Process: 702/2016-T

Date: July 20, 2017

Tax Type: IMT Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

This CAAD arbitration case (Process 702/2016-T) addresses whether the transitional regime for Real Estate Investment Funds for Residential Leasing (FIIAH) violates constitutional principles of tax law non-retroactivity. Fund A... challenged IMT and Stamp Duty assessments totaling €2,579.43 on a property acquired before 1 January 2014. The core legal issue concerns Article 236 of Law 83-C/2013 (2014 State Budget), which retroactively applied new conditions to previously granted tax exemptions. Originally, Article 8(7)(a) and 8(8) of Law 64-A/2008 provided unconditional IMT and IS exemptions for FIIAH property acquisitions intended for residential leasing. The 2014 State Budget added paragraphs 14-16 to Article 8, requiring properties to be leased within three years to maintain exemption status. Article 236(2) applied this three-year deadline to pre-2014 acquisitions, counting from 1 January 2014. The fund argues this constitutes retroactive taxation violating Article 103(3) of the Portuguese Constitution, as exemptions were definitively crystallized when properties entered the fund's assets under the original regime. The fund contends that IMT and IS are single-event taxes where the taxable event (property acquisition) and exemption recognition occurred before the law change. The Tax Authority's position would be that the transitional regime reasonably balances policy objectives with taxpayer rights. This case has significant implications for real estate investment funds regarding the stability of tax exemptions and constitutional limits on retroactive tax legislation affecting vested rights.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

Arbitrator Raquel Franco, appointed by the Deontological Council of the Administrative Arbitration Centre (CAAD) to form the single arbitral tribunal constituted on 9 February 2017, decides as follows:

I. REPORT

1) Procedural Framework

On 28 November 2016, the company "A… – CLOSED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FUND FOR RESIDENTIAL LEASING", VAT No. …, filed an application for the constitution of a single arbitral tribunal, in accordance with the combined provisions of Articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011 of 20 January (Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as RJAT), in which the Tax and Customs Authority is the Respondent.

The application for constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the Honourable President of CAAD and automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority on 13 December 2016.

Pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph (a) of paragraph 2 of Article 6 and subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011 of 20 January, as amended by Article 228 of Law No. 66-B/2012 of 31 December, the Deontological Council appointed the undersigned as arbitrator of the single arbitral tribunal, who communicated acceptance of the appointment within the applicable deadline, and notified the parties of this appointment on 25 January 2017.

Thus, in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (c) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011 of 20 January, as amended by Article 228 of Law No. 66-B/2012 of 31 December, the single arbitral tribunal was constituted on 9 February 2017, following the applicable legal procedures.

2) Summary of Grounds Invoked by the Applicant

By the arbitral decision request presented, the Applicant seeks to determine whether Article 236 of Law No. 83-C/2013 of 31 December (transitional rule within the Special Regime Applicable to REIFs and RESIFs), insofar as it provides for the application of the current Tax Regime for REIFs "to properties that have been acquired by REIFs before 1 January 2014, with the three-year deadline provided for in paragraph 14 being counted, in such cases, from 1 January 2014" constitutes a new regime of termination of the exemptions provided for in paragraph 7, subparagraph (a) and paragraph 8 of Article 8 (Tax Regime) of the Tax Regime for REIFs, which, in its view, would constitute a flagrant and unequivocal violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law, enshrined in Article 103, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.

In support of its position, it identifies the following arguments:

Law No. 64-A/2008 of 31 December (State Budget 2009) approved the special regime applicable to real estate investment funds for residential leasing (REIFs) and real estate investment companies for residential leasing, contained in the respective Articles 102 to 104.

With regard to the tax regime for REIFs, and as concerns the Property Transfer Tax (IMT), paragraph 7 of Article 8 provides that:

"7 - The following are exempt from IMT:

a) The acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous fractions of urban properties intended exclusively for leasing for permanent residential purposes, by the investment funds referred to in paragraph 1.

b) The acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous fractions of urban properties intended for permanent residential occupation, as a result of the exercise of the purchase option referred to in paragraph 3 of Article 5 by the lessees of the properties that are part of the assets of the investment funds referred to in paragraph 1."

Law No. 83-C/2013 of 31 December (State Budget 2014) added to Article 8 paragraphs 14 to 16, with the following text:

"14 – For the purposes of paragraphs 6 to 8, it is considered that urban properties are intended for leasing for permanent residential purposes whenever they are subject to a leasing contract for permanent residential purposes within three years counted from the moment they became part of the assets of the fund, the taxpayer being obliged to communicate and provide proof to the Tax Authority of the respective effective leasing within 30 days following the end of the said period.

15 – When the properties have not been subject to a leasing contract within the three-year period provided for in the previous paragraph, the exemptions provided for in paragraphs 6 to 8 become void, in which case the taxpayer must request the Tax Authority, within 30 days following the end of the said period, to assess the respective tax.

16 – If the properties are transferred, with the exception of the cases provided for in Article 5, or if the REIF is subject to liquidation, before the expiry of the period provided for in paragraph 14, the taxpayer must equally request the Tax Authority, prior to the transfer of the property or the liquidation of the REIF, to assess the tax due under the previous paragraph."

Finally, the same Law No. 83-C/2013 of 31 December (State Budget 2014) established in its Article 236 (transitional rule within the special regime applicable to REIFs and RESIFs), the following transitional regime:

"1 – The provisions of paragraphs 14 to 16 of Article 8 of the special regime applicable to REIFs and RESIFs, approved by Articles 102 to 104 of Law No. 64-A/2008 of 31 December, apply to properties that have been acquired by REIFs from 1 January 2014 onwards.

2 - Without prejudice to what is provided for in the previous paragraph, the provisions of paragraphs 14 to 16 of Article 8 of the special regime applicable to REIFs and RESIFs, approved by Articles 102 to 104 of Law No. 64-A/2008 of 31 December, shall equally apply to properties that have been acquired by REIFs before 1 January 2014, with the three-year period provided for in paragraph 14 being counted, in such cases, from 1 January 2014."

On the basis of these provisions, in particular of paragraph 16 of Article 8, the Applicant requested from the Tax Authority the assessment of IMT and Stamp Duty (IS) for the following tax acts relating to properties that were held by Fund A… at the date of entry into force of the 2014 State Budget Law.

  • Property matriculation article … (fraction "E") of the parish of …, municipality of Campo Maior, IMT assessment No. …, in the amount of € 1,578.43

  • Same, IS assessment No. …, in the amount of € 1,001.00.

The said assessments were paid on 1 September 2016.

However, the Applicant considers that the said assessments are unlawful due to violation of the provisions of Article 103, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, and accordingly should be declared null or, alternatively, if this is not accepted, should be declared voidable. And it presents the following reasons:

  • Both IMT and IS are taxes of a single obligatory event;

  • This characterization is relevant insofar as the exemptions from IMT and IS, contained, respectively, in paragraphs 7, subparagraph (a) and 8 of Article 8 of the Tax Regime for REIFs, were recognized at the request of Fund A…, in accordance with Article 10 (recognition of exemptions) of the IMT Code, at a moment prior to the entry of the relevant properties into the assets of Fund A….

  • The Applicant understands that this means that when the properties entered the assets of Fund A…, the exemptions from IMT and IS provided for, respectively, in paragraphs 7, subparagraph (a) and 8 of Article 8 of the tax regime of REIFs, became definitively crystallized in the tax legal order. Effectively, the tax event is the acquisition of the property by the Fund and the exemptions were not, at the date when the properties entered the assets of the Fund, conditioned by the subsequent verification of any fact or circumstance.

  • Thus, any changes introduced to the regime in the sense of conditioning the validity of the exemption must apply only for the future and not to properties that already had the exemption recognized in their favor.

  • The Applicant therefore considers that Article 236 of State Budget Law 2014, by extending the application of the regime to properties acquired before the entry into force of the amendment, although applying it only after 3 years counted from 01.01.2014, directly and unequivocally violates the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law enshrined in Article 103, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.

  • It further reinforces that this understanding has support in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court according to which the prohibition of retroactivity in the tax field covers only authentic retroactivity, that is, cases in which the tax event that the new law intends to regulate has already produced all its effects under the old law (cf. rulings 128/2009, 85/2010, 399/2010).

  • The Applicant attaches two opinions that reinforce its position, one by Prof. Doctor B… and another by Prof. Doctor C…, whose conclusions summarized are recorded here:

The exemptions from IMT and IS applicable in the acquisitions of properties or autonomous fractions covered by the regime prior to the amendment introduced by State Budget Law 2014 were sufficient with acquisition by REIFs intended for residential leasing, not depending on the completion of effective leasing within a certain period nor on the non-transfer of the property within that same period, the legislator not having placed on the REIFs the risk of non-realization of the leasing.

The requirement introduced by State Budget Law 2014 was not provided for in the original regime of 2008, not resulting, in particular, from the premise that these were acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous fractions "intended exclusively for leasing for residential purposes", since that intended purpose is compatible, in particular in periods of crisis in the rental market, with difficulties and delays in the realization of leasing, nothing preventing, according to the original provision of the exemption, that the property be acquired as intended exclusively for leasing for residential purposes despite only being leased, for example, 3 and a half years or 4 years after acquisition.

Similarly, the transfer, within the 3-year period counted from acquisition, of the property that had been acquired to be intended exclusively for leasing did not also prevent the application of the exemption according to its original provision – it being certain, moreover, that only 75% of the assets of REIFs was obligatorily required to be integrated by properties intended for leasing (Article 4, paragraph 1, of the respective regime).

The provision of a deadline for the realization of leasing represents the introduction of a new condition for the exemption from IMT and IS, with the effect of delimiting more restrictively the exception to the application resulting from the exemption, providing that this becomes "void."

Article 103, paragraph 3 of the Constitution prohibits taxes of a retroactive nature, with such prohibition, introduced in 1997, making it clear that it is not permitted for the legislator to provide or alter in its essential elements taxes that apply to facts already exhausted at the moment of entry into force of the law – that is, that are authentically retroactive.

The wording of Article 103, paragraph 3, introduced in 1997, gave rise to the fact that, after 1997, and applying the new constitutional parameter, the Constitutional Court has come to decide in the sense of unconstitutionality of norms that create or alter in their essential elements taxes for facts that were completed prior to their entry into force (authentic retroactivity, as opposed to mere retrospectivity or inauthentic retroactivity).

The rule provided for in Article 236 of State Budget Law 2014 is authentically retroactive since it orders the application of the new conditions of the exemptions – leasing and non-transfer within a 3-year period, under penalty of these becoming void – to acquisitions and to acts (that is, to tax events) prior to its entry into force and that were completed before it.

On the other hand, the rule cannot be considered interpretive because the conditions that it added to the exemptions were not previously provided for.

It is irrelevant that Article 236, paragraph 2 of State Budget Law 2014 provides that the three-year period is counted from the entry into force of that law since such a condition of the exemption (the period) was not even required at the moment when the relevant tax events were performed.

The Applicant further considers that, given the unconstitutionality of the rule that forms the basis of the contested assessments, the vice thereof is nullity, under subparagraph (d) of paragraph 2 of Article 133 of the Administrative Procedure Code (CPA), because they violate the essential content of a fundamental right, which may be invoked at any time.

Should this not be accepted, it contends that the assessments should be considered voidable, under the terms of Article 10, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of RJAT and Article 102, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a) of the Tax Procedural Code.

In any case, it petitions for the restitution of the amount of tax paid in excess, increased by compensatory interest under the provisions of Article 63 of the General Tax Law.

3) Summary of Counter-Arguments by the Tax Authority

The Tax Authority considers that it is not legitimate for the legislator to subsequently impose any facts or circumstances that determine the termination of the right to exemption in compliance with the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law.

In the present case, it is not a matter of altering the conditions, terms of attribution or recognition of a tax benefit, but solely and only of the period of time for purposes of proving compliance with a previously established requirement. We are not, therefore, in a situation of recognition of rights, but only of procedures for proving rights whose attribution is previously regulated.

Under paragraph 2 of Article 266 of the Constitution, the administration is obliged to act in accordance with the principle of legality, that is, administrative bodies and agents have no competence to decide on the non-application of rules regarding which doubts of constitutionality are raised.

Therefore, and in summary, the Tax Authority could not/cannot refuse the application of a rule or fail to comply with the law by invoking or questioning its constitutionality, as it is subject to the principle of legality, as established in Articles 266, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, 3, paragraph 1 of the Administrative Procedure Code and 55 of the General Tax Law.

As to unconstitutionality, the Tax Authority understands that it must be noted that, at the date of creation of the tax regime applicable to REIFs, with Law No. 64-A/2008 of 31 December, the exemptions in question, both in the field of IMT and in the field of Stamp Duty, required, respectively:

(i) that the acquisition of the properties had as exclusive destination "leasing for permanent residential purposes" and,

(ii) that the transfer had as subject matter "properties intended for permanent residential occupation that occur as a result of the conversion of the property right of these properties into a leasing right over the same, as well as with the exercise of the purchase option provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 5".

That is, taxpayers who wished to benefit from the said exemptions have always had, since the beginning of the tax regime applicable to REIFs, to comply with the condition that such properties be intended exclusively for leasing for permanent residential purposes.

Therefore, the Applicant is wrong when it states that the exemptions in question were not conditioned by any facts or circumstances.

It is to be concluded, thus, that, with the amendments introduced, the ratio of the exemptions enshrined was not altered, and it should be emphasized that the immediate extinction of the benefit was not determined in the event that the said leasing contract was not concluded, rather a fairly extended period of three years was granted for that purpose.

In truth, and noting that no legal harm caused to the Applicant by the said rule is identified, given that, as seen, the transfer presupposes the dedication to a destination other than leasing, in light of the said normative provision, with respect to properties acquired before 1 January 2014, in order to consider the dedication to permanent residential purposes to be realized, leasing contracts for permanent residential purposes would have to be concluded within the three subsequent years.

Being a concrete transfer of the properties at issue, note that, occurring the termination of the exemption, already under Article 14, paragraph 2, of the Tax Benefits Statute, Article 8, paragraph 16 of the regime merely concretizes an anti-abuse measure, that is, making it concrete that properties that do not remain in the portfolio with exclusive dedication to residential leasing were not acquired with such purpose.

Finally, as regards the request for compensatory interest, the Tax Authority considers that the Tax Authority's services cannot be imputed any error of fact or law, given compliance with the law that forms the entire basis of its activity, which, in turn, determines, therefore, that there is no legal basis for the request for compensatory interest.

II. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

  1. The Tribunal is competent and regularly constituted, under the terms of Articles 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (a), 5 and 6, all of RJAT.

  2. The parties have legal standing and capacity, are legitimate and are legally represented, under the terms of Articles 4 and 10 of RJAT and Article 1 of Ordinance No. 112-A/2011 of 22 March.

  3. The proceedings do not suffer from vices that invalidate them.

III. FACTUAL MATTERS

Before entering into the examination of legal questions, it is necessary to present the factual matter relevant to its respective understanding and decision, which, having examined the documentary evidence and the administrative proceedings (PA) attached to the case file and also taking into account the facts alleged, is established as follows:

III.1. Proven Facts

In light of the documents submitted to the proceedings and the facts alleged and not contradicted, it is established as proven that:

a) The company "A… – CLOSED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FUND FOR RESIDENTIAL LEASING" was, at the date of the assessments in question, the owner of the property corresponding to matriculation article … (fraction "E") of the parish of …, municipality of Campo Maior;

b) The property in question had been acquired with the benefit of IMT exemption under subparagraph (a) of paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the special regime applicable to real estate investment funds for residential leasing (REIFs);

c) On 31 August 2016, the IMT assessment was issued, in the amount of € 1,578.43, relating to the tax event "acquisition of the right of full ownership over real estate", with the following description:

"On 29 January 2014 they assessed the IMT No. …/2014 for the acquisition of article …, fraction "E", registered in the matrix of urban properties of the parish of …, municipality of Campo Maior, to the taxpayer VAT No. … (…) with the benefit code … REIF/RESIF Article 87 of the Budget with the price of € 125,125.00 with residential dedication.

On this date they request payment of IMT because the aforementioned fraction is to be transferred.

Assessment of IMT under paragraph 16 of Article 8 of the Regime of Real Estate Investment Funds for Residential Leasing (REIFs) approved by Article 62 of Law No. 64-A/2008 of 31 December, applicable by virtue of Article 236 of Law 83-C/2013 of 31 December (transitional rule within the special regime applicable to REIFs and RESIFs)."

d) On the same date the Stamp Duty assessment was issued, in the amount of € 1,001.00, with the same tax event and with equivalent description.

e) The taxes were paid on 1 September 2016.

III.2. Unproven Facts

There are no facts relevant to the decision that have been established as unproven.

IV. LEGAL REASONING

It is important to decide, in the case before the Tribunal, whether the contested assessment acts are lawful or unlawful, in light of the tax legal regime of REIFs.

On the other hand, incidentally, and should it prove necessary to decide the main question, there arises the question of whether Article 236 (Transitional Rule within the Special Regime Applicable to REIFs and RESIFs) provided for by Law No. 83-C/2013 of 31 December – insofar as it provides for the application of the current Tax Regime for REIFs "to properties that have been acquired by REIFs before 1 January 2014, with the three-year deadline provided for in paragraph 14 being counted, in such cases, from 1 January 2014" - violates the principle of prohibition of retroactivity of tax law, enshrined in Article 103, paragraph 3, of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.

The account of the evolution of the legal regime, in particular the tax regime, of REIFs has already been made in the initial part of this decision, so it is not considered necessary to repeat it here.

It results from such evolution that since the original version of the tax legal regime of REIFs, the exemptions provided for in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 8 thereof are conditional upon compliance with the specific requirement that the properties benefiting from them be intended exclusively for leasing for permanent residential purposes. And it is understood why: being an exceptional measure, its legitimacy derives precisely from the extrafiscal interest it seeks to address (Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Tax Benefits Statute). In the concrete case, that interest is linked to the promotion of the supply of properties for leasing intended for permanent residential purposes and, at the time it arose – the period corresponding to the beginning of the last major crisis in Portugal's real estate sector - with the need to promote alternative forms for families to meet their respective housing expenses.

Therefore, it is provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the Tax Benefits Statute that "When the tax benefit concerns the acquisition of goods intended for the direct realization of the purposes of the acquirers, it becomes void if they are transferred or given another destination without authorization from the Minister of Finance, without prejudice to other sanctions or different regimes established by law."

Now Article 14 of the Tax Benefits Statute is applicable, under the terms of Article 1 of the Tax Benefits Statute, not only to tax benefits contained in the Tax Benefits Statute, but also to other tax benefits, such as the benefits provided for under the tax legal regime of REIFs, until the date of entry into force of the amendments introduced to the tax legal regime of REIFs by Law No. 83-C/2013 of 31 December.

That is, even before the amendments introduced by State Budget Law 2014 to the tax legal regime of REIFs, it was already provided that the benefits granted under that regime would be extinguished if the conditions that were at the basis of their attribution ceased.

The amendments introduced by State Budget Law 2014 did not alter the ratio of the exemptions enshrined, nor did they determine the immediate extinction of the benefit in the event that the leasing contract was not concluded, rather a period of three years was granted for that purpose.

As results from the assessment notes attached to the case file, the assessments took place because the property was to be transferred. Accordingly, the application of the requirement associated with dedication to a specific purpose (leasing for permanent residential purposes) within the three-year period, introduced by Article 236 of the aforementioned transitional regime, is not at issue, but rather the transfer of a property dedicated to a REIF managed by the Applicant.

What is at issue in the present proceedings is not, therefore, the failure to comply with the three-year period referred to in paragraphs 14 to 16 of Article 8 of the tax legal regime of REIF, in the wording introduced by Law No. 83-C/2013 of 31 December, nor its possible retroactive application by virtue of the provisions of Article 236 of that law.

The contested assessments had as their basis the cessation of the condition that was at the basis of the attribution of the tax benefit - dedicating the property to leasing for permanent residential purposes. In these terms, the Tribunal considers that the assessments of IMT and Stamp Duty which are the subject of the request for arbitral decision do not suffer from any illegality, therefore the requests for declaration of illegality and nullity or, alternatively, annulment, of the contested tax acts are unfounded. In this way, the request for condemnation of the Respondent to refund to the Applicant the entire amount paid by virtue of the assessments which are the subject of the present request for arbitral decision, increased by compensatory interest, is equally unfounded.

Thus, the examination of the question raised by the Applicant as to the alleged unconstitutionality of the transitional rule contained in Article 236 of Law No. 83-C/2013 of 31 December is rendered moot, by virtue of the same not being relevant to the decision on the merits of the case.

V. DECISION

In accordance with what is set out above, it is decided:

(i) To declare unfounded the requests for declaration of illegality and nullity, or annulment, of the contested assessments;

(ii) To declare unfounded the request for restitution of tax paid and for payment of compensatory interest under Article 43 of the General Tax Law.

Value: In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 315 of the Civil Procedure Code, combined with subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1 of Article 97-A of the Tax Procedural Code and paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Costs Regulation in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the case is valued at € 2,579.43.

Costs: Under the provisions of Article 22, paragraph 4, of RJAT and in accordance with Table I attached to the Costs Regulation in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs is fixed at € 612.00, to be borne by the Applicant under the terms of Articles 12, paragraph 2, and 22, paragraph 4, both of RJAT, and Article 4, paragraph 4, of the cited Regulation.

Let it be recorded and notified.

Lisbon, 20 July 2017

The Arbitrator,

Raquel Franco

Text prepared by computer, in accordance with Article 131, paragraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable by virtue of Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraph (e) of RJAT.

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

What IMT and Stamp Duty exemptions apply to FIIAH real estate investment funds under Portuguese tax law?
Under Portuguese tax law, FIIAH funds benefit from IMT exemption under Article 8(7)(a) of Law 64-A/2008 for acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous fractions intended exclusively for residential leasing. Stamp Duty exemption applies under Article 8(8) for the same qualifying acquisitions. However, Law 83-C/2013 introduced conditions requiring properties to be leased within three years to maintain these exemptions, with termination consequences if the deadline is not met.
Does Article 236 of Law 83-C/2013 violate the constitutional principle of non-retroactivity of tax law under Article 103(3) of the Portuguese Constitution?
The applicant argues Article 236 violates Article 103(3) of the Portuguese Constitution by retroactively conditioning exemptions that were definitively crystallized when properties were acquired. Since IMT and IS are single-event taxes with the taxable event being property acquisition, applying new conditions to pre-2014 acquisitions retroactively modifies the tax treatment of completed transactions, potentially constituting unconstitutional retroactive taxation of vested tax benefits.
How does the transitional regime for FIIAH funds affect properties acquired before 1 January 2014?
Article 236(2) of Law 83-C/2013 applies paragraphs 14-16 of Article 8 to properties acquired before 1 January 2014, counting the three-year leasing deadline from 1 January 2014 rather than the original acquisition date. This means FIIAH funds had until 31 December 2016 to lease pre-2014 properties or face termination of exemptions and obligation to request IMT and IS assessment from the Tax Authority within 30 days.
What is the three-year deadline under Article 8(14) of the FIIAH Tax Regime and when does it start for pre-2014 acquisitions?
The three-year deadline under Article 8(14) requires urban properties to be subject to a residential leasing contract within three years from entering the fund's assets. For properties acquired on or after 1 January 2014, the period starts from the acquisition date. For pre-2014 acquisitions, Article 236(2) established a transitional rule counting the three-year period from 1 January 2014, creating a uniform deadline of 31 December 2016 for all legacy properties.
How can FIIAH funds challenge IMT and Stamp Duty assessments through CAAD tax arbitration proceedings?
FIIAH funds can challenge IMT and Stamp Duty assessments through CAAD arbitration by filing an application for constitution of a single arbitral tribunal under Articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law 10/2011 (RJAT). The process involves: (1) submitting the arbitration request identifying the contested assessments and legal grounds; (2) appointment of an arbitrator by the Deontological Council; (3) tribunal constitution; (4) written submissions and evidence; and (5) issuance of a binding arbitral decision, typically within six months, offering a faster alternative to judicial courts.