Summary
Full Decision
TAX ARBITRATION DECISION
1 REPORT
1.1 A…, S.A., formerly B…, S.A., Legal Person: …, Claimant in the tax procedure, above and separately referenced, hereinafter, denominated "Claimant", came, invoking the provisions of articles 2º, nº 1, subparagraph a) and 10º of Decree-Law nº 10/2011, of 20 January (hereinafter RJAT) and, in article 99º of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process (CPPT) and in numbers 1 and 2 subparagraph d) of article 95º of the General Tax Law (LGT), to request the constitution of a Single Arbitration Tribunal, with a view to:
- The annulment of the assessment acts relative to the Unique Circulation Tax corresponding to the year 2009, relating to the vehicles embodied in the evidentiary documents nº 2, 4, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, attached to the Statement of Claim, together with the proceedings and which are given as fully reproduced for all legal purposes;
- The refund of the total amount of € 27,075.64 (cf., document nº 6, together with the proceedings), increased by the respective compensatory interest provided for in articles 43º of the LGT and in article 61º of the CPPT.
1.2 In accordance with the provisions of subparagraph a) of nº 2 of article 6º and subparagraph b) of nº 1 of article 11º of Decree-Law nº 10/2011, of 20 January, in the version introduced by article 228º of Law nº 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Council appointed Maria de Fátima Alves as sole arbitrator, who communicated acceptance of the charge, within the applicable period:
- On 16-11-2016 the parties were duly notified of this appointment, having manifested no intent to refuse the appointment of the arbitrator, in accordance with the combined terms of article 11º nº 1 subparagraphs a) and b) of the RJAT and articles 6º and 7º of the Deontological Code;
- Wherefore, the arbitration tribunal was constituted on 02-12-2016, as stipulated in subparagraph c) of nº 1 of article 11º of Decree-Law nº 10/2011, of 20 January, in the version introduced by article 228º of Law 66-B/2012, of 31 December;
- Before the Response from the Respondent (AT), on 20-01-2017, and the Counter-Argument on, 16-02-2017, the Arbitration Tribunal, issued an Order, on, 01-03-2017, in the sense of dispensing with the meeting required under article 18º of the RJAT, determining the issuance of the Arbitration Decision for 13-03-2017.
1.3 The Claimant, in the substantiation of its request for arbitral pronouncement, affirms, in summary, the following:
- "In the context of its commercial activity, the Claimant imports vehicles which, through contractual acts established with manufacturers, registers them in Portugal, but which are subsequently sold and dispatched to other Member States of the European Union or, in certain cases, exported to third States";
- Additionally, that after their respective registrations they are sold to Rent-a-Car companies, to its concessionnaire companies and to end customers;
- That the vehicles, to which the Unique Circulation Tax charged relates, were not, at the date of the tax event, property of the Claimant, the same not being subject passive of the tax, a fact which prevents it from any subjective responsibility for its payment;
- In defence of the disputed facts, it alleges in point nº 15 of the Statement of Claim that "the vehicles for which it self-assessed the IUC, corresponding to the year 2009, were sold within 60 days after registration, distributing the sale of the respective vehicles as follows: 165 vehicles sold to concessionaries, 33 vehicles sold for export, 44 sold to Rent-a-Car companies, sold 7 used vehicles and one to an end customer;
- Proves that the vehicles identified in the Statement of Claim, attached to the proceedings, were subject to sale to third parties, on dates prior to the taxation period, cf., documents nº 2, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, together with the proceedings;
- Defends this contextual position, according to which, the tax is assessed by the subject passive of the tax within 30 days following the end of the 60-day period for its respective registration (articles 17º, and 18º, both of the CIUC and nº 2 of art. 42º of the Motor Vehicle Registration Regulations), that is, 60 days from the date of registration;
- Although, at first instance, the registration is verified in the name of the Claimant, the same does not have as its corporate object its use, but rather the transmission of the vehicle to third parties, who will be the effective beneficiaries of its use, and should, therefore, bear the environmental costs that they cause with road wear, cf., the provision of article nº 1º of the CIUC (see VASQUES, SÉRGIO.2001"Special Consumption Taxes" Almedina, p. 124);
- It cannot, therefore, be imputed to the Claimant the ownership of the said vehicle, since with the act of sale, the transmission of the vehicles to the said owners occurs;
- Being that, with the transfer of the vehicle, the same ceased to be in its possession which removes it from the status of "polluter/payer", and thus cannot be subject passive of the tax, in light of the letter and spirit of article 3º of the Unique Circulation Tax Code;
- It is a fact that article 3º of the CIUC, considers the ownership of the motor vehicle, the person in whose name the same is registered;
- However, the registration of vehicles in the competent Motor Vehicle Registration Office, is not a condition of transmission of ownership, since such registration aims only to give publicity to the legal situation of the goods, as results, in particular, from the provision of article nº 1 of Decree-Law nº 54/75, of 12 February;
- Wherefore, the tax assessment relating to the CIUC cannot focus only on those registered as owners of the vehicles, one must consider their effective owners, by means of a rebuttable presumption.
1.4 The Respondent, the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter designated as AT), when presenting the Response, withdraws that, the tax acts, in question, do not suffer from any defect of violation of Law, pronouncing itself in favour of the non-proceeding of the claim and the maintenance of the assessment acts questioned, defending, summarily, the following:
- The subject passives of the Unique Circulation Tax are the persons who appear in the register as owners of the vehicles, as provided in nº 1 of article 3º of the CIUC, which in the case, sub judice, verifies as to the Claimant;
- Verifying, to that end, that the registration of the vehicle is in the name of a determined person so that the same embodies the position of subject passive of the tax obligation of IUC;
- That notably the interpretation that the Claimant makes of the provision of article 3º of the CIUC is erroneous, insofar as it incurs in a "biased interpretation of the letter of the law" and in the adoption "of an interpretation that does not attend to the systematic element, seeking the unity of the regime established throughout the CIUC and, more broadly, throughout the entire legal-tax system", following, further, the Claimant, an "interpretation that ignores the ratio of the regime established in the article, in question and, as well as throughout the CIUC.
2 ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
2.1 In view of what is stated in the foregoing numbers, relative to the written statements of the parties and, the arguments presented, the main issues to be decided are as follows:
- The challenge made by the Claimant relative to the material assessment of the assessment acts, relative to the year 2009, relating to the IUC on the vehicles above referenced in nº 15 and 131 of the Statement of Claim and evidentiary documents nº 2, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, together with the proceedings;
- The erroneous interpretation and application of the norms of subjective incidence of the Unique Circulation Tax assessed and collected, which constitutes, the central issue to be decided in this present process;
- The legal value of the registration of the motor vehicle.
3 FACTUAL GROUNDS
3.1 On matters of fact, relevant to the decision to be rendered, this Tribunal considers as established, based on the elements existing in the proceedings, the following facts:
- The Claimant presented evidentiary elements of the motor vehicles in question, corresponding to the moment prior to the taxation period – cf. evidentiary documents nº 2, 3, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, which are given as fully reproduced for all legal purposes.
3.1.1 SUBSTANTIATION OF ESTABLISHED FACTS
- The facts established are based on sales invoices, documents nº 2, 3, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, which prove that the vehicles, in casu, were transferred to third parties, on a date prior to the assessment of the IUC, cf., the evidentiary elements, attached to the Statement of Claim and, which are given as fully reproduced for all legal purposes;
3.1.2 UNPROVEN FACTS
- There are no facts established as unproven, since all facts deemed as relevant for the appreciation of the claim were proven.
4 LEGAL GROUNDS
4.1 The Tribunal is materially competent and is regularly constituted, in accordance with articles 2º nº 1, subparagraph a), 5º nº 2, subparagraph a), 6º nº 1, 10º nº 1, subparagraph a) and nº 2 of the RJAT:
- The parties possess legal personality and capacity and are legitimate, ex vi, articles 4º and 10º, nº 2, of the RJAT and article nº 1 of Ordinance nº 112-A/2011, of 22 March;
- The process does not suffer from nullities;
- There being no preliminary issue on which the Tribunal should pronounce itself.
4.2 The claim, object of this present process, is the declaration of annulment of the assessment acts of the IUC corresponding to the motor vehicles better identified in the proceedings.
4.2.1 Judgment for the condemnation of AT to the refund of the amount of tax relative to such assessment in the amount of € 27,075.64;
4.2.2 Judgment for the condemnation of AT to the payment of compensatory interest on the same amount.
4.3 According to the understanding of AT, it is sufficient that in the register, the vehicle appears as property of a determined person, for that person to be the subject passive of the tax obligation.
4.4 The factual matter is fixed, as stated in nº 3.1 above, it being important now to determine the Law applicable to the underlying facts, in accordance with the issues to be decided, identified in nº 2.1 above, it being certain that the central issue, in question, in these proceedings, relative to which there are absolutely opposed understandings between the Claimant and AT, consists in knowing whether nº 1 of article 3º of the CIUC regarding the subjective incidence of the Unique Circulation Tax establishes or not a rebuttable presumption.
4.5 Everything analyzed and, taking into account, on one hand, the positions of the parties in confrontation, mentioned in points 1.3 and 1.4 above and, considering, on the other hand, that the central issue to be decided is whether nº 1 of article 3º of the CIUC establishes or not a legal presumption of tax incidence, it behooves, in this context, to appreciate and render decision.
5 ISSUE OF ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE NORM OF SUBJECTIVE INCIDENCE OF THE IUC
5.1 Considering it to be undisputed understanding, in doctrine, that in the interpretation of tax laws the general principles of interpretation apply fully, which shall be, only and naturally, limited by the exceptions and particularities dictated by the Law itself, object of interpretation. This is an understanding that has come to deserve acceptance in the General Tax Laws of other countries and which also came to have ground in article 11º of our General Tax Law, which furthermore, is frequently, underlined by jurisprudence.
It is consensually accepted that, with a view to grasping the sense of the law, interpretation is aided, a priori, in reconstructing the legislative thought through the words of the law, which means, seeking its literal sense, valuing it and assessing it in the light of other criteria, with the so-called elements of a logical, rational or teleological nature and of a systematic order intervening:
- Regarding the interpretation of tax law, jurisprudence is to be considered, namely, the Judgments of the Superior Administrative Court of 05-09-2012, case nº 0314/12 and of 06-02-2013, case 01000/12, available at www.dgsi.pt, the importance of the provision of article 9º of the Civil Code (CC), as a fundamental element of legal hermeneutics;
- Article nº 1 of article 3º of the CIUC provides that "Subject passives of the tax are the owners of vehicles, being considered as such the natural or legal persons, of public or private law, in whose names the same are registered";
- The formulation used in the said article, resorts to the expression "being considered" which raises the question of whether, such expression can be attributed a presumptive sense, being equated to the expression "being presumed", these are expressions frequently used, with equivalent senses (it is of relevant importance to consider that these expressions refer to the moment of the facts—2009 and not to the current legal provision of article 3º of the CIUC);
- As taught by Jorge Lopes de Sousa, in Code of Tax Procedure and Process, Annotated and Commented, volume I, 6th Edition, Área Editora, SA, Lisbon 2011, p. 589, that in matters of tax incidence, presumptions can be revealed by the expression "it is presumed" or by similar expression, therein being mentioned diverse examples of such presumptions, referring to the one contained in article 40º, nº 1 of the CIRS, in which the expression "it is presumed" is used and the one contained in article 46º nº 2, of the same Code, in which use is made of the expression "it is considered", as an expression with an effect similar to that and embodying, equally, a presumption;
- In the legal formulation established in nº 1 of article 3º of the CIUC, in which a presumption was enshrined, revealed by the expression "being considered", of similar significance and of equivalent value to the expression "being presumed", in use since the creation of the tax in question;
- The use of the expression "being considered" aimed at nothing other than the establishment of a more marked and clear approach between the subject passive of the IUC and the effective owner of the vehicle, which is in harmony with the reinforcement conferred to the ownership of the vehicle, which came to constitute the taxable event, in accordance with article 6º of the CIUC;
- The relevance and interest of the presumption, in question, which historically was revealed by means of the expression "being presumed" and which now, makes use of the expression "being considered", resides in the truth and justice that, by such means, is conferred to tax relations and, which embody fundamental tax values, allowing the real and effective owner to be taxed and not the one who, by circumstances of diverse nature, sometimes amounts to, nothing more than an apparent and false owner. If the case were not thus considered, not admitting and highlighting the presentation of evidentiary elements destined to demonstrate that the effective owner is, ultimately, a person different from the one appearing in the register and, which initially, and in principle, was supposed to be the true owner, those values would be objectively set aside.
5.2 There is also to be considered, the principle of equivalence, inscribed in article 1º of the CIUC, which has underlying the principle of the polluter-payer and, concretizes the idea inscribed in it that whoever pollutes should, for that reason, pay. The said principle has constitutional ground, in that it represents a corollary of the provision in subparagraph h) of nº 2 of article 66º of the Constitution, having also ground in community law, whether at the level of primary law, article 130º-R, of the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty of the European Union, of 07-02-1992), where the said principle came to be part as a support of Community Policy, in the environmental domain and which aims to hold responsible those who contribute with the damages that accrue to the community, resulting from the use of motor vehicles, being assumed by their owner-users, as costs that only they must bear.
5.3 Taking into account the facts described above, it is important to note that the aforementioned elements of interpretation, whether those related to literal interpretation, supported by the legally used words, whether those relating to logical elements of interpretation, of a historical nature or of a rational order, point, all of them, in the sense that the expression "being considered" has a sense equivalent to the expression "being presumed", and should thus be understood that the provision in nº 1 of article 3º of the CIUC establishes a legal presumption which, in view of article 73º of the LGT, where it is established that "The presumptions established in the norms of tax incidence always admit contrary proof", shall necessarily be rebuttable, which means that the subject passives are, in principle, the persons in whose names such vehicles are registered. These shall, therefore, be those persons, identified in such conditions to whom AT must, necessarily, direct itself:
- But it shall, in principle, given that within the framework of mandatory prior hearing, in view of the provision in subparagraph a) of nº 1 of article 60º of the LGT, the tax relation may be reconfigured, validating the subject passive initially identified or redirecting the procedure in the sense of the one who shall be, after all, the true and effective, subject passive of the tax in question.
- The taxpayer has the right to be heard, by means of prior hearing (José Manuel Santos Botelho, Américo Pires Esteves and José Cândido de Pinho, in Code of Administrative Procedure, Annotated and Commented, 4th edition, Almedina, 2000, annotation 8 of article 100º).
- The prior hearing which, naturally, must take place at a moment immediately prior to the assessment procedure, corresponds to the proper seat and time for, with certainty and security, identifying the subject passive of the IUC.
6 ON THE LEGAL VALUE OF REGISTRATION
6.1 Regarding the legal value of registration, it is important to note what is established in nº 1 of article 1º of Decree-Law nº 54/75, of 12 February (variously amended, the last being by way of Law nº 39/2008, of 11 August), when it provides that "the registration of vehicles has essentially as its purpose to give publicity to the legal situation of motor vehicles and their respective trailers, with a view to the security of legal commerce":
- Article 7º of the Real Property Registration Code (CRP), applicable, suppletively, to the registration of automobiles, by virtue of article 29º of the CRA, provides that "Definitive registration constitutes a presumption that the right exists and belongs to the registered holder, in the precise terms in which the registration defines it";
- Definitive registration constitutes nothing more than a rebuttable presumption, admitting, therefore, contrary proof, as follows from the law and jurisprudence has been pointing out, and can be seen, among others, in the Judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice nº 03B4369 of 19-02-2004 and nº 07B4528, of 29-01-2008, available at: www.dgsi.pt;
- Therefore, the function legally reserved to registration is on one hand that of publicizing the legal situation of the goods, in the case in question, of vehicles and, on the other hand, allows us to presume that the right exists over those vehicles and that it belongs to the holder, as such registered in the register, does not have a constitutive nature of the right of ownership, but only declarative, hence registration does not constitute a condition of validity of the transmission of the vehicle from the seller to the buyer;
- The acquirers of the vehicles become owners of those same vehicles by means of the celebration of the corresponding contracts of sale and purchase, with registration or without it;
- In this context it is worth recalling that, in view of the provision in nº 1 of article 408º of the CC, the transfer of real rights over things, in the case sub judice, motor vehicle, is determined by mere effect of the contract, being that in accordance with the provision in subparagraph a) of article 879º of the CC, among the essential effects of the contract of sale and purchase, stands out the transmission of the thing;
- In light of the above, it becomes clear that the legislative thought points in the sense that the provision in nº 1 of article 3º of the CIUC, establishes a presumption "juris tantum", consequently rebuttable, allowing, thus, that the person, who, in the register, is inscribed as owner of the vehicle, may present evidentiary elements destined to demonstrate that such ownership is inserted in the legal sphere of another person, to whom ownership was transferred.
7 THE PRESUMPTION OF ARTICLE 3º OF THE CIUC AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE IUC IS EXIGIBLE
7.1 THE PRESUMPTION OF ARTICLE 3º OF THE CIUC
- AT considers that the presumption that exists in nº 1 of article 3º of the CIUC is resulting from an interpretation contra legem, resulting from a biased reading of the letter of the law and, for that reason, violating the unity of the legal system, however, and with all due respect, the understanding of jurisprudence goes in the sense that one should consider the existence of a legally rebuttable presumption, wherefore, consequently, it serves the values and interests questioned, whether at the level of material tax justice, whether at the level of the environmental purposes aimed at by the IUC;
- Regarding the unity of the legal system it is worth highlighting everything mentioned above, namely, on the ratio of article 1º of the CIUC; on the norms and principles of the LGT; on the relevant and applicable norms to the registration of motor vehicles, on the interpretation that best serves and achieves the mentioned unity and ensures the connection of those same norms, considering the legal presumption that is provided for in article 3º of the CIUC (at the moment of the facts).
7.2 DATE ON WHICH THE IUC IS EXIGIBLE
- The IUC is a periodically assessed tax, the periodicity of which corresponds to the year that begins on the act of registration or on each of its anniversaries, as provided in nº 1 and 2 of article 4º of the CIUC;
- It is exigible in accordance with nº 3 of article 6º of the said Code;
- Being worth noting that, as to the assessment of the IUC taxed to the Claimant on the vehicles, above referenced, in the year 2009, the exigibility of the IUC is not to be considered, because, at the moment of the tax event, the vehicles no longer belonged to it, since the said vehicles were sold to third parties, before the 30 days, following the end of the legally required period for its respective registration, that is, from 60 days from the year of registration, cf., the provision with nº 1 of article 17º of the CIUC, combined with the provision of nº 2 of art. 42º of Decree-Law nº 54/75, of 12 February, for, when it comes to initial registration of ownership, the period is counted from the date of the assignment of the registration;
- Wherefore in the context in question, the requirements are met to set aside the subjective responsibility of the Claimant, cf. the evidentiary documents, nº 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, already above cited and, attached to the proceedings and which are given as fully reproduced for all legal purposes.
7.2.1 In relevance on the burden of proof, article 342º nº 1 of the CC stipulates: "upon the one who invokes a right falls the burden of proving the constitutive facts of the alleged right";
7.2.2 Also article 346º of the CC (contrary proof) determines, that "to the proof that is produced by the party upon whom the burden of proof falls, the adverse party may oppose contrary proof regarding the same facts, destined to render them doubtful; if it succeeds, the question is decided against the party burdened with the proof." (As affirms Anselmo de Castro, A., 1982, ED. Almedina Coimbra, "Declarative Civil Procedural Law", III, p. 163, "where one of the parties bears the burden of proof, for the adverse party it suffices to oppose contrary proof, which is a proof destined to render doubtful the facts alleged by the first".
Thus, in the case of the proceedings, what the Claimant has to prove, in order to rebut the presumption that results either from article 3º of the CIUC or from the Motor Vehicle Registration itself, is that it, the Claimant, was not the owner of the vehicles, in question, in the period to which the assessments challenged relate. It proposes to prove, as results from the proceedings, that the ownership of the vehicles, did not belong to it in the period to which the assessments relate, cf., evidentiary documents nº 2, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, attached to the proceedings and which are given as fully reproduced for all legal purposes.
7.3 REBUTTAL OF THE PRESUMPTION
- The Claimant, as referred to in 3.1., regarding the facts proven, alleged, with the purpose of setting aside the presumption, not to be owner of the vehicles, when the tax event occurred, referencing, for that purpose, the following documents:
- Sales invoices nº 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 (together with the proceedings), which prove the transfer of ownership of the respective motor vehicles, to third parties;
- In this manner, the ownership of the said vehicles, no longer belonged to it, and for that reason it could not enjoy their use, as of a date prior to that on which the IUC was exigible, embodying, in this manner, means of proof with sufficient force and adequacy to rebut the presumption founded on the register, as provided in nº 1 of article 3º of the CIUC, documents, those, which enjoy, the presumption of veracity provided for in nº 1 of article 75º of the LGT. Resulting from the above that, on the date on which the IUC was exigible, the one who held the ownership of the motor vehicle was not the Claimant.
8 OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO THE LEGALITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ACTS
- Regarding the existence of other issues pertaining to the legality of the assessment acts, taking into account that it is inherent in the establishment of an order of knowledge of the defects, as provided in article 124º of the CPPT, that proceeding the request for arbitral pronouncement based on defects that prevent the renewal of the assessments impugned, is prejudiced, because useless, the knowledge of other defects, wherefore it does not appear necessary to know of the other issues raised.
9 REFUND OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID
- In accordance with the provision in subparagraph b) of nº 1 of article 24º of the RJAT and, in conformity with what is established therein, the arbitration decision on the merits of the claim to which no appeal or challenge is available, binds the tax administration as of the end of the period provided for appeal or challenge, and the latter must, in the exact terms of the proceeding of the arbitration decision in favor of the subject passive and up to the end of the period provided for the spontaneous execution of the judgments of the tax judicial courts "Restore the situation that would exist if the tax act, object of the arbitration decision, had not been practiced, adopting the acts and operations necessary for that purpose";
- These are legal commands that are in complete harmony with the provision of article 100º of the LGT, applicable to the case, ex vi, of the provision in subparagraph a) of nº 1 of article 29º of the RJAT, in which it is established that "The tax administration is obliged, in case of total or partial proceeding of claims or administrative appeals or of judicial proceedings in favor of the subject passive, to the immediate and full reconstitution of the situation that would exist if the illegality had not been committed, corresponding the payment of compensatory interest, in the terms and conditions provided for in the law";
- The case contained in these proceedings, raises the manifest application of the mentioned norms, since, following the illegality of the assessment acts, referenced in this process, there must, by force of those norms, be place for the refund of the amounts paid, whether by way of the tax paid, whether of the corresponding compensatory interest, as a means of achieving the reconstitution of the situation that would exist if the illegality had not been committed.
10 ON THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATORY INTEREST
- The declaration of the illegality and consequent annulment of an administrative act confers upon the recipient of the act the right to the reintegration of the situation in which it would have found itself before the execution of the annulled act;
- In the context of the assessment of the tax, its annulment confers upon the subject passive the right to the restitution of the tax paid and, as a rule, the right to compensatory interest, in accordance with nº 1 of article 43º of the LGT and article 61º of the CPPT.
- Wherefore the Claimant has, the right to compensatory interest on the amount of tax paid (document nº 6º, together with the proceedings), relating to the annulled assessment.
11 DECISION
In light of the above, this Arbitration Tribunal decides:
- To judge the claim for declaration of illegality of the assessments of the IUC, relating to the year 2009, regarding the motor vehicles identified in this present process, annulling, consequently, the corresponding tax acts;
- To judge the claim for condemnation of the Tax Administration to the refund of the sum wrongfully paid, in the amount of €27,075.64 (twenty-seven thousand, seventy-five euros and sixty-four cents), increased by the respective compensatory interest, legally due, condemning the Tax and Customs Authority to effect these payments.
VALUE OF THE CASE:
- In conformity with the provision of articles 306º nº 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 97º-A, nº 1 of the CPPT and in article 3º, nº 2 of the Costs Regulations in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the case is fixed at € 27,075.64.
COSTS:
- In accordance with nº 4 of article 22º of the RJAT, the amount of costs is fixed at € 1,530.00, in accordance with Table I, attached to the Costs Regulations in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be borne by the Tax and Customs Authority.
Let the parties be notified.
Lisbon, 13-03-2017
The Arbitrator
Maria de Fátima Alves
(the text of this decision was prepared by computer, in accordance with article 131, nº 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by referral of article 29º, nº 1 subparagraph e) of Decree-Law 10/2011, of 20 January (RJAT), governed in its drafting by current spelling)
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created