Stamp Tax on Land for Construction: CAAD Ruling on Verba 28 TGIS Applicability

ARBITRATION DECISION

I. REPORT

1. A.A., S.A. (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant"), with tax identification number..., with registered office at..., no...., ..., ..., filed on 27 July 2015, in accordance with the combined provisions of articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, i.e., the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters ("RJAT"), a request for the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal in order to have declared illegal the tax acts assessing Stamp Duty ("IS"), under Item no. 28 of the General Table of IS ("TGIS"), relating to the fiscal year 2014, as detailed below, in the total amount of € 48,405.08, with the Tax and Customs Authority ("Respondent" or "AT") being the defendant.

A) Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal

1. In accordance with the provisions of subparagraph a) of section 2 of article 6 and subparagraph b) of section 1 of article 11 of the RJAT, the Ethics Board of the Administrative Arbitration Centre ("CAAD") appointed the undersigned as arbitrator of the singular tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable period, and notified the parties of this appointment on 21 September 2015.

2. Thus, in compliance with the provision of subparagraph c) of section 1 of article 11 of the RJAT, and through communication from the President of the Ethics Board of the CAAD, the Singular Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 6 October 2015.

B) Procedural History

1. In the request for arbitral pronouncement, the Claimant petitioned for a declaration of illegality of the IS assessment acts relating to the two urban properties mentioned above, indicating that it had already received and settled the assessment notices relating to the 1st installment, and would naturally proceed to payment of the 2nd and 3rd installments as soon as it was notified to do so.

2. Even before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the Claimant attached the assessment notices relating to the 2nd installment, which were equally paid.

3. The AT submitted a response, petitioning for the dismissal of the request for arbitral pronouncement, on the grounds that there was no defect of violation of law, requesting that the tax act under analysis, as it did not violate any legal or constitutional provision, be maintained in the legal order.

4. Subsequently, on 14 December 2015, the Claimant attached, through a motion, the assessment acts corresponding to the 3rd installment of IS, equally paid, taking into account the properties referred to above. In this regard, the present tribunal granted that motion on 12 January 2016.

5. By order of 14 February 2016, the Singular Arbitral Tribunal, under the provisions of subparagraph c) of article 16 of the RJAT, decided, without opposition from the parties, that it was not necessary to hold the meeting referred to in article 18 of the RJAT, as a result of the simplicity of the matters in question, as well as considering that it had at its disposal all the necessary elements to make a clear and impartial decision.

6. It equally decided, in accordance with section 2 of article 18 of the RJAT, that oral pleadings were not necessary, as the positions of the parties were perfectly defined in their respective pleadings, and set the end of March 2016 as the deadline for the arbitral decision.

7. Within the scope of the order, it also requested the parties to submit their final pleadings. In this regard, it is important to note that both the Claimant and the Respondent chose not to make submissions.

8. The Tribunal was regularly constituted and is competent to appreciate the matters indicated (article 2, section 1, subparagraph a) of the RJAT), the parties possess judicial personality and capacity and have full standing (articles 4 and 10, section 2 of the RJAT and article 1 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March). No nullities have occurred and no exceptions have been raised, whereby nothing prevents judgment on the merits.

9. Thus, the present case is in a position for the final decision to be rendered therein.

II. MATTER TO BE DECIDED

1. The central matter to be appreciated and decided regarding the merits of the case, as emerges from the procedural documents of the parties, is whether, in cases where there is no Tax Patrimonial Value (VPT) allocated to the proportion of a particular construction land intended specifically for housing, it is nevertheless possible to assess IS, under Item no. 28 of the TGIS and, if so, on what terms.

2. That is, the present tribunal seeks to ascertain whether the construction lands in question, notwithstanding having authorized or planned construction for housing, are not subject to IS, under Item no. 28 of the TGIS, since it is impossible to determine, at the relevant date of the facts, the VPT corresponding to the part of said land allocated to housing, or, conversely, are subject to IS, under Item no. 28 of the TGIS, from the moment they have authorized or planned construction and this is intended, even if partially and without an allocation of VPTs by purpose, for housing.

III. DECISION ON FACTS AND ITS REASONING

1. Having examined the documentary evidence produced, the present tribunal finds as proven, with relevance to the decision of the case, the following facts:

I. The Claimant is the owner of two urban properties, as detailed below:

Urban property situated at [Location name] and described in the Land Registry Office under no. .../... of the parish of Paranhos and registered in the corresponding urban property matrix with article ... and with a Tax Patrimonial Value ("VPT") of € 2,857,713.68; and

Urban property situated at [Location name] and described in the Land Registry Office under no. .../... of the parish of Paranhos and registered in the corresponding urban property matrix with article ... and with a VPT of € 1,982,794.23.

II. The Claimant, with respect to the fiscal year 2014 and as a result of the provisions in Item no. 28 of the TGIS, received the AT assessment acts indicated above, in the total amount of € 48,405.08, which it paid in full.

III. The urban properties already possess an express license for construction, within which there is already an effective allocation of the construction land area to different purposes, namely housing, commerce, parking, among others.

IV. There is no, with respect to the properties above, any allocation of their total VPT to the different purposes of the same, it being thus impossible to determine which VPT of the area of the properties is intended for housing.

1. The conviction of the present tribunal on the facts proven resulted from the documents attached to the case file and contained in the claim and uncontested pleadings of the parties, as specified in the points of the factual matter enumerated above.

2. There is no factual relevance for the decision of the case given as unproven.

IV. ON THE LAW

A) Legal Framework

1. Given that the legal matter to be decided in the present case requires interpretation of the relevant legal texts, it is important, first, to enumerate the norms that comprise the relevant legal framework, at the date of the occurrence of the facts.

2. The subjection to IS of properties with housing allocation resulted from the addition of Item no. 28 to the TGIS, effected by article 4 of Law 55-A/2012, of 29 October, which typified the following tax facts:

"28 – Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose tax patrimonial value contained in the matrix, in accordance with the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.00 – on the tax patrimonial value used for purposes of IMI:

28.1 – For a property with housing allocation – 1%

28.2 – For a property, when the taxable persons who are not natural persons are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime, listed in the list approved by ordinance of the Minister of Finance – 7.5%".

1. The aforementioned law equally added, in the IS Code, section 7 of article 23, concerning the assessment of IS: "with respect to the tax due for the situations provided in item no. 28 of the General Table, the tax is assessed annually, in relation to each urban property, by the central services of the Tax and Customs Authority, applying, with necessary adaptations, the rules contained in the CIMI", and article 67, section 2, which provides that "to matters not regulated in the present Code relating to item 28 of the General Table, the CIMI applies subsidiarily".

2. Additionally, and taking into account the legislative amendment introduced by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, it is also important to transcribe the wording of said item from 1 January 2014, "for a residential property or for construction land whose construction, authorized or planned, is for housing, in accordance with the provisions of the IMI Code".

3. In this context, and taking into account the indication above, let us now focus on the Municipal Property Tax Code ("IMI").

4. In the IMI Code, the species of properties are enumerated (in articles 2 to 6), in the following terms:

"Article 2 – Concept of property

1 – For purposes of the present Code, property is any fraction of territory, encompassing water, plantations, buildings and constructions of any nature therein incorporated or situated, with permanent character, provided that it forms part of the assets of a natural or legal person and, in normal circumstances, has economic value, as well as water, plantations, buildings or constructions, in the circumstances above, endowed with economic autonomy in relation to the land on which they are situated, although situated in a fraction of territory that constitutes an integral part of a different asset or does not have patrimonial nature.

2 – Buildings or constructions, although movable by nature, are deemed to have permanent character when devoted to non-transitory purposes.

3 – The permanent character is presumed when buildings or constructions are situated in the same location for a period exceeding one year.

4 – For purposes of this tax, each autonomous unit, under the horizontal property regime, is deemed to constitute a property.

Article 3 – Rustic Properties

1 – Rustic properties are lands situated outside an urban agglomeration that are not to be classified as construction lands, in accordance with section 3 of article 6, provided that:

a) They are devoted or, in the absence of concrete allocation, have as their normal purpose an use generating agricultural income, as considered for purposes of the personal income tax (IRS);

b) Not having the allocation indicated in the preceding subparagraph, they are not built upon or have only buildings or constructions of ancillary character, without economic autonomy and of reduced value.

2 – Also rustic properties are lands situated within an urban agglomeration, provided that, by force of a legally approved provision, they cannot have an use generating any income or can only have an use generating agricultural income and are in fact having this allocation.

3 – Also rustic properties are:

a) Buildings and constructions directly devoted to the production of agricultural income, when situated on the lands referred to in the preceding sections;

b) Water and plantations in the situations referred to in section 1 of article 2.

4 – For purposes of the present Code, urban agglomerations are considered, in addition to those situated within legally fixed perimeters, nuclei with a minimum of 10 units served by public streets, with their perimeter delimited by points distanced 50 m from the axis of the streets, in the transversal direction, and 20 m from the last building, in the direction of the streets.

Article 4 – Urban Properties

Urban properties are all those that should not be classified as rustic, without prejudice to the provisions of the following article.

Article 5 – Mixed Properties

1 – Whenever a property has both rustic and urban parts, it is classified, in its entirety, according to the main part.

2 – If neither of the parts can be classified as main, the property is deemed mixed.

Article 6 – Species of Urban Properties

1 – Urban properties are divided into:

a) Residential;

b) Commercial, industrial or for services;

c) Construction lands;

d) Others.

2 – Residential, commercial, industrial or for services are buildings or constructions licensed for such purposes or, in the absence of a license, that have as their normal purpose each of these uses.

3 – Construction lands are considered those lands situated within or outside an urban agglomeration, for which a license or authorization has been granted, admitted prior communication or issued favorable prior information of subdivision or construction operation, and also those that have been declared as such in the acquisition title, except for lands in which the competent entities prohibit any of those operations, namely those located in green areas, protected areas or that, in accordance with municipal land use plans, are devoted to spaces, infrastructure or public equipment.

4 – Included in the provision of subparagraph d) of section 1 are lands situated within an urban agglomeration that are not construction lands nor are covered by the provisions of section 2 of article 3, and also buildings and constructions licensed or, in the absence of a license, that have as their normal purpose other purposes than those referred to in section 2 and also those of the exception of section 3".

1. In parallel, and since it is one of the topics raised by the Respondent, it is important to highlight what is stated in article 45 of the IMI Code.

"Article 45 – Tax Patrimonial Value of Construction Lands

1 - The tax patrimonial value of construction lands is the sum of the value of the building footprint area to be constructed, which is that situated within the perimeter of the building's attachment to the ground, measured by the exterior part, added to the value of the land adjacent to the implantation.

2 - The value of the footprint area varies between 15% and 45% of the value of authorized or planned constructions.

3 - In fixing the percentage of the value of the land of implantation, the characteristics referred to in section 3 of article 42 are considered.

4 - The value of the area adjacent to the construction is calculated in accordance with section 4 of article 40.

5 - When the document proving constructive viability referred to in article 37 makes reference only to the PDM indices, the evaluating experts must estimate, with substantiation, the respective construction area, taking into consideration, in particular, the average construction areas of the surrounding area".

1. Finally, note equally the norms on the interpretation of laws, fundamental to understanding the scope of the concept of property with housing allocation.

2. Article 11 of the General Tax Law ("LGT") establishes the essential rules of interpretation of tax laws in the following terms:

"Article 11 – Interpretation

1. In determining the meaning of tax norms and in qualifying the facts to which they apply, the general rules and principles of interpretation and application of laws are observed.

2. Whenever tax norms use terms proper to other branches of law, they should be interpreted in the same sense as they have there, unless something else follows directly from the law.

3. Persisting doubt about the meaning of the applicable tax norms, attention should be paid to the economic substance of the tax facts.

4. Lacunae resulting from tax norms covered by the reserve of law of the Assembly of the Republic are not susceptible to analogical integration".

5. The general principles of interpretation of laws, to which section 1 of article 11 of the LGT refers, are found in article 9 of the Civil Code, which establishes the following:

"Article 9 – Interpretation of Law

1. Interpretation should not be limited to the letter of the law, but should reconstruct from the texts the legislative thought, taking especially into account the unity of the legal system, the circumstances in which the law was drawn up and the specific conditions of the time in which it is applied.

2. However, the interpreter cannot consider the legislative thought that does not have in the letter of the law a minimum of verbal correspondence, even if imperfectly expressed.

3. In fixing the meaning and scope of the law, the interpreter will presume that the legislator established the most correct solutions and knew how to express his thought in adequate terms".

4. Thus, it is within this legal framework that it is important to appreciate whether construction lands that already have authorized or planned construction for housing, notwithstanding being impossible to determine what part of the VPT corresponds to housing, are subject to IS, under Item no. 28 of the TGIS.

B) Arguments of the Parties

1. The Claimant argued, in summary, that the aforementioned assessments are illegal, there being an error regarding the presuppositions of the assessment, "given that the AT assessed IS on properties that fall, according to their species under the IMI Code as 'construction land', but are devoted to housing, services, commerce and covered parking when it is certain that the tax norm's actual incidence typifies as the generating fact, in the case of the same construction lands, the construction authorized or planned solely for housing, in accordance with the IMI Code".

2. According to the Claimant, there is an argument that reinforces its understanding, namely the legislator's intent, at the time of the introduction of Item no. 28 of the TGIS, "the legislator (...) with the amendment to the TGIS intended, in a context of national emergency, to tax taxpayers with increased contributory capacity, in the concrete case through taxation of luxury properties (...) whereby it can be gathered that the reality intended to be taxed by the legislator already in its additional version would, after all, and notwithstanding the imprecision of the law's terminology, 'urban residential properties', in common language 'houses', and not other realities.

Following this same reasoning (...) we can infer that, and nothing having been said to the contrary, in this case as well the legislator intended only to subject to tax (...) houses whose construction is approved or planned in accordance with the IMI Code".

1. However, the Claimant considers that "it is not the same to tax a property intended for housing with a value of 1,000,000 Euros, because its configuration is definitive and represents for its owner an increased contributory capacity, and construction land, although the construction, authorized or planned, is also for housing, in accordance with the provisions of the IMI Code, which constituting an investment asset capable of carrying out a real estate transaction, configures a property whose species or nature is 'provisional' constituting in itself merely a legal expectancy given that its natural destination will be the construction of units whose VPT will be fractioned or divided, by the number of units resulting from the construction process, but certainly of value inferior to 1,000,000 Euros".

2. Additionally, the Claimant invokes the principle of equality and contributory capacity which "implies equal tax for those with equal contributory capacity, and different tax, for those with different contributory capacity, although, to the extent of the difference.

(...)

This is, moreover, a relevant element from the perspective of taxation of business income, which by constitutional obligation, will incur on its actual income, and not a mere legal expectancy, as is verified in the present case".

1. Finally, the Claimant highlights what is, in its understanding, a defect of substantiation. In this regard, the former considers that "analyzing the IS assessment notices in question, one concludes that the substantiation contained therein is non-existent, not allowing the taxpayer, or a normal recipient, the reconstruction of the cognitive and evaluative itinerary traveled by the AT.

(...)

That is, the AT does not explain or substantiate the assessment of a tax that in the letter of the tax norm's actual incidence falls on residential properties or construction lands whose construction provided or approved for housing in accordance with the IMI Code, but in the case in question is being required based on the ownership of 'construction land', without clarifying or substantiating its allocation and the reason why the same are subject to the aforementioned tax.

The AT (...) should have said and did not say that the construction lands have construction provided or authorized for housing. In the case in question there was an increased duty of substantiation given that the assessment is based on an error regarding the qualification of the property, it being incumbent, consequently, on the AT to explain why it assessed IS on construction lands with the various types of authorized allocation, when it is certain that the enabling norm contains taxation in the domain of construction lands whose authorized construction is solely for housing in accordance with the IMI Code".

1. Thus the Claimant understands that its claim should be granted, giving rise to the annulment of the assessment acts previously mentioned.

2. To this end, according to the former, the amounts previously paid, as IS, should be refunded, accrued with compensatory interest.

3. For its part, the Respondent, after being duly notified for this purpose, submitted its response in which, in summary, it alleged the following:

4. "... The determination of the VPT of construction lands has as a presupposition the determination of the value of authorized or planned constructions, for which one must, in accordance with the provisions of article 38 of the CIMI, attend to the allocation of those same constructions.

And with the amendment effected by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, to item 28.1 of the IS Code, there are now expressly covered by that construction lands 'whose construction, authorized or planned, is for housing, in accordance with the provisions of the IMI Code'.

Now, notwithstanding the Claimant referring (...) that constructions are provided for housing but also for commerce, services and parking, it results, from the respective consultation, whether considering each of the plots subject to licensing per se, or considering the overall area of the two plots, that the area for residential purposes is manifestly predominant".

1. Additionally, regarding the lack of substantiation raised by the Claimant, the Respondent considers that "all the elements (...) are expressed in the collection notices for payment, with no administrative procedure underlying each assessment act".

2. Finally, the Respondent understood, with respect to the alleged violation of the principle of equality and contributory capacity, that "the legislator, in electing the basis of incidence of Item 28.1 of the TGIS, intended construction lands with sole or predominantly residential purposes, in compliance with the political objective expressed in the Bill of Law translated into fair allocation of the tax burden, as referred to above.

(...)

Therefore, contrary to what the Claimant alleges, Item 28.1 of the TGIS does not incur in any arbitrariness or in any way violates the principle of equality in tax matters in the aspect of contributory capacity".

1. In sum, the Respondent requests that the claim for declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of the disputed assessment be judged unfounded, absconding the same from the claim.

C) Appreciation by the Tribunal

1. By way of preliminary remark, it is to be noted that, in the eyes of the Arbitral Tribunal, the matter to be decided pertains exclusively to a matter of law, namely to understand, for the purpose of applying said item, what treatment is to be given to construction lands, when they have express authorization or planned construction for various purposes, namely residential, and there does not yet exist, for this purpose, a VPT allocated to the areas intended for each of said purposes.

2. That is, the present tribunal seeks to ascertain whether the construction lands in question, notwithstanding having authorized or planned construction for housing, are not subject to IS, under Item no. 28 of the TGIS, since it is impossible to determine, at the relevant date of the facts, the VPT corresponding to the part of said land allocated to housing, or, conversely, are subject to IS, under Item no. 28 of the TGIS, from the moment they have authorized or planned construction and this is intended, even if partially and without an allocation of VPTs by purpose, for housing.

3. Now, in the concrete case, we find two IS assessments relating to construction lands that possess express authorization for construction, with it being provided that their area be devoted to housing, commerce and services and also parking.

4. In this sense, there is already a total VPT defined, with respect to each of those urban properties, there not being, however, a VPT attributed to each of the purposes for which it has a license to build, namely a VPT for the area intended for housing, a VPT for the area intended for commerce and services and a VPT for the area intended for parking.

5. And, thus being, the VPT on which item 28.1 of the TGIS should apply is unknown, which states that properties are subject to IS, at a rate of 1%, residential properties or construction lands whose construction, authorized or planned, is for housing, and whose VPT is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.

6. This is because, in the understanding of the present tribunal, the aforementioned norm establishes that, in cases where a given construction land has authorized construction (which is the situation in crisis) for housing, IS is due, upon verification of the remaining requirements (VPT exceeding € 1,000,000).

7. However, how to proceed, in cases where construction land has authorized construction for various purposes, beyond the residential?

8. One cannot certainly overlook the principle of typicity, which, applied to tax law, presupposes that all taxes, as well as their field of incidence, are set forth in the law, as follows from the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic ("CRP").

9. In the hypothetical scenario of the aforementioned construction lands, possessing, on the date of the occurrence of the tax fact, a VPT decomposed by purpose to which its construction would relate, the present tribunal understands that, taking into account the legislator's intent, one could eventually ascertain the subjection of said property to IS, under Item no. 28 of the TGIS.

10. Indeed, it would be possible to validate which VPT relates to that purpose and determine whether the same was equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.

11. However, this is not the framework of the situation now being examined.

12. Indeed, on the date of the relevant facts, the construction lands in question had express authorization for construction, in which the allocation of the area granted to the different purposes to which they would be intended was provided.

13. However, the VPTs of the areas (divided by specific purpose) were not quantified, and, in that sense, the argument put forth by the Respondent cannot be accepted, in which it argued that "whether considering each of the plots subject to licensing per se, or considering the overall area of the two plots, the area for residential purposes is manifestly predominant".

14. This is because, on the basis of what was previously stated regarding the principle of typicity, the AT cannot meddle in matters about which the legislator opted not to legislate, being naturally bound by tax legality (which requires in particular that taxes be legally and expressly delimited).

15. The AT understands that "the determination of the VPT of construction lands has as a presupposition the determination of the value of authorized or planned constructions, for which one must (...) attend to the allocation of those same constructions".

16. Considering that, "contrary to what the Claimant intends, the construction license permit of the properties in question confirms moreover that the constructions to be made will be prevalently intended for residences, whereby they fully come within the definition of construction land for purposes of item ...".

17. Differently, the present tribunal understands that one cannot follow a criterion that is not legally provided for, for the subjection, or not, of a given construction land to IS, in the terms that follow from Item no. 28 of the TGIS, which, in the concrete case, passes through an indirect and presumptive analysis by the AT.

18. In parallel, and although not expressly referred to by the Respondent, let it be established, forthwith, that a proportional allocation of the overall VPT of the construction land in accordance with the area relating to each of the uses (commerce, housing, among others), with a view to determining the VPT of the land relating to construction for housing, should also not be accepted.

19. Indeed, there being no legally defined criterion that provides for such allocation, such an assumption is manifestly illegal, by force of what follows from article 103 of the CRP, "taxes are created by law, which determines incidence, rate, tax benefits and guarantees of taxpayers".

20. More is said, that the AT, in seeking to interpret inadequately a norm that the Portuguese legislator did not intend to develop, seeking in that way, and even if involuntarily, to "legislate", is violating the CRP, which defined that such competence belongs, exclusively, to the Assembly of the Portuguese Republic (see article 165, section 1, subparagraph i) of the CRP).

21. A different situation would be the case where a given construction land already had defined a specific VPT for the area that would be intended for residential construction, since, as previously stated, with that framework it would be possible to ascertain whether the necessary presuppositions for the application of Item no. 28 of the TGIS were met, namely whether the said VPT was equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.

22. Notwithstanding, that is not the framework that it behooves the present tribunal to appreciate.

23. Concretely, the Claimant received the aforementioned assessments, with respect to two construction lands, which, despite having a license for construction, did not possess, at the time, a delineation of the part of its VPT that would relate to residential construction.

24. In this context, and it being impossible thus to determine the amount corresponding to the specific VPT of the part which, in accordance with Item no. 28 of the TGIS, would eventually be subject to IS, the understanding put forth by the AT cannot consequently be accepted.

25. Taking into account what is stated above, the present tribunal considers that it is not necessary to focus on the remaining arguments put forth by the Claimant, as the conditions are already present to render the arbitral decision.

26. Thus, and on the basis of the reasons enumerated above, the present tribunal understands that the properties in crisis cannot, on the date of the facts, be subject to IS, under Item no. 28 of the TGIS, whereby it is concluded that there is no verification of the legal presupposition of incidence.

V. DECISION

1. For these reasons, this Arbitral Tribunal decides:

A) To find the claim for arbitral pronouncement to be well-founded and, consequently, to declare illegal and to annul the IS assessment acts mentioned above, by reference to 2014, which resulted in tax due in the amount of € 48,405.08, relating to the taxation of construction lands, in accordance with the provisions of Item no. 28 of the TGIS;

B) To condemn the Respondent, in accordance with article 43, section 1 of the LGT and 61, sections 2 and 5 of the Tax Procedure and Process Code ("CPPT"), to payment of compensatory interest, at the rate resulting from section 4 of article 43 of the LGT, calculated on the amount paid, from the day on which the aforementioned assessments were paid and until full reimbursement of the amount referred to; and

C) To condemn the Respondent in the costs of the case.

VI. VALUE OF THE CASE

1. The value of the case is fixed at € 48,405.08, in accordance with article 97-A, section 1, subparagraph a), of the CPPT, applicable by force of subparagraphs a) and b) of section 1 of article 29 of the RJAT and section 2 of article 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Cases ("RCPAT").

VII. COSTS

1. In harmony with the provision of article 22, section 4, of the RJAT, the value of the arbitration fee is fixed at € 2,142, in accordance with Table I of the aforementioned Regulation, to be borne by the Respondent, given the full success of the claim.

Let it be notified.

Lisbon, CAAD, 30 March 2016

The Arbitrator

(Sérgio Santos Pereira)