Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
Report
A – General
A...– INVESTMENT FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, S.A., with registered office at ..., no....–..., ... –... Lisbon, with a share capital of €1,550,000.00, registered in the Commercial Registration Office of Lisbon under the single registration and tax identification number ... in its capacity as managing company of the investment fund "... B...– CLOSED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FUND FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL" registered with the Securities Market Commission, with the tax identification number ... (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant"), filed, on 19.09.2016, a request for the constitution of a single arbitral tribunal in tax matters, which was accepted, seeking: (i) the declaration of nullity of the acts of assessment of Municipal Tax on Real Estate Transfers ("IMT") and Stamp Duty ("IS") which were notified to it by documents no. ... and no. ..., respectively, both of 13.07.2016, (doc. no. 1 attached to the proceedings with the request for arbitral ruling) and (ii) the condemnation of the Tax and Customs Administration to pay indemnity interest for undue payment of tax payments.
1.1. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph a) of item 2 of article 6 and paragraph b) of item 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Council of the Centre for Administrative Arbitration (CAAD) appointed as arbitrator Nuno Pombo, and the parties, after being duly notified, did not object to this appointment.
1.2. By order of 07.10.2015, the Tax and Customs Administration (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") appointed Ms. Dr. C... and Ms. Dr. D... to intervene in this arbitral proceeding, in the name and on behalf of the Respondent.
1.3. In accordance with the provision of paragraph c) of item 1 of article 11 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 02.12.2016.
1.4. On 15.12.2016, the highest-ranking official of the Respondent's department was notified to, if so desired, present a reply within a period of 30 days and request the production of additional evidence.
1.5. On 27.01.2017, the Respondent presented its reply.
B – Position of the Claimant
1.6. The Claimant is the managing company responsible for the management of the investment fund "B...– CLOSED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FUND FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL", which is a closed real estate investment fund for residential rental (hereinafter referred to as "FUND B...").
1.7. As of the date of entry into force of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget Law for 2014), the property registered in the urban real estate registry of the Union of Freguesias of ... and ..., municipality of Torres Vedras, under article ... was part of FUND B....
1.8. Based on the provisions added to article 8 (Tax Regime) of the legal regime applicable to Real Estate Investment Funds for Residential Rental (hereinafter "FIIAH"), and the transitional rule contained in article 236 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, the Claimant requested from the Tax and Customs Authority the assessments of IMT and IS (hereinafter "Assessments"), which were paid by the Claimant on 14.07.2016.
1.9. The Claimant understands that the Assessments are affected by illegality due to violation of the provisions of item 3 of article 103 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (hereinafter "CRP").
1.10. The IMT and IS, with respect to the factual circumstances of the proceedings, are taxes of a single obligation, which means that at the moment when the property subject to the Assessments entered the patrimony of FUND B... the exemptions applicable at that date in the Tax Regime of the FIIAH were permanently crystallized in the tax legal order, since they were not conditioned upon the subsequent verification of any facts or circumstances nor subject to any lapse regime.
1.11. Article 236 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, in extending the application of the current Tax Regime of the FIIAH "to properties that were acquired by FIIAH before 1 January 2014, counting, in those cases, the period of three years provided for in item 14 from 1 January 2014" – is violating in a direct and unequivocal manner the constitutionally enshrined principle of non-retroactivity of tax law.
1.12. Given that the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law has the character of a fundamental right, the violation of that right effected by the Assessments entails their respective nullity, if not even their non-existence.
C – Position of the Respondent
1.13. The Respondent, in its reply, defends itself by exception, alleging the material incompetence of the arbitral tribunal to assess the abstract illegality of the Assessments, asserting the impossibility of disapplying a legal rule on the grounds of its unconstitutionality, since public administration bodies, unlike what occurs with the courts, are not assigned the task of proceeding with the concrete review of the constitutionality of laws, which results in the passive illegitimacy of the Respondent.
1.14. The Respondent does not accept the suggestion that the Assessments are based on unconstitutional legal norms.
1.15. The special regime applicable to FIIAH, approved by articles 102 to 104 of Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December (State Budget Law for 2009), applied to funds constituted during the five years subsequent to the entry into force of that law and to the real estate acquired by them during the same period.
1.16. The tax regime then in force provided for the exemption of IMT for "the acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous portions of urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing, by the investment funds referred to in item 1", and equally provided for the exemption of IS with respect to "all acts performed, provided that they are connected with the transfer of urban properties intended for permanent housing that occurs as a result of the conversion of the right of ownership of those properties into a rental right over them".
1.17. Now, as can be seen, it was required that the acquisition of the properties had as exclusive purpose the "rental for permanent housing", whereby the assertion of the Claimant that the exemptions in question were not conditioned upon the subsequent verification of any facts or circumstances is not accurate.
1.18. Item 14 of article 8 of the Tax Regime of the FIIAH served to specify the meaning of the expression "urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing", considering that "urban properties are intended for rental for permanent housing whenever they are the subject of a rental contract for permanent housing within a period of three years counted from the moment they came to form part of the fund's patrimony", now providing for a regime of termination of the benefit in case the legal requirement contained in item 14 is not observed.
1.19. The aforementioned item 14 of article 8 of the Tax Regime of the FIIAH did not alter the ratio of the exemptions enshrined. It merely served to clarify the concept, in non-innovative terms and establishing an appropriately broad period so that the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations were not prejudiced.
1.20. In truth, the exemptions in question did not simply cease to apply: what happened was that criteria were established to implement a legal requirement provided for in an indeterminate manner. Furthermore, in the concrete case, the termination of the benefit could always occur if, as a result of a supervisory action, it was verified that the requisites upon which the law makes its grant depend were not met.
1.21. It therefore makes no sense to speak of authentic or proper retroactivity, since the new law did not simply determine that previously acquired properties were to be subject to taxation under IMT and IS.
1.22. For all the foregoing, the Respondent should likewise not be condemned to pay indemnity interest to the Claimant, since it cannot be imputed to the AT services an error that, in itself, has led to the payment of a tax debt in an amount higher than that legally due.
D – Conclusion of the Report and Case Management
1.23. By order of 03.05.2017, the arbitral tribunal dispensed with the hearing provided for in article 18 of the Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters (RJAT), as it was its understanding that the parties had brought to the proceedings all the necessary and sufficient factual elements for the rendering of the decision, inviting the Parties to present their written submissions, which both did.
1.24. The parties have legal personality and capacity and have standing in accordance with article 4 and item 2 of article 10 of the RJAT, and article 1 of Order no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.
1.25. The cumulation of claims made in this request for arbitral ruling, in homage to the principle of procedural economy, is justified in that article 3 of the RJAT expressly admits the possibility of "cumulation of claims even if relating to different acts", when the success of the claims depends essentially on the assessment of the same factual circumstances and on the interpretation and application of the same legal principles or rules, equally accommodates, without hermeneutic abuse, the assessment of a claim that arises, in necessary terms, from the judgment that the arbitral tribunal sustains as to the validity of the assessments called into question.
1.26. The proceedings do not suffer from any nullity. The Respondent raised, however, the exceptions of material incompetence of the arbitral tribunal to assess the abstract illegality of the Assessments, due to alleged unconstitutionality of the legal norm that authorizes them and, consequently, the passive illegitimacy of the Respondent, whereby it is necessary to assess them forthwith.
Exceptions of Material Incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal and Passive Illegitimacy of the Respondent
As stated, the Respondent expresses the understanding that the Claimant petitions for the assessment of the abstract illegality of the Assessments, due to alleged unconstitutionality of the legal norm that authorizes them, asserting that the Constitutional Court is the competent forum to know either the illegality or the unconstitutionality of legal norms [articles 280, item 2, paragraphs a) and d) and 281, item 1, paragraphs a) and b) and item 3 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic and articles 6 and 66 of the Law of the Constitutional Court].
Unless better understood, the Respondent is not correct. What is requested of this arbitral tribunal is not that it declare the unconstitutionality of the norms that authorize the impugned assessment acts. What is at issue is whether the Assessments are, or are not, valid, and that judgment depends on another one that ascertains, concretely, the harmony of those assessments with the legal order, taken as a whole. The reading that the Respondent makes of the claim is so reductive that it would seem impossible for any body of a jurisdictional nature, as this arbitral tribunal is, to judge a legal norm unconstitutional outside the process of abstract review of unconstitutionality. As is clear, that reading cannot prevail.
Thus, this arbitral tribunal understands itself to be materially competent to assess the claim, and consequently the question of the passive illegitimacy of the Respondent does not arise, since the matter is not materially within the scope of the abstract review of unconstitutionality.
Substantive Facts
3.1. Established Facts
The following facts are hereby established:
3.1.1. As of the date of entry into force of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget Law for 2014), the property registered in the urban real estate registry of the Union of Freguesias of ... and ..., municipality of Torres Vedras, under article ... (the "Property"), which was subsequently alienated (consensus of the Parties), was part of FUND B....
3.1.2. The acquisition of the Property benefited from exemption from IMT and IS pursuant to paragraph a) of item 7 and item 8 of article 8 (tax regime) of the legal regime of FIIAH, respectively – (consensus of the Parties).
3.1.3. The Claimant requested from the Respondent the assessment of IMT and IS, which were notified to it by documents no..., in the amount of € 720.00, and no..., in the amount of € 576.00, respectively, both of 13.07.2016 (doc. no. 1, attached with the request for arbitral ruling).
3.1.4. The Claimant proceeded to pay in full both the IMT and IS assessments better identified in 3.1.3 on 25.07.2016 (doc. no. 2, attached with the request for arbitral ruling).
3.2. Unproven Facts
It was not proven that between the acquisition of the Property by the Claimant until its alienation the same was the subject of any rental contract for permanent housing.
Law
4.1. Issues to Decide
From what has been said above, the issues to be assessed are, fundamentally:
a) Whether the acquisition of the Property, which occurred before 01.01.2014, can be taxed due to the Property having been sold before the lapse of three years counted from 01.01.2014, without the same ever having been the subject of a rental contract for permanent housing;
b) Whether, should the claim for declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of the Assessments be upheld, the Claimant, within the scope of this arbitral proceeding, may obtain the condemnation of the Respondent to pay indemnity interest.
4.2. Applicable Law
Integrated in chapter X, dedicated to tax benefits, Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December, by its articles 102 to 104, approved the special regime applicable to FIIAH. Article 8 of that special regime established the respective tax regime, with item 7 and item 8 of that provision dedicated to IMT and IS, respectively:
7 - The following are exempt from IMT:
a) The acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous portions of urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing, by the investment funds referred to in item 1;
b) The acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous portions of urban properties intended for personal and permanent housing, as a result of the exercise of the purchase option referred to in item 3 of article 5 by the tenants of the properties that form part of the patrimony of the investment funds referred to in item 1.
8 - The following are exempt from stamp duty all acts performed, provided that they are connected with the transfer of urban properties intended for permanent housing that occurs as a result of the conversion of the right of ownership of those properties into a rental right over them, as well as with the exercise of the purchase option provided for in item 3 of article 5.
Article 235 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December added to the Tax Regime of FIIAH (article 8) items 14 to 16:
14 - For the purposes of the provisions of items 6 to 8, it is considered that urban properties are intended for rental for permanent housing whenever they are the subject of a rental contract for permanent housing within a period of three years counted from the moment they came to form part of the fund's patrimony, and the tax subject must communicate and provide proof to the AT of the respective effective rental, within 30 days following the end of the said period.
15 - When the properties have not been the subject of a rental contract within the period of three years provided for in the previous item, the exemptions provided for in items 6 to 8 cease to apply, and in that case the tax subject must request from the AT, within 30 days following the end of the said period, the assessment of the respective tax.
16 - If the properties are alienated, with the exception of the cases provided for in article 5, or if the FIIAH is subject to liquidation, before the lapse of the period provided for in item 14, the tax subject must equally request from the AT, before the alienation of the property or the liquidation of the FIIAH, the assessment of the tax due in accordance with the previous item.
In turn, article 236 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December established the following transitional regime within the scope of the special regime applicable to FIIAH:
1 - The provisions of items 14 to 16 of article 8 of the special regime applicable to FIIAH and SIIAH, approved by articles 102 to 104 of Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December, apply to properties that were acquired by FIIAH from 1 January 2014 onwards.
2 - Without prejudice to the provisions of the previous item, the provisions of items 14 to 16 of article 8 of the special regime applicable to FIIAH and SIIAH, approved by articles 102 to 104 of Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December, equally apply to properties that were acquired by FIIAH before 1 January 2014, counting, in those cases, the period of three years provided for in item 14 from 1 January 2014.
4.3. The Exemptions from IMT and IS Provided for in Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December
The State Budget Law for 2009 enshrined a special regime applicable to FIIAH. This legislative initiative purportedly aimed at the dynamization of the residential rental market, imposing that at least 75% of the fund's assets be constituted by real estate situated in Portugal and intended for rental for permanent housing, favoring these collective investment vehicles with the tax benefits contained in article 8 of their respective legal regime, with those referring to IMT and IS being those contained in items 7 and 8 of that article.
Let it be emphasized that the special regime of FIIAH and the tax benefits at its disposal assume the nature or the vocation of true instruments of economic policy, placed at the service of a clear purpose: the promotion of the residential rental market for permanent housing. It is in light of this objective that the tax regime of FIIAH must be read and understood.
Item 7 of the tax regime of FIIAH establishes that acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous portions of urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing are exempt from IMT.
It is stated in the Opinion attached to the proceedings with the Claimant's submissions (the "Opinion") that "nothing was provided regarding the necessity of maintaining the properties in the patrimony of FIIAH for a certain period, or regarding the necessity of actually executing the rental contract also within a certain period"[1].
If we read that normative provision correctly, we must conclude that the exemption from IMT did not depend solely on the identity of the acquirer of the properties in question. The law does not limit itself to exempting (nor did it exempt at the time) the mere acquisition of properties by FIIAH. It granted that exemption to FIIAH, yes, but only insofar as the acquisition referred to urban properties or autonomous portions of urban properties "intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing".
Now, as the illustrious authors of the Opinion rightly point out, the purpose of the law is not (it is not today as it was not then) the promotion of real estate speculation. However, it was also not, as can be read in it, the protection of rental funds[2], may the apparent paradox be pardoned. The law intended, rather, to stimulate the rental market itself. This objective was pursued by means of various initiatives, including that of the establishment of a special, and advantageous, regime dedicated to FIIAH, but the conclusion that the legislator intended, nothing more, to support the said FIIAH would be precipitate. To say what has just been stated is not intended to mean more than this: it is reductive, and to that extent inaccurate, to claim that the exemption referred to in item 7 of article 8 (tax regime) of the special regime applicable to FIIAH is satisfied with two requisites, namely, the identity of the acquirer and its declaration at the time of acquisition that the property is intended for rental for permanent housing.
The destination, moreover exclusive, to be given to the properties acquired by FIIAH is not, by our reading of the norms, to be purely intentional or volitional. It is not enough that the FIIAH, at the time of acquisition of a property, to benefit from the exemption from IMT and IS, declare that it intends to give the said property as its destination rental for permanent housing. In order for that benefit to fulfill its purpose, in order for the fiscal expenditure associated with it to be economically and socially justified, that destination must be effective.
The postulate that has just been expressed has, however, a less comprehensive, less impressive scope than it may at first suggest. For in truth, the effectiveness of a given destination of a real property can only be impaired by the verification, also effective, of the attribution to that specific property of a different destination.
4.4. The Applicability to the Concrete Case of the Alterations to the Exemptions from IMT and IS Introduced by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December
The State Budget Law for 2014 altered the tax regime of FIIAH, adding, for what concerns us here, items 14 to 16 to article 8.
Item 14 served to specify what should be understood as a property intended for rental for permanent housing, imposing a period of three years, counted from the moment the property comes to form part of the patrimony of the FIIAH, for that property to be the subject of a rental contract for permanent housing, under penalty of the exemptions granted at the time of its acquisition ceasing to apply.
Item 16, for its part, establishes the same penalty (the exemptions granted at the time of acquisition ceasing to apply) should the property in question be alienated[3] (except in the case of alienation to the former owner and tenant, in the exercise of a purchase option) within the period of three years counted from the moment it came to form part of the patrimony of the FIIAH.
These rules do not suggest special precautions if applied to acquisitions of properties made by FIIAH after their entry into force. The problem exists, however, when one seeks to apply them, as in the case of the proceedings, to situations in which the acquisition of the property took place before the validity of these provisions.
Now, as seen, item 2 of article 236 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December orders the application of these rules "to properties that were acquired by FIIAH before 1 January 2014, counting, in those cases, the period of three years provided for in item 14 from 1 January 2014".
The issue is, therefore, whether the assessment acts now impugned are valid, practiced by the Respondent in light of what the said transitional regime establishes, unequivocally.
This exercise cannot be carried out apart from the concrete assessment of the factual situation, which is this: FUND B... acquired in December 2013 the Property, and benefited from the respective exemptions from IMT and IS, since the Claimant declared that the acquired property, the Property, was intended for rental for permanent housing. It happens that in 2016 FUND B... alienated the Property, and the Respondent considered, in light of the norms just visited, that the said exemptions ceased to apply, whereby it proceeded, on the basis of an oral request by the Claimant, to assess the IMT and IS, that is, the Assessments.
It is true that, in the previous regime, applicable at the time of acquisition of the Property, nothing was expressly stated regarding the necessity of maintaining the properties in the patrimony of FIIAH for a certain period. However, it also seems evident to us that the destination to be given to the acquired properties was a requirement and that that destination cannot be merely "psychological" or intentional.
As we have seen, it is the law that expressly requires, and in exclusive terms, a given destination to be given to the acquired properties with the fiscal benefits that have been occupying us. The wording of the norm enshrining the exemptions from IMT and IS would have been different if its attribution had been left in the exclusive dependence of the identity of the respective acquirer: being a FIIAH. The acquisition of properties by FIIAH is a necessary condition, but cannot be viewed, in light of the norms in force in 2013, as a sufficient condition[4].
However, it must be acknowledged that it would not be reasonable to immediately impose the necessity of actually intending the real property to rental for permanent housing. At a first moment, that of acquisition, the declared intention of the acquirer that is a FIIAH will be relevant. At the time of acquisition, the FIIAH will have to manifest the intention of devoting the acquired property to that mode of rental, presupposing that the acquirer cannot, without loss of benefits[5], attribute to the properties acquired with these exemptions a destination other than that which it declared.
Let us agree that giving a different destination to the real property with the exemptions from IMT and IS cannot be understood as synonymous with the attribution to those properties of an effective rental for permanent housing. The same is to say that the period that elapses between the acquisition by the FIIAH of a property for rental for permanent housing and the effective execution of a rental contract for permanent housing that has it as its object, regardless of the duration of that period, is a time lapse that does not authorize the conclusion that the property in question has been given a destination other than that of rental for permanent housing. In truth, having a property in the rental market, available to be rented, is still a manifestation of that declared destination. It suffices, in our view, the susceptibility of that property coming to be the subject of a rental contract in which the FIIAH appears as lessor for the requirement of the destination to be given to the property to be satisfied, which, it will be recalled, was acquired with the fiscal benefits noted.
As we have already had the occasion to state, the rules in force in 2013, the year in which the Property was acquired by FUND B... with the exemption from IMT and IS, did not establish, in temporally rigid terms, the necessity of effectively executing a rental contract for permanent housing. However, in our view, the benefit of the exemption from IMT and IS – within the framework of the economic policy of which it is an instrument – rests on the necessity of being given that effective destination (regardless of knowing – that is another question – the period the FIIAH has to give it that effective destination).
Now, the property is not given the effective destination of rental for permanent housing when the owner devotes it to a different purpose – for example, commercial rental – or when it ceases to be able to give it the desired destination of residential rental (because the owner alienates the property, for example).
We do not believe that the problem can be analyzed from the perspective of risk, in terms of it being able to be sustained that the provided exemptions did not intend to place on the FIIAH the risk of not being able to rent the properties, or of not being able to alienate them. It happens that FIIAH, as collective investment bodies, are true economic agents and must weigh the risks deriving from their own activity, which includes the duty to weigh the consequences of the non-devotion of a given property to a certain destination.
It is stated in the Opinion that "the destination is compatible, especially during periods of crisis in the rental market, with difficulties and delays in the realization of rental", a statement that does not merit contestation. What will not enjoy unanimity, however, is the conclusion that these difficulties and delays do not constitute an integral part of the risks associated with this specific economic activity. If the law enshrined incentives for the acquisition of properties with the objective of them being devoted to rental for permanent housing, it falls to the acquirer of those properties and beneficiary of those incentives to manage the risks of its business, which must include the weighing of the possibility of those properties not raising in the market the interest that the owner of them, the FIIAH, foresaw[6].
4.5. Conclusion
It seems to this arbitral tribunal that the necessity for a FIIAH to devote to rental for permanent housing the property acquired with the benefit of the exemption from IMT and IS is not an innovation of the State Budget Law for 2014, but is already a requirement of the previous normative, applicable in 2013.
Note that, in the case sub judice, the assessments of IMT and IS contested are not grounded in the circumstance that the property acquired with fiscal benefits by FUND B..., the Property, remained in the fund's patrimony for a period equal to or greater than 3 years, without the necessary devotion to residential rental having been given to it. In the present case, the Property was alienated without having been devoted to permanent residential rental. Therefore, in the case of the proceedings, the problem is not related to the period.
In conclusion, it does not appear that there is truly a problem of retroactivity of the law, since the solution that belongs to the case, in our understanding, is the same, whether applying the new law or making use of the old law, since both do not dispense with the necessity that the acquisition of urban properties or autonomous portions of urban properties by FIIAH be effectively devoted, and in exclusive terms, to rental for permanent housing.
Decision
In accordance with and on the grounds set out above, the arbitral tribunal decides to maintain in the legal order the acts of assessment of IMT and IS that are the subject of the claim presented by the Claimant, judging it to be entirely without merit.
Value of the Proceedings
In accordance with the provisions of item 2 of article 306 of the CPC, paragraph a) of item 1 of article 97-A of the CPPT and item 2 of article 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the proceedings is set at € 1,296.00 (one thousand two hundred and ninety-six euros).
Costs
For the purposes of the provisions in item 2 of article 12 and item 4 of article 22 of the RJAT and item 4 of article 4 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs is set at € 306.00 (three hundred and six euros), in accordance with Table I annexed to the said Regulation, to be borne entirely by the Claimant.
Lisbon, 12 May 2017
The Arbitrator
(Nuno Pombo)
Text prepared by computer, in accordance with item 5 of article 131 of the CPC, applicable by reference of paragraph e) of item 1 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January and with the spelling prior to the said Orthographic Agreement of 1990.
[1] Page 16 of the Opinion.
[2] Page 22 of the Opinion.
[3] Or in the event the fund is liquidated within the same period.
[4] The Tax Benefits Statute, in the wording of article 7 at the time of the facts, established the subjection to supervision of all persons, individual or collective, of public or private law, to whom tax benefits were granted, automatic or dependent on recognition, for control of the verification of the requisites of the respective tax benefits. For its part, article 9 of the same statute provided (as it also provides today) that the holders of the right to tax benefits are obliged to declare, within a period of 30 days, the cessation of the factual or legal situation on which the benefit was based.
[5] Note item 3 of article 14 of the Tax Benefits Statute, which, under the heading "Extinction of tax benefits", provides: "When the tax benefit concerns the acquisition of property intended for the direct realization of the purposes of the acquirers, it ceases to apply if they are alienated or given another destination without authorization from the Minister of Finance, without prejudice to the remaining sanctions or different regimes established by law".
[6] Indeed, the aforementioned interest is not to be limited to the properties objectively considered, to their physical characteristics, since the reaction of the market will not be indifferent to the conditions under which the owner of them proposes to rent them.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created