Process: 634/2018-T

Date: May 16, 2019

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

CAAD Arbitral Decision 634/2018-T addresses the controversial application of Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) under Verba 28.1 of the General Stamp Tax Table (TGIS) to building land. The claimant, a real estate company holding land for construction with article number registered as 'terrenos para construção' and a taxable property value exceeding €7.4 million, challenged three 2015 Stamp Tax assessments totaling €74,088.10. The core legal dispute centered on whether Verba 28.1 applies to land registered as construction land when no residential building has actually been authorized or commenced. The company argued that the tax provision requires actual planned or authorized residential construction, not merely land classified as buildable. The property in question had a valid subdivision permit (alvará de loteamento) authorizing two plots for mixed-use development including residential, commercial, and parking facilities across 13 above-ground floors. Subsequently, in June 2018, a use permit was issued for collective equipment purposes. The claimant filed for ex officio review under Article 78 of the General Tax Law (Lei Geral Tributária), alleging errors in both factual and legal assumptions. When the Tax Authority failed to respond, deemed refusal occurred, prompting arbitral proceedings under the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters (RJAT - Decreto-Lei 10/2011). This case exemplifies the interpretative challenges surrounding Stamp Tax on real estate, particularly the distinction between land classification and actual development authorization for residential purposes under post-2014 TGIS amendments.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

The Arbitrators José Pedro Carvalho (Presiding Arbitrator), André Festas da Silva and José Coutinho Pires, appointed by the Deontological Board of the Centre for Administrative Arbitration to form an Arbitral Tribunal, hereby agree to the following:

I – REPORT

  1. On 13 December 2018, A..., LDA., NIPC..., with registered office at..., no...., Building..., Floor..., ...-... Carnaxide, filed a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, under the combined provisions of articles 2º and 10º of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, which approved the Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters, as amended by article 228º of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December (hereinafter, abbreviated as RJAT), seeking a declaration of illegality of the acts of assessment of Stamp Tax nos. 2016..., no. 2016... and no. 2016..., relating to the year 2015, in the amount of €74,088.10, as well as of the deemed refusal of the request for ex officio review which had those assessment acts as its subject matter.

  2. To support its request, the Claimant alleges, in summary, error regarding both factual and legal presuppositions.

  3. On 14-12-2018, the request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted and automatically notified to the Tax Authority (AT).

  4. The Claimant did not appoint an arbitrator, wherefore, under the provisions of subparagraph a) of article 6º, paragraph 2, and subparagraph a) of article 11º, paragraph 1, of the RJAT, the President of the Deontological Board of CAAD appointed the signatories as arbitrators of the collective arbitral tribunal, who communicated their acceptance of the appointment within the applicable period.

  5. On 06-02-2018, the parties were notified of these appointments and did not manifest any intention to refuse any of them.

  6. In accordance with the provisions of subparagraph c) of article 11º, paragraph 1, of the RJAT, the collective Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 26-02-2018.

  7. On 26-03-2018, the Respondent, having been duly notified for that purpose, filed its reply defending itself by way of objection.

  8. Under the provisions of subparagraphs c) and e) of article 16º, and paragraph 2 of article 29º, both of the RJAT, the holding of the meeting referred to in article 18º of the RJAT was waived.

  9. Although a period was granted for the submission of written arguments, the parties abstained from submitting them.

  10. It was indicated that the final decision would be notified by the end of the period provided for in article 21º, paragraph 1, of the RJAT.

  11. The Arbitral Tribunal is materially competent and is properly constituted, in accordance with articles 2º, paragraph 1, subparagraph a), 5º and 6º, paragraph 2, subparagraph a), of the RJAT.

The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are legally represented, in accordance with articles 4º and 10º of the RJAT and article 1º of Regulation no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.

The proceedings are not affected by nullity.

Accordingly, there is no obstacle to the adjudication of the case.

All being considered, it is proper to deliver:

II. DECISION

A. FACTUAL MATTERS

A.1. Facts Established as Proven

  1. The Claimant's object of business includes, among others, the acquisition of immovable property for sale, corresponding to CAE code 68100, and it therefore owns various residential and commercial properties and land for construction.

  2. The Claimant was, in 2015, the owner of the urban immovable property ("land for construction") with article number..., of the civil parish of..., in the municipality and district of Lisbon.

  3. The property with article number..., is inscribed in the property register as "land for construction".

  4. The said property had, in 2015, a taxable property value (VPT) of €7,408,810.05.

  5. The Claimant was notified of the assessments of Stamp Tax nos. 2016..., no. 2016... and no. 2016..., relating to the year 2015, in the total amount of €74,088.10.

  6. The immovable property in question was subject to a valid subdivision permit (alvará de loteamento) which authorized "the constitution of 2 plots of land for urban construction, designated by nos.... and.... with a maximum number of blocks, intended for residential, commercial, catering, service and private parking purposes, with authorization for construction of 13 storeys above ground, 2 below ground, 1 open-air storey and 3 basement storeys in each. In plot... 220 parking spaces were authorized and in plot... 200 parking spaces were authorized".

  7. The said permit provided for the following construction areas:

a. Residential: 24,640.00 m²;

b. Commercial and catering: 1,337.55 m²;

c. Private and public parking: 25,665.88 m².

  1. On 23-06-2018, a use permit no. .../... /2018 was issued by the Lisbon Municipal Chamber, through which the immovable property was authorized for use as collective equipment.

  2. The Claimant made full and timely payment of the said assessments.

  3. On 16-05-2018, the Claimant filed a request for ex officio review relating to the said assessments, in accordance with article 78º of the General Tax Law (Lei Geral Tributária), based on violation of law due to errors in factual and legal presuppositions.

  4. Up to the time of filing the arbitral request, the Claimant had not been notified of any decision in the context of the ex officio review procedure.

A.2. Facts Established as Not Proven

With relevance to the decision, there are no facts that should be considered as not proven.

A.3. Reasoning of the Factual Matters Proven and Not Proven

With respect to the factual matters, the Tribunal is not required to pronounce on everything alleged by the parties; rather, it has the duty to select the facts that are relevant to the decision and to distinguish the proven from the non-proven matters (see article 123º, paragraph 2, of the CPPT and article 607º, paragraph 3 of the CPC, applicable ex vi article 29º, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and e), of the RJAT).

Thus, the facts relevant to the judgment of the case are selected and defined according to their legal relevance, which is established having regard to the various plausible solutions of the legal question(s) (see former article 511º, paragraph 1, of the CPC, corresponding to the current article 596º, applicable ex vi article 29º, paragraph 1, subparagraph e), of the RJAT).

Accordingly, having regard to the positions taken by the parties, in light of article 110º, paragraph 7 of the CPPT, the documentary evidence and the administrative file attached to the record, the facts listed above were considered proven, with relevance to the decision, taking into account that, as stated in the judgment of the TCA-South Court of 26-06-2014, delivered in case 07148/13, "the evidentiary value of the tax inspection report (...) may have probative force if the assertions contained therein are not contested".

Allegations made by the parties and presented as facts were neither established as proven nor not proven when they consisted of assertions that were strictly conclusive, not susceptible of proof, and whose truthfulness is to be assessed in relation to the concrete factual matter established above.

III – Reasoning: Matters of Law

III.A. Position of the Claimant

a) The Claimant begins by alleging that the objective scope of item 28.1 of the TGIS (General Table of Stamp Tax) cannot encompass properties which, being registered in the property register as "land for construction", have not had authorized or planned actual building on the land, and such building is intended for "residential" purposes.

b) Analyzing the context of the introduction of item 28 of the TGIS, the Claimant emphasizes that, even following the amendments introduced by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, which entered into force on 1 January 2014, the taxation continues to be limited to situations in which actual building on the land has been authorized or planned, and such building is intended for "residential" purposes.

c) Accordingly, it is not sufficient that the mere registration of a property in the register identifies it as "land for construction"; it is additionally necessary that, case by case and specifically, it be determined whether its use is planned or authorized "for residential purposes", which will require that the entire administrative process associated with construction has been successfully promoted and that valid building license/authorization and an approved project exist.

d) The Claimant argues that the property in question did not have, in 2015, building authorized or planned for residential purposes and therefore concludes that the Stamp Tax assessments are illegal due to errors in factual and legal presuppositions.

e) Attention is also paid to the "legislative intent" of item 28.1 of the TGIS (to introduce a "solidarity tax" borne by "contributory capacities" above the average); the Claimant alternatively indicates that the ownership of that immovable property does not represent enhanced contributory capacity, since such properties are used by the Claimant in the course of its habitual business activity.

f) The Claimant alleges that it has paid the amounts assessed in full, and accordingly requests reimbursement and the payment of indemnificatory interest, on the grounds that such payment was undue and an error attributable to the authorities can be identified, in accordance with article 24º, paragraph 1, subparagraph b), and paragraph 5, of the RJAT, articles 43º and 100º of the LGT and article 61º of the CPPT.

III.B. Position of the Respondent

a) In its Reply, the Respondent alleges that the assessments under challenge are lawful and that no error occurred on the part of the authorities in subjecting the property in question to the provision of item 28.1 of the TGIS.

b) The Respondent argues that urban properties which are land for construction and to which residential allocation has been attributed in the context of their respective valuations, such allocation being recorded in their respective registers, are subject to Stamp Tax.

c) The Respondent considers that the evidence provided to the arbitral proceedings, relating to the property in question, proves that it is a property with residential allocation.

d) The Respondent accordingly believes that item 28.1 of the TGIS does not incur any arbitrariness or in any way violates the principle of equality in tax matters in the aspect of contributory capacity.

B. ON THE LAW

The sole issue to be resolved in the present arbitral tax proceedings concerns the application of item 28.1 of the table annexed to the CIS (General Table of Stamp Tax) to the urban property ("land for construction") with article number..., of the civil parish of..., in the municipality and district of Lisbon.

The issue at hand thus concerns the definition of the scope of item no. 28.1 of the TGIS, as worded by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, more specifically to determine whether the land for construction in question in the present proceedings can be subsumed under the concept of "land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes, as provided for in the Property Tax Code (Código do IMI)" to which the said item refers, having regard to the fact that the taxable property value is in excess of €1,000,000.00.

The issue arises owing to the taxation, under stamp tax, of the ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose taxable property value, recorded in the property register, is equal to or in excess of €1,000,000.00, in which case tax is due, at the rate of 1%, on the taxable property value used for purposes of Property Tax, per property with residential allocation.

This issue is not new, having been the subject of consideration both in arbitral jurisdiction and in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court; in the context of the wording of the CIS provided by Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, the decisions handed down were always contrary to what the Tax Authority sought.

The situation sub iudice, however, arises within a different legal framework, in that the facts are to be assessed in light of the wording of the CIS introduced by the State Budget Law for 2014, Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December (article 194º, under the heading - Amendment to the General Table of Stamp Tax), pursuant to which item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax, annexed to the Stamp Tax Code, approved by Law no. 150/99, of 11 September, was amended to provide as follows:

"28.1 — Per residential property or per land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes, as provided for in the Property Tax Code — 1%".

Within this new legal framework, decisions have already been handed down in arbitral proceedings, also unfavorable to what the Tax Authority contended.

The said jurisprudence is based on the understanding that the presuppositions of the new item 28.1 of the TGIS should be considered as satisfied in the following circumstances:

"in relation to land for construction, whether or not located within an urban agglomeration, as defined in article 3º, paragraph 4 of this Code [CIMI], should be considered as such the land in relation to which there has been granted: - a license for subdivision operation; - a building license; - an authorization for subdivision operation; - authorization for construction; - accepted favorable prior notification of subdivision or construction operation; or issued favorable prior information of subdivision or construction operation, as well as - those which have been so declared in the title of acquisition, and it should be noted that, for that purpose also, only the title of acquisition with the form prescribed by civil law should be relevant, namely, public deed or authenticated private document referred to in article 875º of the Civil Code." [see ANTÓNIO SANTOS ROCHA / EDUARDO JOSÉ MARTINS BRÁS – Taxation of Assets. Property Tax – Property Transfer Tax and Stamp Tax (Annotated and Commented). Coimbra, Almedina, 2015, p. 44]."

Also in the judgment delivered in arbitral case 142/2016T, already cited, which equally concluded for the merits of the claim made therein, it can be read as follows:

"There is no indication in these provisions of the TGIS and the CIMI as to what should be understood by 'planned building', but, having regard to the documents required for the valuation of land for construction, indicated in article 37º, paragraph 3, of the CIMI, it is concluded that one can only speak of authorized or planned construction when the 'building to be constructed', referred to in paragraph 1 of article 45º, is defined in a subdivision permit or building license permit, or an approved project, or prior notification, or favorable prior information or a document certifying constructive viability".

The understanding of the said judgments is fully subscribed to here, as regards what, in light of the new wording of the CIS, should be understood by "land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes, as provided for in the Property Tax Code".

Indeed, in accordance with the CIMI, land for construction, which, in accordance with article 6º, paragraph 1, subparagraph c) of such Code, constitutes a type of urban property, may have residential allocation, as results, inter alia, expressly from article 45º, paragraph 5 of the CIMI, which allocation, as is apparent, inter alia, from article 45º, paragraph 5 of the CIMI, shall be determined on the basis of the elements referred to in article 37º of the same Code, paragraph 3 of which provides that:

"In relation to land for construction, a photocopy of the subdivision permit must be presented, which must be replaced, where there is no subdivision, by a photocopy of the building license permit, approved project, prior notification, favorable prior information or a document certifying constructive viability".

The reference in item 28.1 of the TGIS under analysis should thus be read as referring to the material content of what, in light of the CIMI, constitutes "land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes", not being sufficient merely that the Tax Authority – rightly or wrongly – in application of the provisions of that Code (CIMI), qualified for register purposes a particular property as having that allocation, since, if that were the intention of the legislator, within the presumption of reasonableness that underlies it, it would surely have used the expression "land whose type of location coefficient used for purposes of determining the taxable property value is residential", or some other similar expression.

It is concluded here, as in the jurisprudence cited above, that should be considered as "land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes, as provided for in the Property Tax Code", those lands in which the 'building to be constructed' is defined as being intended for residential purposes in a subdivision permit or building license permit, or an approved project, or prior notification, or favorable prior information or a document certifying constructive viability.

This same understanding was recently ratified by the Supreme Administrative Court (STA), in its Judgment of 28-11-2018, delivered in case 0829/15.5BELLE 01065/16, where it can be read, inter alia, that:

"Accordingly, in relation to land for construction, whether or not located within an urban agglomeration, should be considered as such, in accordance with article 6º, paragraph 3 of the CIMI, the land in relation to which there has been granted: - a license for subdivision operation; - a building license; - an authorization for subdivision operation; - authorization for construction; - accepted favorable prior notification of subdivision or construction operation; issued favorable prior information of subdivision or construction operation, as well as those which have been so declared in the title of acquisition."

Now, in the case at hand, the existence, at the date of the taxable event, of a subdivision permit relating to the property in question was proven, which authorized the constitution of 2 plots of land for urban construction, designated by nos.... and.... with a maximum number of blocks, intended for residential, commercial, catering, service and private parking purposes, with authorization for construction of 13 storeys above ground, 1 open-air storey and 3 basement storeys in each. In plot... 220 parking spaces were authorized and in plot... 200 parking spaces were authorized.

Accordingly, no doubt persists that the 'building to be constructed' on the land in question is defined in a subdivision permit as having the purpose of residential, commercial, catering, service and private parking uses.

Recall the wording of item 28.1 of the TGIS in effect at the date of the facts, which provided as follows: "28.1 — Per residential property or per land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes, as provided for in the Property Tax Code — 1%". From this it is immediately concluded that, the land having a taxable property value of €7,408,810.05, the objective scope is satisfied.

However, it was demonstrated through the evidence submitted to the proceedings that the allocation of the property under challenge is not exclusively residential, having been attributed different allocations thereto, namely, residential, commercial, catering and parking.

An identical situation to the present was already judged by the STA in case 080/18, by judgment of 06-06-2018, where it was considered, inter alia, that:

"I - In the present situation in which a subdivision permit was granted in accordance with which the properties are intended 'for collective residential and commercial/service purposes', there is no question of a property whose destination is exclusively residential.

II - The provision of item 28 under analysis does not establish any criterion or need for assessment of the percentage in which the property is intended for residential or commercial/service purposes so that we may consider that the legislator took such reality into account and, nothing having been said about it, conclude that it intends to absorb it within the allocation for residential purposes.

III - Law 83-C/2013, of 31 December clarified that the properties previously denominated by it as properties with residential allocation were, in fact, urban properties or land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes.

IV - For the present properties to be included in this provision it was absolutely necessary that there be an indication that urban properties or land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is also, predominantly, for residential purposes are being taxed in this regard."

It is further stated in the judgment referred to that:

"In the present situation we know that a subdivision permit was granted by Subdivision Permit no. 5/2006, in accordance with which the properties are intended 'for collective residential and commercial/service purposes', which is different from being intended for residential purposes. The provision of item 28 under analysis does not establish any criterion or need for assessment of the percentage in which the property is intended for residential or commercial/service purposes (...)

Nor is it known what the frequency and specific weight in the volume built for the real estate market of the allocation of certain parts of the buildings, particularly the ground floor, to purposes other than residential, notably commercial and service purposes, precisely on account of economic reasons, financial strategy considerations, relating to profitability and enjoyment of all available spaces, of which the provision in question makes no note or indication. It exists, but we do not know if it is significant and we cannot consider that the legislator took such reality into account and, nothing having been said about it, conclude that it intends to absorb it within the allocation for residential purposes.

Rather, we believe it is a reality that was not taken into account by the legislator, as previously it had not duly considered that the law establishes a clear distinction between 'residential' urban properties and 'land for construction', which Law 83-C/2013, of 31 December clarified to mean that the properties previously denominated by it as properties with residential allocation were, in fact, urban properties or land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes. For the present properties to be included in this provision it was absolutely necessary that there be an indication that urban properties or land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is also, predominantly, for residential purposes are being taxed in this regard, on penalty of our resorting to an extensive interpretation of the provision of scope that is entirely at odds with the provisions of article 103º, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.".

Now, given that the provision of scope of item 28.1 of the TGIS refers to 'residential property or land for construction whose building, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes', and the land in question has been attributed different allocations, then, in light of the jurisprudence transcribed and its reasoning, which are accepted, it cannot be considered that the Stamp Tax will apply only to the part of the property with residential allocation.

Having been demonstrated that the allocation of the property under challenge is only partially residential, and that the provision of scope does not provide for such situation, the assessments that are the subject matter of the present arbitral action should be annulled, given the error of law that has been established.

As to the request for indemnificatory interest formulated by the Claimant, article 43º, paragraph 1, of the LGT establishes that indemnificatory interest is due when it is determined that there has been an error attributable to the authorities resulting in payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than that legally due.

In the case at hand, the error affecting the annulled assessments is attributable to the Tax Authority and Customs Authority, which carried out the assessment acts on its own initiative, without the necessary factual and legal basis.

Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled to be reimbursed the amount it paid (in accordance with the provisions of articles 100º of the LGT and 24º, paragraph 1, of the RJAT) as a result of the annulled acts and, further, to be indemnified for the undue payment through the payment of indemnificatory interest, by the Respondent, from the date of payment of the amount until reimbursement, at the legal suppletive rate, in accordance with articles 43º, paragraphs 1 and 4, and 35º, paragraph 10, of the LGT, article 559º of the Civil Code and Regulation no. 291/2003, of 8 April.

C. DECISION

For these reasons, this Arbitral Tribunal decides that the arbitral claim is entirely well-founded and, in consequence:

a) Annul the Stamp Tax assessments nos. 2016..., no. 2016... and no. 2016...;

b) Condemn the Respondent to the restitution of the amounts unduly paid, as a result of the annulled assessments, as well as to the payment of the corresponding indemnificatory interest, from the date of undue payment of the amount until its reimbursement, in accordance with the terms determined above.

c) Condemn the Respondent to the costs of the proceedings as fixed below.

D. Value of the Proceedings

The value of the proceedings is fixed at €74,088.10, in accordance with article 97º-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph a), of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, applicable by virtue of subparagraphs a) and b) of paragraph 1 of article 29º of the RJAT and paragraph 3 of article 3º of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.

E. Costs

The amount of the arbitration fee is fixed at €2,448.00, in accordance with Table I of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be paid by the Tax Authority, since the claim was entirely well-founded, in accordance with articles 12º, paragraph 2, and 22º, paragraph 4, both of the RJAT, and article 4º, paragraph 5, of the aforementioned Regulation.

Let notification be made.

Lisbon, 16 May 2019

The Presiding Arbitrator
(José Pedro Carvalho)

The Arbitrator Vogal
(André Festas da Silva)

The Arbitrator Vogal
(José Coutinho Pires)

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

Is Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) applicable to building land (terrenos para construção) under Verba 28.1 of the TGIS?
Yes, Stamp Tax under Verba 28.1 of the TGIS applies to building land ('terrenos para construção'), but the scope of application is contested. The tax generally targets urban properties classified as construction land with significant taxable property values. However, taxpayers argue that mere registration as 'land for construction' is insufficient—the provision requires actual authorized or planned residential construction. This interpretation focuses on whether concrete building authorization exists rather than property classification alone. The 2014 amendments to the TGIS maintained this requirement, limiting taxation to situations with demonstrable residential development plans.
What were the grounds for challenging the Stamp Tax assessments in CAAD process 634/2018-T?
The claimant in CAAD process 634/2018-T challenged the Stamp Tax assessments on multiple grounds: (1) errors in factual assumptions—arguing the property lacked authorized residential construction despite being registered as building land; (2) errors in legal assumptions—contending that Verba 28.1 of the TGIS does not encompass properties merely classified as construction land without actual residential building authorization; (3) misinterpretation of the 2014 TGIS amendments introduced by Law 83-C/2013. The company filed for ex officio review under Article 78 of the General Tax Law, and when the Tax Authority failed to respond, pursued arbitration claiming deemed refusal of the review request.
Can taxpayers request an official review (revisão oficiosa) of Stamp Tax liquidation acts in Portugal?
Yes, taxpayers can request official review (revisão oficiosa) of Stamp Tax liquidation acts under Article 78 of the General Tax Law (Lei Geral Tributária). This administrative remedy allows taxpayers to challenge tax assessments based on illegality, including violations of law resulting from errors in factual or legal assumptions. The Tax Authority must decide within the statutory period; failure to respond constitutes deemed refusal (indeferimento tácito), which can then be challenged through administrative or arbitral proceedings under the RJAT framework. In this case, the claimant filed for ex officio review on May 16, 2018, and subsequently initiated arbitration when no decision was rendered.
How does the CAAD arbitral tribunal handle cases involving errors in factual and legal assumptions for Stamp Tax?
The CAAD arbitral tribunal handles Stamp Tax cases involving errors in factual and legal assumptions through a structured process under the RJAT framework. The tribunal first establishes jurisdiction and procedural compliance, then determines proven and unproven facts based on documentary evidence, the administrative file, and party submissions per Article 110(7) of the Tax Procedure Code (CPPT). Facts are selected based on legal relevance to the dispute. The tribunal evaluates whether the Tax Authority correctly applied legal provisions to the established facts, examining both the interpretation of tax law (legal assumptions) and the accuracy of factual determinations (factual assumptions). The burden of proof and evidentiary standards follow tax procedure rules, with unopposed administrative assertions carrying probative weight.
What is the legal framework for arbitral tax proceedings under Decreto-Lei 10/2011 (RJAT) in Portugal?
The legal framework for arbitral tax proceedings in Portugal is established by Decreto-Lei 10/2011 (RJAT - Regime Jurídico da Arbitragem em Matéria Tributária), as amended by Law 66-B/2012. This framework provides an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for tax conflicts, allowing taxpayers to challenge tax assessments, deemed refusals, and other administrative acts. Key features include: mandatory arbitrator appointment by the CAAD Deontological Board when parties don't designate arbitrators (Article 6(2) and 11(1)); strict timelines for tribunal constitution and decision-making (Article 21); application of Tax Procedure Code (CPPT) and Civil Procedure Code (CPC) rules subsidiarily (Article 29); and binding decisions subject to limited judicial review. The system covers various taxes including Stamp Tax, with material jurisdiction defined in Article 2(1)(a).