Stamp Tax on High-Value Properties: Vertical vs Horizontal Ownership Under Clause 28.1 TGIS (CAAD 70/2015-T)

ARBITRAL DECISION

I. REPORT

1. On 6 February 2015, the commercial company A…, Lda., Tax Identification Number …, with registered office at Rua …, no. .., 3rd floor right, Lisbon (hereinafter, Claimant), filed an application for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, under the combined provisions of Articles 2, no. 1, point a), and 10, nos. 1, point a), and 2, of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, which approved the Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters, as amended by Article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December (hereinafter, briefly designated RJAT), seeking the declaration of illegality and annulment of the assessment acts for the 3rd (third) instalment of Stamp Tax, effected under item 28.1 of the General Table of the Stamp Tax Code (hereinafter, GTST), with reference to the year 2013 and the urban property registered under article … in the urban land registry matrix of the parish of …, municipality and district of Lisbon, owned by the Claimant.

The Claimant submitted 10 (ten) documents, and did not list witnesses or request the production of any other evidence.

The Respondent is the AT – Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter, Respondent or AT).

In essence and in brief summary, the Claimant alleged the following:

It is the owner of the urban property in joint tenancy, located at Rua …, nos. … to …-D, turning onto Rua …, parish of …, municipality of Lisbon, which is composed of 6 floors and 11 units susceptible of independent use, all intended for residential purposes.

Although that property is registered in the land registry in joint tenancy, at the level of its taxation, its assessments were always calculated on the taxable property value of each of the said units, as if it were registered in the land registry in horizontal property regime.

The Claimant understands that the AT incorrectly interprets item 28 of the GTST, in that whether the mentioned property is registered in the land registry in horizontal property regime or in joint tenancy, the taxable base for IMI (Property Tax) purposes is always the taxable property value of each of the units susceptible of separate rental.

Now, if this was and is the case regarding the calculation of IMI and if it was the case for the Municipal Contribution and the Real Estate Contribution, the Claimant does not see any reason why the same should not occur regarding Stamp Tax, having it also apply to the taxable property value of each of the said units.

The AT, acting as it did, violated the principle of equality and the principle of prevalence of material truth, enshrined in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.

The Claimant understands that if the legislator's intention had been to tax properties that were not in horizontal property regime, with taxable property value equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00, it would not have failed to state so, that is, it would have equated the property in joint tenancy to an autonomous unit of property in horizontal property regime.

It is therefore the understanding of the Claimant that the purpose of the tax rule in item 28 of the GTST is to tax luxury housing, of high taxable property value (greater than €1,000,000.00).

Thus, if the legislator said nothing regarding the form of taxation of such properties in the context of Stamp Tax, at the rate of 1%, and made no distinction between properties in joint tenancy and properties in horizontal property regime, dedicated to residential purposes and with taxable property values below €1,000,000.00, per floor or unit susceptible of separate rental, it is because it intended to give them the same treatment at the level of Stamp Tax taxation, similar to what occurred and occurs at the level of IMI taxation and, previously, in the Municipal Contribution and the Real Estate Contribution.

It cannot therefore be accepted that for purposes of Stamp Tax taxation, within item 28 of the GTST, the rule that has always applied regarding the autonomy of parts of urban properties susceptible of separate rental should be disregarded.

The Claimant further alleges that, having paid all amounts resulting from the disputed Stamp Tax assessments, it is entitled to have indemnity interest paid to it, under the legal terms.

The Claimant concludes its request for arbitral pronouncement by formulating the requests for "annulment of the assessment acts", for "reimbursement of tax paid" and for payment "of the indemnity interest due under the legal terms".

1. The application for constitution of an arbitral tribunal was accepted and automatically notified to the AT on 9 February 2015.

2. The Claimant did not proceed to appoint an arbitrator, whereby, under the provisions of no. 1 of Article 6 and point a) of no. 1 of Article 11 of the RJAT, the President of the CAAD Deontological Council appointed the undersigned as arbitrator of the singular Arbitral Tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the office within the applicable period.

3. On 1 April 2015, the parties were duly notified of such appointment, and neither manifested intent to refuse the arbitrator's appointment, under the combined terms of Article 11, no. 1, points b) and c), of the RJAT and Articles 6 and 7 of the CAAD Deontological Code.

4. Thus, in conformity with the provision of point c) of no. 1 of Article 11 of the RJAT, the singular Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 17 April 2015.

5. On 15 May 2015, the Respondent, duly notified for such purpose, filed its Response in which it specifically challenged the arguments raised by the Claimant and concluded for the dismissal of the present action, with its consequent dismissal of the claim.

The Respondent did not submit documents or request the production of any other evidence.

The Respondent did not annex to the case file the administrative process as it merely consists of the tax acts in question in this process, and the documents that embody them were fully transferred to the case file by the Claimant, together with the request for arbitral pronouncement, having been considered true by the AT and therefore accepted.

In essence and also in brief form, it is important to extract the most relevant arguments upon which the Respondent based its contestation:

The concept of property is defined in Article 2, no. 1, of the IMI Code, and it is established in its no. 4 that, under the horizontal property regime, each autonomous unit is deemed to constitute a property. Therefore, a property in full ownership with floors or units susceptible of independent use is unequivocally different from a property under the horizontal property regime, constituted by autonomous units, that is, several properties.

Thus, the Claimant, for purposes of IMI and also of Stamp Tax, is not the owner of 11 autonomous units, but rather of a single property.

The unity of the urban property in joint tenancy composed of several floors or units is not – affirms the Respondent – affected by the fact that all or part of those floors or units are susceptible of independent economic use. Such property does not cease to be only one, whereby its legally distinct parts cannot be equated to autonomous units under horizontal property regime.

The taxable property value relevant for purposes of the application of item 28 of the GTST is, therefore – in the Respondent's view – the total taxable property value of the urban property and not the taxable property value of each of the parts that compose it, even when susceptible of independent use.

In another line of reasoning, the AT understands that the provision of item 28.1 of the GTST does not constitute any violation of the principle of equality, with no discrimination existing in the taxation of properties constituted in horizontal property regime and properties in full ownership with floors or units susceptible of independent use.

Horizontal property and joint tenancy are different legal institutions and tax law respects them. Consequently, the different valuation and taxation of a property in full ownership as opposed to a property constituted in horizontal property regime stems from the different legal effects inherent in these two figures.

The Respondent further states that the land registry registration of each part susceptible of independent use is not autonomous, by registry, but appears in a description in the registry of the property in its entirety.

It is therefore the understanding of the Respondent that applying, by analogy, to the Claimant's property the regime of horizontal property, considering that each of the units susceptible of independent use constitutes a property, would not be interpreting the norms of the IMI Code and consequently those of the Stamp Tax Code, but rather subverting the entire legal regime established therein.

In this framework, the Respondent concludes by saying that the tax acts in question did not violate any legal or constitutional provision, whereby they should be maintained.

1. On 11 June 2015, an order was issued dispensing with the holding of the meeting referred to in Article 18 of the RJAT, as well as the submission of further arguments.

II. JOINDER AND DISMISSAL OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

The Arbitral Tribunal was regularly constituted and is competent.

The process is not affected by nullities.

The parties enjoy legal personality and capacity, are duly represented and are legitimate.

The joinder of claims is admitted – multiple assessment acts for Stamp Tax are at issue, with the annulment of each being requested – since it is verified that the success of the claims formulated by the Claimant depends essentially on the appreciation of the same circumstances of fact – rooted in the Claimant's ownership of an urban property in joint tenancy with floors or units susceptible of independent use – and on the interpretation and application of the same principles or rules of law – in this case, item 28.1 of the GTST (cf. Article 3, no. 1, of the RJAT).

There are no exceptions or other preliminary questions that impede knowledge of the merits and that must be addressed.

III. GROUNDS

III.1. FACTUAL FINDINGS

§1. PROVEN FACTS

With respect to factual matters, it is important, first and foremost, to note that the Tribunal does not need to pronounce on everything alleged by the parties, but rather its duty is to select the facts that matter for the decision and discriminate proven from unproven matters (cf. Article 123, no. 2, of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process and Article 607, nos. 3 and 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by virtue of Article 29, no. 1, points a) and e), of the RJAT). In this manner, the facts relevant to the judgment of the case are selected and delineated in function of their legal relevance, which is established with regard to the various plausible solutions of the legal question(s).

In this framework, having in consideration, namely, the positions assumed by the parties and the documentary evidence produced, the following facts are deemed proven as relevant to the decision:

1. In the year 2013, the Claimant was the owner of the urban property, in full ownership with floors or units susceptible of independent use, located at Rua …, nos. … to …-D, turning onto Rua …, parish of …, municipality and district of Lisbon, registered in the respective urban land registry under article … (factuality accepted by agreement).

2. The said urban property is composed of 6 (six) floors and 11 (eleven) units susceptible of independent use, of which 9 (nine) are intended for residential purposes, and was assigned, in 2013, a total taxable property value of €1,374,720.00 – cf. Article 3 of the response and document no. 10 attached to the initial petition (factuality accepted by agreement).

3. Each of the units susceptible of independent use that compose that same urban property has its own taxable property value, ascertained under the terms of the Property Tax Code, and to the units susceptible of independent use intended for residential purposes were assigned, in 2013, the following individual taxable property values, all less than €1,000,000.00 – cf. document no. 10 attached to the initial petition (factuality accepted by agreement):

1. The Claimant was notified of Stamp Tax assessments as follows itemized, in the total amount of €4,317.55, all relating to the year 2013 and concerning the units susceptible of independent use intended for residential purposes, comprised in the urban property identified above in proven fact 1 – cf. documents nos. 1 to 9 attached to the initial petition (factuality accepted by agreement):

1. The Stamp Tax assessments itemized in the previous proven fact result from the application of item 28.1 of the GTST to each and every one of the units susceptible of independent use referenced therein, comprised in the urban property identified in proven fact 1 – cf. Article 1 of the initial petition, Articles 4 to 7 of the response and documents nos. 1 to 9 attached to the initial petition (factuality accepted by agreement).

2. The Claimant timely proceeded to full payment of the amounts corresponding to the Stamp Tax assessments mentioned in proven fact 4, the voluntary payment period for which ended in November 2014, in the total amount of €4,317.55 – cf. Article 46 of the initial petition and documents nos. 1 to 9 attached to the initial petition (factuality accepted by agreement).

3. On 6 February 2015, the Claimant filed the application for constitution of an arbitral tribunal that gave rise to the present process – cf. CAAD process management information system.

§2. UNPROVEN FACTS

With relevance to the appreciation and decision of the case, there are no facts that have not been proven.

§3. REASONING REGARDING FACTUAL MATTERS

As to the proven factual matters, the Tribunal's conviction was based on the statements made in the pleadings, in the points indicated, in which the accuracy thereof to reality was not disputed, and on the documents attached to the case file, referenced in relation to each of the points, whose correspondence to reality was not questioned.

III.2. LEGAL GROUNDS

§1. THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED

In essence, the Tribunal is called to decide the question of taxation, in the context of Stamp Tax, in the case of properties with global taxable property value exceeding one million euros, but composed of units or fractions with autonomy, some intended for residential purposes but which, considered individually, do not amount to a taxable property value (TPV) exceeding one million euros.

Let us then examine the question.

Article 4 of Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, added to the General Table of Stamp Tax, annexed to the Stamp Tax Code, approved by Law no. 150/99, of 11 September, item 28, with the following wording [amended by the State Budget Law for 2014 (cf. Article 194 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31.12)]:

"28 — Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose taxable property value appearing in the registry, under the terms of the Property Tax Code (IMI Code), is equal to or greater than €1,000,000 — on the taxable property value used for IMI purposes:

28.1 — For residential property or for building land whose construction, authorized or planned, is for residential purposes, under the terms provided in the Property Tax Code — 1%;

28.2 — For property, when the taxpayers who are not natural persons are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime, listed on the list approved by ordinance of the Minister of Finance — 7.5%."

Now, both in item 28 of the GTST and in Article 6 of Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, an innovative concept was used, which is not used by any other tax legislation: the concept of property with residential use designation.

Neither in the IMI Code, indicated by the said Law no. 55-A/2012 as a statute of subsidiary application regarding the tax introduced by the addition of item 28 to the GTST, is any concept thus defined used.

In fact, the IMI Code defines the concept of property, determines the various types of properties and identifies the categories of urban properties.

Under Article 2 of the IMI Code, "property means any portion of land, including waters, plantations, buildings and constructions of any nature thereon or thereto affixed, 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".

No. 4 of the said Article 2 expressly prescribes that each autonomous unit, under the horizontal property regime, is deemed to constitute a property.

Properties are divided into rural (Article 3), urban (Article 4) or mixed (Article 5), with urban properties in turn subdividing into four categories: residential; commercial, industrial or for services; land for construction; and others (Article 6).

In turn, no. 2 of Article 6 of the IMI Code clarifies that "residential, commercial, industrial or for services are buildings or constructions licensed for such purposes or, in the absence of a license, that have each of these purposes as their normal destination".

From the combined analysis of the said provisions, it is verified that the IMI Code makes no distinction between properties constituted under horizontal property regime or joint tenancy. In fact, although no. 4 of Article 2 explicitly refers to autonomous units of properties constituted under horizontal property regime each constituting a property, the truth is that it does not exclude from such classification the units with independent use of properties constituted under joint tenancy or full ownership regime.

And, where the law has not distinguished, the interpreter cannot do so.

Having therefore analyzed the definition of property inherent in no. 1 of Article 2 of the IMI Code, we do not perceive any reason not to include therein the units with independent use of properties constituted under joint tenancy regime, as these constitute a portion of land that forms an integral part of the patrimony of a natural or legal person and that has economic value.

It should be noted that each of these units or fractions is assigned a taxable property value.

Established as is the classification of units with independent use of properties constituted under joint tenancy regime as properties, under the terms and for the purposes of the IMI Code, it seems evident to us that each of these units, when such is the purpose to which they are intended, constitute properties with residential use designation, which moreover constitutes a matter on which various arbitral case law has already focused and to which reference will be made below.

"Property with residential use designation" can have no other meaning than the action of giving to a determined property (or fraction) the purpose of residence.

Lastly, mindful of the provision of no. 2 of Article 6 of the IMI Code, which invokes the notion of "normal destination" of the property, there seem to be no remaining doubts about the identity, notwithstanding the terminological difference, between the concepts of "residential property" and "property with residential use designation".

In the case at hand, each of the units of the urban property in question are susceptible of independent use, with 9 (nine) of these units being intended for residential purposes (cf. above proven fact 2).

Indeed, were it not the case that the units in question in the present case were individually classified as "properties", it would make no sense or logic to elaborate, in this case, an assessment notice for Stamp Tax for each of these units (as results from the proven facts, the Stamp Tax assessments in question, relating to the year 2013, resulted from application by the AT of Article 1, no. 1, of the Stamp Tax Code, combined with item 28.1 of the GTST and Article 6 of Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October).

It is true that the subsidiary application of the IMI Code could inculcate the idea that only autonomous units, under horizontal property regime, are deemed to be properties in light of the provision of Article 2, no. 4, of the IMI Code.

However, if one pays attention to the wording of the said Article 2, no. 4, one will immediately verify that the presupposition of constitution of the horizontal property regime is only necessary for purposes of Property Tax (IMI).

It should further be noted that, in light of the provision of Article 12, no. 3, of the IMI Code, "each floor or part of property susceptible of independent use is considered separately in the land registry registration, which also itemizes its respective taxable property value".

Moreover, and as regards the spirit of the law, it is important to note that, as has been argued by the most recent arbitral case law and which is closely followed herein, the introduction of item 28 in the GTST was intended to tax urban properties of high value with residential use designation, taxing the wealth, manifested in the ownership, usufruct or right of superficies, of "luxury" urban properties, or their autonomous fractions or units, with residential use designation [cf. the decisions rendered in cases nos. 50/2013-T, 132/2013-T, 132/2013-T, 181/2013-T, 182/2013-T, 183/2013-T, 185/2013-T, 100/2014-T, 238/2014-T, 290/2014-T, 428/2014-T, 707/2014-T and 756/2014-T, all available at www.caad.org.pt].

It should further be emphasized that, where there exist (or may exist) in the same building, fractions (in horizontal property regime or not), with use designation diverse or different from residential, the objective sought by item 28.1 will only be achieved when each of the fractions individually has taxable property value greater than €1,000,000.

Indeed, as results from the analysis of the discussion of Bill no. 96/XII in the Assembly of the Republic (Official Records, I Series, no. 9/XII/2, of 11.10.2012), the rationale for the measure designated special tax on residential urban properties of highest value rests on the invocation of principles of social equity and fiscal justice, calling upon the owners of high-value properties intended for residential purposes to contribute in a more intensive manner, having the new special tax apply to properties of value equal to or exceeding one million euros.

Now, if the objective of the law was to adapt taxation in the context of Stamp Tax to the contributory capacity of taxpayers, it seems to have no relevance the distinction between properties constituted under horizontal property regime or joint tenancy.

In fact, it is not apparent how the ownership of certain units in a property under joint tenancy regime could signify greater wealth and greater contributory capacity than the ownership of the same number of units in a property under horizontal property regime.

Manifestly, it is not through that avenue that greater or lesser contributory capacity is revealed, all the more so that, as is known, horizontal property is a relatively recent legal institute, and certainly a large portion of older properties are not even constituted in this regime, despite, in practice, functioning as such.

Now, the principle of prevalence of substance over form requires that the AT value material truth. And, in the case at hand, material truth consists in the inexistence of any substantive difference between the units owned by the Claimant and the units of a property constituted in horizontal property regime.

Or, stated differently: since the constitution of horizontal property is merely a legal operation and not a factual one, no reasons are perceived for differences in taxation in this regard, since what will always be relevant is the individual value of each of the units, whether or not the property is constituted under the horizontal property regime.

To distinguish, for the purpose of subjection or not to Stamp Tax, the autonomous units of properties constituted under horizontal property regime from the units with independent use of properties constituted under joint tenancy regime, represents a clear violation of the principles of justice, equality and proportionality in taxation, material truth and contributory capacity, and cannot therefore be accepted.

Thus, the thesis defended by the Respondent that the fact that the property is not constituted under horizontal property regime precludes application of its regime should fail.

In the case at hand, as results from the proven facts, none of the units with independent use, or rather, none of the "properties" owned by the Claimant, has a taxable property value equal to or greater than one million euros, whereby these are not covered by the tax incidence rule provided in item 28 of the GTST.

In light of all that has been set forth, there is no doubt that the taxable property value relevant for purposes of Stamp Tax incidence in cases of properties constituted under joint tenancy regime, composed of several units with independent use, some with residential use designation, is the taxable property value of each of the units of the property and not, as argued by the Respondent, the global taxable property value of the property, corresponding to the sum of all taxable property values of the units that compose it.

In this framework, there being no legal basis for the said Stamp Tax assessment acts, their annulment is required due to their suffering from illegality, by error regarding the legal presuppositions, with the consequent reimbursement to the Claimant of all that the Claimant has paid to the Respondent regarding those assessment acts.

§2. INDEMNITY INTEREST

In accordance with the provision of point b) of Article 24 of the RJAT, an arbitral decision on the merits of a claim from which no appeal or challenge is available shall bind the tax administration from the end of the period provided for appeal or challenge, and the administration must, in the exact terms of the success of the arbitral decision in favor of the taxpayer and until the end of the period provided for voluntary execution of the decisions of tax courts, "restore the situation that would exist if the tax act that is the subject of the arbitral decision had not been made, adopting the acts and operations necessary for such purpose", which is in line with the provision of Article 100 of the General Tax Law (applicable by virtue of the provision of point a) of no. 1 of Article 29 of the RJAT), which establishes that "the tax administration is obliged, in case of total or partial success of a complaint, judicial challenge or appeal in favor of the taxpayer, to immediate and complete restoration of the legality of the act or situation that is the subject of the dispute, including payment of indemnity interest, if applicable, from the end of the period for execution of the decision".

Although in Article 2, nos. 1, points a) and b), of the RJAT, the expression "declaration of illegality" is used to define the competence of the arbitral tribunals that function in the CAAD, making no reference to condemnatory decisions, it should be understood that the competencies thereof include the powers that in judicial challenge proceedings are attributed to tax courts, and this is the interpretation that accords with the meaning of the legislative authorization on which the Government based itself to approve the RJAT, in which is proclaimed, as the first directive, that "the tax arbitration process should constitute an alternative procedural means to judicial challenge proceedings and to actions for recognition of a right or legitimate interest in tax matters".

The judicial challenge process, although essentially a process for annulment of tax acts, admits condemnation of the Tax Administration to payment of indemnity interest, as may be inferred from Article 43, no. 1, of the General Tax Law, in which it is established that "indemnity interest is owed when it is determined, in a voluntary objection or judicial challenge, that there was error attributable to the services resulting in payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than legally due", and from Article 61, no. 4, of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, in which it is determined that "if the decision that recognized the right to indemnity interest is judicial, the payment period is counted from the beginning of the voluntary execution period therefor".

Thus, no. 5 of Article 24 of the RJAT, in stating that "payment of interest, regardless of its nature, is due, under the terms provided in the General Tax Law and the Code of Tax Procedure and Process" should be understood as permitting recognition of the right to indemnity interest in the arbitration process.

In the case at hand, it is manifest that, as a consequence of the illegality of the said Stamp Tax assessment acts, there is a basis for reimbursement of the tax, by virtue of the said Article 24, no. 1, point b), of the RJAT and Article 100 of the General Tax Law, as this is essential to "restore the situation that would exist if the tax act that is the subject of the arbitral decision had not been made".

Furthermore, it is also clear that the illegality of those Stamp Tax assessment acts is attributable to the AT, which, on its own initiative, made them without the necessary legal support.

One is faced, as has been stated, with a defect of substantive law violation, embodied in error regarding the legal presuppositions, attributable to the AT.

Consequently, the Claimant is entitled to indemnity interest, under Article 43, no. 1, of the General Tax Law and Article 61 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, calculated on the amounts it paid improperly as a result of those Stamp Tax assessment acts.

Thus, the AT should give effect to the present arbitral decision, under Article 24, no. 1, of the RJAT, determining the amount of tax to be reimbursed to the Claimant and calculating the respective indemnity interest, at the legal supplementary rate fixed for civil debts, which is owed from the dates of the improper payments of Stamp Tax and on the respective amounts until the date of processing of the respective tax credit note, in which they are included [cf. Articles 35, no. 10, and 43, no. 1, of the General Tax Law, Article 61 of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, Article 559, no. 1, of the Civil Code and Ordinance no. 291/2003, of 8 April (or ordinance or ordinances that succeed it)].

IV. DECISION

In accordance with what has been set forth, this Arbitral Tribunal decides:

a) To uphold the claim for declaration of illegality of the following Stamp Tax assessments, for error regarding legal presuppositions, with their consequent annulment:

• assessment no. 2014…, dated 17.03.2014, in the amount of €550.60;

• assessment no. 2014…, dated 17.03.2014, in the amount of €474.73;

• assessment no. 2014…, dated 17.03.2014, in the amount of €550.60;

• assessment no. 2014…, dated 17.03.2014, in the amount of €474.73;

• assessment no. 2014…, dated 17.03.2014, in the amount of €550.60;

• assessment no. 2014…, dated 17.03.2014, in the amount of €474.73;

• assessment no. 2014…, dated 17.03.2014, in the amount of €550.60;

• assessment no. 2014…, dated 17.03.2014, in the amount of €550.60; and

• assessment no. 2014…, dated 17.03.2014, in the amount of €474.73.

b) To uphold the claim for reimbursement of the amounts that have been paid by virtue of such Stamp Tax assessments;

c) To uphold the claim for payment of indemnity interest, at the applicable legal rate, calculated on the said amounts of Stamp Tax paid and counted from the dates of improper payment of the tax until the date of processing of the respective tax credit note, in which they are included;

d) To condemn the Tax and Customs Authority to payment of the costs of the present process.

VALUE OF THE CASE

In conformity with the provision of Articles 306, no. 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 97-A, no. 1, point a), of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process, and 3, no. 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Processes, the value of the case is set at €4,317.55 (four thousand three hundred seventeen euros and fifty-five cents).

COSTS

Under Article 22, no. 4, of the RJAT, the amount of costs is set at €612.00 (six hundred twelve euros), under the terms of Table I annexed to the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Processes, to be borne by the Tax and Customs Authority.

Lisbon, 22 June 2015.

The Arbitrator,

(Ricardo Rodrigues Pereira)