Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
Report
A - General
A…, S.A., with registered office at…, n.º…–…, …– … Lisbon, with share capital of €1,550,000.00, registered with the Commercial Registry Office of Lisbon under the sole registration and tax identification number … in its capacity as managing company of the investment fund «B…– REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FUND CLOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL», registered with the Portuguese Securities Market Commission, with tax identification number … (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant"), filed on 16.01.2017 a request for constitution of a singular arbitral tribunal in tax matters, which was accepted, seeking: (i) the declaration of nullity of the assessment acts for Municipal Tax on Real Estate Transfers ("IMT") and Stamp Duty ("IS") that were notified to it by documents n.º … and n.º…, respectively, both of 23.11.2016, (doc. n.º 1 attached to the proceedings with the request for arbitral decision) and (ii) the condemnation of the Tax and Customs Authority to pay indemnity interest for the wrongful payment of tax instalments.
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph a) of item 2 of Article 6.º and paragraph b) of item 1 of Article 11.º of Decree-Law n.º 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by Article 228.º of Law n.º 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Council of the Administrative Arbitration Center (CAAD) appointed Nuno Pombo as arbitrator, and the parties, after being duly notified, did not manifest opposition to this appointment.
By order of 25.01.2017, the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") proceeded to appoint Ms. Dr. C… and Ms. Dr. D… to intervene in the present arbitral proceedings, in the name and representation of the Respondent.
In accordance with the provision in paragraph c) of item 1 of Article 11.º of Decree-Law n.º 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by Article 228.º of Law n.º 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 21.03.2017.
On 22.03.2017 the head of service of the Respondent was notified to, if willing, present a reply within 30 days and request additional evidence.
On 28.04.2017 the Respondent presented its reply.
B – Position of the Claimant
The Claimant is the managing company responsible for the management of the investment fund «B…– REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FUND CLOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL», which is a closed real estate investment fund for residential rental (hereinafter referred to as "FUND B…").
As of the date of entry into force of Law n.º 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget Law for 2014), integrated into FUND B… was the real property registered in the property register of the Municipality Union of … and …, municipality of Covilhã, under article n.º…, fraction "O".
Based on the provisions added to Article 8.º (Tax Regime) of the legal regime applicable to Real Estate Investment Funds for Residential Rental (hereinafter "REIFRR"), and the transitional rule contained in Article 236.º of Law n.º 83-C/2013, of 31 December, the now Claimant requested from the Tax and Customs Authority the assessments of IMT and IS (hereinafter "Assessments"), which were paid by the Claimant on 24.11.2016.
The Claimant contends that the Assessments are vitiated by illegality due to violation of the provision in item 3 of Article 103.º of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (hereinafter "CRP").
The IMT and IS, with respect to the factual situation of the case, are taxes of single obligation, which means that at the moment the real property on which the Assessments were levied entered the patrimony of FUND B…, the exemptions provided for in the Tax Regime of the REIFRR as of that date became definitively crystallized in the legal-tax order, given that they were not subject to verification of any subsequent facts or circumstances nor subject to any regime of expiry.
Article 236.º of Law n.º 83-C/2013, of 31 December, by extending the application of the current Tax Regime of the REIFRR "to real properties that were acquired by REIFRR before 1 January 2014, counting, in those cases, the three-year period provided for in item 14 from 1 January 2014" - is violating in a direct and unequivocal manner the constitutionally established principle of non-retroactivity of tax law.
As the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law has the character of a fundamental right, the violation of this right operated by the Assessments entails its nullity, if not even its non-existence.
C – Position of the Respondent
The Respondent, in its reply, defends itself by exception, alleging the material incompetence of the arbitral tribunal to assess the abstract illegality of the Assessments, sustaining the impossibility of setting aside a legal norm based on its unconstitutionality, given that the organs of public administration, unlike what occurs with courts, are not tasked with conducting concrete scrutiny of the constitutionality of laws, which results in the passive illegitimacy of the Respondent.
The Respondent does not accept the suggestion that the Assessments are based on unconstitutional legal norms.
The special regime applicable to REIFRR, approved by Articles 102.º to 104.º of Law n.º 64-A/2008, of 31 December (State Budget Law for 2009), applied to funds established during the five years following the entry into force of that law and to real properties acquired by them in the same period.
The tax regime then in force provided for exemption from IMT for "the acquisition of urban real properties or autonomous fractions of urban real properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing by the investment funds referred to in item 1", and also provided for exemption from IS with respect to "all acts practiced, provided that connected with the transfer of urban real properties intended for permanent housing that occurs as a result of the conversion of the ownership right of these real properties into a rental right over them".
Now, it was required, as can be seen, that the acquisition of the real properties have as their exclusive destination "rental for permanent housing", so the Claimant's assertion that the exemptions in question were not subject to verification of any subsequent facts or circumstances is not accurate.
Item 14 of Article 8.º of the Tax Regime of the REIFRR served to specify the meaning of the expression "urban real properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing", considering that "urban real properties are intended for rental for permanent housing whenever they are the object of a rental contract for permanent housing within three years counted from the moment they became part of the fund's patrimony", and a regime for cessation of the benefit was then established in case the legal requirement contained in item 14 was not observed.
The aforementioned item 14 of Article 8.º of the Tax Regime of the REIFRR did not alter the ratio of the consecrated exemptions. It merely densified the concept, in non-innovative terms and by establishing an appropriately broad period so that the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations would not be violated.
In fact, the exemptions in question did not simply cease to be in force: what happened was that criteria were established to specify a legal requirement provided for in indeterminate terms. Furthermore, in the concrete case, cessation of the benefit could always occur in case, as a result of a supervisory action, it was verified that the prerequisites on which the law makes its granting depend were not met.
It makes no sense, therefore, to speak of authentic or proper retroactivity, since the new law did not simply determine, without more, that previously acquired real properties would be subject to taxation in the context of IMT and IS.
For all the foregoing, the Respondent should also not be condemned to pay indemnity interest to the Claimant, since the error cannot be imputed to the Tax Authority services that, by itself, determined the payment of a tax debt in an amount superior to that legally due.
D – Conclusion of Report and Case Management
By order of 17.07.2017, the arbitral tribunal dispensed with the hearing provided for in Article 18.º of the Legal Regime of Arbitration in Tax Matters (LRAT), given that it was its understanding that the parties had brought to the proceedings all the factual elements necessary and sufficient for the issuance of the decision, and the parties were invited to present their written arguments, which both did, reiterating what they had already sustained in the pleadings previously presented.
The parties possess personality and legal capacity and have standing pursuant to Article 4.º and item 2 of Article 10.º of the LRAT, and Article 1.º of Ordinance n.º 112-A/2011, of 22 March.
The cumulation of claims made in the present request for arbitral decision, in homage to the principle of procedural efficiency, is justified given that Article 3.º of the LRAT, by expressly admitting the possibility of "cumulation of claims even if relating to different acts", when the success of the claims depends essentially on the assessment of the same factual circumstances and on the interpretation and application of the same principles or rules of law, also accommodates, without hermeneutical abuse, the assessment of a claim that follows, in necessary terms, from the judgment that the arbitral tribunal sustains regarding the validity of the assessments put in issue.
The proceedings do not suffer from any nullity. The Respondent, however, raised exceptions of material incompetence of the arbitral tribunal to assess the abstract illegality of the Assessments, by alleged unconstitutionality of the legal norm that authorizes them and, consequently, the passive illegitimacy of the Respondent, so it is necessary to assess them forthwith.
The exceptions of material incompetence of the arbitral tribunal and passive illegitimacy of the Respondent
As stated, the Respondent expresses the understanding that the Claimant requests the assessment of the abstract illegality of the Assessments, by alleged unconstitutionality of the legal norm that authorizes them, sustaining that the Constitutional Court is the competent forum to know both the illegality and the unconstitutionality of legal norms [Articles 280.º, item 2, paragraphs a) and d) and 281.º, item 1, paragraphs a) and b) and item 3 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic and Articles 6.º and 66.º of the Law of the Constitutional Court].
Unless we are mistaken, the Respondent is not correct. What is requested of this arbitral tribunal is not that it declare the unconstitutionality of the norms that authorize the disputed assessment acts. What is at issue is whether the Assessments are, or are not, valid, and this judgment depends on another one that ascertains, in concreto, the harmony of these assessments with the legal order, considered in its entirety. The reading that the Respondent makes of the claim is so reductive that it would seem impossible for any organ of a jurisdictional nature, as this arbitral tribunal is, to judge a legal norm as unconstitutional outside the process of abstract scrutiny of unconstitutionality. As it is clear to see, this reading cannot prevail.
Thus, this arbitral tribunal considers itself to be materially competent to assess the claim, and consequently the question of the passive illegitimacy of the Respondent does not arise, given that there is no substantive issue in the scope of abstract assessment of unconstitutionality.
Factual Matters
3.1. Proven facts
The following facts are considered proven:
As of the date of entry into force of Law n.º 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget Law for 2014), integrated into FUND B… was the real property registered in the property register of the Municipality Union of … and …, municipality of Covilhã, under article n.º…, fraction "O" (the "Property"), which was subsequently alienated (consensus of the Parties).
The acquisition of the Property benefited from exemption from IMT and IS under paragraph a) of item 7 and item 8 of Article 8º (tax regime) of the legal regime of the REIFRR, respectively – (consensus of the Parties).
The Claimant requested from the Respondent the assessment of IMT and IS, which were notified to it by documents n.º…, in the amount of € 710.00 (seven hundred and ten euros), and n.º…, in the amount of € 568.00 (five hundred and sixty-eight euros), respectively, both of 23.11.2016 (doc. n.º 1, attached with the request for arbitral decision).
The Claimant proceeded to fully pay both assessments of IMT and IS better identified in 3.1.3. on 24.11.2016 (doc. n.º 2, attached with the request for arbitral decision).
3.2. Unproven facts
It was not proven that between the acquisition of the Property by the Claimant until its alienation it was the subject of any contract for rental for permanent housing.
Legal Matters
4.1. Questions to decide
From what has been stated above, it follows that, ultimately, there are two questions to assess:
Whether the acquisition of the Property, which occurred before 01.01.2014, can be taxed by reason of the Property having been sold before the three-year period counted from 01.01.2014 had elapsed, without it ever having been the subject of a contract for rental for permanent housing;
To clarify whether, in case the request for declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of the Assessments is deemed well-founded, the Claimant, within the scope of the present arbitral proceedings, may obtain the condemnation of the Respondent to pay indemnity interest.
4.2. Applicable law
Integrated in Chapter X, dedicated to tax benefits, Law n.º 64-A/2008, of 31 December, by its Articles 102.º to 104.º, approved the special regime applicable to REIFRR. Article 8.º of that special regime established the respective tax regime, with items 7 and 8 of that provision dedicated to IMT and IS, respectively:
7 - The following are exempt from IMT:
a) The acquisition of urban real properties or autonomous fractions of urban real properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing by the investment funds referred to in item 1;
b) The acquisition of urban real properties or autonomous fractions of urban real properties intended for own and permanent housing, as a result of the exercise of the purchase option referred to in item 3 of Article 5.º by the tenants of real properties that form part of the patrimony of the investment funds referred to in item 1.
8 - The following are exempt from stamp duty: all acts practiced, provided that connected with the transfer of urban real properties intended for permanent housing that occurs as a result of the conversion of the ownership right of these real properties into a rental right over them, as well as with the exercise of the purchase option provided for in item 3 of Article 5.º.
Article 235.º of Law n.º 83-C/2013, of 31 December added to the Tax Regime of the REIFRR (Article 8.º) items 14 to 16:
14 - For the purposes of the provisions in items 6 to 8, it is considered that urban real properties are intended for rental for permanent housing whenever they are the object of a rental contract for permanent housing within a period of three years counted from the moment they became part of the fund's patrimony, and the taxpayer must communicate and provide proof to the Tax Authority of the respective actual rental, within 30 days following the end of said period.
15 - When real properties have not been the object of a rental contract within the three-year period provided for in the previous item, the exemptions provided for in items 6 to 8 cease to have effect, and in that case the taxpayer must request from the Tax Authority, within 30 days following the end of said period, the assessment of the respective tax.
16 - Should the real properties be alienated, with the exception of cases provided for in Article 5.º, or should the REIFRR be the object of liquidation, before the period provided for in item 14 has elapsed, the taxpayer must likewise request from the Tax Authority, before the alienation of the real property or the liquidation of the REIFRR, the assessment of the tax due pursuant to the previous item.
For its part, item 236.º of Law n.º 83-C/2013, of 31 December established the following transitional regime within the scope of the special regime applicable to REIFRR:
1 - The provision in items 14 to 16 of Article 8.º of the special regime applicable to REIFRR and SIIH, approved by Articles 102.º to 104.º of Law n.º 64-A/2008, of 31 December, applies to real properties that were acquired by REIFRR as of 1 January 2014.
2 - Without prejudice to what is provided for in the previous item, the provision in items 14 to 16 of Article 8.º of the special regime applicable to REIFRR and SIIH, approved by Articles 102.º to 104.º of Law n.º 64-A/2008, of 31 December, equally applies to real properties that were acquired by REIFRR before 1 January 2014, counting, in those cases, the three-year period provided for in item 14 from 1 January 2014.
4.3. The exemptions from IMT and IS provided for in Law n.º 64-A/2008, of 31 December
The State Budget Law for 2009 established a special regime applicable to REIFRR. This legislative initiative confessedly aimed at the stimulation of the residential rental market, requiring that at least 75% of the fund's assets be constituted by real properties located in Portugal and intended for rental for permanent housing, favoring these vehicles of collective investment with the tax benefits contained in Article 8.º of their respective legal regime, being the ones referring to IMT and IS, respectively, those contained in items 7 and 8 of that article.
Let it be stressed that the special regime of REIFRR and the tax benefits at its disposal assume the nature or the vocation of true instruments of economic policy, placed at the service of a clear purpose: the promotion of the residential rental market for permanent housing. It is in light of this objective that the tax regime of REIFRR must be read and understood.
Item 7 of the tax regime of REIFRR establishes that the acquisition of urban real properties or autonomous fractions of urban real properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing are exempt from IMT.
It is read in the Opinion attached to the proceedings with the arguments of the Claimant (the "Opinion") that "nothing was provided regarding the need to maintain real properties in the patrimony of REIFRR for a certain period, or regarding the need to actually execute the rental contract also within a certain period"[1].
If we read that normative provision correctly, we will have to conclude that the exemption from IMT did not depend solely on the identity of the acquirer of the real properties in question. The law does not limit itself to exempting (nor did it exempt at the time) the mere acquisition of real properties by REIFRR. It granted that exemption to REIFRR, yes, but provided that the acquisition referred to urban real properties or autonomous fractions of urban real properties "intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing".
Now, as the distinguished authors of the Opinion rightly point out, the scope of the law is not (is not today nor was it then) the promotion of real estate speculation. However, it was also not, as may be read in it, the protection of the rental funds[2], setting aside the apparent paradox. The law intended, rather, to stimulate the rental market itself. This objective was pursued through various initiatives, including the consecration of a special, and advantageous, regime dedicated to REIFRR, yet it would be hasty to conclude that the legislator intended, without more, to support the said REIFRR. To say what has just been said does not purport to mean more than this: it is reductive, and to that extent inaccurate, to claim that the exemption referred to in item 7 of Article 8.º (tax regime) of the special regime applicable to REIFRR is satisfied by two conditions alone, namely that of the identity of the acquirer and that of its declaration when acquiring the real property that this is intended for rental for permanent housing.
The destination, of course exclusive, to be given to real properties acquired by REIFRR is not, by the reading we make of the norms, to be purely intentional or volitional. It is not sufficient that the REIFRR, when acquiring a real property, in order to benefit from the exemption from IMT and IS, declares that it intends to give the said real property as its destination rental for permanent housing. For that benefit to fulfill its purpose, for the fiscal expenditure associated with it to be economically and socially justified, that destination must be effective.
The postulate just expressed has, however, a narrower scope, less impressive, than it may at first suggest. For, in truth, the effectiveness of a given destination of a real property can only be undermined, prejudiced, by the verification, equally effective, of the attribution to that concrete real property of a different destination.
4.4. The applicability to the concrete case of the amendments to the exemptions from IMT and IS introduced by Law n.º 83-C/2013, of 31 December
The State Budget Law for 2014 altered the tax regime of REIFRR, adding, for what concerns us here, items 14 to 16 to Article 8.º.
Item 14 served to specify what should be understood by real property intended for rental for permanent housing, imposing a period of three years, counted from the moment the real property becomes part of the REIFRR's patrimony, for that real property to be the subject of a rental contract for permanent housing, under penalty of the exemptions granted at the moment of its acquisition ceasing to have effect.
Now, the new item 16 establishes the same sanction (exemptions granted at the moment of acquisition cease to have effect) in case the real property in question is alienated[3] (except in the case of alienation to the previous owner and tenant, in the exercise of the purchase option) within the period of three years counted from the moment it became part of the REIFRR's patrimony.
These rules do not suggest special precautions if applied to acquisitions of real properties made by REIFRR after their entry into force. The problem exists, however, when one seeks to apply them, as in the case at hand, to situations in which the acquisition of the real property took place before the validity of these provisions.
Now, as has been seen, item 2 of Article 236.º of Law n.º 83-C/2013, of 31 December mandates the application of these rules "to real properties that were acquired by REIFRR before 1 January 2014, counting, in those cases, the three-year period provided for in item 14 from 1 January 2014".
The question is, therefore, whether the assessment acts now disputed are valid, practiced by the Respondent in light of what is established, without hesitation, by the said transitional regime.
This exercise cannot be carried out outside the concrete assessment of the factual situation, which is this: FUND B… acquired the Property in December 2013, and benefited from the respective exemptions from IMT and IS, once the Claimant declared that the acquired real property, the Property, was intended for rental for permanent housing. It happens that in November 2016 FUND B… alienated the Property, and the Respondent considered, pursuant to the norms just visited, that the said exemptions ceased to have effect, whereby it proceeded, on the basis of an oral request by the Claimant, to the assessment of IMT and IS, that is, the Assessments.
It is true that, in the preceding regime, applicable at the time of acquisition of the Property, nothing was expressly stated about the need to maintain real properties in the patrimony of REIFRR for a certain period. However, it also seems evident to us that the destination to be given to the acquired real properties was a requirement and that that destination cannot be merely "psychological" or intentional.
As we have seen, it is the law that expressly requires, and in exclusive terms, a given destination to be given to real properties acquired with the tax benefits that have been occupying us. Different would have been the wording of the norm that establishes the exemptions from IMT and IS if its attribution had been left to depend exclusively on the identity of the respective acquirer: being a REIFRR. The acquisition of real properties by REIFRR is a necessary condition, but it cannot be viewed, in light of the norms in force in 2013, as a sufficient condition[4].
However, it must be acknowledged that it would not be reasonable to impose the immediate necessity of actually destining the real property assets to rental for permanent housing. At a first moment, that of acquisition, what will matter is the intention declared by the acquirer that is a REIFRR. Upon acquisition, the REIFRR will have to manifest the intention of dedicating the acquired real property to this modality of rental, it being presumed that the acquirer will not be able, without loss of the benefits[5], to give to the real properties acquired with these exemptions a destination different from that which it declared.
Let us agree that giving a different destination to real property assets with the exemptions from IMT and IS cannot be understood as synonymous with the attribution to those real properties of an actual rental for permanent housing. This is to say that the period that elapses between the acquisition by the REIFRR of a real property for rental for permanent housing and the actual execution of a rental contract for permanent housing that has it as its object, regardless of the duration of that period, is a time lapse that does not authorize the conclusion that the real property in question has been given a destination other than rental for permanent housing. In fact, having a real property in the rental market, available to be rented, is still a manifestation of that declared destination. It suffices, in our view, the susceptibility of that real property to become the object of a rental contract in which the REIFRR appears as lessor for the requirement of the destination to be given to the asset that, it should be recalled, was acquired with the aforementioned tax benefits to be satisfied.
As we have already had occasion to say, the rules in force in 2013, the year in which the Property was acquired by FUND B… with the exemption from IMT and IS, did not establish, in temporally rigid terms, the need for a rental contract for permanent housing to be effectively executed. However, in our view, the benefit of the exemption from IMT and IS – within the framework of the economic policy of which it is an instrument – rests on the need for it to be given that actual destination (regardless of whether – that is another question – the period available to the REIFRR to give it that actual destination).
Now, the actual destination of rental for permanent housing is not given to the asset when the owner dedicates it to a different purpose – for example, a commercial rental – or when it ceases to be able to give it the desired destination of residential rental (because it alienates the asset, for example).
We do not believe that the problem can be analyzed from the point of view of risk, in terms of it being able to be sustained that the provided exemptions did not intend to place on REIFRR the risk of being unable to rent the real properties, or of not being able to alienate them. It happens that REIFRR, as organisms of collective investment, are true economic agents and must weigh the risks arising from their own activity, which includes the duty to weigh the consequences of the non-dedication of a certain asset to a certain destination.
It is read in the Opinion that "the destination is compatible, notably in periods of crisis in the rental market, with difficulties and delays in the realization of rental", a statement that does not merit the slightest objection. What will not, however, enjoy unanimity, is the conclusion that these difficulties and delays do not constitute an integral part of the risks associated with this specific economic activity. If the law established incentives for the acquisition of real properties with the objective that they be intended for rental for permanent housing, it is incumbent on the acquirer of these real properties and beneficiary of these incentives to manage the risks of its business, which must include the weighing of the possibility of these real properties not arousing in the market the interest that the owner of them, the REIFRR, foresaw[6].
4.5. Conclusion
It seems, therefore, to this arbitral tribunal that the necessity for a REIFRR to intend for rental for permanent housing the real property acquired with the benefit of the exemption from IMT and IS is not an innovation of the State Budget Law for 2014, being already a requirement of the preceding normative provision, applicable in 2013.
It should be noted that, in the case sub judice, the disputed assessments of IMT and IS are not based on the circumstance that the real property acquired with tax benefits by FUND B…, the Property, remained in the patrimony of the fund for a period equal to or greater than 3 years, without it having been given the necessary dedication of rental for permanent housing. In the case at hand, the Property was alienated without having been dedicated to permanent residential rental. Therefore, in the case of the proceedings, the problem is not related to the period.
Concluding, it does not seem to be truly a matter of retroactivity of the law, given that the solution that befits the case, in our view, is the same, applying the new law or making use of the old law, since one and the other do not exempt the fact that the acquisition of urban real properties or autonomous fractions of urban real properties by REIFRR be actually intended, and in exclusive terms, for rental for permanent housing.
Decision
Pursuant to the terms and on the grounds set out, the arbitral tribunal decides to maintain in the legal order the assessment acts of IMT and IS that are the object of the request presented by the Claimant, ruling it wholly without merit.
Value of the Proceedings
In accordance with the provision in item 2 of Article 306.º of the Code of Civil Procedure, in paragraph a) of item 1 of Article 97.º-A of the Code of Tax Procedure and also item 2 of Article 3.º of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the proceedings is set at € 1,278.00 (one thousand two hundred and seventy-eight euros).
Costs
For the purposes of the provision in item 2 of Article 12 and item 4 of Article 22.º of the LRAT and item 4 of Article 4.º of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs is set at € 306.00 (three hundred and six euros), in accordance with Table I attached to said Regulation, to be borne in full by the Claimant.
Lisbon, 12 September 2017
The Arbitrator
(Nuno Pombo)
Text prepared by computer, pursuant to item 5 of Article 131.º of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference from paragraph e) of item 1 of Decree-Law n.º 10/2011, of 20 January and with the spelling prior to the said Orthographic Agreement of 1990.
[1] Page 16 of the Opinion.
[2] Page 22 of the Opinion.
[3] Or in the case the fund is liquidated in the same period.
[4] The Fiscal Benefits Statute, in the wording of Article 7.º at the date of the facts, established the subjection to inspection of all persons, singular or collective, of public or private law, to whom tax benefits were granted, automatic or dependent on recognition, to control the verification of the prerequisites of the respective tax benefits. For its part, Article 9.º of the same statute provided (as it also provides today) that the holders of the right to tax benefits are obliged to declare, within 30 days, the cessation of the factual or legal situation on which the benefit was based.
[5] Pay attention to item 3 of Article 14.º of the Fiscal Benefits Statute, which, under the heading "Extinction of tax benefits", provides: "When the tax benefit concerns the acquisition of goods intended for the direct realization of the ends of the acquirers, it ceases to have effect if those are alienated or given another destination without authorization from the Minister of Finance, without prejudice to other sanctions or different regimes established by law".
[6] Furthermore, the aforementioned interest is not to be reported only to real properties objectively considered, to their physical characteristics, since the reaction of the market will not be indifferent to the conditions by which the owner of them proposes to rent them.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created