Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRAL DECISION
The Arbitrator Raquel Franco, designated by the Deontological Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre (CAAD) to form the single arbitral tribunal constituted on 12 January 2017, decides as follows:
I. REPORT
1) Procedural Framework
On 27.10.2016, the company "A…, S. A.", NIPC…, submitted a request for constitution of a single arbitral tribunal, in accordance with the combined provisions of articles 2nd and 10th of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime of Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as LRAT), in which the Tax and Customs Authority (AT) is the Respondent.
The request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the Honourable President of CAAD and automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority on 11.11.2016.
In accordance with the provisions of article 6th, No. 2, paragraph a) and article 11th, No. 1, paragraph b) of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228th of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Council designated the undersigned as arbitrator of the single arbitral tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable timeframe, and notified the parties of this designation on 28.12.2016.
Thus, in accordance with the provisions of article 11th, No. 1, paragraph c) of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, as amended by article 228th of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the single arbitral tribunal was constituted on 12.01.2017, following the relevant legal procedures.
2) Summary of the Claimant's Arguments
In this proceeding, the Claimant requests that the Arbitral Tribunal declare the illegality, on grounds of violation of law, of the following acts:
a) Stamp Tax assessment act of 20.03.2015, in the amount of €11,779.30, relating to the year 2014, on the basis of item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax; and
b) Formation of the presumption of tacit dismissal of the Administrative Complaint of 29.03.2016, which proceeded at the Tax Service of ..., which upheld that assessment, and which constitutes a second-degree act in relation to that assessment, adopting its illegalities.
The Claimant understands that the aforesaid assessment and subsequent acts are affected, cumulatively, by the following defects:
a) Illegality resulting from erroneous interpretation of Item 28.1, in that it applies only to land for construction with exclusive allocation to housing - which, as will be demonstrated, is not the case of the land in question, with the legislator having opted not to tax the productive sector; and further
b) Illegality resulting from an error regarding the legal prerequisites by application of a materially unconstitutional norm, on the grounds of violation of the principles of contributive capacity and equality.
It supports its thesis on the following arguments:
The stamp tax assessment in accordance with the tax rule contained in item 28.1 of the GTST depends on the following requirements:
- The VPT contained in the assessment roll, in accordance with the IMI Code, being equal to or greater than €1,000,000;
- Being land for construction; and further
- The authorized and intended construction for the same being exclusively for housing, in accordance with the IMI Code.
It results from the Building Permit attached as document number 3 that the property in question is not intended solely for housing, but has, rather, a mixed allocation: multi-family housing and commerce.
Thus, it is evident that the third requirement contained in the rule of incidence of the Tax is not met, since the land does not have authorized or intended construction exclusively allocated to housing.
In this sense, they point to the arbitral decision issued in process No. 642/2015-T, according to which: "What is not provided for in item 28, nor does it fall within its ratio legis is the taxation under Stamp Tax of commercial urban properties or land for construction whose building is allocated to commerce nor land for construction whose building is simultaneously allocated to housing and commerce. There must be a restrictive interpretation of the rule contained in item 28 as applying only to land for construction whose authorized building is exclusively for housing. And in the concrete case, as results from the Building Permit No. .../2006, lots 38 and 39 of which the Claimant is the owner constitute land for construction of value greater than €1,000,000.00 but whose authorized building is not exclusively for housing but simultaneously for housing and commerce, more precisely, an area of 6,750.00 m² allocated to housing and another of 840 m² allocated to commerce, in each lot. Not being covered by the rule of incidence of item 28.1 of the GTST, land for construction whose authorized building is simultaneously for housing and for commerce, there is a defect of violation of law, whereby the taxation in question is improper, verifying the illegality of the acts of assessment of the Stamp Tax in question."
In the same sense, it also cites the decisions issued in processes 578/2015-T and 522/2015-T.
The Claimant further understands that there is a violation of the principles of equality and contributive capacity, to the extent that the Claimant acquires properties as the pursuit of its corporate purpose, which, verifying, in accordance with accounting rules, their accounting as inventory, that is, mere stock items, means that the same are mere instruments of the company's activity and not forms of manifestation of wealth.
Thus, the acquisition of land cannot be considered as evidence of increased contributive capacity, being discriminatory for the Claimant to be taxed in the same terms as taxpayers who hold similar assets, but without any productive use.
The Claimant also cites two arbitral awards No. 493/2015 and 507/2015 when they understand that the rule is equally violative of the principle of equality when "item 28.1 of the GTST, in the part relating to land for construction, does not contain any limitation on its application as a function of the value of the "housing" authorized or intended, whereby it must be concluded that it only makes its application dependent on the patrimonial tax value of the land itself." - cf. arbitral decision in the context of process No. 493/2015.
3) Summary of the AT's Counter-Arguments
It appears from the administrative process No. …/2017 sent by Tax Service ..., and immediately from the assessment procedure, that the land is intended for housing, with a location factor of 1.45, this assessment made on the basis of elements declared by the taxpayer in IMI model 1 declaration, for registration of the property in the assessment roll, as stated in the assessment notification, with the VTP being fixed at €11,779.30.
According to information provided by the Tax Service of ... to instruct this arbitral proceeding, information dated 24.01.2017, and in accordance with points 6, 7 and 8, given the new wording of the item, the ST assessments are correct, in that the land for construction in question was assigned, in the assessment, a housing allocation.
The assessment records the existence of land for construction, with housing allocation, with a VTP of €11,779.30, without a second assessment having been requested.
The fact that the subdivision permit provides for the construction of multi-family housing, with a percentage of area allocated to commerce and parking, none of these realities had any reflection in the assessment which was not contested, thus passed to the assessment roll.
Thus, the property registered in the urban assessment roll under article ... of the parish City of ..., municipality of Maia, has 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 housing allocation, in accordance with the provisions of the IMI Code, without, for purposes of ST assessment, having excluded from the value the area not allocated to housing, because it does not appear in the assessment and this was not contested, and therefore it also does not appear in the assessment roll that serves as the basis for the ST assessment.
As for the arguments relating to the unconstitutionality of the rule on which the taxation is based, the AT understands that "the tax legislator considered that the ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of a residential property or land for construction whose building, authorized or intended, was for housing, with a VPT equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00 represented a manifestation of wealth and was capable, by itself, of revealing significant contributive capacity, thus making item 28.1 of the GTST apply to the possession of certain types of properties, by contrast with income from work and pensions, already affected by other tax measures (and not only)."
II. CASE MANAGEMENT
1. The Tribunal is competent and is regularly constituted, in accordance with articles 2nd, No. 1, paragraph a), 5th and 6th, all of the LRAT.
2. The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are legally represented, in accordance with articles 4th and 10th of the LRAT and article 1st of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.
3. The proceeding is not affected by defects that would invalidate it.
III. FACTS
Before addressing the legal issues, it is necessary to present the factual matter relevant to its understanding and decision, which, examined the documentary evidence and the administrative proceeding (AP) attached to the case and also considering the alleged facts, is established as follows:
III.1 Proven Facts
- The Claimant is the owner and legitimate proprietor of the urban property registered in the competent urban assessment roll under article ... (cf. property record attached as document number 2 with the arbitral motion).
- The identified urban property has no construction or building erected on its land;
- In accordance with the subdivision permit, the said Lot, with the number A2, was intended for the construction of a property for multi-family housing and commerce (document number 3 attached with the arbitral motion).
- The patrimonial tax value of the said land is €1,177,930 (document 2 attached with the arbitral motion).
- During the year 2015, the Claimant was notified of the documents for payment of Stamp Tax subject to the arbitral motion, assessed under Item 28.1 of the GTST, in the total amount of €11,779.30 (documents 4, 5 and 6 attached with the arbitral motion).
- The Claimant proceeded to payment of the total amount assessed (documents 7, 8 and 9 attached with the arbitral motion).
- On 29.03.2016, the Claimant submitted an Administrative Complaint to the Tax Service of ...
- On 29.07.2016, the presumption of tacit dismissal of the Administrative Complaint was formed.
III.2 Unproven Facts
There are no facts relevant to the decision that were found to be unproven.
III.3 Reasoning Regarding Factual Matters
The decision regarding factual matters is based on the documents attached to the case, which are reproduced here, as well as on the absence of controversy regarding them as to the indicated points.
IV. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
The fundamental question that the Claimant has placed before this tribunal is whether, in the concrete case, the assessment was based on an illegal application of the rule contained in item 28.1 of the GTST for not being "land for construction whose building, authorized or intended, is for housing".
V. LEGAL REASONING
In the wording applicable at the date of the facts, as given by Law No. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, Item 28 of the GTST, provided as follows:
"28. Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose patrimonial tax value contained in the assessment roll, in accordance with the Municipal Property Tax Code (MPTC), is equal to or greater than (euro) 1,000,000 - on the patrimonial tax value used for purposes of IMI:
28.1. Per residential property or per land for construction whose building, authorized or intended, is for housing, in accordance with the provisions of the IMI Code. 1%
28.2. Per property, when the taxpayers who are not individuals are residents 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%"
In accordance with item 28.1 of the GTST, in its original wording, subject to that tax were the ownership, usufruct and right of superficies over urban properties with housing allocation whose patrimonial tax value contained in the assessment roll, in accordance with the IMI Code, was equal to or greater than €1,000,000. Later, with the amendment that occurred in 2013 and which had repercussions in the years 2014 and following, land for construction whose building, authorized or intended, is for housing, in accordance with the provisions of the IMI Code, also became subject to taxation at the rate of 1%.
Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, introduced a series of amendments to the codifying diplomas of three taxes – Personal Income Tax (IRS), Corporate Income Tax (IRC) and Stamp Tax – as well as to the General Tax Law, among which the rule contained in item 28.1 of the GTST, all guided toward obtaining supplementary tax revenue and, in general, toward counteracting the budgetary imbalance then experienced to an extreme degree by the country. Measures were introduced to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and evasion and were created, within the scope of Stamp Tax, the taxation of legal situations (expression added to No. 1 of article 1st of the Stamp Tax Code), which were understood to be demonstrative of the capacity of their respective holders to bear increased tax effort, thus distributing more equitably the burden to achieve the budgetary consolidation required from taxpayers. This is what results from the explanatory memorandum of Bill No. 96/XII/2nd, which was at the origin of the aforesaid Law No. 55-A/2012:
"The pursuit of the public interest, given the economic and financial situation of the Country, requires a consolidation effort that will require, in addition to permanent activism in reducing public expenditure, the introduction of fiscal measures inserted in a broader set of measures to combat budgetary deficit.
These measures are fundamental to reinforce the principle of social equity in austerity, guaranteeing an effective distribution of the sacrifices necessary to comply with the adjustment program. The Government is strongly committed to ensuring that the distribution of these sacrifices will be borne by all and not only by those living on labor income. In accordance with this goal, this law expands the taxation of capital income and property, equitably covering a broad set of sectors of Portuguese society.
In these terms, the taxation of capital income and capital gains will be increased, with the respective rates going from 25% to 26.5% under Personal Income Tax. The rates of taxation applicable to income obtained from, or transferred to, tax havens are also increased to 35%.
On the other hand, a rate is created under Stamp Tax applying to urban properties with housing allocation whose patrimonial tax value is equal to or greater than one million euros.
Finally, this law introduces a measure to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and evasion, through the strengthening of the regime applicable to manifestations of fortune of taxpayers (Personal Income Tax) and transfers to and from tax havens. First, the operationalization of Personal Income Tax assessment based on manifestations of fortune is strengthened, reducing the differential from 50% to 30% between manifestations of fortune and income declared under Personal Income Tax. On the other hand, transfers to and from tax havens made between accounts of the taxpayer, not declared in accordance with law, now become a manifestation of fortune and, accordingly, subject to taxation under Personal Income Tax by indirect methods."
Within the scope of applicability of that previous wording of item 28.1 of the GTST, it was concluded in various tax arbitration proceedings that the expression "housing allocation", contained in the text of the rule then in force, referred to a "use" for housing, that is, to urban properties that had an actual use for residential purposes (cf., namely, proceedings 42/2013-T, 48/2013-T, 49/2013-T, 53/2013-T, 75/2013-T, 144/2013-T and 158/2013-T). The Supreme Administrative Court (STA) further understood, in the Judgment issued in process No. 048/14, of 09.04.2014, that "(...)since the legislator did not define the concept of "(urban) properties with housing allocation", and it results from article 6 of the IMI Code (subsidiarily applicable to Stamp Tax provided for in the new item No. 28 of the General Table) a clear distinction between "residential urban properties" and "land for construction", these cannot be considered, for purposes of incidence of Stamp Tax (Item 28.1 of the GTST, in the wording of Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October), as urban properties with housing allocation( (...)"
The concept of "(urban) property with housing allocation" was not defined by the legislator. Neither in Law No. 55-A/2012, which introduced it, nor in the IMI Code, to which No. 2 of article 67 of the Stamp Tax Code (also introduced by that Law), refers on a subsidiary basis. And it is a concept that, probably due to its imprecision, had a short life, as it was abandoned upon the entry into force of the State Budget Law for 2014 (Law No. 83-C/2013, of 31 December), which gave new wording to that item No. 28 of the General Table, and which now defines its scope of objective incidence through the use of concepts that are legally defined in article 6 of the IMI Code.
Within the scope of the current wording, notwithstanding that in determining the patrimonial tax value of urban properties classified as land for construction the allocation of the building authorized or intended for them is taken into account (cf. Nos. 1 and 2 of article 45 of the MPTC), this does not determine that land for construction can be classified as "properties with housing allocation", because "housing allocation" always appears in the IMI Code referred to "buildings" or "constructions", existing, authorized or intended, because only these can be inhabited, which is not the case with land for construction, which do not, in themselves, have conditions for this, not being capable of being used for housing unless and until the building authorized and intended for them is erected (but in that case they would no longer be "land for construction" but another species of urban properties – "residential", "commercial, industrial or for services" or "other" – article 6 of the MPTC).
Thus, given that land for construction – regardless of the type and purpose of the building that will be, or may be, erected on it – does not satisfy, by itself, any condition to be licensed as such or to be defined as having housing as its normal purpose, and referring the rule of incidence of stamp tax to urban properties with "housing allocation", without any specific concept being established for the purpose, cannot be extracted from it that it contains a future potentiality, inherent to a distinct property that may perhaps be built on the land. In fact, referring to urban properties, No. 1 of article 6 of the MPTC distinguishes various species, dividing them into residential, commercial, industrial or for services, land for construction and other, according to the following criteria:
- "residential, commercial, industrial or for services" – buildings or constructions for such licensed or, in the absence of license, which have as their normal purpose each of these aims (cf. article 6, No. 2 of the MPTC);
- "land for construction", land situated within or outside an urban agglomeration, for which a license or authorization for a subdivision or construction operation has been granted, prior communication admitted or favorable prior information issued and which have been declared as such in the acquisition title, excepting land in which the competent entities prohibit any of those operations, namely those located in green areas, protected areas or which, in accordance with municipal land use plans, are allocated to spaces, infrastructures or public equipment" (cf. article 6, No. 3 of the MPTC, as amended by Law No. 64-A/2008, of 31/12);
- "Other", are considered as such the land situated within an urban agglomeration that are neither land for construction nor are classified as rustic property, in accordance with their legal concept, and also buildings and constructions licensed, or in the absence of license, which have as their normal purpose other aims than those mentioned above (cf. article 6, No. 4 of the MPTC).
Making taxation apply to urban properties "with housing allocation", the legislator does not, in fact, establish, in the Stamp Tax Code, any specific concept that should be considered for that purpose, rather referring the application of the taxation regime for properties referred to in that Item 28 to the rules of the MPTC, which establish a clear distinction between residential properties and land for construction, the former being so classified according to their municipal license, or, if this does not exist, as a result of normal use and the latter are defined according to their legal potentiality. In this light, land for construction - regardless of the type and purpose of the building that will be, or may be, erected on it, including that intended for housing - does not meet by itself the requirement provided for in items 28 and 28.1 of the GTST, that is, that "(...) the building "authorized or intended, is for housing (...)". In fact, referring the rule of incidence of stamp tax to urban properties with housing allocation, without any specific concept being established for the purpose, cannot be extracted from it that it contains a future potentiality, together with others, inherent to a distinct property that may perhaps be built on the land. The expression "with housing allocation" conveys, in simple reading, an idea of actual and present functionality.
On the other hand, the understanding that the concept of "housing allocation" derives from the rule of article 45 of the MPTC cannot be accepted either, because this refers to the rules applicable in determining the patrimonial value of land for construction establishing that this is what results from the value of the area of implantation of the building to be constructed added to the land adjacent to the implantation. In fixing the value of that area, a percentage is considered, varying between 15% and 45%, of the value of buildings authorized or intended. On the other hand again, nothing in law allows the conclusion that the legislator of stamp tax intended to extend, for purposes of incidence of this tax, to the species provided for in No. 1 of article 6 of the MPTC, given that the application of a coefficient of allocation refers to one of the elements to be considered in the assessment of the land, that is, in determining the value of buildings authorized or intended. Regardless of whether, in determining the value of buildings authorized or intended for land for construction, a coefficient of allocation should or should not be considered, it is admitted, as it is obvious and of general knowledge, that the value of a land is decisively influenced by the type and characteristics of those buildings. However, this is a matter that goes beyond the question on which the present request for arbitral motion is based.
In the circumstances referred to, the fact that, for a given land for construction, the building of a property intended for housing, or for any other purpose, is authorized, even though it should be considered in its assessment for purposes of determining the patrimonial tax value, does not determine any change in the classification of the land for construction which, for tax purposes, continues to be so considered. As such, resulting from article 6 of the MPTC a clear distinction between, on the one hand, residential urban properties and, on the other hand, land for construction, the latter cannot be considered, for purposes of incidence of stamp tax, as "properties with housing allocation".
Now, in view of the evidence produced, it does not appear that, on the land in question, buildings intended exclusively for housing are authorized or intended; on the contrary, it was demonstrated that this allocation could be for housing as well as for other purposes. Being residential purposes only one of the potentialities of the buildings that may eventually be erected on the land, without demonstrating that there were, at the date of assessment, concrete licensing for those purposes, the exclusion of taxation of the property in question follows under item 28.1 of the GTST (moreover, currently repealed by article 210, No. 2 of Law No. 42/2016 – State Budget Law for 2017).
In this essential line of orientation are, as referred to, among others the decisions issued by the Arbitral Tribunals constituted within the scope of CAAD, in proceedings Nos. 522/2015-T, 532/2015-T, 467/2015-T (citing several judgments of the STA), 578/2015-T, 642/2015-T, 551/2015-T and 412/2016-T, available online on the CAAD website (www.caad.org.pt).
VI. MATTERS OF PREJUDICED JURISDICTION
In a judgment, the judge must rule on all matters that he must decide, refraining from ruling on matters that he does not have to decide (final segment of No. 1 of article 125 of the TTCP), and the matters on which the tribunal's powers of cognition rest are, in accordance with No. 2 of article 608 of the CPC, applicable on a subsidiary basis to tax arbitral proceedings, by referral of article 29, No. 1, paragraph e) of the LRAT, "the matters that the parties have submitted to its decision, excepting those whose decision is prejudiced by the solution given to others (...)".
Resulting from what is stated above the declaration of illegality of the assessment object of this proceeding – main request -, by virtue of violation of law that prevents the renewal of the acts, the knowledge of the defects imputed by the Claimant becomes prejudiced.
In fact, article 124 of the TTCP, subsidiarily applicable by virtue of the provisions of article 29, No. 1, of the LRAT, when establishing an order of knowledge of defects, presupposes that, once a defect is judged to be sustained that ensures effective protection of the rights of those challenging, it is not necessary to consider the remainder, because, if it were always necessary to consider all the defects imputed to the challenged act, the order of their consideration would be irrelevant.
For what is stated, knowledge of the remaining defects imputed by the Claimant to acts whose declaration of illegality was requested is not taken; that is: given the solution to the question relating to the concept of "property with housing allocation/land for construction with housing allocation", the knowledge of the constitutionality questions raised by the Claimant becomes prejudiced.
VII. INDEMNITY INTEREST
In accordance with the provisions of article 24, paragraph b) of the LRAT, the arbitral decision on the merits of the claim for which no appeal or challenge is possible binds the tax administration from the end of the period set for appeal or challenge, it being required, in the exact terms of the success of the arbitral decision in favor of the taxpayer and until the end of the period set for spontaneous execution of judgments of tax courts, to "restore the situation that would exist if the tax act subject to the arbitral decision had not been made, adopting the acts and operations necessary for that purpose", which is in keeping with the provisions of article 100 of the GTL [applicable by virtue of the provisions of paragraph a) of No. 1 of article 29 of the LRAT] which establishes that "the Tax Administration is obliged, in case of total or partial success of complaint, judicial challenge or appeal in favor of the taxpayer, to immediate and complete restoration of the legality of the act or situation subject to the dispute, including the payment of indemnity interest, if applicable, from the end of the period for execution of the decision".
Although article 2, No. 1, paragraphs a) and b) of the LRAT uses the expression "declaration of illegality" to define the competence of arbitral tribunals operating within CAAD, making no reference to condemnatory decisions, it should be understood that its competencies include the powers that in judicial challenge proceedings are attributed to tax courts, and this is the interpretation that is in keeping with the sense of the legislative authorization on which the Government based itself to approve the LRAT, in which it proclaims, as first guideline, that "the tax arbitral proceeding should constitute an alternative procedural means to judicial challenge proceedings and to the action for the recognition of a right or legitimate interest in tax matters".
The judicial challenge proceeding, although essentially a proceeding for annulment of tax acts, admits the condemnation of the Tax Administration to the payment of indemnity interest, as can be seen from article 43, No. 1 of the GTL, in which it is established that "indemnity interest is due when it is determined, in administrative complaint or judicial challenge, that there was error attributable to the services resulting in payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than legally due" and from article 61, No. 4 of the TTCP (as amended by Law No. 55-A/2010, of 31 December, to which corresponds No. 2 in the original wording), that "if the decision that recognized the right to indemnity interest is judicial, the period for payment is counted from the beginning of the period for its spontaneous execution".
Thus, No. 5 of article 24 of the LRAT in stating that "payment of interest is due, regardless of its nature, in accordance with the terms provided for in general tax law and in the Code of Tax Procedure and Process" should be understood as permitting the recognition of the right to indemnity interest in the arbitral proceeding.
This is the situation in the case in question, that is, the AT will return the tax paid, with payment of indemnity interest in the terms exposed, with the AT determining the amount to be returned to the Claimant and calculating the respective indemnity interest, at the legal supplementary rate for civil debts, in accordance with articles 35, No. 10, and 43, Nos 1 and 5, of the GTL, 61 of the TTCP, 559 of the Civil Code and Ordinance No. 291/2003, of 8 April (or diploma or diplomas that succeed it), with the indemnity interest being due from the dates of the payments now judged to be improper to that of the processing of the credit note, in which they are included (article 61, No. 5 of the TTCP).
VIII. DECISION
In these terms it is decided:
a) To adjudicate fully in favor of the claim;
b) To declare, in consequence, the illegality of the stamp tax assessment subject to the motion and to annul the respective collection notices;
c) To condemn the Tax and Customs Authority to the restitution of the amounts paid relating to the aforesaid assessments and collection notices, with indemnity interest in the terms stated above; and
d) To condemn also the Tax and Customs Authority in the costs of this proceeding.
Value of the Proceeding
The value of the proceeding is fixed at €11,779.30, in accordance with article 97-A, No. 1, a), of the TTCP, applicable by virtue of paragraphs a) and b) of No. 1 of article 29 of the LRAT and No. 2 of article 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.
Costs
The amount of the arbitration fee is fixed at €918.00, in accordance with Table I of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, to be paid by the Respondent, since the claim was fully successful, in accordance with articles 12, No. 2 and 22, No. 4, both of the LRAT, and article 4, No. 4, of the aforesaid Regulation.
It shall be registered and notified.
Lisbon, 04 July 2017
The Arbitrator,
Raquel Franco
Frequently Asked Questions
Automatically Created