CAAD Arbitration 68/2014-T: IUC Vehicle Tax Liquidation Annulment Ruling

ARBITRATION DECISION

I. - REPORT

A - PARTIES

The company A…, SA, designated as the "Applicant", with registered office at Street …, with the collective person number …, challenging the tax proceedings referred to above and marginally referenced herein, came, invoking the provisions of Article 10 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (hereinafter RJAT), to request the constitution of a single arbitral tribunal, with a view to the appraisal of the following claim that opposes it to the Tax and Customs Authority, hereinafter designated as "Respondent" or "AT".

B - APPLICATION

1 - The application for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal was accepted by the Honourable President of CAAD on 28/01/2014 and notified to the Tax and Customs Authority (AT) on the same date.

2 - In accordance with the provisions of No. 1 of Article 6 and of paragraph a) of No. 1 of Article 11 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, the Ethics Council designated, on 13/03/2014, as single arbitrator António Manuel Correia Valente, who communicated his acceptance of the assignment.

3 - On 13-03-2014 the Parties were notified of this designation, in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 11, No. 1, paragraph b) of the RJAT, in the wording introduced by Article 228 of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, and in Articles 6 and 7 of the Code of Ethics, and the Parties did not manifest any intention to reject the designation of the arbitrator.

4 - In these circumstances, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph c) of No. 1 of Article 11 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, in the wording introduced by Article 228 of Law No. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the arbitral tribunal was regularly constituted on 28/03/2014.

5 - On 02 July 2014, a meeting was held with the Parties as referred to in Article 18 of the RJAT, from which minutes were drawn up and are attached to the case file, and at which some corrections were made to the procedural pleadings of the Applicant and the Respondent, namely with respect to the collection acts referenced in the request for arbitral decision.

For this purpose, as fixed in the aforementioned minutes, it became clear that 277 vehicles were in question, to which 277 collection notifications corresponded, which in turn corresponded to 580 collection acts of IUC and compensatory interest.

On the other hand, both the Applicant and the Respondent raised the necessity to produce written submissions, and for this purpose, a simultaneous period of 10 days was granted.

6 - The Applicant herein seeks that this Arbitral Tribunal:

• Declare the illegality and consequent annulment of 580 collection acts, relating to both the Single Vehicle Tax (hereinafter designated as IUC), referring to the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, and to the compensatory interest associated therewith, registered in 277 collection notifications referenced in the case, relating to 277 vehicles, identified in the case file, and which are hereby deemed to be fully reproduced, the amount of which totals € 48,111.31.

C - BASIS OF CLAIM

7 - The Applicant, in the substantiation of its request for arbitral decision, substantiation which it reiterates in written submissions duly produced, states, in summary, the following:

8 - That in the exercise of its activity, it imports into Portugal motor vehicles of the brands Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep, which are sold to distributors integrated into its distribution network, who, in turn and subsequently, resell them to final consumers.

9 - That it has the status of a registered operator, and in that capacity, has the power to print Vehicle Customs Declarations - VAD, with a view to the introduction of the vehicles into consumption.

10 - That, after the issuance of the Vehicle Customs Declarations and once the Vehicle Tax, if due, has been paid, it requests from the IMTT the assignment of a certificate of registration, which only happens when one of its distributors informs it that a purchase and sale contract has been concluded for a particular vehicle.

11 - That, being the presentation of the VAD mandatory for the purposes of requesting the certificate of registration, the first registration of each vehicle is always processed/completed in the name of the Applicant.

12 - That, in light of the provisions of No. 1 of Article 3 and of No. 1 of Article 6, both of the CIUC, the taxable event of the IUC is constituted by the ownership of the vehicles, as attested by the registration or registration in national territory, and the taxpayers of that tax are the persons in whose names they are registered.

13 - That, although Article 3 of the CIUC provides that the taxpayers of the IUC are the registered owners of the vehicles, this is a rebuttable presumption, allowing demonstration that the vehicles, although registered in the name of the Applicant, were transferred to third parties before the occurrence of the tax's exigibility.

14 - That, in accordance with the provisions of No. 1 of Article 17 of the CIUC, in the year of the registration of the vehicle in national territory, the IUC is collected by the taxpayer within 30 days following the end of the period legally required for its registration.

15 - That, in accordance with the provisions of No. 2 of Article 42 of the Vehicle Registration Regulations, if it is an initial property registration, the vehicle must be registered within 60 days from the date of the assignment of the registration.

16 - That, between the assignment of the registration and the end of the period for collection and payment of the tax, there is a period of 90 days, resulting from the 60-day period for registration, plus 30 days for collection and payment of the tax.

17 - That, in light of the provisions of Article 18 of the CIUC, should the absence of property registration occur within the legal period of 60 days, the IUC due in the year of registration is collected from the taxpayer, based on the VAD.

18 - That the applicable legislation allows, in the year of registration, the distinction between two different situations in the field of responsibility for the payment of the IUC, insofar as, if the vehicle is registered within 60 days following the registration, the tax should be collected from the owner of the vehicle appearing in the registration, within thirty days following the end of the registration period; and, if registration is not made within the aforementioned 60 days following the date of registration, the tax in question is collected and demanded, in the year of registration, from the taxpayer of the Vehicle Tax, based on the VAD.

19 - That it proceeded to transfer the ownership of all vehicles identified in the case file, during the course of the period for the corresponding registration, and, consequently, before the period for collection and payment of the tax.

20 - That, in early August 2013, it received 277 collection notifications, from the Finance Office of Oeiras - … in order that, with respect to such notifications, it exercise its right to prior hearing.

21 - That it exercised its right to prior hearing, supported by documents proving that, at the date of collection and due date of the tax, the vehicles were no longer registered in its name, and that it was not, therefore, the taxpayer of the corresponding IUC.

22 - That the Finance Office of Oeiras - … considered the arguments presented, at the prior hearing, to be without merit, holding, on the one hand, that the taxpayers of the tax are the owners of the vehicles, considered as such the persons in whose names they are registered, and, on the other hand, that since the IUC falls due on the first day of the month of registration, it is on that date that it should be ascertained who is the taxpayer of that tax.

23 - That the collection from the Applicant of the taxes in question violates the provisions of the CIUC, insofar as, on the date of collection and within the period for voluntary payment of taxes, it was not the taxpayer, to the extent that, at that time, it was no longer, in fact and in reality, the owner of the vehicles, as shown by the corresponding invoices-receipts, which it attaches as proof of the transfer of ownership of the vehicles in question.

24 - That the invoices-receipts presented as proof of the transfer of ownership of the vehicles in question, in addition to enjoying the presumption of truthfulness, in light of the provisions of No. 1 of Article 75 of the LGT, rebut the presumption established in Article 3 of the CIUC of ownership of the vehicles.

25 - That the ownership of the vehicles is transferred by the mere effect of the contract, and that, as provided in Article 897 of the Civil Code, its essential element is the delivery of the property and the receipt of the price, which occurred with respect to all the vehicles.

26 - That the Applicant, as an importer of motor vehicles, would never be the taxpayer of the single vehicle tax, given the origin of the aforementioned tax and considering the principle of equivalence that informs it.

27 - That the collections of the single vehicle tax in question, made by the Finance Office of Oeiras - 2, are based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the norms of subjective incidence of the IUC, contained in Article 3 of the CIUC, which constitutes the practice of tax acts lacking legality due to errors in the assumptions of fact and law, which determines the annulment of the 580 collection acts in question, relating to the single vehicle tax and compensatory interest.

D - RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT

28 - The Respondent, the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter designated as AT), presented, on 09/05/2014, a Response and proceeded, on the one hand, to attach to the case file a copy of the Tax Administrative Proceeding for the purposes of the provisions, respectively, in Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 17 of the Legal Framework for Tax Arbitration (RJAT), and, on the other hand, presented, duly, as had been established in the meeting of Article 18 of the RJAT, its written submissions, in which, in addition to reiterating the arguments initially presented in the Response, it makes, however, reference to an arbitral decision, relating to Proc. No. 55/2014-T, transcribing part of the aforementioned decision, namely to recall that, in the case of vehicles subject to first registration, it is on the date on which this is effected that the moment of the tax's exigibility is defined, that is, the moment from which the tax creditor can assert, against the debtor, its right to payment of the tax.

29 - In the aforementioned Response and in its submissions, the AT holds that the tax acts in question do not suffer from any defect of violation of law, ruling for the inadmissibility of the request and for the maintenance of the collection acts questioned, defending, in summary:

30 - That all the arguments advanced by the Applicant, having no support in the letter of the law, start from erroneous premises, seeking thereby the application of a system of exclusion from taxation without a basis in the IUC.

31 - That, within the scope of Article 17 of the Vehicle Tax Code - CISV, the introduction into consumption and collection of tax on vehicles that do not have a national registration, is entitled by the issuance of a Vehicle Customs Declaration - VAD, an issuance that constitutes the taxable event, in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the CISV.

32 - That, in accordance with the provisions of No. 4 of Article 117 of the Traffic Code, the registration of vehicles is requested from the IMTT by the entity that proceeds to its admission or introduction into consumption, and it is certain, on the other hand, that, in light of the provisions of No. 1 of Article 24 of the Vehicle Registration Regulations, approved by Decree-Law No. 55/75, of 12 February, as amended by Decree-Law No. 178-A/2005, of 28 October, "The initial property registration of vehicles imported, admitted, assembled, constructed or reconstructed in Portugal is based on the respective application and proof of compliance with fiscal obligations relating to the vehicle".

33 - That, from the articulation of subjective incidence (Article 3 of the CIUC) with the fact constituting the obligation of the tax (Article 6 of the CIUC), the legal situations that generate the birth of the tax obligation, that is, the registration or the registration, arise.

34 - That, in light of the provisions of No. 3 of Article 6 of the CIUC, the tax is deemed exigible on the first day of the tax period referred to in No. 2 of Article 4, which means that the moment from which the tax obligation is constituted has a direct relationship with the issuance of the registration certificate, in which the facts subject to registration must appear.

35 - That, taking into account the provisions of Article 24 of the Vehicle Registration Regulations and the aforementioned norms, the initial property registration of admitted vehicles - as is the case in the case file - is based on the respective application and proof of compliance with fiscal obligations relating to the vehicle, which means that the registration certificate requires the presentation of a VAD, by the Applicant, and automatically gives rise, in accordance with Article 24 of the RRA, to the registration of the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the entity that proceeded to its importation and to the request for registration, that is, the Applicant, which means that the first registration of each vehicle is completed in the name of the importing entity, in the case the Applicant.

36 - That the argumentative framework followed by the Applicant does not find the slightest correspondence with the ratio legis contained in Article 6 of the CIUC, nor with the mens legislatoris.

37 - That the tax legislator did not contemplate that the tax would be due by the owner of the vehicle that was registered within the 60 days to which No. 2 of Article 42 of the RRA alludes, a tax that would be paid within the 30 days following, in accordance with Article 17 of the CIUC.

38 - That the tax legislator also did not contemplate that importers, despite appearing as first owners of the imported vehicles, could see the taxation in the field of IUC eliminated, should the vehicle be registered in the name of another owner within the 60-day period, who collects and pays the IUC within the 30-day period in accordance with Article 17 of the CIUC.

39 - That, what is legally established provides that the taxable event is assessed by the registration or by the registration, expressly providing Article 24 that, once the Vehicle Tax has been paid and registration has been requested, the vehicle is automatically registered in the name of the importer, that is, of the Applicant, and the payment of the IUC is required of him, in accordance with Article 3 of the CIUC. (Cf. Nos. 48 and 49 of the Response)

40 - That, with the vehicles registered in the name of the Applicant, the tax is required of it in accordance with Articles 3 and 6 of the CIUC, and it is not possible to eliminate the subjective incidence of the tax. (Cf. No. 57 of the Response)

41 - That the tax legislator intentionally and expressly wished that the owners, in whose names the vehicles are registered, be considered as taxpayers of the tax.

42 - That, contrary to what is alleged by the Applicant, it cannot be foreseen in what way the provisions of Article 42 of the RRA are applicable, which constitutes, as indeed the provision itself indicates, the period for registrations that occur subsequently, and not for the purposes of first registration.

43 - That, with the vehicles having been registered, first, in the name of the Applicant, it is incumbent upon it to bear the IUC, which may subsequently be passed on to the final consumer, in light of what occurs with the amounts borne by importers with the Vehicle Tax and the VAT. (Cf. Nos. 60 and 61 of the Response)

44 - That, following the understanding advocated by the Applicant, the incidence of the tax would not occur with the 1st registration, in the name of the Applicant, but in the name of the subsequent owner, who proceeded to register within the 60-day period, having subsequently to pay the tax within the 30-day period referred to in Article 17 of the CIUC, thus completely disregarding the taxable event established with the assignment of the registration, as provided in Article 6 of the CIUC. (Cf. Nos. 69 and 70 of the Response)

45 - That the environmental concerns alleged by the Applicant as underlying the system established in the CIUC cannot override other fundamental concerns of the CIUC, namely that the tax legislator intended to create a Single Vehicle Tax based on the taxation of the owner of the vehicle, as contained in the vehicle registration record.

46 - That the Applicant's interpretation in order to eliminate the subjective incidence and taxation of the IUC, in the case that the registration of the vehicle is effected within the 60 days following the registration, does not appear to be in accordance with the Constitution, violating the constitutional principles of legality and tax justice, of taxpaying capacity, of equality, of certainty and of legal security.

47 - That the request for arbitral decision should be judged inadmissible, and the tax collection acts challenged should remain in the legal order.

E - ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

48 - It is thus necessary to appraise and decide.

49 - In light of the foregoing, relative to the positions of the Parties and the arguments presented, the main issues to be decided are the following:

• To know whether the rule of subjective incidence contained in Article 3, No. 1 of the CIUC establishes, or does not establish, a presumption;

• To know which is the taxpayer of IUC, whenever, between the date of the initial property registration, associated with the first registration of the vehicle, and the date legally provided for the collection of the tax, a "new" registration occurs in the name of a third party, to whom the ownership of the same was, in the meantime, transferred and, as such, appearing in the registration.

F - PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

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

51 - The Parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are legally represented (cf. Article 4 and No. 2 of Article 10 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011 and Article 1 of Ordinance No. 112/2011, of 22 March).

52 - The case does not suffer from defects that would invalidate it.

53 - Taking into account the tax administrative proceeding, a copy of which was sent by the AT, the documentary evidence attached to the case file, and the submissions produced, presented in writing, it is now necessary to present the factual matter relevant to the understanding of the decision, which is fixed in the following terms.

II - REASONING

G - FACTUAL REASONING

54 - In matters of relevant fact, this tribunal takes as established the following facts:

55 - The Applicant is a commercial company engaged in the business of importation, marketing and distribution of motor vehicles.

56 - The vehicles identified in the case, which are hereby deemed to be fully reproduced, had, as appears from the documentation of the Motor Vehicle Registration Conservatory, attached to the case file, an initial property registration, in the name of the Applicant, and a second registration, in the name of the final consumer, that is, of the persons to whom the vehicles were sold by the Applicant.

57 - The two aforementioned property registrations of the vehicles were made within the 60-day period, provided for the purposes of initial property registration, counted from the assignment of the registration, referred to in Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 42 of the Vehicle Registration Regulations.

58 - In early August 2013, the Applicant received notifications of collections, in the number of 277, emanating from the Finance Office of Oeiras - 2, demonstrating 580 collection acts, relating to both the Single Vehicle Tax and compensatory interest, referring to the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, in the amount of € 48,111.31.

59 - The Applicant exercised its right to prior hearing, supported, in particular, by invoices for sales to distributors, by invoices for sales by distributors to final consumers, as well as by statements of taking possession of the vehicles by those consumers, intended to prove that, on the date of collection and due date of the tax, the vehicles were no longer registered in its name, considering itself not to be, for this reason, the taxpayer of the corresponding IUC, and thus not responsible for its payment.

60 - The Finance Office of Oeiras - 2 notified the Applicant, on 11 September 2013, of the response to the prior hearing, as per the document attached to the case file, to the effect that, due to the absence of legal grounds, no action was taken on its petitions/claims, maintaining the understanding that the Applicant was the taxpayer of the obligation to pay the IUC in question.

REASONING FOR THE PROVEN FACTS

61 - The facts taken as proven are based on the documents mentioned in relation to each of them, and insofar as their adherence to reality was not questioned.

FACTS NOT PROVEN

62 - There are no facts taken as not proven, given that all facts considered relevant for the appraisal of the request were proven.

H - LEGAL REASONING

63 - The factual matter is fixed, and it is now necessary to proceed to legal subsumption and determine the law applicable to the underlying facts, in accordance with the issues to be decided stated in No. 49.

64 - Both the Applicant and the Respondent consider that, in light of the provisions of No. 1 of Article 3 and of No. 1 of Article 6, both of the CIUC, the taxable event of the IUC is constituted by the ownership of the vehicles, as attested by the registration or registration in national territory, and the taxpayers of that tax are the persons in whose names they are registered.

65 - Such consonance is not, however, extensible to the scope of the rule of subjective incidence inscribed in No. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC, given that, if for the Applicant the aforementioned rule establishes a rebuttable presumption, allowing demonstration that the vehicles, although initially registered in the name of the Applicant, were transferred to third parties before the occurrence of the exigibility of the aforementioned tax, for the Respondent it is not possible to eliminate the subjective incidence of the tax, so that, with the vehicles initially registered in the name of the Applicant, it is she who, in accordance with Articles 3 and 6 of the CIUC, is responsible for the payment of the tax.

66 - The question that will be important, first and foremost, to know and decide consists of knowing whether the rule of subjective incidence contained in No. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC establishes, or does not establish, a presumption susceptible of being rebutted.

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

67 - First of all, it should be noted that it is agreed in the doctrine that in the interpretation of tax laws the general principles of interpretation are fully applicable. This is indeed an understanding that has been accepted in Article 11 of the General Tax Law.

68 - It is commonly accepted that, in order to grasp the meaning of the law, interpretation resorts to various means, and it is important, in the first place, to reconstruct legislative thinking through the words of the law, which implies seeking, from the outset, its literal meaning. The aforementioned meaning, as is also agreed, corresponds to the lowest degree of interpretative activity, and it is therefore important to value it and assess it in light of other criteria, intervening, for this purpose, the so-called elements of a logical nature, whether of rational sense (or teleological), systematic in character, or of a historical order.

69 - Regarding the interpretation of tax law, it is worth recalling, as indeed case law has been pointing out, namely in the Judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 05/09/2012 and 06/02/2013, Cases Nos. 0314/12 and 01000/12, respectively, available at: www.dgsi.pt, the importance of the provisions of Article 9 of the Civil Code (CC), as a fundamental provision of legal hermeneutics, which, in this framework, cannot fail to be considered.

ON THE LITERAL ELEMENT

70 - In this framework, it will be important to find an answer to the question of whether Article 3, No. 1 of the CIUC establishes, or does not establish, a presumption, beginning with the literal element.

71 - No. 1 of the aforementioned Article 3 of the CIUC provides that "The taxpayers of the tax are the owners of the vehicles, considered as such the individuals or collective entities, of public or private law, in whose names the same are registered." (emphasis ours)

72 - The formulation used in the aforementioned article, it is important to note, first of all, resorts to the expression "considered as such", which raises the question of whether, to such expression, a presumptive sense can be attributed, thus equating it to the expression "presumed". These are expressions frequently used with equivalent meanings, as is evident in various situations in the Portuguese legal order.

73 - In fact, there are countless norms that establish presumptions, combining, for this purpose, the verb "consider" in various forms. It is not, therefore, difficult to identify situations, in various areas of law, in which the expression "considered as such" or "considers as such" is used with meaning equivalent to the expression "presumed" or "presumes", expressions to which, whether at the level of rebuttable presumptions, or in the context of irrebuttable presumptions, an equivalent meaning is conferred, countless times.

74 - Not finding it pertinent to refer again to examples revealing these situations, given that such examples are abundantly cited in some of the decisions of the arbitral tax tribunals, of which examples are those pronounced, namely, in the context of Cases Nos. 14/2013 - T, 27/2013 - T and 73/2013 - T, we hereby deem them to be fully reproduced.

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

76 - In the literal perspective, given what is stated above, there is no doubt that the interpretation which considers established a rebuttable presumption in No. 1 of Article 3 has full support in the formulation there consecrated, given the aforementioned equivalence between the expression "considered as such" and the expression "presumed as such".

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

78 - Indeed, as is drawn from the work of MANUEL DE ANDRADE, in Ensaio sobre a Teoria da Interpretação das Leis, p. 28 (2nd ed.), Arménio Amado, Editor, Successor - Coimbra, 1963, "[…] purely linguistic analysis of a legal text is only the beginning […], the first degree […] or the first act of interpretation. In other words, it only provides us with the probable thought and legislative will […] or, rather, the grammatical delimitation of the possible content of the law […], the framework within which its true content resides".

79 - Thus, let us then examine the historical element and the rational (or teleological) element.

ON THE HISTORICAL AND RATIONAL (OR TELEOLOGICAL) ELEMENT

80 - Considering the elements of interpretation of a historical nature, it is worth, first of all, recalling what, expressly, is stated in the explanatory memorandum of Bill No. 118/X of 07/03/2007, underlying Law No. 22-A/2007 of 29/06, when it refers therein that the reform of vehicle taxation is implemented by way of the displacement of part of the tax burden from the moment of acquisition of vehicles to the circulation phase and aims to "form a coherent whole" which, although intended for the collection of public revenue, intends that such revenue be collected "in the measure of the environmental costs that each individual causes to the community", adding, with respect to the tax in question and the different types and categories of vehicles, that "as a structuring and unifying element […] the principle of equivalence is established, thus making clear that the tax, as a whole, is subordinated to the idea that taxpayers should be burdened in the measure of the cost they cause to the environment and to the road network, being this the raison d'être of this tax figure", further stating that it is "[…] this principle that dictates the burdening of vehicles according to their respective ownership and until the moment of disposal […]".

81 - In this context, it seems clear that the logic and rationality of the new vehicle taxation system can only coexist with a taxpayer of the tax, on the assumption that it is that one, and not another, the real and actual subject causing the road and environmental damage, as follows from the principle of equivalence, inscribed in Article 1 of the CIUC.

82 - The aforementioned principle of equivalence, which informs the current single vehicle tax, has, at least insofar as it specifically relates to the environment, underlying the polluter-pays principle, and gives concrete form to the idea, inscribed in it, that whoever pollutes should, therefore, pay. The aforementioned principle which, in some way, has constitutional basis, to the extent that it represents a corollary of the provisions of paragraph h) of No. 2 of Article 66 of our Constitution, also has establishment at the level of community law, whether at the level of original law, which has been the case since 07 February 1992, when the Treaty on European Union was signed in Maastricht, in whose Article 130-R, No. 2, the aforementioned principle came to appear as support for Community policy in the environmental field, whether at the level of derivative law.

83 - What is sought to be achieved by way of the aforementioned principle is to internalize negative environmental externalities, which, in fact, in the case at hand, means nothing more than to ensure that the prejudices which accrue to the community, arising from the use of motor vehicles, are assumed by their "economic owners-users", as costs that only they should bear.

84 - Returning to the aforementioned principle of equivalence, it will be said that it has, in the economy of the CIUC, an absolutely structuring role, with the normative edifice of the Code in question being based on it. The aforementioned principle, embodying a value transversal to the entire Code, cannot, therefore, fail to constitute a purpose that is legally intended to be pursued, corporeally, in that measure, a light of remarkable radiance that, constantly and continuously, cannot fail to illuminate the interpreter's path.

85 - With respect to the aforementioned principle, it is worth noting what Sérgio Vasques tells us, when, in Os Impostos Especiais de Consumo, Almedina, Coimbra, 2001, p. 122, regarding the technical realization of that principle, considers that "In obedience to the principle of equivalence, the tax should correspond to the benefit that the taxpayer derives from public activity; or to the cost that the taxpayer imputes to the community by its own activity".

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

87 - In light of what has been mentioned, it is clear that the taxation of the real and actual polluters corresponds to an important purpose sought by the law, in the case by the CIUC, a purpose which, in the words of Francesco Ferrara, in Interpretação e Aplicação das Leis, 2nd Edition, Arménio Amado, Editor, Successor, Coimbra, 1963, p. 130, should always be before the eyes of the jurist, given that, as the aforementioned author states therein, "[…] legal interpretation is by its nature essentially teleological".

88 - Thus, it should be noted that, whether in light of the aforementioned historical elements, whether in light of the rational or teleological elements of interpretation that are referenced above, it is equally imperative to conclude that No. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC can only establish a rebuttable presumption.

89 - The systematic element of interpretation should still be considered.

ON THE SYSTEMATIC ELEMENT

90 - Regarding the systematic element, BAPTISTA MACHADO tells us, in Introdução ao Direito e ao Discurso Legitimador, p. 183, that "this element comprises the consideration of the other provisions that form the normative complex of the institute in which the norm to be interpreted is integrated, that is, that regulate the same matter (context of the law), as well as the consideration of legal provisions that regulate parallel normative problems or related institutes (parallel places). It also comprises the systematic place that belongs to the norm to be interpreted in the overall legal order, as well as its consonance with the spirit or intrinsic unity of the entire legal order".

91 - It is known that a legal principle, in the case the principle of equivalence, does not exist in isolation, but is linked by an intimate nexus with other principles that integrate, at the more global level, the respective legal order, in the case, with the other principles embodied in the IUC system. In that sense, each article of a given legal instrument, in the case of the CIUC, will only be understandable if we place it before the other articles that follow or precede it.

92 - With respect to the systematization of the CIUC, environmental concerns were determining for the aforementioned principle of equivalence to be, from the outset, inscribed in the 1st article of the Code, which necessarily leads to the subsequent articles, to the extent that they are based on such principle, being influenced by it. This is what occurred, namely, with the tax base, which came to be constituted by various elements, particularly those relating to pollution levels, and with the rates of the tax, established in Articles 9 to 15, which were influenced by the environmental component, and, naturally, also with the very subjective incidence, provided for in Article 3 of the CIUC, which cannot avoid being influenced as mentioned.

93 - The systematic element of interpretation and the interaction between the various articles and principles that integrate the system inscribed in the CIUC also calls for the understanding that what is established in No. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC cannot fail to constitute a presumption.

94 - No. 1 of Article 9 of the CC provides that the search for legislative thinking should have "[…] particularly in mind […] the unity of the legal system, the circumstances in which the law was elaborated and the specific conditions of the time in which it is applied", circumstances and conditions which, today more than ever, are of sensitivity toward the environment and of respect for issues related to it.

In this context, the considerations made on the aforementioned elements of interpretation, whether of a literal character or of a historical nature, whether of a rational or systematic nature, point to the fact that Article 3 of the CIUC establishes a presumption, that is, the ratio legis of that norm, as the reason or purpose that reasonably should be attributed to it, cannot fail to perspective the expression "considered as such", used in the aforementioned article, as revealing the establishment of a rebuttable presumption, which means that the taxpayers of the IUC are not only the owners of the vehicles in whose names they are registered.

95 - Having reached this point, it is worth recalling the provisions of Article 73 of the LGT, when it establishes that "The presumptions established in the norms of tax incidence always admit proof to the contrary", (emphasis ours), which means that the legal presumption, which appears to be established in No. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC, will necessarily be rebuttable.

96 - In this context, the taxpayers of the tax are, presumably, the persons in whose names the vehicles are registered, that is, the aforementioned taxpayers are, in principle, the persons in whose names such vehicles are registered. They will, therefore, be those persons, identified in such conditions, to whom, from the outset and in principle, the AT, before the collection is finalized, must necessarily address itself, communicating to them the corresponding draft decision.

97 - However, this will only be the case in principle, given that within the scope of the prior hearing, of a mandatory character, in light of the provisions of paragraph a) of No. 1 of Article 60 of the LGT, the tax relationship may be reconfigured, validating the initially identified taxpayer, or redirecting the proceeding in the direction of the one that comes to be indicated by the holder of the hearing right, as the owner of the vehicle in question.

98 - The prior hearing is, moreover, the appropriate place to seek the material truth of the essential elements for the collection of the tax, among which will be the knowledge of the true taxpayers of the tax, as the first elements of the legal-tax relationship. For this purpose, it is worth recalling what Diogo Leite Campos, Benjamim Silva Rodrigues and Jorge Lopes de Sousa tell us, in Lei Geral Tributária, Anotada e Comentada, 4th Edition 2012, Encontro de Escrita, Lda, Lisbon, in annotation No. 5 to Article 55, when they state therein that, in the field of tax procedure, the tax administration, particularly in light of the principles of justice and impartiality, should be guided by "[…] criteria of impartiality in the investigation of factual situations, carrying out all the necessary steps to ascertain the material truth, regardless of whether the facts to be ascertained are contrary to the patrimonial interests that the tax administration must defend". (emphasis ours)

99 - With respect to the material truth that is sought to be known - which, had it been given proper attention in the present case, would have led to the taxpayers of the IUC being the acquirers of the vehicles, as their real and actual owners, and not the seller, as the "merely legal" owner of the vehicles in question - it is worth recalling the inquisitorial principle, which, fixed in Article 58 of the LGT, provides that "The tax administration must, in the procedure, carry out all the necessary steps to satisfy the public interest and the discovery of material truth, not being subordinated to the initiative of the author of the petition". (emphasis ours)

100 - With respect to this principle, it is worth, once again, alluding to the teachings of Diogo Leite Campos, Benjamim Silva Rodrigues and Jorge Lopes de Sousa, in Lei Geral Tributária, Anotada e Comentada, 4th Edition 2012, Encontro de Escrita, Lda, Lisbon, p. 488/489, when, in annotations to the cited Article 58, they state that the administration has a dynamic role in collecting the elements relevant to the decision, adding that the "[…] lack of diligence deemed necessary for the construction of the factual basis of the decision will affect it not only in the event that they are mandatory (violation of the principle of equality), but also if the materiality of the facts considered is not proven or if relevant facts, alleged by the interested party, are lacking in that basis, due to insufficiency of proof that the Administration should have collected […]".

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

ON THE ACQUISITION OF VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND THE VALUE OF REGISTRATION

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

102 - There are three articles of the Civil Code that it is important to take into account, with respect to the acquisition of ownership of a motor vehicle. They are, first of all, Article 874, which establishes the notion of a purchase and sale contract, as being "[…] the contract by which the ownership of a thing, or another right, is transmitted, by means of a price"; Article 879, in whose paragraph a) is provided, as essential effects of the purchase and sale contract, "the transmission of ownership of the thing or the holding of the right" and Article 408, which has as its heading contracts with real effect, and establishes in its No. 1, that "the constitution or transfer of real rights over a determined thing is given by the mere effect of the contract, except for the exceptions provided for by law". (emphasis ours)

We are, in effect, in the field of contracts with real effect, which means that their conclusion results in the transfer of real rights, in the case, motor vehicles, determined by the mere effect of the contract, as expressly follows from the aforementioned provision.

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

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

104 - Also from case law, namely from the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice Nos. 03B4369 of 19/02/2004, available at: www.dgsi.pt, it is drawn that, in light of the provisions of Article 408, No. 1, of the C. Civil, "the constitution or transfer of real rights over a determined thing is given by the mere effect of the contract, except for the exceptions provided for by law". This is the case of the contract of purchase and sale of motor vehicle (Articles 874° and 879 para. a) of the C. Civil), which does not depend on any special formality, and is valid even when entered into verbally - conf. J. of the Supreme Court of Justice of 3-3-98, in CJSTJ, 1998, year VI, Volume I, p. 117". (emphasis ours)

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

106 - Indeed, it is established, in No. 1 of Article 1 of Decree-Law No. 54/75, of 12 February, relating to the registration of motor vehicles (amended several times, the last of which was by Law No. 39/2008, of 11/08), that "The registration of vehicles has essentially as its purpose to give publicity to the legal situation of motor vehicles and their trailers, with a view to the security of legal commerce". (emphasis ours)

107 - It being clear, from the aforementioned provision, what is the purpose of the registration, there is not, however, clarity, within the scope of the aforementioned Decree-Law, regarding the legal value of that registration, it being important to consider Article 29 of the aforementioned legal instrument, relating to the registration of motor vehicle property, when it is provided therein that "The provisions relating to the registration of real property are applicable, with the necessary adaptations, to the registration of automobiles, […]". (emphasis ours)

108 - In this context, in order for us to achieve the sought knowledge regarding the legal value of motor vehicle property registration, it is important to take into account what is established in the Property Registration Code, which, approved by Decree-Law No. 224/84, of 06 July, and amended the last time, by way of Decree-Law No. 125/2013, of 30 August, provides in its Article 7 that "the definitive registration constitutes a presumption that the right exists and belongs to the inscribed holder, in the precise terms in which the registration defines it". (emphasis ours)

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

110 - Thus, it can, with certainty, be concluded that the definitive registration is nothing more than the presumption that the right exists and belongs to the inscribed holder, in the exact terms of the registration, but a rebuttable presumption, admitting, therefore, proof to the contrary, as follows from the law and case law has been pointing out, and it is possible, for this purpose, among others, to see the Judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice Nos. 03B4369 and 07B4528, respectively, of 19/02/2004 and 29/01/2008, available at: www.dgsi.pt.

111 - In light of what has been stated above, and taking into account, both the rebuttal of the presumption established in Article 3 of the CIUC, embodied in the transfer of the ownership of the vehicles in question, by the mere effect of the contract, before the end of the period for collection and voluntary payment of the IUC, provided for in No. 1 of Article 17 of the CIUC, and the legal value of the vehicle registration in the economy of the CIUC, the tax acts in question cannot merit our agreement, either because an adequate interpretation and application of the legal norms of subjective incidence was not taken into account, which constitutes an error regarding the assumptions of law, or because the aforementioned acts were based on a matter of fact, clearly divergent from the effective reality, which constitutes an error regarding the assumptions of fact.

112 - The collection, being indeed an act defining the position of the tax administration before private parties, makes the tax obligation certain and exigible. However, on the date established in Article 17, No. 1 of the CIUC, for the IUC to be collected, the Applicant was not the taxpayer of the tax, that is, as fixed in No. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC, it was not the owner of the vehicles, as a person in whose name they were registered.

ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED

113 - As written form is not legally required for the purchase and sale contract of motor vehicles, proof of the corresponding sale may be made by various means, in particular by way of testimony or documentary evidence, the latter including the invoices/receipts relating to the sales of the vehicles.

114 - As a means of proof, the Applicant presented sales invoices relating to the sales of the vehicles, both to distributors and to final consumers, as well as statements of "taking possession" of the vehicles by those consumers. Such documents enjoy, in light of the provisions of No. 1 of Article 75 of the LGT, the presumption of truthfulness. On the other hand, it is understood that the aforementioned documents, being suitable to prove the transactions of the vehicles identified in the case file, have sufficient force to rebut the presumption established in No. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC.

J - ON ARTICLES 17 AND 18 OF THE CIUC

115 - First of all, being, as we are, in the field of the assignment of the first registration, it will be important to take into account the legal mechanisms established for this purpose, with respect to the vehicles identified in the case and the corresponding initial property registration.

116 - In light of the provisions of No. 4 of Article 117 of the Traffic Code, approved by Decree-Law No. 114/94, of 3 May, whose last amendment was introduced by Law No. 72/2013, of 3 September, the registration of the vehicle "[…] must be requested from the competent authority by the person, individual or collective entity, who proceeds to its admission, importation or introduction into consumption in national territory". (emphasis ours)

117 - No. 1 of Article 24 of the Vehicle Registration Regulations, approved by Decree-Law No. 55/75, of 12 February, with the last wording introduced by Decree-Law No. 185/2009, of 12/08, provides that "The initial property registration of vehicles imported, admitted, assembled, constructed or reconstructed in Portugal is based on the respective application and proof of compliance with fiscal obligations relating to the vehicle". (emphasis ours)

118 - On the other hand, No. 1 of Article 118 of the aforementioned Traffic Code provides that "For each registered vehicle a document must be issued intended to certify its respective registration, which contains the characteristics that allow it to be identified", adding No. 2 of the same article that "The holder of the vehicle identification document is the person, individual or collective entity, in whose name the vehicle is registered and who, as owner or by another legal right, can dispose of it […]". (emphasis ours)

119 - The document intended to certify its respective registration, as follows from what is established in No. 1 of Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 178-A/2005, of 28 October, which approved the Single Motor Vehicle Document and created the Registration Certificate, is issued "[…] when the first registration of a vehicle imported, admitted, assembled, constructed or reconstructed in Portugal is made", with No. 2 of the aforementioned article providing that "The performance of any act relating to a vehicle that involves the alteration of the elements contained in the registration certificate determines the issuance of a new certificate, and the delivery of the previous one is mandatory". (emphasis ours)

120 - Note that the aforementioned first registration must be requested within 60 days, after the assignment of the registration, in light of the provisions of Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 42 of the Vehicle Registration Regulations, when it is established therein that "1 - The mandatory registration must be requested within 60 days from the date of the fact. 2 - In the case of initial property registration, the period referred to in the previous number is counted from the date of assignment of the registration". (emphasis ours)

121 - The combination of the aforementioned norms points to the fact that the first registration of the vehicle cannot fail to be carried out in the name of the person who proceeds to its admission, importation or introduction into consumption in national territory, in the case, in the name of the Applicant, who must provide proof of compliance with its fiscal obligations, particularly the Vehicle Tax.

122 - It is in this context that the first registration of each of the vehicles in question cannot fail to be carried out in the name of the Applicant. This is a registration of vehicle ownership, absolutely unavoidable and ab initio known, embodied in the person of the importer, who, as an owner "forced upon" because they are legally obliged to do so, thus assumes, a character of an owner "in transit", "in passage" and of a strictly legal nature.

123 - The first registration of each of the vehicles identified in the case file, being unable, in any way, to be circumvented by the Applicant (a company for importation, marketing and distribution of motor vehicles), to the extent of its association with the Vehicle Customs Declaration and the payment of the Vehicle Tax, assumes, for the State, as the creditor of the tax, an important function of certainty and tax security, to the extent that in the absence of that registration, within the legal period, the IUC will be collected and demanded from the taxpayer of the Vehicle Tax, embodied in the respective importers, as they and no others are the persons referenced in the Vehicle Customs Declaration, as follows from No. 1, paragraph a) of Article 18 of the CIUC, which means that only in the event that the ownership of the vehicles has not been registered within the aforementioned 60-day period is the IUC demanded from the Applicant.

124 - The registration of the initial vehicle property must, therefore, be carried out within 60 days, counted from the assignment of the registration, as results from the provisions of Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 42 of the Vehicle Registration Regulations, and the tax must be collected by the taxpayer within 30 days following the end of the period required for registration, in light of what is established in No. 1 of Article 17 of the CIUC, and in subsequent years, as is provided in No. 2 of the aforementioned Article 17, the tax must be collected and becomes exigible in accordance with No. 2 of Article 4 of the CIUC, that is, in the year that begins with the date of the registration.

125 - The aforementioned in the aforementioned No. 1 of Article 17, whose heading refers to the "Period for collection and payment", which, like Article 18, embodies a norm especially applicable to the collection of the tax, when it is a question of first registration of the vehicles in national territory, provides that in the "In the year of registration of the vehicle in national territory, the tax is collected by the taxpayer of the tax within 30 days following the end of the period legally required for its registration", a period which, as was already noted above, is 60 days, in accordance with No. 2 of Article 42 of the Vehicle Registration Regulations.

126 - It thus results from the aforementioned norms that, in the year of registration, the determination of the taxpayer will only be possible in the circumstances mentioned therein, that is, it is the persons in whose names the ownership of the vehicles is registered, in the aforementioned period of 30 days, following the 60 days provided for the request of the respective registration, that embody the taxpayers to whom, legally, it is incumbent to collect the IUC and from whom the corresponding payment must be demanded.

It is, moreover, worth remembering that the norms in question, configure, in the economy of the CIUC, special norms, being, therefore, especially applicable to situations of first registration of the vehicle, consequently derogating the other norms, of a general nature, relating to the matter.

127 - In the case at hand, the Applicant was not, at that moment, with respect to any of the vehicles it sold, and which are identified in the case, the person in whose name the ownership of the vehicles was registered, and was thus not, in accordance with what is established in No. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC, the taxpayer of the tax in question.

128 - On the other hand, it is not possible to fail to consider what is established in Article 18 of the CIUC, which has as its heading "ex officio collection", when in its No. 1, paragraph a) it provides that "In the absence of property registration of the vehicle made within the legal period, the tax due in the year of registration of the vehicle is collected and demanded: From the taxpayer of the vehicle tax on the basis of the vehicle customs declaration, or on the basis of the supplementary vehicle declaration on which the collection of that tax is based, even if it is not due". (emphasis ours)

129 - The provisions of the aforementioned norms, as was already mentioned above, assume for the State, as the active subject of the tax, an important function of certainty and tax security, to the extent that in the absence of property registration of the vehicle, within the legal period, which, as was already mentioned, is 60 days, in accordance with No. 2 of Article 42 of the Vehicle Registration Regulations, the payment of the tax, in the year of registration, is safeguarded.

130 - The IUC will thus, in those circumstances, be collected and demanded only from the taxpayer of the Vehicle Tax, embodied in the respective importers, as they and no others are the persons, as such, referenced in the Vehicle Customs Declarations, which means that only in the event that the ownership of the vehicles, in question in the case, has not been registered within the aforementioned 60-day period is the IUC legally demanded from the Applicant.

131 - In the case at hand, in light of the attachment of the means of proof identified in No. 114, there is no doubt that, on the date on which the tax was legally required to be collected, in accordance with the provisions of No. 1 of Article 17 of the CIUC, the Applicant was not the taxpayer of the tax, given that, on that date and, consequently, before the aforementioned 60-day period provided for registration had elapsed, the ownership of the vehicles had been transferred to the final consumers, no longer being registered in the name of the Applicant, but rather in the names of the persons to whom they were sold and who, as such, appear in the registration as their owners.

132 - With respect to the collection of the tax, it should be emphasized, as was already noted above, that collection, being an act defining the position of the tax administration before private parties, makes the tax obligation certain and exigible. However, on the date on which, in light of the provisions of Article 17, No. 1 of the CIUC, the tax obligation became certain and exigible, the Applicant was not the taxpayer of the tax, that is, as fixed in No. 1 of Article 3 of the CIUC, it was not the owner of the vehicles, as a person in whose name they were registered.

133 - It is worth noting, moreover, because it is not a minor matter, that the understanding of the AT, in considering the Applicant as the taxpayer of the tax, because it was the person in whose name the vehicle was first and originally registered, on the grounds that, in light of the provisions of No. 3 of Article 6 of the CIUC, it is deemed exigible on the first day of the tax period referred to in No. 2 of Article 4, which presents a direct relationship with the issuance of the registration certificate, carries us to the impossibility of completely reconciling it with the principle of equivalence.

134 - In truth, if this were the case, we would be before a radically restrictive interpretation of the norms constituting the system of IUC set forth in the respective Code, leading to the crushing of the aforementioned principle of equivalence, which, having been established in favor of certain persons in particular and the community in general, would thus, by way of such interpretation, have its purposes completely inverted.

135 - Indeed, if the Applicant were the taxpayer of the tax which, as an importer of vehicles, proceeds to their acquisition without them having circulated, consequently selling them in those very same conditions, that is with 0 km, we would be before a situation embodying an intolerable legal paradox, given that, on the one hand, whoever never circulated or will circulate with the vehicles, to the extent that they proceeded to their sale with 0 km, would bear a tax which, precisely, relates to their circulation, freeing themselves, on the other hand, from the aforementioned tax, whoever, ultimately, is their "economic owner-user", who, real and effectively, circulates with the aforementioned vehicles.

136 - The principle of equivalence, being structuring of the IUC system and of its Code, and having, as was already noted above, a value transversal to the entire CIUC, would be directly and absolutely disregarded. The aforementioned principle would, if this were the case, be completely emptied in its scope and meaning, which, as is known, point, fundamentally, to taxpayers being burdened in the measure of the costs they cause, in particular to the environment and to the road network, which would also correspond to an interpretation revealing a total lack of accuracy, which, as is drawn from the provisions of No. 3 of Article 9 of the CC, is not imagined to have been intended by the legislator.

CONCLUSION

137 - In the circumstantial context that has been referred to, the AT, in performing the collection acts in question in the present case, founded on the idea that "it is not possible to eliminate the subjective incidence of the tax" provided for in Article 3, No. 1 of the CIUC and that No. 1 of Article 17 of the aforementioned Code "did not contemplate that importers could see the taxation in the field of IUC eliminated if within the 60-day period the vehicle is registered in the name of another owner", makes an erroneous interpretation and application of these norms, committing an error regarding the assumptions of law, which constitutes a violation of law.

138 - On the other hand, because the AT, on the date on which the IUC, in light of the provisions of No. 1 of Article 17 of the CIUC, was required to be collected, considered the Applicant to be the owner of the vehicles referenced in the present case, considering it, as such, to be the taxpayer of the tax, when such ownership was no longer inscribed in its legal sphere, basing itself thus on a matter of fact divergent from the effective reality, commits an error regarding the assumptions of fact, and therefore a violation of law.

III - DECISION

139 - Accordingly, in light of all the foregoing, this Arbitral Tribunal decides:

• To judge as meritorious and proven, on the grounds of a defect of violation of law, the request for annulment of the collection acts of IUC and compensatory interest, referred to in the request of the Applicant;

• To annul, both the collection acts of IUC, relating to the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, identified in the notifications attached to the case file, and the collection acts of compensatory interest associated therewith;

• To condemn the AT to pay the costs of the present proceeding.

CASE VALUE

In accordance with the provisions of Articles 306, No. 2 of the CPC (formerly 315, No. 2) and 97-A, No. 1 of the CPPT and Article 3, No. 2 of the Regulations of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the case is assigned the value of € 48,111.31.

COSTS

In accordance with No. 4 of Article 22 of the RJAT, the amount of costs is fixed at € 2,142.00, to be borne by the Tax and Customs Authority, in accordance with Article 4 of the Regulations of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings and Annex Table I thereto.

Notify.

Lisbon, 18 August 2014

The Arbitrator

António Correia Valente

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