Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
Claimant: A, S.A.
Defendant: Tax and Customs Authority
I. REPORT
A, S.A., legal entity no. …, with registered office in … Lisbon (hereinafter referred to only as Claimant), filed on 04-07-2014, a request for constitution of a single arbitral tribunal, in accordance with articles 2nd and 10th of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Framework of Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as RJAT), in conjunction with paragraph a) of article 99 of CPPT, wherein the Tax and Customs Authority is the defendant (hereinafter referred to only as Defendant).
The Claimant requests the declaration of illegality and unconstitutionality of the following acts of Stamp Tax assessment, with reference to item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (hereinafter, TGIS), in the total amount of € 26,448.20:
a) Assessment no. 2014 …, of 17-03-2014, relating to the urban property registered in the cadastre under article … of the parish of …, in the municipality of Oeiras, in the total amount of € 11,120.70 (doc. 1 of the proceedings);
b) Assessment no. 2014 …, of 17-03-2014, relating to the urban property registered in the cadastre under article … of the parish of …, in the municipality of Oeiras, in the total amount of € 15,327.50 (doc. 2 of the proceedings);
The Claimant further requests the condemnation of the Defendant to reimburse the tax paid, corresponding to the first instalment of each of the assessments, plus compensatory interest.
The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the Honourable President of CAAD on 08-07-2014 and notified to the Tax and Customs Authority on that same date.
Pursuant to the provisions in paragraph a) of item 2 of article 6 and paragraph b) of item 1 of article 11 of RJAT, the Deontological Council designated as arbitrator of the single arbitral tribunal the undersigned hereto, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable period.
On 22-08-2014 the Parties were duly notified of this designation, and neither manifested the intention to challenge the designation of the arbitrators, in accordance with the combined provisions of article 11, item 1, paragraphs a) and b) of RJAT and articles 6 and 7 of the Deontological Code.
In conformity with the provision in paragraph c) of item 1 of article 11 of RJAT, the single arbitral tribunal was constituted on 08-09-2014.
By order of 20-10-2014, the meeting provided for in article 18 of RJAT was waived, and the parties were granted a period for submission of written arguments, which both parties proceeded to do.
The Claimant alleges, succinctly, that there was error of fact and of law in the assessment of the disputed tax, in that the total value of each of the properties was taken as the assumption of taxation rather than the individual values of each of the independent parts that compose them. By express legal reference, the tax base of the Stamp Tax of item 28.1 of TGIS should be the same as that of IMI. To that extent, being at issue a property in vertical ownership composed of units capable of independent use, some of which intended for housing, the tax patrimonial value relevant for purposes of assessment of said tax would be that of each of them individually considered and not their sum, as results from the contested assessments. This very fact results from the fact that in the context of IMI there is no distinction between properties in horizontal and vertical ownership, all being subject to the same rules of registration in the cadastre, evaluation and assessment. Subsidiarily, the Claimant considers that the rules that form the basis of the assessment of the tax now contested, in the interpretation given by the Defendant, would be unconstitutional by violation of the principle of equality, in its aspect of tax equality – contributive capacity, in accordance with article 13 and item 3 of article 104 of CRP.
In response, the Defendant argues, succinctly, that in properties not subject to horizontal ownership, the units capable of independent use do not have any autonomy; the individualization for purposes of cadastral registration and evaluation does not conflict with their legal-tax nature, the law determining that the value of the property shall necessarily correspond to the sum of the value of the various independent units. Units of independent use cannot be considered as "properties" according to the legal definition, thus cannot be relevant for purposes of the incidence of item 28.1 of TGIS. For purposes of this rule, account must therefore be taken of the tax patrimonial value of the property in vertical ownership which corresponds, pursuant to law, to the sum of the values of each unit capable of independent use. The Defendant further concludes that the interpretation defended by the Claimant with reference to said item 28.1 of TGIS would entail its unconstitutionality by violation of the principles of legality and tax equality.
III. PRELIMINARY RULING
The Arbitral Tribunal was regularly constituted and is competent.
The parties possess legal standing and legal capacity and are legitimate (articles 4 and 10, item 2, of the same statute and article 1 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March).
The proceedings do not suffer from any nullities and no obstacle exists to consideration of the merits of the case.
IV. FACTS
A. Facts Found to be Proven
The following facts are considered proven:
-
The Claimant is registered as owner of the urban property in total ownership registered in the cadastre under article … of the civil parish union of … and …, in the municipality of Loures, with tax patrimonial value of € 1,908,520.00 (doc. no. 116 of the proceedings);
-
The property referred to in the preceding point has 44 units capable of independent use, 40 of which intended for housing;
-
The Claimant is registered as owner of the urban property in total ownership registered in the cadastre under article … of the civil parish union of … and …, in the municipality of Loures, with tax patrimonial value of € 3,507,154.86 (doc. no. 117 of the proceedings);
-
The property referred to in the preceding point has 48 units capable of independent use, 47 of which intended for housing;
-
The Claimant is registered as owner of the urban property in total ownership registered in the cadastre under article … of the civil parish union of … (…, … and …), in the municipality of Setúbal, with tax patrimonial value of € 2,755,080.00 (doc. no. 118 of the proceedings);
-
The property referred to in the preceding point has 35 units capable of independent use, 28 of which intended for housing;
-
With respect to the identified properties, none of the units capable of independent use has a tax patrimonial value exceeding € 1,000,000.00;
-
In March 2014, the Claimant was notified of the Stamp Tax assessments, item 28.1 of TGIS, for the year 2013, relating to each of the divisions capable of independent use intended for housing of each of the identified properties (docs. 1 to 115 of the proceedings);
-
The total value of the first instalment of the Stamp Tax assessments, payable during the month of April 2014, amounted to € 26,461.83;
-
The first instalments of the Stamp Tax assessments, item 28.1 of TGIS, for the year 2013, were paid in full on 30 April 2014 (docs. nos. 119 to 210).
B. Facts Not Found to be Proven
No other facts of relevance to the arbitral decision were proven.
C. Substantiation of the Findings of Fact
The findings of fact deemed proven are based on the documentary evidence presented and not contested.
V. FINDINGS OF LAW
A. Of the Tax Assessed
The essential question to be decided concerns the determination of the tax base of Stamp Tax, item 28.1 of TGIS, when at issue is a property not constituted as horizontal ownership and whose units capable of independent use are intended for housing.
Specifically, it must be decided whether the tax patrimonial value relevant as the criterion for tax incidence corresponds to (i) the sum of the value of each of those units capable of independent use, as the Defendant contends, or (ii) the individual tax patrimonial value of each of those units capable of independent use, considered autonomously and separately, as the Claimant contends.
The doubt results from the interpretation of items 28 and 28.1 of TGIS, whose wording in force on 31 December 2013 was as follows:
"28. Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose tax patrimonial value registered in the cadastre, in accordance with the Code of the Municipal Tax on Real Property (CIMI), is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000 - on the tax patrimonial value used for purposes of IMI:
28.1 Per property with residential use – 1%"
The legislator did not establish the legal concept of "property with residential use," having expressly provided that to all matters not regulated in the Code of Stamp Tax with reference to said item 28 of TGIS the provisions of CIMI would be subsidiarily applicable. It is therefore necessary to seek in CIMI such concept in order to be able to conclude regarding the tax base of item 28.1 of TGIS.
The legal definition of "property" is contained in article 2 of CIMI, being clarified in item 4 that "For purposes of this tax, each autonomous fraction, in the regime of horizontal ownership, is deemed to constitute a property".
From the reading of this article, and in particular the mentioned item 4, we would be led to conclude that, for purposes of IMI, an autonomous fraction of a property in horizontal ownership assumes the nature of "property" whereas a unit capable of independent use of a property in vertical or total ownership would not assume such nature, having no legal-tax autonomy.
As a result of this difference in classification, it would be defensible that, for purposes of item 28.1 of TGIS, each autonomous fraction should be considered as a "property" and thus tax would be payable only if, being intended for housing, it had a tax patrimonial value greater than that indicated. In the case of a property in total ownership, the tax patrimonial value to be considered for purposes of determining incidence would result from the sum of the tax patrimonial values of each independent unit intended for housing – cf. paragraph b) of item 2 of article 7 of CIMI. This is the position of the Defendant.
However, in a comparative analysis of the IMI regime applicable to autonomous fractions of a property in horizontal ownership and to units capable of independent use of a property in vertical ownership, it is concluded that there is no difference whatsoever. Indeed, notwithstanding that the legal-formal nature is distinct, the tax regime of these figures is exactly the same. Materially, the law establishes no difference, as can be seen:
(i) properties in horizontal and total ownership are subject to the same rules of registration in the cadastre, being expressly provided in item 3 of article 12 of CIMI that the parts capable of independent use are considered separately in the cadastral registration which shall specify the respective tax patrimonial value;
(ii) properties in horizontal and total ownership are subject to the same rules and procedures of evaluation, being expressly determined in paragraph b) of item 2 of article 7 of CIMI that, if the parts composing the property in total ownership are economically independent, each part is evaluated by application of the corresponding rules.
This identity of regime goes even further, having relevant repercussions at the level of the very assessment of the tax, inasmuch as the legislator determined that the assessment of IMI must be made with specification of the properties, their parts capable of independent use and the respective tax patrimonial value – cf. item 1 of article 119 of CIMI. It is therefore the legislator who determines that tax assessment must be carried out individually, considering each economic reality and not each merely legal reality.
From this it is concluded that, for purposes of IMI, autonomous fractions of a property in horizontal ownership and the parts capable of independent use that compose a property in total ownership have exactly the same tax treatment. But more importantly than that: for purposes of IMI, the tax base of the tax is determined in exactly the same manner, corresponding to the own individual value of each autonomous fraction or independent part, fixed in the course of evaluation and appearing in the cadastre; assessment is carried out in an individualized and autonomous manner as a function of each of the independent parts of the property, whether or not they are autonomous fractions.
In the case of properties in total ownership, IMI is not assessed on the basis of the total tax patrimonial value of the property, but on the basis of the individual tax patrimonial value of each autonomous unit that comprises it; the total tax due corresponds to the sum of the individual assessments for each autonomous unit, determined on the basis of their respective individual tax patrimonial values. Everything proceeds in exactly the same manner as applied for autonomous fractions of a property in horizontal ownership.
Furthermore, pursuant to item 28.1 of TGIS, only "properties with residential use" are subject to taxation. Now, in properties composed of independent units with different purposes and uses - as is the case in the present proceedings (services and commerce, as results from docs. nos. 116 to 118 of the proceedings) - the determination of use can only be carried out on the basis of each of these units and not on the basis of the property as a whole. This very fact results from paragraph b) of item 2 of article 7 of CIMI. On this point, it should be noted that J. Silvério Mateus and L. Corvelo de Freitas, Real Property Taxes – Stamp Tax, Annotated and Commented, Engifisco, 1st Edition, 2005, page 121, note 5, hold that "The rules provided in this item 2, relating to the determination of the tax patrimonial value of urban properties with more than one use, have to do with the diversity of some of the evaluation elements provided in articles 38 et seq. of CIMI, namely (….). Moreover, this provision is in accordance with the principle of individualization of the independent parts of an urban property, even if not constituted in horizontal ownership, provided for in item 3 of article 12". (emphasis ours)
In a situation such as the present one, how could one conclude that the property had residential use, there being parts of the same intended for other purposes?
In truth, in accordance with the evaluation rules provided in CIMI, what has use is not the property as a building in its entirety but the autonomous units that compose it, whether they are autonomous fractions or not. It is on the basis of actual and material use that the purpose of each independent unit or autonomous fraction is determined, the law not providing for a specific purpose for the property as a building. Each independent unit – whether or not an autonomous fraction – has, therefore, its own purpose which does not "contaminate" the purpose of the property as a whole.
Thus, one cannot defend that "property with residential use" corresponds to the strict and proper concept of article 2 of CIMI (encompassing, for the purpose we intend, only buildings and autonomous fractions of properties in horizontal ownership) because, as demonstrated, it would have no practical concrete applicability (as noted, a property in vertical ownership may have more than one purpose or use); when using this expression the legislator wished to refer to the property as a reality capable of having a purpose, thus to the independent parts that compose each property, whether or not they have the legal nature of autonomous fractions.
It is concluded, therefore, that, for purposes of application of item 28.1 of TGIS, the units capable of independent use that make up a property in vertical or total ownership regime and autonomous fractions are, in substance, identical realities and thus are subject to the same system of incidence.
To that extent, the final part of item 28 of TGIS, in determining that the tax shall apply "(…) on the tax patrimonial value used for purposes of IMI:" expressly refers to the individual value of each independent part that composes the property in total ownership and not to the total value of the property (corresponding to the sum of the individual tax patrimonial values), since it is this individual value that is considered in IMI for all purposes.
Furthermore, pursuant to item 7 of article 23 of the Code of Stamp Tax, the tax due pursuant to item 28 of TGIS is assessed annually in accordance with the rules provided in CIMI. And it was precisely these rules that led to the Defendant assessing the tax individually for each autonomous unit and considering its respective individual tax patrimonial value. Thus some 115 assessment notices were issued.
If the Defendant's understanding were to apply here, there would be only one Stamp Tax assessment per property and not as many assessments as there are units capable of independent use.
Finally, it should be noted that this matter has been the subject of various decisions by CAAD, all in this same sense, transcribing here, by way of example, the arbitral decision rendered in proc. 50/2013-T, in the part to which we adhere:
"Indeed, being the case that the registration in the cadastre of properties in vertical ownership, constituted by different parts, floors or divisions with independent use, pursuant to CIMI, follows the same registration rules as properties constituted in horizontal ownership, with their respective IMI, as well as the new Stamp Tax, assessed individually with respect to each of the parts, it leaves no doubt whatsoever that the legal criterion for defining the incidence of the new tax must be the same.
Moreover, the AT admits that this is the criterion, which is why the assessment itself issued is very clear in its essential elements, from which results that the value of incidence is that corresponding to the VPT of the 2nd floor and the assessment individualized on the part of the property corresponding to that same floor.
Therefore, if the legal criterion imposes the issuance of individualized assessments for the autonomous parts of properties in vertical ownership, in the same manner as it establishes for properties in horizontal ownership, it clearly established the criterion, which must be unique and unequivocal, for the definition of the rule of incidence of the new tax.
Thus, tax incidence of the new stamp tax would only occur if one of the parts, floors or divisions with independent use presented a VPT exceeding € 1,000,000.00.
The AT cannot, therefore, consider as the reference value for the incidence of the new tax the total value of the property, when the legislator himself established a different rule in the context of CIMI, and this is the code applicable to matters not regulated regarding item 28 of TGIS.
The criterion sought by the AT, of considering the value of the sum of the VPTs attributed to the parts, floors or divisions with independent use, with the argument that the property is not constituted in the regime of horizontal ownership, finds no legal support and is contrary to the criterion that results applicable in the context of CIMI and, by reference, in the context of Stamp Tax.
To which is added the fact that the law itself expressly establishes, in the final part of item 28 of TGIS, that the Stamp Tax to apply to urban properties of value equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00 – 'on the tax patrimonial value used for purposes of IMI.'
Thus, the adoption of the criterion defended by the AT violates the principles of legality and tax equality, as well as the principle of prevalence of material substance over legal-formal reality."
In the same sense, reference should be made to the decision rendered in proc. 132/2013-T, of which we transcribe the part to which we subscribe entirely:
"Indeed, it makes no sense to distinguish in law what the law itself does not distinguish (ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus). Moreover, distinguishing in this context between properties constituted in horizontal and total ownership would be an "innovation" without associated legal support, especially as it has been stated here, nothing suggests, neither in item no. 28, nor in the provisions of CIMI, a justification for this particular differentiation. Note, by way of example, what article 12, item 3, of CIMI states: 'each floor or part of a property capable of independent use shall be considered separately in the cadastral registration, which shall also specify the respective tax patrimonial value.'
The uniform criterion that is required is thus the one that determines that the incidence of the rule in question only takes place when one of the parts, floors or divisions with independent use of a property in horizontal or total ownership with residential use possesses a VPT exceeding €1,000,000.00. Setting as the reference value for the incidence of the new tax the global VPT of the property in question, as the respondent now sought, finds no basis in the applicable legislation, which is CIMI, given the reference made by the cited article 67, item 2, of CIS.
Finally, as has been recalled in various Arbitral Decisions (see DA no. 48/2013-T and DA no. 50/2013-T), no interpretive reasoning distinct from that presented here is discerned in the proceedings relating to the discussion of bill no. 96/XII in the National Assembly. Indeed, such measure, called a "special tax on residential urban properties of higher value", was justified by the need to comply with the principles of social equity and tax justice, more significantly burdening the holders of properties with high value intended for housing, and, to that extent, applying the new "special tax" to "houses with value equal to or greater than 1 million euros."
Now, if such logic seems to make sense when applied to «housing» – whether it be «house», «autonomous fraction» or «part of property with independent use» / «autonomous unit» – because it presupposes above-average contributive capacity and, to that extent, justifies the need for realization of an additional tax effort, it would make little sense to then disregard the determinations "unit by unit" when only through the sum of the VPTs thereof (because held by the same individual) would the million euros be exceeded.
Furthermore, admitting differentiation of treatment could produce results incomprehensible from a legal standpoint and damaging to the objectives that the legislator said he had in adding item no. 28. By way of example, suppose the following hypothesis, which seems plausible in light of the interpretation made by the respondent now: a citizen who is owner of a property constituted in total ownership intended for housing, the global value of the autonomous units being equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00 and the VPT of each one less than €1,000,000.00, is subject to an annual taxation of 1% of that value (as occurred in the situation under analysis); whereas another citizen who holds a property with the exact same characteristics as the foregoing but which has been constituted in horizontal ownership, being likewise the global value of the autonomous fractions equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00 and the VPT of each one less than €1,000,000.00, would not be subject to taxation pursuant to the mentioned item no. 28.
On the other hand, one could ask: if such fractions have the same owner, why does it not make sense to aggregate, for purposes of taxation, their respective VPTs? The answer can be illustrated through another hypothesis: a citizen who is owner of a property in horizontal ownership, in which each of its 20 fractions possesses a VPT of less than €1,000,000.00, would be subject to taxation if – if such aggregation were to be admitted – the global VPT exceeded that amount; whereas another citizen with identical 20 fractions distributed among 5, 10 or 20 properties would not be subject to any taxation pursuant to the mentioned item no. 28.
If this line of reasoning makes sense – thus justifying the non-aggregation of the VPTs of fractions of properties in horizontal ownership – no plausible reason is seen why the same should not be applied to the autonomous units of properties in total ownership.
Observing now the case under analysis, it is noted that the VPTs of the floors (autonomous units) of the property with residential use vary between €104,140.00 and €113,780.00, so each of them is less than €1,000,000.00. From this it is concluded, as a result of what has been stated, that on them the stamp tax referred to in item no. 28 of TGIS cannot apply, the acts of assessment challenged by the claimant being thus illegal."
In light of everything set forth, this tribunal concludes that this is the interpretation of the law consistent with the Constitution in that it ensures equal tax treatment between identical realities, giving prevalence to substance over form – an interpretive imperative imposed by item 3 of article 11 of LGT.
In truth, being a property tax, the contributive capacity of each taxpayer should be assessed according to the value of their respective real property intended for housing, regardless of its legal regime. Accepting as valid the interpretation of the Defendant would lead to situations in which for the same total value of real property, for example € 1,200,000.00 composed of 6 apartments of € 200,000.00 each, tax would or would not be due depending on whether the property was or was not in vertical ownership regime. In this hypothesis, in which the contributive capacity differs between a taxpayer who has 6 apartments of € 200,000.00 each in a property not subject to horizontal ownership and that of a taxpayer who has 6 apartments of € 200,000.00 each in a property in horizontal ownership. Globally, does the property not have exactly the same value?
As stated by José Casalta Nabais, The Fundamental Duty to Pay Taxes, 2004, Almedina, page 436, the constitutional principle of equality obliges the legislator to "(…) not make arbitrary discriminations or equalizations lacking justification or material or rational foundation, not to make discriminations based on subjective criteria or objective criteria applied in subjective terms and to respect the subjective rights of equality (that is, to treat equally what is constitutionally equal and unequally what is constitutionally unequal)". This author continues (cf. page 442) defending that "(…) we can say that the principle of tax equality requires that what is (essentially) equal be taxed equally, and what is (essentially) unequal be taxed unequally to the extent of that inequality. But the comparison of what is equal or unequal implies a criterion or a term of comparison (tertium comparationis). And this is identified with the idea of contributive capacity."
Thus it is not admitted that the mere legal-formal organization of real property – whether or not constituted in horizontal ownership – can be constitutionally valid justification for differentiated treatment of taxpayers.
In light of the foregoing, there is no doubt that the interpretation defended by the Claimant and here accepted by this tribunal is the one that ensures the constitutional consistency of items 28 and 28.1 of TGIS, in light of articles 13 and item 3 of article 103 of CRP, in that it permits "treating equally what is constitutionally equal and unequally what is constitutionally unequal", as stated by the author above identified.
The Defendant's request for a pronouncement of unconstitutionality of the said legal norms due to violation of the constitutional principles of equality and legality is therefore without merit.
In light of everything set forth above, the tribunal concludes that for purposes of application of items 28 and 28.1 of TGIS to properties in total ownership the same rules of CIMI that apply to properties in horizontal ownership apply, and thus the tax patrimonial value to be considered for purposes of incidence shall be the individual own value of each unit capable of independent use.
Material substance is what imposes itself as the determining criterion of contributive capacity and not the mere legal-formal reality of the property, and thus materially the tax regime applicable to properties in total ownership is exactly the same as that applied to properties in horizontal ownership regime.
None of the independent units intended for housing that compose the properties identified and owned by the Claimant present value exceeding € 1,000,000 and thus the minimum quantitative assumption for purposes of incidence of item 28.1 of TGIS is not met.
For all these reasons, this tribunal finds merit in the position of the Claimant, concluding that the identified assessment acts - Stamp Tax due pursuant to item 28.1 of TGIS, with reference to the year 2013 - suffer from the defect of violation of law, due to error concerning the assumptions of fact and of law, which justifies their annulment [article 135 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, applicable pursuant to the provision in article 2, paragraph c), of LGT].
Furthermore, it finds without merit the allegation of unconstitutionality of item 28.1 of TGIS, due to violation of the principles of equality and legality provided in articles 13 and item 3 of article 103 of CRP, respectively, made by the Defendant.
B. Of Compensatory and Moratoria Interest
It results from the facts found to be proven that the first instalments of the Stamp Tax assessed, in the total amount of € 26,461.83 were paid on 30 April 2014.
Pursuant to item 1 of article 43 of LGT "Compensatory interest is due when it is determined, in administrative reclamation or judicial challenge, that there was error attributable to the services resulting in payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than that legally due".
As noted by Diogo Leite de Campos, Benjamim Silva Rodrigues and Jorge Lopes de Sousa, General Tax Law - Annotated and Commented, Editora Encontro da Escrita, 4th Edition, 2012, page 342, note 2 "Error attributable to the services that carried out the assessment is demonstrated when they proceed with administrative reclamation or challenge of such assessment and the error is not attributable to the taxpayer (for example, there will be annulment due to error attributable to the taxpayer when the assessment is based on incorrect assumptions of fact, but the error is based on an incorrect indication in the statement that the taxpayer presented)".
Now, in the present case, the Claimant's request for payment of compensatory interest is unequivocally justified since the contested tax assessments prove to be afflicted with illegality and thus should be annulled. In addition to the reimbursement, the Claimant also has the right to payment of compensatory interest, at the legal rate in force, on the amount of € 26,461.83, counted from the date of payment until the date of processing of the respective credit note, in which are included – cf. article 43 of LGT and item 4 of article 61 of CPPT.
Pursuant to item 5 of article 43 of LGT, the Tax and Customs Authority is obliged to pay moratoria interest in the period that runs between the date of expiration of the period for voluntary execution of a judicial decision that has become final and the date of issuance of the credit note. From this it results that this interest is due for delay in the voluntary execution of judicial decisions that have become final, not being a legal consequence of the declaration of illegality of the tax act that gives rise to the right of the taxpayer to reimbursement of payment made in excess. To that extent, by not concerning the legality of the tax acts, it is not within the scope of the arbitral proceedings the condemnation of the Tax and Customs Authority to payment of moratoria interest, pursuant to item 5 of article 43 of LGT, for delay in the execution of judicial decisions, a matter that should be considered in the judgment execution proceedings. To that extent, the Claimant's request is denied.
VI. DECISION
In harmony with the foregoing, this Arbitral Tribunal agrees to:
A) Find merit in the request for arbitral ruling regarding the request for annulment of the Stamp Tax assessments with reference to the year 2013 challenged by the Claimant;
B) Condemn the Defendant to payment of compensatory interest, on the amount of € 26,461.83, at the legal rate in force, counted from the date of payment (30 April 2014) until the date of processing of the respective credit note, in which shall be included, pursuant to articles 43 of LGT and 61 of CPPT;
C) Find without merit the request for condemnation of the Defendant to payment of moratoria interest, absolving it of the request in this respect.
Value of the proceedings: In harmony with the provision in article 306, item 2, of CPC and 97-A, item 1, paragraph a), of CPPT and 3, item 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of € 26,461.83 is fixed for the proceedings.
Costs: Pursuant to item 4 of article 22 of RJAT, the amount of costs is fixed at € 1,530.00, in accordance with Table I annexed to the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be borne by the Tax and Customs Authority.
Let this arbitral decision be registered and notified to the parties.
Lisbon, 01-12-2014
The Single Arbitrator
(Maria Forte Vaz)
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created