbitral decision expressly seeks a declaration of illegality of an additional IMT assessment.
1.30. By order of 02.02.2016, the arbitral tribunal dispensed with the hearing provided for in article 18 of the Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters (RJAT), as it was its understanding that the parties had submitted all the factual elements necessary and sufficient for the rendering of the decision.
1.31. The parties possess legal personality and legal capacity and have standing in accordance with article 4 and no. 2 of article 10 of the RJAT, and article 1 of Regulation no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.
1.32. The joinder of claims made in the present request for arbitral decision, in deference to the principle of procedural economy, is justified insofar as article 3 of the RJAT expressly allows the possibility of "joinder of claims even if relating to different acts," accommodating without interpretive abuse the assessment of a claim that follows, necessarily, from the judgment that the arbitral tribunal reaches regarding the validity of the assessment in question.
1.33. The proceeding does not suffer from any nullity. The Respondent raised the exceptions of impropriety of the procedural remedy employed and material incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal, which, if judged to have merit, prevent the assessment of the merits of the case. Therefore, the arbitral tribunal should, first and foremost, assess them.
- The Exceptions of Impropriety of the Procedural Remedy Employed and Material Incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal
As stated, the Respondent expresses the understanding that the Claimant makes use of an improper procedural remedy, when it should instead have resorted to a special administrative action, in accordance with the provisions of no. 2 of article 97 of the CPPT. However, this understanding cannot prevail, as its first basis is lacking. That provision expressly states that "the contentious appeal of administrative acts in tax matters, which do not involve the assessment of the legality of the assessment act (...)." It must be acknowledged that the Claimant raises with this arbitral tribunal the assessment of the legality of an assessment act.
The Respondent further contends that the arbitral tribunal should refrain from hearing the claim since it is not within the scope of its competence the cognition of the matter relating to the recognition of tax exemptions.
No. 1 of article 2 of the RJAT establishes the competence of the arbitral tribunals, which may assess the following claims:
a) The declaration of illegality of acts of assessment of taxes, self-assessment, withholding at source and payment on account; and
b) The declaration of illegality of acts of determination of taxable matter when not giving rise to the assessment of any tax, of acts of determination of collectible matter and of acts of determination of property values.
The legislator intended the rule of arbitrability of tax acts to be based on tax assessment, leaving outside the competence of the arbitral tribunals, among others, "the assessment of the legality of administrative acts of total or partial denial or revocation of exemptions or other tax benefits, when dependent on recognition by the Tax Administration." The same conclusion may be drawn from article 2 of Regulation no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March, a decree that establishes the terms on which the tax and customs administration is bound by arbitral jurisdiction.
What has just been stated does not amount to considering it outside the scope of the competence of the arbitral tribunals operating at CAAD, as the Respondent suggests, the assessment of the legality of tax assessment acts, when such analysis also implies the formulation of a judgment on the applicability of any tax benefit. In fact, it appears to this arbitral tribunal that assessing the legality of an administrative act of denial or revocation of exemptions or other tax benefits (an assessment which, as we have said, escapes the competence of this arbitral jurisdiction) is not the same as judging the legality of an assessment act that completely disregards a tax benefit that the taxpayer understands to be applicable to him by operation of law, as is the case in the present proceedings.
Accordingly, this arbitral tribunal considers itself materially competent to assess the claim.
- Matters of Fact
3.1. Established Facts
The following facts are taken as established:
3.1.1. The Claimant acquired, by public deed executed on 25.02.2010, for the price of €92,000.00 (ninety-two thousand euros), the right of surface of the autonomous fraction designated by the letters "CB" of the urban property under the scheme of horizontal property ownership identified as "D...", located at..., ..., ..., registered in the urban property matrix of the parish and municipality of ... under article ... (doc. no. 1, attached with the request for arbitral decision).
3.1.2. To D... was attributed tourism utility status on a provisional basis, under Decree-Law no. 423/83, of 05.12, as confirmed by order of the Minister of Tourism published in the Official Gazette, no. 269, III Series, of 16.11.2004.
3.1.3. The Respondent recognized, on 23.02.2010, under article 20 of Decree-Law no. 423/83, of 05.12, that the Claimant's acquisition of the Property benefited from IMT exemption and IS reduction (item 1.1.) to one-fifth (docs. at pages 4 and 5 of the administrative file attached with the Respondent's response to the request for arbitral decision).
3.1.4. By official letter no. ... of 07.01.2015, the Tax Service of ... communicated to the Claimant the understanding that the exemption and reduction granted on 23.02.2010 should be rendered ineffective and, consequently, its intention to proceed with the respective assessment of IMT and IS (doc. no. 3, attached with the request for arbitral decision).
3.1.5. The Claimant exercised her right to prior hearing, received at the Respondent's offices on 29.01.2015 (doc. at page 9 of the administrative file attached with the Respondent's response to the request for arbitral decision).
3.1.6. By official letter no. ... of 18.02.2015 the Claimant was notified of the order of the Head of the Tax Service of ... which had revoked the exemption and reduction granted in 2010, notifying the Claimant to proceed with payment of the additional assessment of €5,980.00 of IMT and €588.80 of IS (doc. no. 2, attached with the request for arbitral decision).
3.1.7. The Claimant proceeded with payment of the amounts of €5,980.00 of IMT and €588.80 of IS on 17.03.2015 (unnumbered doc. attached to the proceedings with the request for arbitral decision).
3.1.8. The Respondent subsequently annulled the assessment act of €588.80 relating to IS (consent of the Parties).
3.2. Unestablished Facts
There are no facts relevant to the decision of the case that have not been established.
- Matters of Law
4.1. Questions to be Decided
From what has been stated above, the questions to be assessed are, in essence:
a) Whether the statute of limitations period for the right to assess applicable in the present case is: the general period of 4 years, in accordance with articles 45 of the LGT and 31, no. 3, of the IMT Code, or the 8-year period referred to in no. 1 of article 35 of the IMT Code;
b) If it is concluded that the Respondent's right to assess the IMT in question has not expired, whether the Claimant's acquisition of the Property is entitled to the exemption referred to in no. 1 of article 20 of Decree-Law no. 423/83, of 05.12;
c) Whether, if the claim for declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of the contested assessment is judged to have merit, the Claimant, within the scope of the present arbitral proceedings, may obtain the condemnation of the Respondent to pay compensatory interest.
4.2. The Statute of Limitations Period for the Right to Assess
It is understandable that the first question to be assessed is precisely the one relating to the statute of limitations period for the right to assess IMT in the present case. The answer to this question may determine the solution to be given to the disputed problem.
4.2.1. No. 3 of Article 31 and No. 1 of Article 35, Both of the IMT Code
The Claimant understands that the statute of limitations period for the right to assess in the present case is the 4-year period imposed by no. 3 of article 31 of the IMT Code. The Respondent, however, believes the 8-year period referred to in no. 1 of article 35 of the IMT Code is applicable.
It is worth examining what the said articles provide.
Article 31
Additional Assessment
1 - In case of omission of goods or values subject to taxation or if there are reasonable indications that acts or contracts were practiced or executed with the objective of reducing the tax debt or obtaining other undue advantages, the powers of correction attributed to the tax administration by this Code or by other tax laws are applicable.
2 - When it is verified that in assessments an error of fact or law was committed, resulting in prejudice to the State, as well as in cases where there is place for evaluation, the head of the tax service where the assessment was made or where the declaration was filed for purposes of no. 3 of article 19, promotes the competent additional assessment.
3 - The assessment may only be made until four years have elapsed counted from the assessment to be corrected, except if it is due to omission of goods or values, in which case it may still be made later, without prejudice, in all cases, to the provisions of article 35.
4 - The additional assessment must be notified to the taxpayer, in accordance with the terms provided for in the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, in order to effect payment and, if applicable, to be able to use the means of defense provided therein.
Article 35 of the same Code provides as follows:
Article 35
Statute of Limitations for the Right to Assess
1 - Tax may only be assessed in the eight years following the transfer or the date on which the exemption became ineffective, without prejudice to the provisions of the following number and, as to the remainder, to article 46 of the General Tax Law.
2 - If the share of the transferor co-heir is unknown, for purposes of article 26, to the eight years shall be added the time for which the unknown situation shall have lasted.
3 - In acts or contracts by authenticated private document, or any other title, when such form is admitted as an alternative to a public deed, the statute of limitations period for the tax due is counted from the date of promotion of the property registration.
Now, in accordance with article 35 of the IMT Code, combined with no. 1 of article 45 of the LGT, the statute of limitations period for the right to assess IMT is 8 years counted from the transfer or the date on which the exemption became ineffective. However, this rule is contradicted by the special provision contained in no. 3 of article 31, which prescribes that, in the case of additional assessment, this period shall be 4 years, counted from the assessment to be corrected.
Everything depends, therefore, on determining whether the assessment now challenged constitutes a true additional assessment or, on the contrary, does not assume that nature.
4.2.2. Assessment and Additional Assessment
Once the elements of the tax relationship have been determined, it is necessary to establish the amount of the tax liability, which occurs through assessment, which consists, thus, in the application of the rate fixed in law to the collectible matter, also determined in accordance with the law.
In the present case, unlike other situations in which the courts, both judicial and arbitral, have been called upon to settle disputes regarding the meaning and scope of available tax exemptions within the framework of the institution of tourism utility, granted under Decree-Law no. 423/83, the notary who intervenes in the public deed of acquisition of the Property in question on the part of the Claimant does not merely recognize the exemption provided for in article 20 of that Decree-Law no. 423/83. Rather, she files, as can be read on page 120 of book no. 74, "declaration with number ..., dated 23/02/2010, evidencing the exemption from payment of IMT in accordance with article 20 of Decree-Law no. 423/83, of 5 December (...)."
As can be seen, the notary who intervened in the deed did not limit herself to interpreting the exemption rule, considering it applicable to the transfer which is the subject of that deed.
The declaration which the notary states she filed is issued by the Respondent's offices, identifies the purchaser and seller of the Property, refers to the tax event ("acquisition of parcels of the right of ownership of immovable property"), describes the property on which the right of surface to be transferred is charged, indicates the collectible matter ("€92,000.00"), mentions the applicable rate ("6.50%"), points out the exemption from which the transaction benefits ("33 – Tourism Utility (Article 20 of Decree-Law 423/83), 100% on the collectible matter") and also reveals an assessment number ("...").
As is clear, this declaration clearly shows the existence of an act of IMT assessment, whose collection is €0.00.
Indeed, without any surprise, in the official letter no. ... of 07.01.2015, the Respondent, after concluding that the Claimant's acquisition of the Property "cannot benefit from the exemptions provided for in article 20, no. 1 of Decree-Law 423/83," determines the execution of the said assessment according to the project it presents and which it entitles "Additional Assessment."
Also without surprise, the collection document with number ..., of 17.03.2015, describes the assessment act and asserts unequivocally that "in this way the IMT assessment no. .../2010 becomes ineffective."
As can be verified, the situation in the present case is nothing like those in which there was never any intervention by the Tax and Customs Authority, and recognition of the tax exemption was made by the notary intervening in the respective public deed and by the registrar who proceeded with the competent registration. In fact, it does not seem defensible to attribute to that notarial or registral recognition the nature of a tax act, much less the function of an assessment act in the proper sense. In those situations, therefore, it has been considered that the assessment motivated by the discovery of the error in which the recognition of a benefit that is ultimately deemed inapplicable consists is not an additional assessment in the proper sense, because there is no prior assessment to which it can be added. And, if that is the case, the statute of limitations period for the right to assess provided for in no. 3 of article 31 of the IMT Code cannot be applied.
Now, as has been said, the situation in the present proceedings is different. In it, the existence of a prior assessment act, promoted by one who has competence for its practice, is clear. In that assessment act, performed on 23.02.2010, the Respondent understood that the transaction was entitled to a benefit which it later came to consider was ultimately inapplicable. However, it must be acknowledged that between 23.02.2010 and 07.01.2015 nothing relevant occurred with regard to the knowledge the Respondent had of the situation. This means that the Claimant, on her own initiative, brought to the Respondent's attention all the elements it needed to make a correct interpretation of the law and apply it appropriately.
As is obvious, tax acts, once practiced, do not gain the aura of eternity. They are, as is well known, subject to revision from the outset. However, this obvious fact does not negate another: that the passage of time conditions the exercise of rights, and such conditioning is one of the manifestations of the principle of legal certainty.
In the present case, we are not confronted with an exemption that, without more, became "ineffective," as can be read in no. 1 of article 35 of the IMT Code. We are instead faced with an attempt by the Respondent to correct an error that it itself committed when performing the assessment act which it now seeks to have replaced by another that makes a correct application of the law. That is, the Respondent understands that it labored under an error when, in proceeding with IMT assessment in 2010, it considered the transfer in question exempt from tax. It is precisely to situations such as this that no. 3 of article 31 of the IMT Code applies.
It therefore appears to this arbitral tribunal that, in the present case, the statute of limitations period for the right to assess IMT is 4 years, counted from the performance of the assessment act to be corrected, which is why the additional assessment promoted by the Respondent on 17.03.2015 cannot subsist in the legal order, as it is time-barred.
4.3. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the arbitral tribunal considers the IMT assessment act now in question to be illegal.
4.4. Compensatory Interest
Subparagraph b) of no. 1 of article 24 of the RJAT provides that "the arbitral decision on the merits of the claim not subject to appeal or challenge binds the tax administration from the expiration of the period provided for appeal or challenge, the latter being obliged, in the exact terms of the merit of the arbitral decision in favor of the taxpayer and until the expiration of the period provided for voluntary execution of sentences from tax judicial courts, to restore the situation that would exist if the tax act which is the subject of the arbitral decision had not been practiced, adopting the necessary acts and operations for that purpose."
It is not ignored that the legislative authorization granted to the Government by article 124 of Law no. 3-B/2010, of 28 April, on the basis of which the RJAT was approved, determines that the tax arbitral proceeding constitutes an alternative procedural means to judicial challenge proceedings and to actions for recognition of a right or legitimate interest in tax matters. Although subparagraphs a) and b) of no. 1 of article 2 of the RJAT base the competence of the arbitral tribunals on "declarations of illegality," it seems reasonable to understand that their competences comprehend the powers that in judicial challenge proceedings are attributed to tax courts, it being certain that in judicial challenge proceedings, in addition to annulment of tax acts, claims for compensation may be assessed, particularly claims for compensatory interest.
Indeed, the principle of cognoscibility of compensation claims, in gracious petition or in judicial proceedings, is justified whenever the harm whose redress is sought results from a fact attributable to the tax and customs administration. Manifestations of this principle may be found in no. 1 of article 43 of the LGT and in article 61 of the CPPT.
The Claimant's right to receive compensatory interest depends, therefore, on the verification of the following requirements: a) error attributable to the administration; b) that from such error results the payment of tax in an amount higher than legally due; c) that the administrative error be analyzed in a gracious petition or judicial challenge proceeding.
In the present case, the error attributable to the administration exists and lies in the fact that the Claimant was required to pay a tax, the IMT, that was not owed by her by virtue of the statute of limitations of the right to assess. From the analysis of the administrative file it is verified that the Respondent could and should have refrained from practicing the additional assessment act now challenged and that error deserves to be censured in accordance with the law, particularly in light of what articles 43 and 100 of the LGT provide. Consequently, the arbitral tribunal considers that the Claimant is entitled to compensatory interest.
- Prejudicial Question: The Exemption Benefit Referred to in No. 1 of Article 20 of Decree-Law No. 423/83, of 05.12
Having the arbitral tribunal judged that the Respondent's right to assess the IMT in question had expired, the assessment of the question whether the transfer to which the present proceedings relate could benefit from the IMT exemption provided for in no. 1 of article 20 of Decree-Law no. 423/83, of 05.12 is prejudiced and procedurally futile.
- Decision
In accordance with the grounds set forth above, the arbitral tribunal decides:
a) To judge the request for arbitral decision to have merit and consequently annul the assessment act which gave rise to the collection document with number ..., of 17.03.2015;
b) To condemn the Respondent to reimburse the Claimant for the amount paid by the latter, because unduly required, in the amount of €5,980.00;
c) To judge the request for condemnation of the Respondent to pay compensatory interest, at the legal rate, counted from the date of undue payment until its full reimbursement, to have merit.
- Value of the Proceeding
In accordance with the provisions of no. 2 of article 306 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), in subparagraph a) of no. 1 of article 97-A of the CPPT and also no. 2 of article 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the proceeding is fixed at €5,980.00 (five thousand nine hundred and eighty euros).
- Costs
For purposes of the provisions of no. 2 of article 12 and no. 4 of article 22 of the RJAT and no. 4 of article 4 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs is fixed at €612.00 (six hundred and twelve euros), in accordance with Table I attached to the said Regulation, to be borne entirely by the Respondent.
Lisbon, 30 July 2021
The Arbitrator
(Nuno Pombo)
Text prepared by computer, in accordance with no. 5 of article 131 of the CPC, applicable by reference from subparagraph e) of no. 1 of article 29 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January and in the spelling prior to the said Orthographic Agreement of 1990.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created