Process: 618/2014-T

Date: February 7, 2015

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This CAAD arbitration case (618/2014-T) concerns the challenge by A... S.A. against Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) assessments for the third installment of 2012, totaling €5,063.10, under Item 28.1 of the General Stamp Tax Table (TGIS). The dispute involves ten separate units of a vertically-owned property in Lisbon. The claimant raised multiple grounds for illegality: First, procedural violations regarding timing, as the assessment dated March 22, 2013 allegedly violated the November 30, 2012 deadline established by transitional rules in Law 55-A/2012. Second, incorrect rate application - the Tax Authority applied 1% when 0.8% should apply to properties not yet valued under CIMI. Third, wrong valuation base - the Authority used 2012 property tax values (VPT) determined December 16, 2012, when transitional provisions required using 2011 values, and the taxable event occurred October 31, 2012. Fourth, and most significantly, incorrect legal interpretation of 'property' under Item 28.1 TGIS. The claimant argued that Stamp Duty applies to each autonomous floor or unit individually when exceeding €1,000,000, not to the aggregate sum of all units in a vertical ownership building. Each 2011 unit value was €167,159.44, well below the threshold. The claimant cited CIMI Article 2(4) treating horizontal ownership fractions as separate properties, and Article 12(4) requiring separate registration of each independently-usable floor with individual VPT. Finally, the claimant raised constitutional challenges based on equality and tax capacity principles. The company provided a bank guarantee to suspend tax execution proceedings and requested compensation for guarantee costs if successful.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

CAAD: Tax Arbitration

Case No. 618/2014-T

I. Report

  1. A... –S.A., with registered office at Avenue …, in Lisbon, collective entity number …, requested from the Administrative Arbitration Center (CAAD), on 8 August 2014, the constitution of an arbitral tribunal in tax matters, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10, nos. 1 and 2 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime for Tax Arbitration "RJAT"), in which the Tax and Customs Authority (AT) is the Respondent, with a view to the declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of the assessment acts for the 3rd instalment of Stamp Duty (IS) for the year 2012, relating to item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty (TGIS), in the total amount of €5,063.10 (five thousand and sixty-three euros and ten cents).

  2. The Claimant opted not to appoint an arbitrator.

  3. The request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of CAAD on 11 August 2014 and automatically notified to the AT on the same date.

  4. The Undersigned was appointed by the President of the Deontological Council of CAAD as arbitrator of a single arbitral tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the RJAT.

  5. The Undersigned communicated acceptance of the appointment to the President of the Deontological Council of CAAD within the statutory period, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the CAAD Deontological Code.

  6. The Parties were notified of the appointment of the Undersigned on 24 September 2014, in accordance with Article 11, no. 1, paragraphs a) and b) of the RJAT, and did not object to such appointment.

  7. The single arbitral tribunal was thus regularly constituted on 9 October 2014, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph c) of no. 1 of Article 11 of the RJAT.

  8. The AT was notified, by arbitral order of 9 October 2014, to submit its response within 30 days.

  9. The AT submitted its response on 7 November 2014, requesting therein the waiver of the hearing referred to in Article 18 of the RJAT.

  10. The Claimant, duly notified, indicated it did not object to such waiver.

  11. The Arbitral Tribunal is materially competent, in accordance with Article 2, no. 1, paragraph a) of the RJAT.

  12. The Parties have legal personality and capacity and are entitled to sue and be sued (Articles 4 and 10, no. 2 of the RJAT and Article 1 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March).

  13. The joinder of claims is admissible, as the prerequisites established in Article 3, no. 1 of the RJAT are met.

  14. The proceedings are not vitiated by defects that would invalidate them.

II. Of the Claimant's Request

The Claimant presented a request for an arbitral pronouncement seeking the declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of the assessment acts for the 3rd instalment of Stamp Duty (IS) relating to item 28.1 of the TGIS corresponding to:

i. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
ii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
iii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
iv. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
v. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
vi. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
vii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
viii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
ix. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €510.23;
x. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €510.23;

In the global amount of €5,063.10 (five thousand and sixty-three euros and ten cents), all relating to separate units of the property located at Avenue …, municipality of Lisbon, registered in the urban property tax roll under article ....

To that effect, and in summary, it submits the following grounds:

  1. The Claimant timely submits the request for arbitral pronouncement following the implicit rejection of a grace period appeal filed on 13 January 2014;

  2. The Claimant contends that the above-mentioned acts are illegal.

  3. First, because the assessment is out of time, the transitional rules applicable to 2012, defined in Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, not having been respected: the date indicated in the collection documents is 22 March 2013 (when it should have been assessed by 30 November 2012).

  4. The act was thus performed and notified to the Claimant well after the deadline set for that purpose.

  5. Second, because the rate applied to the taxable property value (VPT) was incorrect: the AT applied the rate of 1%, when the applicable rate should have been 0.8%, because it is a property not yet valued in accordance with the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI).

  6. Additionally, the VPT considered was wrong: the transitional provisions for 2012, established by Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, determine that the VPT to be considered is that of 2011.

  7. The assessment of the building was initiated with the submission, on 30 November 2012, of the IMI Form 1 Declaration, with the VPT being determined only on 16 December 2012.

  8. Thus, the AT could not have taken into account a VPT that was not determined on the date of verification of the taxable fact for purposes of Stamp Duty, that is, on 31 October 2012.

  9. In 2011, the VPT of each floor or separate unit capable of independent use totalled the value of €167,159.44, that is, manifestly below €1,000,000.00, the amount foreseen in the taxable base provision contained in Item 28.1 of the TGIS.

  10. The AT further proceeded to an erroneous interpretation of the concept of property for purposes of Stamp Duty taxation.

  11. In fact, contrary to the understanding of the AT, Stamp Duty (item 28.1 of the TGIS) does not apply to the sum of the VPTs of floors or separate units capable of independent use, dedicated to housing, integrated in urban properties in vertical ownership, but rather to the VPT of each floor or separate unit capable of independent use, only in the case where this value equals or exceeds €1,000,000.00.

  12. The taxable base provision of Item 28.1 of the TGIS provides that Stamp Duty applies to properties with housing dedication, with VPT exceeding €1,000,000.00, without distinguishing based on the constitution in horizontal or vertical ownership.

  13. Thus, it is necessary to resort to the CIMI, to the definition of property contained in Article 2, no. 1, and to the provision in Article 2, no. 4, according to which each autonomous fraction in horizontal ownership regime is considered as a property.

  14. As to properties in vertical ownership, the CIMI does not provide for different treatment compared to those that are in horizontal ownership.

  15. Article 12, no. 4 of the CIMI itself establishes that each floor or part of a building capable of independent use shall be considered separately in the property registration, with its respective VPT.

  16. Therefore, there is no difference for purposes of Municipal Property Tax between properties in horizontal or vertical ownership regime, with the individualisation of each floor capable of independent use always being required, a fact that the Claimant submits citing various CAAD case law.

  17. Finally, if none of the above grounds are upheld, the Claimant further alleges the unconstitutionality of item 28.1, for violation of the principles of equality and contributive capacity.

  18. The Claimant further indicates that it did not proceed with payment of the Stamp Duty in question, which led to the institution of coercive collection proceedings, with all instalments of Stamp Duty being joined in the same tax execution proceedings and not merely the 3rd.

  19. The Claimant presented a bank guarantee to suspend the ongoing tax execution proceedings.

  20. Should the present request be upheld, the Claimant requests compensation for the costs incurred with the issuance and maintenance of the guarantee, to the extent corresponding to the tax act in question, thus determining the reduction in the value of the bank guarantee provided, so as to cover only the remaining instalments.

III. Of the Respondent's Response

The Respondent submitted its Response, alleging, succinctly, the following:

  1. The Respondent opts to pronounce itself only on the question of legality/constitutionality of the assessments, without dwelling on their content.

  2. The Respondent contends that the situation of the Claimant's property falls entirely within the provision of Item 28.1 of the TGIS.

  3. From the notion of property contained in Article 2 of the CIMI, only autonomous fractions of properties in horizontal ownership regime are considered as properties.

  4. The Claimant, for purposes of Municipal Property Tax and Stamp Duty, is the owner of a single property and not of 10 autonomous fractions.

  5. Horizontal and vertical ownership are civil law regimes imported into tax law, and the interpreter of tax law cannot equate these regimes, by virtue of the provision in Article 11, no. 2 of the General Tax Law (LGT) ("Whenever, in tax rules, terms specific to other branches of law are used, they must be interpreted in the same sense as they have therein, unless otherwise directly follows from the law").

  6. Moreover, the tax law in question contains no lacuna: the CIMI determines that in the horizontal ownership regime autonomous fractions constitute properties, which it does not do for vertical ownership.

  7. The fact that it is foreseen that each floor or separate unit capable of independent use must be separately registered in the tax roll and contain an individual VPT is not relevant for this purpose: the rule is relevant only for purposes of registration in the tax roll, the autonomy that within the same property can be attributed to each of its parts.

  8. The interpretation that the Claimant seeks to give to the rule has no expression in the law, violates the letter and spirit of item 28.1 of the TGIS and the principle of legality, being, consequently, unconstitutional.

  9. Being the regimes in question, in civil-legal terms, different, tax law respects these differences.

  10. Thus, what is relevant is the VPT of the entirety of the urban property and not the VPT of each of the parts that comprise it, even if capable of independent use.

  11. Thus, the impugned acts should be maintained as legal.

IV. Issues to be Decided

Considering the facts and the legal matters contained in the request for arbitral pronouncement submitted by the Claimant and the Response of the Respondent, the issues to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal are:

a. Whether the assessments in question violated the transitional provisions established for 2012, contained in Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, by (i) having been issued out of time, (ii) the VPT considered not being that in force in 2011, and (iii) the fact that the rate applied was incorrect;

b. Whether the value on which item 28.1 of the TGIS applies, as amended by Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, is (i) the sum of the VPT of each floor or separate unit capable of independent use, in the case of properties in full or vertical ownership regime (global value), or (ii) the VPT of each floor or separate unit capable of independent use.

c. To determine whether item 28.1 of the TGIS is unconstitutional, as violating the principle of equality.

V. Factual Matters

With relevance to the assessment of the request, the following facts are established as proven, on the basis of documents filed in the proceedings, not contested by the Respondent:

a. The Claimant is the owner of the urban property located at Avenue …, municipality of Lisbon, registered in the urban property tax roll under article ....

b. The urban property in question comprises 10 (ten) floors or separate units capable of independent use, dedicated to housing.

c. The sum of the VPTs of those floors or separate units capable of independent use dedicated to housing was, on 31 October 2012, €167,159.44 (one hundred and sixty-seven thousand, one hundred and fifty-nine euros and forty-four cents);

d. The Claimant delivered, on 30 November 2012, IMI Form 1 Declaration relating to the property in question, which determined the assessment, in December 2012, of those 10 (ten) floors or separate units capable of independent use dedicated to housing, and the corresponding sum of VPTs fixed at €1,518,940.00 (one million, five hundred and eighteen thousand, nine hundred and forty euros).

e. The Claimant was notified of the assessment acts for the 3rd instalment of Stamp Duty (IS) relating to item 28.1 of the TGIS, for the year 2012, corresponding to:

i. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
ii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
iii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
iv. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
v. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
vi. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
vii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
viii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
ix. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €510.23;
x. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €510.23;

In the global amount of €5,063.10 (five thousand and sixty-three euros and ten cents).

f. The Claimant did not proceed with payment of that 3rd instalment of Stamp Duty, which gave rise to tax execution proceedings (in which all Stamp Duty instalments for 2012 were joined), within the scope of which the Claimant presented a bank guarantee for suspension of the same.

No other facts with relevance to the proceedings are considered to not be established.

The conviction regarding the facts established as proven was based on the documentary evidence filed by the Claimant, whose authenticity and correspondence to reality were not questioned by the Respondent.

VI. Legal Matters

As a result of the factual matters, the assessment of Stamp Duty for the year 2012, relating to item 28.1 of the TGIS, is in issue.

Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, which came into force on the day following its publication, determines, in its Article 6:

"Article 6
Transitional Provisions

  1. In 2012, the following rules must be observed by reference to the assessment of stamp duty provided in item no. 28 of the respective General Table:

a. The taxable fact occurs on 31 October 2012;

b. The taxpayer of the duty is the one mentioned in no. 4 of Article 2 of the Stamp Duty Code on the date referred to in the preceding paragraph;

c. The taxable property value to be used in the assessment of the duty corresponds to that which results from the rules provided in the Municipal Property Tax Code by reference to the year 2011;

d. The assessment of the duty by the Tax and Customs Authority must be carried out by the end of November 2012;

e. The duty must be paid, in a single instalment, by taxpayers by 20 December 2012;

f. The applicable rates are the following:

i. Properties with housing dedication valued in accordance with the Municipal Property Tax Code: 0.5%;

ii. Properties with housing dedication not yet valued in accordance with the Municipal Property Tax Code: 0.8%;

iii. Urban properties when the taxpayers who are not natural persons are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favourable tax regime, listed in the list approved by ordinance of the Minister of Finance: 7.5%.

  1. In 2013, the assessment of the stamp duty provided in item no. 28 of the respective General Table must be based on the same taxable property value used for purposes of assessing municipal property tax to be carried out in that year.

  2. The failure to deliver, in whole or in part, within the indicated deadline, of the amounts assessed as stamp duty constitutes a tax infraction, punished in accordance with the law."

That is to say, the law established a transitional regime for the year 2012. In accordance therewith, and with relevance to the case at issue, the taxable fact occurs on 31 October 2012, and the VPT to be used for purposes of stamp duty assessment is that which results from the rules provided in the CIMI by reference to the year 2011.

The assessment of the duty by the AT must be carried out by the end of November 2012, with the duty being paid, in a single instalment, by 20 December.

Thus, there is no doubt that, for the case under examination, those rules must be observed.

Therefore, if the VPT of the 10 (ten) floors or separate units capable of independent use, dedicated to housing, on 31 October 2012, was €167,159.44 (one hundred and sixty-seven thousand, one hundred and fifty-nine euros and forty-four cents), it is manifest that, solely on that basis, the ownership of the property in question would never be encompassed by the taxable base provision of item 28 of the TGIS.

For purposes of taxation in relation to the year 2012 – the year which, it is reiterated, is that to which the assessed duty relates – factuality occurring after the date of verification of the taxable fact (31 October 2012) cannot be taken into account (assessment initiated on 30 November 2012), it being certain that the assessment carried out in December of that year occurs after the said taxable fact, thus not relating to the date thereof.

The assessment of the duty by reference to the VPT determined subsequently is, thus, illegal, and the Claimant's request is upheld.[1]

Concluding that the ownership of the property is not encompassed by the taxable base provision, the assessments which are the subject of the present case – all those identified and impugned by the Claimant, as attached to the file – cannot be upheld.

In light of the above conclusion, the examination of the remaining issues raised by the Claimant is rendered moot.

As to the guarantee provided by the Claimant to suspend the tax execution proceedings subsequently instituted for coercive collection of unpaid amounts, the Claimant requests compensation for the costs incurred therewith, to the extent corresponding to the acts which are the subject of the present request for arbitral pronouncement.

In accordance with Article 53, no. 1 of the General Tax Law, the debtor who, to suspend execution, offers a bank guarantee, shall be compensated in whole or in part for the losses resulting from its provision, should it have been maintained for a period exceeding 3 years, in proportion of the successful outcome in administrative appeal, impugnation or opposition to execution which have as their object the debt guaranteed.

However, compensation for the losses in question is due without dependency on that 3-year period, in the event that there has been an error attributable to the administration in the assessment of the tax (Article 53, no. 2 of the General Tax Law).

Pursuant to no. 3 of the same article, the amount of compensation is subject to a maximum limit equivalent to that resulting from the application to the value guaranteed of the rate of compensatory interest defined in Article 43, no. 4 of the General Tax Law.

In accordance with Article 171 of the Tax Procedure Code, the judicial impugnation proceedings in which the legality of the act is decided is the appropriate procedural means to formulate the request for compensation for improper guarantee. Since the arbitral proceedings address the legality of the debt, the arbitral proceedings are also the appropriate means for the examination of this request.

In the case at issue, the error underlying the identified assessments is attributable exclusively to the AT, and therefore the Claimant has the right to request such compensation.

However, the Arbitral Tribunal does not have elements that would allow it to establish its exact value, which must be calculated on the basis of the costs actually incurred, proportionately calculated, from the date of the constitution of the guarantee until the day on which it is released (always respecting the above-mentioned maximum limit), or its reduced value – considering that the guarantee was offered for suspension of execution relating to other unpaid amounts.

VII. Decision

Accordingly, and on the basis of the grounds stated, the Arbitral Tribunal decides:

A. To find the request for arbitral pronouncement entirely upheld, with the consequent annulment of the assessment acts for the 3rd instalment of Stamp Duty (IS) relating to item 28.1 of the TGIS, for the year 2012, corresponding to:

i. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
ii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
iii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
iv. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
v. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
vi. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
vii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
viii. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €505.33;
ix. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €510.23;
x. Document No. 2013…, in the amount of €510.23;

In the global amount of €5,063.10 (five thousand and sixty-three euros and ten cents).

B. To condemn the Respondent, in accordance with paragraph b) of no. 1 of Article 24 of the RJAT, to restore the situation that would exist if the annulled assessment acts had not been performed, adopting the acts and operations necessary for that purpose, through the payment of compensation to the Claimant corresponding to the costs actually incurred, proportionately calculated, from the date of the constitution of the guarantee until the day on which it is released, or its reduced value.

Value of the case: €5,063.10 (five thousand and sixty-three euros and ten cents).

Costs: In accordance with the provision in Article 22, no. 4 of the RJAT, and in accordance with Table I attached to the Rules of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the costs is fixed at €612.00 (six hundred and twelve euros), to be borne by the Respondent.

Lisbon, 7 February 2015

The Arbitrator

Ana Pedrosa Augusto

[1] See, in particular, the Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, of 8 October 2014 and the Judgment of the Central Administrative Court South of 10 July 2014.

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

What is Verba 28.1 of the Portuguese General Stamp Tax Table (TGIS) and how does it apply to property?
Item 28.1 of the Portuguese General Stamp Tax Table (TGIS) imposes annual Stamp Duty on urban properties with housing use (destinação habitacional) where the property tax value (VPT) equals or exceeds €1,000,000. The critical interpretative issue in vertical ownership (propriedade vertical) is whether the €1,000,000 threshold applies to each autonomous floor or unit capable of independent use, or to the aggregate sum of all units within the building. According to Article 2(1) and 2(4) of the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), each autonomous fraction in horizontal ownership is considered a separate property, and Article 12(4) CIMI requires that each floor or building part capable of independent use be registered separately with its own VPT. The claimant's position, supported by CAAD case law, argues that no distinction exists between horizontal and vertical ownership regimes for tax purposes, and therefore Item 28.1 applies individually to each unit exceeding the threshold, not collectively to the building.
How does the CAAD arbitration tribunal handle disputes over Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) on vertical property ownership?
The CAAD arbitration tribunal handles Stamp Tax disputes on vertical property ownership through the procedural framework established in Decree-Law 10/2011 (RJAT - Legal Regime for Tax Arbitration). In this case, the process began with the claimant's request filed August 8, 2014, following implicit rejection of a grace period appeal filed January 13, 2014. The tribunal was constituted as a single-arbitrator panel appointed by the CAAD Deontological Council President on September 24, 2014, becoming regularly constituted October 9, 2014. The Tax Authority submitted its response on November 7, 2014, requesting waiver of oral hearing under Article 18 RJAT, to which the claimant consented. The tribunal examines jurisdiction (Article 2(1)(a) RJAT), party standing, admissibility of joined claims (Article 3(1) RJAT), and procedural validity before analyzing substantive issues including timing compliance, rate application, valuation base determination, and statutory interpretation of Item 28.1 TGIS regarding the definition of 'property' in vertical ownership contexts.
Can a property owner challenge a Stamp Tax assessment on vertical property (propriedade vertical) through tax arbitration in Portugal?
Yes, property owners can challenge Stamp Tax assessments on vertical property (propriedade vertical) through CAAD tax arbitration in Portugal under Decree-Law 10/2011 (RJAT). Article 2(1)(a) RJAT grants arbitral tribunals material jurisdiction over challenges to tax assessment acts, including those involving Stamp Duty under Item 28.1 TGIS. The process requires filing a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal with CAAD, identifying the specific assessment documents being challenged. In this case, the claimant challenged ten separate assessment documents for the third 2012 installment, totaling €5,063.10. Prerequisites include prior administrative challenge (here, a grace period appeal filed January 13, 2014 that was implicitly rejected) and timely arbitration request. Parties have legal personality and capacity to sue and be sued (Articles 4 and 10(2) RJAT). Claimants may opt not to appoint an arbitrator, resulting in single-arbitrator appointment by CAAD. The claimant also provided a bank guarantee to suspend ongoing tax execution proceedings during arbitration and requested compensation for guarantee costs if the challenge succeeds.
What is the legal procedure for requesting tax arbitration at CAAD under Decreto-Lei 10/2011 (RJAT)?
The legal procedure for requesting tax arbitration at CAAD under Decreto-Lei 10/2011 (RJAT) involves several steps: (1) File a written request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal with CAAD identifying the contested acts, pursuant to Article 10(1)-(2) RJAT, typically after exhausting or awaiting administrative remedies (implicit rejection after grace period appeal in this case). (2) Opt whether to appoint an arbitrator or proceed with CAAD appointment. (3) CAAD President accepts or rejects the request and notifies the Tax Authority automatically. (4) If parties don't appoint arbitrators, the CAAD Deontological Council President appoints a single arbitrator (Article 6 RJAT). (5) The appointed arbitrator communicates acceptance within statutory period per CAAD Deontological Code Article 4. (6) Parties are notified of arbitrator appointment per Article 11(1)(a)-(b) RJAT and may object. (7) The tribunal becomes regularly constituted per Article 11(1)(c) RJAT. (8) Tax Authority submits response within 30 days by arbitral order. (9) Parties may waive oral hearing under Article 18 RJAT. (10) Tribunal verifies jurisdiction (Article 2 RJAT), party standing, claim admissibility (Article 3 RJAT), and procedural validity before deciding the merits.
How is the third installment of Stamp Tax calculated for properties exceeding the threshold under Verba 28.1 TGIS?
The third installment of Stamp Tax under Item 28.1 TGIS is calculated by applying the applicable rate to the property tax value (VPT) exceeding €1,000,000, divided into installments. For 2012, transitional rules under Law 55-A/2012 of October 29 required: (1) using the VPT from 2011 as the tax base, (2) applying rate of 0.8% for properties not yet valued under CIMI or 1% for properties valued under CIMI, and (3) assessment by November 30, 2012. In this case, the Tax Authority allegedly erred by: applying the 1% rate instead of 0.8%, using 2012 VPT determined December 16, 2012 instead of 2011 values, and assessing on March 22, 2013 past the deadline. The fundamental calculation dispute concerned whether to aggregate all ten units' VPTs (summing beyond €1,000,000) or assess each unit's €167,159.44 individual VPT separately (each below threshold). The claimant argued each autonomous unit should be taxed individually per CIMI Articles 2(4) and 12(4), resulting in zero tax liability as no individual unit exceeded €1,000,000.