Process: 696/2014-T

Date: May 20, 2015

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This CAAD arbitration decision (Process 696/2014-T) addresses the application of Stamp Tax under Verba 28.1 of TGIS to vertical property ownership. The claimant, representing an estate, challenged multiple 2013 stamp tax assessments totaling €10,668.60, arguing that vertical properties with independent floors should be taxed like horizontal property condominiums—based on each individual unit's taxable patrimonial value rather than the aggregate global value. The core legal dispute centered on whether properties in vertical ownership with multiple independent residential units exceeding €1,000,000 should be assessed collectively or individually. The claimant invoked Article 67(2) of the Stamp Tax Code, which applies CIMI (Municipal Property Tax Code) subsidiarily to matters not regulated concerning Verba 28. The argument emphasized that CIMI treats vertical property units identically to horizontal property fractions for IMI purposes, requiring individualized assessments. The Tax Administration's position of aggregating all floor values was contested as lacking legal support and violating the criterion established under CIMI. The arbitral tribunal constituted under RJAT accepted cumulation of multiple assessment challenges concerning the same tax and legal interpretation. Both parties waived the Article 18 hearing, with the tribunal exercising procedural autonomy. This case illustrates critical questions about proportional taxation, contributive capacity assessment, and the proper interpretation of stamp tax incidence rules for complex property ownership structures under Portuguese tax law.

Full Decision

ARBITRATION DECISION

CASE NO. 696/2014-T

1. REPORT

1.1. A..., in representation of the open succession created by the death of ..., taxpayer no. ..., notified of stamp tax assessments for the year 2013 corresponding to numbers ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., ..., filed on 25/09/2014 a request for arbitration, in which it petitions for a declaration of illegality of the said stamp tax assessment acts, in the total amount of € 10,668.60.

1.2. The Honourable President of the Ethics Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre (CAAD) designated on 18/11/2014 as arbitrator, Francisco Nicolau Domingos.

1.3. On 03/12/2014 the tribunal was constituted.

1.4. In compliance with the provision of art. 17, no. 1 of the RJAT[1], the Tax Administration (AT), on 05/12/2014 was notified to, if it so wished, submit a response and request the production of additional evidence.

1.5. On 21/01/2015 the AT submitted its response and in it requested the waiver of the holding of the arbitration meeting referred to in art. 18 of the RJAT, as well as the production of allegations.

1.6. The tribunal, on 01/04/2015, dismissed the request for the production of witness evidence with the grounds described in that order. Concurrently, it ordered the notification of the Claimant to state whether it intended the holding of the meeting alluded to in art. 18 of the RJAT.

1.7. The Claimant on 10/04/2015 submitted a petition, in which it argues that it has no objection to the waiver of holding the meeting, as well as to the submission of final allegations and requested the attachment to the case file of a certificate proving the performance of voluntary payments of the stamp tax assessments in dispute.

1.8. The tribunal on 21/04/2015 decided to waive the holding of the meeting to which art. 18, no. 1 of the RJAT refers, the submission of final allegations and scheduled the date of 29/04/2015 for the pronouncement of the final decision, on the grounds of the principle of the autonomy of the arbitration tribunal in the conduct of the proceedings and in the determination of the rules to be observed with a view to obtaining, within a reasonable timeframe, a pronouncement on the merits of the claims formulated, cf. art. 16, para. c) of the RJAT. It also determined that the case file await until 24/04/2015 the attachment of the certificate referred to in 1.7 of the present.

1.9. The Claimant on 28/04/2015 came to petition for the attachment of the certificate in which the payment of the amounts of the stamp tax assessments for 2013 is attested and proceeded with the payment of the subsequent arbitration fee.

1.10. The tribunal on 29/04/2015 admitted the attachment of such certificate to the case file.

1.11. Consequently, it adjourned the decision to 20/05/2015.

2. CASE CLEARING

The cumulation of claims underlying the request for arbitration is admissible, inasmuch as it has as its object assessments of the same tax, that of stamp duty. As there is also verified the identity between the subject matter of the facts and because the merits of the claim depends on the interpretation of the same principles and rules of law, cf. art. 3, no. 1 of the RJAT.

The proceedings do not suffer from nullities, no questions were raised that prevent the appreciation of the merits of the case, the arbitration tribunal is regularly constituted and is materially competent to know and decide the claim, consequently, the conditions for the final decision to be rendered are verified.

3. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

There are two positions in confrontation, that of the Claimant, set out in the request for arbitration and that of the AT in its response.

Summarizing, the Claimant understands that:

a) "In accordance with the provision of item no. 28 of the General Table of Stamp Tax, transcribed above, the said taxation under stamp tax is determined by the combination of the following facts: ownership, the taxable patrimonial value recorded in the register is equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000.00, and the residential use of the property.";

b) "Now, the essential issue that concerns us here is to know what the criterion is for determining the incidence of stamp tax on properties not established under the horizontal ownership regime, comprised of various floors and divisions with independent use, and residential use, that is, what taxable patrimonial value is relevant for purposes of objective incidence of this tax: that corresponding to the sum of the taxable patrimonial value assigned to the different parts or floors (Global TPV) or, on the contrary, the taxable patrimonial value assigned to each of the floors or residential divisions...";

c) "Law no. 55-A/2012 did not proceed to qualify the concepts contained in item no. 28, namely the concept of property with residential use.";

d) "However, and for this purpose, the law itself introduced the criterion set out in article 67, no. 2 of the Stamp Tax Code (CIS), also added by the mentioned Law no. 55-A/2012, which provides that: ...to matters not regulated in this code concerning item 28 of the General Table, the CIMI is applied subsidiarily...";

e) "Considering that the registration in the real estate register in vertical property ownership, comprised of different parts, floors or divisions with independent use, in accordance with the CIMI, obeys the same registration rules of properties established in horizontal property ownership, and their respective IMI, as well as the new IS, are levied individually in relation to each of the parts, there is no doubt whatsoever that the legal criterion for defining the incidence of the new tax must be the same.";

f) "Therefore, if the legal criterion requires the issuance of individualized assessments for the autonomous parts of properties in vertical property ownership, in the same manner as it establishes for properties in horizontal property ownership, it clearly established the criterion, which must be unique and unequivocal, for defining the rule of incidence of the new tax.";

g) "It is further added to the above, the fact that the law itself expressly establishes, in the final part of item 28 of the TGIS, that stamp tax is levied on urban properties of value equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000.00 – «on the patrimonial value used for purposes of IMI»...":

h) "...Setting as reference value for the incidence of the new tax the global taxable patrimonial value of the property in question finds no basis in the applicable legislation, which is the CIMI, given the referral of the aforementioned art. 67, no. 2 of the CIS...":

i) "Thus, the Tax Administration cannot consider as reference value for the incidence of the new tax the total value of the property, when the legislator itself established a different rule under the CIMI, and this is the code applicable to matters not regulated concerning item no. 28 of the TGIS.";

j) "The criterion of opportunity adopted by the Tax Administration, that of considering the value of the sum of the taxable patrimonial values assigned to the floors with independent use, with the argument that the property is not established under the horizontal property regime, has no legal support, and is contrary to the criterion that results applicable under the CIMI and, by referral, under Stamp Tax, and as such, is illegal.";

k) "It is clear that the legislator understood that this value, when imputed to a dwelling - whether it is a "house", "autonomous fraction", "part of a property with independent use", "autonomous unit" - reflects an above-average contributive capacity and, to that extent, justifies the undertaking of additional contributive effort, which ensures fair distribution of the fiscal burden, and it is certain that this logic would make no sense if, on the contrary, individual unit appraisals were disregarded when only through the sum of the taxable patrimonial values of the same (because held by the same individual) would the million euros be exceeded.";

l) "If this were not so, the truth is that the differentiation of treatment would lead to results incomprehensible from a legal point of view, and therefore, violators of the legislative intent in adding item no. 28....";

m) "Thus, the residential parts of a property in vertical property ownership will not be subject to taxation based on the global TPV of the property, but rather the TPV that is individually assigned to each part, and given that none of the floors with independent use, object of the present challenge, has a taxable patrimonial value equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000.00, the legal assumption for the incidence of stamp tax provided in item no. 28 of the TGIS is not verified...";

n) "With due respect, it is the understanding of the now claimant that the normative interpretation of item no. 28 of the General Table of Stamp Tax, supported by the Tax Administration, regarding the legal criterion for determining the incidence of stamp tax, in the case of properties not established under the horizontal property regime – considering as reference taxable patrimonial value for purposes of taxation that corresponding to the sum of the TPV assigned to each part or division - is unconstitutional, by violation of the principles of fiscal equality, tax legality, contributive capacity, justice, the prevalence of material truth over formal legal reality, and proportionality in tax matters, set out in articles 13, 18, 81, b), 103 and 104, all of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.";

o) "In reality, what the Tax Administration does is treat equal situations differently – a posture expressly prohibited to the tax legislator -, by defending that urban properties, registered in the property register in accordance with the same legal rules, will be subject to stamp tax, by the application of item 28 of the TGIS: - if it is a property under the horizontal property regime, if the taxable patrimonial value of one of its residential fractions, individually considered, has a value equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000.00, - and if, on the contrary, we are faced with a property not established in horizontal property ownership, the relevant taxable patrimonial value will not be that of each of the parts, or divisions with independent use, but rather that which results from the sum of all those that make up the respective urban property";

p) "The distinction created by the tax Administration, between properties established in horizontal property and full ownership is an "innovation" without legal support and justification, all the more so because, nothing is provided either within item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Tax, or under the CIMI, and, therefore, to that extent violates the principle of tax legality.";

q) "The criterion of the sum of the taxable patrimonial values assigned to each part or division with independent use for purposes of stamp tax taxation, normative interpretation supported by the Tax Authority, distorts and violates, completely, the constitutional understanding of the principle of contributive capacity.".

In another way, the AT argues that:

a) "The Author of the request for arbitration alleges that the criterion for taxation of the autonomous parts of properties in vertical property ownership must be based on the same lines as the taxation of properties in horizontal property ownership.";

b) "The patrimonial value relevant for purposes of the incidence of the tax is, thus, the total patrimonial value of the urban property and not the patrimonial value of each of the parts that comprise it, even when susceptible of independent use.";

c) "It is thus not apparent how the IMI assessment challenged can have violated the literal terms of item 28.1 of the General Table.";

d) "The urban property in question in the present case is not established under the horizontal property regime, in which case each of the autonomous fractions would be held as an urban property, including for purposes of the subjection to stamp tax of item 28.1 of the General Table, but rather under the vertical property regime.";

e) "It does, however, provide, as appears from its respective property register, floors or independent divisions, valued in accordance with art. 12, no. 3 of the C.I.M.I., which states that each floor or property susceptible of independent use is considered separately in the registration, which also discriminates the respective taxable patrimonial value upon which IMI is levied.";

f) "Such legal norm is relevant, in this manner, for purposes of registration in the property register, the autonomy that, within the same property, can be attributed to each of its parts, economically and functionally independent.";

g) "In that case, the registration must make reference to each of the parts and also to the patrimonial value corresponding to each one of them, calculated separately in accordance with arts. 37 et seq. of the C.I.M.I:";

h) "In the present case, the taxable patrimonial value upon which the incidence of the stamp tax of item 28.1 of the General Table depended had to be, as it was, the global patrimonial value of the property and not that of each of its independent parts.";

i) "The fact that the IMI was calculated based on the taxable patrimonial value of each part of property with independent economic use does not equally affect the application of item 28, no. 1 of the General Table.";

j) "It further argues that any other interpretation would be unconstitutional because: "…it would violate (…) the letter and spirit of item 28.1 of the General Table and the principle of legality of the essential elements of the tax provided in art. 103, no. 2 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (CRP).";

k) "It would also be offensive: "…to the principle of tax legality, the interpretation of item 28.1 of the General Table, in the sense that the patrimonial value upon which its incidence depends be calculated globally and not floor by floor or division by division".

4. MATERIAL FACTS

4.1. FACTS DEEMED PROVEN

4.1.1. The Claimant is the owner of the real estate corresponding to the registration ..., Urban, ... (...), Lisbon.

4.1.2. Such property comprises, namely, 13 floors with independent use, registered in the urban property register of the parish of ... (...) as follows:

a) CV126, with a TPV of € 57,690.00, residential;

b) RC Right, with a TPV of € 61,080.00, residential;

c) RC Left, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential;

d) 1st Right, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential;

e) 1st Left, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential;

f) 2nd Right, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential;

g) 2nd Left, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential;

h) 3rd Right, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential;

i) 3rd Left, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential;

j) 4th Right, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential;

l) 4th Left, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential;

m) 5th Right, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential;

n) 5th Left, with a TPV of € 86,190.00, residential.

4.1.3. The Claimant was notified of stamp tax assessments for the year 2013, in relation to each of such property registrations, in the global amount of € 10,668.60 and which break down as follows:

a) CV126, document ..., in the amount of € 576.90;

b) RC Right, document ..., in the amount of € 610.80;

c) RC Left, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90;

d) 1st Right, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90;

e) 1st Left, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90;

f) 2nd Right, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90;

g) 2nd Left, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90;

h) 3rd Right, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90;

i) 3rd Left, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90;

j) 4th Right, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90;

l) 4th Left, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90;

m) 5th Right, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90;

n) 5th Left, document ..., in the amount of € 861.90.

4.1.4. The real estate identified in 4.1.1 was not established under the horizontal property regime on 31 December 2013.

4.1.5. The Claimant voluntarily paid € 10,668.60.

4.2. FACTS NOT DEEMED PROVEN

There are no facts of relevance to the arbitration decision that have not been given as proven.

4.3. GROUNDS FOR THE MATERIAL FACTS DEEMED PROVEN

The material facts deemed proven have their origin in the documents used for each of the alleged facts, whose authenticity was not called into question. Likewise, facts not contested were also taken as established.

5. THE LAW

5.1. ILLEGALITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS IN DISPUTE

First, there are two questions that the tribunal must decide: to determine whether the subjection to the rule of incidence of item 28 of the TGIS should be accomplished by the TPV corresponding to each of the parts, floors or divisions susceptible of independent use, or, if on the contrary, by the sum of the TPV of each of such parts. And, secondly, to determine whether the interpretation that concludes that there is only stamp tax incidence when the TPV of each of the divisions susceptible of independent use exceeds € 1,000,000 violates the principle of legality of the essential elements of the tax, provided in art. 103, no. 2 of the CRP.

To accomplish such a task, it is necessary, from the outset, to seek the norm whose parts disagree on its interpretation.

Thus, art. 1, no. 1 of the Stamp Tax Code (CIS) and item 28 of the General Table of Stamp Tax (TGIS) provide that the following are subject to taxation: "Ownership, usufruct or right of surface of urban properties whose taxable patrimonial value recorded in the register, in accordance with the Code of Municipal Property Tax (CIMI), is equal to or exceeding € 1,000,000 – on the taxable patrimonial value used for purposes of IMI:

28.1 - For property with residential use - 1%..."[1].

First, it is necessary to examine the concept of "property with residential use" to which the norm under interpretation alludes and that of "taxable patrimonial value used for purposes of IMI". Since it is not possible to resolve the question using the CIS, it is by force of the provision of art. 67, no. 2 of the CIS necessary to apply the norms of the Code of Municipal Property Tax (CIMI).

Consequently, art. 2 of the CIMI provides on the concept of property:

"1 - For purposes of this Code, property is any portion of territory, encompassing waters, plantations, buildings and constructions of any nature incorporated therein or built thereon, with a character of permanence, provided that it forms part of the patrimony of a natural or legal person and, in normal circumstances, has economic value, as well as waters, plantations, buildings or constructions, in the circumstances above, endowed with economic autonomy in relation to the land where they are built, although located in a portion of territory that constitutes an integral part of a diverse patrimony or is not of patrimonial nature.

2 - Buildings or constructions, even if movable by nature, are deemed to have a character of permanence when used for non-transitory purposes.

3 - The character of permanence is presumed when buildings or constructions have been built on the same site for a period exceeding one year.

4 - For purposes of this tax, each autonomous fraction, under the horizontal property regime, is deemed as constituting a property."

The concept of property under IMI is, as we know, endowed with greater breadth in relation to that set forth in art. 204, no. 2 of the Civil Code (CC) and encompasses three elements, more specifically, one of a physical nature, the second of a legal character and the last of an economic nature, J. SILVÉRIO MATEUS/L. CORVELO DE FREITAS, Taxes on real estate property. Stamp tax., Engisco, 2005, p. 101 to 103 and JOSÉ MARTINS ALFARO, Code of Municipal Property Tax – Commented and Annotated, Áreas Editora, 2004, p. 118 to 123. The first requires a reference to a portion of territory, encompassing, namely, buildings and constructions incorporated therein with a character of permanence. The element of a legal character requires that the thing, movable or immovable, belongs to the patrimony of a natural or legal person. Third, the element of an economic nature requires that the thing have economic value.

With respect to the concept of urban property, art. 6 of the CIMI describes its various categories, being fundamental for the subsumption in each one of them, the nature of its use, that is, the purpose to which it is destined. And nothing in the context of art. 6, no. 1, para. a) of the CIMI prevents classifying the parts of a property in vertical property ownership, with divisions or floors susceptible of independent use, with a residential use, as "property with residential use". What is relevant is, it is repeated, its use. And a different conclusion is not possible to reach through the interpretation of art. 2, no. 4 of the CIMI that elevates each autonomous fraction in horizontal property ownership to the category of property. In fact, in this latter normative, no grounds can be discerned for discriminating between properties in horizontal property ownership and properties in vertical property ownership, with floors or divisions susceptible of independent use, with regard to their subsumption as urban and residential properties, in accordance with the entire context of item 28 of the TGIS. In other words, if the legislator did not treat differently properties in vertical property ownership in relation to those established in horizontal property ownership, the interpreter should not do so[2].

On the contrary, the property registration and the determination of the TPV demonstrate the similarity of legislative treatment. In effect, the parts endowed with economic independence must, each one of them, be the object of separate property registration and, consequently, the respective TPV should equally appear autonomously, cf. art. 2, no. 4, art. 7, no. 2, para. b) and art. 12, no. 3 all of the CIMI. Which has refraction in the context of assessment, in that there will be one for each part, division or floor that is the object of separate use.

Reverting such interpretation to the present case, there are 13 floors/divisions of the property with independent residential use which, at the date of the taxable event, 31 December 2013, was still not established in horizontal property ownership and, consequently, from the outset, there is no doubt that the same should be classified as "property with residential use" of an urban nature.

It is further important to elucidate the other graphic segment of the item of CIS under interpretation, that is, the "taxable patrimonial value for purposes of IMI".

In this regard, as already described above, the CIMI provides for the autonomization of parts of urban property susceptible of independent use with respect to property registration and the specification of the respective TPV. Such observation is equally valid regarding the consequent assessment, as provided by art. 113, no. 1 and art. 119, no. 1, both of the last cited statute. In effect, if the tax is assessed "…based on the taxable patrimonial values of the properties (our emphasis) and in relation to the taxpayers that appear in the registers (our emphasis)…" and the collection document must contain the "…discrimination of the properties, their parts susceptible of independent use, their respective taxable patrimonial value and the collection…", this means that, not only the TPV for purposes of application of item 28.1 of the TGIS to be considered is that which is the object of separate property registration, but also nothing prevents the qualification as "property with residential use" of parts, floors or divisions with independent use.

Now, if none of the Claimant's floors with residential use exceeded the TPV of € 1,000,000, the norm of incidence in question cannot be applicable to the case sub judice, under penalty of illegality.

The AT further contends that it would be unconstitutional, by violation of the principle of legality of the essential elements of the tax, the interpretation of item 28.1 of the TGIS different from that which concludes that the TPV relevant for such an incidence norm must be the global taxable patrimonial value of the property and not that of each of its independent parts. If this were so, the express reference to "taxable patrimonial value used for purposes of IMI" would not be understood. And that, no doubt exists, is the object of autonomization in relation to each of the parts susceptible of independent use. Likewise, we would also not find grounds for the issuance of autonomous assessment notices. It is further added that, given the express referral of art. 67, no. 2 of the CIS to the CIMI, regarding matters not regulated, the parts, floors or divisions with autonomy are encompassable in properties classified as urban and residential, cf. art. 2, 3 and 6, all of the CIMI. In this manner, it is understood that the said interpretation does not suffer from unconstitutionality.

Finally, if the tribunal accepted the Claimant's request for a declaration of illegality of the stamp tax assessment acts, the knowledge of the remaining defects imputed to it becomes moot, cf. art. 124 of the CPPT, applicable by force of the provision in art. 29, no. 1 of the RJAT. In this sense the doctrine states: "The establishment of this order of knowledge of the defects has as its premise that, knowing of a defect that leads to the legal elimination of the challenged act, the tribunal will cease to know of the remaining ones, because, if this were not so, if the judge had to know of all the defects imputed to the act, the order of knowledge would be indifferent.", JORGE LOPES DE SOUSA, Code of Procedure and Tax Procedure – annotated and commented, Volume II, 6th edition, Áreas Editora, 2011, p. 340.

5.2. COMPENSATORY AND MORATORY INTEREST

Art. 43, no. 1 of the LGT provides that: "Compensatory interest is due when it is determined, in a request for reconsideration or judicial challenge, that there was error attributable to the services resulting in the payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than that legally due". In other words, there are three requirements for the right to said interest: i) Existence of an error in a tax assessment act attributable to the services; ii) Determination of such error in a request for reconsideration or judicial challenge procedure and iii) Payment of tax debt in an amount greater than that legally due.

In this manner, it is immediately possible to formulate a question: is it admissible to determine the payment of compensatory interest in a tax arbitration proceeding? The answer to the question is affirmative. In effect, art. 24, no. 5 of the RJAT provides that: "Payment of interest is due, regardless of its nature, in accordance with the terms provided in the General Tax Law and in the Code of Procedure and Tax Procedure".

Addressing the question, the illegality of the assessment is attributable to the AT before the lack of normative support when its practice occurred. Consequently, the request for compensatory interest proceeds, accruing on the value of the tax to be reimbursed, calculated at the rate determined in accordance with the provision in art. 43, no. 4 of the LGT, between the date on which the undue payment was made and until complete reimbursement, with the interest taking on a moratory nature after the expiration of the deadline for voluntary execution of the judgment.

6. DECISION

Accordingly, and with the grounds described above, the arbitration request is judged to be well-founded, with the consequent annulment in the legal order of the acts that are the object of this pronouncement, with all legal consequences.

7. VALUE OF THE CASE

The value of the case is set at € 10,668.60 (corresponding to the sum of the assessments that are the object of this pronouncement) in accordance with art. 97-A of the CPPT, applicable by force of the provision in art. 29, no. 1, para. a) and b) of the RJAT and art. 3, no. 2 of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings (RCPAT).

8. COSTS

Costs to be borne by the AT, in the amount of € 918, cf. art. 22, no. 4 of the RJAT and Table I annexed to the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings.

Let notification be made.

Lisbon, 20 May 2015

The Arbitrator,

Francisco Nicolau Domingos

[1] In the wording in force on the date of the taxable event.

[2] V. in this sense the arbitration decision rendered in case no. 50/2013 – T, of 29/10/2013.

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

Is Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) under Verba 28.1 of TGIS applicable to vertical property (propriedade vertical)?
Yes, Stamp Tax under Verba 28.1 of TGIS applies to vertical property (propriedade vertical) when urban properties with residential use have a taxable patrimonial value equal to or exceeding €1,000,000. The central legal issue is determining whether the €1,000,000 threshold applies to each independent floor/unit individually or to the aggregate global value of all units within the vertical property structure. The claimant argued that vertical properties should follow the same taxation criteria as horizontal property regimes, with each autonomous unit assessed separately based on its individual taxable patrimonial value for IMI purposes, as mandated by the subsidiary application of CIMI under Article 67(2) of the Stamp Tax Code.
Can heirs challenge Stamp Tax liquidations through CAAD tax arbitration proceedings?
Yes, heirs can challenge Stamp Tax liquidations through CAAD tax arbitration proceedings under RJAT. In this case, the heir representing the estate (open succession) of a deceased taxpayer successfully filed an arbitration request on September 25, 2014, contesting multiple stamp tax assessments for 2013. The arbitral tribunal was constituted on December 3, 2014, with the Tax Administration notified to respond. Heirs have standing to contest tax assessments affecting inherited property, and CAAD provides a specialized alternative dispute resolution forum for tax controversies, offering a faster and more flexible process than traditional administrative or judicial appeals for resolving stamp tax disputes involving succession property.
What is the procedure for cumulation of claims in CAAD arbitral tax proceedings under RJAT?
Cumulation of claims in CAAD arbitral tax proceedings under RJAT is admissible when specific conditions are met, as established in Article 3(1) of RJAT. The requirements include: (1) the claims must concern assessments of the same tax type; (2) there must be identity of subject matter and facts; and (3) the merits of the claims must depend on interpretation of the same legal principles and rules. In this case, the tribunal admitted cumulation of multiple 2013 stamp tax assessments because all involved the same tax (Imposto do Selo), arose from identical factual circumstances (vertical property ownership), and required interpretation of the same legal provisions (Verba 28.1 TGIS and Article 67(2) CIS regarding taxable value determination for vertical property).
How does the CAAD arbitral tribunal handle requests for waiver of the Article 18 RJAT hearing?
The CAAD arbitral tribunal handles requests for waiver of the Article 18 RJAT hearing by exercising its procedural autonomy under Article 16(c) of RJAT. When both parties agree to waive the hearing, the tribunal can grant the request based on the principle of tribunal autonomy in conducting proceedings and determining procedural rules to obtain a timely decision on the merits. In this case, the Tax Administration requested waiver in its January 21, 2015 response, the claimant consented on April 10, 2015, and the tribunal formally granted the waiver on April 21, 2015, also dispensing with final allegations and scheduling the decision date, demonstrating the tribunal's flexibility in streamlining proceedings when parties consent.
What are the grounds for contesting multiple Stamp Tax assessments in a single arbitration request?
The grounds for contesting multiple Stamp Tax assessments in a single arbitration request include: (1) all assessments concern the same tax type (Imposto do Selo under Verba 28.1); (2) common factual basis—the assessments arise from the same underlying circumstances (ownership of vertical property with multiple residential units); (3) unified legal interpretation issue—all disputes depend on resolving the same legal question regarding how taxable patrimonial value should be calculated for vertical property; (4) procedural efficiency—avoiding duplicate proceedings on identical legal and factual issues; and (5) compliance with Article 3(1) RJAT cumulation requirements. The claimant successfully consolidated 13 separate stamp tax assessments totaling €10,668.60 because they all involved the interpretation of whether individual unit values or aggregate property value triggers the €1,000,000 threshold under Verba 28.1 TGIS.