Stamp Tax on Properties Over €1M: CAAD Ruling on Verba 28 Independent Units (487/2015-T)

ARBITRAL DECISION

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A…, residing at Ave. …, no. …, …, …-…, in Lisbon, filed a request for constitution of a sole arbitral tribunal, under Article 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime of Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to as RJAT), in which the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter AT or Respondent) is the respondent, with the objective of obtaining a declaration of illegality of the Stamp Duty assessment act relating to the year 2014 identified in the file, in the amount of €14,094.10.

The request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was accepted by the Esteemed President of CAAD on 13.08.2015 and automatically notified to the AT.

In accordance with the provisions of subparagraph c) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the RJAT, the sole Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 13.10.2015.

The AT replied, defending the extinction of the arbitral proceedings, given the incontestability of the act or, should that not be accepted, the lack of merit of the petition.

The hearing referred to in Article 18 of the RJAT was waived and it was decided that the proceedings would continue with written arguments.

The Arbitral Tribunal was regularly constituted.

The parties enjoy legal personality and capacity, are qualified (Articles 4 and 10, paragraph 2, of the same statute and Article 1 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March) and are duly represented.

The proceedings contain no nullities, and the exception raised by the Respondent shall be examined as a priority matter.

II. MATERIAL FACTS

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

A) The Claimant was notified of the Stamp Duty assessment act, of 20 March 2015 concerning the urban property registered in the property register of the parish of … under no. …, relating to the year 2014;

B) The voluntary payment period for the first instalment ended on 30 April 2015;

C) The voluntary payment period for the second instalment ended on 31 July 2015;

D) On 27 July 2015, the Claimant submitted the present arbitral petition;

E) The Claimant is the owner and legitimate proprietor of the urban property registered in the property register under Article … of the parish of …, municipality of Lisbon;

F) The Property consists of (15) storeys or divisions capable of independent use, 14 classified as residential and one as commercial/services;

G) The parts of the Property intended for residential purposes were valued separately for purposes of Municipal Property Tax (IMI);

H) None of the independent divisions, allocated to residential use, has a tax property value attributed equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.

With relevance to the decision, there are no facts that should be considered as unproven.

Taking into account the positions assumed by the parties, in light of Article 110, paragraph 7 of the CPPT and the documentary evidence attached to the file, the facts listed above are considered proven, with relevance to the decision.

III. MATTERS OF LAW

In view of the position of the Parties and the arguments presented, it is necessary to:

a) Assess the nullity of the notification of the tax acts, for lack of essential elements of notification;

b) Assess the voidability of the payment notices for lack of substantiation;

c) Assess the voidability of the assessment act due to failure to provide prior hearing;

d) Determine what is the Tax Property Value on which the Stamp Duty rate must apply in cases of properties constituted under a full ownership regime, composed of storeys or divisions capable of independent use, with residential allocation.

On this subject, the Claimant alleges in its request for arbitral pronouncement the following:

1. The payment notices that were notified to it do not contain the elements required under Articles 36, paragraph 2, 37, paragraph 1 and 39, paragraph 12 of the Tax Procedure and Process Code (CPPT).

2. The Stamp Duty assessment act underlying the present proceedings and the Stamp Duty payment notices suffer from the defect of lack of substantiation, and are therefore voidable, under the terms of Article 99 c) of the CPPT and Article 135 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CPA), applicable ex vi Article 2 d) of the CPPT.

3. The Claimant contends that the right to prior hearing provided in Article 60 of the General Tax Law (LGT) was violated.

4. The Claimant seeks that the Stamp Duty assessment act be declared illegal, resulting from item 28.1 of the General Tax Table (TGIS), in the manner in which it was applied by the AT, in the present proceedings. In fact,

5. The AT considers that, for a property in vertical ownership, the rule contained in item 28 of the TGIS determines that the criterion for determining its applicability is the global Tax Property Value of the property, regardless of whether it is composed of divisions intended for residential use with independent use.

6. The Claimant contends that the tax property value relevant for purposes of the application of item 28.1 of the TGIS for properties in vertical ownership and with residential allocation, constituted by storeys or divisions with independent use and covered parking, is not that corresponding to the sum of the tax property value of the different storeys or divisions, that is, the global tax property value, but rather the Tax Property Value attributed individually to each of those storeys or divisions.

7. In the absence of qualification by that legal rule of the concept of property, the Claimant considers that, on a subsidiary basis, under the terms of Article 67, paragraph 2 of the Stamp Duty Code, the concept of property fixed by the Municipal Property Tax Code applies;

8. The Municipal Property Tax Code treats as an urban property any and every part of urban property capable of independent use, whether directly for the owner's residence or for rental, subjecting it to a taxation regime for purposes of Municipal Property Tax identical to that of horizontal ownership;

9. By considering as distinct urban properties the parts of the property at issue, notwithstanding their economic independence, the tax administration acted, not in accordance with a criterion of legality, but in accordance with a criterion of opportunity, disregarding the concept of urban property that results from the Municipal Property Tax Code;

10. The interpretation of the AT underlying the Stamp Duty assessment act sub judice, according to which the tax property value for purposes of item 28.1 is the global tax property value and not the tax property value of each part capable of independent use, violates, moreover, beyond the principle of legality, the principle of equality and its logical corollary of taxation according to contributive capacity and the principle of the prevalence of material truth over formal reality, in accordance with the principle of interpretation in conformity with the Constitution.

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

1. The incontestability of the payment notices for the 1st and 2nd instalments per se, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph a) of the RJAT, bearing in mind that the arbitral tribunals are competent to assess the legality of tax assessment acts, in the same way that Article 97, paragraph 1, subparagraph a) of the CPPT provides for the challenge of tax assessments;

2. The payment of one of the instalments of the assessment effected under item 28.1 of the TGIS is not a partial payment of that assessment, but merely a technique for collecting the tax assessed, as evidenced by paragraph 4 of Article 120 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, applicable on a subsidiary basis, according to which "In the case provided for in paragraphs 1 and 3, the non-payment of an instalment or annuity, within the prescribed period, implies the immediate maturity of the remaining instalments";

3. That is, the law does not provide for the autonomous challenge of an instalment of item 28 of Stamp Duty contained in the payment notices, as is the case in the proceedings at issue;

4. Naturally, when the law provides for payment of the value of the assessment in several instalments, the annulment of the tax act will have consequences regarding all of them;

5. The instalments of Municipal Property Tax assessment, and mutatis mutandis, of Stamp Duty, "although taking place through successive acts, at different times, have their origin in a single obligation and constitute various parts of a single obligation that was divided", as Professor António Braz Teixeira states, distinguishing them "from the obligations that must be performed periodically, not due to a division of the overall obligation, but rather due to the birth, also periodic, of new obligations, by the permanence of the factual requirements of taxation" (See Principles of Tax Law, vol I, 3rd ed., Almedina, 1995, p. 243);

6. In summary, the assessment act for item 28 of Stamp Duty is unique, and the fact that it may be paid in several instalments does not imply that multiple assessments have occurred. The nature of the instalments of an assessment of this tax is that of division of the global assessment, carried out annually, and each instalment per se cannot be challenged autonomously, since the object of judicial challenge or the arbitral tax proceedings is the tax assessment act;

7. Therefore, considering the manifest incontestability of autonomous challenge of the instalments of the assessment acts contained in the payment notices that constitute the object of the present request for arbitral pronouncement, the dilatory exception provided in subparagraph c), paragraph 1, Article 89 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure applies, applicable on a subsidiary basis by Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraph c), of the RJAT, which prevents consideration of the merits and results in the absolution of the AT from the proceedings;

8. By way of challenge, the AT contends that, according to item 28.1, in the case of urban properties with residential allocation, the tax is levied on the tax property value used for purposes of Municipal Property Tax;

9. According to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Stamp Duty Code, the passive subjects of the tax are the passive subjects of Municipal Property Tax, under the terms of Article 8 of the Municipal Property Tax Code.

10. From these legal rules it follows that the tax event of Stamp Duty for item 28.1 consists of ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties, whose tax property value contained in the register, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code, is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.00;

11. The tax property value relevant for purposes of the applicability of the tax is, therefore, the total tax property value of the urban property and not the tax property value of each of the parts that compose it, even when capable of independent use;

12. Article 80, paragraph 2 of the Municipal Property Tax Code states that, except as provided in Articles 84 and 92, each property corresponds to a single entry in the register;

13. The unity of the urban property in vertical ownership composed of several storeys or divisions is not, however, affected by the fact that all or part of these storeys or divisions are capable of independent economic use.

14. Such property does not cease to be one, and therefore its parts are not distinct, being legally equated with autonomous units in a horizontal ownership regime;

15. In the present case, the tax property value on which the applicability of the Stamp Duty of item 28.1 of the General Table depended had to be, as it was, the global tax property value of the property and not that of each of its independent parts.

16. It is therefore unconstitutional, as violating the principle of tax legality, the interpretation of item 28.1 of the General Table, in the sense that the tax property value on which its applicability depends is ascertained globally and not storey by storey or division by division.

17. It should be noted that the Claimant is not correct regarding the alleged lack of substantiation.

18. All elements – taxpayer identification, tax year, property identification, tax year, rate, Tax Property Value, tax collection and tax to be paid – are expressly stated in the payment notices for payment, with no administrative procedure underlying each assessment act;

19. It is not apparent what support the alleged lack of substantiation can have when the Claimant has demonstrated, throughout the learned petition, complete knowledge of the facts, of the disputed tax rules, in particular the scope of application, the calculation of Tax Property Value, the rate applied, the rules of the Municipal Property Tax Code invoked by the Stamp Duty Code.

Let us see what should be understood.

a) On the exception of incontestability of the act

In the reply presented, the AT defends itself by exception that, if verified, leads to the absolution of the proceedings.

The assessment of the exception of incontestability of the act raised depends on the question of whether the Claimant challenges the Stamp Duty assessment act or whether, instead, it merely challenges each of the Stamp Duty instalments per se.

It has been held that in cases where the tax must be paid in instalments, the assessment is notified to the passive subject jointly with the notification to pay each of the instalments, being able to be challenged only in its entirety and not instalment by instalment (See Arbitral decision rendered in the course of case no. 27/2015-T, available at www.caad.org.pt).

In this regard, the distinguished Professor José Casalta Nabais clarifies, in Tax Law, 3rd Edition, Almedina, 2005, the following:

"Assessment in the broad sense, that is, as the set of all operations aimed at ascertaining the amount of the tax, comprises: 1) The subjective assessment aimed at determining or identifying the taxpayer or passive subject of the tax legal relationship, 2) The objective assessment through which the taxable or assessable matter of the tax is determined and, moreover, the rate to be applied, in case of plurality of rates, 3) Assessment in the strict sense reflected in the determination of the tax collection through the application of the rate to the taxable or assessable matter, and 4) the (possible) deductions from the collection."

For each tax event there will, in principle, be a single assessment, by which the collection to be paid shall be determined.

In these terms, paragraph 7 of Article 23 of the Stamp Duty Code provides that "in the case of tax owed by the situations provided in item 28 of the General Table, the tax is assessed annually (…)" applying, with the necessary adaptations, the rules contained in the Municipal Property Tax Code."

In the same sense, paragraph 5 of Article 44 of the Stamp Duty Code further provides that "where the assessment of the tax referred to in item 28 of the General Table occurs, the tax is paid within the periods, terms and conditions defined in Article 120 of the Municipal Property Tax Code".

That is, under paragraph 2 of Article 113 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, "the assessment (…) is carried out in the months of February and March of the following year", with the tax to be paid in three instalments, in the months of April, July and November, given its amount – see subparagraph c), paragraph 1 of Article 120 of the Municipal Property Tax Code.

From the combination of the legal provisions cited above it follows that Stamp Duty is assessed annually, payment in instalments being nothing more than a collection technique for the tax and not a partial payment thereof, as mentioned in the arbitral decision rendered in the course of case no. 408/2014-T, available at http://www.caad.org.pt cited by the AT.

Accordingly, each Stamp Duty assessment act is only one injurious act, capable of being challenged.

Considering that the Stamp Duty assessment act underlying the collection documents, object of the present arbitral petition, can be challenged when its issuance and notification for payment of the first Stamp Duty instalment, that is, at the moment when the tax event occurs, it is concluded that the exception raised by the AT regarding the incontestability of the act is without merit.

b) On the insufficient notification of the challenged acts

The Claimant alleges that the payment notices that were notified to it do not contain the elements required under Articles 36, paragraph 2, 37, paragraph 1 and 39, paragraph 12 of the Tax Procedure and Process Code (CPPT).

This being the case, on this subject, Article 23, paragraph 7 of the Stamp Duty Code provides as follows:

"In the case of tax owed by the situations provided in item 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 the necessary adaptations, the rules contained in the Municipal Property Tax Code".

For its part, Article 46, paragraph 5 of the Stamp Duty Code determines that, where the assessment of the tax referred to in item 28 of the TGIS occurs, the collection document is issued within the periods, terms and conditions defined in Article 119 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, with the necessary adaptations.

Now, Article 119 of the Municipal Property Tax Code establishes on this subject the following:

"1. The Services of the Directorate-General of Taxes send to each passive subject, by the end of the month prior to that of payment, the corresponding collection document, with a breakdown of the properties, their parts capable of independent use, their respective tax property value and the collection attributed to each municipality where the properties are located.

1. In the same period, the information containing the elements referred to in the previous number is made available to the municipal chambers and the tax services of the area where the properties are located, which can be consulted there by the interested parties.

2. If the passive subject does not receive the document mentioned in paragraph 1, they should request a second copy at any tax service."

From the foregoing, it is therefore clear that the Stamp Duty assessment act carried out within the normal period does not require notification to the passive subject, the sending of the collection documents being sufficient, under the terms of Articles 119 and 120 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, applicable ex vi Article 46, paragraph 5 of the Stamp Duty Code (See Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, of 18.11.2015, rendered in the course of case 319/14).

Consequently, the failure to notify the Stamp Duty assessment act sub judice does not have the power to render the notification for payment of the assessed Stamp Duty ineffective.

c) On the lack of substantiation of the assessment act

The Claimant alleges that the Stamp Duty assessment act underlying the present proceedings and the Stamp Duty payment notices suffer from the defect of lack of substantiation, and are therefore voidable, under the terms of Article 99 c) of the CPPT and Article 135 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, applicable ex vi Article 2 d) of the CPPT.

Now, as the Stamp Duty assessment act has not been attached to the file, it is not possible for us to pronounce on the alleged lack of substantiation of that act.

Regarding the collection documents and as follows from what has already been set out in a), their legal conformity depends only on compliance with the requirements provided for in Article 119 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, which is verified in the present situation.

Consequently, it does not appear that these payment notices can be imputed any defect of lack of substantiation, since they contain the legally required elements, namely the breakdown of the properties, their parts capable of independent use and their respective tax property values.

Finally, and contrary to what was argued by the Claimant, there is no violation of the tax procedure rules invoked, since the Stamp Duty assessment act sub judice materialized in the collection documents under analysis were not practiced within the scope of an administrative procedure involving instruction, and therefore the procedural rules that the Claimant considers to have been violated by the Respondent are not applicable in this case, nor is it considered that there has been a lack of substantiation of the acts practiced.

d) On the failure to provide prior hearing

The Claimant contends that the right to prior hearing provided in Article 60 of the LGT was violated.

Taking into account what was set out in b), the argument invoked by the Claimant also does not succeed, since such normative is inapplicable to the tax act under review.

e) On the Tax Property Value

It follows from Article 11 of the General Tax Law (LGT) that the interpretation of tax law must be carried out taking into account the general principles of interpretation.

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

"1. Interpretation must not be confined to the letter of the law, but must reconstruct from the text the legislative thought, taking especially into account the unity of the legal system, the circumstances in which the law was drafted and the specific conditions of the time in which it is applied.

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

2. In fixing the meaning and scope of the law, the interpreter shall presume that the legislator adopted the most appropriate solutions and knew how to express its thought in adequate terms."

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

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

The special Stamp Duty rate on properties valued above €1,000,000, also known as the "luxury tax", aimed to ensure the distribution of burdens to all and not just to those who live from their work income.

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

"Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose tax property value contained in the register, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000 – on the tax property value used for the purposes of Municipal Property Tax:

28.1. – For residential property or land for construction whose construction, authorized or envisaged, is for residential purposes, under the terms provided in the Municipal Property Tax Code…… 1%."

It follows, therefore, from the letter of the law that the rate provided for in item 28.1 is applicable to the right of ownership of properties with residential allocation, whose Tax Property Value used for the purposes of Municipal Property Tax is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 6 of the Stamp Duty Code, "For the purposes of this Code, the concept of property is the one defined in the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI)."

For its part, the Municipal Property Tax Code determines in its Article 2 the following:

Concept of property

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

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

3 - The character of permanence is presumed when buildings or constructions have been in place for a period exceeding one year.

4 - For the purposes of this tax, each autonomous unit, in a horizontal ownership regime, is deemed to constitute a property."

Insofar as the property at issue (hereinafter Property) is, under the terms provided in Article 2 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, property, it is literally encompassed by items 28 and 28.1.

In truth, the law does not distinguish, at any point, between property in horizontal ownership and property in vertical ownership, paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the Municipal Property Tax Code merely establishing that, in the horizontal ownership regime, each autonomous unit is deemed to be property.

From what is stated in paragraph 4 of Article 2, it does not follow, contrary to what the Respondent argued in the reply, that only autonomous units of property in a horizontal ownership regime are deemed to be property.

Nevertheless, the special Stamp Duty rate fixed in the item in question applies only if the Property constitutes residential property, whose Tax Property Value contained in the register, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code, is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.

Since the Stamp Duty Code does not establish what is meant by "residential", by force of the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 67 of that Code, the rules provided for in the Municipal Property Tax Code are also applicable here, namely those established in Articles 6 and 41 of that Code.

From the analysis of the aforementioned rules, it follows that the Property at issue is encompassed by item 28.1, as an urban property with residential allocation.

It remains, therefore, to ascertain whether the Tax Property Value contained in the Property's register, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code, is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.

Now, as follows from the letter of the Law, the Tax Property Value of the Property will be that used for the purposes of Municipal Property Tax.

On this subject, it is established in paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, applicable ex vi paragraph 7 of Article 23 of the Stamp Duty Code, that "The tax property value of properties is determined in accordance with this Code."

For its part, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 7 of the Municipal Property Tax Code establish the rules for determining the Tax Property Value of properties with two or more classifications.

Since the rate provided for in items 28 and 28.1 of the TGIS applies only to properties with residential allocation, the rules established in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 7 of the Municipal Property Tax Code are not applicable to the determination of the Tax Property Value relevant within the scope of that item.

In truth, the Tax Property Value of properties with residential allocation, provided for in items 28 and 28.1, must be determined taking into account paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, according to which:

"Each storey or part of a property capable of independent use is considered separately in the property register entry, which also discriminates its respective tax property value."

Thus, taking into account that the legislator attributes no relevance to the fact that the property is constituted in a vertical ownership regime, what is relevant is the material truth underlying its existence as an urban property and its use.

In fact, there is no provision in the Municipal Property Tax Code that allows concluding that the Tax Property Value of property in a vertical ownership regime should be obtained by the sum of the Tax Property Value that was attributed separately to the parts that compose it (See, among others, the arbitral decisions rendered in Cases 50/2013-T, 131/2013-T, 177/2014-T, 396/2014-T).

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

Since the rules governing the applicability of taxes must be interpreted in their exact terms, without recourse to analogy, making the certainty and security of their application prevalent (See Judgment of the Central Administrative Court South, rendered in the course of case 7648/14, of 10.07.2014), the AT cannot carry out an assessment operation based on a rule of applicability that does not expressly provide for the scope of application of the tax in the terms assessed.

For this reason, it has also recently been decided by the Supreme Administrative Court, in Judgment no. 047/15, of 9.09.2015, that "II – In the case of a property constituted in vertical ownership, the applicability of Stamp Duty must be determined, not by the Tax Property Value resulting from the sum of the Tax Property Values of all divisions or storeys capable of independent use (individualized in the property register entry), but by the Tax Property Value attributed to each of those storeys or divisions intended for residential use."

It is understood, therefore, that there is no legal basis permitting the AT to add the tax property values of the storeys or parts of property capable of independent use, in order to reach the eligible taxation threshold of €1,000,000 provided in item 28.1 of the TGIS.

Given the foregoing, as none of the storeys capable of independent use of the Property has a tax property value exceeding €1,000,000, the rate provided for in item 28.1 of the TGIS does not apply.

Consequently, the annulment of the Stamp Duty assessment act sub judice is required, and recognition of the Claimant's right to indemnitary interest, should the Stamp Duty instalments have already been paid, since the illegality of the assessment act is attributable to error on the part of the Respondent, under the terms provided in Article 43 of the LGT.

Finally, the request for condemnation of the Respondent for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the Claimant resulting from the litigation, including fees of judicial representatives to be liquidated in execution of judgment, falls beyond the request for condemnation to costs of the arbitral proceedings, assuming such request a nature of damages based on extracontractual civil liability of the State.

Now, Article 2 of the RJAT, which defines the scope of competence of the tax arbitral tribunals, establishes that the Arbitral Tribunal has competence to declare the illegality of tax assessment acts, self-assessment acts, withholding at source acts and payment on account acts (subparagraph a) of that article), and to declare the illegality of acts fixing the taxable matter when not giving rise to the assessment of any tax, acts determining the assessable matter and acts fixing tax property values (subparagraph b) thereof). And even regarding the challenge of acts practiced within the scope of tax proceedings, the competence of these arbitral tribunals "is restricted to the activity connected with acts of assessment of taxes" (see Jorge Lopes de Sousa, Guide to Tax Arbitration, 2013, p. 105) (See Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, of 12.06.2014, rendered in the course of case no. 6224/2014).

Consequently, this Tribunal does not have competence to decide on the request for condemnation made.

IV. DECISION

In these terms, this Arbitral Tribunal decides:

A) To declare without merit the request for declaration of nullity of the Stamp Duty assessment act challenged;

B) To declare fully well-founded the request for annulment of the Stamp Duty assessment act relating to the urban property registered in the property register of the parish of … under no. …, relating to the year 2014 and, consequently, to annul the payment notices issued;

C) Not to consider the request for condemnation of the Respondent for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the Claimant resulting from the litigation, including fees of judicial representatives to be liquidated in execution of judgment.

V. VALUE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

In accordance with the provisions of Article 306, paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 97-A, paragraph 1 a) of the CPPT and Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the petition is fixed at €14,094.10.

VI. COSTS

Under the terms of the provisions of Articles 12, paragraph 2 and 22, paragraph 4, both of the RJAT, and Article 4, paragraph 4 of the Regulation on Costs of Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the arbitration fee is fixed at €918.00, under the terms of Table I of the aforementioned Regulation, to be borne by the Respondent.

Notify.

Lisbon, 15 December 2015

The Arbitrator

Magda Feliciano

(The text of this decision was drawn up by computer, under the terms of Article 131, paragraph 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by referral of Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraph e) of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (RJAT), and its drafting is governed by the spelling prior to the 1990 Orthographic Agreement.)