Stamp Tax on Properties Over €1M: CAAD Ruling on Verba 28 TGIS (Process 458/2014-T)

ARBITRAL DECISION

REPORT

1. On 2 July 2014, A, taxpayer no. …, (hereinafter referred to as 1st Applicant), B, taxpayer no. … (hereinafter referred to as 2nd Applicant) and C, taxpayer no. …, in his capacity as head of the Estate following the death of D, (hereinafter referred to as 3rd Applicant), hereinafter collectively referred to as Applicants, resident in Portugal, requested the constitution of an arbitral tribunal and filed a request for an arbitral award, under the terms of subparagraph a) of no. 1 of article 2 and subparagraph a) of no. 1 of article 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime of Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as LRAT), in which the Tax and Customs Authority is named as Respondent (hereinafter referred to as TA).

2. The Applicants are represented, in the scope of the present proceedings, by their representative, Dr. …, and the Respondent is represented by the legal advisers, Dr. … and Dr. ….

3. The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of CAAD and was notified to the Respondent on 4 July 2014.

4. By means of the request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal and arbitral award, the Applicants seek the annulment of the following acts of assessment of Stamp Tax, relating to the year 2013, in the total amount of € 32,245.08, which are indicated as follows:

a) as regards the first Applicant:

b) as regards the second Applicant:

c) as regards the third Applicant:

1. Having verified the formal regularity of the request submitted, under the terms of subparagraph a) of no. 2 of article 6 of the LRAT, and the Applicants having failed to appoint an arbitrator, Dr. Jorge Carita was designated by the President of the Deontological Council of CAAD.

2. The Arbitrator accepted the designation made, and the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 9 September 2014, at the premises of CAAD, located at Avenida Duque de Loulé, no. 72-A, in Lisbon, in accordance with the minutes of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal which were drawn up and are attached to the present proceedings.

3. The first meeting of the arbitral tribunal did not take place as it was waived, given the request made by the Respondent on 17.11.2014, and following notification to that effect, the Applicants made no objection.

4. No exceptions having been raised, no necessity for the production of additional evidence being apparent beyond that which has already been incorporated in the file, no need being foreseen for the parties to amend their procedural pleadings, the process having all the elements necessary for the delivery of the decision, for reasons of procedural economy and efficiency, and the prohibition of useless acts, given the position manifested by the parties, expressed and tacitly (given the silence of the Applicants), the Tribunal decided to dispense with the holding of the meeting referred to in article 18 of the LRAT, as well as the submission of arguments.

5. The Tribunal, in compliance with the provisions of no. 2 of article 18 of the LRAT, set 19 February 2015 as the date for delivery of the arbitral decision, and warned the Applicants that they should proceed with payment of the subsequent arbitral fee, under the terms of no. 3 of article 4 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, and communicate such payment to CAAD.

6. The Applicants request the joinder of claims and the joinder of plaintiffs, alleging the existence of identity of factual circumstances and the application of the same principles or rules of law, which being admissible, under the terms of article 104 of the Tax Procedure and Process Code and article 3 of the LRAT, are admitted.

II. The Applicants sustain their claims, in summary, in the following manner:

The Applicants support the request for annulment of the acts of assessment of stamp tax to which they were subject, regarding the floors or parts susceptible of independent utilization, for residential purposes, of the property located at Av. do Brasil, no. 15 to 15B, parish of ..., municipality of Lisbon, which is in vertical ownership, as illegal, as they are affected by the following defects:

a) Defect of violation of ordinary law – error in the conditions for application of item 28.1 of the GSST, in that "the VPT shown in the cadastre, for purposes of application of this incidence norm, can only be that of the cadastral registration corresponding to each of the parts of the property with residential use, and not that corresponding to the sum of all VPTs of the floors that compose it", whereby, and "to that extent, given that it is verified that the VPTs of the floors which compose the property in question range between €69,230.00 and €121,300.00 and that, consequently, are all below €1,000,000.00, stamp tax should not be levied on them as referred to in item no. 28 of the GSST".

b) Defect of violation of constitutional law – violation of the principle of equality, in that "the interpretation of the TA regarding item 28.1 of the GSST, besides having no legal basis, generates distinctions of treatment ostensibly violating the principle of equality. (…) It is well known that many properties existing in vertical ownership are old, with undeniable social utility, as in many cases they house residents paying modest and more accessible rents, factors which necessarily must be taken into account. And, certainly taking into account all this social and economic reality, the legislator itself in the MPIT dealt with the two situations (horizontal and vertical ownership) in an equitable manner, applying the same criteria. The TA cannot distinguish what the legislator itself understood not to do, under penalty of violating the coherence of the tax system, as well as the principle of tax legality provided for in article 103, no. 2 of the CRP, and also the principles of justice, equality and tax proportionality."

c) Concluding to the effect that "the assessments in dispute – because they affect floors and divisions with independent utilization with VPT below €1,000,000.00 are vitiated by a defect of violation of law due to error over the conditions for application of item 28.1 of the GSST and defect of violation of constitutional law, more specifically the principle of equality provided for in article 13 of the CRP, and should, consequently, be annulled under the terms of article 135 of the CPA, with the consequent reimbursement of the amounts already paid plus compensatory interest, under the terms of article 100 of the GTA."

III. In its Response the Respondent invoked, in summary, the following:

For its part, the TA comes to allege, in its response:

a) As regards the alleged error over the conditions for the assessments, the Respondent understands that: "The patrimonial value relevant for purposes of incidence is thus the total patrimonial value of the urban property, and not the patrimonial value of each of the parts that compose it, even if susceptible of independent utilization. Article 80, no. 2 of the MPIT declares, save as provided in articles 84 and 92, that to each property corresponds a single registration in the cadastre. The principle that to each property corresponds a single cadastral registration is only excepted, regarding mixed properties (…). Now in the case at hand, the properties are not in the regime of condominium, case in which each of the autonomous units would be had as urban property, including for purposes of being subject to stamp tax of item 28.1 of the General Schedule, but in the regime of vertical ownership."

b) It further adds 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 utilization. Such property does not cease, therefore, to be a single one, and its distinct parts are not thus legally equated to autonomous units in the condominium regime." (…) [in the case of full ownership] even though the property has parts or divisions susceptible of independent utilization the juridical tax concept is that this property constitutes a single unit since its ownership, without prejudice to co-ownership, pertains only to a single owner. It should be noted that the fact that in this case each floor or division of a property susceptible of independent utilization is separately listed in the cadastral registration and with its respective patrimonial value of each, is only relevant for tax purposes in light of the concept of property cadastre contained in article 12 of the MPIT and in the matter regulated in the same code for the organization of cadastres."

c) And concludes to the effect that: "if the building is constituted in full ownership with parts or divisions susceptible of independent utilization (so-called full ownership), it falls within the juridical tax concept of 'property', that is, a single unit, and the patrimonial tax value in it is determined by the sum of the parts with residential use, and being this equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00, there is subjection to Stamp Tax of item 28 of the General Schedule attached to the CIS."

d) With regard to the alleged defect of violation of constitutional law – for violation of the principle of equality, the Respondent defends itself by stating that: "the provision of item 28.1 of the GSST does not constitute any violation of the principle of equality nor of the principle of legality, there being no arbitrary discrimination in the taxation of properties constituted in condominium and properties in full ownership with floors or divisions susceptible of independent utilization", since item 28.1 of the GSST is "a general and abstract norm, applicable in an undifferentiated manner to all cases in which its respective conditions of fact and law are verified." (…) "In effect, the constitution in condominium determines the division/partition of full ownership and the independence or autonomy of each of the units that constitute it, for all legal purposes, under the terms of no. 2 of article 4 of the MPIT and articles 1414 et seq. of the Civil Code (CC), while a property in full ownership constitutes, for all purposes, a single juridical-tax reality."

e) Concluding that: "one cannot conclude by an alleged discrimination in violation of the principle of equality when, in truth, we are faced with distinct realities, valued by the legislator in a different way." And it concludes by mentioning that "the assessment of stamp tax here in question conforms with the aforementioned constitutional precept, and does not violate the principle of legality (see Art. 103 of the CRP and 8 of the GTA), interpreted in the dimension of the preeminence of law, insofar as the acts performed by the TA do not contravene the Law."

f) As to the requested compensatory interest, the Respondent understands that it is not owed, as the condition provided in no. 1 of article 43 of the GTA is not met.

g) In light of the above, and in summary, the Respondent understands that "the tax act in question was validly performed".

IV. Procedural Review

The Tribunal is competent and is regularly constituted, under the terms of subparagraph a) of no. 1 of article 2 and articles 5 and 6, all of the LRAT.

The parties have legal personality and capacity, show themselves to be legitimate, and are regularly represented.

There are no nullities, exceptions, or preliminary questions which prevent the examination of the merits of the claim.

V. Factual Matter

With interest for the decision, the following facts are considered proven:

• The Applicants are owners of the property located at …, no. …, parish of ..., municipality of …, registered in the urban property cadastre under article ... ... –U-... - 2.ºA, 2.ºB, 2.ºC, 2.ºD, 2.ºE, 3.ºA, 3.ºB, 3.ºC, 3.ºD, 3.ºE, 4.ºA, 4.ºB, 4.ºC, 4.ºD, 4.ºE, 5.ºA, 5.ºB, 5.ºC, 5.ºD, 5.ºE, 6.ºA, 6.ºB, 6.ºC, 6.ºD, 6.ºE, 7.ºA, 7.ºB, 7.ºC, 7.ºD, 7.ºE, 8.ºA, 8.ºB, 8.ºC, 8.ºD and 8.ºE; (see Doc. nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 attached with the initial petition);

• The first Applicant owns a quota share of ½, the second and third Applicants own a quota share of ¼ each, of the property identified above. (see Doc. nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 attached with the initial petition);

• The property comprises a total of thirty-five floors and divisions with independent utilization for residential purposes, the patrimonial tax value (VPT) of which, determined under the Municipal Property Tax Code (MPIT), varies between €69,230.00 and €121,300.00 and totals €3,224,480.00. (see Doc. nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 attached with the initial petition);

• The property in question is in the regime of vertical or full ownership. (Doc. no. 4 attached with the initial petition);

• The sum of the VPT of the aforementioned autonomous units for residential purposes amounted to €3,224,480.00 (three million, two hundred and twenty-four thousand, four hundred and eighty euros), with each of them individually having a VPT below €1,000,000.00 (one million euros) (Doc. nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 attached with the initial petition);

• The cadastral registration no. … identifies separately each of the units, with the respective VPT of each also being indicated resulting from the general assessment (see Doc. no. 4 attached with the initial petition);

• The Applicants were notified of the acts of assessment of Stamp Tax relating to the year 2013, effected under item no. 28.1 of the General Schedule of Stamp Tax, according to their quota share, on the floors and divisions with independent utilization for residential purposes, in the total amount of €32,245.08, in the following manner (see Doc. nos. 1, 2 and 3 attached with the initial petition and documents attached with request dated 26.12.2014 by the Applicants' representative):

• The Applicants proceeded with the payment of the amounts corresponding to the stamp tax assessments object of the present request for arbitral award. (See doc. nos. 1, 2 and 3 attached with the initial petition and documents attached with request dated 26.12.2014 by the Applicants' representative).

VI. Motivations Regarding the Factual Matter

For the conviction of the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the proven facts, the documents attached to the file, as well as the administrative process, were relevant, all analyzed and weighed in conjunction with the pleadings, from which results agreement regarding the factuality presented by the Applicant in the request for arbitral award.

VII. Facts Considered as Not Proven

There are no facts considered as not proven, because all facts relevant for the assessment of the claim were considered proven.

VIII. Legal Grounds

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

1. to know whether the subjection to stamp tax, under the terms of what is provided in item no. 28 of the GSST, relating to the year 2013, is determined by the VPT corresponding to each of the parts of the property with residential use, or whether, instead, it is determined by the global VPT of the property, which would correspond to the sum of all VPTs of the floors that compose it – Incidence of item 28.1 of the GSST;

2. to know whether the provision in item no. 28 of the GSST is unconstitutional for violation of the principle of equality, as well as of the provision in article 104, no. 3, of the CRP, in the interpretation that the TA makes thereof.

3. to know whether the Respondent, if the above questions proceed, has the right to compensatory interest.

Let us examine this.

I – On the Incidence of Item 28.1 of the GSST

1. Law no. 55-A/2012, of 19 October (which we shall hereinafter refer to as Law no. 55-A/2012 or merely Law), effected the amendment, among others, of diverse articles of the Stamp Tax Code, more precisely 12 of its articles.

2. The fundamental amendment, which conditions all the others, is contained in article 4 of Law no. 55-A/2012, which adds to the General Schedule of Stamp Tax (GSST), annexed to the Stamp Tax Code (STC), a new item, no. 28, with the following wording:

"28. Ownership, usufruct or right of surface of urban properties whose patrimonial tax value shown in the cadastre, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code (MPIT), is equal to or greater than (euro) 1,000,000 - on the patrimonial tax value used for purposes of MPIT:

28.1 Per property with residential use ----------------------------------------- 1%

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

1. In this manner, in accordance with the aforementioned item, and in what is of interest here, only is subject to Stamp Tax the ownership, usufruct, right of surface of:

a) "urban properties,

b) with residential use,

c) And whose patrimonial tax value shown in the cadastre, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code (MPIT), is equal to or greater than (euro) 1,000,000;" (underlined in original)

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

2. The taxation of income from capital is aggravated, the list of manifestations of fortune 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 real property for residential purposes, of value exceeding €1,000,000.00.

3. And if the legislator includes in this statute real property for residential purposes, setting a value above which they would become subject to another tax, such could only mean that it considered that whoever was the owner of real property of that value, such expressed an element indicating additional means of fortune, which could be called to participate in the collective effort of supplementary collection of tax revenue.

4. In truth, the legislator in introducing this legislative innovation, considered as the determining element of tax capacity urban properties, with residential use, of high value (luxury), more precisely, of value equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00, on which a special rate of stamp tax then became applicable, seeking to introduce a principle of taxation on wealth as expressed in the ownership, usufruct or right of surface of luxury urban properties with residential use. For this reason, the criterion was the application of the new rate to urban properties with residential use, whose VPT is equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00.

5. This same conclusion follows from the analysis of the discussion of bill no. 96/XII in the Assembly of the Republic, available for consultation in the Journal of the Assembly of the Republic, I series, no. 9/XII/2, of 11 October 2012.

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

7. In effect, the legislator clearly considered that this value, when attributed to a residential unit (house, autonomous unit or floor with independent utilization) expressed above average tax capacity and, as such, susceptible to determine a special contribution to ensure the fair apportionment of tax effort.

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

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

10. In effect, the existence in each property of independent residential units, in the regime of horizontal or vertical ownership, may be susceptible 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: €1,000,000.00.

11. It does not seem prudent that one could fit within the normative provision urban properties in their entirety, that is, constituted by independent units, with separate VPT assessments.

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

13. Now, the property in question belongs to the Applicants, and is composed of 35 divisions with independent utilization, all with residential use.

14. It is the understanding of the TA that the sum of the VPT relating to these 35 divisions with independent utilization that have residential use, totaling a global VPT of €3,224,480.00 (three million, two hundred and twenty-four thousand, four hundred and eighty euros), in the year 2013, gives rise to the incidence of stamp tax, which is why it understood to proceed with the assessment of the Stamp Tax impugned in the present proceedings.

15. Thus, from the perspective of the TA, for a property in vertical ownership (or not constituted in the regime of horizontal ownership) the criterion for the determination of the incidence of stamp tax is the global VPT of the floors and divisions intended for residential purposes.

16. Let us see whether the TA's thesis convinces.

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 at issue, namely, regarding the concept of "property with residential use", which is of interest to us here.

19. However, article 67, no. 2 of the Stamp Tax Code, added by the said Law, provides that "for matters not regulated in the present code relating to item 28 of the General Schedule, the MPIT applies 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 MPIT, with the determination of VPT being subject to the terms of article 38 et seq. of the same code.

21. Consulting the MPIT, it is verified that its article 6 only indicates the different types of urban properties, among which it mentions residential (see subparagraph a) of no. 1), clarifying in no. 2 of the same article that "residential, commercial, industrial or for services are buildings or constructions licensed as such or, in the absence of a license, which have as their normal purpose each of these ends."

22. From this we can conclude that, in the legislator's view, formal juridical rigor of the specific situation of the property is not what matters, but rather its normal utilization, the purpose to which the property is destined.

23. Moreover, we find that, for the legislator, the situation of the property in vertical or horizontal ownership was not relevant, since no reference or distinction is made between them. What is relevant is the material truth underlying its existence as an urban property and its utilization.

24. In effect, the subjection to stamp tax contained in item no. 28.1 of the GSST is determined by the conjunction of three facts, namely:

a) we are dealing with an urban property;

b) residential use and

c) the VPT shown in the cadastre equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00.

1. Now, in the case of a property with the characteristics described above, the subjection to stamp tax must be determined, not by the VPT of the property "as a whole", but by the VPT assigned to each of the floors or divisions with independent utilization, for residential purposes.

2. Accordingly, the understanding of the TA to the effect that the sum of the VPTs of the various units or divisions with independent utilization for residential purposes, resulting in a global VPT equal to or greater than €1,000,000, legitimates the incidence of stamp tax, under item 28 of the GSST, in the standard regime, is manifestly illegal!

3. Accordingly, there being no, in this manner, a single unit or division with independent utilization, for residential purposes, with VPT equal to or greater than €1,000,000, the TA could never subject the Applicant to stamp tax, under item 28 of the GSST, for the year 2013, which is now impugned, as it is illegal, and therefore unacceptable and inconformable, among others, with the principle of tax legality, as well as with the principle of equality, provided constitutionally in article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Portugal (CRP).

II – On the Principle of Equality – Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Portugal in the Application of Item 28.1 of the GSST

1. In effect, the constitutional principle of tax equality, as a specific expression of the general structural principle of equality (article 13 of the CRP), is not limited to the rule of universality of taxes, according to which these apply to all those who have tax capacity, and also determines that all must be subject to the payment of taxes on the basis of the same criterion - the rule of uniformity of taxes.

2. According to this rule, what is equal must be taxed equally, and what is unequal must be taxed unequally, to the extent of such inequality.

3. The tax legislator cannot treat equal situations differently. Now, if the property were in the regime of horizontal ownership, none of its residential units would be subject to the incidence of the new tax.

4. This is precisely why article 12, no. 3 of the MPIT says that "each floor or part of a property susceptible of independent utilization is considered separately in the cadastral registration which likewise discriminates the respective patrimonial tax value."

5. As a consequence, the discrimination which is verified, and which is being operated by the TA in the concrete case, represents an arbitrary and illegal discrimination. Nothing in the law imposes the obligation to constitute condominium ownership.

6. On the other hand, it is well known that many properties existing in vertical ownership are old, with undeniable social utility, as in many cases they house residents paying modest and more accessible rents, factors which necessarily must be taken into account. And, certainly, taking into account all this social and economic reality, the legislator itself in the MPIT treated the two situations (horizontal and vertical ownership) in an equitable manner, applying the same criteria.

7. The TA cannot distinguish where the legislator itself understood not to do so, under penalty of violating the coherence of the tax system, as well as the principle of tax legality, provided in article 103, no. 2 of the CRP, and also the principles of justice, equality and tax proportionality.

8. Now, the non-annulment of these assessments clearly violates these principles, since it implies unequal taxation of the now applicant, compared with a situation in which the property were in horizontal ownership of identical characteristics.

9. Thus, it is manifestly illegal and unconstitutional to consider as the reference value the one corresponding to the sum of the VPT assigned to each part or division, because it is a clear violation, among others, of the principle of equality and proportionality in tax matters, nothing legitimating the interpretation that the TA makes of the applicable legal norms.

10. Finally, it must be mentioned the recent jurisprudence of CAAD, delivered on the subject "Stamp Tax – Item 28, vertical ownership", in proceedings nos. 185/2013-T, 183/2013-T, 181/2013-T, 132/2013-T, 50/2013-T, 248/2013-T of CAAD, among others, the legal grounds of which this tribunal adheres to in their entirety, regarding the matter of the incidence of item 28.1 of the GSST.

11. In light of the foregoing, there being no single unit or division with independent utilization, for residential purposes, with VPT equal to or greater than €1,000,000, the acts of assessment of Stamp Tax relating to the year 2013, in the amount of €32,245.98 are null, for violation of the provision in item 28.1 of the GSST and article 13 of the CRP.

C – On Compensatory Interest

1. The Applicant further petitions that recognition be given to the right to compensatory interest, on the grounds of error attributable to the tax authority.

2. Article 43, no. 1 of the GTA and article 61 of the Tax Procedure and Process Code provide that compensatory interest is owed when it is determined in administrative appeal or judicial challenge that there was error attributable to the tax authority as a result of which payment of tax debt was made in an amount greater than that legally due.

3. Error attributable to the tax authority is considered to exist when the error is not attributable to the taxpayer and is based on erroneous factual assumptions which are not the responsibility of the taxpayer.

4. Now, resulting from the tax acts impugned the obligation of payment of tax in an amount greater than that which would be due, compensatory interest is owed under the terms legally provided, the legislator presuming, in these cases in which the annulment of the assessment is verified, that prejudice occurred in the sphere of the taxpayer by virtue of having been deprived of the patrimonial sum which it had to hand over to the State by virtue of an illegal assessment. In consequence, the taxpayer has the right to this compensation, independently of any allegation or proof of the prejudice suffered.

5. In the present case, it will be unquestionable that, following the establishment of the illegality of the acts of assessment, there will be a reimbursement of the tax by virtue of the provision of no. 1 of article 43 of the GTA, and of article 100 of the GTA, necessarily passing thereby the reestablishment of the "situation that would have existed if the tax act which is the object of the arbitral decision had not been performed".

6. In the same manner, it is understood that it will be beyond question that the illegality of the act is attributable to the Tax Authority, which autonomously performed it illegally.

7. As to the concept of "error", it has been understood that only in cases of annulments based on defects concerning the tax juridical relationship will there be a right to compensatory interest, such right not being recognized in cases of annulments for procedural defects or defects of form.

8. Accordingly, being in the presence of a defect of violation of substantive law, which is embodied in error in the conditions of law, attributable to the Tax Authority, the Applicants have the right to compensatory interest, in accordance with articles 43, no. 1 of the GTA, and 61 of the TPPC, calculated on the sum of €32,245.08, and counted from the payment of the tax until the complete reimbursement of said amount.

DECISION

In accordance with the foregoing, it is decided:

1. To annul all acts of assessment of Stamp Tax impugned by the Applicants, relating to the year 2013.

2. To condemn the Tax and Customs Authority to reimburse the Applicants for the amount which they paid, plus compensatory interest, calculated at the legal rate, from the payment of the tax until the complete reimbursement.

Value of the Case

The value of the case is fixed at €32,245.08 (thirty-two thousand, two hundred and forty-five euros and eight cents) under the terms of art. 97-A, no. 1, a), of the TPPC, applicable by virtue of subparagraphs a) and b) of no. 1 of art. 29 of the LRAT and of no. 2 of art. 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.

Costs

Costs at the charge of the Respondent in accordance with article 22, no. 2 of the LRAT, article 4 of the RCAAP, and Table I annexed to the latter, which are fixed in the amount of €1,836.00.

Let notification be made.

Lisbon, 19 February 2015

The Arbitrator

(Jorge Carita)