Reduced VAT Rate on Dental Implants and Abutments for Implantology – CAAD Ruling 622/2015-T

CAAD: Tax Arbitration

Case No.: 622/2015-T

Subject Matter: VAT – Reduced rate; dental implants and abutments intended for dental implantology

ARBITRAL AWARD

The Arbitrators José Pedro Carvalho (President Arbitrator), Eva Dias Costa and Clotilde Celorico Palma, appointed by the Ethics Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre to form an Arbitral Tribunal, hereby decide:

I – REPORT

On 28 September 2015, A…, Unipessoal, Lda., legal entity no…., with registered office at…, no…, …, …-… Lisbon, filed a request for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the combined provisions of articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011 of 20 January, which approved the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters, as amended by article 228 of Law No. 66-B/2012 of 31 December (hereinafter, abbreviated as RJAT), seeking a declaration of illegality of the following acts, which amount to a total sum of €589,129.01 (including compensatory interest):

To support its request, the Applicant alleges, in summary, that the assessment acts are based on an incorrect interpretation and application of article 18, paragraph 1, subparagraph a) of the VAT Code and item 2.6 of List I attached to the Code, insofar as, in essence:

i. The "single implant unit" simply does not exist;

ii. The interpretation that the Tax and Customs Authority (AT) makes of item 2.6 of List I attached to the VAT Code, by which it considers that the reduced VAT rate applies only to the "single implant unit", has no basis whatsoever in the literal wording of the rule;

iii. Said interpretation violates the principle of neutrality and the principle of fair competition or non-discrimination;

iv. Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 is not directly applicable in the Portuguese legal system and no argument can be drawn from it or from the Combined Nomenclature in support of the AT's thesis.

On 30-09-2015, the request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted and automatically notified to the AT.

The Applicant did not appoint an arbitrator, and therefore, pursuant to subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of article 6 and subparagraph a) of paragraph 1 of article 11 of the RJAT, the President of the Ethics Council of CAAD appointed the undersigned as arbitrators of the collective arbitral tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable period.

On 23-11-2015, the parties were notified of these appointments and manifested no willingness to challenge any of them.

In accordance with the provisions of subparagraph c) of paragraph 1 of article 11 of the RJAT, the collective Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 09-12-2015.

On 08-01-2016, the Respondent, duly notified for this purpose, filed its response defending itself solely by contestation.

Pursuant to article 421/1 of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable pursuant to article 29/1/e) of the RJAT, approval was given to the use in the present proceedings of expert evidence produced in case 530/2014T of CAAD, requested by the Applicant.

On 05-02-2016, given that none of the purposes legally assigned to it were present, and taking into account the position taken by the parties, pursuant to articles 16/c), 19 and 29/2 of the RJAT, as well as the principles of procedural economy and prohibition of unnecessary acts, the holding of the meeting referred to in article 18 of the RJAT was dispensed with, as was the filing of submissions, and a period of 30 days was set for the rendering of the final decision.

The Arbitral Tribunal is materially competent and is regularly constituted, pursuant to articles 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph a), 5 and 6, paragraph 1, of the RJAT.

The parties have legal personality and judicial capacity, are legitimate parties and are legally represented, pursuant to articles 4 and 10 of the RJAT and article 1 of Ministerial Order No. 112-A/2011 of 22 March.

The proceedings are not affected by nullities.

Having considered all the foregoing, it is necessary to render:

II. AWARD

A. FACTUAL MATTERS

A.1. Facts Deemed Proven

1. Under external inspection orders – OI2014…, OI2014… and OI2014… – corrections were made regarding VAT for the years 2011 to 2013, of which the Applicant was notified on 19-07-2015.

2. In the inspection procedure in question, it was found that the Applicant made transfers of various types of dental implants and related material, listed in the file of commercial lines extracted from the SAFT-PT file of invoicing submitted by the Applicant, which contains all invoicing/debit notes issued, including credit notes (items included in ANNEX 7 to the tax inspection report), which presents the description of all goods transacted/returned, having applied the reduced VAT rate.

3. In the scope of that inspection procedure, corrections were made relating to the application of the reduced VAT rate (of 6% VAT pursuant to item 2.6 of List I attached to the VAT Code) to said transfers of goods.

4. Said corrections amount to €61,002.93 for the year 2011; €190,637.37 relating to 2012; and €181,944.66 relating to 2013.

5. The Applicant was cited in the respective enforcement proceedings and timely requested exemption from the provision of security.

6. The Applicant is a sole-member limited liability company engaged in trading, representation, import and export of medical and surgical articles and equipment, and also provides training in the same areas.

7. The Applicant is classified under the general taxation system for corporate income tax purposes and under the Normal monthly periodicity regime for VAT purposes, since 2012.

8. In the exercise of its activity, in the periods to which the tax assessments in question in the present proceedings relate, the Applicant made acquisitions in the domestic and intra-community markets, with its sales being channeled, almost entirely, to the domestic market.

9. The articles commercialized by the Applicant were, essentially, medical devices used in the field of implantology, among others, dental implants and other prosthetic devices.

10. The Applicant's clients were dentists and dental prosthesis technicians who worked in implantology and used the Applicant's products for oral rehabilitation of their respective patients.

11. Each tooth is an individual entity, commonly being constituted anatomically of a crown, root or roots and periodontium.

12. All constituent parts of the tooth are inseparable, that is, one part cannot exist without the other.

13. Implantology is a surgical area of Dental Medicine dedicated to the placement of dental implants, that is, it aims to replace lost teeth through titanium dental implants and crowns.

14. A dental prosthesis by dental implant is constituted of three elements: implant, abutment and crown.

15. The implant is the structure surgically positioned in the maxillary bone below the gingiva, with the aim of fulfilling the function of the root of the tooth.

16. Dental implants are structures of pure titanium, placed in the maxilla or mandible, that replace the root of a natural tooth that, for any reason, was extracted.

17. Dental implants offer a safe and permanent solution for the replacement of one or more teeth, functioning as support abutments for unitary crowns and fixed or removable bridges, partial or total.

18. The abutment is a cylindrical structure inserted in the implant.

19. A crown is placed on the abutment, a device that allows replacement of the visible part of the tooth.

20. The crown is normally made by dental prosthesis laboratories and needs to adjust to the characteristics of the patient's dentition, and is therefore specifically produced for each case.

21. Whereas implants and abutments are mass-produced.

22. The nature and quality of the implants and abutments do not change with their placement.

23. The implants and abutments transacted by the Applicant could only be used within the field of implantology, aiming at the replacement, wholly or in part, of the patient's tooth, and could not have any other purpose or use.

24. The surgical procedure for placement of a dental prosthesis involves, as a rule, three stages and can have more than one participant, as it encompasses surgical work, which must be done by a physician, and prosthesis fabrication work, which must be done by a prosthesis technician.

25. The first stage consists of surgical placement of the dental implant leveled with the bone but within the gingiva.

26. After placement of the dental implant, the process of integration of the dental implant to the bone begins, called "osseointegration" or "osteointegration".

27. At the end of the "osseointegration" process, the dental implant needs to be exposed through removal of the overlying gingiva.

28. In a second stage, the surgeon verifies the implant to confirm whether osseointegration was successful and, if so, places the fixing abutment that penetrates the gingiva.

29. In a third stage, after completion of the healing process that delimits the space to be occupied by the implant, the dental crown (artificial tooth in porcelain or other material) is manufactured and placed on the osseointegrated dental implant.

30. Medical technique advises segmentation of the process into two phases: placement of the dental implant in an initial phase, and subsequently placement of the abutment and crown.

31. Oral rehabilitation by dental implant allows conferring or optimizing the masticatory function of a patient partially or totally edentulous.

32. Alternatives to the dental implant are rehabilitation of edentulous spaces in a fixed manner by making bridges on teeth, which implies an invasive procedure of at least two teeth, or use of removable prostheses supported only by mucous membrane.

33. Dental implants maintain the bone structure and facial aesthetics that is lost with the absence of teeth, and the integrity of neighboring teeth.

A.2. Facts Deemed Not Proven

1. Many times the Applicant's clients make acquisitions of implants and abutments that subsequently prove to be inadequate for their patients (given the need for abutments and implants to adjust to the morphological characteristics of each patient).

2. To that extent, the products are returned to the Applicant, which proceeds to issue the respective credit note, for the purpose of canceling the corresponding invoice.

A.3. Reasoning on Proven and Not Proven Factual Matters

Regarding factual matters, the Tribunal does not have to rule on everything that was alleged by the parties; it is, rather, its duty to select the facts that matter for the decision and to distinguish proven from not proven matters (see article 123, paragraph 2, of the Tax Procedure Code and article 607, paragraph 3, of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable by virtue of article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and e), of the RJAT).

Thus, the relevant facts for the judgment of the case are chosen and delimited according to their legal relevance, which is established with regard to the various plausible solutions of the question(s) of law (see previous article 511, paragraph 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, corresponding to current article 596, applicable by virtue of article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraph e), of the RJAT).

Thus, taking into account the positions assumed by the parties, in light of article 110/7 of the Tax Procedure Code, the documentary evidence and the procedural file attached to the record, the facts listed above were deemed proven with relevance to the decision.

In particular, the facts deemed proven in paragraphs 11 to 33 took into account the expert report produced in case 530/2014T of CAAD, in addition to the remaining documentation contained in the procedural file and submitted by the Applicant.

B. ON LAW

In its initial Request, the Applicant alleges that "in inspection proceedings, in order to carry out calculations on which the application of the 23% rate should fall, the AT completely disregarded various credit notes issued by the Applicant for the purpose of canceling invoices issued in the years 2011 to 2012." Indeed, according to the Applicant, the credit notes were disregarded by the AT, "presenting no valid justification for this," such that there occurs "a total lack of justification supporting such action — in clear violation of what is expressed in article 77 of the General Tax Law and, as well, in article 268 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (CRP)," having, as a consequence, been obtained by the AT "VAT revenues relating to amounts that were not earned, thus violating the principle of taxpaying capacity, under article 4 of the General Tax Law."

It appears immediately, however, that it is not possible to establish any relationship between the said credit notes – which are not even attached to the record – and the invoices on which the AT based the corrections at issue in the present arbitral proceedings.

On the other hand, no evidence was presented that would allow concluding that those same credit notes were presented and discussed in the course of the inspection procedure, and since the right to prior hearing was not exercised by the Applicant, it cannot be stated, and consequently no consequences can be drawn from this, that an obligation was generated for the AT to rule on such matter, such that its non-fulfillment could lead to a violation of the duty to state reasons incumbent upon it.

Likewise, from the facts established in the present arbitral proceedings, it does not follow that the official VAT assessments now in question have computed VAT that was canceled by means of credit notes by the Applicant.

Therefore, the Applicant's allegations on this matter must fail.

Having arrived here, it is then possible to address the substance of the question that is presented for decision by this Arbitral Tribunal in the present proceedings, the question being whether the interpretation that the Tax and Customs Authority makes of item 2.6 of List I attached to the VAT Code would be acceptable, by which it considers that the reduced VAT rate applies only to what it designates as the "single implant unit."

Indeed, the AT understands that it should be considered that "goods that consist of parts, components and accessories of those prostheses are not covered by item 2.6, given that, besides not being prostheses, they are not apt to fulfill, considered individually, the function of replacement of a part of the body or its function"[1].

For the AT, "item 2.6 only covers the transfer of the article which, in itself, constitutes an artificial piece that replaces an organ of the human body or part of it, that is, 'autonomously or unitarily'"[2].

From the perspective of the AT, "the titanium implant and the abutment are merely components, each one performing the function for which they were conceived, of support and fixation of the prosthesis, but which, in themselves, objectively considered, do not perform or replace the function of the dental organ."[3]

The AT further considers that "the legislator refers to prosthesis material and not to material for prosthesis (for application in a prosthesis), which indicates to exclude parts for connection or fixation of prostheses, such as those transacted by the taxpayer."[4]

Thus, still from the same perspective, the reduced VAT rate that we are now addressing will refer only to ""complete goods" as being those which, by themselves, can replace an organ or limb of the human body and not any elements that are used individually in the process of replacement"[5], "products specifically designed for correction or compensation of deficiencies or for the replacement, total or partial, of organs or limbs of the human body"[6], it being, always in the opinion of the AT, that "if we are talking about neutrality regarding the taxation of different types of prostheses we have to compare the transfer of the removable prosthesis with that of the fixed prosthesis. And not with that of the fixed prosthesis plus fixation and connection parts."[7]

Let it be said, from the outset, that we do not agree, at its various levels, with the understanding insisted upon by the AT.

Indeed, we do not agree, from the outset, with the understanding according to which dental implants and abutments would be "parts, components and accessories" of prostheses, not being "apt to fulfill, considered individually, the function of replacement of a part of the body or its function," being "merely components, each one performing the function for which they were conceived, of support and fixation of the prosthesis."

Indeed, such understanding appears as contradictory in its own terms; it is not understood how it is that, considering that it is characteristic of the prosthesis "the function of replacement of a part of the body or its function," one can consider, in the manner that the AT does, that implants and abutments are mere means "of support and fixation of the prosthesis," since without the implants and the abutments, the remaining part of what might be – for the AT – the prosthesis, will not, likewise, be capable of ensuring individually "the function of replacement of a part of the body or its function," which, in the end, would mean that no prosthesis would exist. That is: according to the thesis sustained by the AT, fixed dental prostheses would not exist, since each one of the elements that constitute it, considered and applied individually (it being certain that their joint application at one time would be clinically prohibited), would not be capable of ensuring the replacement of the body function that they aim, together, to fulfill.

They will not thus be treated, it is believed, as implants and abutments, as "additions" of fixation and connection, to the extent that they add nothing to the prosthesis, from the outset because without them the prosthesis itself does not exist.

Thus, it is considered that the prosthesis, as an object intended to ensure "the function of replacement of" a tooth, by means of a fixed implant, comprises the implant, the abutment and the artificial crown. It is this assembly, as a whole, that ensures "the function of replacement of" a tooth, and not merely one of those elements, disconnected from the others. On the other hand, what is found is that implants and abutments ensure the replacement of part of the tooth – the root – which is why, even in the reading presented by the AT, according to which "item 2.6 only covers the transfer of the article which, in itself, constitutes an artificial piece that replaces an organ of the human body or part of it" (emphasis ours), those should be considered as being covered by the aforesaid item 2.6. This is not prevented by the circumstance, mentioned in the IRT, that the root "does not perform only the function of fixation of the tooth to the alveolar bone, rather ensuring multiple functions that, in a manifest manner, are not pursued by the implant," since if only devices that entirely replace all the functions of the part of the human body replaced were considered prostheses, practically no prostheses would exist, if any existed at all, given that it will normally be the case that, given its artificial character, the prosthesis, by definition, does not replace exactly, in all its functions, the missing part of the human body.

Neither do we agree thus with the understanding, suggested by the AT, that the implant and the abutment would be, in the end, mere materials acquired for the manufacturing of the prosthesis. It is considered, rather, that those goods are already finished parts of the prosthesis itself, since they do not have any other purpose, application or usefulness other than their insertion in the human body, in order to ensure "the function of replacement of" a tooth, and that, by its own nature, the prosthesis in question has no possibility of being "completed" except at the time of its implantation in the human body and in the course of a process that extends substantially in time. In fact, it is not envisioned that one could maintain that either the implant or the abutment, properly finished, are equivalent to, for example, raw titanium that is to be transformed into the first, or to any other element, raw material, or component that, by means of a process of transformation, or even of assembly, will become the prosthesis. On the contrary, it is considered that both the implant and the abutment, properly finished, are parts of the final prosthesis, it not being the case that their implantation in the human body, with a view to the replacement of the tooth, is a process of transformation, or even of assembly, but truly a process of application of the prosthesis in that same body, in accordance with medically prescribed procedures for this purpose.

Furthermore, we also disagree with the reading presented by the AT, relating to the text of the rule at issue, when it states that "the legislator refers to prosthesis material and not to material for prosthesis (for application in a prosthesis), which indicates to exclude parts for connection or fixation of prostheses, such as those transacted by the taxpayer." Indeed, it is understood that in referring to "prosthesis material," and not simply to "prosthesis," the legislator is precisely giving the opposite indication to that presented by the AT, wanting, expressly, not to be limited to the prosthesis as a singular object ("complete good," in the terminology of the AT).

This same understanding was already unanimously adopted, regarding a question in all respects identical to that of the present proceedings, in several arbitral cases, which can be consulted, above all, in case 429/2014-T of CAAD[8], where it was considered in summary that:

"It is important to highlight that the meaning and scope of the reduced rate applied in this field should take into consideration the good rules of interpretation, taking into account not only the grammatical element but also its context, reason for being and purposes pursued by item 2.6, and should result in a declaratory interpretation (and not restrictive, contrary to what the AT maintains).

Now, from the outset, the wording of the provision seems to indicate that dental implants are framed in the aforesaid list, being we before prosthesis material intended to replace an organ of the human body, in this case, the dental apparatus.

Indeed, nothing in the letter of the law leads us to restrict its application to situations of transfers of "complete goods" of implant, in the sense that the AT intends to convey.

Furthermore, it results from the facts deemed proven that such a concept does not exist as such, existing rather implants constituted by the three parts of which we are now treating – crown, implant and abutment, which, in accordance with surgical technique, are introduced in phases into the patient's mouth, thereby giving rise, in their assembly, to an implant. In reality, these three parts are inseparable and unusable except for the composition of an implant as a composite prosthesis.

Non-existence of such "complete goods" of implant, in the sense that the AT intends to convey, the understanding of the Tax Administration ends up denying the benefit of the reduced rate to this type of prostheses, thus calling into question, without a rational and valid reason, the legislative purpose that presided over the adoption of this item in the terms in which it is written – the protection of public health. Indeed, were one to accept such understanding, an arbitrary discriminatory treatment would be introduced between different dental prostheses. On one hand, prostheses composed of a single part would benefit from the reduced rate of 6%, on the other hand, "composite" prostheses would be taxed at the normal rate. This fact is discriminatory, infringing, from the outset, specifically, against what is provided in articles 5, paragraph 2 and 7, paragraph 3 of the General Tax Law. Indeed, in accordance with what is provided in the first rule mentioned, of the heading 'Purposes of taxation', taxation respects the principles of generality, equality, legality and material justice. In turn, in accordance with what is provided in article 7, paragraph 3, 'Taxation does not discriminate any profession or activity nor prejudices the practice of legitimate acts of a personal character, without prejudice to exceptional surcharges or benefits determined by economic, social, environmental or other purposes'.

But we would be essentially before an intolerable violation of the principle of neutrality that governs this tax at the level of European Union Law, treating equal goods in a different manner without any rational and valid reason, a fact that violates the rules that govern this tax as well as all the jurisprudence of the CJEU to which we allude.

As is well known, in accordance with what is provided in paragraph 2 of article 11 of the General Tax Law, whenever in tax rules are used terms proper to other branches of law, they should be interpreted in the same sense as that which they have there, except if otherwise flows directly from the law. In turn, in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid rule it is provided that, if doubt persists about the meaning of the tax rules to be applied, one should attend to the economic substance of the tax facts. Now, what the Community legislator, the European Commission and the jurisprudence of the CJEU determine is that, in the use of the concepts employed for the purposes of application of reduced rates, Member States should attend to the economic effects at issue in a way not to call into question the essential principle of tax neutrality.

That is, were one to accept the understanding conveyed by the AT in the concrete case, we would have a difference of treatment for identical situations resulting not from the VAT Directive but rather from a deficient application of the same by the Tax Administration.

It is true that rules of derogation, such as is the case of the rule that enables Member States to apply reduced rates of the tax, should be applied restrictively, but we should not confuse this fact with selective application, a completely different reality that calls into question the most basic characteristics of the tax.

In this context, it is also important to highlight that the invocation, on the part of the AT, of the argument of the Combined Nomenclature does not hold, inasmuch as this Nomenclature was created for statistical purposes and for the application of the common tariff and has no relevance in the matter of classification of goods and services for VAT purposes in Portugal.

The only case in which in the VAT Code it is resorted to the Combined Nomenclature to define the scope of the tax regime of goods is provided in its article 14, paragraph 1, subparagraph i), for the purposes of determination of the exemption regime (complete or zero rate), according to which are exempt "transfers of supply goods placed on board of warships classified by code 8906 00 10 of the Combined Nomenclature, when they leave the country bound for a port or anchorage located abroad," a provision not applicable in the situation under consideration.

It being certain that, in accordance with what is provided in article 98, paragraph 3, of the VAT Directive, Member States can use the Combined Nomenclature to delimit precisely each category subject to the reduced rate, it is equally certain that the Portuguese legislator did not adopt this option.

That is, for VAT purposes, the classification that implants, crowns and abutments merit in the Combined Nomenclature is irrelevant.

Now, in this context, it is important to highlight once more that, as was proven, the three "parts" now under consideration – implant, crown and abutment – cannot be used separately, being especially conceived and manufactured for the production of a piece that is designated as an implant. Indeed, contrary to what the AT alleges, there does not exist a single implant in the factual sense that it wishes to give it, but only the implant constituted, as such, by implant, crown and abutment, inseparable parts having in view this reality.

It is all too evident that the fact that such parts are commercially sold separately, as in the case cited, the simple fact of there occurring segregated invoicing (with separate codes) or autonomous (in separate invoices) cannot affect the classification and qualification for VAT purposes, with the form prevailing over the substance.

In reality, what is at issue in the present proceedings and was proven is subsumed in the legal provision of item 2.6 of List I attached to the VAT Code, materializing as a "...devices, appliances and other prosthetic or compensatory material intended to replace, wholly or in part, any limb or organ of the human body."

And, let it be highlighted again, the legislative purpose that leads the legislator to adopt the application of the reduced VAT rate in such situations – the protection of health – is exactly the same that leads us to this interpretation.

It should be noted, finally, that, from the jurisprudence referred to above, even if, supposedly, there existed, as the AT intends, "complete goods" of implant, in the sense that it intends to convey, we would still have to recognize that the crown, the abutment and the implant would be constituted as a single piece or, in the last resort, even if wrongly not understood as such, as accessory parts, and as such, should be taxed at the reduced rate, following the treatment of the principal operation.

That is: whether by resort only to Community rules or by simple application of good interpretative rules, the result is the same – one can only conclude that in item 2.6 of List I attached to the VAT Code are included both implants constituted by a single part and composite implants.

Indeed, all the elements of interpretation of the tax rules that can be invoked for this purpose, as well as the characteristics of VAT and the interpretation that the CJEU has been making of them, lead us to conclude that, in the present case, the reduced VAT rate provided for in item 2.6 of List I attached to the VAT Code should be applied to the transfer of the implants, crowns and abutments now under analysis, terms in which we uphold the Applicant.

In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that the VAT assessments challenged are affected by error in the legal premises, by erroneous interpretation of this item 2.6 of List I of the VAT Code."

It is thus concluded that the assessments that are the object of the present proceedings are affected by a defect in their respective premises of fact and law, as argued by the Applicant, and therefore should be annulled in their entirety, thereby being precluded the consideration of the remaining questions raised.

The Applicant combines with the request for annulment of the tax assessments that are the object of the present proceedings, the request that there be "recognized the right of the Applicant to compensation provided for in articles 171 of the Tax Procedure Code and 53 of the General Tax Law, by virtue of article 13, paragraph 5, of Decree-Law 10/2011, if it is deemed to have been improperly made."

It happens that, in the case, it is not found that the Applicant has, in fact, provided any security.

As such, this request should fail.

C. AWARD

Terms in which it is decided by this Arbitral Tribunal to adjudge as well-founded the arbitral request made and, accordingly:

a) Annul the assessment acts that are the object of the present proceedings;

b) Condemn the Respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

D. Value of the Case

There is set the value of the case at €589,129.01, in accordance with article 97-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph a), of the Tax Procedure and Process Code, applicable by virtue of subparagraphs a) and b) of paragraph 1 of article 29 of the RJAT and paragraph 2 of article 3 of the Rules on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.

E. Costs

There is set the value of the arbitration fee at €8,874.00, in accordance with Table I of the Rules on Costs for Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be paid by the Respondent, since the request was wholly well-founded, in accordance with articles 12, paragraph 2, and 22, paragraph 4, both of the RJAT, and article 4, paragraph 4, of the cited Rules.

Let notification be made.

Lisbon

22 February 2016

The President Arbitrator

(José Pedro Carvalho - Reporting Arbitrator)

Arbitrator Member

(Eva Dias Costa)

Arbitrator Member

(Clotilde Celorico Palma)

[1] See paragraph 27 of the Response.

[2] See paragraph 35 of the Response.

[3] See paragraph 80 of the Response.

[4] See paragraph 64 of the Response.

[5] See paragraph 73 of the Response.

[6] See paragraph 75 of the Response.

[7] See paragraph 97 of the Response.

[8] https://caad.org.pt/tributario/decisoes/decisao.php?s_processo=&s_data_ini=&s_data_fim=&s_resumo=implantes&s_artigos=&s_texto=&id=431. In the same sense, see the awards of cases 530/2014 and 762-2014T, available on the same website.