Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
Case No. 537/2014-T
Claimant/Petitioner: A….-…, …, REAL ESTATE CONSTRUCTION S.A.
Respondent: Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter TA)
1. REPORT
On 28-05-2014, A…. - …, …, REAL ESTATE CONSTRUCTION S.A., with NUIPC/NIF No. …, with registered office at Rua … in Lisbon, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, submitted to the Administrative Arbitration Centre (CAAD) a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, with a view to the annulment of tax acts relating to the assessment of stamp duty on item No. 28 of the General Table of Stamp Duty, concerning fractions with independent use of an urban property in vertical ownership located at Rua … in Lisbon, registered in the property register under article .. (former article ...) of the parish of Santo António (former parish of São Mamede) and described in the Property Registration Office of Lisbon under number ..., namely:
i. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,135.20, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António – U-000..-S.58, for the year 2013, whose TPN is €340,560.00;
ii. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,007.08, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António – U-000..-RC.56, whose TPN is €302,120.00;
iii. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,146.54, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António - U-000..-2º+S, whose TPN is €343,960.00;
iv. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,146.54, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António - U-000..-1º-56, whose TPN is €343,960.00;
v. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €893.10, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António – U-000..-2º58, whose TPN is €267,930.00;
vi. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,135.20, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António - U-000..-S.58, whose TPN is €340,560.00;
vii. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,007.06, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António - U-000..-RC56, whose TPN is €302,120.00;
viii. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €893.10, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António - U-000..-2º58, whose TPN is €267,930.00;
ix. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,146.53, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António - U-000..-2º+S, whose TPN is €343,960.00;
x. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,146.53, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António - U-000..-1º-56, whose TPN is €343,960.00;
The Claimant requests the annulment of the above-mentioned stamp duty assessments, alleging that the total amount of stamp duty to be paid resulting from the same is €15,985.30, as well as the reimbursement of the assessed amounts, in the total amount of €10,656.92, plus compensatory interest.
To this end, it alleges that the property to which the stamp duty assessments refer, the legality of which is disputed, is a property composed of independent residential fractions, identified separately in the property register entry.
The sum of the TPN of the residential fractions amounts to €1,598,530.00, with each of the fractions having a TPN below €1,000,000.00.
The IMI for 2013 was assessed individually with respect to each of the fractions.
It was notified of the assessment notices to proceed with the payment of stamp duty.
It proceeded to pay the total amount of €10,656.92, in order to avoid tax enforcement proceedings, notwithstanding, in its view, the legal prerequisite for the incidence of item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty not being met.
A sole arbitrator was appointed on 15-09-2014, Ricardo Marques Candeias. In accordance with the provisions of article 11, paragraph 1, (c) of the RJAT, the singular arbitral tribunal was constituted on 30-09-2014.
Notified for this purpose, the TA presented its response on 13-11-2014. It argued that the taxable value relevant for the purposes of the incidence of the tax is the total taxable value of the urban property and not the taxable value of each of the parts that compose it, even though they may be capable of independent use, as the property is not constituted in horizontal ownership.
The TA stated that the Claimant has no right to the payment of compensatory interest, since the assessment was made on the basis of the applicable law.
The TA took a position regarding the value of the case, and requested the fixing of that value by the tribunal, considering that it should be fixed at €10,656.88 and not at €15,985.30, as indicated by the Claimant.
The TA further requested the waiver of the holding of the meeting referred to in article 18 of the RJAT, and respective oral arguments.
Upon insistence with the TA to attach the administrative file to the present proceedings, it complied with such request on 29-01-2015.
Notified to pronounce itself, the Claimant stated it had no objections to the waiver of the holding of the meeting referred to in article 18 of the RJAT, and respective oral arguments.
The arbitral tribunal understood, in view of the elements brought to the record, and with no exceptions to resolve, that it was not necessary to hold the scheduled meeting as well as to produce arguments. Consequently, on 23-3-2015, the date of 27-03-2015 was fixed for the issuance of the decision.
The parties have legal personality and capacity and are legitimate (articles 4 and 10, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the RJAT, and article 1 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011 of 22 March). The proceedings do not suffer from nullities and no preliminary issues were raised that need to be addressed.
2. FACTS
After critically assessing the documentary evidence produced, the following facts are considered proven and with relevance for the decision of the case:
a) The urban property located at Rua … in Lisbon, registered in the property register under article .. (former article ...) of the parish of Santo António (former parish of São Mamede) and described in the Property Registration Office of Lisbon under number ..., is owned by the now claimant;
b) The property is in vertical ownership.
c) It is composed of 5 fractions capable of independent use, without being in the horizontal ownership regime;
d) The TA assessed on 17-03-2013 the Stamp Duty for the year 2013, concerning the fractions with independent use existing in the property above identified, in the amount corresponding to 1% of its taxable property value, as follows:
i. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,135.20, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António – U-000..-S.58, for the year 2013, whose TPN is €340,560.00;
ii. Assessment No. 2014 .., in the amount of €1,007.08, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António – U-000..-RC.56, whose TPN is €302,120.00;
iii. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,146.54, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António-U-000..-2º+S, whose TPN is €343,960.00;
iv. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,146.54, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António-U-000..-1º-56, whose TPN is €343,960.00;
v. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €893.10, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António – U-000..-2º58, whose TPN is €267,930.00;
vi. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,135.20, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António-U-000..-S.58, whose TPN is €340,560.00;
vii. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,007.06, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António-U-000..-RC56, whose TPN is €302,120.00;
viii. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €893.10, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António-U-000..-2º58, whose TPN is €267,930.00;
ix. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,146.53, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António-U-000..-2º+S, whose TPN is €343,960.00;
x. Assessment No. 2014 …, in the amount of €1,146.53, concerning the property described in the property register article with No. ... Santo António-U-000..-1º-56, whose TPN is €343,960.00;
e) The payment deadline ended on 30-04-2014 with respect to the assessments concerning the first instalment; and on 31-07-2014 with respect to the assessments concerning the 2nd instalment.
f) The total taxable value of the property is €1,598,530.00.
g) The Claimant was notified to proceed with the payment of the said assessment notices in the total amount of €10,656.88.
h) The Claimant proceeded to pay the assessment notices No. 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …, concerning the 1st instalment, in the total amount of €5,328.46, on 30-04-2014.
i) The Claimant proceeded to pay the assessment notices No. 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …, concerning the 2nd instalment, in the total amount of €5,328.42, on 02-07-2014.
The conviction of the arbitrator was based on documentary evidence attached to the record, specifically points a), b), c) and e) result from the content of the property record book attached to the record and of the permanent certificate, points d) and f) result from the content of the assessment notices for the two instalments of the tax, and point g) results from the payment vouchers attached to the assessment notices.
It was not proven that the total value of the assessment notices and respective payments would equal the total amount of €15,985.30, since there is no documentary support in the record for that amount invoked; moreover, the sum of the values of the assessment notices and respective payments equals the amount stated and proven of €10,656.88 and not the one indicated by the Claimant.
For the decision of the case, no other facts with relevance were proven.
3. LAW
These are the facts that need to be assessed. Let us proceed.
The Claimant alleges in its initial petition that "(…) The contested tax acts are illegal as they were based on the erroneous premise of considering a TPN of €1,598,530.00 (one million five hundred and ninety-eight thousand five hundred and thirty euros) resulting from the sum of the TPNs of all the fractions with residential designation of the urban property above identified, when - as will be demonstrated – the TPN for the purposes of stamp duty incidence under item 28.1 of the GTSD should have been assessed separately with respect to each fraction, given that they are units with independent use, subsuming to the concept of "urban property" for the purposes of applying that provision."
The Claimant argues that "(…) With the said fractions being considered separately in the property register entry, and with the TPN of each one - as discriminated therein - being less than €1,000,000.00, there would consequently be no place for the assessment of stamp duty under the said item 28.1 of the GTSD".
Bringing to bear on its explanation the importance of the concept of "property" in the context under analysis, it states that: "(…) it is to the concept of property, as defined by paragraph 1 of article 2 of the CIMI, that one must have regard for the purposes of determining the tax due, under the incidence of item No. 28 of the GTSD(…)".
Moreover, it explains that "With respect to the TPN on which the IMI (and the stamp duty, by reference) is based, this is determined in accordance with the CIMI (article 7, paragraph 1 of the CIMI) and is discriminated in the property register entry of each property, and each floor or part of a property capable of independent use is also considered separately in the property register entry, which also discriminates its respective taxable property value (article 12, paragraph 3 of the CIMI)".
The Claimant concludes that "from this it follows that, whenever we are dealing with a property composed of independent fractions in a vertical ownership regime, it is on the TPN of each fraction that the IMI is based, and this is also the value relevant for the purposes of the incidence of item 28.1 of the GTSD (and not the sum of the TPVs of all of them)."
It concludes in fact, stating that "(…) as what is at issue in the present proceedings are residential fractions with independent use and with the value individualized separately in the register, it should have been this value that was considered by the TA, autonomously, for each residential fraction, for the purposes of stamp duty incidence under item 28.1 of the GTSD, and not the sum of the TPN of all these fractions, which would have resulted in no stamp duty being assessed, since each of the fractions has a TPN less than €1,000,000.00".
The Claimant concludes, advocating for the merits of the claim by stating that "(…) it is clear that the stamp duty assessment acts which are the subject of the present request for arbitral pronouncement appear to be tainted by violation of the law, due to error attributable to the tax administration services, in the incorrect characterization, interpretation and application of the law, having violated paragraph 1 of article 1 of the CIS, as well as item number 28 of the GTSD, read in conjunction with articles 2, paragraph 1 and 12, paragraph 3 of the CIMI and articles 58 of the LGT, 13, 103, paragraphs 1 and 2, 104, paragraph 3 and 266, paragraph 2 of the CRP, for which reason the same should be annulled, as well as the respective collection documents being annulled.", and petitioning for the reimbursement of the amounts paid, plus compensatory interest, under article 43 of the LGT.
For its part, the TA comes to counter the position of the Claimant, basing its claim on the fact that in Item 28 of the General Table of Stamp Duty, the tax is levied on the ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose taxable property value listed in the register, in accordance with the CIMI, is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.00, and in accordance with item 28.1, in the case of properties with residential designation, the tax is levied on the taxable property value used for the purposes of IMI.
In the understanding of the TA, "The taxable value relevant for the purposes of the incidence of the tax is, therefore, the total taxable value of the urban property and not the taxable value of each of the parts that compose it, even though capable of independent use. For the purposes of stamp duty, the property as a whole is relevant since divisions capable of independent use are not considered as property, but only autonomous fractions in the horizontal ownership regime, as per paragraph 4 of article 2 of the CIMI".
The TA argues in the sense that "A type of incidence in accordance with which the taxable property value of urban properties on which the application of item 28.1 of the General Table depends is the taxable value of each floor or division capable of independent use and not the total taxable property value of the urban property with residential designation certainly has no expression whatsoever in the law."
The TA further argues for the unconstitutionality of the interpretation made by the Claimant of item 28.1 of the GTSD: "It is therefore unconstitutional, as it offends the principle of tax legality, the interpretation of item 28.1 of the General Table, in the sense that the taxable value on which its incidence depends is assessed globally and not floor by floor or floor or division by division."
The TA also takes a position regarding the value of the action indicated by the Claimant: "The Claimant indicates as the value of the action the amount of €15,985.30. Now, since the subject matter of the present arbitral claim is the contested assessments, it is clear that the value of the action should correspond to the amount resulting from the sum of the same, that is €10,656.88." Requesting the tribunal to fix the value of the case.
In the understanding of the TA, "the provision of item 28.1 of the GTSD does not constitute any violation of the principle of equality or tax capacity, with no discrimination existing in the taxation of properties constituted in horizontal ownership and properties in full ownership with floors or divisions capable of independent use, or between properties with residential designation and properties with other designations".
In its view, it is important to emphasize the different civil and legal regime attributed to horizontal ownership as opposed to full ownership, which would consist, even for tax purposes, of different legal institutions. Hence the different treatment in terms of the incidence of item 28.1 of the GTSD, as the TA argues: "In this way, one cannot conclude that there is alleged discrimination in violation of the principle of equality when, in fact, we are dealing with distinct realities, valued by the legislator in a different manner."
The TA further emphasizes that: "(…) the taxation under stamp duty follows the criterion of appropriateness, in that it aims at the taxation of wealth embodied in the ownership of real property of high value, emerging in a context of economic crisis that cannot at all be ignored."
The TA further argues that the Claimant has no right to compensatory interest, because: "The right to compensatory interest provided for in paragraph 1 of article 43 of the LGT, derived from the judicial annulment of an assessment act, depends on it being demonstrated in the proceedings that that fact is affected by error in the factual or legal premises attributable to the tax administration. The error that supports the right to compensatory interest is not any defect or illegality, but that which is concretized in faulty assessment of relevant factuality or in incorrect application of legal norms. Since, at the date of the facts, the tax administration applied the law, bindingly, in the manner in which, as an executive body, it is constitutionally bound, one cannot speak of error by the services within the terms of article 43 of the LGT."
The TA concludes advocating for the validity and legality of the assessment.
Having provided a brief description of the argumentative framework put forward by the parties, let us proceed.
The issue to be decided pertains to whether the rule of incidence of item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty (GTSD) is applicable to properties that are not constituted in horizontal ownership. In fact, in these cases, the question is raised as to whether the said item should apply to the sum of the TPN attributed to the different floors, that is, to the total TPN of the property, or, rather, to the TPN of each floor with independent economic use of the property.
This issue has already been the subject of various CAAD decisions, namely those handed down in cases 132/2013-T, 14/2014-T, 30/2014-T and 88/2014-T, which we will follow closely.
Item 28 of the General Table of Stamp Duty (GTSD) was added by Law No. 55-A/2012 of 29 October. It establishes the following:
"28 – Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose taxable property value listed in the register, in accordance with the Code of Municipal Property Tax (CIMI), is equal to or exceeding €1,000,000 – on the taxable property value used for the purpose of IMI:
28.1 – For properties with residential designation – 1% (…);"
With the addition of paragraph 2 of article 67 of the Code of Stamp Duty (CIS), also effected by the said Law, it was established that regarding "matters not regulated in this code concerning item 28 of the General Table, the CIMI shall apply on a subsidiary basis."
By virtue of this referral, referring the rule of incidence of item 28.1 GTSD to urban properties, the concept of urban property shall be that resulting from the CIMI.
The CIMI establishes in article 2, paragraph 1, the concept of property. It defines it as "any fraction of territory, including waters, plantations, buildings and structures of any nature incorporated therein or based thereon, with a permanent character, provided that it forms part of the assets of an individual or collective person and, under normal circumstances, has economic value, as well as waters, plantations, buildings or structures, under the aforementioned circumstances, endowed with economic autonomy in relation to the land on which they are located, although situated in a fraction of territory that constitutes an integral part of a different estate or does not have a patrimonial nature".
Article 4 of the CIMI establishes that urban properties are "all those that should not be classified as rustic, without prejudice to the provisions of the following article".
For its part, article 6, ibid., classifies the various types of urban properties, distinguishing them, in paragraph 1 of the said article, into four subcategories: "a) Residential; b) Commercial, industrial or for services; c) Land for construction; d) Other".
In paragraph 2 of the same article we find the criterion used for this distinction, considering that "Residential, commercial, industrial or for services are buildings or structures licensed for such purpose or, in the absence of a license, which have as their normal destination each of these purposes".
Now, we observe that the legal provisions of the cited statute do not establish any classification of urban properties that distinguishes between properties in horizontal ownership versus properties in vertical ownership.
If the legislator qualifies them as the same legal and fiscal reality, the legal support for the application of different fiscal regimes based on the civil and legal nature that an urban property with residential designation may have will be lacking.
It is true that article 2, paragraph 4, of the CIMI determines that, "for the purposes of this tax, each autonomous fraction, in the horizontal ownership regime, is considered as constituting a property". However, it is also true that the same does not establish any differentiation between the autonomous fractions of properties in horizontal ownership and the parts of the property with use independent of the classification as residential urban properties.
From this it follows that the legislator intended only, as it did, to differentiate urban properties considering their normal destination, that is, considering the destination to which each of them is bound. In this way, it thus prevents, from a fiscal point of view, a distinction that civil law foresees, between properties in horizontal ownership and properties in vertical ownership, not allowing, however, that this legal characterization be relevant for what concerns us, which is the scope of the tax incidence, both of the IMI and of item 28.1 of the GTSD, resulting from the aforementioned referral.
Being so, we conclude that it is irrelevant, for taxation purposes, whether the property is in vertical or horizontal ownership. It is rather relevant the material truth underlying its existence as an urban property and its residential use.
Moreover, considering the legislator's intention in creating item 28 of the GTSD and the application that the TA has been giving to it, it is considered that the criterion adopted by the TA regarding properties in vertical ownership does not conform to the principles of legality, equality and tax proportionality, enshrined constitutionally in our legal system.
The principle of tax equality should be understood in its material sense. Therefore, the emphasis of this principle will always rest on the tax capacity of each taxpayer. It is the same to say that we will have an equal tax for those with equal tax capacity, and a different tax for those with different tax capacity. It is certain that the difference in tax will be proportional to the different tax capacity.
This principle is imposed upon us by the articulation of article 13 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (CRP) with articles 103 and 104 of the same statute.
Now, the tax established by item 28 of the GTSD aims to harmonize the distribution of the tax burden of taxpayers, imposing this tax on holders of properties of high value intended for residential purposes, exceeding €1,000,000.00, per floor with independent use.
In fact, with the principle of tax equality determining that one should treat equally what is equal and differently what is different from a fiscal perspective, there is no justification for different treatment, for taxation purposes, of the floors of a property solely because the same is already in horizontal ownership, provided that those floors have independent use.
And referring the CIS to the CIMI, we consider that the registration in the property register of real property in vertical ownership, composed of different floors with independent use, should follow the same registration rules as properties composed in horizontal ownership.
Pay attention, from the outset, to the provision in paragraph 3 of article 12 of the CIMI, according to which "each floor or part of a property capable of independent use is considered separately in the property register entry, which also discriminates its respective taxable property value".
Setting as the reference value for the incidence of the new tax the total TPN of the property in question, as the TA intends, has no basis whatsoever in the applicable legislation cited above.
Moreover, the TA itself issued the Assessment Notices that appear in the record, each of them concerning each of the fractions with independent use and residential designation. It is even included in each of them a particular reference to the TPN of each fraction, for the purposes of the application of item 28.1 of the GTSD. It follows from this that the tax was assessed individually with respect to each of the parts with independent use and not considering the sum of the TPNs of the floors of the property in full ownership.
In light of all the foregoing, the legal criterion to be used for defining the incidence of the tax established in item 28.1 of the GTSD will have to be identical to that established for the purposes of the IMI.
As can be read in the Arbitral Decision rendered in case 132/2013-T, "there is no indication, in the proceedings relating to the discussion of bill No. 96/XII in the Parliament, of the invocation of an interpretative rationale different from that presented here. In fact, such measure, referred to as a 'special tax on residential urban properties of higher value', was justified by the need to comply with the principles of social equity and tax justice, burdening more significantly the holders of properties of high value intended for residential purposes, and, to that extent, imposing the new 'special tax' on 'houses valued at equal to or greater than 1 million euros'."
The said decision further states that "if such logic seems to make sense when applied to 'residential property' - whether it be 'house', 'autonomous fraction' or 'part of property with independent use' / 'autonomous unit' - because it is assumed a above-average tax capacity and, to that extent, it justifies the need for an additional tax effort, it would make little sense to then fail to disregard the calculations 'unit by unit' when only through the sum of the TPNs of the same (because held by the same individual) would the million euros be exceeded".
Given that the TA would only have a right, and consequently the right to assess the tax in question, if any of the floors with independent use corresponded to a TPN exceeding €1,000,000.00, which is not the case, since the highest value corresponds only to €343,960.00.
It can be inferred from what has been said up to now that the position of the TA is contrary to the Law and to the Constitution, violating the principles of legality and tax equality.
The property in question is in full ownership and contains 5 fractions with independent use intended for residential purposes. As is proven, none of them has a TPN equal to or exceeding €1,000,000.00. We thus observe the non-occurrence of the legal prerequisite for the incidence of Stamp Duty provided for in item 28 of the GTSD.
As a consequence of the foregoing, we conclude as to the illegality of the stamp duty assessments challenged by the Claimant. Therefore, the taxable matter, which serves as the basis for the rule of incidence of item 28.1 of the GTSD, should be the TPN determined in accordance with the CIMI, for each of the floors of the property that are capable of independent use.
We have verified that the Claimant, despite not accepting the legality of the assessments that it now disputes, paid the amounts of tax resulting from those assessments.
Articles 24, paragraph 1, (b) of the RJAT and 100 of the LGT provide that, having been paid the tax and subsequently the assessment supporting that tax being annulled, the taxpayer has the right to reimbursement of the amounts unduly paid.
Article 43 of the LGT provides that "compensatory interest is due when it is determined, in a gracious claim or judicial contestation, that there was error attributable to the services from which resulted payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than legally due".
As to the existence, in this case, of error attributable to the services, such error is considered verified, according to uniform jurisprudence of the STA (see in this regard, the Court of Appeal Decisions of 22-05-2002, Case No. 457/02; of 31.10.2001, Case No. 26167; of 2.12.2009, Case No. 0892/09) whenever they proceed with a gracious claim or contestation of the assessment (in the same sense, the decision in arbitral case 218/2013-T).
Consequently, the Claimant has the right to compensatory interest, in accordance with articles 43, paragraph 1, LGT and 61, paragraph 2, item 5, CPPT.
Being so,
-the TA should refund the amount of €5,328.46 concerning the assessment notices No. 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …, concerning the 1st instalment, plus interest at the legal rate of 4%, counted from the date of payment, 30-04-2014, until the refund of the amounts by the TA.
-the TA should refund the amount of €5,328.42 concerning the assessment notices No. 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …, concerning the 2nd instalment, plus interest at the legal rate of 4%, counted from the date of payment, 02-07-2014, until the refund of the amounts by the TA.
As to the matter raised by the TA regarding the value of the action, the same is fixed at €10,656.88.
4. DECISION
In light of the above, it is decided:
a) to adjudge wholly meritorious the claim filed by the Claimant in the present tax arbitral proceedings, as to the illegality of Stamp Duty Assessments No. 2014 …, No. 2014 …, No. 2014 …, No. 2014 …, No. 2014 …, No. 2014 …, No. 2014 …, No. 2014 …, No. 2014 …, No. 2014 …, these being to be deemed null and void, with the necessary legal consequences.
b) To condemn the Respondent to refund to the Claimant the amounts delivered for payment of the taxes whose assessments have now been annulled, in the total amount of €10,656.88;
c) To adjudge meritorious the claim for payment of compensatory interest, at the legal rate of 4%, counted from the date of payment of the tax ascertained in the assessments now annulled, on 30-04-2014 for the assessment notices No. 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …, in the total amount of €5,328.46; and on 02-07-2014 for the assessment notices No. 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …; 2014 …, in the total amount of €5,328.42, until the date of issuance of the credit note(s) concerning the refund of the amounts unduly assessed and paid;
VALUE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with the provisions of articles 306, paragraph 2, CPC and 97-A, paragraph 1, (a) CPPT, and paragraph 3, paragraph 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the action is fixed at €10,656.88.
COSTS
In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the RJAT, and Table I attached to the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs is fixed at €918.00, to be borne by the Tax and Customs Authority.
Notify.
Lisbon, 27 March 2015.
Text prepared by computer, in accordance with article 131, paragraph 5, CPC, applicable by referral from article 29, paragraph 1, (e) of the RJAT, with blank lines and reviewed by me.
The Sole Arbitrator
Ricardo Marques Candeias
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created