Process: 5/2017-T

Date: July 14, 2017

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This tax arbitration case (Process 5/2017-T) addresses whether property acquisitions from insolvency estates qualify for Stamp Tax exemption under Article 269(e) of the Portuguese Insolvency Code (CIRE). The claimant company purchased residential property on December 27, 2012, from the insolvency estate of two natural persons. The Tax Authority initially issued a zero-value Stamp Tax assessment, granting the exemption. However, nearly three years later in December 2015, the Tax Authority reversed its position and issued an additional assessment of €1,760.00, arguing that the exemption only applies to sales of business assets, not residential property belonging to natural persons without commercial activity. The claimant challenged this additional assessment through CAAD arbitration, invoking principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and arguing that the revocation exceeded legal time limits. The core legal dispute centers on interpreting Article 269(e) CIRE: does it broadly exempt all property transfers from insolvency estates, or only those involving business assets from commercial enterprises? The Tax Authority contends the exemption is automatic but subject to subsequent audit, and that no vested rights were created by the initial zero assessment. The claimant argues the additional assessment violates constitutional principles, creates unauthorized taxation, and breaches the deadline for revocation of tax benefits. This case has significant implications for purchasers of insolvency assets, clarifying the scope of CIRE tax exemptions and the Tax Authority's power to reassess after granting initial exemptions.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

I. REPORT:

A…, S.A., a company with headquarters at …, no…, in Oporto, holder of the unique registration number and collective person identification number …, hereinafter simply referred to as the Claimant, filed a request for establishment of an arbitral tribunal in tax matters and a request for arbitral award, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph a) of article 2, number 1 and paragraph a) of article 10, number 1, both of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, hereinafter abbreviated as LFTA), petitioning for the declaration of nullity or annulment of the additional assessment of Stamp Duty (SD), in the amount of € 1,760.00, as well as the condemnation of the Tax Authority to refund the Claimant the tax paid and corresponding indemnity interest.

To support its claim, it alleges, in summary:

a) By public deed executed on 27 December 2012, the Claimant purchased the urban property located at …, on …Street, no…, parish of …, municipality of Alcobaça, described in the Land Registry Office of Alcobaça under number … and registered in the urban property tax roll under article …;

b) Such property was acquired in the context of the insolvency proceeding of B… and C…;

c) On 27 December 2012, the Claimant submitted a declaration for assessment of SD, with the corresponding assessment being issued in the amount of € 0.00;

d) By official letter dated 4 December 2015, the Claimant was notified that a proceeding for payment of the additional SD assessment would be initiated, in the amount of € 1,760.00, which the Claimant paid;

e) The acquisition of the property referred to in a) above is exempt from SD, given that it concerns a real property seized for the insolvent estate of the aforementioned B… and C… and such acquisition took place in the context of their respective insolvency proceeding;

f) The SD assessment act in question constitutes the creation of a tax or special contribution not permitted by law, and is thus null, by violation of the provisions of articles 133, number 2, paragraphs a) and d) of the Code of Administrative Procedure and 103, number 2 and 165, number 1, i) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic;

g) The contentious assessment is not substantiated;

h) The Tax and Customs Authority violated the legitimate expectations and guarantees of the Claimant, the principles of trust and legal certainty, of tax legality, of prohibition of retroactivity of tax law, of legal certainty and of cooperation and good faith;

i) The revocation of the SD exemption was carried out beyond the legally provided deadline, whereby the revocation act is illegal.

The Claimant attached 6 documents and did not list any witnesses.

In the request for arbitral award, the Claimant chose not to appoint an arbitrator, whereby, in accordance with the provisions of article 6, number 1 of the LFTA, the undersigned was appointed by the Ethics Council of the Administrative Arbitration Center, with the appointment being accepted in accordance with legally provided terms.

The arbitral tribunal was constituted on 14 March 2017.

Notified in accordance with and for the purposes of the provisions of article 17 of the LFTA, the Respondent submitted a reply, alleging, in summary, the following:

a) The interpretation of article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code propounded by the Claimant has no legal support whatsoever;

b) The property at issue in the present proceedings is intended for residential use and was acquired in the context of the insolvency of natural persons, with the insolvents not engaging, at the date of sale of the property at issue in the present proceedings, in any industrial, commercial or agricultural activity;

c) The SD exemption provided for in article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code covers only acts of sale, exchange or transfer of elements of the company's assets and not acts of sale of real property of natural persons;

d) The contested assessment is lawful and in accordance with the Constitution, with no violation of the constitutional principles invoked by the Claimant;

e) The exemption provided for in article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code is automatic, with no prior analysis or prior verification of the conditions for exemption;

f) Only after submission of the declaration by the taxpayer does the Tax Authority audit, analyzing the verification of the conditions for exemption;

g) Whereby there was no establishment of a right to the tax benefit;

h) Given that the legal conditions for the Claimant to benefit from the SD exemption, pursuant to the provisions of article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code, were not satisfied, the assessment of the tax was required, provided that the limitation period was respected, as occurred in this case.

The Respondent attached two documents and a copy of the administrative file and did not list any witnesses.

Given the position taken by the parties and there being no necessity for additional production of evidence, the meeting referred to in article 18 of the LFTA was waived, as well as the presentation of arguments, written or oral.

II. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION:

The Arbitral Tribunal is properly constituted and substantively competent.

The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate, and are properly represented.

The proceeding does not suffer from defects that affect its validity.

III. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED:

Given the positions taken by the Parties, reflected in the arguments put forward, it is necessary:

a) To determine whether the acquisition of a real property in the context of an insolvency proceeding of natural persons benefits from the SD exemption provided for in article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code.

b) To determine whether there was any act creating rights on the part of the Respondent and, if so, whether such act can be revoked and within what period.

IV. FACTS:

a. Established Facts

With relevance to the decision to be rendered in the present proceedings, the following facts were established as proven:

  1. On 27 December 2012, the Claimant submitted a declaration for assessment of SD relating to the acquisition, by purchase, of the urban property located at…, on …Street, no…, parish of …, municipality of Alcobaça, described in the Land Registry Office of Alcobaça under number … and registered in the urban property tax roll under article …;

  2. The acquisition of the property referred to in 1) above benefited from the SD exemption provided for in article 269 of the Insolvency Code, whereby the assessment was issued in the amount of € 0.00, on the date of submission of the respective declaration by the Claimant;

  3. By public deed executed on 27 December 2012, the Claimant purchased the property referred to in 1) above;

  4. Such property was acquired in the context of the insolvency proceeding of B… and C…;

  5. From the cadastral situation of the identified insolvents there is no registration of their engagement in any industrial, commercial or agricultural activity at the date of acquisition of the property by the Claimant;

  6. By official letter dated 4 December 2015, the Claimant was notified that a proceeding for payment of the SD assessment would be initiated, in the amount of € 1,760.00, and to exercise, if it so wished, the right of prior hearing;

  7. On 22 July 2016, the Claimant paid the amount relating to the assessed SD, in the amount of € 1,760.00;

  8. On 18 August 2016, the Claimant submitted an administrative review request against the SD assessment now contested;

  9. The Claimant was notified of the draft rejection of the administrative review request submitted and to present, if it so wished, a prior hearing within 15 days;

  10. By official letter dated 23 November 2016, the Claimant was notified of the decision rejecting the administrative review request submitted;

  11. The request for establishment of the arbitral tribunal in tax matters and for arbitral award was submitted on 3 January 2017.

b. Facts Not Established

With relevance to the proceedings, no other fact was established as proven.

c. Reasoning on the Facts

The conviction regarding the facts regarded as established was formed on the basis of the documentary evidence attached to the proceedings, whose adherence to reality was not questioned, as well as the matters alleged and not contested.

V. ON THE LAW:

With the facts established, it is now necessary, by reference thereto, to ascertain the applicable law.

On the interpretation of article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code:

With regard to the interpretation of article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code, the Claimant argues that it applies to the sale, exchange or transfer of any real property in the context of an insolvency proceeding, being applicable to both properties belonging to companies and properties belonging to individuals.

In the opposite sense, the Respondent argues that the SD exemption provided for in article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code only benefits sales, transfers or exchanges of properties belonging to companies, not benefiting the alienation of property of an individual from this exemption.

The following is the wording of the cited article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code:

"Are exempt from stamp duty, when they were subject thereto, the following acts, provided that they are provided for in insolvency or payment plans or carried out in the context of the liquidation of the insolvent estate:

(…)

e) The carrying out of financing operations, the transfer or assignment of the operation of establishments of the company, the establishment of companies and the transfer of commercial establishments, the sale, exchange or transfer of elements of the company's assets, as well as the leasing of property."

At issue in the proceedings is the acquisition of a property intended for residential use in the context of an insolvency proceeding, whereby the situation would hypothetically be subsumed in this article.

However, the property at issue in the present proceedings was acquired in the context of an insolvency proceeding of two natural persons, and, as results from the established facts – cf. point 5 –, from the cadastral situation of the identified insolvents there is no registration of their engagement in any industrial, commercial or agricultural activity.

Given the wording of the cited provision, and in order to determine whether it also applies to alienations of properties forming part of the insolvent estate of natural persons, an exercise of interpretation must be carried out, resorting to the general rules of legal hermeneutics contained in article 9 of the Civil Code.

To dispel doubts about the sense and scope to be attributed to a determined legal norm implies carrying out an interpretive task that permits extracting from the linguistic statement a concrete sense or "content of thought"[1].

However, such a task can only be fulfilled through the use of a concrete method, which is based, on the one hand, on literal interpretation, and, on the other, on logical or rational interpretation, which in turn includes the rational, systematic and historical elements.

Beginning with the literal element, it is found that the cited provision contains no reference to properties forming part of the insolvent estate of natural persons, with the law only referring to acts of sale, exchange or transfer of elements of the company's assets.

As is evident, a natural person who does not engage in any industrial, commercial or agricultural activity cannot be considered a company/enterprise.

Whereby, starting from the principle – which is regarded as certain – that the legislator knew how to express itself in appropriate terms, it cannot be defended, through analysis of the letter of the law, that the SD exemption is applicable to the alienation of a property forming part of the insolvent estate of natural persons.

With regard to the rational element, it cannot be overlooked that the Insolvency Code, as was referred to in the decision rendered in arbitral proceeding No. 649/2015-T, "although it has extended the application of recovery proceedings to natural persons, remains fundamentally a Code directed at the resolution of situations of non-compliance in business activity".

The entire legal framework provided for in the Insolvency Code was designed around the recovery and maintenance of the business activity of companies, as economic agents whose financial solidity and maintenance in economic life matters to guarantee, with no relevant norms found in this code directed at the recovery of natural persons.

As for the systematic element, it is important to highlight that, besides the exemption provided for in article 269, e), the Insolvency Code establishes other benefits applicable to onerous transmissions of properties carried out in the context of the insolvency proceeding, as is the case of the exemption from Transfer Tax provided for in article 270.

Any one of these provisions only provides, with regard to acts of sale, the exemption of the respective tax for acts of sale of elements of the company's assets and not for all and any sale, namely for the sale of properties forming part of the insolvent estate of natural persons.

As occurs with regard to the exemption from Transfer Tax, the exemption from SD will not be applicable when at issue are acts of sale of properties that do not constitute elements of the company's assets.

If there were any doubts about the most correct interpretation of article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code, these would be dispelled by analysis of the historical element.

Indeed, it is important to note that the Code of Special Proceedings for Company Recovery and Bankruptcy, a statute that preceded the Insolvency Code and which favored recourse to company recovery remedies to the detriment of the declaration of bankruptcy, provided in its article 120, f) the exemption from SD for the "sale, exchange or transfer of elements of the company's assets".

This provision did not provide, therefore, the exemption from SD for the transmission of properties integrated in the insolvent estate of natural persons, in relation to which it would never be possible the exemption from SD under this provision, because such transmissions did not fit within any company recovery remedy.

For its part, Law No. 39/2003, of 22 August, which authorized the Government to approve the Insolvency Code, repealing the Code of Special Proceedings for Company Recovery and Bankruptcy, with regard to tax benefits, authorized the Government to exempt from SD the transmissions of real property integrated in any insolvency or payment plan or carried out in the context of the liquidation of the insolvent estate, arising from the "sale, exchange or transfer of elements of the company's assets" – cf. article 9, number 2, f).

Once again, and although the Insolvency Code came to have a title exclusively dedicated to the insolvency of natural persons, the exemption from SD was not provided for the transmission of real property integrated in the insolvent estate of natural persons.

There is no doubt, therefore, that the intention of the legislator was to exempt from taxation for the purposes of SD the acts of sale of properties forming part of the insolvent estate of companies and not all and any acts of sale of properties, namely the sale of properties forming part of the insolvent estate of natural persons as occurs in the proceedings.

On this question, and as the Respondent states, diverse jurisprudence, including arbitral[2], has already pronounced itself to the effect that "the said exemption does not cover the sale of urban property intended for residential use belonging to a natural person, it not being sufficient to benefit from that exemption the fact of dealing with acts of sale carried out in the context of the liquidation of the insolvent estate, rather there being a need to demonstrate that the property sold forms part of the assets of a company"[3], with this tribunal perceiving no reasons to change the direction established in this jurisprudence, which we follow.

This is, according to our belief, the best interpretation of the command of article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code, with no unconstitutionality or any violation of principles of law being discerned in such interpretation, as the Claimant advocates.

On the revocation of the SD exemption granted under the provisions of article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code:

The Claimant invokes that the revocation of the exemption granted could only be effected within a period of one year after its respective granting, whereby, having the Respondent revoked the granting after the passage of the one-year period, this revocation act is illegal.

In the opposite sense, the Respondent invokes that there was no act creating rights, given that the benefit contained in paragraph e) of article 269 of the Insolvency Code is an automatic benefit, with no prior verification by the Tax Authority of the conditions for exemption prior to its granting. Only after submission of the declaration by the taxpayer does the Tax Authority audit, analyzing the verification or non-verification of the conditions for exemption, as provided by article 7 of the Tax Benefits Act.

Whereby, the Respondent concludes that, having been ascertained, after the audit carried out, that the legal conditions were not satisfied for the Claimant to benefit from the SD exemption, the Tax and Customs Authority could not fail to assess the tax, provided that the limitation period for assessment of SD was respected, which in this case occurred.

Let us examine this.

As results from the provisions of article 5, number 1 of the Tax Benefits Act, these are automatic or dependent on recognition, with the former resulting directly and immediately from law and the latter presupposing one or more subsequent acts of recognition.

As for tax benefits dependent on recognition, article 5, number 2 of the same provision provides that recognition can take place by administrative act or by agreement between the Administration and the interested parties.

As is unanimously accepted by jurisprudence and doctrine, not even being contested by the Respondent, the exemption from SD provided for in article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code is an automatic tax benefit, not presupposing, thus, any act of recognition.

For its part, article 14, number 4 of the Tax Benefits Act provides:

"The administrative act granting a tax benefit is not revocable, nor can the respective granting agreement be rescinded, or the acquired rights diminished, by unilateral act of the tax administration, save if there is non-compliance attributable to the beneficiary of the obligations imposed, or if the benefit was improperly granted, in which case that act can be revoked".

In the case of the proceedings, although we are dealing with an automatic tax benefit, not dependent, therefore, on any administrative act, it cannot be overlooked that its granting constitutes an act creating rights of the beneficiary, in this case, of the Claimant.

And, as an act creating rights, it can only be revoked by the Tax Authority by unilateral act in the situations expressly provided for in the cited article 14, number 4 of the Tax Benefits Act: (i) if there is non-compliance attributable to the beneficiary of the obligations imposed or (ii) if the benefit was improperly granted.

In the case sub judice, as we have seen, the tax benefit of exemption from SD was improperly granted, given that the onerous transmission of a property forming part of the insolvent estate of a natural person does not benefit from the exemption provided for in article 269, e) of the Insolvency Code.

Whereby the Respondent could revoke the exemption granted, although such revocation represents the diminution of acquired rights of the Claimant.

It only remains to know what period within which such revocation could occur.

We can already state that the Respondent could only revoke the exemption previously granted within a period of one year.

In this sense, and as ANTÓNIO LIMA GUERREIRO[4] very well explains, "administrative acts in tax matters which are constitutive of rights can only therefore be revoked on the basis of invalidity, in accordance with the terms and periods of article 141 of the Code of Administrative Procedure".

Under the new Code of Administrative Procedure, the revocation of administrative acts is only possible on grounds of merit or convenience, with invalid acts being subject to the regime of administrative annulment.

Having the Respondent not advanced any ground for the revocation of the act of granting of the SD exemption on grounds of merit or convenience, it could only be annulled on the basis of its invalidity, by failure of the factual and legal conditions for the granting of the exemption to the Claimant.

It happens, however, that, as expressly results from the provisions of article 168, number 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, the act creating rights can only be subject to administrative annulment within a period of one year.

Given that the SD exemption granted to the Claimant is an act creating rights, it could only, therefore, be annulled by the Tax Authority within the period of one year after its commission.

Now,

Having the SD exemption been granted on 27/12/2012 – cf. established fact No. 2 –, the respective annulment could only occur until 27/12/2013.

By which it is verified that, at the date of annulment of the act at issue – December 2015 – the period of one year for annulment of the act of granting of the SD exemption had long passed.

Let it not be said, as the Respondent does, that, given that it is an automatic benefit, there is no prior verification by the Tax Authority of the conditions for exemption, which is only verified at the time of the audit promoted by the Tax Authority under article 7 of the Tax Benefits Act.

This is because, from a reading of article 7 of the Tax Benefits Act, it is not derived that, in automatic tax benefits, the verification of their respective conditions for granting is done at the time of audit. Rather, audit is a prerogative of the Tax Authority, whether in automatic tax benefits or in benefits dependent on recognition.

As expressly results from article 4, number 1 of the Tax Benefits Act, automatic tax benefits result directly and immediately from law, not being dependent on any act by the Tax Authority, nor even on any audit that it decides to carry out.

Thus, having the act of granting of the SD exemption been committed outside the period of one year legally provided for that purpose, the same is illegal, by violation of the provisions of article 168, number 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, imposing itself, therefore, its annulment.

In this sense, and although rendered under the previous Code of Administrative Procedure, but entirely applicable to the situation of the proceedings, see the judgment of the Administrative Supreme Court of 15 May 2013, in which it was concluded that "the act of revocation of a tax benefit consisting of a tax exemption, which produces ex tunc effects and occurs more than one year after the act granting the exemption, is illegal for violation of the provisions of article 141 of the Code of Administrative Procedure"[5].

Finally,

The Claimant further petitions the condemnation of the Respondent to payment of indemnity interest.

As for indemnity interest, article 43, number 1 of the General Tax Law provides:

"Indemnity interest is due when it is determined, in an administrative review or judicial challenge, that there was an error attributable to the services resulting in payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than legally due".

In the case of the proceedings, it is verified that, by error attributable to the services, the Claimant was forced to pay a tax in an amount greater than legally due.

Thus, indemnity interest is due, to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant, calculated on the amount of the assessed tax – € 1,760.00 –, calculated at legal rates from 22 July 2016 until actual and full reimbursement by the Respondent.

The request for annulment of the SD assessment in the amount of € 1,760.00 thus proceeds, with the Respondent being required to reimburse the Claimant the amount paid by way of tax (€ 1,760.00) and pay the corresponding indemnity interest, calculated on the amount of € 1,760.00, at legal rates, from 22 July 2016 until actual and full reimbursement by the Respondent.

VI. OPERATIVE PART

In light of the foregoing, it is decided:

a) To render judgment in favor of the request for annulment of the SD assessment act in the amount of € 1,760.00, DUC No. …;

b) To condemn the Respondent to reimburse the Claimant the amount of € 1,760.00;

c) To condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant indemnity interest, calculated on the amount of € 1,760.00, at legal rates, from 22 July 2016 until actual and full reimbursement by the Respondent.

The value of the case is set at € 1,760.00, in accordance with paragraph a) of article 97-A, number 1 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, applicable by virtue of paragraphs a) and b) of article 29, number 1 of the LFTA and number 2 of article 3 of the Regulation of Fees in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.

The value of the arbitration fee is set at € 306.00, in accordance with Table I of the Regulation of Costs of Tax Arbitration Proceedings, as well as number 2 of article 12 and number 4 of article 22, both of the LFTA, and number 4 of article 4 of the cited Regulation, to be paid by the Respondent, as the unsuccessful party.

Register and notify.

Lisbon, 14 July 2017.

The Arbitrator,

Alberto Amorim Pereira

Text prepared by computer, in accordance with number 5 of article 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference of paragraph e) of article 29, number 1 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20/01.

[1] Cf. BAPTISTA MACHADO, in "Introduction to Law and Legitimizing Discourse", Almedina, 1982, p. 175.

[2] In this sense, see the decisions rendered in arbitral proceedings 649/2015-T, 13/2016-T, 558/2015-T, 136/2016-T and 106/2016-T, all at www.caad.org.pt.

[3] Cf. judgment of the Administrative Supreme Court of 25 September 2013, proceeding number 0866/13, at www.dgsi.pt.

[4] In "Annotated General Tax Law", Rei dos Livros Publisher, page 343.

[5] Rendered in proceeding number 566/12, at www.dgsi.pt.

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

Is the acquisition of property from an insolvency estate exempt from Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) in Portugal?
The exemption from Stamp Tax for acquisitions from insolvency estates under Article 269(e) of the Portuguese Insolvency Code depends on the nature of the assets. According to the Tax Authority's interpretation in this case, the exemption applies only to sales, exchanges, or transfers of business assets (company elements), not to residential property of natural persons who were not engaged in industrial, commercial, or agricultural activities at the time of sale. The automatic nature of the exemption means it applies without prior verification, but the Tax Authority can subsequently audit compliance with exemption requirements.
What does Article 269(e) of the Portuguese Insolvency Code (CIRE) establish regarding tax exemptions?
Article 269(e) of the Portuguese Insolvency Code (CIRE) establishes a Stamp Tax exemption for certain transactions involving insolvency estates. The Tax Authority interprets this provision as covering only acts of sale, exchange, or transfer of elements of company assets—not sales of real property belonging to natural persons without commercial activity. The exemption is automatic, meaning it applies without prior administrative approval, but remains subject to subsequent verification by the Tax Authority to ensure the legal conditions are met.
Can the Portuguese Tax Authority issue an additional Stamp Tax assessment after initially granting a zero-value liquidation?
Yes, the Portuguese Tax Authority can issue an additional Stamp Tax assessment after initially granting a zero-value liquidation, provided the limitation period has not expired. In this case, the Tax Authority issued the additional assessment nearly three years after the initial zero assessment. The Authority argues that automatic exemptions do not create vested rights and can be corrected upon subsequent audit when it is determined that the legal conditions for exemption were not satisfied. However, such reassessments are subject to challenge on grounds of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and compliance with limitation periods.
What are the legal grounds for challenging an additional Stamp Tax assessment in Portuguese tax arbitration (CAAD)?
Legal grounds for challenging an additional Stamp Tax assessment in Portuguese tax arbitration (CAAD) include: (1) substantive illegality—the assessment violates exemption provisions or creates unauthorized taxation contrary to Articles 103(2) and 165(1)(i) of the Portuguese Constitution; (2) violation of principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and good faith when the Tax Authority reverses an initial assessment; (3) lack of proper substantiation for the assessment; (4) exceeding the legal deadline for revocation of tax benefits; and (5) violation of the prohibition against retroactive application of tax law.
Is there a time limit for the Tax Authority to revoke a Stamp Tax exemption on insolvency-related property acquisitions?
Portuguese tax law establishes limitation periods for tax assessments and revocations of tax benefits. In this case, the claimant argued that the revocation was carried out beyond the legally provided deadline, rendering it illegal. Generally, the Tax Authority must respect the limitation period applicable to tax assessments (typically four years under Article 45 of the Tax Procedure Code). The specific deadline for revoking a stamp tax exemption depends on whether the initial assessment created vested rights and when the conditions for exemption were verified. The claimant's argument suggests the three-year gap between the initial zero assessment (December 2012) and the additional assessment notification (December 2015) may have exceeded permissible time limits.