Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL AWARD
I – REPORT
On 28 July 2014, A… - REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS, S.A., registered number …, with tax domicile at Avenue …, Vila Nova de Gaia, filed a request for arbitral ruling, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph b) of Article 5(2) of the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters (Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January), for review of the legality of the tax assessment acts for Stamp Duty under Item 28 of the General Table as amended by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, relating to properties identified in the urban property register under articles ... and ... of the parish of Avintes and ... and ... of the parish of Oliveira do Douro and for the year 2013.
The said assessments relate to the following immovable properties:
a. Property Avintes ... U;
b. Property Avintes ... U;
c. Property Oliveira do Douro ... U; and
d. Property Oliveira do Douro ... U;
These therefore generated a total tax amount of €25,746.50, and, as of the date of constitution of the present tribunal, the first instalments below have been paid:
– Assessment no. 2014 ..., with the amount due of €2,196.98;
– Assessment no. 2014 ..., with the amount due of €2,196.98;
– Assessment no. 2014 ..., with the amount due of €2,306.34; and
– Assessment no. 2014 ..., with the amount due of €1,881.90.
The scope of the request is not limited to the instalments paid – the first ones – but rather to the assessments relating to the entire year of 2013, some already paid – the first ones – and others to be paid during 2014.
Not accepting the said stamp tax assessments, the Claimant requested the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, setting forth the following claims:
i) Annulment of the Stamp Duty assessment act on the grounds of:
a) Error as to the factual and legal premises;
b) Defect in reasoning.
c) Condemnation of the Tax Administration to pay indemnificatory interest, pursuant to Article 43(1) of the General Tax Law.
Since the Claimant opted not to appoint an arbitrator, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph a) of Article 6(2) and paragraph b) of Article 11(1) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, as amended by Article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Ethics Board appointed as arbitrator of the arbitral tribunal Dr. Carla Castelo Trindade, who accepted the appointment within the prescribed deadline.
The parties were notified of this appointment, and no request for challenge of Dr. Carla Castelo Trindade's appointment as arbitrator was filed.
Thus, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph c) of Article 11(1) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, as amended by Article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 2 October 2014.
On 7 November 2014, the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter "Respondent") filed a response in which it argued that the action in question would lack standing and that accordingly the proceedings should be declared terminated as moot, in accordance with the provisions of Article 277 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Indeed, the Tax Administration considered that the document indicated by the Respondent as the initial petition actually constituted a request for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal and a request for arbitral ruling relating to the taxable person B… - Real Estate Buildings, Ltd., VAT number ….
On 19 November 2014, the Claimant filed a Reply in which it argues, in summary, that this was a material error in the attachment of documents to the request for arbitral ruling and that the Respondent entity did not contest this order.
On that same date, the Tribunal issued an order on this matter, the content of which, in summary, stated:
"(...) After analysis of the motions filed by the parties on 19 November and 01 December inst., the tribunal considers, pursuant to Articles 16(c) and (f) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, that the proceedings should continue in their normal course.
To this end, the Respondent entity should present, if it deems it appropriate and within a period of 10 days, its response regarding the matters in dispute in the case, insofar as the Claimant's error in the attachment of documents is qualified by this Tribunal as a material error and therefore rectifiable.
Under the general principles of law, material error exists when there is a discrepancy between what was written and what was intended to be written, between actual intent and expressed intent. In the error in the attachment of documents – in our case, in the error of insertion of documents – what was inserted in the electronic motion was not what was intended to be inserted, nor indeed what was identified in the request for arbitral ruling, as was later acknowledged. Thus, in the matter at hand, we are dealing with a material error capable of correction. Various jurisprudential decisions, both from the Courts of Appeal and from the Supreme Court of Justice and Administrative, support this view.
Any other conclusion would be to assert, ultimately, that it is the responsibility of the CAAD Secretariat to analyse the merits of the evidence submitted by the parties in the request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. Such a conclusion would be unlawful. It is for the arbitral tribunal to analyse the merits of the disputed question, and it is naturally within its province to examine the probative value of the documents submitted to prove the alleged facts.
If the documents attached to the case do not correspond to the facts alleged, then the consequence will be that the said facts will not be deemed proven. It will naturally not be the "dismissal of the request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal".
(...)
In light of the foregoing, accepting the rectification of the error, the Respondent entity is notified to present, if it wishes and within a period of 10 days, its response regarding the matters in dispute in the case, since when filing its response it alleged the non-existence of the request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and of the Request for Arbitral Ruling, and did not address itself to the disputed matters."
On 6 January 2015, the Respondent filed a response in which it argued for the complete rejection of the request for arbitral ruling.
By order of 16 January 2015, the tribunal decided not to hold the hearing provided for in Article 18 of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration.
At the suggestion of the Tribunal, written submissions were presented.
The Claimant concluded its submissions stating that it concludes as in the Arbitral Motion, and that there should be complete acceptance of the petition presented therein.
The Tax and Customs Authority filed its counter-submissions, reiterating the request for complete rejection of the present request for arbitral ruling, as not proven, with the further legal consequences.
II. PRELIMINARY SANCTION
The arbitral tribunal was regularly constituted and is materially competent.
The proceedings do not suffer from any nullities and no issues have been raised that may prevent the tribunal from deciding the merits, save for the matter relating to the error in the attachment of documents. As to this matter, it was cured by the tribunal on 19 November 2014, when it qualified what occurred as a material error on the part of the Claimant.
The parties have legal capacity and standing and are duly represented.
All matters having been thus addressed, it is necessary to decide.
III. FACTUAL MATTERS
III.1. ESTABLISHED FACTS
With regard to the factual matters, it is important to note, first and foremost, that the tribunal is not required to address all allegations made by the parties; rather, it is obliged to select the facts relevant to the decision and to distinguish between proven and unproven matters. This is in accordance with Article 123(2) of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process and Articles 607(2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable pursuant to Article 29(1), paragraphs a) and e) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration. In this manner, the facts relevant to the determination of the case are selected and identified based on their legal relevance, which is established with regard to the various plausible legal solutions to the question(s) at issue (see former Article 511(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, corresponding to the present Article 596, applicable pursuant to Article 29(1), paragraph e) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration).
Now, having regard to the positions taken by the parties, the documentary evidence, the fact that no Administrative File was attached to the proceedings nor was any testimonial evidence presented, and especially having regard to the fact that the Tax Administration did not contest any of the facts alleged by the Respondent, the following facts are deemed established as relevant to the decision:
-
The Claimant is the full owner of the urban properties of the type "land for construction", registered in the urban property register under articles U ..., U ..., U ... and U, ....
-
The urban properties in question have a taxable patrimonial value of:
a. Property Avintes ... U – €1,318,180.00;
b. Property Avintes ... U – €1,318,180.00;
c. Property Oliveira do Douro ... U – €1,383,800.00; and
d. Property Oliveira do Douro ... U – €1,129,140.00;
-
The description of the urban property is as follows: "Type of property: land for construction";
-
The Claimant was notified of the first instalments of the Stamp Duty assessments under Item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty for the year 2013.
-
The tax was always assessed solely on the basis of Item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty.
-
On 30 April 2014, the Claimant paid the first instalments of the assessed tax in the amount of:
a. Property Avintes ... U – €2,196.98;
b. Property Avintes ... U – €2,196.98;
c. Property Oliveira do Douro ... U – €2,306.34; and
d. Property Oliveira do Douro ... U – €1,881.90;
III.2. UNPROVEN FACTS
As stated, with respect to the factual matters deemed established, the tribunal is not required to address all allegations made by the parties; rather, it is obliged to select the facts relevant to the decision and to distinguish between proven and unproven matters (see Article 123(2) of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, applicable pursuant to Article 29(1), paragraphs a) and e) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration).
In this manner, the facts relevant to the determination of the case were selected and identified based on their legal relevance, which is established with regard to the various plausible legal solutions to the question(s) at issue (see former Article 511(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, corresponding to the present Article 596, applicable pursuant to Article 29(1), paragraph e) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration).
Thus, there is no other factual matter alleged that is relevant to the correct determination of the procedural dispute, particularly since the probative value of the documents attached to the case by the Claimant was not called into question.
IV. LEGAL MATTERS
Having regard to the positions taken by the parties in their pleadings, the central issue to be resolved by the present arbitral tribunal is to review the legality of the Stamp Duty assessment acts.
Having attributed various defects to the disputed tax acts, it is necessary to determine the order in which they should be examined, and the order provided in Article 124 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process must be observed, applicable by virtue of Article 29(1), paragraph a) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration.[1]
The acceptance of any of the defects invoked by the Claimant will result in the annulment of the tax acts. The defect of violation of law due to error as to the factual and legal premises will be examined first, insofar as it is the one that will result in "the most stable or effective protection of the injured interests", insofar as its acceptance would preclude the renewal of the act, which does not occur with the annulment resulting from the other defects.
Accordingly, the tribunal will first review the defect of violation of law.
To this end, the issue to be examined, regardless of the parties' positions and pursuant to the inquisitorial principle, is to determine whether the tax incidence norm of Stamp Duty, as worded in the version in force at the time of the taxable events, encompasses in its provision "urban properties... with residential use" the legal and fiscal reality defined in law as "land for construction".
Error as to the Factual and Legal Premises
Without lengthy deliberation, as the issue of the application of law over time in the present case does not appear to be of great complexity, the tribunal will address the matter insofar as its resolution is a prerequisite for the following conclusions.
The assessment of the tax in question should be governed by the regime established in the General Table of Stamp Duty as amended by Law 55-A/2012, given that the taxable events occurred during the period of its validity.
Indeed, there is no doubt that the taxable events in question – ownership of land for construction – having occurred on 31 December 2013, occurred during the validity of the previous wording of Item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty, and therefore the current wording given to it by Article 194 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget for 2014), is not applicable here, since it only applies to taxable events occurring from 1 January 2014 onwards.
What must therefore be determined is whether, in light of Item 28 of the General Table of Stamp Duty as worded at the date of the taxable events, it could be considered that land for construction was also covered by the tax incidence norm or whether, on the other hand, it only came to be covered from 2014 onwards.
We are therefore dealing solely with the activity of interpretation and application of norms, that is, with the task of delimiting the legal-factual situations that should be understood as encompassed in the tax incidence norm of this new tax, which results from the combination of Items 28 and 28-1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty which, as worded at the date of the taxable events, established that the following are subject to Stamp Duty:
"28 – Ownership, usufruct or surface right of urban properties whose taxable patrimonial value recorded in the register, in accordance with the Municipal Property Tax Code (MPTC), is equal to or greater than €1,000,000 – based on the taxable patrimonial value used for purposes of the Municipal Property Tax:
28-1 – For properties with residential use – 1%;
28-2 – For properties, when the taxable persons who are not natural persons are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favourable tax regime, listed in the table approved by order of the Minister of Finance – 7.5%."
Was the Tax Administration correct when it argues that the tax incidence norm automatically encompasses, in addition to the species of urban properties "with residential use", the species "land for construction"?
Or should the Claimant be upheld when it argues that "the real tax incidence norm only subjects to Stamp Duty taxation urban properties with residential use and always by reference to their property register identification, and that the concept of property with residential use shall be that which literally results from Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the MPTC, and therefore 'Residential Use' requires that the immovable property that generates the stamp duty of Item 28 be equipped with a licence intended for residential purposes or have as its normal destination 'residential use', with immovable properties that, by their physical configuration – regardless of municipal licensing – can be effectively used as residences falling within this category"?
Many have been the CAAD decisions considering that the Tax Administration is not correct.
However, in the understanding of this tribunal, this is only so because the legislature's objective in 2013 was to encompass only the second reality – urban properties with residential use – and it was only in the following year that it broadened the tax incidence norm to also include land for construction.
To this end, we transcribe, for purposes of simplification and uniformity, what is stated in the arbitral award CAAD Case 48/2013-T (by way of example), to the portion to which we adhere:
"With respect to the situations classified under Item 28.1, only properties with residential use are subject to the tax.
Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, nowhere clarifies what is meant by properties with residential use. However, in paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Stamp Duty Code, added by the said Act, it was provided that 'for matters not regulated in the present Code relating to Item 28 of the General Table, the MPTC shall apply subsidiarily'.
The MPTC also does not clarify what is meant by properties with residential use, but only what the various types of properties are, qualifying paragraph 2 of Article 6 as 'residential, commercial, industrial or service buildings, as so licensed or, in the absence of a licence, which have as their normal destination each of these purposes'.
That is, for the MPTC, both are residential immovable properties those licensed for residential use, even if they are not currently being used for that purpose, and, in the case of absence of a licence, those which have as their normal destination that purpose.
With respect to land for construction, which is relevant in the present case, given the assessment made and impugned on land for construction, the MPTC, in paragraph 3 of Article 6, tells us that these are 'properties located within or outside an urban cluster for which a licence or authorization for subdivision operations or construction has been granted, and also those which have been so declared in the acquisition title, excepting properties as to which the competent entities prohibit any of those operations, namely those located in green spaces, protected areas or which, in accordance with the municipal territorial planning plans, are allocated to public spaces, infrastructure or facilities'.
From the two norms transcribed above, it is not possible to extract what the legislature intended to say when it refers to properties with residential use.
Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29/10, has no preamble whatsoever, and therefore it is not possible to derive the legislature's intent therefrom.
This Act of the National Assembly originated from the legislative proposal no. 96/XII (2nd), which, in its statement of reasons, discusses the introduction of fiscal measures inserted in a broader set of measures to combat the budget deficit.
In the statement of reasons of the said legislative proposal, it is stated that 'these measures are fundamental to reinforce the principle of social equity in austerity, ensuring an effective distribution of the sacrifices necessary for compliance with the adjustment programme. The Government is strongly committed to ensuring that the distribution of those sacrifices is made by all and not only by those who live on the income from their work. In accordance with that objective, this Act broadens the taxation of capital and property, encompassing equitably a broad set of sectors of Portuguese society'.
In that statement of reasons it is further stated that, in addition to the increase in taxation on capital income and mobile capital gains, a tax is created under Stamp Duty applicable to urban properties with residential use whose taxable patrimonial value is equal to or greater than one million euros.
That is, in such statement of reasons, neither is it clarified what is meant by urban properties with residential use.
In his intervention in the National Assembly, in the presentation and discussion of the said legislative proposal, the Secretary of State for Tax Matters made the following statement:
'The Government has chosen social equity as the priority principle of its fiscal policy. This is even more important in times of fiscal rigour as a way to ensure the fair distribution of the fiscal burden.
In the demanding period the country is going through, during which it is obliged to comply with the programme of economic and financial assistance, it becomes even more pressing to affirm the principle of equity. It cannot always be the same – workers and pensioners – bearing the fiscal burdens.
For the fiscal system to be fairer, it is crucial to promote the broadening of the tax base by demanding greater effort from taxpayers with higher incomes and thereby protecting Portuguese families with lower incomes in this manner.
For the fiscal system to promote greater equality, it is fundamental that the effort of budgetary consolidation be distributed among all types of income encompassing with special emphasis capital income and high-value properties. This matter, it should be recalled, was extensively addressed in the Constitutional Court ruling.
Finally, for the fiscal system to be more equitable, it is crucial that all be called upon to contribute according to their contributive capacity, granting the tax administration reinforced powers to monitor and supervise situations of tax fraud and evasion.
In this sense, the Government is presenting today a set of measures that effectively reinforce a fair and equitable distribution of the adjustment effort among a broad and comprehensive set of sectors of Portuguese society.
This proposal has three essential pillars: the creation of special taxation on urban properties with a value exceeding 1 million euros; the increase in taxation on capital income and on mobile capital gains; and the reinforcement of the rules to combat tax fraud and evasion.
In the first place, the Government proposes the creation of a special tax on the highest-value residential urban properties. It is the first time that Portugal has created special taxation on high-value properties intended for residential use. This tax will be 0.5% to 0.8% in 2012, and 1% in 2013, and will apply to houses with a value equal to or greater than 1 million euros. With the creation of this additional tax, the fiscal burden required of these proprietors will be significantly increased in 2012 and 2013'."
In their interventions, in the discussion of such legislative proposal, deputies Pedro Filipe Soares, of the Left Bloc, and Paulo Sá, of the Communist Party, speak of the taxation of luxury real property, with references even being made to previous legislative proposals on the same subject that were not approved." (emphasis ours)
The legislative purpose was therefore to create a tax that would apply to, in the words of the Secretary of State, "houses with a value equal to or greater than 1 million euros" and not to land for construction. There would have been justification for doing so, and indeed the reasons that justify the payment of tax on "luxury" property by an owner of property worth over 1 million euros would apply, in the words of the Tax Administration, indistinctly to cases of "residential use" urban properties and "land for construction". However, that was not the legislature's objective. And this is confirmed by the fact that in the following year, surely perceiving the lacuna in the original wording, it amended the law by explicitly adding this reality.
While understanding well the arguments of the Tax Administration, the latter cannot, however, substitute itself for the legislature. Moreover, it does not appear to us possible through extensive interpretation, using the reasoning by analogy with buildings considered residential urban properties, to conclude, without more, that the species of urban properties considered "land for construction" are encompassed "ope legis" in the tax incidence norm, it being sufficient to allege the legal-formal qualification and the elements of the property register, since, as emphasized, it would be necessary to demonstrate its "residential use" in concreto.
In summary, it is therefore concluded that the Stamp Duty assessments are unlawful due to a violation of law in the form of error as to the factual and legal premises, which justifies their annulment pursuant to Article 135 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, applicable pursuant to Article 29(1), paragraph d) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration and paragraph c) of Article 2 of the General Tax Law.
The request for arbitral ruling is therefore entirely well-founded.
As to the Defect in Reasoning
As already previously decided in arbitral proceedings in Case no. 91/2012-T – CAAD: "The complete acceptance of the defects of violation of law precludes examination of formal and procedural defects, as follows from the order of examination of defects provided in Article 124(2) of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, subsidiarily applicable by virtue of the provisions of Article 29(1), paragraph a) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration".
In fact, the establishment of an order of examination of defects is justified only by the eventuality that the acceptance of defects examined with priority renders unnecessary the examination of the remaining defects, because if it were always necessary to examine all defects, the order of their examination would be irrelevant.
Given the foregoing, since the defects of violation of law are well-founded, examination of the defect in reasoning is precluded.
Indemnificatory Interest
The Claimant further requests that it be determined that the Tax Administration pay indemnificatory interest, pursuant to Article 43(1) of the General Tax Law, with respect to the amounts of €2,196.98, €2,196.98, €2,306.34, and €1,881.90 already paid and, likewise, with respect to the amounts that may have been paid after the constitution of the present tribunal.
In accordance with the provisions of paragraph b) of Article 24 of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, the arbitral award on the merits of the claim from which no appeal or challenge lies binds the Tax Administration from the end of the period provided for appeal or challenge, and this Administration, in the exact terms of the acceptance of the arbitral award in favour of the taxable person and until the end of the period provided for the voluntary execution of the decisions of tax judicial courts, must "restore the situation that would have existed if the tax act subject of the arbitral award had not been performed, adopting the acts and operations necessary for that purpose", which is in consonance with the provisions of Article 100 of the General Tax Law, applicable by virtue of the provisions of Article 29(1), paragraph a) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration.[2]
Now, pursuant to paragraph 5 of Article 24 of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, when stating that "payment of interest, regardless of its nature, is due, as provided for in the General Tax Law and in the Code of Tax Procedure and Process", is nothing more than the recognition of the right to indemnificatory interest in arbitral proceedings.
Pursuant to Article 43 of the General Tax Law, to the extent applicable here, "indemnificatory interest is due when it is determined, in administrative review or judicial challenge, that there was error attributable to the services resulting in payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than legally due".
It is important to clarify on this point that the request for arbitral ruling addresses not only the first instalments of Stamp Duty paid as of the date of filing of the request with CAAD, but also subsequent instalments that would have been due for payment during 2014.
Thus, if those have been paid, there will likewise be entitlement to indemnificatory interest, as the illegality of both instalments, the first and the remaining ones, is attributable to the Tax Administration.
In conclusion, in the matter at hand, it is manifest that, following the declaration of illegality of the Stamp Duty assessment acts, there is entitlement to indemnificatory interest, as the illegality of those acts is attributable to the Tax Administration, which, on its own initiative, performed them without legal support.
There is a violation of substantive law, consisting of error as to the factual and legal premises, attributable to the Tax Administration.
Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to indemnificatory interest, pursuant to Article 43(1) of the General Tax Law and Article 61 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, calculated on the amount improperly paid as of the date of the request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal or during 2014, at the rate of legal interest provided for in Article 559 of the Civil Code and, currently, in Order no. 291/2003, of 8 April (Articles 43(4) and 35(10) of the General Tax Law).
V. AWARD
For the foregoing reasons, this arbitral tribunal decides as follows:
a) The request for arbitral ruling is accepted in full;
b) The illegality of the following acts is declared:
– Assessment no. 2014 ..., with the amount due of €2,196.98, assessment no. 2014 ..., with the amount due of €2,196.98, assessment no. 2014 ..., with the amount due of €2,306.34, and assessment no. 2014 ..., with the amount due of €1,881.90, all corresponding to the first instalments of Stamp Duty for 2013;
– Assessments corresponding to the subsequent instalments relating to Stamp Duty for 2013;
c) The Stamp Duty assessments aforesaid are annulled;
d) The Tax and Customs Authority is condemned to pay to the Claimant indemnificatory interest, pursuant to Article 43(1) of the General Tax Law and Article 61 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, calculated on the amount improperly paid as of the date of the request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal or on the amount relating to the subsequent instalments that have been paid thereafter, provided they relate to the year 2013, at the rate of legal interest provided for in Article 559 of the Civil Code and, currently, in Order no. 291/2003, of 8 April (Articles 43(4) and 35(10) of the General Tax Law), from the date on which payment was made until full payment.
VI. VALUE OF THE CASE
The value of the case is fixed at €25,746.50, pursuant to Article 97-A(1), paragraph a) of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, applicable by virtue of paragraphs a) and b) of Article 29(1) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration and of Article 3(2) of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.
VII. COSTS
The arbitration fee is fixed at €1,530.00 in accordance with Table I of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be paid by the Tax and Customs Authority, since the request was entirely accepted, pursuant to Articles 12(2) and 22(4) of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration and Article 4(4) of the said Regulation.
Let it be notified.
Lisbon
6 April 2015
The Arbitrator
(Carla Castelo Trindade)
This text was drawn up by computer, pursuant to Article 138(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), applicable by reference to Article 29(1), paragraph e) of the Regime of Tax Arbitration.
The wording of this decision follows pre-reform Portuguese orthography.
[1] Jorge Lopes de Sousa, Commentary to the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, in Guide to Tax Arbitration, Coord. Nuno Villa-Lobos and Mónica Brito Vieira, 2013, Almedina, p. 202.
[2] Which establishes that "the tax administration is obliged, in case of full or partial acceptance of administrative review, judicial challenge or appeal in favour of the taxable person, to the immediate and complete restoration of the legality of the act or situation subject to the dispute, including the payment of indemnificatory interest, if applicable, from the end of the deadline for execution of the decision".
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created