Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
The Arbitrators José Pedro Carvalho (Presiding Arbitrator), Suzana Fernandes da Costa and Luís Baptista, designated by the Ethics Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal, hereby decide as follows:
ARBITRAL DECISION (see complete version in PDF)
I – REPORT
On 9 October 2017, A... –, S.A., NIPC …, with registered office at …, …, …, filed a petition for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the combined provisions of Articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, which approved the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters, as amended by Article 228 of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December (hereinafter, referred to in abbreviated form as RJAT), seeking the declaration of illegality of the tax assessment act for Corporate Income Tax assessment No. 2014 … and corresponding compensatory interest, in the total amount of €760,265.24, as well as of the hierarchical review decision which had that assessment as its subject matter.
To support its petition, the Claimant alleges, in summary:
-
Defect of violation of law due to manifest insufficiency of reasoning of the reports and conclusions of the inspection actions, regarding the adjustments derived from the failure to increase the taxable base by the reinstatement and amortisations recorded as costs resulting from the acquisition of the trademark "C...";
-
The deductibility of expenses with depreciations/amortisations relating to the intangible asset "C...".
On 9-10-2017, the petition for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted and automatically notified to the Tax Authority.
The Claimant did not proceed with the appointment of an arbitrator. Therefore, pursuant to the provision in subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of Article 6 and subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the RJAT, the President of the Ethics Council of the CAAD designated the undersigned José Pedro Carvalho and Suzana Fernandes da Costa, as well as the Honourable Professor Doctor Ana Maria Rodrigues as arbitrators of the collective arbitral tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable timeframe.
On 28-11-2017, the parties were notified of these designations and did not express any intention to challenge any of them.
In accordance with the provision in subparagraph c) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the RJAT, the collective Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 20-12-2017.
On 2-02-2018, due to the death of the Honourable Professor Doctor Ana Maria Rodrigues, the Honourable Doctor Luís Baptista was appointed as arbitrator in replacement by the President of the Ethics Council of the CAAD.
On 6-02-2018, the Respondent, duly notified for this purpose, filed its reply defending itself solely by way of objection.
On 17-04-2018, the hearing referred to in Article 18 of the RJAT took place, at which the witnesses presented by the Claimant were examined.
Having been granted a time period for the submission of written arguments, these were submitted by the parties, expressing themselves regarding the evidence produced and reiterating and developing their respective legal positions.
A time period of 30 days was set for the issuance of the final decision, following the submission of arguments by the Respondent.
Taking into account the complexity of the case, the procedural course observed, and the suspensions of the time period arising from the regime of Article 17-A of the RJAT, in accordance with and for the purposes of Article 21/2 of the RJAT, the time period referred to in paragraph 1 of that same article was extended by two months.
The Arbitral Tribunal is materially competent and is regularly constituted, pursuant to Articles 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph a), 5 and 6, paragraph 1, of the RJAT.
The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate parties and are duly represented, in accordance with Articles 4 and 10 of the RJAT and Article 1 of Ministerial Order No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.
The case does not suffer from any procedural defects.
Thus, there is no obstacle to the examination of the merits of the case.
In view of all the foregoing, judgment shall be rendered as follows:
II. DECISION
A. FINDINGS OF FACT
A.1. Facts Established as Proven
-
The Claimant is a parent company of a group of companies operating in the pharmaceutical sector, producing and marketing products in this field and holding several trademarks operating in the healthcare sector in general.
-
At the time of the relevant facts, the Claimant was subject to the special regime for taxation of groups of companies.
-
On 23-12-2009, an "Asset Purchase Agreement" was entered into between the Claimant and D... S.A.
-
Through the aforementioned contract, the Claimant acquired from D... S.A., for the sum of €15,600,000.00, the trademark C..., comprising the following assets:
-
"Manufacturing technology and know-how": comprising all know-how relating to product formulation, quality control, packaging, formulas, complaint records, evaluations, processes, technology used;
-
Registrations: comprising product registration files and marketing authorisations;
-
Trademarks: comprising the trademark "C...", but also the trademarks "C.a...", "C.b...", "C.c...", "C.d...", "C.e...", "C.f...", "C.g...", "C.h...", "C.i...", "C.j...", "C.k...", "C.l...", "C.m...", "C.n...", "C.o...", "C.p...", "C.q...", "C.r...", "C.s...", "C.t..." and updated registrations;
-
"Marketing and promotional documents": comprising the customer list, marketing and promotional plans, sales force training manuals, existing at the time of the transaction.
-
-
In the contract, no reference was made to any time limit or restriction on exclusive use of the trademark.
-
Through the Asset Purchase Agreement, D..., S.A. undertook to make efforts to ensure, at no additional cost, the assignment of position in all distribution contracts it had entered into, as well as supply contracts to Group E... and Group F... and furthermore, in the scope of supply and manufacturing contracts entered into with Laboratories G... International and H....
-
The Claimant notified the competition authority of this transaction.
-
On 18-09-2010, B... –, Lda., a company belonging to the Claimant's group, acquired from it the trademark "C..." and the aforementioned assets, through a capital increase subscribed by the shareholder A... –, S.A., effected by means of contribution in kind, to which intangible asset was assigned a net value of €14,518,555.43.
-
The Claimant, in its individual capacity, and B... –, Lda., recorded amortisations on the asset designated "Trademarks/Rights C...".
-
The Claimant and B... –, Lda. proceeded with the amortisation of the intangible asset considering, first, that the asset had a useful life of 6 years and, later on the basis of a useful life of 10 years.
-
The period of useful life of the asset was determined considering the following criteria:
-
Typical life cycles of assets;
-
Technical, technological and commercial obsolescence;
-
Competition;
-
Level of maintenance expenditure required to obtain the expected future economic benefits of the assets.
-
-
In the absence of investment by the Claimant, at least part of the assets acquired would become technically, technologically and commercially obsolete within the period of useful life estimated by the Claimant.
-
The trademark "C..." and its products fall within a sector markedly affected by a need for constant evolution, in which new products are launched almost daily, with new properties and broader scope of use.
-
In 2014, EU Regulation No. 358-2014 of the Commission, of 9 April 2014, was published, which prohibited the use of a raw material called "Phenonip" from 16 October 2014 and its disposal until 15 July 2015, which therefore required the reformulation of the products "C... Body Emulsion" and "C... Bath Gel".
-
Also in 2014, two new Regulations (EU Regulations Nos. 1003/2014 and 2004/2014 of the Commission, of 18 September) were published on amendments to the annexes of substances permitted in cosmetics, their concentrations and conditions.
-
In the scope of the aforementioned regulations, the use of "Propylparaben" and "Butylparaben", among others, became prohibited in non-rinsed products, designed for application in the area covered by diapers in children under three years of age, which led to the need for reformulation of "C.i... diaper rash cream".
-
The market in which products associated with the trademark "C..." are situated is highly competitive, with other products and trademarks on the market with high levels of promotion, which leads to the constant need to invest in technology and image associated with each of the products.
-
The aggressiveness of competition in the said market requires substantial investment in promotion and technology to maintain product competitiveness.
-
Products associated with the trademark "C..." were subject to various updates and modifications over time, either due to regulatory requirements or as a result of competition itself, with some being discontinued.
-
In 2012, alterations were suggested by D… AG, following complaints regarding the quality of product C.i... Cream.
-
The Claimant was subject to an external inspection procedure, relating to the financial year 2010, through Service Order No. OI 2013….
-
The inspection report contains the following:
[Details of inspection findings omitted for brevity in original]
-
Following the aforementioned inspection action, adjustments were made to the declared tax result, on an individual basis, in the amount of €1,514,022.40 due to the fact that the Claimant had considered as a cost the amount relating to reinstatement and amortisations arising from the acquisition of the trademark "C...".
-
In compliance with Service Order No. OI 2014…, an external inspection procedure was carried out, relating to the period 2010, of the company B... – Farmacêuticos, Lda.
-
The inspection report of company B... –, Lda. contains the following:
[Details of inspection findings omitted for brevity in original]
-
As a result of the inspection action, the Tax Authority made adjustments to the declared tax result, effected on an individual basis to this company, in the amount of €865,155.68 relating to depreciation and amortisations not accepted as costs.
-
The Claimant was notified of Corporate Income Tax assessment No. 2014 … and the statement of account reconciliation No. 2014 …, arising from the individual adjustments applied to it as well as adjustments relating to company B... –, Lda.
-
On 13-02-2015, the Claimant proceeded to pay the amount of tax determined.
-
On 16-06-2015, the Claimant filed an administrative appeal against Corporate Income Tax assessment No. 2014 …, on the grounds of calculation error in the assessment and illegality of the adjustments made.
-
On 13-07-2016, the Claimant was notified of the draft decision for partial rejection of the administrative appeal.
-
On 29-07-2016, the Claimant exercised the right of hearing.
-
On 31-08-2016, the Claimant was notified of the decision for partial rejection of the administrative appeal.
-
Not satisfied with the decision, on 29-09-2016, the Claimant filed a hierarchical review.
-
On 10-07-2017, the Claimant was notified of the order for rejection of the hierarchical review.
A.2. Facts Given as Not Proven
Regarding the findings of fact, there are no facts that should be considered as not proven with relevance to the decision.
A.3. Substantiation of Proven and Not Proven Facts
Regarding the findings of fact, the Tribunal is not required to rule on everything alleged by the parties. Rather, it has the duty to select the facts that are important for the decision and distinguish between proven and not proven matters (cf. Article 123, paragraph 2, of the CPPT and Article 607, paragraph 3 of the CPC, applicable pursuant to Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and e), of the RJAT).
In this manner, the facts relevant to the judgment of the case are selected and delimited based on their legal relevance, which is established in light of the various plausible solutions to the question(s) of law (cf. former Article 511, paragraph 1, of the CPC, corresponding to current Article 596, applicable pursuant to Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraph e), of the RJAT).
Thus, having regard to the positions taken by the parties, in light of Article 110/7 of the CPPT, the documentary evidence and administrative files joined to the case, as well as the testimonial evidence produced, the facts listed above have been considered proven, with relevance to the decision, bearing in mind that, as stated in the Court of Appeal judgment of the Court of Appeal of the South (TCA-South) of 26-06-2014, rendered in case 07148/13[1], "the probative value of the tax inspection report (...) may have probative force if the assertions contained therein are not challenged".
Allegations made by the parties and presented as facts, consisting of assertions that are strictly conclusive, incapable of proof and whose truthfulness is to be assessed in relation to the specific findings of fact consolidated above, were neither considered as proven nor as not proven.
B. ON THE LAW
At issue in the present arbitration is, primarily, the question of whether the trademark C... and the assets associated with it should, or should not, be considered an intangible asset with finite and limited duration and, therefore, subject to amortisations and depreciations that may be recognised as a fiscally relevant cost.
It should be noted, at the outset, that the asset referred to in the Inspection Report and in the present arbitration as trademark C... comprises, as is agreed and results from the established facts, the following legal realities:
-
"Manufacturing technology and know-how": comprising all know-how relating to product formulation, quality control, packaging, formulas, complaint records, evaluations, processes, technology used;
-
Registrations: comprising product registration files and marketing authorisations;
-
Trademarks: comprising the trademark "C...", but also the trademarks "C.a...", "C.b...", "C.c...", "C.d...", "C.e...", "C.f...", "C.g...", "C.h...", "C.i...", "C.j...", "C.k...", "C.l...", "C.m...", "C.n...", "C.o...", "C.p...", "C.q...", "C.r...", "C.s...", "C.t..." and updated registrations;
-
"Marketing and promotional documents": comprising the customer list, marketing and promotional plans, sales force training manuals, among others, existing at the time of the transaction.
-
Assignment of contractual position in all distribution contracts that the seller of the assets had entered into, including supply contracts to Group E... and Group F...;
-
Assignment of contractual position of the seller of the assets in the scope of supply and manufacturing contracts entered into with Laboratories G... International and H... Cosmetic.
It should also be noted that, as has been established jurisprudence at various levels, "It is exclusively in light of the reasoning presented by the Tax Authority when making the assessment (...) that the legality of that tax act should be assessed."[2]
Therefore, it falls to this arbitral tribunal to assess whether, in light of the reasoning provided by the Tax Authority, the assessment that is the subject of the present arbitration is, or is not, in accordance with the applicable law.
This means, from the outset, and as will be seen below, that what must be established in the case sub iudice is not whether the amortisation periods applied by the Claimant to the asset corresponding to the trademark C..., as delimited above, which it held, are, or are not, legal, but exclusively whether it is properly reasoned, both at the factual and legal levels, whether the aforementioned asset should be considered as an asset of indefinite duration, and, as such, incapable of being subject to amortisations, recognised as fiscally relevant costs.
This is, therefore, the question to be decided.
As results from the Inspection Report, the Tax Authority considered that the expenses recorded by the Claimant as amortisations/depreciations in the amount of €1,514,022.40 should not be accepted fiscally, pursuant to the provision in subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 34 of the Corporate Income Tax Code, combined with Regulatory Decree 25/2009 of 14 September 2009, which establishes the "Regime of Depreciations and Amortisations for Purposes of Corporate Income Tax".
The aforementioned Article 34/1/a) of the applicable CIRC provides that "Not accepted as expenses: a) Depreciations and amortisations of elements of assets not subject to depreciation".
Regulatory Decree No. 25/2009, of 14 September, provides in its Article 16/1 that "Intangible Assets are amortisable when subject to depreciation, namely by having a temporary/limited period of validity."
Based on the contract signed by the Claimant and the company D... S.A., the Tax Authority concluded that the acquisition of the trademark C... constituted an intangible asset without a defined useful life, as no time limit or restriction on exclusive use of the trademark was mentioned and no elements were detected that would determine the useful life of the asset in question.
Furthermore, the Tax Authority considered that there was no foreseeable limit to the period during which it was expected that the asset would generate positive net cash inflows to the entity, and therefore characterised the useful life of the intangible asset as indefinite, and not finite, as considered by the Claimant.
During the assessment of the right of hearing opportunely exercised by the Claimant, the Tax Authority came to concede that, notwithstanding the contract for the purchase of the trademark ("Asset Purchase Agreement") from D... S.A. not stipulating any term, the taxable person could assign to this asset a finite useful life.
Nevertheless, the same Tax Authority considered that the Claimant did not demonstrate that the useful life of the asset was defined.
Article 124 of the CPPT provides that:
"1 - In the judgment, the court shall primarily assess the defects that lead to the declaration of non-existence or invalidity of the impugned act and, thereafter, the defects alleged that lead to its annulment.
2 - In the aforementioned groups, the assessment of defects is made in the following order:
a) In the first group, those of defects whose merit, according to the prudent discretion of the judge, determines more stable or effective protection of the offended interests;
b) In the second group, the one indicated by the party challenging the act, whenever this party establishes a relationship of subsidiarity between them and no other defects are alleged by the Public Prosecutor or, in other cases, the one fixed in the preceding subparagraph."
In the present case, no defects are alleged that would lead to a declaration of non-existence or invalidity of the impugned act, and the Claimant first alleges the defect of lack of reasoning of that act.
Let us examine this.
As is well known, reasoning is a requirement for tax acts in general, being a constitutional requirement (Article 268 of the CRP) and a legal requirement (Article 77 of the LGT).
In summary, it is now established in Portuguese doctrine and jurisprudence that the reasoning required must have the following characteristics:
-
Officiousness: must always be initiated by the administration, with reasonings at the request of a party not being admissible;
-
Contemporaneity: must be coeval with the performance of the act, with deferred reasonings not being permitted;
-
Clarity: must be comprehensible to an average recipient, avoiding polysemous or profoundly technical concepts;
-
Completeness: must contain all essential elements that were determinative of the decision taken. This characteristic breaks down into two requirements, namely: the duty of justification (legal norms and factuality – domain of legality) and of motivation (domain of discretion or opportunity, when a valuation is required).
Now, if reasoning is, in the terms referred to, necessary and mandatory, this cannot and should not be understood in an abstract and/or absolute manner. In other words, the reasoning required for a concrete tax act must be that which is functionally necessary so that it does not present itself to the taxpayer as a pure demonstration of arbitrariness. This will be – it is submitted – the touchstone for compliance with the duty of reasoning: when, before an average recipient placed in the position of the actual recipient, the tax act presents itself, from a standpoint of reasonableness, as a product of pure administrative arbitrariness, by virtue of the fact that the reasons of fact and/or law on which it is based are not discernible, the act will suffer from lack of reasoning.
Article 77/1 of the LGT thus provides that: "The decision of the procedure is always reasoned by means of a brief exposition of the reasons of fact and law that motivated it, and the reasoning may consist of a mere declaration of agreement with the grounds of previous opinions, information or proposals, including those that form part of the tax inspection report."
Descending to the concrete case, and as already noted above, what is at issue is an adjustment to the taxable income of the Claimant, based on the disallowance of expenses recorded by the Claimant as amortisations/depreciations in the amount of €1,514,022.40 that were not accepted fiscally, pursuant to the provision in subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of Article 34 of the Corporate Income Tax Code, combined with Regulatory Decree 25/2009 of 14 September 2009.
As also noted above, the aforementioned amortisations/depreciations refer to the following group of assets, acquired by the Claimant on 23-12-2009 from D... S.A, for the sum of €15,600,000.00:
-
"Manufacturing technology and know-how": comprising all know-how relating to product formulation, quality control, packaging, formulas, complaint records, evaluations, processes, technology used;
-
Registrations: comprising product registration files and marketing authorisations;
-
Trademarks: comprising the trademark "C...", but also the trademarks "C.a...", "C.b...", "C.c...", "C.d...", "C.e...", "C.f...", "C.g...", "C.h...", "C.i...", "C.j...", "C.k...", "C.l...", "C.m...", "C.n...", "C.o...", "C.p...", "C.q...", "C.r...", "C.s...", "C.t..." and updated registrations;
-
"Marketing and promotional documents": comprising the customer list, marketing and promotional plans, sales force training manuals, existing at the time of the transaction.
-
Assignment of contractual position in all distribution contracts that the seller of the assets had entered into, including supply contracts to Group E... and Group F...;
-
Assignment of contractual position of the seller of the assets in the scope of supply and manufacturing contracts entered into with Laboratories G... International and H... Cosmetic.
As was also seen above, the Tax Authority initially concluded that the acquisition of the trademark C... constituted an intangible asset without a defined useful life, as no time limit or restriction on exclusive use of the trademark was mentioned in the contract signed by the Claimant and the company D... S.A.
Nevertheless, already during the assessment of the right of hearing exercised by the now Claimant, the Tax Authority conceded that, notwithstanding the contract for the purchase of the trademark ("Asset Purchase Agreement") from D... S.A. not stipulating any term, the taxable person could assign to this asset a finite useful life.
Therefore, the basis for the adjustment now in question, decided by the Tax Authority, cannot be detected here.
It is verified, accordingly, that such adjustment is based on the consideration that there was no foreseeable limit to the period during which it was expected that the asset would generate positive net cash inflows to the Claimant.
Now, having examined all the reasoning provided by the Tax Authority, and contrasted it with the concrete content of the asset under consideration, one cannot but conclude that the adjustment in question is not properly reasoned, and presents characteristics typical of a manifestation of arbitrariness.
Indeed: the asset in question comprises very diverse realities, such as, in addition to various commercial trademarks proper, manufacturing and production techniques and knowledge, product registration files and marketing authorisations, customer lists, marketing and promotional plans, sales force training manuals, and assignments of various contractual positions in distribution and supply contracts.
It was this entire group of assets that the Claimant acquired on 23-12-2009 from D... S.A, for the sum of €15,600,000.00, and whose amortisation was unconditionally and in totum rejected by the Tax Authority.
Now, if, in light of the grounds presented by the Tax Authority to the taxpayer for such action, the motivations of the said Authority for considering that the set of commercial trademarks C... would not be susceptible of containing within a defined period of useful life can be understood and discussed (as the Claimant does), the same cannot be said regarding the remaining elements of the asset acquired by the Claimant from D....
Indeed, in light of the reasoning presented by the Tax Authority, there is no way, from the perspective of an average and normal recipient, placed in the position of the actual recipient of that reasoning, to understand why, for the Tax Authority, manufacturing and production techniques and knowledge, product registration files and marketing authorisations, customer lists, marketing and promotional plans, sales force training manuals, and assignments of various contractual positions in distribution and supply contracts, constitute assets of indefinite duration, especially given that it is immediately apparent that at least some of these assets will, in fact and by nature, have a period of finite duration.
Thus, and in light of the tax act now in question, it is not possible to discern whether, and why, the Tax Authority considers that:
-
manufacturing and production techniques and knowledge are not subject to obsolescence, as indeed the facts found themselves indicate, particularly in light of regulatory changes;
-
product registration files and marketing authorisations do not have, in light of their legal regulations, periods of validity, even though they are subject to renewal;
-
customer lists have indefinite utility, and marketing and promotional plans and sales force training manuals will be useable indefinitely, especially given that most of the products in question are intended for a transitional market segment (parents of newborns and very young children);
-
the distribution and supply contracts whose position was acquired by the Claimant from D... do not also have a period of validity, even though they are subject to renewal.
Now, given that the Tax Authority does not suggest, even remotely, that such assets are devoid of value (being, on the contrary, obvious that such assets do in fact incorporate economic value for their holder), or that the respective value is not comprised in the amount of €15,600,000.00 paid by the Claimant to D..., and to which the amortisations/depreciations disallowed refer, and no suggestion is made nor in any way indicated that there is a situation or attempt at fraud and/or tax evasion involved, it is not possible to understand what the reasons are why the said assets, comprised in the value of the amortisations/depreciations disallowed, were characterised by the Tax Authority as of indefinite duration.
Indeed, it is incomprehensible why the Tax Authority considers that there are no "legal factors restricting the period during which the entity controls access" to the economic benefits capable of being produced by the said assets, nor "a foreseeable limit to the period during which" they should "generate positive net cash flows to the entity" that acquired them.
The issue is not, therefore, contrary to what the Respondent alleges in the arbitration, the "fact that the Claimant disagrees and does not conform to the position of the Tax Authority". The issue is, rather, the fact that the Claimant, and the Arbitral Tribunal itself, are not in a position to disagree with or confirm the position of the Tax Authority, because the grounds on which it bases its judgment that the said elements of the asset (beyond the trademarks of the C... universe) that comprise the value amortised by the Claimant and disallowed by the Tax Authority do not possess a defined/definable duration are not cognisable.
Accordingly, it is necessary to conclude that such judgment is founded exclusively on the arbitrariness of the Tax Authority, in terms incompatible with the duty of reasoning that it has, by constitutional and legal requirement, and accordingly the alleged defect of lack of reasoning must be upheld, with the consequent annulment of the Corporate Income Tax assessment that is the subject of the present arbitration, and corresponding compensatory interest, the Claimant's petition being upheld, and the examination of the remaining questions raised being rendered moot.
As to the claim for indemnification interest submitted by the Claimant, Article 43, paragraph 1, of the LGT provides that indemnification interest is due when it is determined that there was an error attributable to the services from which resulted payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than that legally due.
In this case, the error affecting the annulled assessments is attributable to the Tax Authority, which made them on its own initiative, without properly reasoning them.
The Claimant thus has the right to be reimbursed the sum it paid (pursuant to the provision in Articles 100 of the LGT and Article 24, paragraph 1, of the RJAT) by force of the annulled acts and, furthermore, to be indemnified for the improper payment through the payment of indemnification interest, by the Tax Authority, from the date of payment of the sum, until reimbursement, at the legal default rate, in accordance with Articles 43, paragraphs 1 and 4, and 35, paragraph 10, of the LGT, Article 559 of the Civil Code and Ministerial Order No. 291/2003, of 8 April.
C. DECISION
For these reasons, this Arbitral Tribunal decides to fully uphold the arbitration petition filed and, in consequence:
-
Annuls the tax act for Corporate Income Tax assessment No. 2014 … and corresponding compensatory interest, in the total amount of €760,265.24, as well as the hierarchical review decision which had that assessment as its subject matter;
-
Condemns the Respondent to pay indemnification interest, in the terms indicated above;
-
Condemns the Respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings, in the amount of €11,016.00.
D. Value of the Case
The value of the case is fixed at €760,265.24, in accordance with Article 97-A, paragraph 1, a), of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, applicable by force of subparagraphs a) and b) of paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the RJAT and of paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.
E. Costs
The amount of the arbitration fee is fixed at €11,016.00, in accordance with Table I of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be paid by the Tax Authority, as the petition was fully upheld, in accordance with Articles 12, paragraph 2, and 22, paragraph 4, both of the RJAT, and Article 4, paragraph 4, of the aforementioned Regulation.
Notify.
Lisbon, 20 August 2018
The Presiding Arbitrator
(José Pedro Carvalho)
The Arbitrator Vogal
(Suzana Fernandes da Costa)
The Arbitrator Vogal
(Luís Baptista)
[1] Available at www.dgsi.pt, like the remainder of the cited jurisprudence without mention of source.
[2] Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 23-09-2015, rendered in case 01034/11.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created