Process: 496/2014-T

Date: April 2, 2015

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This arbitration decision (Process 496/2014-T) addresses the application of Stamp Tax under Verba 28 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (TGIS) to a building in Lisbon held in total ownership. The claimant challenged 13 Stamp Tax assessments levied on individual floors and divisions within a single urban property composed of 17 independent units, arguing that none of the individual units had a Tax Patrimonial Value (TPV) equal to or exceeding the €1,000,000 threshold established by Verba 28.1. The individual TPVs ranged from approximately €121,848 to €138,964. The Tax Authority (AT) defended the assessments by arguing that the relevant patrimonial value for Stamp Tax incidence is the total TPV of the entire urban property, not the individual values of each autonomous division. The AT emphasized that because the property was not constituted under the horizontal property regime (propriedade horizontal), it should be treated as a single taxable unit. The central legal question concerned whether Verba 28 TGIS applies on a per-unit basis or considers the aggregate value of all divisions within a property held in total ownership. This case illustrates the complexity of applying Stamp Tax to multi-unit buildings not formally divided under horizontal property law, and highlights the importance of property structure in determining tax obligations. The arbitration proceeding was conducted through CAAD (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa), demonstrating taxpayers' ability to challenge multiple related tax assessments in a single arbitration request, potentially resulting in more efficient dispute resolution for properties with multiple assessed units.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

Process No. 496/2014-T

Claimant/Petitioner: A...

Respondent: Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter AT)

  1. Statement of Facts

On 16-07-2014, A..., taxpayer no. …, represented herein by …, in the capacity of Head of Estate, taxpayer no. …, resident at Avenue …, Algés, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, submitted to the Administrative Arbitration Centre (CAAD) a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, with a view to declaring the illegality of tax acts regarding stamp tax assessments under item no. 28 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (GTST), relating to floors and divisions with independent use of the urban property in full ownership located at Avenue ...,, in the parish of Arroios, municipality of Lisbon, registered in the urban property matrix under article ... of said parish, namely:

i. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 253.18, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-1D;

ii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 253.18, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-2D;

iii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 259.62, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-2E;

iv. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 253.18, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-3E;

v. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 259.62, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-3E;

vi. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 255.66, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-4D;

vii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 262.16, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-4E;

viii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 264.70, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-5E;

ix. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 253.18, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-6D;

x. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 264.70, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-6E;

xi. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 232.09, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-7D;

xii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 238.77, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-7E;

xiii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 182.50, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-8E;

All of the aforementioned assessments bear the date of 17-03-2014.

The Claimant petitions for a declaration of illegality of the above-referred stamp tax assessment acts and for the AT to be condemned to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The Claimant alleges, for this purpose, that the property to which the Stamp Tax assessments in question refer is a property in full ownership, composed of 17 floors and divisions capable of independent use, of which 16 are intended for residential use, and that none of the floors and divisions has a Tax Patrimonial Value (TPV) equal to or greater than € 1,000,000, and that, in its view, the legal presupposition for the incidence of item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax is not met.

A sole arbitrator was designated on 03-09-2014, Ricardo Marques Candeias. In accordance with the provisions of art. 11, 1, c), RJAT, the singular arbitral tribunal was constituted on 02-10-2014.

Duly notified, the AT presented its response on 13-11-2014. It argued that the patrimonial value relevant for purposes of stamp tax incidence is the total patrimonial value of the urban property and not the patrimonial value of each of the parts that compose it, even though they may be capable of independent use, since the property is not constituted in horizontal property.

The AT further requested the waiver of the holding of the meeting referred to in art. 18 of RJAT and respective oral arguments.

Notified to provide the Proceedings Record, the respondent reported that there is no Proceedings Record relating to the assessments in question in the file.

Notified to pronounce themselves regarding the proposed waiver of the holding of the meeting referred to in art. 18 of RJAT and waiver of oral arguments, the AT and the Claimant said nothing or made any requests.

By order of 17-03-2015, the tribunal notified the Claimant to clarify whether it had made payment of the assessments in question in the present proceedings and, if so, to annex to the file documentary evidence of such payments. The Claimant said nothing or made any requests.

The arbitral tribunal considered, in light of the elements brought to the file, and there being no exceptions to be resolved, that it was not necessary to hold the envisaged meeting nor to produce arguments. Consequently, on 27-03-2015, the date of 02-04-2015 was set for pronouncement of the decision.

The parties possess legal personality and capacity and are legitimate (arts. 4 and 10, nos. 1 and 2, RJAT, and art. 1, of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March). The proceedings do not suffer from any defects and no preliminary issues were raised that require examination.

  1. Facts

Having examined the documentary evidence produced by the Claimant, the following facts are considered proven and of interest for the decision of the case:

a) The urban property located at Avenue ..., No., of the parish of Arroios, municipality of Lisbon, registered in the urban property matrix under article ... of said parish forms part of the assets of the inheritance represented by the head of estate, now claimant;

b) The property is in full ownership.

c) It is composed of 17 floors or divisions capable of independent use, and is not subject to the horizontal property regime;

d) The AT assessed on 17-03-2013 the Stamp Tax relating to the year 2013, relating to part of the floors or divisions with independent use existing in the property above identified, in an amount corresponding to 1% of its tax patrimonial value, as follows:

i. Assessment No. 2014 ...7, in the amount of € 253.18, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-1D, relating to the year 2013, whose TPV is € 132,913.12;

ii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 253.18, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-2D, whose TPV is € 132,913.12;

iii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 259.62, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-2E whose TPV is € 136,293.59;

iv. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 253.18, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0... whose TPV is € 132,913.12;

v. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 259.62, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-3E whose TPV is € 136,293.59;

vi. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 255.66, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-4D whose TPV is € 134,220.98;

vii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 262.16, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-4E, whose TPV is € 137,634.69;

viii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 264.70, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-5E, whose TPV is € 138,964.71;

ix. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 258.13, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-6D, whose TPV is € 135,517.75;

x. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 264.70, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-6E, whose TPV is € 138,964.71;

xi. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 232.09, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-7D, whose TPV is € 121,848.74;

xii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 238.77, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-7E, whose TPV is € 125,354.19;

xiii. Assessment No. 2014 ..., in the amount of € 182.50, relating to the property described in matriculation article U-0...-8E, whose TPV is € 63,874.12;

e) The deadline for payment ended on 30-04-2014.

f) The total patrimonial value of the property is € 1,667,698.43.

g) The Claimant was notified to proceed with payment of the aforementioned assessment notes, in the total amount of € 3,237.49.

The arbitrator's conviction was based on the documentary evidence attached to the file, specifically points a), b), c) and f) result from the content of the property booklet attached to the file and points d), e), f), and g) result from the assessment notes attached.

It was noted in the factual allegations made by the Claimant in the initial petition, namely in the description of the assessment notes and their respective values, some inaccuracies in the description of the values, which are understood to be due to mere calculation errors, which were duly clarified through the sum of the values of the assessments that appear in document 1 attached (point d) of the proven facts), and the value attributed to the action by the Claimant itself, which corresponds directly with that: € 3,237.49.

For the decision of the case, no other facts of relevance were proven.

The claimant did not allege nor did it demonstrate payment of the assessment notes whose illegality it petitions.

  1. Law

These are the facts that merit examination. Let us therefore see.

The Claimant alleges in its initial petition that "the subjection to Stamp Tax of properties with residential allocation resulted from the addition of item 28 of the GTST, carried out by article 4 of Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October (…).

On the other hand, it results from the transitional rules contained in article 6 of that same Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, that the taxable event is considered to have occurred on 31 October 2012 and that the tax patrimonial value to be used in the assessment of the tax corresponds to what results from the rules of the Municipal Property Tax Code by reference to the year 2011.

However, Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October says nothing regarding the qualification of the concepts in question, namely, regarding the concept of "property with residential allocation".

Nevertheless, article 67, no. 2 of the Stamp Tax Code, added by the aforementioned Law, provides that "to matters not regulated in this code relating to item 28 of the General Table, the Municipal Property Tax Code shall apply subsidiarily."

The Claimant argues that "The rule of incidence refers, therefore, to urban properties, whose concept is that which results from article 2 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, with the determination of the TPV being in accordance with article 38 and following of the same code."

The Claimant continues, arguing that "From this it is concluded that, in the view of the legislator, what matters is not the legal-formal accuracy of the specific situation of the property but rather its normal use, the purpose for which the property is intended.

In fact, for the legislator, the situation of the property (in vertical property or in horizontal property) is not relevant, as no reference or distinction is made between one and the other".

The Claimant continues its argument, from the perspective of determining the relevant value for the incidence of Stamp Tax on properties in horizontal property, noting that: "(…)from the very assessment notices issued, it results that the value of incidence is that corresponding to the TPV of each of the divisions and the individual assessment on the part of the property corresponding to that same division."

Concluding, in this regard, arguing that: "Therefore, if the legal criterion imposes the issuance of individualized assessments for the autonomous parts of properties in vertical property, in the same manner as it establishes for properties in horizontal property, then this criterion must also be taken into account for defining the rule of incidence of the new tax.

Thus, the new Stamp Tax would only be applicable if any of the parts, floors or divisions with independent use presented a TPV exceeding € 1,000,000.

The Tax Authority could not, thus, consider as the reference value for the incidence of the tax the total value of the property, when the legislator itself established a different rule in the context of the Municipal Property Tax Code, and this is the code applicable to matters not regulated regarding item 28 of the GTST.

The criterion defended by the Tax Authority, of considering the value of the sum of the TPVs attributed to the parts, floors or divisions with independent use, finds no legal support and is contrary to the criterion that applies in the context of the Municipal Property Tax Code and, by referral, in the context of Stamp Tax."

It further concludes that: "(…) The adoption of the criterion defended by the Tax Authority violates the principles of legality and fiscal equality, as well as the principle of the prevalence of material truth over legal-formal reality".

The Claimant concludes, advocating for the acceptance of the arbitral request, and for the granting of the request and asks for the declaration of "illegality of the acts of stamp tax assessment relating to the year 2012 in the total amount of 3,237.49 and the condemnation of the Tax Authority to payment of the costs resulting from the arbitral proceedings."

For its part, the AT comes forward to counter the position of the Claimant, basing its claim on the fact that the property is in the regime of full ownership and the concentration in each property of independent dwellings is not capable of triggering the incidence of stamp tax on each of them.

In the understanding of the AT: "The claimant is the owner of a property in the regime of full or vertical property. From the notion of property of article 2 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, only autonomous fractions in the regime of horizontal property are held to be properties - no. 4 of said article 2 of the Municipal Property Tax Code. (…).

Since the property of which it is the owner is in the regime of full ownership, it does not possess autonomous fractions, to which the tax law attributes the qualification of property."

The AT argues that "The Municipal Property Tax Code, to which said item refers, determines that in the regime of horizontal property the fractions constitute properties. Where the property is not submitted to this regime, legally the fractions are parts capable of independent use, without there being common parts."

The AT concludes that "Where the property is submitted to the regime of full ownership, but being physically composed of parts capable of independent use, the tax law attributed relevance to this materiality, evaluating these parts individually, in accordance with article 12 and consequently, in accordance with art. 12, no. 3, of the Municipal Property Tax Code, each floor or part of a property capable of independent use is considered separately in the registration, but in the same matrix, proceeding with the assessment of the Municipal Property Tax taking into account the tax patrimonial value of each part."

The AT further contends for the unconstitutionality of the interpretation made by the Claimant of item 28.1 of the GTST, to the effect that the TPV on which its incidence depends is determined per floor and not globally, violating the principle of tax legality.

In its view, it is important to emphasize the different legal-civil regime attributed to horizontal property as opposed to full property, which would consist, even for tax purposes, of different legal institutions. Hence the different treatment in terms of the incidence of item 28.1 of the GTST.

Having presented a brief description of the argumentative palette woven by the parties, let us now see.

The question to be decided turns on whether the rule of incidence of item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (GTST) is applicable to properties that are not constituted in horizontal property. In fact, in such cases it is questioned whether said item should apply to the sum of the TPV attributed to the different floors, that is, to the total TPV of the property, or rather to the TPV of each floor with independent economic use of the property.

This question has already been the subject of several decisions of CAAD, namely those delivered in processes 132/2013-T, 14/2014-T, 30/2014-T and 88/2014-T, which we will follow closely.

Item 28 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (GTST) was added by Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October. It establishes the following:

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

28.1 – For property with residential allocation – 1% (…);"

With the addition of no. 2 of article 67 of the Stamp Tax Code (STC), also carried out by said Law, it was established that regarding "matters not regulated in this code relating to item 28 of the General Table, the Municipal Property Tax Code shall apply subsidiarily."

By force of this referral, the rule of incidence of item 28.1 GTST referring to urban properties, the concept of urban property shall be the one resulting from the Municipal Property Tax Code.

The Municipal Property Tax Code establishes in art. 2, 1, the concept of property. It defines it as "any portion of territory, encompassing waters, plantations, buildings and constructions of any nature incorporated or erected therein, 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 aforementioned circumstances, endowed with economic autonomy in relation to the land on which they are implanted, although located in a portion of territory that constitutes an integral part of a diverse patrimony or does not have a patrimonial nature".

Already art. 4 of the Municipal Property Tax Code establishes that urban properties are "all those that should not be classified as rural, without prejudice to the provision of the following article".

In turn, art. 6, ibidem, proceeds to classify the various types of urban properties, distinguishing them, in no. 1 of said article, into four subcategories: "a) Residential; b) Commercial, industrial or for services; c) Construction land; d) Others".

In no. 2 of the same article we find the criterion used for this distinction, considering that "Residential, commercial, industrial or for services are the buildings or constructions licensed for such purposes or, in the absence of a license, that have as their normal destination each of these purposes".

Now, we observe that the legal norms of said diploma do not provide any classification of urban properties that distinguishes them between properties in horizontal property versus properties in vertical property.

If the legislator qualifies them as the same legal-fiscal reality, there will be lacking legal support for the application of different tax regimes based on the legal-civil nature that an urban property with residential allocation may have.

It is true that art. 2, 4, of the Municipal Property Tax Code, determines that "for purposes of this tax, each autonomous fraction, in the regime of horizontal property, is held to constitute a property". However, it is also true that it does not establish any differentiation between the autonomous fractions of properties in horizontal property and the parts of the property with independent use regardless of the classification as residential urban properties.

From this it results that the legislator intended only, as it did, to differentiate urban properties considering their normal destination, that is, considering the destination to which each of them is bound. In this way, it thus prevents, from the tax point of view, a distinction that civil law provides, between properties in horizontal property and properties in vertical property, but does not allow that this legal characterization to be relevant for what interests us, which is the scope of application of the tax, both of the Municipal Property Tax and of item 28.1 of the GTST, resulting from the aforementioned referral.

Therefore, we conclude that it is irrelevant, for purposes of taxation, whether the property is in vertical or horizontal property. It is rather relevant the material truth underlying its existence as an urban property and its residential use.

Indeed, given the intention of the legislator in creating item 28 of the GTST and the application that the AT has been giving it, it is considered that the criterion adopted by it regarding properties in vertical property does not conform to the principles of legality, equality and fiscal proportionality, enshrined constitutionally in our legal system.

The principle of fiscal equality should be understood in its material sense. Therefore, the emphasis of this principle will always rest on the contributory capacity of each taxpayer. That is to say that we will have equal taxation for those with equal contributory capacity, and different taxation for those with different contributory capacity. It is certain that the difference in taxation will be proportional to the different contributory capacity.

This principle is imposed on us by the articulation of art. 13 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (CRP) with arts. 103 and 104 of the same diploma.

Now, the tax established by item 28 of the GTST intends to harmonize the distribution of the tax burden of taxpayers, making this tax apply to holders of properties of high value intended for residential use, which exceed € 1,000,000.00, per floor with independent use.

In fact, determining the principle of fiscal equality that one should treat fiscally in an equal manner what is equal and in a different manner what is different, there is no justification for the differentiated treatment, for purposes of taxation, of the floors of a property solely because it is already in horizontal property, provided that those floors have independent use.

And referring the Stamp Tax Code to the Municipal Property Tax Code, we consider that the registration in the property matrix of properties in vertical property, composed of different floors with independent use, must comply with the same registration rules as properties composed in horizontal property.

Note, from the outset, the provision of no. 3, of art. 12 of the Municipal Property Tax Code, according to which "each floor or part of a property capable of independent use is considered separately in the registration, which also discriminates its respective tax patrimonial value".

Setting the total TPV of the property in question as the reference value for the incidence of the new tax, as the AT wishes, finds no basis in the applicable legislation referred to above.

In fact, the Respondent itself issued the Assessment Notes that appear in the file, each of them relating to each of the fractions with independent use and residential allocation. It is also stated in each of them a particular reference to the TPV of each fraction, for purposes of application of item 28.1 of the GTST. From this it follows that the tax was assessed individually in relation to each of the parts with independent use and not considering the sum of the TPVs of the floors of the property in full ownership.

Given all of the above, the legal criterion to be used to define the incidence of the tax established in item 28.1 of the GTST must be identical to that established for purposes of the Municipal Property Tax.

As can be read in the Arbitral Decision rendered in process 132/2013-T: "there is not seen, in the work relating to the discussion of bill no. 96/XII in the Parliament of the Republic, the invocation of an interpretative rationale different from that presented here. In fact, such a measure, referred to as a "special tax on high-value residential urban properties", was justified by the need to comply with the principles of social equity and fiscal justice, burdening more significantly the holders of properties of high value intended for residential use, and, in that measure, making the new "special tax" apply to "homes of value equal to or greater than 1 million euros"."

The aforementioned decision further states that "if such logic seems to make sense when applied to 'residential use' - whether 'house', 'autonomous fraction' or 'part of a property with independent use' / 'autonomous unit' -, because it is assumed a contributory capacity above average and, in that measure, it justifies the need for an additional contributory effort, little sense would there be to fail to consider the determinations 'unit by unit' when only through the sum of the TPVs of the same (because held by the same individual) would the million euros be exceeded".

Given that, only the AT would be right and, consequently, entitled to assess the tax in question, if some of the floors with independent use corresponded to a TPV greater than € 1,000,000.00, which is not the case, as the highest value corresponds only to € 138,964.71.

It follows from what has been said so far that the position of the AT is contrary to Law and the Constitution, violating the principles of legality and fiscal equality.

The property in question is in full ownership and contains 17 fractions with independent use. As is proven, none of them has a TPV equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.00. We thus observe the non-occurrence of the legal presupposition for the incidence of Stamp Tax provided for in item 28 of the GTST.

As a consequence of the foregoing, we conclude as to the illegality of the stamp tax assessments challenged by the Claimant. Therefore, the taxable matter, which serves as the basis for the rule of incidence of item 28.1 of the GTST, should be the TPV determined in accordance with the Municipal Property Tax Code, for each of the floors of the property that are capable of independent use.

  1. Decision

Given the foregoing, it is decided to judge totally favorably the request formulated by the Claimant in the present tax arbitral proceedings, regarding the illegality of the Stamp Tax Assessments No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., No. 2014 ..., and the same should be considered null and void, with the necessary legal consequences.

Value of the Case:

In accordance with the provisions of arts. 306, 2, CPC, and 97-A, 1, a), CPPT, and 3, 2, of the Rules of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the case is fixed at € 3,237.49.

Costs:

In accordance with article 22, 4, of RJAT, and Table I attached to the Rules of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs is fixed at € 612.00, to be borne by the Tax Authority.

Notify.

Lisbon, 2 April 2015.

Text prepared by computer, in accordance with art. 131, 5, CPC, applicable by referral of art. 29, 1, e), RJAT, with blank lines and reviewed by me.

The sole arbitrator

Ricardo Marques Candeias

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

Is Stamp Tax (Imposto de Selo) under Verba 28 TGIS applicable to individual units of a building held in total ownership (propriedade total)?
Stamp Tax under Verba 28 TGIS applies to urban properties for housing with a Tax Patrimonial Value (TPV) equal to or exceeding €1,000,000. When a building is held in total ownership (propriedade total) rather than horizontal property, the Tax Authority's position is that the relevant value is the total TPV of the entire property, not individual units. Individual divisions with independent use within such properties may be assessed separately, but the incidence criterion depends on whether the aggregate property value meets the threshold. Properties not constituted under horizontal property regime are treated as single units for Stamp Tax purposes.
How is the taxable value determined for Verba 28 when a property has multiple independent divisions (andares e divisões com utilização independente)?
For Stamp Tax under Verba 28 when a property has multiple independent divisions, the determination of taxable value depends on the property's legal structure. If the property is held in total ownership without horizontal property constitution, the Tax Authority considers the total patrimonial value of the entire urban property as the relevant taxable base. Individual matriculation articles (registration entries) for separate floors or divisions do not automatically create separate taxable units. The AT applies the 1% Stamp Tax rate based on each division's individual TPV, but the threshold test for tax incidence considers the aggregate value of the complete property.
Can a taxpayer challenge multiple Stamp Tax liquidations through CAAD tax arbitration in a single proceeding?
Yes, a taxpayer can challenge multiple Stamp Tax liquidations through CAAD tax arbitration in a single proceeding when the assessments relate to the same property or arise from the same legal question. In this case, the claimant successfully submitted one arbitration request covering 13 separate assessments relating to different floors and divisions of the same building. This procedural efficiency allows for consolidated resolution of related disputes, reducing costs and ensuring consistent legal interpretation. Article 10 of the RJAT (Legal Regime for Tax Arbitration) provides the legal basis for such consolidated proceedings when assessments share common factual and legal grounds.
Does the €1,000,000 threshold under Verba 28 of the Tabela Geral do Imposto de Selo apply per independent unit or per total property?
The €1,000,000 threshold under Verba 28 of the Tabela Geral do Imposto de Selo applies per total property when the building is held in total ownership (propriedade total), not per independent unit. The Tax Authority's interpretation is that when a property is not constituted under the horizontal property regime, the entire urban property constitutes a single taxable unit for purposes of determining whether the Stamp Tax incidence requirement is met. Therefore, the patrimonial values of all floors and divisions with independent use are aggregated to determine if the threshold is exceeded. Individual units do not constitute separate properties for this threshold test unless formally divided under horizontal property law.
What are the legal grounds for annulling Imposto de Selo assessments on residential properties under Verba 28 TGIS?
Legal grounds for annulling Imposto de Selo assessments on residential properties under Verba 28 TGIS include: (1) failure to meet the €1,000,000 TPV threshold when individual units do not reach this value and the property is properly constituted as separate horizontal property units; (2) incorrect determination of the Tax Patrimonial Value; (3) misapplication of the legal framework when treating divisions with independent use as separate taxable units when they should be assessed as a single property; (4) violation of the principle of legality if the legal requirements for tax incidence are not satisfied; and (5) procedural defects in the assessment process. The success of such challenges depends on the specific property structure and whether it meets Verba 28's substantive requirements.