Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
I - REPORT
1. A A…, S.A., a legal entity numbered…, with registered office at Rua do… no.…/…, in Porto, (hereinafter referred to as the "Claimant") filed, on 27-10-2016, pursuant to article 2, no. 1, subparagraph a) and article 10, nos. 1 and 2 of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration, provided for in Decree-Law no. 10/2011 of 20 January, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012 of 31 December (hereinafter abbreviated as "RJAT") and articles 1 and 2 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011 of 22 March, a request for arbitral pronouncement in which it seeks a declaration of illegality of the tax assessment acts for Stamp Tax of the year 2014 and the formation of the presumption of deemed rejection of the administrative claim that supported those assessments and the consequent refund of the tax improperly assessed and paid in excess in the total amount of € 54,271.13 (fifty-four thousand two hundred and seventy-one euros and thirteen cents), plus the respective legal interest.
2. The assessments identified above, issued pursuant to item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (hereinafter "GTST"), relate to properties registered in the urban property register under article numbers… and… located in the Union of Parishes… and…, municipality of Matosinhos.
The Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") is the respondent party.
3. The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the President of CAAD and automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority on 11-11-2016.
4. Pursuant to subparagraph a) of no. 2 of article 6 and subparagraph b) of no. 1 of article 11 of the RJAT, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012 of 31 December, the Deontological Council of CAAD appointed as arbitrator of the single arbitral tribunal His Excellency Dr. Olívio Mota Amador, who, within the applicable period, communicated acceptance of the appointment.
5. The parties were notified on 28-12-2016 of the appointment of the arbitrator and did not manifest any intention to challenge the appointment of the arbitrator, in accordance with the combined provisions of article 11, no. 1, subparagraphs a) and b) of the RJAT and articles 6 and 7 of the Deontological Code.
6. In accordance with the provision of subparagraph c) of no. 1 of article 11 of the RJAT, as amended by article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012 of 31 December, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 12-01-2017.
7. The Respondent, duly notified through the arbitral order of 20-01-2017, filed its Response on 20-02-2017 and remitted the Administrative Record.
8. The Arbitral Tribunal, by order of 08-03-2017, dispensed with the holding of the meeting provided for in article 18 of the RJAT, as no exceptions had been raised, no additional evidentiary proceedings requested, nor were any questions raised that would prevent knowledge of the merits of the request, which it did pursuant to the principles of the Tribunal's autonomy in conducting the proceedings and in order to promote the speed, simplification and informality thereof (see articles 19, no. 2, and 29, no. 2, of the RJAT).
The Tribunal also ordered notification of the parties to declare, within a period of 10 days, whether they intended to file submissions. If submissions were to be made, the Tribunal determined that these should be filed within 15 days from notification of this order, granting the Respondent, if it so wished, the possibility of filing its submissions in succession relative to those filed by the Claimant.
The Arbitral Tribunal set 30-05-2017 as the deadline for rendering the arbitral decision.
9. The Claimant, on 10-03-2017, and the Respondent, on 24-03-2017, both declared that they intended to file written submissions.
10. The Claimant filed its submissions on 24-03-2017.
11. The Respondent's submissions were filed on 19-04-2017.
12. By order of the Arbitral Tribunal of 29-05-2017, 15-06-2017 was set as the new deadline for rendering the arbitral decision.
13. The position of the Claimant, in accordance with the provisions in the request for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and in the written submissions, is, in summary, as follows:
13.1. The concept of land for construction, for tax purposes, is not a formal concept, but rather a material concept, directed to the realities for which it was formulated, translating, in this case, the potential destination for construction. In other words, prior to the exercise of the right to construct thereon, what exists is a mere expectation of being able to erect a construction. In this sense, the ownership of the right of property over land for construction, even if of value exceeding € 1,000,000.00 on which no construction is erected, nor authorized or provided for, cannot be considered a manifestation of wealth subsumed by item 28.1 of the GTST.
13.2. Therefore, land for construction is neither considered nor can be considered as a property affected exclusively for residential purposes, nothing more. In fact, the land may never be built upon; it may be built exclusively for commercial purposes; it may even be built simultaneously for commercial purposes and also for collective housing.
13.3. In the case sub judice, the Claimant understands that, unless there is a better opinion, it can never result from the analysis of the Permit that the land is to be affected exclusively for residential purposes. Since the authorized construction also provides that the buildings may have use for commercial purposes, and likewise for collective housing.
13.4. The subjection to the rate of 1%, provided for in item 28.1 of the GTST, is dependent on the cumulative satisfaction of the following requirements, in addition to ownership of the property: i) the Tax Value included in the property register, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code, being equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.00; ii) it being land for construction; iii) the authorized and provided construction for the same being exclusively for residential purposes, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code.
13.5. In the case sub judice the third requirement, referred to in the preceding number, is not satisfied, since the land does not have construction authorized or provided for exclusively affected to residential purposes.
13.6. It thus results demonstrated that the cumulative requirements on which the scope provision of item 28.1 of the GTST makes its application dependent are not met, whereby there is a defect of violation of law and, consequently, the taxation in question should be considered improper, and the Stamp Tax assessment acts in question should be annulled due to the illegality from which they suffer.
13.7. The Claimant is registered with CAE: 41100 and has as its corporate purpose real estate development, specifically the development of building projects. Now when properties are held by real estate companies, such as the Claimant, one is not faced with increased capacity, but rather with mere raw material, a natural productive factor. Thus, in these cases, this rule penalizes and discriminates these companies against companies engaged in other sectors of activity and that do not need, for the purpose of their corporate objective, to hold land for construction with intended or approved allocation for residential purposes. Now such discrimination clearly violates the Principle of Equality established in article 13 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (CRP).
13.8. The principle of equality, enshrined in article 13 of the CRP, has as its corollary, in the tax field, the principle of capacity to contribute. It is not affirmed, therefore, that the legislator intended to discriminate against the real estate sector. However, the result of the application of such a rule implies the penalization of this sector and, in the case sub judice, the penalization of the Claimant, without this having revealed any increased economic capacity.
13.9. Consequently, the assessments in question, as well as the tax acts supporting them, suffer from the defect of violation of law, as they embody error concerning the premises of law in the application of a materially unconstitutional rule, and should be annulled.
13.10. It happens that, even if this is not accepted, it should also be noted that it equally constitutes discrimination devoid of "rational basis" to tax land for construction with residential allocation which, despite having a Tax Value exceeding € 1,000,000.00, are not intended for the construction of buildings with a Tax Value exceeding € 1,000,000.00.
13.11. When this rule applies to taxpayers, regardless of their capacity to contribute, as in the present case to the Claimant, this rule is simply discriminatory and violates the Principle of Equality.
13.12. Additionally, this Tribunal has already ruled on the same question of fact and law, having concluded, in case no. 490/2016-T of 15-02-2017, and in case no. 645/2016-T, to the effect that "…With regard to land for construction, only those for which construction for residential purposes is authorized or provided are covered by the scope of item 28.1 of the GTST…" and that "…land for construction relative to which construction for purposes other than residential, namely for commercial, industrial or services purposes, is authorized or provided are excluded from subjection to item 28.1 of the GTST…"
14. The position of the Respondent, expressed in the response and in the written submissions, may be summarized as follows:
14.1. With regard to the properties registered in the urban property register under article numbers… and… of the union of parishes… and…, municipality of Matosinhos, the claimant alleges that it has no authorized or provided construction, there only exists the subdivision permit which provides for the construction of collective housing and commercial use. Without overlooking the facts alleged above by the claimant, we cannot, however, agree that for those properties no construction for residential purposes is provided.
14.2. As stated in administrative record no…/2017 sent by the Finance Service of Matosinhos…, and, from the outset, from the assessment procedure, which it should be said was not contested, the properties are intended for residential purposes, with a location factor of 1.90, having been carried out on the basis of the elements declared by the taxpayer in model 1 declaration of Municipal Property Tax, for registration of the property in the matrix, as stated in the notification of assessment, and a Tax Value of € 1,975,450.00 and € 2,030,640.00 was fixed.
14.3. The said properties have the characteristics contained in the definition of land for construction, for purposes of item 28.1 of the GTST, in the wording given by Law 83-C/2013, that is, land for construction with residential allocation, under the terms provided in the Municipal Property Tax Code, without there being, for purposes of Stamp Tax assessment, any exclusion from the value of the area not affected to residential use, because it is not included in the assessment and this was not contested, and for that very reason it is also not included in the property register that serves as the basis for the Stamp Tax assessment.
14.4. The assessments in issue constitute a correct interpretation and application of item 28.1 of the GTST, in the wording of Law no. 83-C/2013, which expressly prescribes that land for construction as the objective element of incidence of the rule. We are, therefore, faced with a legitimate criterion of rational and logical differentiation, in no way violating constitutional precepts, which imposes the limitation of the scope of taxation in question to luxury residential properties or with residential allocation, with exclusion and to the detriment of properties with strictly economic allocations.
14.5. The fact that the legislator establishes a value (€1,000,000.00) as a delimiting criterion for the scope of the tax, below which the provision of the tax rule is not met, constitutes a legitimate choice of the legislator regarding the determination of the material scope of the "luxury residential properties" that it is intended to tax more heavily. Therefore, and integrating the building in full ownership with parts or divisions capable of independent use (so-called vertical property) the tax legal concept of "property," that is, a single unit, the tax value of the same is determined by the sum of the parts with residential allocation, and, this being equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.00, there is subjection to Stamp Tax of item 28.1 of the GTST. In these terms, the provision of item 28 of the GTST does not constitute any violation of the principle of equality of art. 13 of the CRP.
14.6. Indeed, item 28.1 of the GTST applies to ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties with residential allocation, whose tax value included in the property register, under the terms of CIMI, is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.00, that is, it applies to the value of the property. It is, it is reiterated, a general and abstract rule, applicable indistinctly to all cases in which the factual and legal requirements are met.
14.7. However, in order to be able to assert that the creation of item 28.1 of the GTST violates the principle of fiscal proportionality, there would have to be manifest inadequacy between the legislation approved by Law no. 55-A/2012 of 29 October, the means employed in its pursuit and the revenue objectives it aimed to achieve. In other words, there would have to be a manifest error in the analysis made by the legislator which, within its margin of discretion, had not duly weighed, and in particular, the cost/benefit ratio of this legal measure.
14.8. Item 28.1 of the GTST applies to ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties with residential allocation, whose tax value included in the property register, under the terms of CIMI, is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.00, that is, it applies to the value of the property. In fact, the factual-legal reality selected by the legislator to constitute the basis of the tax incidence is the property considered in itself, in view of its allocation and its tax value, not the overall real property patrimony of the taxpayers.
14.9. As for the question of the unconstitutionality of item 28.1 of the GTST due to alleged violation of the principles of equality before public burdens, just distribution of income and wealth, proportionality and confidence and security, it will always be stated that the rule is constitutional in all its aspects.
14.10. According to the Information of the Finance Service of…, of 15.02.2017, attached to the Record, the land for construction in question was assigned, in the assessment, the residential allocation, which determined its subjection to item 28.1 of the GTST, in its current wording. Thus, regardless of the Subdivision Permit brought to the case providing for the construction of collective housing, with a percentage of area affected to commercial use and parking, this area was not reflected in the assessment of the properties and, consequently, in the Tax Value determined.
14.11. It results from the evidence brought to the case that the properties registered under article numbers… and… of the property register of the Union of Parishes… and…, municipality of Matosinhos, are land for construction for purposes of item 28.1 of the GTST, in the wording given by Law 83-C/2013, that is, land for construction with residential allocation, under the terms provided in the Municipal Property Tax Code.
14.12. In conclusion, the contested assessment acts correspond to a correct interpretation and application of item 28.1 of the GTST, in the wording of Law no. 83-C/2013, in compliance with the constitutional principles of tax legality and typicity.
II - PRELIMINARY ISSUES
15. The parties have juridical personality and capacity, are shown to be legitimate and are regularly represented (articles 4 and 10, no. 2, of the RJAT and article 1 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011 of 22 March).
The tribunal is competent and is regularly constituted.
The case does not suffer from any nullities.
No exceptions were raised.
There are no other circumstances that would prevent knowledge of the merits of the case.
In these terms, the Arbitral Tribunal is regularly constituted to examine and decide the subject matter of the case.
III - MERITS
III.1. Facts
16. Proven Facts
16.1. With relevance for the examination and decision of the questions raised, the following facts are taken as established and proven:
A) A… S.A. is the owner of the urban properties located at… and… and Avenue… no.…, registered in the urban property register under article numbers… and… of the Union of Parishes… and…, municipality of Matosinhos, district of Porto.
B) The properties identified in the preceding subparagraph are described in their respective Property Ledgers as "Land for construction".
C) The properties identified in subparagraph A) are covered by Subdivision Permit no…/91, subject to amendment no…/07, of 10 July. The said Permit provides for the construction of seven lots (numbered 2 to 8) with the following destinations: Lot 2 and 8 - collective housing; Lot 3, 4, 5 and 6 - collective housing and commercial; Lot 7 - collective housing and offices.
D) The Finance Service of Porto-… issued on 20-03-2015, relative to the properties identified in subparagraph A), Stamp Tax assessments for the year 2014, which are set out in the following table:
| Assessment No. | Article | Taxable Base | Rate | Tax | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014… | … | 2,675,953.36 | 1% | 26,759.53 | 8,919.84 -1st instalment<br>8,919.84 -2nd instalment<br>8,919.84 -3rd instalment |
| 2014… | … | 2,751,118.07 | 1% | 27,511.18 | 9,170.39 -1st instalment<br>9,170.39 -2nd instalment<br>9,170.39 -3rd instalment |
E) Due to the assessment carried out by the Tax Administration, the tax values of the properties registered under article numbers… and… were changed respectively to €1,975,450.00 and €2,030,549.00. As a consequence, the assessments identified in the preceding subparagraph were corrected on 14-05-2015 and became those set out in the following table:
| Assessment No. | Article | Taxable Base | Rate | Tax | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014… | … | 1,975,450.00 | 1% | 19,754.50 | 6,584.83-1st instalment<br>6,584.83-2nd instalment<br>6,584.83-3rd instalment |
| 2014… | … | 2,030,640.00 | 1% | 20,306.40 | 6,768.80 -1st instalment<br>6,768.80 -2nd instalment<br>6,768.80 -3rd instalment |
F) By virtue of the Claimant having paid on 30-04-2015 the amounts of the 1st instalments of the assessments referred to in subparagraph D), that is, €8,919.84 (for the property registered under article number…) and €9,170.39 (for the property registered under article number…), the Tax and Customs Authority, on 14-05-2015, recalculated the amounts of the 2nd and 3rd instalments, in accordance with the following table:
| Assessment No. | Article | Taxable Base | Rate | Tax | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014… | … | 1,975,450.00 | 1% | 19,754.50 | 8,919.85-1st instalment<br>5,417.33-2nd instalment<br>5,417.32-3rd instalment |
| 2014… | … | 2,030,640.00 | 1% | 20,306.40 | 9,170.40 -1st instalment<br>5,568.00 -2nd instalment<br>5,568.00 -3rd instalment |
(See pages 78 and 79 of the Administrative Record)
G) The Stamp Tax assessments identified in the preceding subparagraphs were notified to the Claimant through the following documents:
i) Property with article number…: Document no. 2015… relating to the 1st instalment in the amount of € 8,919.85; Document no. 2015… relating to the 2nd instalment in the amount of € 5,417.33; Document no. 2015… relating to the 3rd instalment in the amount of € 5,417.32.
ii) Property with article number…: Document no. 2015… relating to the 1st instalment in the amount of € 9,170.40; Document no. 2015… relating to the 2nd instalment in the amount of € 5,568.00; Document no. 2015… relating to the 3rd instalment in the amount of € 5,568.00.
H) The Stamp Tax assessments referred to in the preceding subparagraph, in the total amount of € 40,060.90 were paid in full by the Claimant.
I) On 29-03-2016, the Claimant filed an administrative claim addressed to the Head of Finance Service Porto-…, which was assigned no…2016…, against the Stamp Tax assessment acts identified in subparagraph D).
J) The Tax and Customs Authority did not render any decision on the administrative claim identified in the preceding subparagraph.
16.2. There are no other facts with relevance for the examination of the merits of the case that have not been proven.
16.3. Grounds for the facts
As to the facts taken as proven, the conviction of the Arbitral Tribunal was based on the free appraisal of the documentary evidence attached to the case, the authenticity of which was not challenged, as well as on the analysis of the administrative record remitted by the Respondent.
III.2. Law
17. The Claimant challenges the Stamp Tax assessments identified above with the following grounds: (i) illegality resulting from the erroneous interpretation of item no. 28.1 of the GTST, because it applies only to land for construction with exclusive residential allocation, which is not the case with the properties in question; (ii) illegality resulting from error concerning the legal premises by application of a rule that is materially unconstitutional, with violation of the principles of capacity to contribute and equality.
This must be examined.
18. We shall begin by analyzing the question of whether the two properties at issue in this case are covered by the scope of application of item 28.1 of the GTST, in the wording given by Law no. 83-C/2013 of 31 December.
19. Law no. 55-A/2012 of 29 October introduced various amendments to the Stamp Tax Code and, through article 4, added item 28 to the GTST with the following wording:
"28 — Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose tax value included in the property register, under the terms of the Municipal Property Tax Code (CIMI), is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000 - on the tax value used for Municipal Property Tax purposes:
28.1 — For property with residential allocation - 1%;
28.2 — For property, when the taxpayers who are not natural persons are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime, contained in the list approved by ordinance of the Minister of Finance - 7.5%."
Subsequently, Law no. 83-C/2013 of 31 December (State Budget Law for 2014), through article 194, amended the wording of item 28.1 of the GTST, which then had the following content:
"28.1- For residential property or for land for construction whose building, authorized or provided for, is for residential purposes, under the terms provided in the Municipal Property Tax Code— 1%."
The new wording given to item 28.1 of the GTST by article 194 of Law no. 83-C/2013 of 31 December broadens the objective scope of incidence of the rule by expressly including land for construction, provided it has building for residential purposes authorized or provided for.
The wording of item 28.1 of the GTST resulting from the provision in Law no. 83-C/2013 of 31 December is applicable ratione temporis to the situation sub judice.
The demonstration that a property has building for residential purposes authorized or provided for goes far beyond the property registration. In fact, the inclusion of land for construction in item 28.1 of the GTST presupposes that there exists a provision or expectation of building for residential purposes which is materialized through compliance with the legal and administrative requirements necessary for such building. To this effect, ANTÓNIO SANTOS ROCHA and EDUARDO JOSÉ MARTINS BRÁS (in Taxation of Property. Municipal Property Tax-Property Transfer Tax and Stamp Tax (Annotated and Commented), Almedina, 2015, pp. 44) state:
"With respect to land for construction, whether or not located within an urban agglomeration, as defined in art. 3/4 of this statute (CIMI), should as such be considered land relative to which has been granted:
· license for subdivision operation,
· license for construction,
· authorization for subdivision operation,
· authorization for construction,
· accepted favorable communication of subdivision or construction operation,
· issued prior favorable information of subdivision or construction operation, as well as
· those that have been so declared in the acquisition title, it being noted that, for this purpose as well, only the acquisition title with the form prescribed by civil law should be relevant, that is, the public deed or the authenticated private document referred to in article 875 of the Civil Code." (End of quotation)
The legal and administrative requirements set out above constitute one of the necessary requirements for the inclusion of land for construction in item 28.1 of the GTST. Consequently, the application of this item of the GTST is only possible when, beyond the property registration of an asset as "land for construction," there exists administrative recognition of the potential for building for residential purposes on the said land.
On the meaning of item 28.1 of the GTST, in the wording given by article 194 of Law no. 83-C/2013, we agree with the position adopted in the CAAD Judgment of 19 April 2016 rendered in case no. 578/2015-T, from which we transcribe (p. 16):
"(...) the incidence of Stamp Tax on land for construction cannot materialize with mere registration of the same as such in the property register, but rather, and decisively, by the verification of the actual potential for building on the said properties (which must be ascertained in this case and revealed through the existence of the documents described above). In other words, in other terms, the incidence of the tax, for purposes of the provision in item 28.1, only materializes with the verification of "actual allocation," to use the apt expression of JOSÉ MANUEL FERNANDES PIRES (op. cit., p. 507). Without that demonstration of the actual potential for building (...) the purposes underlying the new wording of the legal text of item 28.1 of the GTST are not shown to be fulfilled" (End of quotation)
20. The property ledger attached to the case confirms that the properties in question are described as "land for construction".
Although the properties at issue in the present arbitral case are registered as "land for construction," this does not justify the automatic application of item 28.1 of the GTST, since mere property registration does not, in itself, constitute demonstration that a property has building for residential purposes authorized or provided for.
The Claimant asserts that the properties in question "(…) did not have, in 2014, any construction erected on their soil, being mere land for construction;" (See no. 4, b), of the Request for Arbitral Pronouncement).
Furthermore, attached to the present case is the Subdivision Permit identified in subparagraph C) of point 16.1 of the present decision, which attests that the properties in question will be affected by commercial use and collective housing.
Thus, from the analysis of the present arbitral case it results that it was not demonstrated that the properties in question, described as land for construction, have building, authorized or provided for, exclusively for residential purposes as required by item 28.1 of the GTST.
21. Given the factual circumstances subject to the present arbitral case and in view of what was set out in the preceding paragraphs, we conclude that the Stamp Tax assessments are illegal due to error attributable to the Tax Administration in the application of item 28.1 of the GTST to the properties in question.
Consequently, we conclude that the Tax and Customs Authority should be condemned to refund the amounts paid by the Claimant (see subparagraph H) of point 16.1 of the present decision) relating to the Stamp Tax assessments referred to, in accordance with the provision in article 173, no. 1, of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (CPTA), pursuant to article 29, no. 1, subparagraph c), of the RJAT.
22. The Claimant further alleges the unconstitutionality of item 28.1 of the GTST, in the wording given by Law no. 83-C/2013 of 31 December, due to violation of the constitutional principles of equality and capacity to contribute.
Considering the provision in article 124 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process (CPPT), subsidiary applicable by virtue of the provision in article 29, no. 1 of the RJAT, and due to the declaration of illegality of the tax assessment acts under examination in the preceding paragraph, knowledge of the constitutional defect invoked by the Claimant is moot.
23. It now remains to examine the Claimant's request, formulated in the Request for Arbitral Pronouncement and in the Submissions, for payment of "the respective legal interest".
On the basis of article 24, no. 5, of the RJAT, it has been understood that it is possible to recognize the right to indemnitary interest in arbitral cases.
Under article 43, no. 1, of the General Tax Law, indemnitary interest is due when it is determined, in administrative claim or judicial challenge, that there has been error attributable to the Tax Administration services from which results payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than legally due.
The necessary condition for the attribution of indemnitary interest consists of demonstration of the existence of error concerning the factual or legal premises attributable to the Tax Administration services.
In the present case, the Tax and Customs Authority made an erroneous application of item 28.1 of the GTST to the said properties, as referred to in paragraphs nos. 20 and 21 of the present arbitral decision, which leads to the annulment of the tax acts in question and the consequent refund of the amounts paid by the Claimant. Thus, it is concluded, without need for further consideration, that the request for payment of indemnitary interest to the Claimant is merited.
IV - DECISION
In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal decides:
- To adjudge well-founded the request for arbitral pronouncement and to annul, with all legal consequences, the Stamp Tax assessments for the year 2014 with numbers 2014… and 2014….
- To adjudge well-founded the request for arbitral pronouncement as to the recognition of the right to indemnitary interest in favor of the Claimant.
V - VALUE OF THE CASE
Given the factual matters proven (see subparagraphs F), G) and H) of no. 16.1 of the present arbitral decision) and the provisions of articles 32 of the CPTA, 306, no. 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure and 97-A of the CPPT, applicable by virtue of the provision in article 29, no. 1, subparagraphs a) and b), of the RJAT, and article 3, no. 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (RCPAT), the value of the case is fixed at € 40,060.90 (forty thousand and sixty euros and ninety cents).
VI - COSTS
Costs charged to the Respondent in the amount of € 2,142.00 (two thousand one hundred and forty-two euros), in accordance with Table I of the RCPAT, in compliance with the provisions of articles 12, no. 2, and 22, no. 4, both of the RJAT, as well as the provision in article 4, no. 4, of the RCPAT.
Let notification be made.
Lisbon, Administrative Arbitration Centre, 14 June 2017
The Arbitrator
Olívio Mota Amador
Text prepared by computer, in accordance with the provision in article 131, no. 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference to article 29, no. 1, subparagraph e), of the RJAT.
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created