Stamp Tax Verba 28.1 TGIS on Vertical Property: CAAD Arbitration Decision 456/2015-T

ARBITRAL DECISION

I. REPORT

1. On 17 July 2015, A…, taxpayer no.…, resident at Av…., no.… Esq., in Lisbon, B…, taxpayer no.…, resident at Rua…, no.… in Estoril, C…, taxpayer no.…, resident at…, …, in Alenquer and D…, taxpayer no.…, resident at Av…., no.… Dt, in Lisbon, hereinafter referred to as Claimants, requested the constitution of an arbitral tribunal and filed a petition for arbitral pronouncement, in accordance with subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 2 and subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as RJAT), in which the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter referred to as AT) is the Respondent.

2. The Claimants are represented in these proceedings by their attorney, Dr. E…, and the Respondent is represented by legal counsels, Dr. F… and Dr. G….

3. The petition for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the Honourable President of CAAD and notified to the Respondent on 6 August 2015.

4. By means of the petition for constitution of the arbitral tribunal and arbitral pronouncement, the Claimants seek the annulment of acts of assessment of Stamp Duty, effected pursuant to item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty (TGIS), relating to the year 2014, affecting the units or divisions with independent use that comprise the property registered in the urban property matrix of the parish of … under article…, located at Rua…, no.… A to … E, in Lisbon, in the total amount of € 12,528.72 (twelve thousand, five hundred and twenty-eight euros and seventy-two cents).

5. Having verified the formal regularity of the petition presented, in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the RJAT and the Claimants having not proceeded to appoint an arbitrator, the undersigned was appointed by the President of the CAAD Deontological Council.

6. The Arbitrator accepted the appointment made, and the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 5 October 2015, at the seat of CAAD, located at Avenida Duque de Loulé, no. 72-A, in Lisbon, as shown in the deed of constitution of the arbitral tribunal which was drawn up and is attached to these proceedings.

7. The Respondent, duly notified, filed its response on 5 November 2015.

8. Given that no exceptions were raised in the response presented by the Respondent, there is no need for production of additional evidence beyond what is documented in the case file, and as the necessity for the parties to amend their procedural documents is not apparent, the process containing all necessary elements for the issuance of a decision, on 25 November 2015, the Tribunal notified the parties, through an order, to state whether they waived the holding of the meeting referred to in Article 18 of the RJAT, and the presentation of submissions and/or, whether they wished to produce such submissions in writing.

9. In response to the aforementioned order, the Respondent, on 27 November 2015, through a petition, manifested its intention to waive the holding of the meeting referred to in Article 18 of the RJAT, as well as the respective submissions, a position also manifested by the Claimant, in the petition it filed on 2 December 2015.

10. Thus, on 4 March 2016, the Tribunal, through an order, on the one hand, designated 5 April 2016 for the issuance of the arbitral decision, and on the other, warned the Claimants that they should proceed with payment of the subsequent arbitration fee, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Regulations on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, and communicate such payment to CAAD.

II. The Claimants Support Their Petition, in Summary, as Follows:

The Claimants support the petition for annulment of the stamp duty assessment act to which they were subject, concerning the floors or parts susceptible of independent use, intended for residential purposes, of the property registered under article… in the respective matrix, located at Rua…, no.… A … E, parish of…, council of Lisbon, which is in vertical ownership, as illegal, for suffering from the following defects:

A. Error Regarding the Conditions of Application of Item 28.1 of the TGIS

a) The Claimants contend that, in light of the specific reality resulting from the combination of Article 67 of the Stamp Duty Code (CIS) and item 28 of the General Table of Stamp Duty (TGIS), the former amended and the latter introduced by Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, already in the wording in effect in 2014, of the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 12 and paragraph 1 of Article 119, both of the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), "it is on each floor or part of property susceptible of independent use that the Municipal Property Tax (IMI) is applied, that is, it is the individual tax property value, of each floor or part of property susceptible of independent use that is relevant for the application of IMI".

b) The Claimants affirm, in this context, that "it is, therefore, on the basis of the tax property value of each floor or part of property susceptible of independent use that its subjection to tax is determined, or not – as occurs in the present case – by item 28 of the General Table."

c) They further specify, in the sense that "indeed, as demonstrated in the facts, in the year to which the tax now contested relates – 2014 – the floors in question constituted themselves all autonomous units with independent use (…) with residential purposes, (…) [it cannot be left unstated] that the tax property value of each of these floors is below the minimum threshold of tax incidence – as indeed appears from their respective property registrations for Municipal Property Tax purposes".

d) They further add that "the tax administration issues a Stamp Duty assessment for each division of independent use, which only serves to show that the tax administration recognizes that, for purposes of Stamp Duty incidence, as in the case of Municipal Property Tax, the tax property value of each division with independent use is relevant."

e) And they conclude in the sense that "the assessment acts in question, by making tax incidence in Stamp Duty attach to the units susceptible of independent use, all with tax property value below one million euros, resorting to the sum of the same in order to fictitiously create, in this manner, a global property value, are based on error regarding the factual and legal prerequisites of taxation in Stamp Duty, in violation of the provisions of item no. 28 of the TGIS."

B. Defect of Violation of Constitutional Law, Namely the Principle of Equality (Article 13 of the CRP), and in Particular, Equality in the Taxation of Patrimonial Assets (Article 104, paragraph 3 of the CRP)

a) The Claimants understand and motivate this pleading of the defect, alleged in the assessment act being contested, on the fact that "the properties in question (units susceptible of independent use) are treated differently from those others which are in a substantially equal situation, despite being constituted in condominium ownership."

b) Adding that "if the property in question had been divided in condominium ownership, none of the autonomous units would be taxed in this manner."

c) The Claimants further consider that "the interpretation that underlies the present Stamp Duty assessment, made by the Tax Administration does not appear to be consistent with the principles of interpretation of tax norms embodied in Article 11 of the General Tax Law, namely in paragraph 3 of this norm".

d) Concluding, thus, that "the assessments which are the subject of the present petition are systematically based on a value higher than the effective tax property value – not covered by item no. 28 of the General Table of Stamp Duty – assigning to the incidence norm invoked a scope that it does not bear, whereby they cannot subsist in the legal order."

III. In Its Response the Respondent Invoked, in Summary, the Following:

For its part, the AT comes, in its response, to defend itself by impugnation, countering the position assumed by the Claimant, which it does as follows:

a) With regard to the alleged error regarding the prerequisites of the assessments in question, the Respondent understands that: "the now Claimants are co-owners, in the proportion of ¼ each, of a property in the regime of full or vertical ownership. From the notion of property in Article 2 of the CIMI, only the autonomous units of property in the regime of condominium ownership are held as properties – paragraph 4 of the cited Article 2 of the CIMI." Therefore, finding themselves with ownership of the property, in the regime of full ownership, it does not possess autonomous units, to which the tax law assigns the qualification of property. Thus, the now claimants, for purposes of Municipal Property Tax and also of Stamp Duty, by virtue of the wording of the aforesaid item [item 28.1 of the TGIS], is not owner of 11 autonomous units, but rather of a single property."

b) It further adds that "condominium ownership is a specific legal regime of property provided for in Article 1414 and following of the Civil Code (…). Now, to contend that the interpreter and applier of tax law should apply by analogy, to the regime of full ownership, the regime of condominium ownership is what is abusive and illegal", because, on the one hand, "these two property regimes are regimes of civil law, which were imported into tax law, namely in accordance with that referred to in Article 2 of the CIMI. And the interpreter of tax law cannot equate these two regimes, in accordance with the rule according to which the concepts of other branches of law have the meaning in tax law that is given to them in those branches of law (…)."

c) Effectively, "in the determination of the meaning of tax norms and in the qualification of the facts to which they apply, the general rules and principles of interpretation and application of laws are observed, in accordance with Article 11, paragraph 1 of the LGT which thus refers to the Civil Code, its Article 10 on the application of analogy, determines that this shall only be applicable in case of gaps in the Law. Now, the tax law contains no gap whatsoever. The CIMI determines, to which the cited item refers, that in the regime of condominium ownership the units constitute properties. The property not being subject to this regime, legally the units are parts susceptible of independent use, without there being common parts."

d) Referring, in consequence, that "finding itself the property subject to the regime of full ownership, but being physically composed of parts susceptible of independent use, the tax law attributed relevance to this materiality, evaluating these parts individually, in accordance with Article 12, and consequently, in accordance with Article 12, paragraph 3 of the CIMI, each floor or part of property susceptible of independent use is considered separately in the property registration, but in the same matrix, proceeding with the assessment of Municipal Property Tax taking into account the tax property value of each part."

e) It further states in the sense that "The unity of the urban property in vertical ownership composed of several floors or divisions is not, however, affected by the fact that all or part of those floors or divisions are susceptible of independent economic use."

f) And, it further adds, finally, that: "The fact that the Municipal Property Tax was determined as a function of the tax property value of each part of property with independent economic use does not equally affect the application of item 28.1 of the General Table."

g) Concluding in the sense that "this is what results from the fact that the determining factor in the application of that item of the General Table is the total tax property value of the property and not separately that of each of its parcels. Any other interpretation would violate, indeed, the letter and spirit of item 28.1 of the General Table and the principle of legality of essential elements of the tax provided for in Article 103, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (CRP).

h) On this matter, the Respondent contends that "it is for the law – Law of the Assembly of the Republic and authorized Decree-Law – to establish the essential elements of tax incidence. A type of tax incidence according to which the tax property value of urban properties upon which the application of item 28.1 of the General Table depends is the tax property value of each floor or division susceptible of independent use and not the total tax property value of the urban property with residential purposes has certainly no expression whatsoever in the law."

i) Further continuing its reasoning in the sense that "it cannot be seen how, on the other hand, the taxation in question could have violated the principle of equality referred to by the Claimants", since "condominium ownership and vertical ownership are differentiated legal institutes. The constitution of condominium ownership involves, it is a fact, merely a legal alteration of the property, with no new assessment occurring (…). The legislator can, however, subject to a different legal tax framework, therefore, discriminatory, properties in condominium and vertical ownership regimes, in particular, benefiting the legally more evolved institute of condominium ownership, without such discrimination having to be considered necessarily arbitrary. Such discrimination can also be imposed by the need to impose coherence to the tax system.

j) It further states, regarding this aspect and in contraposition to what is alleged by the Claimants that "the property registration of each part susceptible of independent use is not autonomous, per matrix, but consists of a description in the matrix of the property as a whole – see the property booklet of this property which represents the owner's document containing the matriculation elements of the property. What is intended to be concluded is that these procedural norms of evaluation, property registration and assessment of the parts susceptible of independent use do not permit one to state that there exists an equation of the property in the regime of full ownership to the regime of condominium ownership, this because, these legal-civil regimes are different, and the tax law respects them."

k) And it concludes in the sense that "the tax property value relevant for purposes of tax incidence is, thus, the total tax property value of the urban property and not the tax property value of each of the parts that comprise it, even when susceptible of independent use", whereby, "the tax acts in question, in terms of substance, did not violate, thus, any legal or constitutional provision, and should, thus, be maintained."

IV. Cleansing of Defects

The Tribunal is competent and is regularly constituted, in accordance with subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 2 and Articles 5 and 6, all of the RJAT.

The parties have legal personality and capacity, show themselves as legitimate, are regularly represented and the process does not suffer from any nullities.

V. Factual Matter

Of interest to the decision, the following facts are taken as proven:

A. The Claimants are owners of the property located at Rua…, no.… A … E, of the parish of…, council and district of Lisbon, registered in the urban property matrix under article…. (cf. Doc. no. 93 attached with the initial petition);

B. The property comprises a total of 9 (nine) floors and 27 (twenty-seven) divisions with independent use, of which only 23 (twenty-three) are intended for residential purposes, whose tax property value (VPT), determined pursuant to the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), varies between € 20,300.00 and € 69,940.00. (cf. Doc. no. 93 attached with the initial petition);

C. The property in question is in the regime of vertical or full ownership. (Doc. no. 93 attached with the initial petition);

D. The sum of the VPT of the aforementioned autonomous units intended for residential purposes amounts to € 1,252,840.00 (one million, two hundred and fifty-two thousand, eight hundred and forty euros), each having individually a VPT of less than € 1,000,000.00 (one million euros) (Doc. no. 93 attached with the initial petition);

E. The property registration no.… identifies separately each of the autonomous units of independent use, with the respective VPT also being itemized resulting from the general evaluation (cf. Doc. no. 93 attached with the initial petition);

F. The Claimants were notified of the Stamp Duty assessment acts relating to the year 2014, effected pursuant to item no. 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty, on the floors and divisions with independent use intended for residential purposes, in the total amount of € 12,528.72 (twelve thousand, five hundred and twenty-eight euros and seventy-two cents) (cf. Docs. no. 1 to 92 attached with the initial petition);

G. On 29 April 2015, the Claimants proceeded with payment of the Stamp Duty assessment act, relating to the first installment for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Claimants, and relating to the single installment for the 3rd Claimant, for which they were notified (cf. Docs. no. 1 to 92 attached with the initial petition).

VI. Motivation of the Factual Matter

For the conviction of the Arbitral Tribunal, regarding the proven facts, the documents attached to the proceedings analyzed and weighed in conjunction with the pleadings were decisive, from which agreement results regarding the factual matter presented by the Claimants in the petition for arbitral pronouncement.

VII. Facts Not Proven

There are no facts not proven, because all facts relevant to the appreciation of the petition were taken as proven.

VIII. Legal Grounds

Of the Disputed Questions

In the present case, there are two disputed legal questions:

1. to know whether subjection to Stamp Duty, in accordance with what item no. 28 of the TGIS provides, relating to the year 2014, is determined by the VPT that corresponds to each of the parts of the property with residential purposes, or whether, instead, it is determined by the global VPT of the property, which would correspond to the sum of all the VPTs of the floors that compose it - Incidence of item 28.1 of the TGIS;

2. to know whether the provision in item no. 28 of the TGIS is unconstitutional by virtue of violation of the principle of equality, provided for in Article 13 of the CRP, as well as the principle of contributory equality in taxation of patrimonial assets, provided for in Article 104, paragraph 3, of the CRP.

Let us see,

I – On the Incidence of Item 28.1 of the TGIS

1. Law no. 55-A/2012, of 19 October (which hereinafter we shall designate as Law no. 55-A/2012 or simply Law), proceeded to amend, among others, various articles of the Stamp Duty Code, more properly 12 of its articles.

2. The fundamental amendment, which conditions all others, is contained in Article 4 of Law no. 55–A/2012, which adds to the General Table of Stamp Duty (TGIS), annexed to the Stamp Duty Code (CIS), a new item, no. 28, with the following wording:

"28. Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose tax property value contained in the matrix, in accordance with the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000 - on the tax property value used for purposes of Municipal Property Tax:

28.1 Per residential property ------------------------------------- 1%[1]

28.2 Per property, when the tax subjects who are not natural persons are residents in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime, contained in the list approved by order of the Minister of Finance ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7.5%"

1. Thus, in accordance with the aforesaid item, and in what concerns us here, only the ownership, usufruct, right of superficies of are subject to Stamp Duty:

a) "urban properties,

b) with residential purposes,

c) and whose tax property value contained in the matrix, in accordance with the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000;" (emphasis ours)

1. The logic of taxation of wealth and fortune prevails, with greater or lesser intensity, within the framework of this diploma, a conclusion that results from the generalized aggravation of the tax burden, in the financial logic, exclusively directed at tax situations that would produce immediate revenue.

2. The taxation of capital income is aggravated, the list of manifestations of wealth is expanded, the taxation of income obtained in Portugal by entities domiciled in tax havens is aggravated, and finally, to all this is added the taxation of properties intended for residential use, of value greater than € 1,000,000.00.

3. And if the legislator includes in this diploma residential properties, fixing a value above which they would begin to be taxed by another tax, this could only mean that it considered that whoever was owner of property of such value expressed an element indicating additional means of wealth that could be called upon to participate in the collective effort of supplementary tax revenue collection.

4. In fact, the legislator, in introducing this legislative innovation, considered as the determining element of contributory capacity urban properties with residential purposes, of high value (of luxury), more rigorously, of value equal to or greater than € 1,000,000, upon which a special rate of Stamp Duty began to apply, intending to introduce a principle of taxation on wealth externalized in ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of luxury urban properties with residential purposes. Therefore, the criterion was the application of the new rate to urban properties with residential purposes, whose VPT is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.

5. This very conclusion is reached from the analysis of the discussion of legislative proposal no. 96/XII in the Assembly of the Republic, available for consultation in the Journal of the Assembly of the Republic, 1st series, no. 9/XII/2, of 11 October 2012.

6. The justification of the measure designated as "special rate on residential urban properties of highest value" is based on the invocation of the principles of social equity and fiscal justice, calling to contribute in a more intense manner the holders of properties of high value intended for residential purposes, making the new special rate apply to "houses of value equal to or greater than 1 million euros."

7. Indeed, the legislator clearly considered that this value, when attributed to a residence (house or autonomous unit) expressed a contributory capacity above average and, as such, capable of determining a special contribution to ensure the fair sharing of the fiscal effort.

8. Also following these considerations inspiring the legislative innovation under consideration, it must be concluded that the existence of a property in vertical or condominium ownership cannot be, by itself, an indicator of contributory capacity.

9. On the contrary, it follows from the law that both must receive the same tax treatment, in obedience to the principles of justice, fiscal equality and material truth.

10. Indeed, the existence in each property of independent residences, in the regime of condominium or vertical ownership, may be capable of triggering the incidence of the new tax, but only if the VPT of each of the parts or units is equal to or greater than the limit defined by law: € 1,000,000.

11. It does not seem sensible that one could fit within the normative provision properties urban in their entirety, i.e., composed of independent units, with separate VPT evaluations.

12. As referred to, the introduction of Law no. 55-A/2012, of 19 October, intended to tax in fact, wealth.

13. Now, the property in question belongs to the Claimants, and is composed of 9 (nine) floors and 27 (twenty-seven) divisions with independent use, of which only 23 (twenty-three) are intended for residential purposes, whose tax property value (VPT), determined pursuant to the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), varies between € 20,300.00 and € 69,940.00.

14. It is the understanding of the AT that the sum of the VPTs relating to these 23 divisions with independent use that have residential purposes, totaling a global VPT of € 1,252,840.00 (one million, two hundred and fifty-two thousand, eight hundred and forty euros), in the year 2014, gives rise to the incidence of Stamp Duty, the reason why it understood to proceed with the assessment of Stamp Duty contested in these proceedings.

15. Thus, from the point of view of the AT, for a property in vertical ownership (or not constituted in the regime of condominium ownership), the criterion for determining the incidence of Stamp Duty is the global VPT of the floors and divisions even if with independent use, intended for residential purposes.

16. Let us see whether the thesis of the AT is convincing,

17. Law 55-A/2012, of 29 October entered into force on the day following its publication, that is, on 30 October 2012.

18. However, it says nothing regarding the qualification of the concepts in question, namely, regarding the concept of "property with residential purposes", which concerns us here.

19. However, Article 67, paragraph 2 of the Stamp Duty Code, added by the referred Law, provides that "to matters not regulated in this code concerning item 28 of the General Table the CIMI shall be applied subsidiarily."

20. Thus, we have that the incidence norm refers to urban properties, the concept of which is that which results from the provisions of Article 2 of the CIMI, with the determination of the VPT following the terms of the provisions of Article 38 and following of the same code.

21. Consulting the CIMI, it is verified that its Article 6 only indicates the different types of urban properties, among which it mentions residential ones (see subparagraph a) of paragraph 1), clarifying in paragraph 2 of the same article that "residential, commercial, industrial or service purposes are buildings or constructions licensed for such purposes or, in the absence of a license, that have each of these purposes as their normal destination."

22. From this we can conclude that, in the legislator's perspective, what matters is not the legal-formal rigor of the concrete situation of the property, but rather its normal use, the purpose to which the property is intended.

23. Moreover, we ascertain that, for the legislator, the situation of the property in vertical or condominium ownership was not relevant, since no reference or distinction is made between one and the other. What is relevant, rather, is the material truth underlying its existence as an urban property and its use.

24. Indeed, subjection to Stamp Duty contained in item no. 28.1 of the TGIS is determined by the combination of three factors, namely:

a) we are before an urban property;

b) residential purposes; and

c) the VPT contained in the matrix equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.

1. Now, in the case of a property with the above described characteristics, subjection to Stamp Duty shall be determined, not by the VPT of the property "as a whole", but by the VPT attributed to each of the floors or divisions with independent use, intended for residential purposes.

2. A position assumed in various decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal, on the theme "Stamp Duty – Item 28, vertical ownership", which we indicate here, by way of example, such as cases no. 428/2014-T, no. 206/2014-T, no. 30/2014-T, no. 181/2013-T, no. 132/2013-T, no. 50/2013-T, no. 248/2013-T of CAAD, no. 849/2014-T, no. 179/2015-T (among others), the legal motivation of which this tribunal adheres to in its entirety, regarding the matter of the incidence of item 28.1 of the TGIS,...

3. …as well as the recent Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, which we follow, delivered in case no. 047/15, of 09.09.2015, according to which:

"I - With regard to properties in vertical ownership, for purposes of the incidence of Stamp Duty (Item 28.1 of the TGIS, in the wording of Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October), the subjection is determined by the combination of two factors: residential purposes and the VPT contained in the matrix equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.

II - In the case of a property constituted in vertical ownership, the incidence of Stamp Duty shall be determined, not by the VPT resulting from the sum of the VPT of all divisions or floors susceptible of independent use (individualized in the property article), but by the VPT attributed to each of those floors or divisions intended for residential purposes."

1. Thus, the understanding of the AT to the effect that the sum of the VPTs of the various units or divisions with independent use intended for residential purposes, resulting in a global VPT equal to or greater than € 1,000,000, legitimates the incidence of Stamp Duty, pursuant to item 28 of the TGIS, in the standard regime, is manifestly illegal!

2. Therefore, as there is not, in this manner, a single unit or division with independent use, intended for residential purposes, with VPT equal to or greater than € 1,000,000, the AT could never subject the Claimants to Stamp Duty, pursuant to item 28 of the TGIS, of the year 2014, which is now contested, as it is illegal.

3. Regarding the alleged defect of unconstitutionality by violation of the principle of equality, in particular equality in the taxation of patrimonial assets, provided for in Articles 13 and paragraph 3 of Article 104, both of the CRP, knowledge of such questions is precluded by the declaration of illegality of the Stamp Duty assessments in question, by a substantive defect which prevents their re-edition or renewal.

4. As referred to in the Commentary on the Code of Procedure in Administrative Courts, Almedina, 2005, by Mário Aroso de Almeida and Carlos Cadilha, in annotation to Article 95 of that diploma, p. 483 (applicable by referral from Article 2, subparagraph c) of CPPT and Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and c) of RJAT) "If the court judged the main petition as well-founded, the jurisdictional power is precluded as to a subsidiary or alternative petition; and, in the same terms, if the pronouncement adopted regarding a question consumes or leaves precluded other aspects of the cause that correlate with it."

5. In these terms, given the material interpretation advocated, knowledge and appreciation of the remaining defects imputed to the contested assessment acts are precluded.

DECISION

In accordance with the above, it is decided to annul all Stamp Duty assessment acts contested by the Claimants relating to the year 2014.

Value of the Case

The value of the case is fixed at € 12,528.72 (twelve thousand, five hundred and twenty-eight euros and seventy-two cents) in accordance with Article 97-A, paragraph 1, a), of the CPPT, applicable by virtue of subparagraphs a) and b) of paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the RJAT and paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Regulations on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.

Costs

Costs charged to the Respondent in accordance with Article 22, paragraph 2 of the RJAT, Article 4 of the RCPAT, and Table I annexed to the latter, which are fixed in the amount of € 918.00.

Notify parties.

Lisbon, 1 April 2016

The Arbitrator

(Jorge Carita)

[1] This wording was altered by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, without, however, having great relevance for the case under consideration, in the following manner:

"28.1 Per residential property or per land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Property Tax Code-------------------------------------------------------------1%"