CAAD 500/2017-T: IRS Tax on Foreign Income – Probative Force of Foreign Tax Administration Information

ARBITRAL DECISION

I – REPORT

1. A..., NIF..., with tax domicile at Rua ..., no. ..., ..., ...-... Parede, filed on 06-09-2017 a request for establishment of the arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011 of 20 January (Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as RJAT), in conjunction with article 102 of the CPPT, in which the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter referred to only as the Respondent) is requested.

2. The claimant intends, with its request, the declaration of illegality of the acts of assessment of Personal Income Tax no. ..., of 14.11.2015, relating to the year 2012, no. ..., of 14.11.2015, relating to the year 2013 and ..., of 14.11.2015, relating to the year 2014, as well as the acts of dismissal of the administrative appeal no. .../16/... and the acts of partial acceptance of the administrative appeals nos. .../16/... and .../16/..., all issued by order of the Head of the Finance Services of Cascais ... – ..., on 30.05.2017, with the consequent refund of taxes paid, as well as the recognition of the right to compensatory interest.

3. The request for establishment of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of CAAD and automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority on 06-09-2017.

3.1. The claimant did not proceed to appoint an arbitrator, therefore, under the provisions of paragraph a) of article 6(2) and paragraph b) of article 11(1) of RJAT, the President of the Deontological Council appointed the undersigned as arbitrator of the arbitral tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the statutory period.

3.2. On 08-11-2017 the parties were notified of the appointment of the arbitrator, and no objection was raised.

3.3. In accordance with the provision of paragraph c) of article 11(1) of RJAT, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 28-11-2017.

3.4. In these terms, the Arbitral Tribunal is properly constituted to examine and decide the subject matter of the case.

3.5. Duly notified, the AT submitted its response within the statutory period, defending itself through objection and attaching a copy of the administrative file.

1. By order of 08-03-2018 the meeting provided for in article 18 of RJAT was waived.

2. To support the request for arbitral decision, the claimant alleges, in summary, the following:

The assessments subject to the present objection were drawn up on the basis of income declarations (Form 3) submitted by the Claimant for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, where in Annex J of the said declarations it was indicated, in field 408 of table 4, relating to interest referred to in article 72(5) of CIRS, the amount of €48,116.32 (in the year 2012), €44,483.51 (in the year 2013) and €53,393.70 (in the year 2014) and, in line 601 of table 6, that said income came from "Jersey".

It so happens that the mention of Jersey as the location of the source of income occurred solely due to mere error by the Portuguese accounting company that carried out the electronic completion and submission of the income declarations in question. Such error was due solely to confusion arising from the fact that the sums involved in capital investments that generated the income in question were debited/credited to a bank account that the Claimant holds in Jersey.

With reference to the years 2012 to 2014, the income in question relates to:

• Income from bonds referred to as "Structured Notes" issued by B... London;

• Income from investment funds referred to as "Exchange Traded Funds" or "ETF's", traded on the financial exchanges of London or on other European exchanges;

• Interest or dividends from private companies established in the United Kingdom.

B... is a bank, established in 1971, in the form of a public limited company, whose registered office is located in the United Kingdom.

The Structured Notes referred to above are issued by B... within the scope of a type of investment referred to as "5 Year Regular Income Note", which means that the said structured notes have a fixed term of 5 years.

In the year 2012, the amount of capital income declared in Annex J amounted to €48,116.32, having been earned as a result of the following investments:

• Structured Note (SR...) acquired in June 2009 and which paid fixed income of £1,562.50 every month until reaching maturity in July 2014. As a result, in the year 2012, this investment paid the amount of £18,744.00, the equivalent of approximately €14,189.21;

• Structured Note (SR...) acquired in March 2012 and which paid fixed annual income of $5,400.00;

• Structured Note (SR...) acquired in May 2012 and which paid fixed income of £500.00 every month for 5 years. As a result, in the year 2012, this investment paid the amount of £3,500.00 (£500.00 x 7 months), the equivalent of approximately €2,649.50;

• Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's), domiciled in Ireland, namely the following:

• "iShares" managed by G... – iShares S&P 500 Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF;

• "SPDR" Funds, managed by H... – SPDR S&P U.S. Dividend Aristocrats UCITS ETF, SPDR S&P 400 U.S. Mid Cap UCITS ETF and SPDR S&P UK Dividend Aristocrats UCITS ETF.

G... is the largest global asset management company and has its headquarters in New York. As evidenced by the analysis of the iShares managed by G... and shown on the website of the said company it is possible to verify that all iShares relate to companies established in Ireland. By way of example, from the prospectus relating to iShares S&P 500 Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF, it is possible to confirm the reference to Ireland in the field relating to the domicile (key facts) of the product.

H... is the investment management unit of I... and the third largest global asset management company. Similarly to what occurs with the iShares, from the analysis of the prospectuses relating to the SPDR Funds, it is equally possible to confirm the reference to Ireland in the field relating to the domicile (key facts) of the funds in question.

The bank account in Jersey merely serves as a means for transferring the funds necessary for making the capital investments in question, and, subsequently, for receiving the income resulting from such investments.

In addition to the sources of income mentioned above, in 2013 and 2014 the Claimant also obtained interest on loans paid by company C... and in 2014, the Claimant also received dividends paid by company D.... The interest paid to the Claimant was subject to taxation in the United Kingdom at a rate of 20%.

C... is a private limited company established under United Kingdom law and with registered office in London and D... is a private limited company established under United Kingdom law and with registered office in....

In 2013, the amount of capital income declared in Annex J amounted to €44,483.51, and the breakdown of investments is described in the decisions of the AT, which are therefore considered accepted by it, and given that the Claimant has already specified above the type and origin of the income, the same are equally deemed to be proven.

In 2014, the amount of capital income declared in Annex J amounted to €53,393.70, having been earned as a result of investments described in the AT's own decisions.

From 1984 onwards, the Claimant ceased to reside in the United Kingdom, having, after that period, lived and worked in the Channel Islands, before moving to Spain and, subsequently, to Portugal. As a consequence of the change of residence referred to above, the bank accounts that the Claimant held at B... in the United Kingdom (B...) were transferred to E... (E...). Although he holds British nationality, since the Claimant is not resident in the United Kingdom, he is treated by the said bank as an international client, with his accounts being managed by the International Division of B....

The Claimant also holds a bank account with B... in Estoril. The acquisition of participations in the investment funds referred to above cannot be carried out at any branch of the Bank, as these are investments that must be obligatorily carried out through a registered broker ("F...").

The bank account held by the Claimant at bank B... is only debited or credited as a result of the investments referred to above. That is, the income resulting from the investments referred to above is only credited to the account that the Claimant holds at bank B...; and, conversely, the said account is only debited when amounts are withdrawn for the purposes of making the investments that gave rise to the income in question.

There is an Agreement between the Portuguese Republic and Jersey on the exchange of information in tax matters, in force since 09.11.2011, within the scope of which the Claimant expressly authorized the paying agent (in this case, B... in Jersey) to communicate to the competent authority of Jersey the information relating to interest income paid by the said paying agent, through the bank account that the Claimant now holds at the said bank.

Considering that the income earned does not have its source in Jersey, the Claimant considers that the assessments in question suffer from illegality, a fact that prompted the submission of administrative appeals against the assessments in question.

The Claimant considers that the arguments on which AT based its conviction lack any legal basis, as they are based on incorrect factual assumptions, and that the legal provisions in question were incorrectly interpreted.

The Claimant cannot accept such assessments as the income in question does not have its source in Jersey – territory qualified as a tax haven – but rather in the United Kingdom, which means that they could never be taxed at the rate of 35%.

There is a confusion of concepts on the part of AT, in that the territory of the source of income (in this case, the United Kingdom) can never be confused with the territory where the entity through which the said income is paid is located (in this case, Jersey). The B... bank in Jersey merely acts as agent in the purchase of securities on behalf of the Claimant.

The source of income should be assessed based on the location of the entity that issues the security that generates the income and not based on the location of the agent through whom the acquisition of such security is carried out.

There is no income coming from Jersey. The ownership of a bank account in a clearly more favorable tax regime does not automatically generate income subject to a clearly more favorable taxation regime, and therefore, there can be no aggravated taxation of the income earned by the Claimant in the periods in question.

Furthermore, the Tax Authority cancelled the decision to tax the income (interest and dividends) paid by C... and D..., as these debtor entities are English companies, therefore, the same logic of reasoning should be applied to the remaining income earned by the Claimant, in that the entities issuing the securities that gave rise to the remaining income in question are entities established in the United Kingdom (or in England or in Ireland), as shown above.

Given the above, the income obtained by the Claimant cannot, on pain of illegality, be taxed at the rate of 35% as it does not originate in any country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime, and should be taxed at the rate of 28%, as provided for in paragraph d), article 72(1) of CIRS.

It concludes by requesting the annulment of the assessments and the restitution of taxes paid plus compensatory interest.

1. The Tax and Customs Authority submitted its response, sustaining in summary:

To date, the Respondent was not notified of the attachment of documents 11 to 22 which allegedly the Claimant attached in the request for arbitral decision, noting that the same do not actually appear on the CAAD platform. It should be mentioned that all the grounds for the action must be alleged at once, and it is necessary to allege even those that may seem secondary, offering the corresponding evidence, as follows both from article 108(1) and (3) of CPPT, in which it is determined that the objection must set out "the facts and the legal reasons that support the claim" and that with "the petition [...] the objecting party shall provide the documents available to it, list witnesses and request such other evidence as does not depend on subsequent occurrences". This also results both from paragraphs c) and d) of article 10(2) of RJAT, in which it is determined that: "c) The identification of the request for arbitral decision, constituting the grounds of this request those provided for in article 99 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process and, as well, the exposition of the questions of fact and law subject to said request for arbitral decision; d) The evidence of the facts indicated and the indication of the means of evidence to be produced".

If these same documents have been officially issued by the tax authorities of the United Kingdom or Ireland, namely document 19, mentioned in article 29 of PPA, making proof of what is alleged by the Claimant, it is requested that, once the date of its issuance has been analyzed, no costs and compensatory interest be imputed to the Respondent, this is because if the document(s) make(s) proof of what is alleged by the Respondent, the Tax Authority would always have had the possibility of revoking the tax acts in dispute here, having avoided the respective procedural impulse and temporal delay.

As appears from the administrative appeals, "The income in question, namely interest and dividends, having source in Jersey are, for the purposes of IRS, taxed at the rate of 35% ... Having consulted the electronic records available to the International Relations Services Directorate, there is no request made by the appellant for the application of conventional or agreed benefits, as a tax resident of Portugal, for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014".

This means, therefore, that the Claimant did not request any tax residence certificate in Portugal to present to the tax authorities of another State (whether Jersey, England or Ireland), so as to declare and benefit from taxation as a Portuguese tax resident.

In the same order issued in the context of the administrative appeals it is stated that

"- the only information officially received regarding income owned by the appellant in the years in question concerns interest paid by an agent in Jersey.

• The information received was provided by the competent authority of Jersey, under the Agreement between Portugal and Jersey on Automatic Exchange of Information regarding interest income, as provided for in the Savings Directive, hereinafter Agreement Portugal – Jersey.

• In paragraph c) of the Portugal – Jersey Agreement, prior to the articles, the automatic exchange of information from the competent authority of Jersey to the competent authority of Portugal is indeed provided for in accordance with the provisions of article 13 of the Savings Directive, that is, in this specific case, the absence of a tax residence certificate in Portugal issued for the Taxpayer by the Portuguese Tax Authority, by means of express authorization by the beneficial owner of the income (taxpayer) given to his paying agent, for the latter to communicate the corresponding information.

• The information processed and sent by the Tax Authority of Jersey to the Portuguese Tax Authority, under the Portugal – Jersey Agreement, is probative, under the provisions of articles 1 and 4 of article 76 of the General Tax Law (LGT)."

That is, having the tax authorities of Jersey verified the obtaining of income by a Portuguese tax resident, the Claimant, in that territory, under the Agreement Portugal – Jersey, they communicated the income obtained by him in that same territory. Therefore, the Respondent understood that, if the income were to be considered as obtained in the United Kingdom or Ireland, equal communication would have been made by those States, under the said mechanism of information exchange. This did not happen.

The Claimant should have presented a document issued by the tax authorities of the respective States, declaring that the income in question had its origin in those other States (United Kingdom and Ireland), and that it was subject to withholding at source.

In the same orders issued in the context of administrative appeals it is stated that "the majority of the documentation presented by the appellant relates to capital applications made through an account based in Jersey of Bank B... . In that measure, the said income would have its source in Jersey. And they are taxed for the purposes of IRS at the rate of 35 per cent, under the provisions of article 72 of the IRS Code (number 11 for the years 2012 and 2013, number 12, for the year 2014)".

Under article 76 of the LGT, "1. The information provided by the tax authority is probative, when substantiated and based on objective criteria, in accordance with the law and no. 4: Included in no. 1 are the information provided by foreign tax administrations under international conventions for mutual assistance to which the Portuguese State is bound, without prejudice to proof to the contrary by the taxpayer or interested party".

In these terms, it was incumbent on the Claimant to present evidence of equal probative value, namely a declaration issued by the tax authorities of the United Kingdom and/or Ireland, proving that the income, despite being paid to an account of the Claimant in Jersey, as alleged, had its origin and was subject to taxation in those States. Now, from the documents attached by the Claimant there is no declaration or certificate issued by the tax authorities of the United Kingdom and/or Ireland. In fact, the documents attached by the Claimant apparently indicate what is alleged by it regarding the source of income, but come up against the communication issued by the tax authorities of Jersey. In any case, in reinforcement of what is observed on this matter, it will be said that the Respondent did not accept the questioned documents as sufficient to prove the income obtained as originating from the United Kingdom and/or Ireland by the Claimant, with no reason apparent for the same documents to be sufficient to prove the source of income and the respective withholding at source carried out by the Bank, for which it refers to the provisions of article 440 of CPC.

From the outset, we shall say that from the documents presented by the Claimant, when confronted with the wording of article 363(2) of the Civil Code, it can be concluded with certainty that these do not have the nature of authentic documents.

By what has been said, the argument of the Claimant regarding the source of income is therefore misplaced, as we are dealing with private documents, issued by third parties, and it is certain that the Tax Administration did not accept them as counter-evidence in order to neutralize or invalidate the evidence collected (article 346 of the Civil Code), as stated in the communication issued by the tax authorities of Jersey. Note that, on this point, the Tax Administration did not accept the documents in question to prove, as we said above, the income obtained in the United Kingdom and/or Ireland by the Claimant, in the face of official documentation from the Jersey territory.

The Respondent concludes, upholding the legality of the assessment act contested by the Claimant, which should therefore be maintained, defending, in any circumstance, the non-exigibility of compensatory interest as there is no error attributable to the services.

1. The Claimant submitted a petition defending having submitted all documents with the initial request, with those referred to by the Respondent having been sent by electronic mail, due to the inability to do so through the CAAD computer system, as it was not possible to submit them through that means as the capacity had been exceeded by the attachment of the others.

II – SANITATION

8.1. The tribunal is competent and properly constituted.

8.2. The parties have legal personality and capacity, are shown to be entitled and are properly represented (articles 4 and 10(2) of RJAT and article 1 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011 of 22 March).

8.3. The joinder of claims is admissible.

8.4. As it may constitute an exception embodied in breach of the provision of paragraph d) of article 10(2) of RJAT, the alleged non-existence or untimely presentation of documents raised by the Respondent is examined forthwith.

The Respondent alleges that the Claimant did not attach with the initial request the documents identified therein with nos. 11 to 22, stating that it notes that "the same do not actually appear on the CAAD platform" and that, therefore, it did not become aware of them.

There is no apparent basis for the Respondent's assertion.

For, on the contrary, from consultation of the CAAD computer system it is noted that such documents were sent by electronic mail on 06-09-2017, and are readable and consultable there since then.

Moreover, we say, even if such attachment had occurred at a later time, no irregularity could be pointed out, having regard to the date on which the Respondent was notified of the presentation of the request – 22-09-2017 – that is, at a time when the documents in question had long since been part of the case.

The requirement arising from the provisions of article 108(3) of CPPT and 10(2), d) of RJAT is intended to delimit, given the pleadings existing in the tax case, the scope of the exercise of contradiction, requiring therefore the attachment of evidence with the initial request so as to enable its examination in the response/answer. However, notwithstanding such restriction, nothing prevents that in the judicial objection process, evidence be presented at a later time – until the submission of arguments – by application of a fine for its untimely presentation. This situation is not applicable to the arbitral process.

Thus, having regard to the fact that on the date of notification of the presentation of the request to the Respondent – 22-09-2017 – all the documentary evidence referred to in the initial request already formed part of the case, in no way having the Respondent been restricted in the exercise of its right to contradiction, there is no irregularity, and its invocation is unfounded.

8.5. The case does not suffer from nullities.

III – MATTERS OF FACT AND LAW

III.1. Matters of Fact

1. Matters of Fact

9.1. Taking into account the positions assumed by the parties and the documentary evidence attached to the case file, the following facts are considered proven as relevant for the examination and decision of the questions raised (bearing in mind that the Tribunal does not have to rule on everything alleged by the parties, but rather has the duty to select the facts that matter for the decision and distinguish between proven and unproven matters – cf. article 123(2) of CPPT and articles 607(3) and (4) of CPC, applicable by virtue of article 29(1), paragraphs a) and e), of RJAT), the following facts:

• The Claimant, of British nationality, was, for tax purposes, resident in the national territory in the years 2012, 2013 and 2014.

• The Claimant submitted IRS declarations for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, where in Annex J of the said declarations it was indicated, in field 408 of table 4, relating to interest, the amount of €48,116.32 (in the year 2012), €44,483.51 (in the year 2013) and €53,393.70 (in the year 2014) and, in line 601 of table 6, that said income came from Jersey.

• As a result of the submission of such declarations, the AT issued the following IRS assessments:

• No. ..., of 2015, with tax payable of €16,840.72;

• No. ..., of 2015, with tax payable of €16,888.51;

• No. ..., of 2015, with tax payable of €20,543.22.

• The Claimant holds a bank account based in Jersey;

• In compliance with the Agreement between the Portuguese Republic and Jersey on the exchange of tax information, the AT received from the Jersey Administration official information on income earned by the Claimant in the years in question.

• The Claimant submitted administrative appeals against the three IRS assessments mentioned above.

• In the course of the processing of said administrative appeal proceedings, the Claimant received on 07 March 2016, an email from the Finance Services of Cascais ..., with the following content:

• "With reference to the preceding email, I must inform you that, for purposes of verification of the value and source of income earned abroad, as well as the amount of the respective tax paid, the taxpayer should produce a declaration issued or authenticated by the tax authorities of the respective country, a measure which through this email is hereby requested".

• The Claimant was notified of the draft dismissal in full with regard to the year 2012 and partial with regard to the years 2013 and 2014, the content of which is deemed to be reproduced, in which, in summary, it was stated:

• The appellant alleges that only in error did he mention as "Country Code" of the source of capital income declared the "832", corresponding to Jersey;

• That income, namely interest and dividends, having source in Jersey, is, for the purposes of IRS, taxed at the rate of 35%;

• Having consulted the electronic records available to the International Relations Services Directorate, there is no request made by the taxpayer for the application of conventional or agreed benefits, as a tax resident of Portugal, for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 (respectively, with regard to each of the administrative appeals);

• Furthermore, the only information officially presented by the taxpayer relates to capital applications, carried out through an account based in Jersey of Bank B...";

• In that measure, the income in question would have its source in Jersey".

In the draft decisions relating to the years 2013 and 2014, the following conclusion was reached:

• This will not be the case only as regards income for which the debtor entity was C..., and also D... (this only for the year 2014), English companies, and therefore income originating from the United Kingdom, to which corresponds code 826.

• The Claimant timely exercised his right to be heard, the content of which is deemed to be reproduced, in which, in summary, he reiterated that the insertion in the IRS declarations of Jersey as the source of income was due to error, in addition to alleging the defect of lack of substantiation.

• In the administrative appeals submitted by the Claimant, orders were issued of total dismissal with respect to the year 2012 and partial acceptance with respect to the years 2013 and 2014, which are deemed to be reproduced.

• Such orders were notified to the Claimant on 8 June 2017.

9.2. It was not proven that the income in question did not originate in Jersey.

9.3. Substantiation of the matters of fact:

The matters of fact deemed proven and unproven were based on critical examination of the documents and the administrative file attached to the case file and, in particular, on the rules regarding the burden of proof pertaining to them, namely on the insufficiency of evidence.

III.2. Matters of Law

From the confrontation of the pleadings, it is evident that the only point of dispute is restricted to the determination of the location of the source of the income subject to taxation in IRS.

As a preliminary matter, it is stated that we agree with the Claimant when it alleges that "the territory of the source of income can never be confused with the territory where the entity through which said income is paid is located".

Therefore, indeed, it cannot be the fact that the Claimant holds a bank account in Jersey and where the capital income earned here would have been credited, that would be the determining element to characterize the country of the source of income.

We are therefore in agreement with the Claimant. Income that might have had its origin in other countries and which in that bank account would have been credited, would nonetheless be considered as having its source in those same countries.

The Claimant states that the capital income in question was obtained by him in the United Kingdom and Ireland and the Jersey bank account merely served as "agent in the purchase of securities on behalf of the Claimant".

It so happens, however, that he failed to prove such factuality.

Determinative for the case is the information provided to the AT by the competent authority of Jersey, under the Agreement between the Portuguese Republic and Jersey on the Exchange of Tax Information, approved by Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic no. 41/2011.

Information provided by the Jersey authority, under the automatic exchange of information regarding capital income, informing of the receipt by the Claimant of the income in question.

It must be said, on this point, that the assertion made in the initial request regarding the income that the Claimant received from companies C... and D..., with registered offices in the United Kingdom, for the alleged similarity of situations, is not correct. With regard to that income, the AT received no official information from Jersey and accepted as valid the documents that the Claimant presented in the administrative appeals, as proof of their source, which led the AT to grant the Claimant's request with regard to those.

Different is what occurs with the other income now in question, with regard to which the AT received information from Jersey informing that the Claimant obtained it there.

Article 74 of the LGT provides that "The burden of proof of facts constituting the rights of the tax administration or taxpayers rests on whoever invokes them".

In this case, bearing in mind that there was no correction by the Respondent to the declarations presented by the Claimant (it being certain that the presumption of truth and good faith established in article 75 of the LGT is not in question here), it is believed to be clear that the burden of proof of the facts alleged by him in the arbitral request falls to him.

For purposes of evidence, we also consider the official information provided by the Jersey authority to be determinative.

On this point, article 76(4) of the LGT establishes that "included in no. 1 are the information provided by foreign tax administrations under international conventions for mutual assistance to which the Portuguese State is bound, without prejudice to proof to the contrary by the taxpayer or interested party", with the said no. 1 establishing that "the information provided by the tax authority is probative, when substantiated and based on objective criteria, in accordance with the law".

That is, the information provided by the Jersey Administration – which, in this case, is based on objective facts – is probative.

We do not overlook, however, that the provision in question does not establish any absolute evidence, that is, not capable of contrary proof. As stated by Diogo Leite Campos, Benjamim Rodrigues and Jorge Lopes de Sousa – LGT 4th ed, page 672: "no. 4 must be understood as meaning that the attribution of probative force to information from foreign tax administrations does not prejudice the possibility of contrary proof or the generation of doubts about the facts therein stated, as a way to contradict its probative force".

That is to say, notwithstanding the statement provided by the Jersey Authority, nothing would prevent the Claimant from presenting contrary proof of what is alleged there or, indeed, from merely generating well-founded doubts about the same.

It so happens that to undermine what is contained in that official information, the Claimant merely attached copies of what he refers to as prospectuses, communications with the bank, bank statements and similar documents, written in English and produced in a foreign country.

Documents that the Respondent expressly objected to and alleged that, in any circumstance, would be insufficient to prove what it intended, namely because they were not legalized.

Now, in accordance with the provision of article 365(2) of the CC, "if the document is not legalized, in accordance with procedural law, and there are well-founded doubts about its authenticity or the authenticity of its acknowledgment, its legalization may be required", a provision that also applies to private documents executed abroad.

It being certain that it is today almost universally accepted that the legalization of documents executed in a foreign country is not today a requirement of their authenticity, which only becomes necessary when well-founded doubts are raised about such authenticity.

From the combination of all the provisions referred to, it follows that it will be incumbent on the tribunal, in the exercise of free assessment of evidence – and having regard to the objection raised by the Respondent – to determine whether the documents brought to the case file are sufficient to undermine the information received from the Jersey Authority.

And we conclude that they are not. Comparing such official information with the documents that the Claimant brings to the case file, we are forced to conclude that the same are not, by themselves, capable of contradicting or undermining what is contained therein: the obtaining of income by the Claimant in Jersey.

From this it is concluded that the orders of dismissal and partial acceptance of the administrative appeals do not suffer from any defects and, consequently, the assessment acts objected to, which should therefore be maintained.

IV. DECISION

In these terms, this Arbitral Tribunal decides:

1. To declare the arbitral claim filed wholly unfounded and, in consequence, to absolve the Respondent.

2. To condemn the Claimant in the payment of the costs of the case.

V. VALUE OF THE CASE

The value of the case is fixed at €54,272.45, in accordance with article 97-A(1), a), of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, made applicable by virtue of paragraphs a) and b) of article 29(1) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration and article 3(2) of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.

VI. COSTS

The arbitration fee is fixed at €2,142.00, in accordance with Table I of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, in accordance with articles 12(2) and 22(4), both of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, and article 4(4) of the said Regulation.

Notify accordingly.

Lisbon, 25 May 2018

The Arbitrator

(António Alberto Franco)