Process: 485/2016-T

Date: December 26, 2016

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

CAAD Process 485/2016-T addresses the application of Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) under item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duties (GTSD) to an undivided estate comprising a residential building with six independent floors and divisions in Lisbon. The Tax Authority assessed Stamp Tax totaling €10,560.62 for the 2015 tax year, treating each independent unit separately while applying the aggregate Taxable Patrimonial Value (VPT) of €1,056,062.21 to trigger the €1 million threshold. The central legal question concerns whether the VPT relevant for item 28.1 GTSD should be calculated per independent unit or aggregated for the entire property held under vertical ownership regime. The claimant, as head of the undivided inheritance, challenged six separate assessments, each referencing the same total VPT exceeding one million euros. The property's independent divisions had individual VPT determinations under Article 7(2)(b) of the Municipal Property Tax Code (IMI), ranging from €35,844.33 to €231,373.53. This arbitration decision is significant for determining how Stamp Tax applies to inherited properties with multiple autonomous units, particularly whether the legislation targets individual property units or composite buildings. The ruling impacts estate planning, inheritance taxation, and the interpretation of vertical property ownership under Portuguese tax law. The case highlights tensions between separate fiscal identification of independent units for IMI purposes versus their treatment as a unified property for Stamp Tax thresholds on high-value residential real estate.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

I. REPORT

A..., with Tax Identification Number ..., in the capacity of head of household of the UNDIVIDED ESTATE of B..., hereinafter the Claimant, filed a request for the constitution of a singular Arbitral Tribunal, pursuant to the combined provisions of articles 2º and 10º of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as LFATM), in which the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter TA) is the Respondent, with the objective of obtaining the declaration of illegality of the act of assessment of Stamp Duty relating to the year 2015, in the total amount of €10,560.62.

The request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was accepted by the Honourable President of CAAD on 19.08.2016 and automatically notified to the TA.

In accordance with the provisions of subsection c) of paragraph 1 of article 11º of the LFATM, the singular Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 11.11.2016.

The TA responded, contesting the merits of the claim.

The meeting referred to in article 18º of the LFATM and the holding of final arguments was waived, in light of the content of the matter contained in the case file.

The Arbitral Tribunal is regularly constituted and materially competent, pursuant to subsection a) of paragraph 1 of article 2º of the LFATM.

The parties have legal personality and capacity, are properly interested parties and are represented (article 4º, and paragraph 2 of article 10 of the LFATM and article 1º of Ordinance no. 112/2011, of 22 March).

There are no nullities, exceptions or preliminary issues that prevent the immediate examination of the merits of the case.

II. FACTUAL MATTER

Based on the elements contained in the case file, the following facts are considered proven:

A) The Claimant is the owner and legitimate proprietor of the urban property registered in the urban property matrix of the parish of ..., municipality of Lisbon, under article ...;

B) The said property is held in full ownership and comprises 6 storeys and independent divisions;

C) The Claimant was notified of the acts of assessment of Stamp Duty relating to the property identified, relating to the year 2015, which are contained in documents no. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 attached to the case file by the Claimant, in the total amount of €10,560.62 (ten thousand, five hundred and sixty Euros and sixty-two cents);

D) The storeys and independent divisions with residential use were subject to Stamp Duty assessment, with the Taxable Patrimonial Value (TPV) total exceeding €1,000,000 (one million euros);

E) The TPV of the storeys and divisions identified was determined separately, pursuant to the provisions of article 7º, paragraph 2, subsection b) of the Code of Municipal Property Tax (IMI);

There are no facts relevant to the decision of the case that should be considered unproven.

This Tribunal formed its conviction on the basis of the documents attached to the case file by the Parties.

III. LEGAL MATTER

The principal issue that arises in the present case comes down to determining what is the TPV relevant for purposes of applying item 28 and 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duties (GTSD) with respect to urban residential property held under vertical ownership regime, which comprises storeys or divisions capable of independent use, duly identified in the case file.

In this regard, the Claimant alleges in its request for arbitral pronouncement the following:

  • The TA notified the Claimant of the acts of assessment of Stamp Duty sub judice:

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date of 05.04.2016, relating to the 1st storey of urban registration article no. ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 224,635.23€, with the collection of 2,246.35€, payment deadline for the 1st instalment of 748.79€, on 30 April 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date of 05.04.2016, relating to the 2nd storey of urban registration article no. ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 224,635.23€, with the collection of 2,246.35€, payment deadline for the 1st instalment of 748.79€, on 30 April 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date of 05.04.2016, relating to the 3rd storey of urban registration article no. ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 224,635.23€, with the collection of 2,246.35€, payment deadline for the 1st instalment of 748.79€, on 30 April 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date of 05.04.2016, relating to the 4th storey of urban registration article no. ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 231,373.53€, with the collection of 2,313.74€, payment deadline for the 1st instalment of 771.26€, on 30 April 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date of 05.04.2016, relating to the basement of urban registration article no. ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 114,938.66€, with the collection of 1,149.39€, payment deadline for the 1st instalment of 383.13€, on 30 April 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date of 05.04.2016, relating to basement A of urban registration article no. ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 35,844.33€, with the collection of 358.44€, payment deadline for the 1st instalment of 179.22€, on 30 April 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date of 05.04.2016, relating to the basement of art. registration article no. ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 114,938.66€, with the collection of 1,149.39€, payment deadline for the 2nd instalment of 383.13€, on 31 July 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date of 05.04.2016, relating to the 1st storey of art. registration article no. ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 224,635.23€, with the collection of 2,246.35€, payment deadline for the 2nd instalment of 748.78€, on 31 July 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 224,635.23€, with the collection of 2,246.35€, payment deadline for the 2nd instalment of 748.78€, on 31 July 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date of 05.04.2016, relating to the 3rd storey of art. registration article no. ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 224,635.23€, with the collection of 2,246.35€, payment deadline for the 2nd instalment of 748.78€, on 1 July 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • Assessment no. 2016 ..., of item 28.1 GTSD, tax year 2015, with assessment date of 05.04.2016, relating to the 4th storey of art. registration article no. ..., parish of ..., with the registered value of 231,373.53€, with the collection of 2,313.74€, payment deadline for the 2nd instalment of 771.24€, on 01 July 2016 and "Taxable Patrimonial Value of the property – total subject to tax: 1,056,062.21€";

  • The acts of assessment identified above were prepared taking into account the total TPV of the "storeys and divisions with independent use" allocated to residential use – and not the TPV of each of the "storeys and divisions with independent use" allocated to residential use, individually considered;

  • Now, in the case of properties not held under horizontal ownership regime the taxable patrimonial value relevant for purposes of IMI and, consequently, for purposes of the incidence of Stamp Duty, of item 28, of the GTSD, is the taxable patrimonial value attributed to each storey or division capable of independent use and not the total taxable patrimonial value of the property.

  • Thus, the legal criterion for defining the incidence of the tax contained in that item of the GTSD shall be that which results from the criterion applied in the context of IMI; that is, the tax of item 28 of the GTSD should be assessed individually in relation to each autonomous unit of the property, in accordance with its registration in the respective matrix, in the same manner as properties held under horizontal ownership regime, as provided in the above-cited article 7º of the IMI Code.

  • Now, this tax norm reflects the principle of autonomization of the independent parts of an urban property, even when this is not held under horizontal ownership regime.

  • And the truth is that none of the assessments sub judice, now contested, were based on a value exceeding 1,000,000.00€ (one million euros).

  • Therefore, given that each of the storeys subject to these assessments has a value below one million euros, they should be annulled, as those storeys do not fall within the scope of the objective incidence of item 28.1 of Stamp Duty.

  • And further: in none of the legal provisions that establish the scope of the objective incidence of item 28 of the GTSD can there be found any indication that, in the case of properties in vertical ownership, the value to be considered for purposes of the incidence of the tax is the result of the sum of its parts.

  • Now, the TA must respect a classic principle of interpretation of law: where the legislator does not distinguish, the interpreter should not distinguish. And further, dealing with tax provisions, there is a greater requirement in the application of law, which is reflected in the principle of legality of taxation.

  • This means that, as none of the independent units in the case file has, in isolation, a TPV exceeding €1,000,000.00, the assessments in the case file violate the law, since "the adoption of the criterion defended by the TA violates the principles of legality and tax equality, as well as the prevalence of material truth over legal-formal reality." CAAD, case no. 50/2013-T, decision of 29.10.2013;

  • The assessments in the case file are not only illegal but also unconstitutional and, consequently, null, for violating the principle of Equality constitutionally enshrined, article 13º of the CRP, according to which: "1. All citizens have the same social dignity and are equal before the law."

  • Thus, on the basis of the violation of the principles of equality and contributive capacity, the request for annulment of the act of assessment of Stamp Duty tax should proceed.

  • Given the foregoing, it is requested of Your Excellency to deign to judge the present action as merited, in view of the contested assessments being tainted with the defect of violation of law and, further, affected by unconstitutionality, declaring null or, at least, annulling the same assessments.

For its part, the TA alleges, in summary, the following:

  • The subjection to Stamp Duty of item 28.1 of the General Table attached to the Code of Stamp Duty results from the combination of two facts: residential use and the taxable patrimonial value of the urban property registered in the matrix being equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.00;

  • The property is described in the matrix under the regime of full ownership, comprised of divisions or storeys capable of independent use;

  • For the calculation of TPV, the coefficient varies according to its destination, and given that the total taxable patrimonial value of the property relating to the divisions intended for residential use is greater than €1,000,000.00 the coefficient of destination applied was 1.00;

  • Being this the cadastral information, in accordance with article 23º, paragraph 7 of the Code of Stamp Duty, the assessment of Stamp Duty in question was made by the TA, taking into account the nature of the urban property, namely its divisions allocated to residential use, as of the tax event date, applying, with necessary adaptations, the rules contained in the IMI Code;

  • Thus, given the cadastral information contained in the property record, the Claimant does not succeed, with the documents it attaches to the case file, in providing proof that contradicts the nature of the divisions with residential character;

  • The assessments of Stamp Duty contested were issued in accordance with the information contained in the property record of the property, are valid and do not suffer from any illegality;

  • As of the date, the Claimant held full ownership of the urban property under analysis, evaluated in accordance with the Code of IMI, in the context of the general evaluation of urban properties, described as "property held in full ownership with storeys or divisions capable of independent use", with taxable patrimonial value (TPV) exceeding €1,000,000.00;

  • In compliance with and pursuant to the provisions of article 6º, paragraph 2 of Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29/10, which added item no. 28 to the GTSD, with the amendment made by Law no. 83-C/2013 of 31/12 and whose respective rule of incidence refers to urban properties, evaluated in accordance with the IMI Code, with TPV equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.00 and, pursuant to its item 28.1, residential use, the TA proceeded with notification of the collection documents for payment of the assessments in question;

  • The concept of property is defined in article 2º, paragraph 1 of the Code of IMI, being established in its paragraph 4 that under the horizontal ownership regime, each autonomous fraction is considered as constituting a property;

  • As regards the assessment of IMI, in the case of properties in full ownership regime, the TPV that serves as the basis for its calculation will undoubtedly be the TPV that the now Claimant defines as "total value of the property".

  • In compliance with the provisions of article 119º, paragraph 1 of the Code of IMI, the collection document is sent to the taxpayer with specification of the parts capable of independent use, their respective taxable patrimonial value and the collection allocated to each municipality of the location of the properties;

  • Being the assessment correct and the tax being due as determined, compensatory interest is not owed, not least because there is no error attributable to the Services, which merely acted, as they should have, in strict compliance with the legal norm.

Let us consider what should be understood.

It follows from article 11º of the General Tax Law (GTL) that the interpretation of tax law must be carried out with regard to the general principles of interpretation.

The general principles of interpretation are established in article 9º of the Civil Code (CC), in the following terms:

"1. Interpretation should not be confined to the letter of the law, but should reconstruct from the texts the legislative thought, taking above all 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.

  1. 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.

  2. In fixing the sense and scope of the law, the interpreter shall presume that the legislator enshrined the most correct solutions and knew how to express his thought in adequate terms."

Given the rules of interpretation of Law, it is important to note that Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, added to the GTSD item 28 and 28.1, creating the Stamp Duty rate on high-value urban properties.

The creation of this new tax fact occurred in the context of economic crisis and serious crisis in public finances, with the purpose of increasing the fiscal revenues of the State, through the taxation of those who reveal greater indicators of wealth.

The special rate of Stamp Duty on properties with value exceeding €1,000,000.00, also known as the "luxury tax", aimed to ensure the sharing of sacrifices by all and not only by those who live from the income of their work.

In these circumstances, item 28 and 28.1 fixed the incidence of Stamp Duty in the following terms:

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

28.1. – Per residential property or per land for construction whose authorized or intended building is for residential use, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of IMI...... 1%."

It follows, therefore, from the letter of the law that the rate provided in item 28.1 is applicable to the right of ownership over a property with residential use, whose TPV used for purposes of IMI is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.00.

In accordance with the provisions of article 1º, paragraph 6 of the Code of Stamp Duty, "For purposes of the present Code, the concept of property is that defined in the Code of Municipal Property Tax (IMI Code)."

For its part, the Code of IMI determines in its article 2º, the following:

Concept of Property

"1 - For purposes of the present Code, property is any portion of land, encompassing waters, plantations, buildings and constructions of any nature incorporated in or erected on it, with a character of permanence, provided that it forms part of the patrimony of a natural or legal person and, in normal circumstances, has economic value, as well as waters, plantations, buildings or constructions, in the aforementioned circumstances, endowed with economic autonomy in relation to the land where they are located, although situated in a portion of land that constitutes an integral part of a different patrimony or does not have patrimonial nature.

2 - Buildings or constructions, even if movable by nature, are deemed to have a character of permanence when allocated to non-transitory purposes.

3 - The character of permanence is presumed when the buildings or constructions have been on the same location for a period exceeding one year.

4 - For purposes of this tax, each autonomous fraction, under the horizontal ownership regime, is considered as constituting a property."

Taking into account the concept of property established in Law, it is clear that properties held under vertical ownership constitute properties, for purposes of item 28.1 of the GTSD.

To the extent that the property under analysis (hereinafter Property) constitutes a Property, as provided in article 2º of the Code of IMI, it is literally encompassed by item 28 and 28.1.

In fact, the law does not distinguish, at any point, between property in horizontal ownership and property in vertical ownership, with paragraph 4 of article 2º merely establishing that under the horizontal ownership regime each autonomous fraction is considered as property.

Notwithstanding, the special Stamp Duty rate fixed in the item in question applies only if the Property constitutes a residential property, whose taxable patrimonial value contained in the matrix, in accordance with the Code of IMI, is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.

Since the Code of Stamp Duty does not establish what is meant by "residential", by force of the provisions in paragraph 2 of article 67º of the said Code, the rules provided in the Code of IMI are also applicable here, namely those established in articles 6º and article 41º of that Code.

From the analysis of the said rules, it also becomes clear that the Property is encompassed by item 28.1, as an urban property with residential use.

It remains, therefore, to ascertain whether the TPV contained in the matrix of the Property, in accordance with the IMI Code, is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.

Now, as follows from the letter of the Law, the TPV of the Property shall be that which is used for purposes of IMI.

In this regard, it is provided in paragraph 1 of article 7º of the Code of IMI, applicable ex vi of paragraph 7 of article 23º of the Code of Stamp Duty, that "The taxable patrimonial value of properties is determined in accordance with the present Code."

For its part, in paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 7º of the Code of IMI, the rules for determining the TPV of properties with two or more classifications are established.

Since the rate provided in items 28 and 28.1 of the GTSD applies only to properties with residential use, the rules established in paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 7º of the Code of IMI are not applicable to the determination of the TPV relevant under the said item.

In fact, the TPV of properties with residential use, provided in items 28 and 28.1, must be determined taking into account paragraph 3 of article 12º of the Code of IMI, according to which:

"Each storey or part of property capable of independent use is considered separately in the cadastral registration, which also specifies its respective taxable patrimonial value."

Thus, taking into account that the legislator attributes no relevance to the fact that the property is held under vertical ownership regime, the TPV must be imputed to each storey or part of property capable of independent use.

In fact, there is no provision in the Code of IMI that permits the conclusion that the TPV of property under vertical ownership regime should be obtained by the sum of the TPV that were attributed in isolation to the parts that constitute it (See, among others, the arbitral decisions issued in Case 50/2013-T, 131/2013-T, 177/2014-T, 396/2014-T).

Taking into account that the rules of incidence are subject to the principle of tax legality (See Article 103º of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (CRP) and article 8º of the GTL), it appears there is no legal basis for the assessment of Stamp Duty based on the sum of the TPV of each of the parts of the Property.

In the absence of a legal basis, the TA cannot carry out an assessment operation based on a rule of incidence that does not expressly provide for the basis of incidence of the tax in the terms assessed, since the rules of incidence of taxes must be interpreted in their exact terms, without recourse to analogy, making prevailing certainty and security in their application (See Judgment of the South Central Administrative Court, issued in the context of case 7648/14, of 10.07.2014 and Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, issued in the context of case 1354/15, of 2.03.2016).

It is thus understood that there is no legal basis that permits the TA to add the taxable patrimonial values of the storeys or parts of property capable of independent use, in order to reach the threshold of eligible taxation of €1,000,000.00, provided in item 28 of the GTSD.

Given the foregoing, as none of the storeys, capable of independent use, has TPV exceeding €1,000,000.00, there is no place for the incidence of the rate provided in item 28 of the GTSD.

In consequence, the annulment of the act of assessment of Stamp Duty sub judice is required, and the recognition of the right to compensatory interest of the Claimant with respect to the instalments of Stamp Duty paid, since the illegality of the act of assessment is imputable to an error of the Respondent, pursuant to the provisions of article 43º, paragraph 1 of the GTL.

IV. DECISION

In these terms, this Arbitral Tribunal decides:

A) To judge the request for annulment of the act of assessment of Stamp Duty relating to the urban property registered in the urban property matrix of the parish of ..., under the number ..., relating to the year 2015, as entirely merited;

B) To order the Tax and Customs Authority to refund to the Claimant the amount of tax paid, plus compensatory interest, in accordance with the law;

C) To order the Respondent to pay the costs of the present case, as the losing party.

V. VALUE OF THE CASE

In accordance with the provisions of article 306º, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 97º-A, paragraph 1 a) of the CPTPT and article 3º, paragraph 2 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the claim is fixed at €10,560.62.

VI. COSTS

Pursuant to the provisions of articles 12º, paragraph 2 and 22º, paragraph 4, both of the LFATM, and article 4º, paragraph 4 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the arbitration fee is fixed at €918, in accordance with Table I of the mentioned Regulation, to be borne by the Respondent.

Let it be notified.

Lisbon, 26 December 2016

The Arbitrator

Magda Feliciano

(The text of the present decision was prepared by computer, in accordance with article 131º, paragraph 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference of article 29º, paragraph 1, subsection e) of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (LFATM) and its wording is governed by the spelling prior to the Orthographic Agreement of 1990).

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

Is Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) applicable to inherited properties with a total patrimonial value exceeding €1,000,000?
Yes, Stamp Tax under item 28.1 GTSD applies to urban residential properties held by undivided inheritances when the Taxable Patrimonial Value exceeds €1,000,000. The tax is assessed annually at 1% of the VPT for properties in this value bracket. The key interpretative issue in this case is whether the €1M threshold applies to each independent unit separately or to the aggregate value of all units within a single property held by the inheritance.
How does Verba 28.1 of the Tabela Geral do Imposto do Selo apply to properties held by undivided inheritances?
Verba 28.1 of the Tabela Geral do Imposto do Selo imposes an annual 1% tax on urban residential properties with VPT exceeding €1,000,000. For undivided inheritances, the tax applies to properties held by the estate. The critical legal question is whether properties comprising multiple independent divisions with separate VPT assessments should be treated as individual taxable units or aggregated as a single property for threshold purposes. The Tax Authority in this case applied the aggregate VPT (€1,056,062.21) to assess tax on each separate unit.
Can the taxable value of independent units in a building be aggregated for Stamp Tax purposes under Portuguese law?
This is the central legal issue in Process 485/2016-T. While Article 7(2)(b) of the IMI Code requires separate VPT determination for independent floors and divisions in vertical ownership properties, the question remains whether these values should be aggregated for Stamp Tax threshold purposes under item 28.1 GTSD. The Tax Authority aggregated the values (total €1,056,062.21) to apply the €1M threshold while issuing separate assessments for each unit. The tribunal must determine if this interpretation aligns with the legislative intent of item 28.1.
What is the CAAD arbitration procedure for challenging Stamp Tax assessments in Portugal?
The CAAD arbitration procedure for challenging Stamp Tax assessments begins with filing a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal under Decree-Law 10/2011 (RJAT). The request must identify the contested assessment and legal grounds. Following acceptance by the CAAD President, the Tax Authority is notified and submits a response. A singular or collective tribunal is constituted depending on the case value. Parties may waive the hearing under Article 18 RJAT if the matter is purely legal. The tribunal issues a binding decision on the assessment's legality.
How is the patrimonial tax value (VPT) determined for buildings with multiple independent divisions under Article 7 of the IMI Code?
Under Article 7(2)(b) of the IMI Code, buildings comprising floors or independent divisions capable of autonomous use have separate VPT determinations for each unit. Each division is valued individually based on its characteristics, location, age, and other valuation criteria. In this case, the six independent units received separate VPT assessments ranging from €35,844.33 to €231,373.53, totaling €1,056,062.21. This separate valuation methodology for IMI purposes creates interpretative questions when applying aggregate value thresholds for other taxes like Stamp Tax.