CAAD 544/2015-T: Stamp Tax on Properties with Independent Units Under Verba 28.1 TGIS 2014

ARBITRAL DECISION[1]

The arbitral tribunal functioning with a single arbitrator constituted in CAAD – Centre for Administrative Arbitration pursuant to the legal regime established by Decree-Law no. 10/2011 of 20 January, for which the arbitrator from the Centre's list, Nuno Maldonado Sousa, was designated by the respective Deontological Council, hereby renders its arbitral decision.

1. REPORT

1.1. Identification of the parties and constitution of the arbitral tribunal

A…, widower, TIN…, resident at Avenue…, no.…, …, apt. in Lisbon; B…, single, of age, TIN…, resident at Avenue…, no.…, …, in Lisbon; C…, TIN…, married, resident at Street…, no.…, …, in Lisbon; D…, TIN…, married, resident at Avenue…, no.…, …, in Lisbon; E…, TIN…, divorced, resident at Street…, no.…, in Lisbon; F…, TIN…, single, of age, resident at Avenue…, no.…, …, door…, in Lisbon; G…, married, TIN…, resident at…, Street…, Block…, Lot…, ground floor, apt., in Lisbon; and H…, married, TIN…, resident at Avenue…, no.…, Block…, …, left, front, in Lisbon, filed a petition for constitution of the arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the joint provisions of articles 2.1-a and 10 of RJAT and articles 1 and 2 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March, in which the Tax and Customs Authority is the Respondent.

The petition for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of CAAD on 13-08-2015 and was notified to the AT on 07-09-2015.

Pursuant to the provisions of article 6, no. 1 and article 11, no. 1, lit. b) of RJAT, the Deontological Council designated the undersigned as arbitrator of the single arbitral tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable period, and notified the parties of this designation on 20-10-2015. In accordance with the rule contained in article 11, no. 1, lit. c) of RJAT, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 05-11-2015.

On 06-05-2016 this arbitral tribunal extended the period for issuing and notifying the parties of the arbitral decision by 10 days, pursuant to article 21-2 of RJAT.

1.2. Identification of the challenged acts, summary of the Requesters' claim, its grounds and defects attributed to the acts

In their Initial Petition, the Requesters, who are owners of urban real property in full ownership with apartments capable of independent use, petition for annulment of the Stamp Duty assessments for the year 2014 in the total amount of €31,122.89, which amount is distributed according to each Requester's share or the vacant estate it represents as follows:

The Requesters' petition is based on the fact that, as owners of urban real property (building) not subject to the horizontal property regime and comprised of several parts or apartments capable of independent use, some for commerce and others for habitation, and these latter, taken together, have a tax-assessed property value of €3,178,220.00, but none of these parts, individually considered, has a tax-assessed property value equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00. They argue that item 28.1 of TGIS should apply to the value of each division of the property (26-30 RPI), using the same value to determine whether each of them should be subject to taxation because its respective TPV exceeds the defined threshold. They contend that as the 39 divisions constitute units with independent economic value, it is not lawful to add the values of the divisions of the property to determine its subjection to tax.

The Requesters also petition for compensatory interest on the tax that was paid.

In legal terms, the Requesters sustain the inapplicability of the tax incidence norms used, namely article 1-1 of CIS in conjunction with item 28.1 of TGIS to the real property in question. In the Requesters' thesis, the assessments suffer from the defect of violation of law.

1.3. Summary of the AT's position

The Tax and Customs Authority presented its Response sustaining the legality of the assessment and defending the lack of merit of the claim and its grounds, understanding that the tax-assessed property value of the urban real property, for the purposes of determining the lower limit of the incidence of item 28-1 of TGIS, results from the sum of the tax-assessed values of its parts capable of independent use with residential allocation (the "overall value of the property", as it refers to in the 10th Response-AT). It thus considers that item 28.1 of TGIS is applicable to real properties in which parts capable of independent use coexist, the addition of whose property values with residential allocation results in a value equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00 (17th Response-AT). It concludes by defending the maintenance of the challenged acts.

2. SANITATION

2.1. Case preparation and submissions

The AT considered unnecessary the first meeting of the arbitral tribunal with the Parties (Response-AT, at the end) as the questions to be examined were exclusively matters of law. In this line of reasoning and in order to avoid potentially useless procedural acts, the Parties were invited on 15-03-2015 to submit their views within the applicable period on the necessity of holding the meeting referred to in article 18 of RJAT and of presenting oral or written submissions, with the warning that if they said nothing, the period for rendering this decision would commence. The Parties chose to say nothing on this matter.

Documents were submitted by the Requesters which met with no objection. The administrative file was submitted by the AT.

2.2. Sanitation

The arbitral tribunal was regularly constituted and has jurisdiction ratione materiae pursuant to the rules of article 2, no. 1, lit. a) of RJAT.

The Parties possess legal standing and capacity (the AT's in accordance with the provisions contained in article 4, no. 1 of RJAT and article 10, no. 2 of the same instrument and article 1, lit. a) of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March), are legitimate and are regularly represented.

There are no defects that vitiate the proceeding.

Thus there is no obstacle to the examination of the merits of the case and judgment must be rendered.

3. DECISION

3.1. Factual matters

3.1.1. Facts considered proven

The following facts were established in this case:

A. Registered in the urban property register is the real property located at Av.…, nos. … A, … B, … C, … D, and … in Lisbon, in the municipality of Lisbon, parish of…, with registration number…, described as real property of the type "full ownership property with apartments or divisions capable of independent use", with total tax-assessed value of €4,281,740.00, with the designation "commerce and habitation", as per the terms contained in the respective property records attached to the Requesters' Initial Petition as document no. 154, which by its length and detail is hereby considered as reproduced and which in summary shows that the composition of the property is as follows:

B. The urban real property referred to in A) has as registered holders in the respective property register: [16th RPI: doc. 154]

a. A…, with a share of 1/6;

b. Estate of I…, with a share of 1/3;

c. Estate of J…, with a share of 1/3;

d. Estate of K…, with a share of 1/6.

C. The property referred to in A) is registered in the Land Registry of Lisbon, in the parish of…, description no. …/…, with the following recorded: [17th RPI: doc. 155]

a. The share of 1/6 in the name of Requester A…; [Entry 6 of 01-07-1959]

b. The share of 1/6 by hereditary succession of I…, and of L…, without determination of share or right, in favor of H… and of G…, both Requesters in this proceeding; [Entry 35 of 25-03-1997 and Entry 4466 of 24-09-2010]

c. The share of 2/6 by hereditary succession of I…; without determination of share or right, in favor of K… and J…, both deceased, to whom succeeded: [Entry 6 of 01-07-1959, Entry 13 of 12-08-1991, Entry 4101 of 24-09-2010, Entry 4465 of 24-09-2010]

i. G… and H…, Requesters in this proceeding, who also succeeded to L…, herself now deceased;

ii. B…, D…, A…, C…, F… and E…, all Requesters in this proceeding;

d. The share of 2/6 by hereditary succession of K…, without determination of share or right, in favor of B…, D…, A…, C…, F… and E…, all Requesters in this proceeding; [Entry 4392 of 24-09-2010]

D. Requester A… received from the Lisbon Tax Service – … the following assessments for the tax year 2014, with assessment date of 20-03-2015, relating to the following apartments or divisions of the property identified in A), with indication of the basis "TGIS item 28.1" and the share of 1/6: [1st and 2nd RPI: docs. 1 to 38]

E. The estate head of the estate opened by death of I… (TIN…) received from the Lisbon Tax Service – … the following assessments for the tax year 2014, with assessment date of 20-03-2015, relating to the following apartments or divisions of the property identified in A), with indication of the basis "TGIS item 28.1" and the share of 1/3: [4th and 5th RPI: docs. 39 to 75]

F. G… as estate head of the estate opened by death of J… (TIN …), received from the Lisbon Tax Service – … the following assessments for the tax year 2014, with assessment date of 20-03-2015, relating to the following apartments or divisions of the property identified in A), with indication of the basis "TGIS item 28.1" and the share of 1/3: [7th and 8th RPI: docs. 76 to 114]

G. A… as estate head of the estate opened by death of K… (TIN…), received from the Lisbon Tax Service –… the following assessments for the tax year 2014, with assessment date of 20-03-2015, relating to the following apartments or divisions of the property identified in A), with indication of the basis "TGIS item 28.1" and the share of 1/6: [9th and 10th RPI: docs. 115 to 153]

H. Requester A… paid the assessed tax in the amount of €5,158.53 on 29 April 2015. [34th RPI: docs. 1 to 38]

I. The tax assessed against the estate opened by death of K…, in the amount of €5,297.00, was paid on 29 April 2015. [35th RPI: docs. 115 to 153].

J. The first installment of the tax assessed against the estate opened by death of I…, in the amount of €5,092.47, was paid on 29 July 2015. [36th RPI: docs. 39 to 75].

K. Of the tax assessed against the estate opened by death of J…, the amount of €5,478.29 was paid on 29 April 2015. [36th RPI: docs. 76 to 114].

L. The second installment of the tax assessed against the estate opened by death of I…, was paid on 19 November 2015. [Petition of 07-12-2015: docs. 1 to 37].

M. The second installment of the tax assessed against the estate opened by death of J…, was paid on 19 July 2015. [Petition of 07-12-2015: docs. 38 to 74].

3.1.2. Facts considered unproven

No other facts with interest for deciding the case were alleged.

3.1.3. Reasoning on the proven factual matters

The tribunal's conviction was based on the documentary evidence contained in the case file and on the position taken regarding each fact by the Parties in their pleadings, duly identified.

3.2. Matters of law

3.2.1. Fundamental issue: The subjection of divisions or apartments capable of independent use of urban real property (building) under full ownership regime to item 28.1 of TGIS

The fundamental issue to be examined in this case concerns determining in which legal situations item 28.1 of TGIS should be applied, namely how the TPV should be determined for application of the joint norms of article 1-1 CIS and item 28.1 TGIS, in the wording in force since 01-01-2014, resulting from article 194 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget for 2014).

Specifically, it is necessary to determine whether the TPV of real property not submitted to the horizontal property regime and comprised of divisions or apartments capable of independent use, not all with residential allocation, results from the sum of the tax-assessed values of those parts with residential allocation or whether the subjection to tax should be assessed for each division or apartment capable of such independent use.

The applicable law is contained especially in article 1 of CIS and item 28 of its TGIS, which in the wording in force since the beginning of 2014 regulates as follows:

CIS

Article 1. Incidence

1 - Stamp duty is imposed on all acts, contracts, documents, titles, papers and other facts or legal situations provided for in the General Table, including gratuitous transfers of property.

TGIS

28 - Ownership, usufruct or superficies right of urban real properties whose tax-assessed property value contained in the register, pursuant to the Code on Municipal Property Tax (CIMI), is equal to or greater than €1,000,000 - on the tax-assessed property value used for purposes of IMI:

28.1 - For residential real property or land for construction whose construction, authorized or planned, is for habitation, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Property Tax Code - 1%

28.2 - For real property, when the taxable persons who are not natural persons are residents in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime, contained in the list approved by ordinance of the Minister of Finance - 7.5%.

It should be noted that taxation through this item began on 30-10-2012 and its discipline was introduced by Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October which regulated the subsidiary application of CIMI to assessments relating to item 28 of TGIS. Adaptations to this new taxation were also made in the CIS, namely:

• The determination of subjective incidence by reference to CIMI, which as a general rule determines that tax is paid by the owner of the real property on 31 December of the year to which it relates (article 2-4 CIS and article 8 CIMI);

• The moment of constitution of the tax obligation by reference to CIMI (article 5-u CIS);

• The annual nature, the jurisdiction of the central services of the AT and the reference to CIMI as to other rules concerning assessment (article 23-7 CIS);

• The application to the issuance of collection documents and payment of tax of the regime of periods, terms and conditions defined in articles 119 and 120 of CIMI (articles 44-5 and 46-5 CIS);

• The application of the regime of ex officio revision of assessment and annulment provided for in article 115 of CIMI (article 49-3 CIS).

While from the Requesters' thesis it results that item 28.1 of TGIS should be imposed on the value of each division of the property, using that same value of each apartment or division to determine whether each of them should be subject to taxation because its respective TPV exceeds the defined lower limit, the AT argues that subjection to IS results from the conjunction of two factors, namely (i) residential allocation and (ii) the tax-assessed property value of the urban real property registered in the matrix being equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00, and this TPV is that of the property as a whole, or better, that which results from the addition of the tax-assessed values corresponding to all divisions or apartments of the property that have residential allocation.

Let us now examine what the solution to the dispute is.

Law no. 55-A/2012 of 29 October introduced an amendment to the rule of article 1 of CIS such that this norm came to contemplate also "legal situations" in addition to "acts, contracts, documents, titles, papers and other facts" provided for in TGIS. On the other hand, the same legislative amendment added to TGIS item 28, in which it provides for taxation of the right of ownership, usufruct or superficies right of urban real properties[2] whose tax-assessed property value contained in the register, pursuant to CIMI, is equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00, with tax being imposed on the tax-assessed property value used for purposes of IMI. Tax is calculated at the rate of 1% when the real property in question has residential allocation and at the rate of 7.5% if it is a legal person resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime.

The CIS does not directly answer the generality of the interpretive questions that item 28 of TGIS raises and therefore the legislator wisely chose from the outset the regime of CIMI to regulate the matters not regulated (article 67-2 CIS). It is natural that this be so as it is precisely in CIMI that the basic concepts that tax law uses for taxation of property are enshrined, as is understood from article 1-6 CIS itself and article 1-2 CIMT.

Tax law has not wholly adopted the civil law conceptualization of real property, adapting it to the needs of this branch of law. For taxation of property, real property is any fraction of territory, including waters, plantations and constructions of any nature incorporated in or resting on it, with a character of permanence, provided it forms part of a person's assets and has economic value (article 2 CIMI). In turn real properties may be rural or urban.

Rural real properties are lands situated outside urban agglomerations which are not land for construction, intended or intended to be used for agricultural activities, including constructions directly used for such activity, their waters and plantations (article 3 CIMI).

Urban real properties, which are all others, are divided into several types, namely (i) residential real properties; (ii) commercial, industrial or service real properties; (iii) land for construction; and (iv) others (article 6-1 CIMI). The specification of urban real properties is done according to their purpose, either because it is licensed for that purpose or because that is the purpose to which it is normally intended (article 6-3). In turn those that qualify as land for construction include (i) those for which a license or authorization for a subdivision or construction operation has been granted, prior notification admitted or favorable prior information issued; (ii) those which have been declared as such in the acquisition title (article 6-3 CIMI).

In turn, those classified as other urban real properties include (i) lands within the limits of urban agglomerations where competent entities or territorial planning instruments prohibit subdivision or construction (ii) lands within an urban agglomeration which cannot have use generating any income and are not used for generating agricultural income; (iii) buildings and constructions licensed or, failing a license, which have as their normal purpose ends other than residential, commercial, industrial or service purposes (article 6-4 CIMI).

A classification of mixed property is also permitted, when the same property has a rural part and an urban part and neither can be classified as principal in relation to the other (articles 5-1 and 5-2 CIMI).

It is believed that the conceptual constructions of CIMI should be understood as fundamental to the taxation of property, for several reasons. First, because the norms of the tax laws in this area of taxation express themselves in this sense, namely article 1-6 CIS and article 1-2 CIMT. Second, because CIMI is a genuine code in its legal sense, i.e., it contains the nuclear regime of rules relating to a given matter; it contains the fundamental discipline, treating it systematically and scientifically[3]. Third, the CIMI norms in question were elaborated within the scope of the reform of property taxation, considered in the complex normative system in which they are integrated and serve the function of "establishing the precise contours of the reality to be taxed" (preamble of CIMI).

The entire system of organization of real property ownership set forth in CIMI, to which reference has been made, thus has as its purpose the rigorous characterization of real property assets that are subject to taxation and uses for this a criterion of multiple dimensions – the economic perspective. It is the economic perspective that makes it possible to assert that only fractions of territory that are capable of forming part of the assets of persons and that have economic value are real properties (article 2 CIMI); it is the characteristic of having economic autonomy that allows the concept of real property to embrace waters, plantations, buildings and constructions (article 2 CIMI); it is the use generating agricultural income that makes it possible to qualify real properties as rural (article 3-1-a CIMI); it is believed to be the same perspective of economic individuality, much more than legal, that dictates that each autonomous fraction of buildings in horizontal property is treated as a real property (article 2-4 CIMI), although for civil law it is only an independent unit of an urban real property (article 1,414 of the Civil Code); they also appear to be reasons of an economic nature that lead each part of real property capable of independent use to be considered separately in property registration in order to permit discrimination of the respective tax-assessed property value (article 12-3 CIMI).

The concern for individualization following criteria of an economic nature is well understood; one seeks to characterize each thing according to its aptitude and to tax it accordingly. For this there is a continuing concern to have the value of each part that may be subject to differentiated use registered (e.g. article 12-3 CIMI). The concern for individualized description and registration of independent parts has as its ultimate purpose to make taxation also individualized, for each part of real property assets; it is precisely this individualization that is enshrined in the norm of article 119-1 CIMI, in imposing not only the discrimination of real properties but also of its parts capable of independent use and their respective tax-assessed property value. For CIMI it is thus the value of the parts capable of independent use that serves as the basis for tax incidence and not any other value that might be calculated on the basis of it by arithmetic operation.

As this is the criterion used for calculation of Municipal Property Tax and as CIMI is of subsidiary application to CIS (article 67-2 of Law no. 55-A/2012 of 29 October), there is no reason not to follow its orientation. Let us see to what it leads.

The incidence norm – item 28-1 TGIS – merely determines the application of tax to properties with residential allocation with TPV equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00. Two approaches could be explored:

(i) Consider that the limit of €1,000,000.00 refers to each part of the property that is fiscally relevant, having its own tax significance;

(ii) Obtain a TPV corresponding to residential allocation, through the arithmetic operations necessary to purge the total TPV of the autonomously separable divisions with different allocation.

In theory, either solution seems possible but it must be acknowledged that the ingenuity of the second approach has no legal support and does nothing more than fictive a corrected TPV that the law does not enshrine and that seems even to be outside its spirit.

As was seen, the taxation of property is marked by rigorous characterization of the realities to be taxed. Now, this rigor is not reconcilable with reasoning and arithmetic operations that lack clear legal support.

The teleological and historical elements of interpretation also lead in the same direction. Upon discussion of the law in Parliament it was clear that the intention was to tax properties of high value and that the tax would be imposed on houses with value equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00[4]. Now the magnitude of the value of a "house" is a judgment that is assessed relative to each apartment and not relative to a building, which may be comprised of multiple small divisions, possibly with total TPV amounting to a substantial sum but without this being able to assert that we are dealing with "high-value houses". A building with two houses of €1,000,000.00 each will have high-value houses; another with 100 units of €100,000.00 each should not merit the characterization of having high-value houses.

Prevailing case law has enshrined solutions in the direction indicated, which can be seen from the review made in this matter, by reference to 2012 and 2013 assessments, by the Decision of 29-01-2015 of the Single Arbitral Tribunal constituted in CAAD, in process 313/2014-T [Jaime Carvalho Esteves][5]. Subsequent decisions have since confirmed this same understanding.

It thus appears that the best interpretation of the norm contained in item 28.1 of TGIS requires that each part of the property that is fiscally relevant, because it is capable of autonomous use, only be subject to taxation if its TPV is equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00.

Let us now examine to what extent this understanding is applicable to the facts brought by the Requesters.

It was established that the assessments relating to each of the owners of a share of the properties were imposed on 39 divisions or apartments with "habitation" allocation, each with TPV less than €1,000,000.00. From the matters of law set forth it clearly results that these divisions or apartments cannot be subject to tax incidence as their TPV falls below the taxation threshold.

There is thus reason to conclude for the illegality of the assessments and the merit of the Requesters' claim.

3.2.2. Compensatory interest

The Requesters further request that they be paid compensatory interest. Pursuant to the provision of article 100 of LGT "the tax administration is obligated, in case of total or partial merit of complaints or administrative appeals, or of judicial proceedings in favor of the taxpayer, to the immediate and complete restitution of the situation that would exist if the illegality had not been committed, including payment of compensatory interest, pursuant to the terms and conditions provided for by law." It appears clear that the taxpayer has the right to be paid interest calculated on the amounts paid relating to assessments affected by illegality, so that his assets are compensated for the fruits that failed to be produced by being disbursed of such amounts.

It is, however, necessary to evaluate whether this arbitral tribunal enjoys competence to recognize such right or to condemn the AT in this sense. For this it is necessary to bear in mind that (i) with RJAT the intention was to strengthen effective protection of the rights and legally protected interests of taxpayers (preamble of Decree-Law no. 10/2011 of 20 January); (ii) the mandatory character of arbitral decisions for the AT has the extent of the exact terms of those same decisions (article 24-1 RJAT); (iii) the obligation of restitution by the AT is subject to the actual scope of the merit of the claim (which may be total or partial) (article 100 LGT).

The first interpretive element cited prevents any system being conceived which impedes or hinders the arbitral decision from achieving its purpose, which is the definition of the law in the concrete case. Protection of the rights of taxpayers is not satisfied with less, i.e., the decision must result in all the consequences necessary to obtain legality. It cannot be conceived that having declared the illegality of the tax act the taxpayer still had to resort to another instance to see declared his right to restitution of the situation.

On the other hand, the second element leads to the consideration that as arbitral decisions are mandatory for the AT in their exact terms (article 24-1 RJAT), this means that these must contain all elements necessary for the AT to be able with complete precision to restore legality and for this it is indispensable that the decision contain the precise limits and terms in which it judges.

The third element illustrates ultimately this necessity for precision or exactness of the decision. By stating that the obligation of restitution by the AT is subject to the actual scope of the merit of the claim, the law (article 100 LGT) creates a nexus of dependence between the decision and the obligation of restitution. Restitution is made to the extent that the claim is judged meritorious. There is no restitution without merit and the measure of merit defines the measure of restitution. The necessity of this precision is very clear in cases of partial merit. When partial merit occurs, how should the AT behave? The answer can only be one – in the exact terms and limits in which the decision was rendered, whether judicial or arbitral.

In the concrete case, it was established that installments of tax identified in L) through Q) of the "proven facts" were paid. On the value paid, compensatory interest is owed to the Requesters, calculated at the legal rate, on the value of each of these payments from the date on which each was satisfied. In either case, interest will be calculated until complete reimbursement of the amounts improperly satisfied by the Requesters.

4. DECISION

Considering the factual and legal elements collected and presented, the arbitral tribunal decides:

a) To judge the petition for arbitral pronouncement meritorious and declare the illegality of the Stamp Duty assessments (item 28.1 of TGIS) for the year 2014, relating to the urban real property located at Av.…, nos. … A, …B, …C, … D, and … in Lisbon, in the municipality of Lisbon, parish of…, with registration number…, annulling them in consequence.

b) To condemn the Tax and Customs Authority to pay the Requesters compensatory interest at the legal rate, calculated until complete reimbursement of the amounts improperly satisfied by the Requesters, calculated at the legal rate on the value of each of these payments from the date on which each was satisfied until complete reimbursement.

c) To condemn the AT to pay the costs, which shall be determined at the appropriate place.

5. VALUE OF THE CASE

In accordance with the provision of article 306-2 of CPC, ex-vi article 29-1-e) of RJAT and article 97-A, no. 1-a) of CPPT ex-vi article 3-2 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the case is fixed at €31,122.89.

6. COSTS

The costs are borne by the party that caused them, it being understood that the defeated party causes them (articles 527-1 and 527-2 CPC). In this case and considering the said rule, responsibility for costs is that of the Respondent, as the defeated party.

Pursuant to article 22-4 of RJAT and Table I annexed to the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs borne by the Respondent is fixed at €1,836.00.

Lisbon, 16 May 2016

The Arbitrator,

(Nuno Maldonado Sousa)

[1] In this document the following acronyms, abbreviations and notations are used, with the meaning indicated:

• AT: Tax and Customs Authority
• CIMI: Code on Municipal Property Tax
• CIS: Stamp Duty Code
• CRP: Constitution of the Portuguese Republic
• DL: Decree-Law
• IS: Stamp Duty
• LGT: General Tax Law
• TIN: Tax Identification Number
• Response-AT: Response of the AT
• RPI: Initial Petition of the Requesters
• RJAT: Legal Regime of Arbitration in Tax Matters established by Decree-Law no. 10/2011 of 20 January
• TGIS: General Table of Stamp Duty
• TPV: Tax-assessed property value

[2] As from 01-01-2014 it also came to include "land for construction whose construction, authorized or planned, is for habitation", as a result of the amendment introduced by article 194 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget for 2014).

[3] See José de Oliveira Ascensão – Law – Introduction and General Theory. 3rd ed., Lisbon, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 1983, pp. 282-283.

[4] Journal of Parliament, I Series, no. 9/XII-2, 11 October, p. 32.

[5] Accessible at http://www.caad.org.pt/