Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
REPORT
1.1 A…, S.A., with registered office at …, …, …, unique registration number and collective person identification number…, requested the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, under Article 2, paragraph 1, letter a), and Article 10, both of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of January 20 (hereinafter RJAT).
1.2 The Respondent in these proceedings is the TAX AND CUSTOMS AUTHORITY
1.3 The Deontological Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre (CAAD) appointed the undersigned to form the Singular Arbitral Tribunal, notifying the parties, and the Tribunal was constituted on April 20, 2016.
1.4 The request for arbitral pronouncement concerns the dismissal of the hierarchical appeal presented by the Claimant, in which it sought a declaration of illegality of the tax act assessing Corporate Income Tax (IRC) in 2013…, relating to the fiscal year 2011.
The Claimant invokes the illegality of the assessment which resulted from a tax inspection action, in which the Tax Authority concluded that the Respondent should have subjected, but did not subject, to autonomous taxation certain costs/expenses resulting from "events, which consisted, essentially, of receptions to its clients and other persons, which included expenses for accommodation, food, entertainment, rental of spaces, etc., and which were aimed at the presentation and promotion of its products", as well as "expenses incurred with a trip to Mexico".
The Claimant disagrees with the qualification of such costs as representation expenses and subsequent subjection to autonomous taxation and, on the other hand, even if it were, considers that the Tax Authority recognized the indispensability of such costs, whereby it contends that the presumption of partial "business character" that underlies the autonomous taxation of such expenses is rebutted.
The Claimant contends that the contested assessment is illegal and should, therefore, be annulled.
Furthermore, the Claimant petitions for the condemnation of the Respondent to reimburse the amounts paid by force of the contested assessment, plus compensatory interest on all amounts paid accrued until the date of reimbursement.
1.5 The TAX AND CUSTOMS AUTHORITY responded, defending itself by opposition, arguing that the referred expenses are classifiable under Article 88 of the CIRC and that the presumption of partial "business character" underlying those taxations is not rebuttable.
Whereby it considers that the contested assessment does not suffer from any illegality and concludes that the Claimant's claims should be judged unfounded.
1.6 Notified of the Tribunal's intention to waive the holding of the arbitral tribunal meeting provided for in Article 18 of the RJAT, the production of witness evidence and submissions, the parties did not oppose.
SANITATION
The Tribunal was regularly constituted and is competent ratione materiae, in conformity with Article 2 of the RJAT.
The parties have legal standing and capacity, prove themselves legitimate and are regularly represented.
The proceedings do not suffer from any vices that would invalidate it.
FACTUAL MATTER
With relevance for the decision on the merits, the Tribunal considers the following factuality proved:
-
The Claimant is a company engaged in the manufacture, commerce and importation of ceramic products;
-
In the fiscal year 2011, the Claimant held events consisting, essentially, of receptions to its clients, suppliers and other persons, which included expenses for accommodation, food, entertainment, rental of spaces and which were aimed at the presentation and promotion of its products;
-
In the fiscal year 2011 it incurred expenses with a trip to Mexico offered mainly to clients as compensation for purchases made by them from the taxpayer in a certain period of time;
-
The Claimant elected such expenses as deductible costs in the determination of the taxable income for corporate income tax purposes.
-
Regarding the taxation period of 2011, an inspection procedure was carried out, based on service order No. OI2013…, dated 15.03.2013, in Corporate Income Tax, from which resulted technical corrections, by virtue of the qualification of certain costs as representation expenses and subsequent subjection to autonomous taxation, determining a shortfall amount of 34,196.81€ and giving rise to the contested tax assessment;
-
The Claimant proceeded with payment of that amount within the voluntary payment period;
-
The Claimant filed an administrative complaint against the assessment;
-
From the dismissal decision issued on such complaint, the Claimant filed a hierarchical appeal;
-
The appeal was dismissed by decision dated 22.10.2015, which was notified to it on 04.11.2015.
Unproven Facts
No facts were found with relevance for the appraisal of the merits of the case that were not proved.
Grounds of the Decision on Factual Matter
The conviction regarding the facts given as proved was based on the documentary evidence submitted by the Claimant, whose authenticity and correspondence to reality were not contested by the Respondent, as well as on the grounds of the Tax Inspection Report.
QUESTION TO BE DECIDED: ON THE LEGALITY OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS IN DISPUTE
The question submitted to the appraisal of the Arbitral Tribunal is that of ascertaining the illegality of the corporate income tax assessments sub judice.
In the terms in which the Claimant frames its claim, the illegality of the assessment would be grounded on:
a) The expenses resulting from "events, which consisted, essentially, of receptions to its clients and other persons, which included expenses for accommodation, food, entertainment, rental of spaces, etc., and which were aimed at the presentation and promotion of its products" are not representation expenses for purposes of autonomous taxation;
b) The "expenses incurred with a trip to Mexico" are not representation expenses for purposes of autonomous taxation;
c) Should it be understood otherwise, does Article 88 of the CIRC establish a rebuttable presumption of "business character" of such expenses?
d) If so, has the Claimant succeeded in rebutting the presumption with respect to expenses with "events, which consisted, essentially, of receptions to its clients and other persons, which included expenses for accommodation, food, entertainment, rental of spaces, etc., and which were aimed at the presentation and promotion of its products" and/or with respect to "expenses incurred with a trip to Mexico"?
The Tribunal, should it find the assessment to be illegal, is further called upon to pronounce itself on the right to compensatory interest on the amounts paid as a consequence of the contested assessment.
It is therefore necessary to decide on the merits of the request for arbitral decision relating to the corporate income tax assessment sub judice and the eventual right of the Claimant to compensatory interest.
Let us see:
In recent decades, profound reforms of business taxation have been carried out, both at European and Portuguese level.
It is commonly recognized the weight that companies have in the economy of each country and, for that reason, the tendency has been to reduce the taxation of corporate income.
In Portugal, companies are taxed fundamentally by their actual income, calculated in accordance with the terms provided for in the CIRC.
The taxation regimes have important impact on business decisions, both present and future.
That consideration will be made taking into account income tax, properly speaking, as well as autonomous taxations, which apply to certain expenses in the form and to the extent that the legislator understood them to be apt to pursue objectives of combating tax evasion.
The system of autonomous taxations is the result of numerous legislative amendments. The subjection of certain expenses to autonomous taxation arose with Decree-Law No. 192/90, of June 2, in a context of penalizing the taxation of confidential or undocumented expenses incurred by companies.
It was only with the 2001 tax reform that autonomous taxation was extended to representation expenses and to motor vehicle expenses and, thereafter, to a very diverse set of realities in the terms that are found today in the CIRC in Chapter IV relating to rates, together with the State Surtax.
Taking into account Article 88 of the CIRC, autonomous taxation applies, broadly speaking, to the following realities: undocumented expenses; motor vehicle charges; representation expenses; daily allowances; amounts paid to non-residents; profits distributed by entities subject to Corporate Income Tax to taxpayers who benefit from exemption; expenses or charges relating to indemnifications or any compensation owed not related to the contractual relationship; and also expenses or charges relating to bonuses and other variable remunerations paid to managers, administrators or partners.
At first sight, there appears to be no relationship between these expenses, neither as to object nor as to beneficiary, of what we will generically refer to as expenses (with the only exception being, in fact, distributed profits).
The State Budget Law for 2014 introduced some changes in the provision of autonomous taxations, which, however, were not only not especially relevant but do not offer contribution to the present discussion.
There are autonomous taxations provided for in the CIRC and autonomous taxations provided for in the CIRS. As regards Corporate Income Tax, which is at issue here, Article 23-A, paragraph 1, letter a), of the CIRC, in the wording of Law No. 2/2014, of January 16, leaves no room for any reasonable doubt, corroborating what had already previously resulted from the literal content of Article 12 of the same Code[1]. The collection provided by them constitutes collection of the respective tax, being subject to the generality of norms provided for in the referred codes, potentially applicable.
Contrary to what is sometimes argued, autonomous taxations do not constitute, in our view, in their genesis, special taxes on consumption, with each expense corresponding to a taxable event, of instantaneous formation.
In the first place, because such a conception would force, in Corporate Income Tax, that its respective constitutionality be examined in light of the principle of taxation by the actual income of companies and, on the other hand, because there is not here truly a manifestation of wealth that should be taxed, besides which many of the subject expenses are also deductible, thus recognizing that they relate to the activity of the company and not to expenses that manifest contributory capacity.
Autonomous taxations are grounded in the presumption of the existence of income that ceased to be taxed, not only under Corporate Income Tax but also under Personal Income Tax. As explained in the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal issued No. 209/2013-T, which decided negatively on the question of the deductibility of autonomous taxations as a fiscal cost under Corporate Income Tax, "it is a matter of "(…) a way of, indirectly and through the expense, taxing income".
The portion of Corporate Income Tax collection that derives from autonomous taxations is calculated from the elements of the tax defined in Article 88 of the CIRC inserted in 'Chapter IV – Rates'.
This article delimits the taxable base of autonomous taxations, on one hand, and, on the other hand, enumerates the rates of autonomous taxations, which are various, depending on the nature of the taxable base to which they apply; by depending on the type of taxpayer (e.g., entity without profit motive, exempt entities, entity that carries out a commercial, industrial or agricultural activity as its principal activity), and are also dependent on the actual economic performance of the Corporate Income Tax taxpayer, as they assume different percentages when a tax profit or loss is determined.
The collection derived from autonomous taxations is a function of the taxable result, being calculated from two expressions which are the product of the taxable base by a rate dependent on the taxable result: a higher rate when a tax loss is determined and another, lower, when the taxable result is positive.
Thus, the collection deriving from autonomous taxations cannot be determined in an instantaneous manner and immediately following the incurrence of the expense, as it depends on the result itself, which is of successive formation.
The purpose of autonomous taxations is dual. They aim to tax actual income, thus correcting taxable income to approximate it to that actual income and, at the same time, they seek to penalize taxpayers who through the realization of certain expenses end up reducing taxable income.
The matter at issue is unequivocally complex, resulting from a succession of legislative amendments in a context of economic degradation, through which the system, as can be read in Constitutional Court Decision 617/12, shows its dual nature, with an aggravated rate of autonomous taxation for certain special situations that are sought to be discouraged, creating a sort of presumption that these costs do not have a business purpose and, for that reason, are subject to autonomous taxation. "In summary", says the Constitutional Court, "the cost is deductible, but autonomous taxation reduces its tax advantage, since here the basis of assessment is not a net income, but rather an expense transformed – exceptionally – into an object of taxation.".
The taxable event of the tax is the very realization of the expense, emphasizes that decision, but taxation still occurs within the scope of Corporate Income Tax. It is not only in the case of autonomous taxations, moreover, that income taxes contemplate elements of sole obligation, as happens with Personal Income Tax liberatory rates, but we are not here, in strict terms, before a sole obligation tax, rather before taxable events that affecting deductible expenses are indissolubly linked to the determination and collection of the tax.
That is, autonomous taxations are inseparable from the subjects of the income tax in question, and more specifically, from the economic activity carried out by them, which is even more evident when one thinks about the link that, although it has varied in successive legislative amendments, autonomous taxations (had and still have) with deductibility – and the actual deduction – of the taxed expenses.
This circumstance, it is believed, is elucidative of the imbrication existing between those and Corporate Income Tax (in this case), and justificatory not only of their inclusion in the CIRC, but equally of their integration, as of full right, as part of the legal regime of Corporate Income Tax.
In fact, not only are expenses incurred only by Corporate Income Tax taxpayers that are subject to the imposition of autonomous taxation in such a framework, as such expenses will only be subject to it, as a rule (without prejudice, it is reiterated, to legislative advances and retreats in this matter) if those taxpayers elect them as deductible expenses in the determination of the taxable income of such tax.
One must, furthermore, take into account that the norm of Article 45 of the CIRC is situated in a context of broad legislative discretion. That is, in the definition of what constitutes deductible or non-deductible charges for tax purposes, the tax legislator enjoys broad implementing freedom. Hence, it cannot be said that it is forbidden to the legislator, by the "nature" of autonomous taxations, to exclude them from deductible charges for tax purposes.
It is understood, in this manner, that it will be legitimate for the legislator to include or exclude the autonomous taxations that concern us from that category of deductible charges for tax purposes, regardless of the "nature" that doctrine or case law may discover in them.
The question, properly situated, will then be that of determining what the legislator's intention is, as expressed in the legislative text, understood as a whole.
And from this perspective, the combination of the content of Article 12 of the CIRC with Article 45/1/a) of the same, will leave little doubt as to the legislative understanding that autonomous taxations, if they do not constitute Corporate Income Tax strictly speaking, will surely be integrated into the regime of that tax, and will be owed on that basis.
Moreover, there is no obstacle in principle to the legislator isolating certain types of income and applying specific or differentiated rates to them, as occurs, for example, in the cases provided for in paragraph 4 of the current CIRC.
Equally, there is no obstacle in principle to the tax in question being due, collected and paid, not as a function of a period (more or less long) of taxation, but by force of the occurrence of instantaneous events, as already occurs, for example, in the cases of withholding at source with a definitive character (cf. Article 94/3 of the CIRC).
For the rest, even the result, apparently so counterintuitive and striking, of being able to be due the payment of tax through the autonomous taxations now in question, even in case of non-existence of a (positive) income at the end of the taxation period, is not an uncommon thing in the regime of Corporate Income Tax.
In fact, in some of the already pointed out cases of withholding at source on a definitive basis, it may occur that the holder of income subject to that withholding has had expenses exceeding the income.
Also in the case of the operationality of some of the specific anti-abuse clauses (Articles 63 to 67 of the CIRC), by force of the consideration of costs, it may occur that taxpayers are taxed on a fictitious taxable profit, to the extent that it may be a matter of disregard of costs, effectively incurred, but disregarded as abusive. It may thus be the case that a taxpayer must pay Corporate Income Tax, despite having had, in reality, losses.
Everything that has been said demonstrates that the evolution of the legal regime of Corporate Income Tax has transmuted it, transforming it into a complex and multifaceted reality, at the most diverse levels, which is reflected, in the matter that concerns us in these proceedings, in that duality of nature, which does not prejudice, however, that it be considered that the system, despite being dual, is the same.
It is recognized here, evidently, those characteristics that doctrine has been pointing out for some years now to the autonomous taxations in question, such as:
a) autonomous taxation only makes sense because the costs/expenses are relevant as negative components of the taxable profit of Corporate Income Tax and it is that which motivates Corporate Income Tax taxpayers to report as high a value as possible of those expenses to reduce the taxable base of Corporate Income Tax, the collection and, consequently, the tax to be paid;
b) it is intended to treat unfavorably those expenses that, by their nature, are easily diverted from private consumption to business consumption;
c) it is intended to discourage that type of expenses in taxpayers that present negative results, but that continue to evidence consumption structures difficult to reconcile with the financial health of their companies;
d) it is intended to model the tax system so that it reveals a certain balance having in view a better distribution of the effective tax burden among taxpayers and types of income;
e) it materializes in the recognition that it is not easy to determine the exact measure of the component of some of those expenses that corresponds to private consumption.
Autonomous taxations now in question are, as such, undoubtedly understood by the legislator as a way of preventing certain abusive actions, which the normal functioning of the taxation system was incapable of preventing or which would be more burdensome or troublesome for the tax administration or, even, possibly, for the taxpayer.
This anti-abuse character of autonomous taxations will be not only coherent with its "anti-systemic" nature (as happens with all norms of the sort), as with a presumptive nature.
In this perspective, as the decision issued by the Arbitral Tribunal in case 187/2013-T well states, the autonomous taxations under analysis will then have underlying a presumption of partial business character of the expenses on which they apply, in function of the above pointed circumstance that such expenses are situated in a gray line that separates what is business expense, productive, from what is private expense, consumption, and which, notoriously, in many cases, the expense will even actually have a dual nature (part business, part private).
Confronted with this difficulty, the legislator, instead of simply removing its deductibility, or inverting the burden of proof of the relation of the expenses in question to business activity, opted for establishing the regime currently in force.
If it is a matter of a presumption of partial "business character", this should, in coherence, be considered as covered by the possibility of rebuttal arising from Article 73 of the General Tax Law, according to which presumptions established in tax incidence norms always admit evidence to the contrary.
With respect to the case at hand, at issue is the applicability of the provision in paragraph 7 of Article 88 of the CIRC[2] "are taxed autonomously at the rate of 10% the deductible charges relating to representation expenses, being considered as such, in particular, the expenses incurred with receptions, meals, trips, outings and shows offered in the Country or abroad to clients or suppliers or to any other persons or entities."
The Corporate Income Tax Code accepts this type of expense as an expense of the fiscal year in its entirety, but they are taxed autonomously at a rate of 10%, to which an additional 10% may be added (becomes 20%) in case the company has a tax loss in that taxation period, which means that in practice part of the expense is not accepted fiscally.
Representation expenses are basically all expenses incurred for representing the company to third parties. This implies that, whenever third parties are involved with the company, such as clients, suppliers and others, the expenses are thus considered. The expenses should be based on a document legally issued.
These expenses are not confused with expenses with travel and accommodation, incurred when we are before charges with transport, stays, meals, incurred with dependent employees of the company for reasons of travel of these outside the workplace through the presentation of a supporting document. This type of expense comprises in particular spending on accommodation and travel (hotel, airplane, train) and food (restaurants, pastry shops, etc.) incurred by employees of the company, at the service of the same, outside the workplace. These expenses will have to be based on a document legally issued to prove its fiscal acceptability. The cost of travel and accommodation expenses are accepted fiscally in full.
They are not confused, as well, representation expenses with daily allowances. These are amounts allocated by the employer to its dependent employees when they travel on the employer's behalf and which are intended to compensate for increased expenses from that travel (food and accommodation) without presentation of the expense document.
In this case, it is imperative that the company can prove the charges actually incurred regarding daily allowances through the travel itinerary record, being necessary to make known the name of the beneficiary, the place to which he traveled, the date of the trip, time and purpose of stay, as well as the daily amount allocated to him, in order to ascertain whether the same exceeds the legal limits of subjection to Personal Income Tax, as well as the value invoiced.
These expenses are subject to autonomous taxation at the rate of 5% and their acceptance as a cost is dependent on the presentation of the referred record, without which the expense is not accepted, nor are they in this case also taxed autonomously except if the company presents a tax loss.
Finally, it differs from compensation for travel in the employee's own vehicle, at the service of the employer – these are expenses that the employer incurs to reimburse the employee for the use of personal vehicle at the service of the company. Also in this case, the company is obliged to prove the charges actually incurred with compensation for use of own vehicle (km), through the travel itinerary record, being necessary to make known the name of the beneficiary, the place to which he traveled, the date of the trip, time and purpose of stay, vehicle registration, as well as the amount paid per kilometer, in order to ascertain whether the same exceeds the legal limits of subjection to Personal Income Tax.
These expenses are subject to autonomous taxation and are conditioned in their fiscal acceptability to the presentation of the referred record.
That is, if there is no supporting record, the expense is not accepted in full, nor are they in this case also taxed autonomously at a rate of 5%, except if the company presents a tax loss.
Here we arrive, let us apply the analysis carried out and the conclusions reached to the case sub judice.
The Claimant argues, in the first instance, that the expenses incurred both with "events..." as well as with "trip to Mexico" are not representation expenses and therefore do not fall within the provision of Article 88 of the CIRC, not being subject to autonomous taxation.
In what it appears to us that it lacks reason. The Claimant's reasoning seems to be based on the fact that the Tax Authority accepted the expenses in dispute, of both groups, as deductible costs, which, in its view, would distance them from the concept of representation expenses and, consequently, from the subjection to autonomous taxation.
The truth is that subjection to autonomous taxation depends, exactly, on the acceptance of the expense as a cost. If it is accepted as a cost, it is taxed autonomously and, if it is not accepted as a cost, as a rule it is also not taxed autonomously (except in cases where it is even when not accepted fiscally as a cost, which happens when the company presents tax losses).
This system is explained precisely by the above-referred idea of partial "business character" of certain expenses and by the legislator's option to tax them under Corporate Income Tax rather than tax them under Personal Income Tax in the sphere of the beneficiaries of the expenses and presupposes that the cost is fiscally deductible, whereby demonstrated is the presupposition for it to be, that of indispensability for the formation of income as it is formulated in Article 23 of the CIRC. Otherwise, it is not, as a rule, even subject to autonomous taxation.
In the case at hand, two groups of expenses are at issue: "events, which consisted, essentially, of receptions to its clients and other persons, which included expenses for accommodation, food, entertainment, rental of spaces, etc., and which were aimed at the presentation and promotion of its products", as well as "expenses incurred with a trip to Mexico".
From the provision of Article 88 it clearly results that the expenses in dispute, both the first and the second group, are representation expenses. Moreover, this is the only interpretation that, in light of the systematic element, permits understanding the regime of the VAT Code in articulation with the CIRC. In accordance with Article 21 of the VAT Code there is also an exclusion of the right to deduction of this type of expenses, when they are not accepted fiscally as a cost.
The VAT Code expressly refers to expenses of transport and business trips of the taxpayer and of its personnel, to expenses relating to accommodation, food, beverages and tobacco and reception expenses, including those relating to the reception of persons outside the company and expenses relating to immovable property or part of immovable property and its equipment, intended mainly for such receptions, to expenses of entertainment and luxury and to expenses of accommodation, food and beverages relating to participation in congresses, fairs, exhibitions, seminars, conferences and similar events.
Being that, in cases where they are accepted, there is no exclusion, but a limitation of the right to deduction occurs, which is explained precisely by the presumption of the partial "business character" of such expenses.
In the case at hand, no doubts can therefore remain that the expenses incurred by the Claimant, both those relating to "events" and those relating to "trips to Mexico", fall within the concept of representation expenses for purposes of the provision of Article 88 of the CIRC. This, without prejudice to their having been considered by the Tax Authority as fiscally deductible costs.
Being – as we understand them to be – representation expenses, it falls upon us to appraise the second possibility, which results from the framing that the Claimant gave to its claim, of non-subjection of these expenses to autonomous taxation: the idea that the presumption underlying these taxations, of partial "business character", is rebuttable and that, being so, the Claimant has succeeded in rebutting it.
With respect to the possibility of rebuttal of the presumption, having analyzed the argumentation that underlies the decision of the arbitral tribunal issued in case No. 628/2014-T cited by the Claimant, we depart from the understanding expressed therein to this extent: in fact, Article 88 of the CIRC does not establish a presumption of partial "business character". If it did, it would undoubtedly be rebuttable under Article 73 of the General Tax Law.
What occurs is that the autonomous taxations of Article 88 of the CIRC, without establishing it, are based, i.e., seek their ratio (or part of it) in a presumption of partial "business character".
But this is not its only ratio, in particular, in what interests in the case at hand. Underlying autonomous taxation is also the legislator's option to tax under Corporate Income Tax rather than to tax under Personal Income Tax in the sphere of the beneficiaries of the expenses in which the company incurred.
Which is not insignificant.
If it were understood that the company could and had succeeded in rebutting the said presumption, it was necessary to find a way to tax the patrimonial increase that had resulted from the realization of such expenses for the respective beneficiaries. By hypothesis, that the Personal Income Tax Code contained a norm that, in that case, would permit considering and forcing the inclusion, in the sphere of the beneficiaries, of the costs incurred by companies as taxable income.
This, because of what we have already set forth above regarding the various reasons by which – agree with it or not – the legislator introduced autonomous taxations: they are, in fact, specific anti-abuse measures, introduced in a context of broad legislative discretion: the legislator can decide what it considers deductible charge (in Corporate Income Tax as in VAT) and what it does not consider, as well as that which, for the reasons already set forth, it accepts as charge on one hand, but taxes on the other.
And, note, the abuse that the system of autonomous taxations intends to prevent is not only that which may occur under Corporate Income Tax in the company that incurs the expense, as that which may occur under income tax for the beneficiary of the expense.
We consider, therefore, that the norm of Article 88 of the CIRC, being based, in part, on a presumption, does not in fact establish any presumption that, therefore, is rebuttable in accordance with Article 73 of the General Tax Law.
Whereby the Claimant's pretension also fails to that extent.
In as much as this arbitral tribunal understands that the contested assessments do not suffer from any defect, the analysis of the request formulated by the Claimant for reimbursement of amounts paid and of the invoked right of the Claimant to compensatory interest is moot.
DECISION
In light of the foregoing, it is decided to judge the Claimant's claims totally unfounded.
The value of the process is set at 34,196.81€ (thirty-four thousand one hundred ninety-six euros and eighty-one cents) in accordance with the provision of Articles 3, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (RCPAT), 97-A, paragraph 1, letter a) of the Code of Tax Procedure (CPPT) and 306 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The amount of costs is set at 1,836.00€ (one thousand eight hundred thirty-six euros), under Article 22, paragraph 4 of the RJAT and Table I annexed to the RCPAT, at the charge of the Claimant, in accordance with the provision of Articles 12, paragraph 2 of the RJAT and 4, paragraph 4 of the RCPAT.
Let notice be given.
Lisbon, July 11, 2016
The Arbitrator
(Eva Dias Costa)
Text prepared by computer, in accordance with Article 131, paragraph 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference of Article 29, paragraph 1, letter e) of the RJAT.
[1] In references to applicable legal provisions, we will refer, whenever there is no express reservation, to the wording of the Personal Income Tax Code that was in force until 31.12.2011, taking into account the transitional provisions of Article 116 of Law No. 64-B/2011, of December 30 which partially amended the wording of that Article 88 and other norms of the CIRC and approved the State Budget for 2012.) and, as well, taking into account the transitional provisions of Article 12 of Law No. 2/2014, of January 16, which carried out the reform of corporate taxation, amending and republishing the Code of Corporate Income Tax.
[2] Always in the wording applicable to the fiscal year in question, in accordance with the terms already described above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created