Process: 496/2015-T

Date: March 30, 2016

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This arbitral decision addresses whether Stamp Tax under item 28.1 of the General Stamp Tax Table (GTST), targeting high-value residential properties exceeding €1,000,000, applies to buildings held in vertical ownership where individual units fall below this threshold. The claimant, owner of a 12-floor building with 7 independent units in Lisbon, challenged six stamp tax assessments for 2014, arguing that each floor or independent unit should be taxed separately based on its individual tax patrimonial value, none of which exceeded €1,000,000. The claimant contended that vertical ownership properties should receive treatment identical to horizontal ownership (condominium) properties, where each autonomous unit is assessed independently for Municipal Property Tax purposes under article 12(3) of the MPTC. The Tax Authority countered that properties under full ownership regimes lack autonomous units qualifying as separate properties for tax purposes, and that any alternative interpretation would violate the principle of legality of essential tax elements under article 103(2) of the Portuguese Constitution. The claimant raised constitutional challenges based on violations of equality, justice, proportionality, and contributory capacity principles, noting the law targets luxury properties yet was being applied to units valued substantially below the statutory threshold. Additionally, the claimant sought compensatory interest for payments made on instalments paid in April and July 2015, calculated until actual reimbursement of amounts deemed unlawfully charged. The case was filed with CAAD on July 28, 2015, with the arbitral tribunal constituted on October 21, 2015, under the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

1. REPORT

A – General

1.1. A…, S.A., a public limited company with registered office at …, street …, no. …, Lisbon, with a share capital of € 1,000,000.00 (one million euros), registered at the Commercial Registry Office of Lisbon under registration and legal entity number … (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant"), filed, on 28.07.2015, a request for constitution of a single arbitral tribunal in tax matters, which was accepted, seeking, on one hand, the declaration of illegality of six stamp tax (Imposto do Selo) assessment acts of the year 2014, relating to item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (hereinafter "GTST"), concerning a property of which it is the owner, as will be further detailed below, and, on the other hand, recognition of the right to compensatory interest for the payment of undue tax instalments.

1.2. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (a) of no. 2 of article 6 and paragraph (b) of no. 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Board of the Administrative Arbitration Centre (CAAD) appointed as arbitrator Nuno Pombo, and the parties, after being properly notified, did not express any objection to this appointment.

1.3. By order of 25.08.2015, the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") proceeded to appoint Dr. B… and Dr. C… to intervene in the present arbitral proceedings, in the name and representation of the Respondent.

1.4. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c) of no. 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 21.10.2015.

1.5. On 26.10.2015, the highest official of the Respondent's service was notified to send to the Arbitral Tribunal a copy of the administrative file that might exist and, if it so wished, within a period of 30 days, to submit a reply and request the production of additional evidence.

1.6. On 18.11.2015, the Respondent submitted its reply, requesting exemption from the submission of the administrative file and from holding the meeting provided for in article 18 of the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters (hereinafter, "LFATM").

B – Position of the Claimant

1.7. The Claimant is the owner of the urban property under the regime of vertical ownership located at …, nos. … to …, in Lisbon, parish of…, registered in the respective urban land registry under article…, with 12 (twelve) floors and 7 (seven) units with independent use, to which corresponds the property record that the Claimant attaches to its request as document no. 1, the content of which is hereby reproduced (hereinafter, the "Property").

1.8. The Property has several floors and units capable of independent use, not all of which are dedicated to residential purposes.

1.9. The Claimant was notified of stamp tax (hereinafter referred to as "ST") assessments which are mentioned in article 3 of the request for arbitral decision (attached as documents nos. 2 to 7 to said request, the contents of which are hereby reproduced), which were based on article 1 of the Stamp Tax Code (hereinafter "STC"), on item 28.1 of the GTST, added by article 4 of Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, the payment deadlines of which refer to the end of April 2015, relating to the first instalment of ST levied on the floors and units capable of independent use considered by the Respondent as dedicated to residential purposes.

1.10. The Claimant, on 30.04.2015, made payment of the first instalment of the tax demanded of it by the assessments referred to above, as proven by the documents attached to the arbitral decision request with nos. 2 to 7, and on 16.07.2015 also made payment of the second instalment, as proven by the documents attached to the file with nos. 9 to 14, the contents of which are hereby reproduced, wherefore it also requests that recognition be granted to it of the right to receive compensatory interest, calculated from the date on which these instalments were paid until the actual reimbursement of the amounts unduly demanded.

1.11. None of the parties or units with residential dedication has a tax patrimonial value (hereinafter "TPV") exceeding € 1,000,000.00 (one million euros).

1.12. The Claimant argues that it was necessary to treat separately the floors or units capable of independent use for the purposes of assessing ST, and that the law does not result in the correspondence of the TPV of a property composed of several independent units being equal to the sum of the TPV of the floors or units capable of independent use, particularly because, pursuant to no. 3 of article 12 of the Municipal Property Tax Code (MPTC), "each floor or part of a property capable of independent use is considered separately in the land registry entry, which also specifies its respective tax patrimonial value", and is consequently subject to separate Municipal Property Tax (MPT) assessment.

1.13. In the view of the Claimant, the Property is materially identical to a property under the regime of horizontal ownership, and there is no legal justification for differential treatment, which, if it exists, would be affected by unconstitutionality, due to violation of the principles of equality, justice, legality, contributory capacity, and proportionality.

1.14. Since the law intends to tax high-value (luxury) properties, the reasons why the Respondent applies item 28.1 of the GTST to units valued at much less than € 1,000,000.00 (one million euros) are not understood.

C – Position of the Respondent

1.15. The Respondent expresses the view that the interpretation which the Claimant makes of item 28.1 of the GTST does not correspond to its actual wording.

1.16. The Respondent argues that in properties under the regime of full ownership there are no autonomous units to which tax law can attribute the qualification of property.

1.17. The Respondent further argues that it is prevented from interpreting item 28.1 of the GTST in any way other than as it did, since any other interpretation would violate "the letter and spirit" of the said item and "the principle of legality of the essential elements of the tax provided for in article 103, no. 2, of the Portuguese Constitution", since "it is for the law – Law of the Assembly of the Republic and authorized Decree-Law – to establish the essential elements of the incidence of taxes".

D – Conclusion of Report

1.18. By order of 21.3.2016, the arbitral tribunal dispensed with the meeting provided for in article 18 of the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters (hereinafter, "LFATM"), since the parties had already brought before the proceedings the factual elements that were necessary and sufficient for the rendering of the decision, which was expected to be able to take place by 30.03.2016, for which reason the arbitral tribunal did not see the necessity to consult the administrative file, the exemption from submission of which was, moreover, duly requested by the Respondent.

1.19. On 24.03.2016, the Claimant requested that the collection documents relating to the third instalment of ST be admitted to the file, which is hereby granted.

1.20. The arbitral tribunal is materially competent, pursuant to the provisions of articles 2, no. 1, para. (a) of the LFATM.

1.21. The parties enjoy legal personality and capacity and have standing pursuant to article 4 and no. 2 of article 10 of the LFATM, and article 1 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.

1.22. The cumulation of claims made in the present request for arbitral decision, in honour of the principle of procedural economy, is justified since the contested assessment acts are based on the same factual basis and appeal to the application of the same legal rules, and the indemnity claim formulated is also acceptable in principle, since article 3 of the LFATM, by expressly admitting the possibility of "cumulation of claims even if relating to different acts", accommodates, without hermeneutical abuse, the examination of a claim that flows, in necessary terms, from the judgment that the arbitral tribunal passes on the validity of the assessments put in issue.

1.23. The proceedings are not affected by any nullity, nor have the parties raised any exceptions that would impede the examination of the merits of the case, wherefore the conditions are met for the rendering of the arbitral decision.

2. FACTUAL MATTERS

2.1 Proven Facts

2.1.1. The Claimant is the owner of the urban property under the regime of vertical ownership located at …, nos. … to…, in Lisbon, parish of…, registered in the respective urban land registry under article…, with 12 (twelve) floors and 7 (seven) units with independent use (doc. no. 1, attached with the request for arbitral decision);

2.1.2. The Property has a total TPV of € 1,975,890.00 (one million nine hundred seventy-five thousand eight hundred ninety euros) – (doc. no. 1, attached with the request for arbitral decision);

2.1.3. None of the floors or units capable of independent use has a TPV equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000.00 (one million euros) (doc. no. 1, attached with the request for arbitral decision);

2.1.4. The Respondent, for purposes of applying item 28.1 of the GTST to the Property, proceeded to arithmetically sum the patrimonial values of each of the floors or units with residential dedication, thus excepting the floors with different uses, which are not residential, setting at € 1,799,180.00 (one million seven hundred ninety-nine thousand one hundred eighty euros) the "Tax Patrimonial Value of the Property – total subject to tax" (docs. nos. 2 to 7, attached with the request for arbitral decision);

2.1.5. The Claimant was notified of the ST assessments to which article 3 of the request for arbitral decision refers, relating to the first instalment of the tax demanded of it (docs. nos. 2 to 7, attached with the request for arbitral decision);

2.1.6. On 30.04.2015, the Claimant made payment of € 5,997.28 (five thousand nine hundred ninety-seven euros and twenty-eight cents) relating to the first instalment of the tax demanded of it, the payment deadline for which ended at the end of April 2015 (docs. nos. 2 to 7, attached with the request for arbitral decision);

2.1.7. On 16.07.2015, the Claimant made payment of € 5,997.26 (five thousand nine hundred ninety-seven euros and twenty-six cents) relating to the second instalment of the tax demanded of it, the payment deadline for which ended at the end of July 2015 (docs. nos. 9 to 14, attached with the request for arbitral decision).

2.1.8. On 16.11.2015, the Claimant made payment of € 5,997.26 (five thousand nine hundred ninety-seven euros and twenty-six cents) concerning the third instalment of the tax demanded of it, the payment deadline for which ended at the end of November 2015 (docs. attached with the request presented by the Claimant on 24.03.2016).

2.2 Unproven Facts

There are no facts relevant to the examination of the merits of the case that have been determined to be unproven.

3. LEGAL MATTERS

3.1 Questions to be Decided

It follows from what has been stated above that the questions to be examined are, fundamentally, two:

(a) Whether a property constituted under full or vertical ownership, but with floors or units with independent uses, is a "property with residential dedication" for purposes of applying article 1 of the STC and item 28.1 of the GTST, added by article 4 of Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October; and

(b) Whether, if the request for a declaration of illegality is upheld and the contested assessments are consequently annulled, the Claimant, within the scope of the present arbitral proceedings, may obtain a judgment condemning the Respondent to the payment of compensatory interest relating to the amounts it paid to satisfy the tax illegally demanded by it.

3.2 Item 28.1 of the GTST

Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, among various amendments it made to the STC, added, by its article 4, item 28 to the GTST, which has the following wording:

"28 - Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose tax patrimonial value contained in the registry, pursuant to the Municipal Property Tax Code (MPTC), is equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000 - based on the tax patrimonial value used for purposes of MPT:

28.1 - For property with residential dedication - 1%;

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

As can be seen, item 28.1 refers to "properties with residential dedication". Now, not only is this concept not defined in any provision of the STC, but it is also not used in the MPTC, the statute to which article 67, no. 2 of the STC expressly refers when matters not regulated in the STC concerning item 28 are at issue.

3.3 "Vertical Ownership" and the Application of Item 28.1 of the GTST

Without prejudice to the interest, not merely dogmatic, of establishing the meaning and scope of the concept of "property with residential dedication", it is necessary, first and foremost, to answer the question of whether, for purposes of applying item 28.1 of the GTST, the TPV of each of the floors or units capable of independent use of a given building can be summed, and considered to be dedicated to residential purposes, as the Respondent did with respect to the Property (excepting the parts dedicated to different, non-residential uses).

a) The land registry of properties under full or vertical ownership and the collection of Municipal Property Tax

It is important to clarify from the outset that "each floor or part of a property capable of independent use is considered separately in the land registry entry, which also specifies its respective tax patrimonial value", as can be read in no. 2 of article 12 of the MPTC. Also, MPT, in properties subject to the regime of full ownership, gives typical relevance to each floor or part of a property capable of independent use (article 119, no. 1 of the MPTC).

That is to say, it is clear that the legislator, in the MPTC, did not intend to adhere to the rigour of the legal form of real rights affecting properties, but rather to the use given to them, namely in cases where a property, from a legal standpoint, is composed of different floors or parts capable of independent use.

It may be said, not without reasonableness, that the legislator, for purposes of taxation under MPT, chose to confer autonomy and independence on each of the parts or each of the floors of a single property, provided that each of them shows independent use, to the point of providing for individual registration in the registry of each of these independent parts and of imposing on taxation under MPT an also autonomous collection. Notwithstanding the legal existence of a single property, it is the legislator itself who not only recommends but also requires the autonomous consideration of each of the independent parts, for purposes of taxation of property.

b) The Application of Item 28.1 of the GTST to Each of the Independent Parts

If this is the case for MPT, as has been endeavoured to be demonstrated, it cannot fail to be so also for ST, namely for purposes of applying item 28.1 of the GTST.

Moreover, this problem, if the tax, whether MPT or ST, were purely proportional, would not exist or would be harmless, since the sum of the parts would necessarily correspond to the whole. However, this is not the case in the present proceedings.

As has been seen, the ST to which item 28.1 of the GTST appeals is only due with respect to properties with residential dedication and, in these, only to those that present a TPV equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000.00 (one million euros).

No reason is seen for disregarding the autonomy of each of the parts capable of independent use of the Property, nor can it be concluded that, for purposes of applying item 28.1 of the GTST, there is required a unity that, being indisputable in terms of real rights, is not so in the sphere of taxation of real property.

Having regard to the letter and spirit of the law, it is not discerned that it is the legislator's intention to apply item 28.1 of the GTST to each of the parts of a property when only from the sum of all of them results a TPV equal to or exceeding that of the legal threshold.

c) The Ratio Legis of Item 28.1 of the GTST

What has been stated above does not ignore the confessed purpose of the proponent of the aforementioned legislative amendment. The interpretation adopted herein is in harmony with what appears to have been the unequivocal intention of the Government, author of the proposal that resulted in this legislative intervention.

When presenting and discussing, in Parliament, draft law no. 96/XII (2nd), the State Secretary for Tax Affairs expressly stated[1]:

"The Government proposes the creation of a special tax on high-value urban residential properties. It is the first time that Portugal has created a special tax on high-value properties intended for housing. This rate will be 0.5% to 0.8% in 2012 and 1% in 2013, and will apply to houses valued at one million euros or more."

Now, the State Secretary for Tax Affairs presented this draft law referring, without equivocation, to the expression "houses valued at one million euros or more", note well.

Thus, notwithstanding the infelicity of the legislative technique adopted, it results with the utmost clarity that item 28.1 of the GTST cannot be interpreted in the sense that it encompasses each of the floors, units or parts capable of independent use when only from their respective sum results a TPV equal to or exceeding that provided for in the same item. In truth, none of the "houses" of the Property to which we have been referring presents, of itself, a value equal to or exceeding one million euros.

d) Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, it is the understanding of the arbitral tribunal that the assessment of ST based on item 28.1 of the GTST is affected by illegality with respect to each of the floors or parts capable of independent use of the Property, since the aforementioned item cannot be interpreted in the sense that it can be applied to floors or parts capable of independent use of a property under full or vertical ownership, when only from the sum of each of these floors or parts is a TPV of € 1,000,000.00 (one million euros) or more achieved, without the TPV of each of the said floors or parts exceeding this legal threshold.

The understanding of the arbitral tribunal rejects the judgment of unconstitutionality invoked by the Respondent. It is well known that it is the province of the law – law of the Assembly of the Republic or authorized Decree-Law – to establish the essential elements of the incidence of taxes. However, the understanding adopted by the arbitral tribunal does not neglect the principle of legality provided for in no. 2 of article 103 of the Portuguese Constitution, because, as has been endeavoured to be demonstrated by the arguments presented above, the solution advocated results from normative provisions that are not affected by any organic unconstitutionality.

3.4 Compensatory Interest

Paragraph (b) of no. 1 of article 24 of the LFATM provides that "the arbitral decision on the merits of the claim against which no appeal or challenge lies binds the tax authority from the end of the period provided for appeal or challenge, and the latter must, in the exact terms of the success of the arbitral decision in favour of the taxpayer and until the end of the period provided for voluntary execution of the sentences of tax judicial courts, restore the situation that would have existed if the tax act that is the subject of the arbitral decision had not been carried out, adopting the acts and operations necessary for this purpose".

It is not ignored that the legislative authorization granted to the Government by article 124 of Law no. 3-B/2010, of 28 April, on the basis of which the LFATM was approved, determines that the tax arbitral process constitutes an alternative procedural means to the judicial review process and to the action for recognition of a right or legitimate interest in tax matters. Although paragraphs (a) and (b) of no. 1 of article 2 of the LFATM found the competence of arbitral tribunals in "declarations of illegality", it seems reasonable to understand that their competence encompasses the powers that in judicial review proceedings are assigned to tax courts, and it is certain that in judicial review proceedings, in addition to the annulment of tax acts, claims for indemnity may be examined, including claims for compensatory interest.

Indeed, the principle of cognoscibility of indemnity claims, in gracious review or in judicial proceedings, is justified whenever the damage sought to be redressed results from a fact attributable to the Tax and Customs Authority. We find manifestations of this principle in no. 1 of article 43 of the General Tax Law and in article 61 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process.

Thus, having the Claimant paid, in whole or in part, the tax that was demanded of it by the contested assessments, it has the right to compensatory interest counted from the date of payment until its full reimbursement.

3.5 Question Made Moot: Unconstitutionality Invoked by the Claimant

The Claimant raised the question of the unconstitutionality of item 28.1 of the GTST, with the wording given to it by the same statute, if it were interpreted in the sense that the ST therein provided could apply to each of the floors or independent parts of the Property.

Since the arbitral tribunal did not accept the understanding of the applicability of item 28.1 of the GTST to the case at hand, this question becomes moot and procedurally useless, as does the question of any other defects that the contested assessments may be affected by.

4. DECISION

For the reasons and grounds set out above, the arbitral tribunal decides:

(a) To uphold the request for arbitral decision with the consequent annulment of the impugned assessments, with all legal consequences, in particular the reimbursement to the Claimant of all amounts paid by it, relating to the assessments now annulled;

(b) To uphold the request for judgment condemning the Respondent to the payment of compensatory interest, at the legal rate, to be counted from the date of payment of each of the three instalments relating to the taxes now declared to be undue until their full reimbursement.

5. VALUE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

In accordance with the provisions of no. 2 of article 306 of the Code of Civil Procedure, article 97-A of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, and also no. 2 of article 3 of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the proceedings is fixed at € 17,991.80 (seventeen thousand nine hundred ninety-one euros and eighty cents).

6. COSTS

For the purposes of the provisions of no. 2 of article 12 and no. 4 of article 22 of the LFATM and no. 4 of article 4 of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs is fixed at € 1,224.00 (one thousand two hundred twenty-four euros), in accordance with Table I attached to said Regulation, to be borne entirely by the Respondent.

Lisbon, 30 March 2016

The Arbitrator

(Nuno Pombo)

Text prepared by computer, pursuant to no. 5 of article 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by virtue of paragraph (e) of no. 1 of article 29 of the LFATM, following the spelling rules prior to the 1990 Orthographic Agreement.

[1] V. Official Journal I Series no. 9/XII -2, of 11 October, p. 32.

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

Is Stamp Tax under Verba 28.1 of the TGIS applicable to buildings held in vertical property ownership?
The applicability of Stamp Tax under Verba 28.1 of the TGIS to buildings held in vertical property ownership depends on whether independent units are assessed separately or as a whole. The claimant argued that each floor or independent unit should be taxed individually based on its specific tax patrimonial value, similar to horizontal property (condominium) regimes where article 12(3) of the Municipal Property Tax Code requires separate land registry entries and individual valuations for each autonomous unit. However, the Tax Authority maintained that properties under full ownership do not contain autonomous units qualifying as separate properties for tax law purposes, and therefore the entire building should be assessed as one property. This distinction is critical because none of the individual units exceeded the €1,000,000 threshold, though the aggregate property value did.
Can a taxpayer claim compensatory interest after unlawful Stamp Tax assessments on high-value properties?
Yes, taxpayers can claim compensatory interest after unlawful Stamp Tax assessments on high-value properties under item 28.1 of the GTST. The claimant specifically requested recognition of the right to receive compensatory interest calculated from the dates when tax instalments were paid (April 30, 2015 for the first instalment and July 16, 2015 for the second instalment) until the actual reimbursement of amounts unduly demanded. Article 3 of the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters expressly permits indemnity claims in arbitral proceedings, allowing taxpayers to seek compensatory interest for periods during which they were deprived of funds due to illegal tax assessments. The interest compensates taxpayers for the financial loss resulting from making payments under subsequently annulled or declared illegal tax assessments.
What are the grounds for challenging the constitutionality of Verba 28.1 of the General Stamp Tax Table?
The grounds for challenging the constitutionality of Verba 28.1 of the General Stamp Tax Table include violations of fundamental constitutional principles. The claimant alleged unconstitutionality based on violations of: (1) the principle of equality, arguing that properties in vertical ownership are materially identical to horizontal ownership properties yet receive different tax treatment without legal justification; (2) the principle of contributory capacity, since the tax targets high-value luxury properties but was being applied to individual units valued substantially below €1,000,000; (3) the principle of proportionality, as the tax burden is disproportionate when assessed on the aggregate value rather than individual unit values; and (4) the principle of justice, given the differential treatment of economically equivalent situations. These constitutional challenges question whether the legal provision, as interpreted by the Tax Authority, complies with fundamental rights and principles enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution.
How does the CAAD arbitral tribunal assess Stamp Tax liability on properties with multiple independent units?
The CAAD arbitral tribunal assesses Stamp Tax liability on properties with multiple independent units by examining whether each autonomous unit should be treated separately or whether the property should be assessed as a whole. The analysis considers the legal regime governing the property (vertical vs. horizontal ownership), the legislative intent behind item 28.1 of the GTST (targeting high-value luxury residential properties), and relevant provisions of the Municipal Property Tax Code regarding separate valuation of independent units. The tribunal evaluates whether there is legal justification for differential treatment between vertical and horizontal ownership regimes, and whether applying the tax based on aggregate property value when individual units fall below the €1,000,000 threshold violates constitutional principles including equality, contributory capacity, and the principle of legality of essential tax elements under article 103(2) of the Portuguese Constitution.
What is the procedure for filing an arbitral claim against Stamp Tax liquidation acts before the CAAD?
The procedure for filing an arbitral claim against Stamp Tax liquidation acts before the CAAD requires: (1) submitting a request for constitution of a single arbitral tribunal in tax matters, which in this case was filed on July 28, 2015; (2) the CAAD Deontological Board appoints an arbitrator pursuant to article 6(2)(a) and article 11(1)(b) of Decree-Law 10/2011; (3) parties are notified of the appointment and may object; (4) the Tax Authority appoints representatives to intervene in the proceedings; (5) the arbitral tribunal is formally constituted (here, on October 21, 2015); (6) the Tax Authority is notified to submit the administrative file and may submit a reply within 30 days, and request additional evidence; (7) parties may request exemption from the hearing under article 18 of the LFATM if sufficient factual elements have been presented; and (8) the tribunal issues its decision. The claim must be filed within the legally prescribed deadlines and include all relevant documentation supporting the illegality of the contested assessments.