Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
CAAD: Tax Arbitration
Case no. 607/2014-T
Subject: IRS; compensatory interest
The arbitrators Dr. Jorge Lopes de Sousa (arbitrator-president), Dr. Sérgio de Matos and Dr. Paulo Ferreira Alves, appointed by the Deontological Council of the Center for Administrative Arbitration to form the Arbitral Tribunal, constituted on 09-10-2014, agree as follows:
- Report
A…, S.G.P.S., S.A., NIPC …, filed a petition for constitution of the collective arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the combined provisions of articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as RJAT), in which the AUTHORITY FOR TAX AND CUSTOMS is the Respondent.
The Petitioner seeks the annulment of the decision of dismissal of the administrative appeal no. …, which it filed against the withholding at source assessments for IRS nos. 2013 … of €9,977.61, 2013 … of €81,740.86, 2013 … of €59,606.60 and 2013 … of €50,606.60 and compensatory interest assessments nos. 2013 …, 2013 …, 2013 … and 2013 …, respectively with the amounts of €2,014.11, €11,007.67, €5,474.00 and €3,089.74, in the total amount of €232,517.19, corresponding to the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.
The petition for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of CAAD on 05-08-2014 and notified to the Authority for Tax and Customs on 06-08-2014.
Pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of article 6 and subparagraph b) of paragraph 1 of article 11 of RJAT, the Deontological Council appointed as arbitrators of the collective arbitral tribunal the undersigned, who communicated acceptance of the charge within the applicable period.
On 24-09-2014 the parties were duly notified of such appointment and did not manifest the intention to refuse the appointment of the arbitrators, in accordance with the combined provisions of article 11, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and b) of RJAT and articles 6 and 7 of the Code of Ethics.
In compliance with the provision in subparagraph c) of paragraph 1 of article 11 of RJAT, the collective arbitral tribunal was constituted on 09-10-2014.
The Authority for Tax and Customs submitted a response in which it argued that the petition for arbitral pronouncement should be judged unfounded.
On 11-12-2014, the meeting provided for in article 18 of RJAT took place, in which witness evidence was produced and it was agreed that the case would proceed with successive written submissions.
The Parties submitted arguments.
The Arbitral Tribunal was regularly constituted and is competent.
The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are duly represented (articles 4 and 10, paragraph 2, of the same statute and article 1 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March).
The case does not suffer from nullities and no obstacle arises to the consideration of the merits of the case.
- Factual Findings
2.1. Proven Facts
The following facts are deemed proven:
a) The R. was incorporated, under the name "B…- …, Lda.with a capital stock of €222,000.00, distributed as follows:
[Table content with confidential data redacted]
b) On 31-07-2008, share purchase and sale agreements were executed between the shareholders of C… (seller) and the Petitioner (buyer) from which the following elements stand out:
[Table content with confidential data redacted]
c) In the agreements executed with D and E, it was agreed that the price would be paid "annually in one or more tranches" with the minimum annual value of €175,000.00 and €115,000.00;
d) In the remaining agreements, the price was paid on the date of sale;
e) The average unit value of €22.50 per share was determined taking into account the valuation report of C… - …, S.A. prepared by BANIF - INVESTMENT BANKING/ BANIF - INVESTMENT BANK, SA, dated August 2007, a copy of which is included in the administrative appeal proceedings, the content of which is reproduced herein, in which it was understood that the value of that company would be between €4.3 and €6.3 million and the value of the company's assets was between €4,900,000.00 and €6,800,000.00;
f) In 2010, R. was transformed into a joint-stock company, adopted the name "A…-SGPS, S.A." maintaining the same capital stock, represented by 222,000 registered shares with the nominal value of €1.00 each, and the corresponding shareholding therein:
[Table content with confidential data redacted]
g) The company C…-…, S.A, was incorporated on 11-06-1990, initially in the form of a limited liability company and under the name "F…–…, Lda";
h) On 02-02-2006, F… –…, Lda became a joint-stock company, with the name C…–…, S.A, with a capital stock of €222,000.00 (222,000 registered shares with the value of €1.00 each) distributed among the following shareholders:
[Table content with confidential data redacted]
i) On 13-08-2009 C… – … increased the capital stock from €222,000.00 to €300,000.00, distributed as follows:
[Table content with confidential data redacted]
j) With the increase in capital stock, three new shareholders entered, one of whom was G;
k) On 31-07-2008, the majority of shareholders of C…- … sold part/all of the shares to R., in a total of 251,370 shares, as described:
[Table content with confidential data redacted]
l) D and H, married to each other, are shareholders of R. and of C… – …;
m) I and E, married to each other, are shareholders of R. and of C… – ….
n) The amounts paid to the selling shareholders are recorded in the accounting of R. in the various sub-accounts "261110x – Suppliers of fixed assets – Current account – domestic market" (years 2008 and 2009) and "2711110x – Other accounts receivable and payable – Investment suppliers current account – domestic market" (years 2010 and 2011);
o) At the date of the sale of part of the capital stock of C… – …, the shareholding in the capital of the companies involved in the operation was as follows:
[Table content with confidential data redacted]
p) On 13-08-2009, G acquired 28,716 shares in the capital stock of C… - …, S.A., representing 9.57% of the capital stock, through a capital increase operation, carried out at nominal value (minutes no. 8, which are included in the administrative proceedings, the content of which is reproduced herein);
q) The entry of G into the capital stock of C…- …, S.A. was due to his prestige, international competence and network of contacts and international credibility, at the time when the company was preparing to invest in a new business segment/opportunity: electronic payments through fixed and mobile electronic channels (testimony of D and witness G);
r) The entry of G into the capital stock of the Petitioner represented the 'acquisition' of an essential added value for the new business that was projected to be developed in the company J…, S.A., created by the Petitioner, given his recognized technical competence in that new complementary area of mobile business operations (testimony of D and witness G);
s) The investment project in the aforementioned electronic payments business was not realized, because the respective regulation, which became known after that entry, did not allow it for all companies, but only for credit and payment institutions, a category in which J…, S.A. did not fit (testimony of D and witness G);
t) As a result of this change in circumstances, the presence of G in the shareholder structure of C… - …, S.A. was no longer justified, since the added value that his knowledge represented no longer had the economic relevance that was projected, in view of the loss of the business opportunity, and he chose not to return permanently to Portugal and resumed his activities in London (testimony of D and witness G);
u) On 28-12-2009, the Petitioner executed with G a share purchase and sale agreement of the company C…-…, S.A, through which it acquired 28,716 shares representing 9.57% of the capital stock, at the respective nominal value of €1.00;
v) This price of €1.00 per share was agreed as a way to facilitate the exit of this partner, who only held the respective shares for a period of approximately five months, until the expectations of his intervention in the new market sector of J…were definitively dashed, and this price was set because it was the same at which he had entered the capital of C…-…, S.A (testimony of D and witness G);
w) The content of the IES declarations - Simplified Business Information for the years 2007 to 2011 and the following comparative table of net results are reproduced and proven, which are included in part 4 of the administrative proceedings:
[Table content with confidential data redacted]
x) The operation of purchasing equity interests in C… was the subject of inspection, whose report concluded that the corrections should be made that gave rise to the assessments to which these proceedings relate;
y) Following the corrections, the Authority for Tax and Customs made the following assessments of IRS and compensatory interest, relating to withholding at source, all with voluntary payment deadline of 15-07-2013:
– IRS no. 2013 … of €9,977.61, and compensatory interest nos. 2013 … of €2,014.11, relating to the year 2008;
– IRS no. 2013 … of €81,740.86, and compensatory interest nos. 2013 … and 2013 …, in the amounts of €1,743.74 and €9,263.93, respectively, relating to the year 2009;
– IRS no. 2013 … of €59,606.60 and compensatory interest no. 2013 … of €5,474.00, relating to the year 2010;
– IRS no. 2013 … of €59,606.60 and compensatory interest no. 2013 …, of €3,089.74, relating to the year 2011;
z) The Petitioner filed an administrative appeal against the aforementioned assessments, which was numbered …;
aa) The administrative appeal was dismissed by decision of 30-04-2014, issued by the Head of the Administrative Justice Division of the Finance Office of Lisbon, who expressed agreement with a report that contains, among other things, the following:
"The withholding at source assessments for IRS and the respective compensatory interest in question were originated by the conduct of an inspection procedure, the objective of which was to analyze the tax effects arising from the acquisition of equity interests by the company to related entities in a partial scope directed at the analysis of IRC. According to the Inspection Report (fl.301 vs.) of the proceedings, through document no. 120.007 of 2008.12.31 of the miscellaneous operations journal, the taxpayer recorded the acquisition of equity interests in the company C…-…, SA (fl.321).
In the same report it is stated that the operation that is relevant for the application of transfer pricing rules concerns the acquisition of equity interests in the company C…-…, SA by A…-SGPS, SA from personal income tax taxpayers, an operation carried out between entities with special relationships (fl.305).
Under the current article 63 of CIRC, special relationships are deemed to exist between two entities in situations where one has the power to exercise, directly or indirectly, a significant influence on the management decisions of the other.
Thus, for taxpayers to be able to apply the arm's length principle, in paragraph 2 of article 63 of CIRC it is stated that for the determination of the terms and conditions that would normally be agreed, accepted or practiced between independent entities, taxpayers must adopt the method or methods capable of ensuring the highest degree of comparability between the operations they carry out and others substantially identical, in normal market situations or in the absence of special relationships, taking into account in particular the characteristics of the goods, rights or services, market position, economic and financial situation, business strategy and other relevant characteristics of the taxpayers involved, the functions performed by them, the assets used and the allocation of risk. For this purpose, paragraph 3 of article 63 of CIRC sets out which methods to use - comparable market price method, discounted resale price method or cost plus method, and others.
It is verified that on 31.07.2008, 215,370 shares of the company C…, were sold by the company A… by shareholders D and spouse, H, E and spouse, I, for a total amount of €4,845,825.00 which corresponds to an average selling price of €22.50 per share. The shareholders who proceeded to sell the equity interests are common to both companies and hold the same share of capital exceeding 10%, namely: D and H with 58.21%, E and I with 38.81%. (fl. 307).
As already stated, paragraph 2 of the current article 63 of CIRC determines the method to be adopted that allows the adjustment of transfer prices to the arm's length principle provided for in paragraph 3 of article 63, and in the case in question the comparable market price method was applied, based on the contract of purchase and sale of shares executed on 28.12.2009 between A… and G, a partner who entered the company at the time of the capital increase operation carried out on 13/08/2009 (fls.308 fls/vs.e 316).
This contract concerns 28,716 shares representing 9.57% of the capital stock of C…-…, SA with a nominal value of €1.00 each.
Analyzed, in light of paragraph 4 of article 63 of CIRC, the relationship existing between C…-…, SA, A… SGPS, SA and Mr. G, it is verified that there are no special relationships between him and those companies.
With regard to BANIF Investment Bank (BIB) it was contacted by the shareholders of C… - … SA in the capacity of financial advisor to evaluate the value of the company in view of various scenarios, including the selection of a strategic partner (fl.309).
Based on the evaluation information the contracts supporting the acquisition, the holders of capital sold the equity interests for the total amount of €4,845,825.00 (fls. 302 frt/vs and 314 vs.).
As already stated, the sale of equity interests in the company C…-…, SA by its shareholders to the company A…, SA, for having been executed between entities with special relationships, is subject to the transfer pricing regime.
In the financial year 2008, specifically on 31.12.2008, 215,370 shares of the company C… -…, SA were sold to the company A… by shareholders D and spouse, H, E and spouse, I, for the amount of €4,845,825.00 which corresponds to an average selling price of €22.50 per share. In the specific case, comparing the average unit selling value that served as the basis for the operation that occurred on 31.12.2008 (€22.50) and the operation of 28.12.2009 (€1.00), it is verified that the pricing policy adopted was not the same, creating a divergence in the alienation value of €21.50 per share, with a time difference between both of approximately one year (fl.315).
Comparing the two operations of purchase and sale of shares in C…, SA, it is verified that the price established with shareholder G was quite different and lower than that agreed for the remaining shareholders, denoting a divergence of the prices agreed in the acquisitions/alienations of shares in C…, SA by the intervening entities from €22.50 to €1.00.
Thus, considering that the normal value of acquisition of equity interests in C…-…, SA is that which was adopted for the independent entity, Mr. G (€1.00) per share, the remaining value of €21.50 per share, because it constitutes a credit in favor of the shareholder in the acquiring company A…, SGPS.SA will be considered an advance on account of profits subject to withholding at source.
As established in paragraph 4 of article 6 of CIRS, entries in any current accounts of partners, recorded in commercial or civil companies in commercial form, when they do not result from loans, the provision of work or the exercise of company positions, are presumed to be made in the form of profits or advance on profits, article 5, paragraph 2, subparagraph h), being considered capital gains subject to withholding at source under the terms of article 7, paragraph 3, subparagraph a), paragraph 2.
Thus, A…, SA, as the entity owing the income, is by virtue of this legal provision obliged to withhold at source at the current liberatory rate at the time of the occurrence of the facts, the Tax Inspection having made these corrections in the total amount of €232,517.19.
Given the arguments made by the complainant, the fact is that there were two operations substantially in the same terms, except for the quantification of the sale value per share, with a differential of €21.50 per share sold, so that, for all the reasons set out above, the analysis carried out by the Tax Inspection is considered correct and the complaint of the complainant is not to be accepted."
bb) The Petitioner paid:
– on 12-07-2013, the amounts assessed in the assessments relating to the year 2008;
– on 12-07-2013, the amounts assessed in the assessments relating to the year 2009;
– on 14-07-2013, the amounts assessed in the assessments relating to the year 2010;
– on 15-07-2013, the amounts assessed in the assessments relating to the year 2011; (document no. 14 attached with the administrative appeal, the content of which is reproduced herein);
cc) On 04-08-2014, the Petitioner filed the petition for arbitral pronouncement that gave rise to the present case.
2.2. Unproven Facts
It was not proven that the normal value for the acquisition of shares in C…-…, SA between independent entities was €1.00 per share, which was adopted for the acquisition of shares from G.
2.3. Grounds for the Factual Findings
The fixing of the factual findings is based on the Tax Inspection Report, on the documents attached with the petition for arbitral pronouncement and with the administrative appeal, the contents of which are reproduced herein and on the testimony of D and G, who appeared to testify with impartiality and with knowledge of the facts about which they testified.
Furthermore, the credibility of the explanation for the acquisition price that the latter benefited is reinforced by the documents attached to the administrative appeal regarding the payware system and its implementation and by the curriculum vitae which constitutes document no. 12 attached with the same administrative appeal, the contents of which are reproduced herein.
- Legal Issues
The withholding at source assessments for IRS and compensatory interest have as an essential prerequisite that "the normal value of acquisition of equity interests in C… – …, SA is that which was adopted for the independent entity, Mr. G (€1.00) per share".
Based on that premise, the Authority for Tax and Customs concluded that the acquisition value by the Petitioner of shares in the company C…- …, S.A., sold in 2008, at the price of €22.5 per share, by shareholders who also held an equity interest in the Petitioner, was higher by €21.5 per share than the price that would normally be agreed between independent parties, and therefore made the corresponding correction, pursuant to article 63, paragraph 1, of CIRC (former article 58, paragraph 1), considering that the difference constituted credits in favor of the shareholders of the Petitioner that should be considered advances on account of profits, in accordance with article 6, paragraph 4, of CIRS.
The evidence produced, especially the valuation carried out by BANIF, leaves no doubt as to the conclusion that the price of €1.00 per share was much lower than the actual value of the shares and was a special price intended to obtain the entry of G, who was highly qualified in electronic payments. The abandonment of the project, after a few months, led to his exit from the company's capital, at the same value.
Paragraphs 1 to 4 of article 63 of CIRC (former article 58) establish the following:
– In commercial operations, including in particular operations or series of operations on goods, rights or services, as well as in financial operations, carried out between a taxpayer and any other entity, subject or not to IRC, with which it is in a situation of special relationships, must be contracted, accepted and practiced terms or conditions substantially identical to those which would normally be contracted, accepted and practiced between independent entities in comparable operations.
– The taxpayer must adopt, for the determination of the terms and conditions that would normally be agreed, accepted or practiced between independent entities, the method or methods capable of ensuring the highest degree of comparability between the operations or series of operations it carries out and others substantially identical, in normal market situations or in the absence of special relationships, taking into account in particular the characteristics of the goods, rights or services, market position, economic and financial situation, business strategy, and other relevant characteristics of the taxpayers involved, the functions performed by them, the assets used and the allocation of risk.
3 – The methods to be used must be:
a) The comparable market price method, the discounted resale price method or the cost plus method;
b) The profit split method, the net margin method of the transaction or other, when the methods referred to in the preceding subparagraph cannot be applied or, if they can be, do not allow the most reliable measure of the terms and conditions that independent entities would normally agree, accept or practice.
4 – Special relationships are deemed to exist between two entities in situations where one has the power to exercise, directly or indirectly, significant influence on the management decisions of the other, which is deemed verified, in particular, between:
a) An entity and the holders of its capital, or the spouses, ancestors or descendants of these, who hold, directly or indirectly, a shareholding of not less than 10% of the capital or voting rights;
b) Entities in which the same holders of capital, their respective spouses, ancestors or descendants hold, directly or indirectly, a shareholding of not less than 10% of the capital or voting rights;
c) An entity and the members of its corporate bodies, or of any management, administration, direction, management or supervisory bodies, and their respective spouses, ancestors and descendants;
d) Entities in which the majority of members of corporate bodies, or members of any management, administration, direction, management or supervisory bodies, are the same persons or, being different persons, are linked by marriage, legally recognized de facto union or kinship in the direct line;
e) Entities linked by a subordination agreement, joint group agreement or other agreement with equivalent effect;
f) Companies that are in a relationship of control, in the terms in which this is defined in the diplomas that establish the obligation to prepare consolidated financial statements;
g) Entities between which, by virtue of the commercial, financial, professional or legal relationships between them, directly or indirectly established or practiced, there is a situation of dependence in the exercise of their respective activities, namely when any of the following situations occurs between them:
-
The exercise of the activity of one depends substantially on the cession of industrial or intellectual property rights or know-how held by the other;
-
The supply of raw materials or access to sales channels for products, goods or services by one substantially depends on the other;
-
A substantial part of the activity of one can only be carried out with the other or depends on decisions of the other;
-
The right to set prices, or conditions of equivalent economic effect, relating to goods or services transacted, provided or acquired by one is, by the constant imposition of a legal act, in the ownership of the other;
-
By the terms and conditions of its commercial or legal relationship, one can condition the management decisions of the other, based on facts or circumstances unrelated to the commercial or professional relationship itself.
h) An entity resident or non-resident with a permanent establishment located in Portuguese territory and an entity subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime resident in a country, territory or region contained in the list approved by ordinance of the Minister of Finance.
As can be seen, the price to be considered, in cases of transfers between persons with special relationships (defined in paragraph 4), is the one that would normally be contracted, accepted and practiced between independent entities in comparable operations (paragraph 1) and it is necessary to ensure the highest degree of comparability between the operations or series of operations that the taxpayer carries out and others substantially identical, in normal market situations or in the absence of special relationships, taking into account in particular the "relevant characteristics of the taxpayers involved, the functions performed by them" (paragraph 2).
On the other hand, pursuant to paragraph 3 of article 4 of Ordinance no. 1446-C/2011, of 21 December, "two operations meet the conditions to be considered comparable if they are substantially identical, which means that their relevant economic and financial characteristics are analogous or sufficiently similar, such that the differences existing between the operations or between the companies involved in them are not capable of affecting in a significant manner the terms and conditions that would be practiced in a normal market situation or, if they are, it is possible to carry out the necessary adjustments that eliminate the relevant effects caused by the differences verified".
That is, for the acquisition of shares by G to be used as a comparable, it would be necessary that there were no special interest of C… – …, S.A. in obtaining his collaboration, which, in this case, manifestly led to a price being practiced in that operation which, in light of the evidence produced (including the valuation carried out and the value of the equity and liabilities of that company contained in the IES relating to 2008), will be more than 20 times lower than the actual value of the shares at the time of acquisition.
This is sufficient to conclude, with certainty and evidence, that the correction made has no correspondence with reality and that the action of the Authority for Tax and Customs violated the aforementioned provisions of article 63 of CIRC and Ordinance no. 1446-C/2001.
Since the correction made is illegal, the assessments that had it as their premise suffer from the same error regarding the factual and legal premises that affect that correction, which justifies its annulment, as well as that of the decision dismissing the administrative appeal that upheld them.
The knowledge of the remaining defects attributed by the Petitioner to the impugned acts is rendered moot, as it is no longer useful.
- Reimbursement of Amounts Paid and Compensatory Interest
The Petitioner paid the amounts assessed, as it was deemed proven in subparagraph bb) of the factual findings established.
The Petitioner also requests compensatory interest for the improper payment of the aforementioned amounts.
In accordance with the provision in subparagraph b) of article 24 of RJAT, the arbitral decision on the merits of the claim to which no appeal or challenge is available binds the Tax Administration from the end of the period provided for appeal or challenge, and the latter must, in the exact terms of the success of the arbitral decision in favor of the taxpayer and until the end of the period provided for the spontaneous execution of the decisions of the tax courts, "restore the situation that would exist if the tax act that is the subject of the arbitral decision had not been carried out, adopting the acts and operations necessary for that effect", which is in harmony with the provision in article 100 of LGT [applicable by virtue of the provision in subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of article 29 of RJAT] which establishes that "the tax administration is obliged, in case of total or partial success of an appeal, judicial impugnation or appeal in favor of the taxpayer, to the immediate and full restoration of the legality of the act or situation that is the subject of the dispute, including the payment of compensatory interest, if applicable, from the end of the period of execution of the decision".
Although article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and b), of RJAT uses the expression "declaration of illegality" to define the competence of the arbitral courts that function in CAAD, making no reference to condemnatory decisions, it should be understood that the powers that in judicial impugnation proceedings are attributed to tax courts are included in their competence, and this is the interpretation that is in harmony with the purpose of the legislative authorization on which the Government based itself to approve the RJAT, in which it is proclaimed, as the first guideline, that "the tax arbitration procedure must constitute an alternative procedural means to the judicial impugnation process and to the action for the recognition of a right or legitimate interest in tax matters".
The judicial impugnation process, although essentially a process of annulment of tax acts, admits condemnation of the Tax Administration to the payment of compensatory interest, as is apparent from article 43, paragraph 1, of LGT, which establishes that "compensatory interest is due when it is determined, in administrative appeal or judicial impugnation, that there was an error attributable to the services resulting in payment of the tax debt in an amount higher than that legally due" and article 61, paragraph 4 of CPPT (in the version given by Law no. 55-A/2010, of 31 December, which corresponds to paragraph 2 in the initial version), which states that "if the decision that recognized the right to compensatory interest is judicial, the period for payment is counted from the beginning of the period for its spontaneous execution".
Thus, paragraph 5 of article 24 of RJAT, when it states that "payment of interest is due, regardless of its nature, in the terms provided for in the general tax law and in the Tax Procedure and Process Code", should be understood as allowing recognition of the right to compensatory interest in the arbitration process.
It is therefore necessary to consider the request for reimbursement of the amount improperly paid, plus compensatory interest.
In the case at hand, it is clear that, following the illegality of the assessment acts, there is a basis for reimbursement of the tax paid, by virtue of the aforementioned articles 24, paragraph 1, subparagraph b), of RJAT and 100 of LGT, as this is essential to "restore the situation that would exist if the tax act that is the subject of the arbitral decision had not been carried out".
With regard to compensatory interest, it is also clear that the illegality of the assessment acts is attributable to the Tax Administration, which, on its own initiative, carried them out without legal support.
Consequently, the Petitioner is entitled to compensatory interest, in accordance with article 43, paragraph 1, of LGT and article 61 of CPPT.
The compensatory interest shall be paid with respect to each of the assessments from the date on which the Petitioner made the respective payment until the full reimbursement of the amount paid, at the legal supplementary rate, in accordance with articles 43, paragraph 4, and 35, paragraph 10, of LGT, article 61 of CPPT, article 559 of the Civil Code and Ordinance no. 291/2003, of 8 April.
- Decision
In accordance with the foregoing, the members of this Arbitral Tribunal agree to:
a) Judge the petitions to annul the following assessments as well-founded, and they are hereby annulled:
– IRS no. 2013 … of €9,977.61, and compensatory interest nos. 2013 … of €2,014.11, relating to the year 2008;
– IRS no. 2013 … of €81,740.86, and compensatory interest nos. 2013 … and 2013 …, in the amounts of €1,743.74 and €9,263.93, respectively, relating to the year 2009;
– IRS no. 2013 … of €59,606.60 and compensatory interest no. 2013 … of €5,474.00, relating to the year 2010;
– IRS no. 2013 … of €59,606.60 and compensatory interest no. 2013 …, of €3,089.74, relating to the year 2011;
b) Judge the petition to annul the decision of 30-04-2014, issued by the Head of the Administrative Justice Division of the Finance Office of Lisbon that dismissed the administrative appeal no. …, as well-founded, and said decision is hereby annulled;
c) Judge the petition for condemnation of the Authority for Tax and Customs to reimburse the amounts assessed and paid as well-founded;
d) Condemn the Authority for Tax and Customs to pay the Petitioner compensatory interest on each of the amounts paid referred to in subparagraph bb) of the factual findings established, from the date of the respective payment until the date of reimbursement, at the legal supplementary rate.
- Case Value
In accordance with the provision in article 305, paragraph 2, of CPC and article 97-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph a), of CPPT and article 3, paragraph 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the case value is set at €232,517.19.
- Costs
Under the terms of article 22, paragraph 4, of RJAT, the amount of costs is set at €4,284.00, in accordance with Table I attached to the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be borne by the Authority for Tax and Customs.
Lisbon, 23 January 2015
The Arbitrators
(Jorge Manuel Lopes de Sousa)
(Sérgio de Matos)
(Paulo Ferreira Alves)
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created