Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
Agree in arbitral tribunal
I – Report
1. A...- SGPS, S.A., legal entity no. ..., with registered office in ...–..., ...-... ..., holding company of fiscal group B..., subject to the special taxation regime for groups of companies, hereby requests the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of articles 2, no. 1, paragraph a), and 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, to assess the legality of the decision rejecting the request for official revision, as well as the additional IRC assessment act, in the total amount of € 654,120.31, relating to the year 2011.
The Claimant bases its request on the following grounds.
The Tax Authority, in the course of an inspection procedure, considered that financial charges attributable to capital shares do not contribute to the formation of taxable income, pursuant to article 32, no. 2, of the Tax Benefits Statute, and in application of circular no. 7/2004, and determined their disregard for tax purposes and the consequent correction of taxable income.
The Claimant understands, in this context, that, where supplementary contributions are concerned, these should not be included in the concept of capital shares to which that provision refers, and are not covered by the non-deductibility rule provided therein.
The concept of "capital shares", in light of company law, corresponds to "shareholdings" and does not encompass credits from the provision of accessory contributions, credits from the provision of supplementary contributions or similar, which have exclusively in their origin cash transfers.
Supplementary contributions are other obligations of partners to make cash contributions beyond the share capital realized in those situations where, at the time of incorporation, the possibility is foreseen that the capital may become insufficient for the pursuit of the corporate purpose, whereby losses relating to supplementary contributions cannot be considered in the calculation of the loss resulting from the sale of capital shares, inasmuch as these are not included in that concept of "capital shares".
It suffices to note that the partner as holder of a capital share and the creditor of supplementary contributions are subject to a different legal regime, which, in the first case, is embodied in a set of rights (voting right and entitlement to corporate profits) and obligations (participation in losses and duty to make contributions), and, in the second case, is translated into a credit right against the company, without any resulting consequence with respect to the juridical position in company law.
Regarding this matter, it is also important to bear in mind that "equity" is a comprehensive accounting concept, which includes various items, among which are found the "capital shares" of the partner, which does not mean that all other components should be equated to share capital.
Even at the level of tax law, the law distinguishes between capital shares and credits for supplementary contributions, as may be inferred from the provision in no. 3 of article 42 of the IRC Code, in the wording of Law no. 60-A/2005, of 30 December, which provided that "the negative difference between gains and losses realized through the onerous transfer of capital shares (...), as well as other losses or negative patrimonial variations relating to capital shares or other components of equity, namely supplementary contributions, contribute to the formation of taxable income in only half their value".
Circular no. 7/2004, of 30 March, on which the additional assessment act was based, insofar as it excludes the deductibility of financial charges, is illegal by violation of article 32, no. 2, of the TBS, in addition to being unconstitutional, particularly with respect to its nos. 7 and 8, by violation of the constitutional principle of reservation of law to the National Assembly for matters concerning the incidence of taxes, in application of the provisions of articles 103, nos. 2 and 3, and 165, no. 1, paragraph i), of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the formula contained in the Circular, by allowing a segregation of financial charges supposedly attributable to the financing of the asset "capital shares", is based on the incorrect assumption that a liability can only be counterbalanced by an asset, and, in that sense, represents the equivalent of an irrebuttable presumption in the field of calculation of taxable income, contradicting the constitutional principle of taxation according to actual income.
It concludes in favor of the merits of the arbitral request, by declaring the illegality of the rejection of the official revision request and the official IRC assessment, on grounds of violation of law and unconstitutionality.
The Tax Authority, in its response, invokes the dilatory plea of incompetence of the arbitral tribunal, inasmuch as the request for official revision which is the subject matter of the proceedings was considered untimely by not having been presented within the period for administrative review (120 days), the claimant not benefiting from the longer period of 4 years because there is no illegality in the tax act attributable to the services.
In that sense, the decision rejecting the official revision request, based on the untimeliness of the request, did not rule on the merits of the assessment act, being an administrative act that is not subject to judicial review, whereby the appropriate procedural means to react against the rejection of the official revision request is the special administrative action to be brought before the tax courts.
On impugnation, the Tax Authority alleges that the data contained in the arbitral request regarding the calculation of the balances of remunerated liabilities do not correspond to those collected in the course of the inspection procedure, and that the application of Circular no. 7/2004 results from the impossibility of determining in concreto the shareholdings in question, it being incumbent upon the Claimant to specifically prove the financing obtained and the corresponding financial charges.
Regarding the alleged exclusion of supplementary contributions, it is the understanding of the Respondent that, for the purposes of the provision in article 32, no. 2, of the TBS, are subsumed under the concept of capital shares not only shareholdings but also other components of equity that perform the functions of share capital, as is the case with capital increases, supplementary contributions and accessory contributions.
In fact, as results from that provision, SGPS are exempt from taxation of gains on the sale of capital shares, provided they are held for a period of not less than one year, but cannot fiscally deduct the financial charges they incur for the acquisition of those same shareholdings, and, consequently, the financial charges incurred in the acquisition of capital shares do not contribute to the formation of taxable income, which it is understandable that the legislator's purpose was to prevent SGPS from accumulating two benefits.
Accordingly, the disregard of financial charges should operate immediately, not depending on the sale of the shareholdings and the realization of gains, which implies not considering ab initio the financial costs incurred in the acquisition of shareholdings that may come to benefit from the exclusion of taxation provided for in no. 2 of article 32 of the TBS.
Furthermore, Circular no. 7/2004, by excluding the deductibility of financial charges incurred with financing linked to the acquisition of shareholdings, merely interpreted the law, in its literal context, clarifying doubts regarding the tax regime applicable to SGPS, and does not establish any new rules of incidence to which the vice of unconstitutionality could be attributed.
The norm of article 32, no. 2 of the TBS, when interpreted in the sense indicated by the Claimant, is unconstitutional by violation of the principle of reservation of law to the National Assembly, provided for in articles 103, no. 2 and 3, and 165, no. 1, paragraph i), of the Constitution.
It concludes in favor of the verification of the dilatory plea of tribunal incompetence and the lack of merit of the request for arbitral ruling.
2. Following the proceedings, the meeting referred to in article 18 of the RJAT was waived and the proceedings were ordered to continue for arguments in successive periods.
In arguments, the Claimant responded to the dilatory plea raised by the Tax Authority, stating that the proposal to reject the official revision request on which the agreement decision of the Finance Director of ..., assessed the legality of the tax act in question, expressly concluding that there was no error attributable to the services, whereby the decision cannot fail to be considered as having ruled on the legality of the tax act, and judicial review is the appropriate procedural means for assessing the question.
As to the merits of the case, the parties maintained their previous positions.
3. The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of CAAD and notified to the Tax and Customs Authority in accordance with the applicable regulations.
Pursuant to the provision in paragraph a) of no. 2 of article 6 and paragraph b) of no. 1 of article 11 of the RJAT, in the wording introduced by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Council appointed as arbitrators of the collective arbitral tribunal the undersigned signatories, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable period.
The parties were duly and timely notified of this appointment and expressed no desire to refuse it, in accordance with the combined provision of article 11, no. 1, paragraphs a) and b), of the RJAT and articles 6 and 7 of the Deontological Code.
Thus, in accordance with the provision in paragraph c) of no. 1 of article 11 of the RJAT, in the wording introduced by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the collective arbitral tribunal was constituted on 6 December 2018.
The arbitral tribunal was regularly constituted and is materially competent in accordance with the provisions of articles 2, no. 1, paragraph a), and 30, no. 1, of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January.
The parties have legal personality and capacity, are entitled and are duly represented (articles 4 and 10, no. 2, of the same decree and 1 of Order no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March).
The proceedings do not suffer from nullities and no exceptions were raised.
It is for us to assess and decide.
II – Reasoning
Factual Matters
3. The facts relevant to the decision of the case that may be considered established are as follows.
A) The Claimant is a Company Managing Shareholdings and the holding company of fiscal group B..., subject to the special taxation regime for groups of companies provided for in article 69 and following of the IRC Code;
B) In compliance with service orders nos. OI 2015..., OI 2015... and OI 2015...it was the subject of an inspection procedure of limited scope, in the area of IRC, focusing on the financial years 2011, 2012 and 2013;
C) Following the inspection procedure, corrections in IRC were determined which resulted in an increase of the taxable base of the Fiscal Group in the amount of € 654,120.31, relating to the financial year 2011;
D) According to the Tax Inspection Report, the corrections resulted from the fiscal disregard of financial charges incurred in the acquisition of capital shares because it was understood, in application of Circular no. 7/2004, that these charges were covered by the provision in article 32, no. 2, of the Tax Benefits Statute;
E) Following the agreement decision of the head of division of the Finance Directorate of Lisbon, IRC assessment no. 2016... was issued, notified to the claimant on 12 May 2016;
F) The Claimant filed a request for official revision of the assessment on 2 March 2018;
G) The services formulated a proposal for summary rejection of the official revision request based on the following conclusions: 1 – the request for tax revision is untimely, by not having been presented within the periods for administrative review, which is 120 days counted from the end of the voluntary payment period – combination of article 78, no. 1 of the LGT and articles 70, no. 1 and 102, no. 1 of the CPPT; 2 - It does not benefit from conversion to the 4-year period for its presentation, because there is no illegality in the tax act attributable to the services acting in compliance with binding information – combination of articles 68-A, no. 1 and 78, no. 1 in fine of the LGT;
H) The proposal obtained the agreement of the Finance Director of..., by decision of 25 June 2018.
The Tribunal formed its conviction regarding the established facts based on the documents attached to the petition and on the administrative file submitted by the Tax Authority with its response.
Matters of Law
Incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal
5. The Tax Authority invokes the material incompetence of the arbitral tribunal on the understanding that the request concerns the decision rejecting the official revision request filed against the assessment act, and that decision did not rule on the merits of the question inasmuch as it determined the summary rejection of the request on grounds of untimeliness. In that context, the appropriate procedural means would be the special administrative action, in application of the provision in article 97, no. 2, of the CPPT, for whose assessment the arbitral tribunal is incompetent in light of the provision in article 2 of the RJAT.
As presented, the question concerns the distinction, within the scope of tax judicial proceedings, between judicial review and contentious appeal according to the nomenclature resulting from article 97 of the CPPT.
Pursuant to article 95, no. 1, of the General Tax Law "the interested party has the right to impugn or appeal from any act injurious to his rights and legally protected interests according to the forms of process prescribed by law". In turn, article 97, no. 1, of the CPPT distinguishes between judicial review and contentious appeal in accordance with the object of the proceedings, considering as subject to judicial review "administrative acts in tax matters which involve the assessment of the legality of the assessment act" (paragraph d)), and as subject to appeal "administrative acts in tax matters, which do not involve the assessment of the legality of the assessment act" (paragraph p)).
However, no. 2 of that article 97 clarifies that contentious appeal of administrative acts in tax matters which do not involve assessment of the legality of the assessment act is regulated by the rules on proceedings in administrative courts, which refers to the provision in article 191 of the CPTA. This provision states that "references which, in special law, are made to the regime of contentious appeal of annulment of administrative acts are deemed to be made to the regime of administrative action", which means that the reference made by article 97, no. 1, paragraph p), of the CPPT is now deemed to be made to the form of process corresponding to it in the CPTA. What would lead, in general theory, to consider applicable the action for condemnation to the performance of a due act when the omission or refusal to perform an administrative act was in question.
It is to be noted that, with the 2015 revision, approved by Decree-Law no. 214-G/2015, of 2 October, substantive claims submitted in court that relate to the performance or omission of an administrative act or the performance or omission of an administrative rule - which previously corresponded to the form of special administrative action - now follow the regime of administrative action as the sole form of declarative process applicable when urgent proceedings are not involved (cf. article 37).
The use of administrative action, in application of article 97, no. 1, paragraph p), and by effect of the reference contained in no. 2 of that article, concerns, therefore, the characterization of the tax question that is in issue, and will take place when the question does not involve assessment of the legality of the assessment act.
Now, the Claimant, unequivocally, filed a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal for the assessment of the legality of an additional IRC assessment act and, previously, filed a request for official revision against the same assessment act, aiming to obtain its annulment through administrative means.
The useful and relevant effect of the rejection of the official revision request is expressed in the maintenance in the legal order of the tax assessment act, whereby it is that very rejection that makes justifiable and necessary the recourse to arbitral jurisdiction seeing that it was not possible to obtain administrative annulment still in the pre-judicial phase. The decision rejecting the official revision request constitutes, in this context, the mediate object of the request and aims to ensure the elimination from the legal order of that decision in case it is concluded that the tax assessment act is illegal.
Even if that were not to be understood, it cannot fail to be recognized – as was decided, in a similar situation, in the judgment of the STA of 14 May 2015 (Case no. 01958/13) - that the decision rejecting, having manifested agreement with the proposal formulated by the services, is based on two different grounds: on the one hand, it was considered that the revision request is untimely by not having been presented within the period for administrative review; on the other hand, it was understood that the illegality of the tax act attributable to the services did not obtain, for the purpose of permitting official revision in the longer period of four years referred to in the second part of no. 1 of article 78 of the LGT.
And, in that sense, the decision rejecting the official revision request, by effect of one of the grounds invoked, involves the assessment of the legality of an assessment act and falls within the scope of application of article 97, no. 1, paragraph d), of the CPPT.
In these terms, the invoked exception of incompetence of the arbitral tribunal is shown to be without merit.
Question on the Merits
6. The question that is under debate concerns whether the financial charges incurred with the provision of accessory contributions subject to the regime of supplementary contributions should be attributed as relating to "capital shares" for the purpose of the provision in article 32, no. 2, of the Tax Benefits Statute (TBS).
This provision provides that "[G]ains and losses realized by SGPS, by SCR and by ICR from capital shares of which they are holders, provided that held for a period of not less than one year, and likewise the financial charges incurred in their acquisition do not contribute to the formation of taxable income of these companies." The question that thus arises relates to the qualification of supplementary contributions as "capital shares", seeing that only in the affirmative case is it possible to consider that the financial charges in question do not contribute to the formation of taxable income and cannot, therefore, be considered for tax purposes.
It is appropriate to begin by invoking, in this regard, the general rules of interpretation of tax laws resulting from article 11 of the LGT, and specifically what is contained in nos. 1 and 2:
1 - In determining the meaning of tax rules and in qualifying the facts to which they apply, the general rules and principles of interpretation and application of laws are observed".
2 - Whenever, in tax rules, terms specific to other areas of law are employed, these shall be interpreted in the same sense as they have there, unless otherwise directly follows from the law.
From which it follows that, although the rule is that the terms used in tax rules should be interpreted with the same scope that they have in other areas of law, the exception is the case in which it directly results from tax law that the term is there used with a meaning different from that which it normally has elsewhere in similar places.
In this regard, it is important to bear in mind the specific characterization of supplementary contributions to which articles 209 to 213 of the Commercial Companies Code refer.
If the partnership agreement so permits, partners may resolve that supplementary contributions be required of them, the agreement fixing the total amount of supplementary contributions, the partners obliged to make such contributions and the criterion for apportioning supplementary contributions among the partners obliged to make them. Supplementary contributions always have cash as their object (whereby they cannot be made in kind) and do not earn interest (article 210).
Supplementary contributions may be returned if so resolved by the partners and provided that the net position does not fall below the sum of capital and legal reserve and the respective partner has already released his quota (article 213).
What may be said is that supplementary contributions are cash contributions with a view to strengthening the company's assets, possibly to cover losses that occur, corresponding to a monetary reinforcement that accrues to capital, although it does not fit within the strict sense of capital, nor are they subject to its legal regime.
Supplementary contributions thus constitute a possible means of financing limited liability companies and, although they are considered, in the light of the Official Accounting Plan, as a form of equity – like share capital – they have an economic and legal nature different from share capital. On the one hand, partners may recover supplementary contributions within the conditionality of article 213 of the Commercial Companies Code, whereas the reduction of share capital for release in favor of partners of what exceeds the company's needs is subject to more demanding requirements, particularly through prior judicial authorization, registration and publication of the corporate resolution and formalization by public deed (articles 85, no. 1, and 95, nos. 1, 2 and 4, of the Commercial Companies Code). On the other hand, the corporate participation, in its various designations of share, quota or stock for the various corporate types, constituting a fraction of share capital, represents the legal position of the partner, with the corresponding general and associative rights and obligations, such as the right to share in profits, to participate in corporate resolutions, to obtain information regarding corporate activity and to be designated to corporate bodies and also the obligation to make contributions and participate in losses (on all these aspects, cf. PINTO FURTADO, Course on Company Law, 4th edition, Coimbra, pp. 219 and 320-321; COUTINHO DE ABREU, Course on Commercial Law, vol II, 6th edition, Coimbra, pp. 215 and 313 to 317; Rui Pinto Duarte, "Loans, Accessory Contributions and Supplementary Contributions – notes and questions", in Problems of Company Law, Coimbra, pp. 275 to 277).
Accordingly, in the area of company law, the concept of "capital shares" corresponds to shareholdings in share capital and is not confused with the credits or expectation of reimbursement originated by the provision of supplementary contributions.
And in the same direction points the legislative evolution effected in the field of taxation.
In the wording introduced by Law no. 60-A/2005, of 30 December, article 42 of the IRC Code (subsequently renumbered as article 45), referring to charges not deductible for tax purposes, came to provide in its no. 3 the following: "The negative difference between gains and losses realized through the onerous transfer of capital shares, as well as other losses or negative patrimonial variations relating to capital shares or other components of equity, namely supplementary contributions, contribute to the formation of taxable income in only half the value". The phrase "or other components of equity, namely supplementary contributions" - which was not present in the original version of the rule - reveals that, even for the tax legislator, the concepts of capital shares and supplementary contributions are distinct, and the concept of "capital shares", in the literal context of the rule, is necessarily more restricted than that of "equity", seeing that it will encompass, in addition to capital shares, other components of equity.
As was clarified in the judgment delivered in Case no. 264/2016-T, this legislative amendment aimed to make explicit that supplementary contributions, for IRC purposes, are framed among the "other components of equity" and not among "capital shares", and that this conceptual delimitation also reflects within the scope of application of article 32, no. 2, of the TBS. Indeed, this rule aims to move away, in relation to SGPS, the general regime that results from the aforementioned rule of article 45, no. 3, of the IRC Code regarding the deductibility of negative patrimonial variations relating to "capital shares", whereby the concept of "capital shares" contained in the exception rule cannot fail to correspond to that which is used in the general rule, only in this way being possible to understand the scope of the restrictive effect that was aimed to be obtained through the Tax Benefits Statute.
On the other hand, it is important to note that article 32, no. 2, of the TBS, having been reformulated by Law no. 64-B/2011, of 30 December, already after the amendment introduced by Law no. 60-A/2005 in article 45, no. 3, of the IRC Code, did not follow the distinction made there between capital shares and supplementary contributions, maintaining reference only to "capital shares" without any allusion to the "other components of equity" to which that other provision of the IRC Code refers.
In fact, article 32, no. 2, of the TBS established a special regime for SGPS, which was expressed in the irrelevance for the formation of taxable income of gains and losses realized from capital shares held for at least one year, accompanied by the non-contribution to the formation of taxable income of the financial charges incurred in their acquisition. By establishing that the financial charges incurred in their acquisition" do not contribute to the formation of taxable income - referring to capital shares – it must be concluded – as was also pondered in the judgment delivered in Case no. 23/2018-T - that only financial charges that are connected with the acquisition of shareholdings are covered by the non-deductibility for tax purposes.
This same interpretation is corroborated by the State Budget Report for 2003, which justifies the amendment introduced in article 32, no. 2, of the TBS, introduced by Law no. 32-B/2002, of 30 December, as one of the measures to broaden the tax base and moralize the tax behavior of taxpayers, clarifying that it is intended to establish "the disregard of deductibility, for purposes of determining taxable income, of financial charges directly associated with the acquisition of corporate stakes by SGPS" (available at http://www.dgo.pt/politicaorcamental/OrcamentodeEstado/2003/Proposta).
In the same line of understanding, MANUEL ANSELMO TORRES states the following:
"Supplementary contributions do not constitute 'capital shares' inasmuch as they are not susceptible of autonomous transfer from the corporate shareholding to which they relate, as was demonstrated above. This is recognized by tax law itself, by referring to supplementary contributions as 'other components of equity' as opposed to 'capital shares' (CIRC 45.3). (...)
It should not be said that, because the supplementary contribution does not earn any interest (by nature), the interest incurred by the partners themselves to finance the respective amount to third parties would not be deductible (cf. CIRC 23). Although they do not earn interest, supplementary contributions are entries susceptible of or conducive to other remuneration, either through distributed profits or through future gains. Supplementary contributions may also serve to avoid social losses which, should they occur, would translate into fiscal losses for the partners. As such, the interest incurred by the partner to finance the provision of supplementary contributions may constitute an indispensable cost to the maintenance of the source producing taxable income of the company. (...)
However, a distinction must be made between the cost of acquisition of capital shares which includes the value of the corporate shares inherent to it, and the cost of provision of supplementary contributions provided by the holder of the capital shares which (...) do not constitute themselves new capital shares. The sale of capital shares is susceptible of generating gains or losses influenced by the supplementary contributions inherent to it. But the supplementary contributions provided by the holder of capital shares do not constitute a cost of acquisition of the same, but merely a reinforcement of the equity of the invested company, which should therefore be reflected in a separate investment account.
For the same reason, the costs of financing supplementary contributions provided by the holder of capital shares do not constitute a financial charge incurred in their acquisition, whereby they are not excluded from contributing to the formation of taxable income, namely of companies managing shareholdings, pursuant to no. 2 of art. 32 of the Tax Benefits Statute." ("Supplementary contributions, its commercial, accounting and tax regime", Studies in Memory of Prof. Doctor Saldanha Sanches, Vol. IV, AA. VV., Coimbra Editora, 2011, pp. 916-918).
Having to acknowledge, in light of all that has been set out, that the rule of article 32, no. 2, of the TBS does not refer to financial charges incurred with supplementary contributions, the general regime of deductibility of expenses resulting from article 23 of the IRC Code applies.
This rule, under the heading "Expenses and Losses", in the part relevant to consider, provided as follows:
1 – Expenses are considered those which are demonstrably indispensable for the realization of income subject to tax or for the maintenance of the income-producing source, namely:
(...)
c) Of a financial nature, such as interest on foreign capital applied in the operation, discounts, premiums, transfers, exchange differences, expenses with credit operations, collection of debts and issuance of bonds and other securities, redemption premiums and those resulting from the application of the effective interest method to financial instruments valued at amortized cost;
(...).
In line with what has been understood by the STA (judgments of the STA of 28 February 2018, Case no. 01206/17, and of 21 February 2018, Case no. 0473/13) and as has been stressed by arbitral jurisprudence, "it cannot be affirmed that the financial costs incurred with the provision of supplementary contributions are dispensable to the maintenance of the productive source. In this regard, (...) it seems clear that, where a company managing shareholdings is concerned, whose activity, by its very nature, consists in the appreciation of the shareholdings it holds, the endowment of an invested company with equity, by enabling it to better and more efficiently exercise its respective activity, with the consequent increase in profit, is an act suitable for the maintenance and appreciation of the productive source of the managing company (cf., among others, judgment delivered in Case no. 80/2013-T).
In the same sense ruled the judgment delivered in Case no. 222/2017-T, between the same parties and relating to the financial years 2012 and 2013, and more recently, in a similar situation, in the judgment delivered in Case no. 385/2018-T.
In these terms, it is concluded that the corrections made by the Tax Authority, relating to the financial year 2011, suffer from the vice of violation of law due to error regarding the legal presuppositions, rooted in the incorrect interpretation and application of article 23, no. 1, paragraph c), of the IRC Code and article 32, no. 2, of the TBS, which justifies the annulment of the additional IRC assessment act and the decision rejecting the official revision request.
It remains to be considered that, where the mere interpretation of the law by a judicial body is concerned, in the exercise of its own competence, there is no violation of the principle of reservation of the legislative competence of the National Assembly.
III – Decision
In these terms, it is decided:
a) To rule on the competence of the arbitral tribunal to know of the request;
b) To judge the arbitral request well-founded and to annul the additional IRC assessment no. 2016..., no. 2017..., relating to the year 2011, as well as the decision rejecting the official revision request.
Value of the Cause
The Claimant indicated as the value of the cause the amount of € 654,120.31, which was not contested by the Respondent and corresponds to the value of the assessment which it sought to oppose, whereby the value of the cause is fixed at that amount.
Costs
Pursuant to articles 12, no. 2, and 24, no. 4, of the RJAT, and 3, no. 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings and Table I attached to that Regulation, the amount of costs is fixed at € 9,792.00, which is borne by the Respondent.
Notify.
Lisbon, 6 June 2019
The President of the Arbitral Tribunal
Carlos Fernandes Cadilha
The Arbitrator Member
Pedro Galego
The Arbitrator Member
José Nunes Barata
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created