Process: 416/2015-T

Date: January 14, 2016

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This CAAD arbitration case (Process 416/2015-T) concerns stamp duty assessments under item 28.1 of the Portuguese General Stamp Tax Table (TGIS) on 38 residential units within a building owned in full ownership. The central dispute involves whether the €1,000,000 threshold for stamp duty taxation should apply to each individual unit or to the entire property collectively. The Claimant company challenged assessments totaling over €12,000, arguing that independently usable divisions should be evaluated individually for stamp duty purposes, similar to horizontal ownership regime properties. The Tax Authority maintained that properties in full ownership with independently usable floors or divisions constitute a single legal-tax reality, requiring the aggregation of all patrimonial tax values to determine if the €1,000,000 threshold is met. The Claimant invoked constitutional principles of legality, equality, and proportionality, asserting that the legislation intended to tax luxury residences, not aggregated regular apartments. The case highlights the critical distinction between horizontal ownership (where each autonomous unit is legally a separate property under CIMI Article 2(4)) and full ownership properties with independent divisions. While Municipal Property Tax (IMI) is assessed individually per unit in both regimes, the Tax Authority argued that stamp duty follows different criteria, treating the entire property in full ownership as one taxable unit regardless of internal divisions. This arbitration demonstrates the complexity of applying item 28.1 TGIS to multi-unit buildings and the importance of clarifying whether independent usability creates separate tax realities for stamp duty purposes.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

I – REPORT

1. Request

A..., SA., a legal entity and taxpayer no....., with registered office at Street ..., no....., hereinafter designated as the Claimant, filed, on 07-07-2015, pursuant to the provisions of para. a) of no. 1 of article 2 and article 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011 of 20 January, which approves the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters (RJAT), a request for an arbitral award, in which the Respondent is the AT - Tax and Customs Authority, with a view to:

  • The annulment of the stamp duty assessments levied under item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty, embodied in the documents:

· 2015..., in the amount of €289.00, unit AP 01
· 2015..., in the amount of €272.70, unit AP 02
· 2015..., in the amount of €272.70, unit AP 03
· 2015..., in the amount of €287.70, unit AP 04
· 2015..., in the amount of €469.70, unit AP 05
· 2015..., in the amount of €338.70, unit AP 06
· 2015..., in the amount of €287.70, unit AP 07
· 2015..., in the amount of €469.70, unit AP 08
· 2015..., in the amount of €338.70, unit AP 09
· 2015..., in the amount of €287.70, unit AP 10
· 2015..., in the amount of €469.70, unit AP 12
· 2015..., in the amount of €257.50, unit AP 14
· 2015..., in the amount of €288.90, unit AP 15
· 2015..., in the amount of €281.30, unit AP 17
· 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 18
· 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 19
· 2015..., in the amount of €279.40, unit AP 20
· 2015..., in the amount of €279.40, unit AP 21
· 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 22
· 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 23
· 2015..., in the amount of €281.30, unit AP 24
· 2015..., in the amount of €279.40, unit AP 25
· 2015..., in the amount of €273.90, unit AP 26
· 2015..., in the amount of €273.90, unit AP 27
· 2015..., in the amount of €281.30, unit AP 28
· 2015..., in the amount of €279.40, unit AP 29
· 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 30
· 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 31
· 2015..., in the amount of €281.30, unit AP 32
· 2015..., in the amount of €405.20, unit AP 33
· 2015..., in the amount of €224.20, unit AP 34A
· 2015..., in the amount of €398.20, unit AP 34B
· 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 35
· 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 36
· 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 37
· 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 38
· 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 39
· 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 40

  • The repayment to the Claimant of the amounts unduly paid relating to the contested assessments, plus the corresponding compensatory interest.

To support its request, the Claimant alleges, in summary:

  • The Claimant is the owner of the urban property in full ownership located at Avenue ... and..., numbers .../.../, ..., registered in the urban tax property matrix under article no. ... of the Union of Parishes of ... and ...;

  • The Claimant was notified of the aforementioned assessments, based on item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty (GIST);

  • This item imposes stamp duty on urban properties with residential use, which have a patrimonial value equal to or exceeding €1,000,000;

  • As the Stamp Duty Code (CIS) does not define what should be understood by "property with residential use," the same Code refers for this purpose to the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI);

  • Article 6 of the CIMI determines that are considered "residential, commercial, industrial, (...) buildings or constructions licensed for such use or, in the absence of a license, that have as their normal purpose each of such uses";

  • It follows that, for the legislator, what actually matters is the normal use of the property, which excludes the property in question from the scope of taxation, since it is not intended exclusively for residential use;

Furthermore:

  • For purposes of IMI, properties in vertical ownership composed of units susceptible to independent use follow the same rules as properties constituted in horizontal ownership, with the respective IMI assessed individually in relation to each of the units, based on the respective patrimonial tax value (VPT);

  • Since the respective IMI, as well as the Stamp Duty to which they may be subject, are assessed individually in relation to each of the units, the criterion for determining the scope of item 28 must be the same;

  • The AT - Tax and Customs Authority admits that it is so, as in the assessment and collection notices it indicates as the base value for the assessment the VPT of each unit;

  • Therefore, the value to be used as the basis for the Stamp Duty assessment must be the VPT of each unit;

  • The interpretation underlying the contested assessments, that for the purpose of determining the scope of Stamp Duty on the units, the sum of the VPT of the units is taken as the basis, violates the principles of legality and tax equality enshrined in article 103, no. 2 of the Portuguese Constitution (CRP), as well as the principle of the prevalence of material truth over legal-formal truth, and also the principles of Justice and proportionality;

  • The same interpretation is contrary to the teleological element of the rule, knowing that the intention of the legislator in instituting the taxation of item 28.1 of the GIST was to tax luxury residences.

2. Response

In its Response, the Respondent AT - Tax and Customs Authority alleges, in summary:

  • The concept of property is defined in article 2, no. 1 of the CIMI, and it is provided in its no. 4 that in the horizontal ownership regime, each autonomous unit is regarded as constituting a property;

  • It follows from the analysis of the normative provision that a "property in full ownership with floors or divisions susceptible to independent use" is unequivocally different from a property in horizontal ownership regime, constituted by autonomous units, that is, by several properties;

  • As regards IMI assessment, in the case of a property in full ownership, the VPT that serves as the basis for its calculation will be indisputably the VPT that the herein Claimant defines as "the total value of the property";

  • In the case of properties in full ownership, even though with floors or divisions susceptible to independent use (although the IMI is assessed in relation to each unit susceptible to independent use), for purposes of Stamp Duty the property as a whole is relevant, since the divisions susceptible to independent use are not regarded as property, but only the autonomous units in the horizontal ownership regime, as provided in no. 4 of article 2 of the CIMI;

  • What expressly follows from the letter of the law is that the legislator, through item 28.1, intended to tax properties as a single legal-tax reality, as referred to below;

  • Subjection to stamp duty under item 28.1 of the GIST results from the combination of two facts: the residential use of the property and the patrimonial value of the urban property registered in the matrix being equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.00;

  • In accordance with the rules of the CIMI, specifically article 113, no. 1, the assessment is made based on the patrimonial tax values of the properties and in relation to the taxpayers appearing in the matrices on 31 December of the year to which they relate (in the case of the 2014 tax);

  • On the violation of the constitutional principle of tax equality, the AT is of the view that the provision of item 28.1 of the GIST does not constitute any violation of the constitutional principle of equality, there being no discrimination in the taxation of properties constituted in horizontal ownership and properties in full ownership with floors or divisions susceptible to independent use, or between properties with residential use and properties with other uses;

  • The constitution of horizontal ownership implies, it is a fact, a mere legal alteration of the property, there being no reassessment (official memorandum - circular no. 40.025 of 11.08.2008 from DSCA), but the legislator may, however, subject to a different legal-tax framework, therefore discriminatory, properties in horizontal and vertical ownership regime, in particular favoring the legally more advanced institution of horizontal ownership, without such discrimination necessarily being considered, solely for that reason, arbitrary;

  • The rules and procedures for assessment, the rules on matrix registration, and the rules on the assessment of units susceptible to independent use do not permit to assert that there should be an equalization of properties in full ownership regime to the vertical ownership regime, this being because, and as already mentioned, it would be illegal and unconstitutional;

  • The taxable fact of stamp duty under item 28.1 consists of the ownership (or usufruct) of urban properties whose patrimonial tax value appearing in the matrix, in accordance with the CIMI, is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.00, and that the patrimonial value relevant for purposes of the scope of the tax is the total patrimonial value of the urban property and not the patrimonial value of each of the units that compose it, even when susceptible to independent use;

  • Item 28.1 therefore applies to ownership, usufruct or surface right of urban properties with residential use, whose patrimonial tax value appearing in the matrix, in accordance with the CIMI, is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.00;

3. Meeting provided for in article 18 of the RJAT and submissions

With the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal determined the waiver of the holding of the meeting provided for in article 18 of the RJAT.

The parties did not submit final submissions.

II. CASE MANAGEMENT

The Single Arbitral Tribunal was duly constituted on 14-09-2015, with the Arbitrator appointed by the Ethics Council of CAAD, with the respective legal and regulatory formalities observed (articles 11, no. 1, paras. a) and b) of the RJAT and 6 and 7 of the Ethics Code of CAAD), and is competent ratione materiae in accordance with article 2 of the RJAT.

The parties have legal standing and judicial capacity and are duly represented.

No procedural defects were identified in the proceedings.

III. LEGAL REASONING

1. Questions to be decided

The following are the questions to be decided by the Tribunal:

  • The applicability of item 28.1 of the GIST to urban properties in vertical ownership formed by units susceptible to independent use considered as a whole, with the consequence that the patrimonial tax value to be taken into account for purposes of the scope of the tax will be, in case of an affirmative answer, the patrimonial tax value of the property;

  • In case of an affirmative answer to the previous question, the constitutionality of the scope rule contained in item 28.1 of the GIST, if interpreted to include building land, in the light of the constitutional principle of equality.

2. Findings of Fact

The following are the facts found to be proven having relevance for the decision:

  • The Claimant was, at the date of the alleged taxable event, owner of the urban property in full ownership located at Avenue ... and..., numbers .../.../, ..., registered in the urban tax property matrix under article no. ... of the Union of Parishes of ... and ...;

  • It is a property described as urban, in full vertical ownership, composed of units susceptible to independent use;

  • The patrimonial tax value of the whole of the units of the property with residential use is €1,220,800.00;

  • The Claimant was notified of the following stamp duty assessments under item 28.1 of the GIST, on the independent units of the said property with residential use:

¾ 2015..., in the amount of €289.00, unit AP 01
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €272.70, unit AP 02
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €272.70, unit AP 03
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €287.70, unit AP 04
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €469.70, unit AP 05
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €338.70, unit AP 06
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €287.70, unit AP 07
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €469.70, unit AP 08
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €338.70, unit AP 09
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €287.70, unit AP 10
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €469.70, unit AP 12
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €257.50, unit AP 14
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €288.90, unit AP 15
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €281.30, unit AP 17
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 18
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 19
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €279.40, unit AP 20
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €279.40, unit AP 21
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 22
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 23
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €281.30, unit AP 24
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €279.40, unit AP 25
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €273.90, unit AP 26
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €273.90, unit AP 27
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €281.30, unit AP 28
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €279.40, unit AP 29
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 30
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €278.60, unit AP 31
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €281.30, unit AP 32
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €405.20, unit AP 33
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €224.20, unit AP 34A
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €398.20, unit AP 34B
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 35
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 36
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 37
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 38
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 39
¾ 2015..., in the amount of €398.00, unit AP 40

  • The total amount of tax assessed in the aforementioned assessments is €12,208.00;

  • The Claimant proceeded to pay the tax relating to the following contested assessments;

  • As at the date of submission of the request for an arbitral award, the Claimant had proceeded to pay the first installment of the amounts assessed, totaling €6,216.10;

The facts indicated were found to be proven on the basis of the documentation attached to the file.

3. On the Law

3.1. On the question of the legality of the assessment acts

The question to be decided in the present proceedings has to date been the subject of numerous arbitral decisions.

The case law orientation of these arbitral decisions is not completely uniform.

Part of this case law goes in the direction of considering contrary to the constitutional principle of equality the interpretation that the Respondent makes of item 28.1 of the GIST in the case of vertical properties in full ownership composed of units susceptible to independent use, which consists in taking the sum of the patrimonial tax values of the units with residential use to determine the scope of item 28.1 of the GIST. This orientation was echoed, among others, by the arbitral decisions delivered in proceedings 181/2013-T, 182/2013-T, 183/2013-T, 218/2013-T, 14/2014-T, among others.

Recently, the Constitutional Court, in decision no. 692/2015 of 16 December 2015 (case no. 51/2014), ruled on the constitutionality of the scope rule contained in item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty when interpreted to mean that it includes residential urban properties in full ownership composed by units susceptible to independent use and considered separately in matrix registration.

However, it also ruled on this same question the Supreme Administrative Court, in the decision of 09-09-2015, delivered in case no. 47/15.

In this decision, which we take as the basis for our decision in the present proceedings, the STA states:

"The concept of 'urban property with residential use' was not defined by the legislator. Neither in Law no. 55-A/2012, which introduced it, nor in the IMI Code, to which no. 2 of article 67 of the Stamp Duty Code (also introduced by that Law) refers as a subsidiary matter. And it is a concept which, probably on account of its imprecision - a fact all the more serious as it is on account of it that the objective scope of the new taxation is defined - had a short life, as it was abandoned upon the entry into force of the State Budget Law for 2014 (Law no. 83-C/2013 of 31 December), which gave new wording to item no. 28 of the General Table, and which now defines its objective scope through the use of concepts that are legally defined in article 6 of the IMI Code.

Nothing unequivocal results from the letter of the law, indeed, as it itself by using a concept that it did not define and which was also not defined in the statute to which it referred as a subsidiary matter lent itself, unnecessarily, to ambiguities in the matter - of tax scope - in which certainty and legal security should also be paramount concerns of the legislator."

And the Tribunal continues:

"(...) The present subject matter is, first and foremost by virtue of article 67, no. 2 of the Stamp Duty Code, subject to the rules of the IMI Code, - 'to matters not regulated in the present code relating to item 28 of the General Table the CIMI shall apply on a subsidiary basis'.

As such, and as has already been mentioned many times, in the understanding of the present tribunal, the mechanism for determining the relevant VPT for purposes of the aforementioned item is what is provided in the IMI Code.

Now, article 12, no. 3 of the IMI Code provides that 'each floor or unit of property susceptible to independent use is considered separately in matrix registration, which also specifies the respective patrimonial tax value'.

The legislator, disregarding in the terms previously mentioned any prior constitution of horizontal or vertical ownership.

Indeed, for this (legislator) what matters is the material truth underlying its existence as an urban property and its use.

It should be noted that the ATA itself seems to agree with the criterion set out, reason for which the assessments that it itself issues are very clear in their essential elements, from which it follows that the value of scope is the corresponding VPT of each of the floors and the assessments are individualized.

Therefore, if the legal criterion requires the issue of individualized assessments for the autonomous units of properties in vertical ownership in the same manner as it establishes for properties in horizontal ownership, it clearly established the criterion which must be unique and unequivocal for the definition of the scope rule of the new tax.

Thus, there would only be scope for Stamp Duty (under item no. 28 of the GIST) if any of the units, floors or divisions with independent use had a VPT exceeding €1,000,000.00.

The ATA cannot consider as the reference value for the scope of the new tax the total value of the property when the legislator itself established a different rule in respect of IMI (and, as previously mentioned, this is the code applicable to matters not regulated as far as item no. 28 of the GIST is concerned).

In conclusion, the current legal system does not require the constitution of horizontal ownership, and therefore the conduct of the ATA amounts to arbitrary and illegal discrimination.

Indeed, the ATA cannot distinguish where the legislator itself chose not to do so, on pain of violating the coherence of the tax system, as well as the principle of tax legality provided for in article 103 of the Portuguese Constitution, and also the principles of justice, equality and tax proportionality.

In the case at issue, the property(ies) in question found themselves, at the relevant date of the facts, constituted in full ownership and had [...] units with independent use, as appears from the documents [...].

Given that none of those units has patrimonial value equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.00, as appears from the documents attached to the file, it is concluded that the legal prerequisite for scope is not met."

Thus, following closely the case law of the cited decision:

The scope of item 28.1 of the GIST is composed of several elements:

i) The qualification of the property as urban

ii) The residential use (in the wording in force at the date of the taxable event)

iii) The patrimonial tax value equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.

A property, for purposes of item 28.1 of the GIST, is the same as a property for purposes of the Municipal Property Tax by virtue of article 1, no. 6 of the Stamp Duty Code.

As the Stamp Duty Code does not define what should be understood by "property with residential use," the interpretation of the concept must be based on the letter itself as a starting point.

Based on the letter of the law, property with residential use is that whose normal purpose is residential use.

If, to assess the residential use, the Respondent - interpreting the law - takes as basis each unit of the property in full ownership as if it were a property, it cannot take as basis the entire property to assess the fulfillment of the element relating to patrimonial tax value.

But in truth the Respondent does not even take as basis the patrimonial tax value of the property but rather the sum of the patrimonial tax values of the various units with residential use, a procedure which has no support whatsoever in the letter of the law, nor is it logical.

Faced with the uncertainty of the legal formulation, the interpreter must decide whether the unit to consider in assessing the scope is the unit or the whole. If it is the unit, all criteria must be verified in relation to the unit. If it is the whole, all criteria must be verified in relation to the whole.

For all the above reasons, it must be concluded that the contested stamp duty assessments are illegal for violation of tax law, by applying to independent units of properties in full ownership but taking as basis the taxable patrimonial value of the sum of the same units.

3.2. On the question of the right to compensatory interest

The Claimant further petitions for payment of compensatory interest.

In view of the reasoning expounded, it must be concluded that the illegality of the contested assessments results from errors attributable exclusively to the Tax Administration.

In truth, it being demonstrated that the claimant paid tax unduly, by virtue of the provisions of articles 61 of the CPPT and 43 of the LGT, the Claimant has the right to compensatory interest on the amounts paid, such interest to be calculated from the date of payment of the tax unduly paid until the date of issuance of the respective credit note, the period for such payment to be counted from the beginning of the period for the voluntary execution of this decision (article 61, nos. 2 to 5 of the CPPT), all at the rate determined in accordance with the provisions of no. 4 of article 43 of the LGT.

IV. DECISION

For the reasons set out:

1st: The request for annulment of the contested assessment acts is declared wholly well-founded;

3rd: The Respondent is condemned, under article 24, no. 1, para. b), to the reimbursement of the amount of €6,216.10 (six thousand, two hundred and sixteen Euros and ten cents), plus the corresponding compensatory interest.

The economic value of the proceedings is fixed at €12,208.00.

Costs: In accordance with article 22, no. 4 of the RJAT, the amount of costs is fixed at €918.00 in accordance with Table I annexed to the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, at the expense of the Respondent.

Let this arbitral decision be registered and notified to the parties.

Lisbon, Administrative Arbitration Center, 14 January 2016

The Arbitrator

(Nina Aguiar)

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

What is the Stamp Tax (Imposto de Selo) under Verba 28.1 of the Portuguese General Stamp Tax Table (TGIS)?
The Stamp Tax under Verba 28.1 of the Portuguese General Stamp Tax Table (TGIS) is an annual tax levied on urban properties with residential use that have a patrimonial tax value (VPT) equal to or exceeding €1,000,000. This tax was introduced to target high-value residential properties. The rate structure is progressive: properties valued between €1,000,000 and €2,000,000 are taxed at 0.7% annually, while properties exceeding €2,000,000 face a 1% rate. The tax base is determined by the patrimonial tax value registered in the property matrix for Municipal Property Tax (IMI) purposes. The key interpretative issue in this case revolves around how to calculate the €1,000,000 threshold for properties in full ownership that contain independently usable divisions - whether each division should be evaluated separately or whether the aggregate value of all divisions determines taxation.
How does CAAD arbitration apply to Stamp Tax disputes on property fractions in Portugal?
CAAD (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) arbitration applies to Stamp Tax disputes through the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters (RJAT - Decree-Law 10/2011). Property owners can challenge stamp duty assessments by filing arbitration requests under Article 2(1)(a) and Article 10 of RJAT. In this case, the Claimant successfully filed a single arbitration request challenging 38 separate stamp duty assessments on individual building fractions, demonstrating that multiple related assessments can be consolidated in one proceeding. The arbitration process allows taxpayers to seek annulment of tax assessments and refund of amounts unduly paid, plus compensatory interest. CAAD provides an alternative to judicial courts for resolving tax disputes, offering specialized tax law expertise. The arbitral tribunal examines whether the Tax Authority correctly applied the legal framework, including constitutional principles of legality, equality, and proportionality, making it an effective mechanism for challenging complex stamp duty interpretations.
What qualifies as independently usable floors or divisions for Stamp Tax purposes under Verba 28.1?
Independently usable floors or divisions for Stamp Tax purposes under Verba 28.1 refers to portions of a building that can function autonomously, even when the property remains under full ownership rather than horizontal ownership regime. The key distinction lies in Article 2 of the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI): while Article 2(4) defines autonomous units in horizontal ownership as separate properties, independently usable divisions in full ownership properties are not automatically considered separate legal properties. The Tax Authority's position is that these divisions, despite being separately assessed for IMI purposes and having individual patrimonial tax values, constitute parts of a single property for stamp duty purposes. The controversy centers on whether 'independent usability' (the physical and functional capacity for separate use) creates separate tax realities for stamp duty, or whether the legal ownership structure (full ownership vs. horizontal ownership) is determinative. The Claimant argued that independently usable divisions should be treated similarly to horizontal ownership units, with each evaluated against the €1,000,000 threshold individually.
Can property owners challenge multiple Stamp Tax assessments on individual building fractions through a single arbitration request?
Yes, property owners can challenge multiple Stamp Tax assessments on individual building fractions through a single arbitration request, as demonstrated in Process 416/2015-T. The Claimant filed one arbitration petition under RJAT challenging 38 separate stamp duty assessment documents for different apartment units (AP 01 through AP 40, with varying amounts from €224.20 to €469.70). This procedural consolidation is permitted when the assessments relate to the same legal issue and property, promoting judicial economy and coherent decision-making. The single request included all assessment document numbers, amounts, and unit identifiers, seeking collective annulment and refund. This approach is particularly efficient when the legal question is identical across all units - in this case, whether the €1,000,000 threshold applies individually or collectively. However, the assessments must share sufficient commonality in factual and legal grounds. The CAAD accepted jurisdiction over all 38 assessments simultaneously, confirming that consolidated arbitration requests are procedurally valid for related stamp duty disputes affecting multiple fractions of the same building.
What are the grounds for annulment and refund of Stamp Tax liquidations under Portuguese tax arbitration (RJAT)?
The grounds for annulment and refund of Stamp Tax liquidations under Portuguese tax arbitration (RJAT) include substantive illegality, procedural violations, and constitutional infringements. In this case, the Claimant invoked multiple grounds: (1) violation of the legality principle (Article 103(2) of the Portuguese Constitution), arguing the Tax Authority exceeded the legal scope of Verba 28.1 by aggregating values of independent divisions rather than evaluating each separately; (2) violation of tax equality principles, claiming properties in horizontal ownership with equivalent units are treated differently than full ownership properties with independent divisions; (3) violation of proportionality and justice principles, asserting the taxation exceeds the legislative intent to tax luxury residences; (4) incorrect interpretation of CIMI provisions regarding what constitutes a 'property' for stamp duty purposes; and (5) prevalence of material truth over formal-legal truth, arguing the actual use and configuration should govern. Successful annulment leads to refund of amounts unduly paid plus compensatory interest calculated from payment date until refund, ensuring complete restitution of illegally collected taxes.