Process: 508/2017-T

Date: May 19, 2018

Tax Type: IVA

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This CAAD arbitration decision (Process 508/2017-T) addresses the legality of official VAT assessments resulting from arithmetic corrections made by Portuguese Tax Authority. The case involves A... S.A. challenging six VAT assessments for periods between 2013-2015, totaling amounts corrected through inspection proceedings. The taxpayer argued the assessments violated applicable law and contradicted a prior decision by the VAT Service Directorate from 2010/2012, which had recognized a tax credit in their favor. The core dispute centered on whether arithmetic corrections made by tax inspectors were legally valid given a previous administrative determination that the taxpayer held a VAT credit of €58,021.77. The taxpayer contended that official assessments should be cancelled or reduced to reflect this credit balance. The case illustrates the intersection between different administrative procedures in Portuguese tax law: inspection proceedings, requests for administrative reconsideration, hierarchical appeals, and ultimately tax arbitration. The arbitral tribunal examined whether the Tax Authority properly considered the binding effect of the VAT Directorate's prior decision when issuing subsequent assessments. This decision is particularly relevant for understanding how arithmetic corrections under Portuguese VAT law interact with prior administrative determinations, and the procedural safeguards available to taxpayers through CAAD arbitration when challenging official assessments based on alleged calculation errors or failure to consider existing tax credits.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

The Arbitrators José Pedro Carvalho (Presiding Arbitrator), Ana Luísa Ferreira Cabral Basto and José Coutinho Pires, designated by the Ethics Council of the Centre for Administrative Arbitration to form an Arbitral Tribunal, hereby decide as follows:

I – REPORT

On 14 September 2017, A... S.A., NIPC..., with registered address... - ..., filed a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the combined provisions of Articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, which approved the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters, as amended by Article 228 of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December (hereinafter, briefly designated RJAT), seeking a declaration of illegality of the act of dismissal of hierarchical appeal No. ...2017... filed against the decision dismissing the request for administrative reconsideration No. ...2016..., relating to official VAT assessments No..., for period 1512T, No..., for period 1509T, No..., for period 1506T, No..., for period 1503T, No..., for period 1309T and No..., for period 1403T.

To substantiate its request, the Claimant alleges, in summary, that the tax acts in question violate both the applicable law and the decisions of the VAT Service Directorate, namely the dispatch of the Deputy Director General dated 20-10-2010, notified on 10-10-2011.

The Claimant further alleges that payment is outstanding for VAT in the current account existing in favour of the taxpayer.

On 14-09-2017, the request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted and automatically notified to AT (Tax Authority).

The Claimant did not proceed to nominate an arbitrator, wherefore, pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of Article 6 and subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the RJAT, the President of the Ethics Council of the CAAD designated the undersigned as arbitrators of the collective arbitral tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the charge within the applicable time period.

On 14-11-2017, the parties were notified of these designations and did not manifest any wish to challenge any of them.

In accordance with the provisions of subparagraph c) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the RJAT, the collective Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 06-12-2017.

On 24-01-2018, the Respondent, duly notified for this purpose, filed its reply defending itself solely by exception.

By dispatch of 24-01-2018, the Claimant was given the opportunity to exercise its right of reply with respect to the matter of exception contained in the Respondent's reply.

On 25-01-2018, a resignation from mandate was filed, by the representative of the Claimant.

Having complied with the provisions of Article 47/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Claimant appointed a new representative on 27-02-2017, and the Claimant was again given the opportunity to exercise its right of reply with respect to the matter of exception contained in the Respondent's reply, which it did not do.

By dispatch of 20-03-2018, pursuant to the provisions of subparagraphs c) and e) of Article 16 and paragraph 2 of Article 29, both of the RJAT, the holding of the meeting referred to in Article 18 of the RJAT was waived, as was the submission of written pleadings by the parties, and a time period of 60 days was set for the pronouncement of final decision.

The Arbitral Tribunal is materially competent and is regularly constituted, in accordance with Articles 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph a), 5 and 6, paragraph 1, of the RJAT.

The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are legally represented, in accordance with Articles 4 and 10 of the RJAT and Article 1 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.

The proceedings contain no defects of nullity.

Thus, there is no obstacle to the examination of the case.

Having considered everything, it falls to pronounce:

II. DECISION

A. FACTUAL MATTERS

A.1. Facts established as proven

In its tax return for period 201506T, the Claimant declared entitlement to VAT refund in the amount of €58,000.00, triggering inspection proceedings with service orders No.... ... and ....

In the said inspection proceedings there is an opinion from the Team Leader, which states that:

"2) The inspection proceedings aimed at analysing the VAT refund request submitted in period 201506T in the amount of €58,000.00. As inaccuracies were verified in 2013 and 2014, the inspection proceedings were extended to these years.

  1. From the analysis carried out, it was verified:

4-1) In respect of VAT

  • Total dismissal of the refund request submitted in period 201506T in the amount of €58,000.00, given that the same results from a regularisation carried out by the taxpayer in period 201412T and related to VAT for the periods from 2000 to 2003, which were corrected in inspection proceedings and generated assessment No. ... in the amount of €70,862.70.

This assessment was subject to a request for revision of tax acts, and it was determined in information No. 23 from the Collection Service Directorate that the taxpayer was entitled to a credit of €58,021.77, and the manner of recovering this credit would be through partial cancellation of the additional assessment No... in the value of €70,862.70 to the value of €12,840.93, a decision which awaited resolution of the contestation proceedings.

Thus, given that the situation will be remedied by partial cancellation of the additional assessment, dismissal of the refund request is proposed, since otherwise the taxpayer would be compensated twice."

In the Tax Inspection Report (RIT) issued in final form, the following corrections were determined:

[Content from inspection report referenced in original document]

From the RIT, it further appears, among other things, the following:

[Additional content from inspection report referenced in original document]

Following the said inspection proceedings, official VAT assessments No..., for period 1512T, No..., for period 1509T, No..., for period 1506T, No..., for period 1503T, No..., for period 1309T and No..., for period 1403T were issued on 29-08-2016.

On 10-10-2016, the Claimant filed a request for administrative reconsideration relating to the following official VAT assessments No..., for period 1512T, No..., for period 1509T, No..., for period 1506T, No..., for period 1503T, No..., for period 1309T and No..., for period 1403T.

The said administrative reconsideration was filed on 17-10-2016, under number ...2016....

In the said administrative reconsideration, the Claimant concluded the following:

[Content from administrative reconsideration referenced in original document]

From the decision on the said administrative reconsideration, the following appears:

[Content from administrative reconsideration decision referenced in original document]

Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Claimant filed, in respect of the same, a Hierarchical Appeal, which was filed on 18-01-2017, under number ...20171....

The decision on the said Hierarchical Appeal considered that the Claimant had not presented new arguments and concluded by dismissing the same.

On 7 March 2010, the Claimant filed a request for official revision (Process No. R...), the object of which was the VAT assessment act No..., the same having been referred to the VAT Service Directorate, where the following information was provided, information which was subject to an endorsement dispatch from the Deputy Director General of the said Directorate, dated 06-06-2012:

[Content from official revision information referenced in original document]

The Claimant brought an action of contestation against the VAT assessment act No... before the Administrative and Tax Court of Beja, with the process number being assigned .../10...BEBJA.

In the context of process No. .../10...BEBJA, the following factual situation was established as proven:

"A) The Appellant was subject to a partial scope tax inspection action covering the fiscal years 2003 to 2006, by reference to CIT and VAT (cf. pages 25 of the appended administrative tax procedure);

B) On 31/10/2007, the tax inspection report was prepared, from the content of which it is extracted, in particular, «... It is thus shown to be lacking, due to undue deduction, the following tax:

[Content from court decision referenced in original document]

C) On 26/05/2008, the Appellant filed a request for administrative reconsideration of the VAT assessment act No..., relating to fiscal year 2005 (cf. pages 3 of the appended administrative reconsideration procedure);

D) On 04/07/2008, by dispatch of the Head of Division, with delegation of powers from the Finance Director of ..., the administrative reconsideration filed by the Appellant was dismissed (cf. unnumbered pages of the appended administrative reconsideration process);

E) The dispatch identified in the previous subparagraph was communicated to the Appellant by letter No..., dated 11/07/2008, sent by registered mail with return receipt, with receipt slip number RO...PT (cf. unnumbered pages of the appended administrative reconsideration process);

F) Letter No. ... was received on 15/07/2008 (cf. unnumbered pages of the appended administrative reconsideration process and agreement of the parties)

G) The present contestation was submitted to the Finance Service of ... by fax and registered mail on 07/09/2010 (cf. pages 3 of the proceedings)."

In the said proceedings, a decision was rendered to the effect of dismissal of the claim with the following grounds:

"(...) there is verified the peremptory exception of forfeiture of the right of action, which prevents the examination of the defects charged by the Appellant to the assessment act (as they are generative of voidability), and results in the absolution of the Treasury from the claim, which, ultimately, is determined."

The now Claimant appealed the said judgment before the Central Administrative Court South, and an Judgment was rendered denying the appeal, maintaining the appealed decision.

Subsequently, the Claimant filed an exceptional review appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court, which was not admitted by decision rendered on 21 June 2017.

A.2. Facts established as not proven

With relevance to the decision, there are no facts that should be considered as not proven.

A.3. Reasoning of proven and unproven factual matters

With respect to factual matters, the Tribunal is not required to pronounce itself on everything alleged by the parties; rather, it is its duty to select the facts that matter for the decision and to distinguish proven from unproven matters (cf. Article 123, paragraph 2, of the CPPT and Article 607, paragraph 3 of the CPC, applicable ex vi Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and e), of the RJAT).

Thus, the facts pertinent to the judgment of the case are selected and defined according to their legal relevance, which is established in consideration of the various plausible solutions of the question(s) of Law (cf. former Article 511, paragraph 1, of the CPC, corresponding to current Article 596, applicable ex vi Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraph e), of the RJAT).

Thus, taking into account the positions assumed by the parties, in light of Article 110/7 of the CPPT, the documentary evidence and the administrative procedure attached to the record, it was considered proven, with relevance to the decision, the facts listed above, having regard to the fact that, as was written in the Judgment of the TCA-South of 26-06-2014, rendered in process 07148/13, "the probative value of the tax inspection report (...) may have probative force if the assertions contained therein are not contested".

No probative status was assigned, whether proven or unproven, to allegations made by the parties and presented as facts, consisting of statements that are strictly conclusory, incapable of proof, and whose truthfulness must be assessed in relation to the concrete factual matters consolidated above.

B. ON THE LAW

a. On matters of exception

The Respondent begins by raising the material incompetence of the CAAD to recognise the alleged right to refund.

As was written in process 168/2015-T of the CAAD, which is now, with due respect, transcribed:

"That is, for there to be a limitation on the contestability of the contested assessment acts, some administrative act would have to have been previously practised which was a prerequisite of these assessment acts, which did not occur in the case at hand.

For this reason, being the assessment acts injurious to the interests of the Claimant and being the only acts practised by the tax administration regarding the situation examined therein, their contentious contestability must be assured on the grounds of any illegality, as follows from the principle of effective judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 20, paragraph 1, and 268, paragraph 4, of the Constitution.

On the other hand, when there is no separately contestable act prior to an assessment act addressing its prerequisites, 'any illegality previously committed may be invoked in the contestation of the final decision' (final part of Article 54 of the CPPT), whereby all questions relating to the legality of assessment acts may be examined in tax tribunals in proceedings of judicial contestation, as follows from subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 97 and Article 99 of the same Code.

In fact, in tax tribunals, even when, having been practised assessment acts, there is a situation in which it might be more useful for the taxpayer to use the action for recognition of a right or legitimate interest (by enabling, in addition to examination of the legality of acts, the definition for the future of the taxpayer's rights), the use of the action instead of judicial contestation is a mere option, as follows from the very text of Article 145, paragraph 3, of the CPPT, which states that 'actions may only be brought whenever this procedural means is the most adequate to ensure full, effective and efficient protection of the right or legally protected interest'. That is, what is provided in this norm is a limitation on the use of the action and not a limitation on the use of judicial contestation proceedings.

In fact, it is manifest that judicial contestation proceedings include the possibility of recognition of rights in tax matters, such as the right to annulment or declaration of voidness of assessments, the right to indemnity interest and the right to indemnification for undue security, whereby the fact that recognition of rights is at issue is no obstacle to the use of judicial contestation proceedings.

Thus, as the Tax and Customs Authority states, with the tax arbitral proceeding having been created as an alternative to judicial contestation proceedings, it is to be concluded that there is no obstacle to the legality of the assessment acts in question in this proceeding being examined by this Arbitral Tribunal, since in tax tribunals such legality could be examined in judicial contestation proceedings.

For this reason, as regards the request for annulment of the assessment acts, the exception of material incompetence raised by the Tax and Customs Authority on the ground that recognition of a right in tax matters is at issue is without merit."

Effectively, the competence of the Tribunal in judicial contestation proceedings, and consequently in tax arbitral proceedings, is ascertained as a function of the act(s) that form its object.

In the present case, the request formulated by the Claimant is clear in the sense of "annulment of the additional VAT assessment in the record", with the pretension of refund of the tax being a consequence attributed by the Claimant to the intended annulment of the assessment act.

Being this Tribunal, unquestionably, competent to examine the legality of assessment acts that are the object of the present tax arbitral action, in light of their respective grounds, and not seeing reason to differ from the learned exposition in the cited judgment, rather fully subscribing to what was therein expounded, the exception of material incompetence raised by the Respondent is judged without merit.

The Respondent further alleges the existence of res judicata, in that "the here Claimant brought an action of contestation (Process No. .../10...BEBJA) against the VAT assessment act No...".

With respect to the exception of res judicata, Article 580/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "The exceptions of lis pendens and res judicata presuppose the repetition of a cause; if the cause is repeated while the earlier one is still pending, lis pendens exists; if the repetition occurs after the first cause has been decided by judgment which no longer admits of ordinary appeal, the exception of res judicata exists."

Further, Article 581 of the same statute provides:

"1 - A cause is repeated when an action identical to another is brought as to the parties, the claim and the cause of action.

2 - There is identity of parties when the parties are the same from the point of view of their legal capacity.

3 - There is identity of claim when in both causes the same legal effect is sought.

4 - There is identity of cause of action when the pretension put forward in both actions proceeds from the same legal fact. In real actions, the cause of action is the legal fact from which the real right derives; in constitutive actions and actions of annulment, it is the concrete fact or specific voidness invoked to obtain the desired effect."

First and foremost, it must be borne in mind that, insofar as it is the Respondent that invokes the exception now in question, it would be incumbent on the Respondent to demonstrate the prerequisites thereof, which, as follows from the norms transcribed above, consist in the "repetition of a cause," which occurs "when an action identical to another is brought as to the parties, the claim and the cause of action."

If as to the identity of parties there is no doubt as to its verification, the same cannot be said as to the identity of claim and cause of action.

In effect, in tax actions of contestatory nature, as is the case here and as is known, the cause of action is the illegality of the contested tax act. Thus there would only be identity of claim and cause of action between the present action and process No. .../10...BEBJA, if the contested tax act were the same and the illegalities invoked were also equal. A situation which, it is repeated, it would be incumbent on the party invoking lis pendens to demonstrate.

Now, in process No..../10...BEBJA, the examination of the legality of VAT assessment act No. ... was at issue, whereas in the present arbitral proceeding the examination of illegalities relating to the assessments identified above in the report of the present decision is at issue.

This suffices – the lack of identity of the object – for the invoked lis pendens not to exist, an exception which, as such, is without merit.

Having arrived at this point, it falls to examine the merits of the case.

The Claimant maintains that the additional assessments that are the object of the present arbitral action violate both the applicable law and the decisions of the VAT Service Directorate, namely the dispatch of the Deputy Director General dated 20-10-2010, notified on 10-10-2011.

With respect to the first of the stated grounds, it is found that the Claimant does not specify any rule that has been violated by the tax acts in question.

Thus, and given that the powers of cognition of this Tribunal are limited to the matter relating to the specific questions raised (cf., among other things, Article 28/1/c) of the RJAT), no violation of any legal rule being alleged, and no ground for annulment being apparent ex officio, the first allegation of the Claimant cannot succeed.

As for the alleged illegality arising from the supposed violation of the dispatch of the Deputy Director General dated 20-10-2010, notified on 10-10-2011, it is judged that the same arises from a procedural misunderstanding on the part of the Claimant.

With respect to this dispatch, it is noted that the same was not submitted by the Claimant, nor does it appear in the administrative file.

Notwithstanding, it follows from the proven facts that there was a request for official revision, filed by the Claimant, which had as its object the VAT assessment act No. ... and which had the decision contained in point 12 of the factual matters.

Pursuant to such decision, it was determined to await the decision of the judicial contestation proceeding brought by the Claimant, which had as its object that same VAT assessment act No..., and which proceeded under the number .../10... BEBJA.

Now, as also follows from the factual matters established, this proceeding No. .../10...BEBJA only ended by judgment of the STA, dated 21 June 2017.

Now, the assessments that are the object of the present arbitral action, as well as of hierarchical appeal No. ...2017... and of administrative reconsideration No. ...2016..., are dated 29-08-2016, a date at which, therefore, that judicial contestation proceeding was not yet concluded.

Thus, the said judicial contestation proceeding not being concluded at the date of issuance of the assessments in question, it cannot be considered that the same violate what was decided in the context of the official revision proceeding R..., which, as has been seen, determined that it should await the conclusion of the judicial contestation proceeding No. .../10...BEBJA.

The Claimant further alleges that the assessments in question disregard the balance of the VAT current account existing in favour of the taxpayer.

It happens that the said current account balance in question, as follows from the RIT and from the decision on administrative reconsideration, and is not contested by the Claimant, arises from the accounting therein of a deduction in the amount of €58,021.77, corresponding to VAT assessed from 2000 to 2003, VAT which had already been deducted in the return relating to period 2005.09, there being thus a duplication of the deduction, as explicitly set out both in inspection proceedings and in administrative reconsideration proceedings.

Thus, the balance in question arising from a duplication of deductions, there is nothing to censure in the corrections made by the AT now in question, and consequently in the assessments that are the object of the present arbitral action.

Thus, and in light of the foregoing, it is judged that the arbitral claim filed is entirely without merit.

C. DECISION

In these terms, it is decided in this Arbitral Tribunal that the arbitral claim filed is entirely without merit and, in consequence:

  • The Respondent is absolved from the claim;

  • The Claimant is condemned to the costs of the proceeding, in the amount set out below.

D. Value of the proceeding

The value of the proceeding is fixed at €70,000.00, in accordance with Article 97-A, paragraph 1, a), of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, applicable by virtue of subparagraphs a) and b) of paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the RJAT and paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.

E. Costs

The arbitration fee is fixed at €2,448.00, in accordance with Table I of the Regulation of Costs of Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be paid by the Claimant, in view of the fact that the claim was entirely without merit, in accordance with Articles 12, paragraph 2, and 22, paragraph 4, both of the RJAT, and Article 4, paragraph 4, of the said Regulation.

Notice to be given.

Lisbon, 19 May 2018

The Presiding Arbitrator

(José Pedro Carvalho)

The Arbitrator Member

(Ana Luísa Ferreira Cabral Basto)

The Arbitrator Member

(José Coutinho Pires)

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

What are VAT arithmetic corrections (correcções aritméticas) under Portuguese tax law?
VAT arithmetic corrections (correcções aritméticas) under Portuguese tax law refer to adjustments made by the Tax Authority when discrepancies are found between amounts declared by taxpayers and what should have been declared according to legal requirements. These corrections typically arise during inspection proceedings when tax inspectors identify calculation errors, incorrect VAT rates applied, improperly claimed deductions, or refund requests based on irregular regularizations. Article 86 of the VAT Code (CIVA) authorizes the Tax Authority to make such corrections and issue official assessments. Arithmetic corrections must be substantiated in Tax Inspection Reports (RIT) and can result from comparing declared amounts against supporting documentation, invoices, and accounting records. Taxpayers can challenge these corrections through administrative reconsideration, hierarchical appeal, and ultimately tax arbitration at CAAD.
Can official VAT assessments (liquidações oficiosas) be challenged through tax arbitration at CAAD?
Yes, official VAT assessments (liquidações oficiosas de IVA) can be challenged through tax arbitration at CAAD (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa). Article 2(1)(a) of the RJAT (Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration) establishes that the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction over acts of tax assessment, including official VAT assessments. The procedure requires filing a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal within the legal deadline, typically after exhausting administrative remedies (reclamação graciosa and recurso hierárquico). The taxpayer must pay the required arbitration fee and specify the grounds for illegality. CAAD arbitration provides an alternative to judicial courts for resolving VAT disputes, offering faster resolution times. The arbitral tribunal has full competence to review the legality of official assessments, including examining whether the Tax Authority correctly applied VAT law, properly calculated amounts, and respected taxpayers' procedural rights.
What is the procedure for filing a hierarchical appeal against a VAT assessment decision in Portugal?
The procedure for filing a hierarchical appeal (recurso hierárquico) against a VAT assessment decision in Portugal follows Article 66 of the General Tax Law (LGT) and specific VAT regulations. First, the taxpayer must file an administrative reconsideration (reclamação graciosa) within 120 days of notification of the assessment, as per Article 70 of the CPPT. If the reclamação is denied or partially granted, the taxpayer can file a hierarchical appeal to the superior hierarchical authority within 30 days of notification of the unfavorable decision. The appeal must be submitted through the same tax office that issued the contested decision, clearly identifying the decision being appealed, stating grounds for disagreement, and presenting legal arguments. The hierarchical superior reviews both factual and legal aspects but typically will not re-examine matters already decided unless new arguments or evidence are presented. The decision on hierarchical appeal is final in administrative proceedings, after which taxpayers can pursue judicial review or tax arbitration.
How does a prior decision by the VAT Directorate (Direcção de Serviços do IVA) affect subsequent tax assessments?
A prior decision by the VAT Directorate (Direção de Serviços do IVA) can have significant binding effects on subsequent tax assessments under Portuguese administrative law principles. When the VAT Directorate issues a decision with an endorsement dispatch (despacho de concordância) from a Deputy Director General, this constitutes an authoritative interpretation of VAT law for that specific case. Such decisions create legitimate expectations for taxpayers and should be respected by lower-level tax authorities in subsequent proceedings involving the same facts and legal issues. According to administrative law principles of good faith and legal certainty enshrined in Article 266 of the Portuguese Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Code, tax authorities must act consistently. If a VAT Directorate decision recognizes a tax credit or specific treatment, subsequent assessments that contradict this determination without justified legal grounds may be considered illegal. However, the binding nature depends on whether the prior decision addressed identical factual and legal circumstances and whether it has been revoked or superseded by new legislation or judicial decisions.
What are the grounds for declaring illegality of official VAT assessments in Portuguese tax arbitration proceedings?
Grounds for declaring illegality of official VAT assessments in Portuguese tax arbitration proceedings include: (1) substantive legal violations - incorrect application of VAT Code provisions, wrong VAT rates, or improper denial of deductions; (2) procedural irregularities - failure to provide adequate hearing rights (audiência prévia), insufficient reasoning in assessment notices, or violations of inspection procedure rules; (3) factual errors - assessments based on incorrect facts or without proper evidentiary support; (4) violation of prior administrative decisions - failure to respect binding determinations by superior tax authorities like the VAT Directorate; (5) arithmetic or calculation errors in determining tax amounts; (6) violation of legitimate expectations - when assessments contradict prior tax authority positions relied upon by taxpayers; (7) double taxation - assessments that result in taxing the same income twice; and (8) exceeding statutory limitation periods. The burden of proof generally falls on the Tax Authority to demonstrate the assessment's legality, particularly regarding factual findings supporting the tax correction, as established in Article 74 of the LGT.