Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
1. Report
A - General
1.1. A…, LDA., with the unique registration number and collective person number…, with registered office at Rua …, no.…, in Lisbon (hereinafter referred to as the "Claimant"), filed, on 29.07.2016, a request for constitution of a sole arbitral tribunal in tax matters, which was accepted, seeking, on the one hand, a declaration of illegality of the Stamp Tax assessment act for the year 2015, relating to item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (hereinafter "GTST"), concerning a property of which it is the owner, as will be seen below, and which gave rise to collection notices no. 2016…, no. 2016… and no. 2016…, concerning the first, second and third installments, respectively, in the total amount of €18,114.20 (eighteen thousand one hundred and fourteen euros and twenty cents), and, on the other hand, recognition of the right to compensatory interest for the unduly paid tax installments.
1.2. Pursuant to the provisions of item (a) of article 2, no. 2 and item (b) of article 11, no. 1 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Council of the Administrative Arbitration Center (CAAD) designated the signatory as arbitrator, and the parties, after being duly notified, did not object to such designation.
1.3. By order of 26.09.2016, the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") appointed Mrs. Dr. B… and Dr. C… to intervene in the present arbitral proceeding, in the name and representation of the Respondent.
1.4. In accordance with the provisions of item (c) of article 11, no. 1 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 14.11.2016.
1.5. On 17.11.2016 the top official of the Respondent's service was notified to, if willing, within a period of 30 days, present a response and request production of additional evidence.
1.6. On 15.12.2016 the Respondent submitted its response.
B – Position of the Claimant
1.7. The Claimant, on 31.12.2015 was the owner of the urban property designated as Lot …/…, which is a "construction land", located at Rua … and Rua …, parish of … Lisbon, registered in the respective property register under article …, with a tax patrimonial value (hereinafter "TPV") of €1,811,420.00 (one million eight hundred and eleven thousand four hundred and twenty euros), to which corresponds the notebook that the Claimant attaches to its request as document no. 2, the contents of which are deemed reproduced (hereinafter designated as "Property").
1.8. The Respondent, on 05.04.2016 proceeded with the assessment of Stamp Tax (hereinafter designated as "ST") referred to in 1.1., the collection documents relating to the first and second installments of which were attached to the arbitration request as document nos. 7 and 8, the contents of which are deemed reproduced, which was based on article 1 of the Stamp Tax Code (hereinafter the "STC") and item 28.1 of the GTST.
1.9. The Claimant proceeded with payment of the first and second installments of the ST referred to above on 29.04.2016 and 30.06.2016, respectively.
1.10. The Claimant alleges, in the first place, that the assessment now contested suffers from the defect of violation of the tax incidence norm, namely, item 28 of the GTST, with the wording in force on the date of the facts, in so far as that provision could not be applied to the Property since it is not intended for the construction of housing, but rather for the construction of housing jointly with commerce/services.
1.11. In the second place, item 28.1 of the GTST, with the wording in force today, is unconstitutional by violation of the constitutional principles of legality, justice and equality and impartiality, provided for in articles 13, 104 and 266 of the Fundamental Law.
1.12. The legislator, in seeking to impose a tax burden on the ownership of construction land, and only those whose buildings are intended for housing, is arbitrarily taxing goods affected by an economic activity, abusively discriminating construction land with residential affectation, when compared with construction land with different affectation (commercial, industrial, services or other).
1.13. A construction land whose building is for housing should only be taxed under item 28.1 of the GTST if and to the extent that some of the autonomous units or independent housing units provided therein had a TPV equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00 (one million euros).
1.14. It further considers that it violates the principle of equality to seek to tax a property that does not provide housing, neither luxury nor modest, leaving out five-star hotels which precisely aim to provide luxury accommodation to their guests.
1.15. Furthermore, there is a clear duplication of collection in so far as the same taxable fact, which is the ownership of a property on 31.12.2015 is taxed both under IMI and under ST simultaneously, taxes which in this case assume the same nature.
1.16. The requirement of compensatory interest, since the Claimant paid tax installments which it deems illegal, is provided for in article 43 of the General Tax Law (GTL).
C – Position of the Respondent
1.17. The Respondent considers that the contested assessment results from the direct application of the legal norm, which translates into objective elements, without any subjective or discretionary assessment.
1.18. In the property register of the Property, the type of property is "construction land", with the areas of building implantation and construction perfectly defined.
1.19. There is no double taxation, since IMI and ST are different taxes, as the Claimant itself properly distinguishes.
1.20. Nor is there unconstitutionality, by violation of the principle of equality, since this does not prevent, in absolute terms, any differentiation of treatment. It only prevents the occurrence of arbitrary discriminations, unreasonable, that is, those that do not have justification or foundation, and it is incumbent upon the arbitral tribunal to verify whether the legislative solution in question presents itself as absolutely intolerable or inadmissible, because no intelligible foundation is found for it.
1.21. Similarly, item 28.1 of the GTST, with the wording it had on the date of the facts, also does not breach the principles of proportionality, legality, legitimate expectations and contributive capacity.
1.22. The Respondent considers that the Property has the legal nature of a property with residential affectation, the only one appearing in its respective property register, and therefore the assessment act that is the subject of the present arbitration request should be maintained, as it constitutes a correct interpretation of item 28 of the GTST.
D – Conclusion of Report and Case Management
1.23. By order of 21.02.2017 the Arbitral Tribunal dispensed with the meeting provided for in article 18 of the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters (LFATM), considering that the parties had already provided the proceeding with the facts elements that were necessary and sufficient for the delivery of the decision, which was envisaged to take place by 10.04.2017, the parties having waived the right to submit arguments.
1.24. The arbitral tribunal has substantive jurisdiction, in accordance with the provisions of articles 2, no. 1, item (a) of the LFATM.
1.25. The parties enjoy legal personality and capacity and have standing in accordance with article 4 and article 10, no. 2 of the LFATM, and article 1 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.
1.26. The cumulation of claims (declaration of illegality of assessment act, on the one hand, and recognition of the right to compensatory interest, on the other) made in the present arbitration request, in honour of the principle of procedural economy, is justified since article 3 of the LFATM, by expressly admitting the possibility of "cumulation of claims even if relating to different acts", accommodates, without interpretive abuse, the examination of a claim that flows, in necessary terms, from the judgment that the arbitral tribunal supports as to the validity of the assessments put in question.
1.27. The proceeding does not suffer from any nullity and no exceptions were raised, and therefore it may proceed immediately to the examination of the merits of the case.
2. Facts
2.1. Proven Facts
2.1.1. The Claimant is the sole owner of the Property (doc. no. 2, attached with the arbitration request).
2.1.2. The Property was assigned the type of location coefficient: housing (doc. no. 2, attached with the arbitration request).
2.1.3. The total area of the Property is 667 m², with a gross construction area of 6,671.5 m² provided for in the register (docs. no. 2, no. 4 and no. 5, attached with the arbitration request).
2.1.4. The Lisbon City Council authorized the construction on the Property of a building with 17 floors (5 of which in basement), with a total construction area of 7,511 m² (of which 2,668 m² intended for parking, 1,363 m² for commerce/offices and 3,480 m² intended for housing (doc. no. 5, attached with the arbitration request).
2.1.5. The Property, on the date of the facts, was assigned the tax patrimonial value of €1,811,420.00 (one million, eight hundred and eleven thousand, four hundred and twenty euros) (doc. no. 2, attached with the arbitration request).
2.1.6. The Claimant was notified of the collection documents relating to the act of assessment of ST for 2015, relating to item 28.1 of the GTST, concerning the Property, in the amount of €18,114.20 (eighteen thousand, one hundred and fourteen euros and twenty cents) (docs. no. 7, 8 and 11, attached, the first two with the arbitration request and the third with the Claimant's request of 14.03.2017).
2.1.7. The Claimant proceeded with payment of the first installment on 29.04.2016, the second installment on 30.06.2016 and the third and final installment on 30.11.2016 (docs. no. 7, 8 and 11, attached, the first two with the arbitration request and the third with the Claimant's request of 14.03.2017).
2.2. Unproven Facts
There are no facts relevant to the examination of the merits of the case that have been deemed unproven.
3. Law
3.1. Questions to be Decided
It follows from what has been said above that the questions to be examined are, fundamentally, two:
a) Whether, on the date to which the facts refer, the Property is "construction land whose building, authorized or envisaged, is for housing in accordance with the provisions of the IMI Code", for purposes of the application of article 1 of the STC and item 28.1 of the GTST; and
b) Whether, if the request for declaration of illegality is upheld and the contested assessment act is consequently annulled, the Claimant, within the scope of the present arbitral proceeding may obtain the condemnation of the Respondent for the payment of compensatory interest relating to the amounts delivered for the satisfaction of the tax installments illegally demanded by it.
3.2. Item 28.1 of the GTST in the wording resulting from Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October
Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, among several amendments it made to the STC, added, by its article 4, item 28 to the GTST, which, until 31.12.2013, had the following wording:
"28 - Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose tax patrimonial value appearing in the register, in accordance with the Municipal Property Tax Code (MPTC), is equal to or greater than €1,000,000 - on the tax patrimonial value used for the purpose of IMI:
28.1 - For property with residential affectation - 1%;
As can be seen, item 28.1, with that wording, referred to "properties with residential affectation". Now, not only is this concept not defined in any provision of the STC, but neither is it used in the MPTC, a statute to which article 67, no. 2 of the STC expressly refers when matters not regulated in the STC are concerned regarding item 28.
3.3. The meaning and scope of the concept of "property with residential affectation"
The meaning and scope of the concept of "property with residential affectation" cannot be established without bearing in mind the meaning of the word "affectation" itself. And that must be found in dictionaries, drawing from them the benefit of the careful study of lexicographers. Thus, "affectation", according to the Dictionary of Contemporary Portuguese Language, of the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon, is the action of devoting something to a certain use and "to affect", consequently, is synonymous with devoting to a specific use or function.
a) The rules of interpretation of tax norms
The question that first needed to be answered did not dispense with, but rather implied, that the meaning and scope of the concept of "property with residential affectation" to which item 28.1 of the GTST appealed be grasped. In the absence of a legal definition, either in the STC or in any other statute, it is the duty of the interpreter-applier of this provision to invoke the norms governing the necessary hermeneutical exercise.
There is not truly a special regime for the interpretation of tax norms. Article 11, no. 1 of the GTL mandates observance, "in determining the meaning of tax norms and in qualifying the facts to which they apply", of "the general rules and principles of interpretation and application of laws".
The general principles of interpretation and application of laws are those established in article 9 of the Civil Code:
ARTICLE 9
(Interpretation of law)
1. Interpretation shall not be limited to the letter of the law, but shall reconstruct from the texts the legislative intent, taking especially into account the unity of the legal system, the circumstances in which the law was drafted and the specific conditions of the time in which it is applied.
2. However, the legislative intent that does not have in the letter of the law a minimum of verbal correspondence, although imperfectly expressed, cannot be considered by the interpreter.
3. In fixing the meaning and scope of the law, the interpreter shall presume that the legislator adopted the most appropriate solutions and knew how to express its intent in adequate terms.
It should be noted, however, that the interpretation of norms, also of tax norms, is not exhausted in a merely lexical exercise. It does not involve only, or even primarily, the dissection of vocabulary. The issue was not, therefore, to know exactly what "property with residential affectation" meant, but rather to grasp the meaning and scope of that concept within what was provided by item 28.1 of the GTST. The same is to say, it should be emphasized, that there would be procedural utility of the hermeneutical effort, within the scope of this specific arbitration request, only if it were directed at discovering whether the legislator, with the wording then chosen for item 28.1 of the GTST, intended to encompass in it urban properties with the characteristics of the Property.
b) "Residential affectation" – residential properties and properties with residential affectation
The affectation of immovable property is a coefficient that contributes to its valuation. However, it was important to know whether item 28 of the GTST, in the wording in force in 2012 and 2013, comprised both built properties and those considered as construction land.
Article 6, no. 1 of the MPTC, with taxonomic concern, distinguishes "residential properties" from "construction land". The former will be, in accordance with the provisions of article 6, no. 2, buildings or constructions licensed for such purpose or, in the absence of such license, those having such purpose as their normal destination. As for construction land, article 6, no. 3 clarifies, these are those for which a license or authorization has been granted, prior communication has been admitted or favorable prior information has been issued for a subdivision or construction operation, and also those declared as such in the acquisition title, with some exceptions.
It is thus clear that construction land is not, according to this classification, a residential property. It was further necessary to clarify whether "property with residential affectation", a concept then used by item 28.1 of the GTST, corresponded, despite the literal diversity, to "residential property", a notion used in the classification just visited.
Affectation, as we have learned from lexicographers, conveys the destination given to a certain good. Now "residential" is relative to housing, this being, in turn, and according to the Dictionary we have been using, a place or house in which one lives or dwells. Now, residential affectation cannot suggest any meaning other than the action of giving to a certain good – in the case the Property, even if it is admitted for these purposes that it is construction land – the destination of a house or place where one lives.
It is known that the MPTC uses the expression "affectation" in various provisions. It does so, for example:
• In article 3, when it refers, regarding rural properties, to use generating agricultural income;
• In article 9, when it imposes on taxpayers the duty to communicate to the finance services that construction land has passed to be included in the inventory of a company whose object is the construction of buildings for sale or that a property has passed to be included in the inventory of a company whose object is its sale;
• In article 27, when it relates certain buildings and constructions to the production of agricultural income.
In all the situations presented, as can be seen, affectation is not referred to in potential terms, of vocation or of expectancy. It is precisely the opposite. It suggests an actual or direct destination, to use an expression to which the legislator appeals in article 27.
However, the MPTC also makes abundant use of the expression "affectation" when it enacts the rules to be applied to the determination of the tax patrimonial value of urban properties (articles 38 et seq. of the MPTC). Could some useful element be extracted from the rules for determination of tax patrimonial value that would allow us to grasp the meaning and scope of the concept of "property with residential affectation"?
c) The relevance of the rules for determination of tax patrimonial value
The notion of affectation of urban property is grounded in the part relating to the valuation of immovable property. For purposes of determining the tax patrimonial value of construction land, the clear application of the affectation coefficient is made in the context of valuation.
It is certain that for the determination of the tax patrimonial value of properties account has been taken of the "affectation" of what may be built on them.
The mere constitution of a right of potential construction immediately increases the value of the immovable property in question, as a function, precisely, of what may be built on it. For this reason, article 45 of the MPTC "mandates separation of the two parts of the land": on one side, we must consider "the part of the land where the building to be constructed will be implanted [rectius, where may come to be implanted], and on the other the area of free land. Once the amount of the first part is determined, the value determined is reduced to a percentage between 15% and 45% (…), because the construction has not yet been realized". It is clear that the application of that percentage makes it possible precisely to account for the circumstance that there is no construction yet, but does not authorize the legislator to ignore that the economic, or market, value of a land is related to its constructive capacity.
To state the foregoing does not, however, mean to assert that the legislator feels the need to impose automatic and necessary taxation, under the Municipal Property Tax, on all land. It is sufficient to read what is provided by item (d) of the aforementioned article 9 of the MPTC:
ARTICLE 9
(Commencement of taxation)
1. Tax is due from:
(…)
d) The 4th year following, inclusive, the year in which construction land has passed to be included in the inventory of a company whose object is the construction of buildings for sale;
(…)
That is, even if the legislator deems it reasonable, as it appears to be, to determine the tax patrimonial value of a land taking into account its constructive capacity and, granting for purposes of argument, the nature or vocation of what may be built on it, it remains symptomatic that it opted, at the same time, to suspend that taxation in cases where such land is included in the inventory of a company whose object is the construction of buildings for sale. In cases where, one could also say, such urban properties form part of a productive process that tends to continue and produce, downstream, fruits that are also taxable.
If the primary meaning of "affectation", as we have stated, suggested an actual, direct destination given to a certain good, we do not see how this understanding could be refuted by the finding that the legislator, within the context of the valuation of construction land, authorizes the use of the affectation coefficient, in view of what may come to be built on it. In truth, it did not seem reasonable to admit in this scenario recourse to norms for determination of the taxable base to broaden the scope of tax incidence norms.
In light of the foregoing, the proper interpretation of the provisions of item 28.1 of the GTST with the wording applicable to the years 2012 and 2013, imposed the understanding that residential affectation of an urban property suggested that it be given that actual destination, or that it could directly be given that destination.
It should not be said that this judgment collides with the possibility of seeing the affectation coefficient applied to construction land to which reference is made in section II of Chapter VI of the STC. In truth, one thing is the rules that the legislator imposes to determine the tax patrimonial value of construction land, it being unsurprising that account is taken of its constructive capacity and the nature and vocation of what may be built on it, and another, quite different, is to pretend that such rules are invoked to limit the field of the tax incidence rules.
Moreover, the interpretation embraced here, and widely supported by judicial and arbitral case law, is in harmony with what appears to have been the intention of the Government, author of the proposal that resulted in this imprecise legislative intervention.
At the time of presentation and discussion in Parliament of legislative proposal no. 96/XII (2nd), the Secretary of State for Tax Affairs expressly stated[1]:
"The Government proposes the creation of a special tax on high-value residential urban properties. This is the first time in Portugal that a special tax has been created on high-value properties destined for housing. This tax will be 0.5% to 0.8% in 2012 and 1% in 2013, and will apply to houses valued at €1 million or more."
Now, the Secretary of State for Tax Affairs presented this legislative proposal referring to the expressions "residential urban properties", which are those set forth in item (a) of article 6, no. 1 of the STC and, as the Respondent correctly notes, "houses", being evident that, in one case and the other, in these concepts construction land does not, without more, fit, even if for building purposes.
Thus, despite the infelicity of the legislative technique and without prejudice to the subsequent wording, it resulted with crystal clarity that item 28.1 of the GTST could not be interpreted in the sense that it encompassed immovable property with the characteristics of the Property, for the reasons set out above. Rather it appears that the meaning and scope of the concept of "properties with residential affectation" was equivalent to that of "residential properties" mentioned in item (a) of article 6, no. 1 of the STC.
3.4. Item 28.1 of the GTST with the wording imposed by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December
With the amendment introduced by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, item 28.1 of the GTST now read as follows:
28.1 - For residential property or for construction land whose building, authorized or envisaged, is for housing, in accordance with the provisions of the IMI Code;
Let us then establish whether the Property, regarding the assessment of ST for 2015, is encompassed by the tax incidence norm.
The parties agree that the Property is construction land. Now, we have already examined article 6, no. 1 of the MPTC, regarding the distinction between "residential properties" and "construction land", that is, those for which a license or authorization has been granted, prior communication has been admitted or favorable prior information has been issued for a subdivision or construction operation, and also those declared as such in the acquisition title, with some exceptions, as read in article 6, no. 3 of the same provision.
However, the interpreter-applier's concern with the norm should not be confined to the concept of "construction land". That exercise would be devoid of any utility if it ignored the tax incidence norm that invokes it.
In truth, more than knowing whether the Property is, or is not, construction land, it is important to discover whether the Property is, for purposes of item 28.1 of the GTST, "construction land whose building, authorized or envisaged, is for housing, in accordance with the provisions of the IMI Code". This is the point, regarding the 2015 assessment.
It is not the simple registration in the register as "construction land" that entails the inexorable application of item 28.1 of the GTST, since it does not constitute, by itself, conclusive evidence that a property has a building for housing envisaged.
See in this regard JOSÉ MANUEL FERNANDES PIRES, (Lessons on Taxes on Patrimony and Stamp Tax. Coimbra, Almedina, 3rd ed., 2015, pages 110 to 112): "The right to build is not inherent in the right of ownership, but arises anew in the patrimony of the owner only when an administrative act of the competent public entity recognizes and authorizes the owner to build or subdivide. [...] only when that right is constituted in the legal sphere of the owner does the IMI Code establish that we are before construction land".
Thus, it seems clear that for the verification of the normative provision it is not sufficient the mere registration in the register of a property as construction land affected by housing, since the delineation of the objective incidence now in question does not renounce the demonstration of an actual building potential, necessarily revealed by the existence of documentary evidence that authorizes it. The same is to say that the incidence of the tax, for purposes of item 28.1 of the GTST, only materializes, and even then not in definitive or complete terms, with the verification of an "actual affectation", to use the felicitous expression of JOSÉ MANUEL FERNANDES PIRES (op. cit., p. 507). In the same sense, see, among others, the Judgment of the CAAD rendered in case no. 524/2015-T.
Now, without the demonstration of such actual building potential, item 28.1 of the GTST does not prove applicable. However, for purposes of the application of item 28.1 of the GTST, such actual building potential is not sufficient. It is necessary to prove that the building, authorized or envisaged, is for housing. The same is to say that it cannot be for a purpose other than housing, since building for commerce or industry will not give rise to the application of the norms to which we have been referring.
Now, on the Property, as was seen, the Lisbon City Council authorized the construction of a building with 17 floors (5 of which in basement), with 2,668 m² of construction intended for parking and 1,363 m² intended for commerce/offices. That is, of the 7,511 m² of construction, only 3,480 m² are intended for housing.
It is certain that the Property is registered as being "construction land" affected by housing, however, it is clear that the Lisbon City Council authorized the building not only for residential purposes but also for commerce and offices, with no distinction being made between the areas intended for housing, in the strict sense, and those that show to have alternative affectation.
What is certain to conclude is that the legislator did not intend to tax under ST, by application of item 28.1 of the GTST, construction land whose authorized or envisaged building was intended for offices or services. It intended only to tax those intended for housing. Now, given this legislative choice, which can indeed raise the question of whether such intent is compatible, in particular, with the constitutional principle of tax equality, item 28.1 cannot be applied to an immovable property for which the construction of offices was authorized. Where the legislator distinguishes, the interpreter-applier cannot pretend to ignore the distinction.
Thus, the assessment put in question suffers from the defect of violation of law, because it is based on what the arbitral tribunal understands to be an erroneous interpretation of item 28.1 of the GTST, by error as to the legal preconditions.
3.5. On Compensatory Interest
Item (b) of article 24, no. 1 of the LFATM provides that "the arbitral decision on the merits of the claim which is not subject to appeal or impugnation binds the tax authority from the end of the period provided for appeal or impugnation, and this authority, in the exact terms of the grounding of the arbitral decision in favor of the taxpayer and until the end of the period provided for voluntary execution of sentences of tax judicial tribunals, restore the situation that would have existed if the tax act that is the subject of the arbitral decision had not been performed, adopting the acts and operations necessary for that purpose".
It is not ignored that the legislative authorization granted to the Government by article 124 of Law no. 3-B/2010, of 28 April, on the basis of which the LFATM was approved, determines that the tax arbitral proceeding constitutes an alternative procedural means to the judicial impugnation proceeding and to the action for recognition of a right or legitimate interest in tax matters. Although items (a) and (b) of article 2, no. 1 of the LFATM ground the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals in "declarations of illegality", it seems reasonable the understanding that it encompasses in its jurisdiction the powers that in judicial impugnation proceedings are attributed to tax tribunals, and it is certain that in judicial impugnation proceedings, in addition to the annulment of tax acts, claims for compensation may be examined, in particular those relating to compensatory interest.
In fact, the principle of cognizability of compensation claims, in administrative recourse or in judicial proceeding, is justified whenever the damage sought to be remedied results from a fact imputable to the Tax and Customs Authority. We find manifestations of this principle in article 43, no. 1 of the General Tax Law and in article 61 of the Tax Procedure and Process Code.
Thus, the examination of the claim for payment of compensatory interest filed by the Claimant is justified.
Compensatory interest is due when it is determined, in administrative recourse or judicial impugnation, that there has been error imputable to the services from which results the payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than legally due.
Now, given that the Claimant paid the tax that, by the contested assessment, was, by error imputable to the services, demanded of it, it has the right not only to the reimbursement of all that it paid but also to receive compensatory interest calculated from the date of payment of each of the installments, until their full reimbursement.
Decision
In light of the reasons set forth above, the arbitral tribunal decides:
a) To uphold the arbitration request with the consequent annulment of the contested assessment, with all legal consequences, in particular the reimbursement to the Claimant of all amounts paid by it, regarding the assessment now annulled;
b) To uphold the claim for condemnation of the Respondent for the payment of compensatory interest, at the legal rate, calculated from the date of payment of each of the three tax installments now declared undue, until their full reimbursement.
Value of Proceeding
In accordance with the provisions of article 306, no. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, article 97-A of the Tax Procedure and Process Code and article 3, no. 2 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the proceeding is set at €18,114.20 (eighteen thousand one hundred and fourteen euros and twenty cents).
Costs
For purposes of the provisions of article 12, no. 2 and article 22, no. 4 of the LFATM and article 4, no. 4 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs is set at €1,224.00 (one thousand two hundred and twenty-four euros), in accordance with Table I attached to said Regulation, to be borne entirely by the Respondent.
Lisbon, 3 April 2017
The Arbitrator
_______________________________
(Nuno Pombo)
Text prepared by computer, in accordance with article 131, no. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference to item (e) of article 29, no. 1 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January and with the spelling prior to said Orthographic Agreement of 1990.
[1] See Parliamentary Records Series I no. 9/XII-2, of 11 October, page 32.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created