IUC Vehicle Tax Liquidation Annulled: CAAD Arbitration Decision 627/2014-T

ARBITRAL DECISION

CAAD: Tax Arbitration

Case no. 627/2014-T

Subject Matter: IUC - Settlement of the Single Vehicle Circulation Tax

I. - REPORT

A - PARTIES

The company A… - …UNIPESSOAL, LDA, legal entity no. …, with registered office at …, Building … - …, … Oeiras, hereinafter referred to as the "Claimant", filed a request for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of subsection a) of no. 1 of Article 2 and Articles 10 et seq. of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to as "LFATM"), with a view to the examination of the following claim opposing it to the Tax and Customs Authority (which succeeded, among others, the Tax Authority) hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent" or "AT".

B - CLAIM

1 - The request for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by His Excellency the President of CAAD on 25 August 2014 and notified to the AT on 26 August 2014.

2 - The Claimant did not proceed with the appointment of an arbitrator, therefore, pursuant to the provisions of no. 1 of Article 6 of the LFATM, the undersigned was designated on 08-10-2014 by the Ethics Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre as arbitrator of a Single Arbitral Tribunal, having accepted in the terms legally provided.

3 - The Parties were duly notified of this appointment on 08-10-2014 and did not manifest any will to refuse it, in accordance with the combined provisions of subsections a) and b) of no. 1 of Article 11 and Articles 6 and 7 of the Code of Ethics.

4 - In these circumstances, in conformity with the provisions of subsection c) of no. 1 of Article 11 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, in the version introduced by Article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the arbitral tribunal was regularly constituted on 23-10-2014.

5 - On 14 April 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal, pursuant to Article 16, subsection c) of the LFATM, issued a decision dispensing with the meeting provided for in Article 18 of the same decree-law, taking into account, both the fact that the object of the dispute essentially concerns a matter of law, as well as the absence of exceptions to be heard and decided, and the understanding which, for this purpose, was established between the parties, with neither of them requesting any independent evidentiary measures, with the relevant documents being included in the file and the administrative proceedings being attached to the record.

6 - The herein Claimant requests that this Arbitral Tribunal:

a) - Declare the annulment of the decisions of the Tax Authority rejecting the administrative complaints nos. … 2014…; … 2014… and … 2014….

b) - Declare the consequent annulment of the acts of assessment relating to the Single Vehicle Circulation Tax (hereinafter referred to as IUC), recorded in the assessment notifications referenced in the case, relating to the year 2013 and concerning the vehicles identified in the record, which are hereby deemed fully reproduced;

c) - Condemn the Tax and Customs Authority to reimburse the amount of € 18,941.03, which it indicates as the value of the claim.

d) - Condemn the Tax and Customs Authority to payment of compensatory interest for payment of the amounts improperly assessed and paid.

C - GROUNDS OF CLAIM

7 - The Claimant, in the substantiation of its request for arbitral decision, states, in summary, the following:

8 - That it is a commercial company, whose main activity is focused on the purchase, sale and lease of machines and motor vehicles, offering, in these circumstances, to its clients various solutions, in the context of long-term leasing and the sale of motor vehicles.

9 - That it was notified of various IUC assessments, as identified in the case, relating to the year 2013 and concerning the vehicles identified in the record.

10 - That, to avoid future tax enforcement proceedings, as well as the costs inherent to the provision of guarantees for the suspension of the corresponding proceedings, it proceeded to payment of the amounts relating to the respective tax, having paid the total amount of € 19,468.36.

11 - That it filed administrative complaints against the various assessment acts mentioned above, which were rejected by the competent body of the Oeiras Tax Service …, on the grounds that the subjective and objective liability to the tax is determined by registration, regardless of its use or enjoyment, with the exception of the administrative complaint no. … 2014… which was granted regarding the assessments relating to the vehicles with registration plates …-…-…, …-…-… and …-…-….

12 - That all vehicles referenced in the request for arbitral decision were sold to third parties (its clients), either as used vehicles or as salvage, on dates prior to those relating to the obligation to assess the respective IUC, as evidenced by the corresponding sales invoices, copies of which are attached to the case.

13 - That, in the context of the aforementioned administrative complaints, it proceeded to demonstrate that the transfer of the vehicles to third parties occurred at moments prior to the dates of the tax obligation.

14 - That the vehicles are effectively registered in its name, in the Commercial Registry Office, although as of the date of the tax incidence they were no longer its property.

15 - That the contract of purchase and sale of motor vehicles has a real nature, resulting from the contract itself, not being dependent on any subsequent act, namely registration.

16 - That motor vehicle registration does not have a constitutive nature, serving only to give publicity to the registered act, thus having a declarative nature, and motor vehicle registration legislation, and in particular the CIUC, cannot ignore the role of motor vehicle registration.

17 - That fiscal law is more concerned with substance than with form, and should therefore have regard to the invoices presented, which attest to the transfer of ownership of the vehicles in question, this being the understanding that best accords with the nature of the tax itself which is subordinated to the idea that taxpayers should be burdened in proportion to the cost they cause to the environment and the road network.

18 - That the expression "considered as such" contained in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC constitutes a legal presumption which, in light of the provisions of Article 73 of the LGT, is rebuttable, and therefore, cannot be considered a liable party of the IUC that was assessed against it.

19 - That, in order to rebut the said presumptions, it submitted, both in the context of the administrative complaints and in the scope of this proceeding, copies of all sales invoices, whether for used vehicles or for salvage, from which it is clear that the sales of the vehicles are dated prior to the taxable event, and therefore as of the due date of the IUC it was no longer the owner of the vehicles, and was consequently not the liable party of the tax.

D - RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT

20 - The Respondent, the Tax and Customs Authority, (hereinafter referred to as AT), filed its Response on 24-11-2014, and on the same date, proceeded to attach to the record a copy of the administrative tax proceedings.

21 - In the said Response, the AT considers that the allegations of the Claimant cannot, in any way, proceed, as they make a notoriously incorrect interpretation and application of the legal norms applicable to the case, in that, first of all,

22 - They reflect an understanding that incurs, not only a skewed reading of the letter of the law, but also an interpretation that does not regard the systematic element, violating the unity of the regime enshrined in the entire CIUC and, more broadly, in the entire legal and fiscal system, also resulting from an interpretation that ignores the rationale of the regime enshrined in the CIUC. (See Articles 8 of the Response)

23 - It states that the tax legislator, in establishing in Article 3, no. 1 of the CIUC who are the liable parties of the IUC, expressly and intentionally established that these are the owners (or in the situations provided for in no. 2 the persons mentioned there), considered as such the persons in whose name the same are registered. (See Article 13 of the Response)

24 - It emphasizes that the legislator did not use the expression "it is presumed" as it could have done, for example, in the following terms: "the liable parties of the tax are the owners of the vehicles, presumed to be such the natural or legal persons, of public or private law, in whose name the same are registered". (See Article 14 of the Response)

25 - It considers that the wording of Article 3 of the CIUC corresponds to a clear choice of legislative policy adopted by the legislator, and therefore to understand that a presumption is established there would unequivocally be an interpretation contrary to law. (See Articles 23 and 25 of the Response)

26 - It states that the aforementioned understanding has already been adopted by the case law of the courts, transcribing for that purpose part of the judgment of the Administrative and Tax Court of Penafiel, issued in Case no. 210/13.OBEPNF. (See Articles 26 and 27 of the Response)

27 - Regarding the systematic element of interpretation, it considers that the solution advocated by the Claimant is intolerable, the understanding supported by it finding no legal support. (See Article 36 of the Response)

28 - Regarding the disregard of the "rationale" of the regime, the AT considers that, in light of a teleological interpretation of the regime enshrined throughout the IUC Code, the interpretation advocated by the Claimant, to the effect that the liable party of the IUC is the actual owner regardless of whether registration of such quality does not appear in the motor vehicle registry, is manifestly incorrect, in that it is the very rationale of the regime enshrined in the CIUC that constitutes clear proof that what the tax legislator intended was to create a tax based on the taxation of the owner of the vehicle, as it appears in the motor vehicle registry. (See Articles 59 and 60 of the Response)

29 - It adds that the CIUC carried out a reform of the vehicle taxation regime in Portugal, substantially altering the motor vehicle taxation regime, with the liable parties of the tax becoming the owners appearing in the property registry, regardless of the circulation of the vehicles on the public road. (See Article 62 of the Response)

30 - In this sense, it states that this is the understanding inscribed, in particular, in Recommendation no. 6-B/2012 of 22-06-2012, from the Ombudsman addressed to the Secretary of State for Public Works, Transport and Communications.

31 - The interpretation conveyed by the Claimant also appears, in addition to what has already been mentioned, to be inconsistent with the Constitution, namely because, among others, it violates the principle of efficiency of the tax system, which has constitutional dignity, a violation that would result in an impediment to and an increase in the competencies assigned to the Respondent, with obvious prejudice to the interests of the Portuguese State, of which both the Claimant and the Respondent are part. (See Article 75 of the Response)

32 - It adds that invoices, as documents unilaterally issued by the Claimant, clearly do not constitute sufficient proof to "undermine the (supposed) legal presumption established in Article 3 of the CIUC". (See Articles 82 and 83 of the Response)

33 - It further states that, as a result of the tax inspection carried out on the Claimant, the said invoices and the cash sales presented, are not authenticated, nor is it proven that the amounts contained therein have been properly recorded in the accounts. (See Article 93 of the Response)

34 - Finally, it states that it was not the Respondent that gave rise to the request for arbitral decision, but rather the Claimant, and consequently, the Claimant should be condemned to the arbitration costs "in accordance with Article 527(1) of the New Code of Civil Procedure ex vi Article 29(1-e) of the LFATM", also noting that the legal requirements for the assessment of compensatory interest are not met, the request for which was made by the Claimant. (See Articles 114 and 115 of the Response)

35 - It considers, in closing, that, in light of all the arguments presented, the tax acts in question are valid and legal, and the request for arbitral decision underlying this proceeding should be judged to be without merit, with the tax assessment acts challenged remaining in the legal order, thereby absolving the Respondent entity of the claim.

E - ISSUES FOR DECISION

36 - It is therefore necessary to examine and decide.

37 - In light of the foregoing, regarding the positions of the Parties and the arguments presented, the issues to be decided are whether:

a) The norm of subjective incidence contained in Article 3, no. 1 of the CIUC establishes or does not establish a presumption.

b) What is the legal value of motor vehicle registration in the framework of the CIUC, particularly for purposes of the subjective incidence of this tax.

c) If, on the date of the occurrence of the taxable event, the vehicle has already been previously transferred, although the property right therein remains registered in the name of its former owner, for purposes of the provisions of Article 3, no. 1, of the CIUC, the liable party of the IUC is the former owner or the new owner.

F - PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

38 - The Arbitral Tribunal is regularly constituted and is materially competent, in accordance with subsection a) of no. 1 of Article 2 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January.

39 - The Parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are legally represented (see Article 4 and no. 2 of Article 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011 and Article 1 of Order no. 112/2011, of 22 March).

40 - The proceeding is not afflicted with defects that would invalidate it.

41 - Taking into account the administrative tax proceedings, a copy of which was submitted to the record by the AT, and the documentary evidence included in the case, it is now necessary to present the factual matter relevant to understanding the decision, as fixed in the terms set forth below.

II - REASONING

G - FACTUAL REASONING

42 - On matters of fact relevant hereto, the present tribunal takes as established the following facts:

43 - The Claimant is a commercial company, whose main activity is focused on the purchase, sale and lease of machines and motor vehicles, offering, in these circumstances, to its clients various solutions, in the context of long-term leasing and the sale of motor vehicles.

44 - The Claimant was notified of IUC assessments relating to the year 2013, concerning the vehicles identified in the record, and proceeded to payment of the said tax in the amount of € 18,941.03.

45 - The Claimant filed administrative complaints against the aforementioned assessments, which are identified by nos. … 2014…; … 2014… and … 2014…, and were rejected by the Oeiras Tax Service, which was notified to it on 27 May 2014, with the exception of administrative complaint no. … 2014… which was, in part, granted, that is, with respect to the assessments relating to the vehicles with registration plates …-…-…, …-…-… and …-…-….

46 - The administrative complaints, after being substantially analyzed, that is, after the legality of the assessment acts at issue has been reconsidered, resulted in the maintenance of the IUC assessments in question, reaffirming the legality of those assessment acts, sustaining this in the circumstance "that the subjective and objective liability to the tax is determined by registration, regardless of its use or enjoyment, in accordance with Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the CIUC".

47 - The rejection of the said administrative complaints, made in the aforementioned circumstances, in that it proceeds to the reaffirmation of the primary assessment acts underlying it, constitutes an injurious act susceptible to challenge by the Claimant.

48 - The vehicles referenced in the request for arbitral decision were sold to third parties, as used vehicles or as salvage, with the acquirers of such vehicles not having proceeded, in a timely manner, with their respective registrations, having the same remained registered in the name of the Claimant.

49 - The Claimant, as proof of the aforementioned sales and in order to rebut, in particular, the presumption which it understands to be established in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC, submitted, both when it filed the administrative complaints and, also, in the context of the corresponding prior hearings, as well as in the scope of this proceeding, copies of all sales invoices for the used vehicles and the salvage.

50 - On the dates relating to the taxable events and their due dates, to which the IUC assessments in question in this proceeding are related, the ownership of the vehicles in question belonged to other persons, as identified in the record.

REASONING OF THE PROVEN FACTS

51 - The facts taken as proven are based on the documents mentioned, regarding each one of them, in that their correspondence to reality was not questioned.

UNPROVEN FACTS

52 - There are no facts taken as unproven, since all facts deemed relevant to the examination of the claim were proven.

H - REASONING ON LAW

53 - The factual matter is fixed, and it is now necessary to proceed with its legal subsumption and determine the law applicable to the underlying facts, in accordance with the issues for decision set forth in no. 37.

54 - The essential and decisive issue in the present case, regarding which there are absolutely opposite understandings between the Claimant and the AT, is whether the norm of subjective incidence contained in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC establishes or does not establish a rebuttable presumption.

55 - The positions of the parties are known. Indeed, for the Claimant, the expression "considered as such" contained in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC constitutes a rebuttable legal presumption.

56 - The Respondent, on the other hand, considers that the interpretation defended by the Claimant is intolerable, the understanding supported by it finding no support in law, particularly given that the rationale of the regime enshrined in the CIUC constitutes clear proof that what the tax legislator intended was to create a tax based on the taxation of the owner of the vehicle, as it appears in the motor vehicle registry.

I - INTERPRETATION OF THE NORM OF SUBJECTIVE INCIDENCE CONTAINED IN NO. 1 OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CIUC

57 - It should be noted, first of all, that it is agreed in doctrine that in the interpretation of fiscal laws the general principles of interpretation apply fully. This is an understanding that, moreover, has been adopted in Article 11 of the General Tax Law.

58 - It is commonly accepted that, in order to apprehend the meaning of the law, interpretation uses various means, and it is important, first of all, to reconstruct the legislative thought through the words of the law, which means seeking, from the outset, its literal sense. The said sense, as is also agreed, corresponds to the lowest degree of interpretative activity, and it is therefore important to assess and measure it in light of other criteria, with the so-called elements of a logical nature intervening for that purpose, whether of a rational (or teleological) sense, of a systematic character or of a historical order.

59 - Regarding the interpretation of fiscal law, it is pertinent to recall, as case law has indeed noted, in particular in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of 05/09/2012 and 06/02/2013, cases nos. 0314/12 and 01000/12, respectively, available at: www.dgsi.pt, the importance of the provisions of Article 9 of the Civil Code (CC), as a fundamental precept of legal hermeneutics, which in this context cannot but be considered.

60 - The interpretative activity is therefore not avoidable with respect to the resolution of doubts raised by the application of the legal norms in question.

61 - In the view of FRANCESCO FERRARA, in "Interpretation and Application of Laws", translation by MANUEL DE ANDRADE, (2nd ed.), Arménio Amado, Editor, Successor - Coimbra, 1963, p. 131, the said interpretative activity "[…] is unique [and] complex, of a logical and practical nature, as it consists in inferring from certain circumstances the legislative will", adding, ibidem, p.130, that "Looking at the practical application of law, legal interpretation is by its nature essentially teleological".

62 - The purpose of interpretation, says the aforementioned author, ibidem, pp. 134/135, is "[…] to determine the objective sense of the law […]". The law, being the expression of the will of the State, is a "[…] will that persists autonomously, detached from the complex of thoughts and tendencies that animated the persons who contributed to its enactment". Hence the activity of the interpreter should be to "[…] seek not what the legislator wanted, but what appears objectively desired in the law: the mens legis and not the mens legislatoris".

63 - For MANUEL DE ANDRADE, citing FERRARA, in "Essay on the Theory of Interpretation of Laws", p. 16 (2nd ed.), Arménio Amado, Editor, Successor - Coimbra, 1963, "Interpretation seeks the voluntas legis, not the voluntas legislatoris […], and seeks the actual will of the law, not its will at the moment of application: it is not, therefore, a will of the past, but a will always present as long as the law does not cease to be in force. It is to say that the law, once formed, detaches itself from the legislator, gaining autonomous consistency; and, more than that, becomes a living entity, not merely an inanimate body […]".

OF THE LITERAL ELEMENT

64 - It is in this framework that it is important to find an answer to the issues for decision, particularly to the one that aims to determine whether Article 3, no. 1 of the CIUC establishes or does not establish a presumption, beginning, of course, with the literal element.

65 - Since the literal element is the first that must be used in the search for legislative thought, it is necessarily by this that one should begin, seeking to reach the sense of the expression "considered as such persons" referred to in the aforementioned Article 3, no. 1 of the CIUC.

66 - Article 3, no. 1 of the CIUC provides that "The liable parties of the tax are the owners of the vehicles, considered as such the natural or legal persons, of public or private law, in whose name the same are registered." (emphasis ours)

67 - The formulation used in the said article, it is important to note, first of all, uses the expression "considered", which raises the question of whether such expression can be given a presumptive sense, thus equating it with the expression "presumed". These are expressions frequently used with equivalent senses, as is apparent in various situations in the Portuguese legal order.

68 - Indeed, there are countless norms that establish presumptions, using the verb "consider" in various forms for this purpose. It is therefore not difficult to identify situations, in various areas of law, in which the expression "considered" or "considers itself" is used with a sense equivalent to the expression "presumed" or "presumes itself", expressions to which, whether at the level of absolute presumptions, or in the context of rebuttable presumptions, an equivalent meaning is attributed countless times.

69 - It not appearing pertinent to re-reference examples revealing such situations, given that such examples are abundantly listed in some of the decisions of tax arbitral tribunals, in particular those issued in the context of Cases nos. 14/2013 - T, 27/2013 - T and 73/2013 - T, we hereby deem the same as fully reproduced.

70 - In these circumstances, since the aforementioned expressions are recurrently used with an equivalent purpose and meaning, it can be concluded that it is not only the use of the verb "presume" that places us before a presumption, but also the use of other terms can serve as the basis for presumptions, as is the case, in particular, with the expression "considered", which, in our view, will precisely be what occurs in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC.

It is therefore an understanding that, while not appearing to correspond to a skewed reading of the letter of the law, as the AT considers, reveals itself in harmony with the provisions of no. 2 of Article 9 of the CC, in that it ensures, to the legislative thought, the minimum verbal correspondence required there.

71 - From the literal perspective, in light of what is set forth, there is no doubt that the interpretation that considers a rebuttable presumption established in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC has full support in the formulation established there, given the aforementioned equivalence between the expression "considered as such" and the expression "presumed as such".

The linguistic element, as noted above, being the first that should be used in seeking legislative thought, must, however, in order to find the true sense of the norm, be subjected to the control of the other elements of interpretation of a logical nature. (whether such elements are of a rational (or teleological) sense, of a systematic character or of a historical order).

72 - Indeed, as is derived from the work of MANUEL DE ANDRADE, cited above, p. 28, "[…] purely linguistic analysis of a legal text is only the beginning […], the first degree […] or the first act of interpretation. In other words, it only provides us with the probable legislative thought and will […] or, better, the grammatical delimitation of the possible consistency of the law […], the framework within which its true content resides".

73 - Thus, then, let us see the rational (or teleological) element.

OF THE HISTORICAL AND RATIONAL (OR TELEOLOGICAL) ELEMENT

74 - Having regard to the elements of interpretation of a historical nature, it is pertinent to recall, first of all, what is expressly set forth in the explanatory memorandum of Bill no. 118/X of 07/03/2007, underlying Law no. 22-A/2007 of 29/06, when it states there that the reform of motor vehicle taxation is implemented through the displacement of part of the tax burden from the moment of vehicle acquisition to the circulation phase and aims to "form a coherent whole" which, while intended for the raising of public revenue, intends for such revenue to be raised "in proportion to the environmental costs that each individual causes to the community", adding, with respect to the tax in question and the different types and categories of vehicles, that "as a structuring and unifying element […] the principle of equivalence is established, thus making it clear that the tax, as a whole, is subordinated to the idea that taxpayers should be burdened in proportion to the cost they cause to the environment and the road network, this being the reason for this tax figure".

75 - In this framework, it appears clear that the logic and rationality of the new system of motor vehicle taxation can only coexist with a liable party of the tax, on the assumption that it is that, and no other, the real and actual subject causing road and environmental damage, as flows from the principle of equivalence, inscribed in Article 1 of the CIUC.

76 - The said principle of equivalence, which informs the current Single Vehicle Circulation Tax, has, at least insofar as it specifically concerns the environment, underlying the polluter-pays principle, and implements the idea, inscribed therein, that whoever pollutes should, for that reason, pay. The said principle has, moreover, in some way, constitutional basis, in that it represents a corollary of the provisions in subsection h) of no. 2 of Article 66 of the Constitution.

77 - What is sought to be achieved through the said principle is to internalize negative environmental externalities, which, after all, in the case at bar, means nothing more than ensuring that the harm that comes to the community, resulting from the use of motor vehicles, is assumed by their owners, as "economic - user" subjects, as costs that only they should bear.

78 - Returning to the aforementioned principle of equivalence, it will be said that the same has, in the framework of the CIUC, an absolutely structuring role, with the normative structure of the Code in question being based thereon. The said principle cannot, therefore, but constitute an end that is legally intended to be pursued, embodying, to that extent, a light of notable brilliance that, constantly and continuously, cannot but illuminate the interpreter's path.

79 - Regarding the said principle, it is pertinent to note what Sérgio Vasques says when, in "Special Consumption Taxes", Almedina, Coimbra, 2001, p. 122, with respect to the technical implementation of that principle considers that "In accordance with the principle of equivalence, the tax must correspond to the benefit that the taxpayer derives from the public activity; or the cost that the taxpayer imposes on the community through his own activity".

80 - Addressing the IUC specifically, the aforementioned author adds, op. cit., that "Thus, a tax on motor vehicles based on a rule of equivalence will be equal only if those who cause the same road wear and the same environmental cost pay the same tax; and those who cause different road wear and environmental cost, pay different tax also", adding that the implementation of the said principle "[…] dictates other requirements still with regard to the subjective incidence of the tax […]".

81 - In light of what has just been stated, it is clear that the taxation of the real and actual polluters corresponds to an important end sought by the law, in this case by the CIUC, an end which, in the words of Francesco Ferrara, in "Interpretation and Application of Laws", 2nd Edition, Arménio Amado, Editor, Successor, Coimbra, 1963, p. 130, must always be before the eyes of the jurist, given that, as the aforementioned author states there, "[…] legal interpretation is by its nature essentially teleological".

82 - Thus, it should be noted that, whether in light of the said historical elements, or in light of the elements of a rational or teleological character of interpretation that are referenced, it is equally necessary to conclude that no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC can only establish a rebuttable presumption.

83 - The systematic element of interpretation must still be considered.

OF THE SYSTEMATIC ELEMENT

84 - Regarding the systematic element, BAPTISTA MACHADO tells us, in "Introduction to Law and Legitimizing Discourse", p. 183, that "this element comprises the consideration of the other provisions that form the complex normative of the institute in which the norm being interpreted is integrated, that is, which regulate the same subject matter (context of the law), as well as the consideration of legal provisions that regulate parallel normative problems or related institutes (parallel places). It also comprises the systematic place that belongs to the norm being interpreted in the overall legal order, as well as its consonance with the spirit or intrinsic unity of the entire legal order".

85 - It is known that a legal principle, in this case the structuring principle of equivalence, does not exist in isolation, but is linked by an intimate nexus with other principles that form part of the legal text in which it is inserted, in this case, with the other principles embodied in the system inscribed in the CIUC. In this sense, each article of a given legal text, in the case of the CIUC, will only be comprehensible if we situate it before the other articles that follow or precede it.

86 - As regards the systematization of the CIUC, environmental concerns were decisive in ensuring that the aforementioned principle of equivalence was, from the outset, inscribed in the first article of the said Code, which necessarily leads to subsequent articles, insofar as they are based on such principle, being influenced by it. This occurred, in particular, with the tax base, which came to be made up of various elements, particularly those relating to pollution levels, and with the tax rates, established in Articles 9 to 15, which were influenced by the environmental component, and, naturally, also with the subjective incidence itself, provided for in Article 3 of the CIUC, which cannot escape the stated influence.

87 - The systematic element of interpretation and the interaction between the various articles and principles that form part of the system inscribed in the CIUC also appeal to the understanding that what is established in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC cannot but embody a presumption.

88 - No. 1 of Article 9 of the CC provides that the search for legislative thought should take "[…] especially into account […] the unity of the legal system, the circumstances under which the law was drafted and the specific conditions of the time in which it is applied", circumstances and conditions which, today more than ever, are of sensitivity to the environment and respect for matters related to it. In this context, the considerations made regarding the aforementioned elements of interpretation, whether of a literal character or of a historical nature, whether of a rational or systematic nature, all point to the effect that Article 3, no. 1 of the CIUC establishes a presumption, which means that the liable parties of the IUC being, in principle, the owners of the vehicles, considered as such the persons in whose name the same are registered, may, ultimately, turn out to be others.

It will be said, moreover, that the establishment of the presumption in the aforementioned norm will correspond to the only interpretation that accords with the principle of equivalence, mentioned above.

89- Also regarding the presumption that has been referred to and which is understood to be established in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC, it is pertinent to note what is written in the preamble of the recently published Decree-Law no. 177/2014, of 15 December, when, referring to motor vehicles, considers that "The failure to regularize the property registration presents serious consequences, both for those who remained the owner in the registry, and for those who acquired and did not promote the registration in their favor, as well as for the various public entities that base their decisions on ownerships that they presume to be substantively true". (emphasis ours)

90 - Here arrived, it is pertinent to recall the provisions of Article 73 of the LGT, when it establishes that "The presumptions established in the norms of tax incidence always admit proof to the contrary", (emphasis ours), which means that the legal presumption, which appears to be established in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC, will necessarily be rebuttable.

91 - In this framework, the liable parties of the tax are, presumptively, the persons in whose name the vehicles are registered, that is, the said liable parties are, in principle, and only in principle, the persons in whose name such vehicles are registered.

92 - Indeed, if the owner in whose name the vehicle is registered, comes to, as occurs in the present proceeding, indicate and prove who the owners of the vehicles in question were, nothing justifies, in our view, that the former owner be held liable for payment of the IUC that may be due.

93 - Moreover, this interpretation of no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC is the one that, in our opinion, best fits the principles to which the AT should subordinate its activity, in particular the principle of inquiry, in order to discover the material truth.

94 - With respect to the said principle of inquiry, it is pertinent to allude to the teachings of Diogo Leite Campos, Benjamim Silva Rodrigues and Jorge Lopes de Sousa, in "General Tax Law, Annotated and Commented", 4th Edition 2012, Encontro de Escrita, Lda, Lisbon, p. 488/489, when, in annotations to the aforementioned Article 58, they refer that the administration has a dynamic role in the collection of elements relevant to the decision, adding that the "[…] lack of diligences deemed necessary for the construction of the factual basis of the decision will affect it not only in the case of being obligatory (violation of the principle of equality), but also if the materiality of the facts considered is not proven or if, in that basis, facts alleged by the interested party are lacking, due to insufficiency of proof that the Administration should have collected […]".

The principle of inquiry, the aforementioned authors add, idem, "[…] has to do with the powers (-duties) of the Administration to carry out the investigations necessary to the knowledge of the essential or decisive facts for the decision […]".

95 - The material truth, embodied, in the present case, in the circumstance that the vehicles identified in the request for arbitral decision have, in their entirety, been sold by the Claimant, either as used vehicles or as salvage, at a moment prior to the due date of the tax, that is, as of the date from which the tax creditor could make its right to payment of the tax against the debtor, was, in light of the elements inscribed in the administrative proceedings, known to the AT.

96 - Let it not be said, as the AT does, that the establishment of a presumption in Article 3 of the CIUC and the consequences arising therefrom would offend the principle of efficiency of the tax system, in that they would lead, in particular, to "impediment of the performance of its services, […]". (See Article 75 of the Response)

The efficiency of the Public Administration in general, or of the AT in particular, in the current sense, would correspond to the capacity/work methodology oriented toward the optimization of the work performed or the services rendered, which would mean producing the maximum, in quantity and quality, with the minimum of costs, nothing having to do with the observance of legally established principles and with respect for the rights of citizens, whether or not in the capacity of taxpayers.

98 - In a technical sense, it will be said that the principle of efficiency of the tax system is, commonly held, in the field of tax procedure, as a corollary of the principle of proportionality, which, as is known, imposes an adequate proportion between the legal ends and the means chosen to achieve those ends, or, as referred by Diogo Leite Campos, Benjamim Silva Rodrigues and Jorge Lopes de Sousa, in "General Tax Law, Annotated and Commented", 4th Edition 2012, Encontro de Escrita, Lda, Lisbon, p. 488, in annotations to Article 55 of the LGT, it is a principle that obliges "[…] the tax administration to refrain from imposing on taxpayers obligations that are unnecessary to the satisfaction of the ends which it intends to pursue".

In this framework, the said principle of efficiency of the tax system would mean the capacity to achieve the legally fixed objectives with the available means, or better, with the minimum of means, which will have nothing to do with respect for the rights of citizens, nor with the need to observe the principles to which the Tax Administration should subordinate its activity, in particular the principle of inquiry and the discovery of material truth, and it cannot, naturally, the application of the aforementioned principle of efficiency be made to the prejudice of the rights of citizens.

J - ON THE ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VALUE OF REGISTRATION

99 - First and foremost, it should be added, in light of what will be explicitly stated below regarding the value of registration, that the acquirers of the vehicles become owners of those same vehicles through the conclusion of the corresponding purchase and sale contracts, with or without registration.

100 - There are three articles of the Civil Code that are important to take into account, with respect to the acquisition of ownership of a motor vehicle. They are, first of all, Article 874, which establishes the notion of purchase and sale contract, as being "[…] the contract by which the ownership of a thing, or another right, is transferred, in return for a price"; Article 879, in whose subsection a) the essential effects of the purchase and sale contract are established as "the transfer of the ownership of the thing or of the title to the right" and Article 408, which is headed "Contracts with real effect", and establishes in its no. 1, that "the constitution or transfer of real rights over a determined thing is effected by mere effect of the contract, except for the exceptions provided for in the law". (emphasis ours)

We are, indeed, in the field of contracts with real effect, which means that their conclusion provokes the transfer of real rights, in this case, motor vehicles, determined by mere effect of the contract, as expressly flows from the aforementioned norm.

101 - With respect to the aforementioned contracts with real effect, it is pertinent to note the teachings of Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela, when, in annotations to Article 408 of the CC, they tell us that "These contracts called real (quoad effectum), for having as their immediate effect the constitution, modification or extinction of a real right (and not merely the obligations tending to that result) are distinguished from the so-called real contracts (quoad constitutionem), which require the delivery of the thing as an element of their formation (see Articles 1129, 1142 and 1185) ".

We are thus before contracts in which the ownership of the thing sold is transferred, without more, from the seller to the buyer, having, as cause, the contract itself.

102 - Also from the case law, in particular from the Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice no. 03B4369 of 19/02/2004, available at: www.dgsi.pt, it is derived that, in light of the provisions of Article 408, no. 1, of the Civil Code, "the constitution or transfer of real rights over a determined thing is effected by mere effect of the contract, except for the exceptions provided for in the law". This is the case of the purchase and sale contract of a motor vehicle (Articles 874° and 879, subsection a) of the Civil Code), which does not depend on any special formality, being valid even when concluded orally - in accordance with Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 3-3-98, in CJSTJ, 1998, year VI, Volume I, page 117". (emphasis ours)

103 - Having the purchase and sale contract, in light of what is stated, a real nature, with the aforementioned consequences, it is also necessary to consider the legal value of motor vehicle registration that is the object of such contract, insofar as the transaction of said property is subject to public registration.

104 - Indeed, no. 1 of Article 1 of Decree-Law no. 54/75, of 12 February, relating to the registration of motor vehicles, establishes that "The registration of vehicles has essentially as its aim to give publicity to the legal situation of motor vehicles and their trailers, with a view to the security of legal commerce". (emphasis ours)

105 - It being clear, in light of the aforementioned norm, what the purpose of registration is, there is, however, no clarity, within the framework of the said Decree-Law, regarding the legal value of that registration, making it important to consider Article 29 of the said legal text, relating to the registration of motor vehicle ownership, when it provides that "The provisions relating to real estate registration are applicable, with the necessary adaptations, to the registration of motor vehicles, […]". (emphasis ours)

106 - In this framework, in order for us to attain the sought knowledge regarding the legal value of motor vehicle property registration, it is important to take into account what is established in the Code of Real Estate Registration, approved by Decree-Law no. 224/84, of 06 July, when it provides in its Article 7 that "the definitive registration constitutes a presumption that the right exists and belongs to the registered holder in the precise terms in which the registration defines it". (emphasis ours)

107 - The combination of the provisions in the aforementioned articles, particularly that established in no. 1 of Article 1 of Decree-Law no. 54/75, of 12 February and in Article 7 of the Code of Real Estate Registration, allows one to consider, on the one hand, that the fundamental function of registration is to give publicity to the legal situation of vehicles, allowing, on the other hand, to presume that the right exists and that such right belongs to the holder in whose favor the same is registered, in the precise terms in which it is defined in the registration.

108 - Thus, the definitive registration constitutes nothing more than the presumption that the right exists and belongs to the registered holder, in the exact terms of the registration, but a rebuttable presumption, admitting therefore contraproof, as flows from the law and case law has pointed out, and it is possible in this regard to see, among others, the Decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice nos. 03B4369 and 07B4528, respectively, of 19/02/2004 and 29/01/2008, available at: www.dgsi.pt.

109 - The function legally reserved to registration is therefore, on the one hand, to publicize the legal situation of the property, in this case, the vehicles and, on the other, to allow us to presume that the right over such vehicles exists and that the same belongs to the holder, as such inscribed in the registration, which means that registration does not have a constitutive nature of the property right, but only a declarative one, hence registration does not constitute a condition of validity of the transmission of the vehicle from the seller to the buyer.

110 - Thus, if the buyers of the vehicles, as their "new" owners, do not promptly promote the adequate registration of their right, it is presumed, for purposes of the provisions of Article 7 of the Code of Real Estate Registration and no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC, that the vehicles continue to be the property of the person who sold them and who remains in the registration as their owner, such person being the liable party of the tax, in the assurance, however, that such presumptions are rebuttable, whether by force of that established in no. 2 of Article 350 of the CC, or in light of the provisions of Article 73 of the LGT. Hence, from the moment that the presumptions in question are set aside, by means of proof of the said sales, the AT cannot persist in considering the seller of the vehicle, who continues to appear in the registration as its owner, as the liable party of the IUC.

L - OF THE MEANS OF PROOF PRESENTED

111 - Since written form is not legally required for the purchase and sale contract of motor vehicles, the proof of the corresponding sale can be made by any means, in particular by way of documentary evidence, this including, in particular, the invoices relating to the sales of the vehicles.

112 - As means of proof that it proceeded to the sale of the used vehicles identified in the present proceeding, on a date prior to that of the due date of the tax, the Claimant submitted copies, both of the sales invoices for the said used vehicles, and the salvage vehicles.

113 - Regarding the invoices presented by the Claimant, as proof of the sale of the vehicles in question, the AT, in addition to having attached to the record 2 Arbitral Decisions issued in Case no. 150/2014-T and in Case no. 220/2014-T, where such matter is addressed, considers that the same, as documents unilaterally issued by the Claimant do not, clearly, constitute sufficient proof to "undermine the (supposed) legal presumption established in Article 3 of the CIUC". (See Articles 82 and 83 of the Response)

114 - It further states that the AT, as results from the inspection carried out on the Claimant, the said invoices and the cash sales presented by the Claimant are not authenticated, nor is it proven that the amounts contained therein have been properly recorded in the accounts. (See Articles 93 and 95 of the Response)

115 - In sum, the AT considers that, neither the invoices, nor the cash sales, possess sufficient value in order to rebut the legal presumption contained in the registration, but, with all due respect, it is incorrect.

Let us see,

116 - First and foremost, in the context of the present proceeding, there is no record that any tax inspection has been carried out on the Claimant.

117 - On the other hand, among the documents presented by the Claimant for the purpose of proving the sale of the vehicles in question, there are no documents relating to cash sales.

118 - Then, nothing permits considering that the invoices presented, as support for the sales of the vehicles at bar and salvage, do not reflect and correspond to sales that, in reality, were realized. Indeed,

119 - With respect to the probative value of the invoices it is important to consider that the same embody a "document written in which the things sold and delivered are discriminated, their quality, quantity and price, and whose delivery the seller cannot refuse to the buyer, if the purchase and sale is commercial". (Legal Dictionary of Ana Prata, Almedina - Coimbra, 1990, 3rd Edition)

120 - The invoice, as referred to in the annotations to Article 476 of the Commercial Code, Abílio Neto, Ediforum - Lisbon, 1991, 10th Edition, is the "document in which the seller makes the complete discrimination of the merchandise that he sells to the buyer and in which he indicates the expenses that he incurred, as well as the advantages that he grants in prices and the conditions of delivery and payment".

121 - Before the amendments introduced to the VAT Code by Decree-Law no. 197/2012, of 24 August, invoices or equivalent documents could, in the context of the transmission of goods or the provision of services, be issued, as long as these complied with the legal requirements for invoices.

122 - From the provisions in subsection b) of no. 1 of Article 29, no. 5 of Article 36 and nos. 1 and 2 of Article 40, all of the VAT Code, in the version introduced by Decree-Law no. 197/2012, of 24 August, it is derived that only the invoice, the invoice-receipt and the simplified invoice embody documents recognized for purposes of the transmission of goods or the provision of services.

123 - Regarding the value of invoices as documents capable of proving the sales that support them, in particular those that concern motor vehicles, it is also pertinent to recall the provisions of Decree-Law no. 177/2014, of 15 December, recently published, when, in nos. 1 and 2 of its Article 2, expressly considers invoices as documents appropriate to prove the sale of vehicles.

124 - It will therefore be said that, in light of doctrine and what is legally established, the invoice is the document in which, in addition to the mention of the names of the suppliers and acquirers of the things or services that are the object of a given legal transaction, the aforementioned things or services, their quality and quantity, as well as the respective price and other elements included in the taxable value, as well as the applicable VAT rates and the amount of tax due, elements that, it should be noted, are observed in the invoices presented by the Claimant.

125 - The invoices attached to the record, as proof of the sale of the vehicles, taking into account the business purpose of the Claimant and its business activity, reflected in the purchase and sale of vehicles and the conclusion of long-term lease contracts for motor vehicles, at the end of which the ownership of the said vehicles was transferred to the respective clients/acquirers, show themselves to be entirely appropriate to the aforementioned business reality, being absolutely plausible the sale of the vehicles that the invoices presented aim to prove, with no elements being identified that embody any simulated contract, rather allowing the conclusion that we are dealing with invoices that reproduce the real and true sale of the vehicles to the persons indicated therein.

126 - It will even be said that, in the case at bar, in light of the economic activity of the Claimant embodied and focused on the purchase, sale and long-term lease of machines and motor vehicles, it will not be surprising, indeed quite the contrary, the transfer of ownership of the vehicles identified in the record.

127 - Thus, nothing permits considering that the elements inscribed in the said invoices, in particular those that concern the identification of the vehicles and the clients/acquirers, as well as those relating to the dates of sale, prior to the date of due date of the corresponding IUC, are inconsistent with the reality that contractually occurred, everything indicating that they reflect and correspond to the facts mentioned therein, that is, the effective sale of the vehicles to the persons indicated therein as being their acquirers. Moreover,

128 - The invoices, being an indispensable commercial document are equally an essential accounting document, with relevant implications in the tax field, it should be noted that, in the case at bar, having the Claimant, as it does, an activity of an entrepreneurial nature, the said invoices are subject to rigorous legal rules, whether of a commercial order, whether of an accounting and fiscal order.

129 - The documents in question at bar, being naturally inscribed within the framework of commercial relations between two entities, in this case between the Claimant and the acquirers of the vehicles, aim, on the other hand, and in this case, to demonstrate, before the Tax Administration, the existence of the transactions in question, which grants them a dimension and value qualitatively different, given that, provided certain conditions are met, tax legislation understood to consider them as true.

130 - As has been emphasized, tax legislation, in particular that mentioned above, recognizes evidentiary credibility to invoices, and it should be noted, because it is not a matter of less importance, indeed quite the contrary, it is a fundamental matter, that, given that such invoices have been issued in accordance with commercial and fiscal legislation, which is not questioned by the Respondent, the law, in this case, no. 1 of Article 75 of the LGT, attributes to them a presumption of veracity.

131 - Thus, given the presumption of veracity conferred, in the field of tax legal relations, to the facts inscribed in the said documents and the transmission of the vehicles to their acquirers being deemed true, it would have been incumbent on the AT, in light of the provisions of Article 75, no. 2 of the LGT, within the framework of the grounded and objective reasons it had, to demonstrate that such sales, in reality, did not occur, with it being insufficient to assert, as it does, that the invoices, as documents unilaterally issued by the Claimant, clearly do not constitute sufficient proof to undermine the (supposed) legal presumption established in Article 3 of the CIUC".

132 - The presumption established in the aforementioned Article 75, no. 1 of the LGT, when it establishes that the said documents enjoy the presumption of veracity, implies, indeed, that if the AT does not demonstrate the absence of correspondence between the content of such invoices and reality, as it has not, its content must be deemed true.

133 - The documents presented by the Claimant, as means intended to prove the transactions of the vehicles in question, enjoying thus the aforementioned presumption of veracity, appear with adequate suitability, in order to demonstrate the said transactions, constituting, in our view, an appropriate and capable means of proof to rebut the presumption established in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC.

134 - In light of what has just been stated, and taking into account, both the circumstance that the challenged assessment acts have been substantially analyzed, within the context of the corresponding administrative complaints, as well as the presumption established in no. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC, as well as the transfer of ownership of the vehicles in question, by mere effect of the contract, prior to the date of due date of the tax, as well as the legal value of motor vehicle registration in the framework of the CIUC, the tax acts in question cannot merit our agreement, whether because an adequate interpretation and application of the legal norms of subjective incidence was not had into account, which embodies an error as to the legal requirements, whether because the said acts were based on a factual matter, clearly divergent from the effective reality, which embodies an error as to the factual requirements.

135 - In these circumstances, taking into account, on the one hand, that the presumption established in Article 3, no. 1 of the CIUC has been rebutted and that, on the other hand, the vehicles in question in the present proceeding have been sold on a date prior to that of the due date of the tax, that is, as of the moment in which the Tax Administration can demand the tax payment, it cannot be left to consider that, as of the due date of the tax, in light of the provisions of no. 3 of Article 6, combined with no. 2 of Article 4, both of the CIUC, the Claimant was not the liable party of the tax in question.

136 - The AT, when it understands that the liable parties of the IUC are, conclusively, the persons in whose name the motor vehicles are registered, without considering that Article 3, no. 1 of the CIUC embodies a presumption, nor taking into account the evidentiary elements that were presented to it, as results from the administrative proceedings, is proceeding to the illegal assessment of the IUC, based on the incorrect interpretation and application of the norms of subjective incidence of the Single Vehicle Circulation Tax, contained in the said Article 3 of the CIUC, whether at the level of the assumption, or of the enactment, which configures the commission of a tax act lacking legality due to error as to the factual and legal requirements, which determines the annulment of the corresponding tax acts, for violation of law.

M - REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNT PAID AND COMPENSATORY INTEREST

137 - In accordance with the provisions in subsection b) of no. 1 of Article 24 of the LFATM, and in accordance with what is established there, the arbitral decision on the merits of the claim that cannot be appealed or challenged binds the tax administration as of the end of the period provided for appeal or challenge, it being necessary that this - in the exact terms of the success of the arbitral decision in favor of the liable party and until the end of the period provided for the spontaneous execution of the judgments of the tax courts - "Restore the situation that would have existed if the tax act that is the subject matter of the arbitral decision had not been performed, adopting the acts and operations necessary for that purpose." (emphasis ours)

138 - These are legal commands that are in total harmony with the provisions of Article 100 of the LGT, applicable to the case by force of the provisions in subsection a) of no. 1 of Article 29 of the LFATM, in which it is established that "The tax administration is obliged, in case of full or partial success of administrative complaints or appeals, or of judicial proceedings in favor of the liable party, to the immediate and full restoration of the situation that would have existed if the illegality had not been committed, including the payment of compensatory interest, in the terms and conditions provided for in the law." (emphasis ours)

139 - The case contained in the present record raises the manifest application of the aforementioned norms, given that as a consequence of the illegality of the assessment acts, referenced in this proceeding, it will be necessary, by force of these norms, to proceed with reimbursement of the amounts paid, as tax, which in the case at bar is concretized in the amount of € 18,941.03, as a way to achieve the restoration of the situation that would have existed if the illegality had not been committed.

140 - As regards compensatory interest, it appears manifest that, in light of what is established in Article 61 of the Code of Tax Procedure and the requirements for the right to compensatory interest being met, that is, verified the existence of an error imputable to the services from which results payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than legally due, as provided for in no. 1 of Article 43 of the LGT, the Claimant has the right to compensatory interest at the legal rate, calculated on the amount of € 18,941.03, which shall be counted from the date of payment of the tax, until the full reimbursement of that same amount.

N - ARBITRATION COSTS

141 - With respect to arbitration costs, more specifically with respect to responsibility for their payment, which the AT, in that it did not give rise to the request for arbitral decision, considers to be owed by the Claimant, "in accordance with Article 527(1) of the New Code of Civil Procedure ex vi Article 29(1-e) of the LFATM", it is only pertinent to note that, in light of what is established in no. 2 of the aforementioned Article 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party loses "[…] the costs of the proceeding in the proportion to which it loses", being thus what will be applied in the case at bar.

CONCLUSION

142 - In the circumstantial framework that has been referred to, the AT, in performing the assessment acts in question in the present proceeding, based on the idea that Article 3, no. 1, of the CIUC does not establish a rebuttable presumption, makes an incorrect interpretation and application of this norm, committing an error as to the legal requirements, which constitutes violation of law.

143 - On the other hand, because the AT, as of the date of the occurrence of the tax facts, considered the Claimant the owner of the vehicles referenced in the present proceeding, considering it as such a liable party of the tax, when such ownership, regarding the vehicles in question, was no longer inscribed in its legal sphere, basing itself thus on a factual matter divergent from the effective reality, commits an error as to the factual requirements, and therefore a violation of law.

144 - The decisions of the AT that reject the administrative complaints identified in the record are equally, in these circumstances, and in light of what has been stated regarding the said complaints, lacking legality, not being able to remain in the legal order.

III - DECISION

145 - Therefore, mindful of all that is set forth, this Arbitral Tribunal decides:

• Annul the decisions issued in the context of the administrative complaints identified in the record, with nos. … 2014…; … 2014… and … 2014….

• Judge as successful, as proven, on the ground of violation of law, the claim for a declaration of illegality of the IUC assessment acts formulated by the Claimant, relating to the year 2013 and concerning the vehicles identified in the proceeding;

• Annul, consequently, the IUC assessment acts relating to the year 2013 and concerning the vehicles, as identified in the record.

• Condemn the AT to reimburse the amount of € 18,941.03, referring to the IUC assessed and paid in the year 2013, in the terms set forth in the Proceeding, and to the payment of compensatory interest at the legal rate, counted from the date of payment of the tax, until the full reimbursement of the said amount;

• Condemn the AT to pay the costs of the present proceeding.

VALUE OF THE PROCEEDING

In accordance with the provisions of Articles 306, no. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ex-315, no. 2) and 97-A, no. 1 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Article 3, no. 2 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the proceeding is fixed at € 18,941.03.

COSTS

In accordance with the provisions of Article 12, no. 2, in fine, and Article 22, no. 4, both of the LFATM, and Article 4 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings and Table I attached thereto, the total amount of costs is fixed at € 1,224.00.

Let it be notified.

Lisbon, 23 April 2015

The Arbitrator

António Correia Valente

(The text of this decision was prepared by computer, in accordance with Article 131, no. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ex-138, no. 5), applicable by reference of Article 29, no. 1, subsection e) of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (LFATM), governed in its drafting by the orthography prior to the 1990 Orthographic Agreement.)