Summary
Full Decision
Arbitral Decision
I – Report
1.1. A... – Investment Fund Management Company, S.A., with registered office at Avenue ..., no. ... – ..., ...-... Lisbon, and with Tax Identification Number ... (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant") – in its capacity as management company of the closed real estate investment fund "B... – Real Estate Investment Fund for Residential Rental" ("Fund B...") – in face of the IMT assessment no. ... and the IS assessment no. ..., submitted, on 27/11/2015, a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal and for an arbitral decision, in accordance with the provisions of article 2, no. 1, al. a), of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20/1 (Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as "LRAT"), in which the Tax and Customs Authority (AT) is requested, seeking that it be "declared the nullity [or, should it not be understood thus, the voidability] of the [aforementioned] assessments, based on the [...] unconstitutionality" of "article 236 (Transitional Norm within the scope of the Special Regime Applicable to REIHF and SEIHF) provided by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December – insofar as it determines the application of the current Tax Regime of the REIHF «to properties that were acquired by REIHF before 1 January 2014, counting, in such cases, the three-year period provided in no. 14 from 1 January 2014» – constitutes a new regime for expiration of the exemptions provided in no. 7, paragraph a) and no. 8 of article 8 (Tax Regime) of the Tax Regime of the REIHF, revealing a flagrant and unequivocal violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law, set forth in article 103 (Tax System), number 3, of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic".
1.2. On 5/2/2016 the present Singular Arbitral Tribunal was constituted.
1.3. In accordance with article 17, no. 1, of the LRAT, AT was cited, as the respondent party, to submit a reply, in accordance with the said article. AT submitted its reply on 7/3/2016, having argued in the sense of the total lack of merit of the Claimant's request.
1.4. On 23/3/2016, the Respondent requested the attachment to the record of DA no. 398/2015-T. On 6/4/2016, the Claimant expressed its position on the Respondent's request, stating that it disagreed "absolutely" with that DA and that the same "could not or should not serve as an example or guide for the decision to be rendered in the present case". It further added that the claimant in that proceeding appealed the said DA to the Constitutional Court.
1.5. By order of 6/6/2016, the Tribunal considered that it was dispensable, under article 16, al. c), of the LRAT, the meeting of article 18 and that the case was ready for decision. In these terms, it set the date of 15/6/2016 for the delivery of the arbitral decision.
1.6. The Arbitral Tribunal was duly constituted, is materially competent, the case does not suffer from defects that would invalidate it, and the Parties have legal standing and capacity, being therefore legitimate.
II – Allegations of the Parties
2.1. The herein Claimant alleges, in its initial petition, that: a) "the assessments [in question] suffer from illegality due to violation of the provisions of article 103 (Tax System), number 3, of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic and should, consequently, be declared null"; b) "IMT is a tax of single obligation [...]. This qualification is relevant here insofar as the IMT and IS exemptions, contained, respectively, in numbers 7, paragraph a), and 8 of article 8 (Tax regime) of the Tax Regime of the REIHF, were recognized at the request of Fund B..., 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 patrimony of Fund B.... That is, at the moment when the properties – object of the Assessments – entered the patrimony of Fund B..., the IMT and IS exemptions provided, respectively, in numbers 7, paragraph a), and 8 of article 8 (Tax regime) of the Tax Regime of the REIHF were definitively crystallized in the tax-legal order"; c) "effectively, the fact object of taxation is, both in the context of IMT and in the context of IS, the acquisition of the ownership of the relevant properties by Fund B.... And the IMT and IS exemptions were not, at the date they entered the patrimony of Fund B..., conditioned by the verification of any subsequent facts or circumstances nor, likewise, subject to any regime of expiration"; d) "with no [...] legally provided, at the moment of recognition of the exemption, any facts or circumstances on which the expiration of the recognized exemption depended, it is manifest that the subsequent imposition of those facts or circumstances on exemptions crystallized in the tax-legal order of the Claimant suffers from unconstitutionality, due to violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law, enshrined in article 103 (Tax System), number 3, of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic"; e) "article 236 (Transitional Norm within the scope of the Special Regime Applicable to REIHF and SEIHF) of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, by extending the application of the current Tax Regime of the REIHF «to properties that were acquired by REIHF before 1 January 2014, counting, in such cases, the three-year period provided in no. 14 from 1 January 2014» - is violating directly and unequivocally the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law constitutionally enshrined. Indeed, the extension provided there constitutes a new regime of expiration of the exemptions provided in numbers 7, paragraph a) and 8 (Tax Regime) and not a mere specification of a criterion previously provided"; f) "in the case sub judice there are no doubts whatsoever that the tax facts that the new law intends to regulate have already produced all their effects under the old law"; g) "it is necessary to clarify here whether the unconstitutionality now argued by the Claimant should result in the voidability or nullity of the Assessments [...]. [...]. Considering that the principle of tax non-retroactivity has the character of a fundamental right, endowed with the protective legal regime of this right, its disrespect originates the nullity of the act, in this case, the nullity of the Assessments"; h) "the admissibility of challenging the defect of nullity without dependence on a time period does not remove the competence of the Arbitral Tax Tribunal, namely, by literal interpretation of article 10 (Request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal) of the LRAT. Effectively, the cited article 10 (request for constitution of the arbitral tribunal) of the LRAT should not be interpreted in the sense of being exclusively applicable to situations where acts are at issue whose challenge is subject to a time period"; i) "without conceding and by mere caution of representation, admitting, subsidiarily, that the defect (illegality) of the Assessments determines their voidability (and not nullity), the Assessments should be voided in conformity, in accordance with articles 10, no. 1, paragraph a), of the LRAT and article 102, no. 1, paragraph a), of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process."
2.2. By the above, the herein Claimant seeks, in summary: "(I) [that be] declared the nullity of the Assessments based on their unconstitutionality; subsidiarily, should it not be understood thus, the Assessments be voided"; "(II) [to be] reimbursed [...] for the entirety of the amount paid by force of the Assessments object of the present request for arbitral decision, increased, in accordance with article 43 (Unduly Paid Tax Obligation) of the General Tax Law, by the compensatory interest that is due until the date of such reimbursement."
2.3. For its part, AT alleges, in its defense, that: a) the "Claimant argues that AT should not have proceeded with the assessments sub judice, as such tax acts are based on article 236 of the Tax Regime of the REIHF, which it alleges suffers from unconstitutionality due to violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law, in accordance with article 103, no. 3 of the CRP. However, and without prejudice to what will be developed below regarding the non-existence of the unconstitutionality defect charged by the Claimant, it is necessary to note here that AT's action, contrary to what the Claimant intends, could not have been different"; b) "in accordance with no. 2 of article 266 of the CRP, the Administration is obligated to act in conformity with the principle of legality, such principle being concretized at the infra-constitutional level in no. 1 of article 3 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP) [...]. That is, from such legal impositions it follows that administrative bodies and agents do not have competence to decide on the non-application of norms regarding which doubts of constitutionality are raised"; c) "from the above it results that the Administration is subject to law and to right and its bodies and agents must be the first to comply with it; and therefore, cannot be required to pronounce on the options of the legislator, as these, once enacted into law, are the normative discipline within which it exercises its attributions in the pursuit of the public interest"; d) "in summary, AT could not/cannot refuse the application of a norm or fail to comply with the law invoking or questioning its constitutionality, as it is subject to the principle of legality, as established in articles 266, no. 2 of the CRP, 3, no. 1 of the CAP and 55 of the GTL"; e) "article 102 of Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December (State Budget for 2009), approved a special regime applicable to real estate investment funds for residential rental (REIHF) and to real estate investment companies for residential rental (SEIHF). The regime provided there would be applicable to REIHF or SEIHF constituted during the five years subsequent to the entry into force of the said law and to immovable property acquired by these in the same period. Regarding the tax regime specifically provided there, it is necessary to highlight, for what now matters, the provision of article 8, no. 7, paragraph a), relating to the exemption in the context of IMT and article 8, no. 8, relating to the exemption in the context of Stamp Duty"; f) "in accordance with article 8, no. 7, paragraph a), become exempt from IMT «The acquisitions of urban properties or of autonomous fractions of urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing, by the investment funds referred to in no. 1». Such exemption applying, by force of the provision of no. 1, to REIHF constituted between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013, which operate in accordance with national legislation and in observance of the conditions provided in articles 1 to 7 of their respective legal regime. In turn, in accordance with article 8, no. 8, «Exempt from stamp duty all acts performed, provided they are connected with the transmission of urban properties intended for permanent housing that occurs by force of the conversion of the right of ownership of such immovable property into a right of rental over the same, as well as with the exercise of the purchase option provided in no. 3 of article 5»"; g) "Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget for 2014), gave new wording to the aforementioned article 8, relating to the tax regime applicable to REIHF, adding, namely, numbers 14 to 16 [...]. Furthermore, Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December also established, in its article 236, the following transitional norm [...]"; h) "indeed, as also pointed out by the Claimant, no. 14 of article 8 of the Tax Regime of the REIHF came to specify the meaning of the expression «urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing», as, in accordance with its provisions, «it is considered that urban properties are intended for rental for permanent housing whenever they are the object of a rental contract for permanent housing within three years counted from the moment they became part of the fund's patrimony». Being that, along with such specification, with the introduction of nos. 15 and 16 in the said article 8, a regime for cessation of the benefit came to be provided in the case of non-observance of the legal requirement contained in no. 14"; i) "regarding the aforementioned property, which was part of the Fund at the date of entry into force of Law 83-C/2013, of 31 December, the Claimant requested from AT the assessments of IMT and Stamp Duty, given the changes introduced to the tax regime of the REIHF, insofar as, pending 2015, it alienated it to third parties, thus conferring it a different purpose than that which was supposed to be: residential rental"; j) "[defends that the] Claimant argues that the assessments in question suffer from illegality due to violation of the provision of article 103 (Tax System), no. 3, of the CRP, and should, in consequence, be declared null. [...] However, as will be better demonstrated, the Claimant's arguments are manifestly without merit"; l) "it is necessary to note here that the defect pointed out, by alleged violation of article 103 of the CRP, does not generate nullity [...]. [...] even if the violation of the normative invoked by the Claimant is verified, in particular, article 103, no. 3, of the CRP, the fact is that, as was said, the challenged acts are only capable of voidability and never of being declared null"; m) "specifically with respect to the non-retroactivity of tax law, it is already the understanding of jurisprudence that the possible violation of such a principle does not imply disrespect for constitutionally directly applicable and binding norms, such as those referring to rights, freedoms and guarantees (cf. article 18, no. 1, of the CRP)"; n) "in summary, given all the above, in particular considering the cited jurisprudence, it is to be concluded that, even if the defect imputed to the assessments at issue exists, it never generates nullity, but only voidability"; o) "the taxpayers who intended to benefit from the said exemptions [of IMT and IS, given the wording of Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31/12], always had, from the beginning of the tax regime applicable to REIHF, to comply with the condition that such properties be intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing. Therefore, the Claimant's assertion that the exemptions at issue were not conditioned by any facts or circumstances is wrong, and, consequently, the argumentation that it constructs departing from such wrong premise is equally flawed. [...] the new wording introduced by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, in favor of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and in keeping with the spirit of the legislator, when creating the regime, came to merely specify the criterion already required"; p) "it is to be concluded, thus, that, with the changes introduced, the ratio of the established exemptions was not altered, being noteworthy that the immediate extinction of the benefit was not determined in the case of non-celebration of the said rental contract, as a rather extended period of three years was granted for this purpose"; q) "given the alienation of the properties pending the year 2015, it results unequivocally that the Claimant could not, in any way, benefit from the requested exemption"; r) "it is manifest that, from the beginning of the regime, the tax benefits at issue applicable to REIHF always depended on the dedication of the immovable property to rental for permanent housing, a legal requirement that AT, within the scope of its inspection powers, could always assess, in order to conclude for the persistence of the benefit or, rather, for the restoration of the regular system of taxation"; s) "contrary to what the Claimant argues, there is no introduction ex novo of a regime for expiration of the benefit, and, even less, there is any frustration of the expectations of taxpayers or violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law"; t) "since no error attributable to AT itself, which determined the payment of tax debt in an amount greater than that legally due, can be imputed to the AT's services - since it was not within its discretion to decide differently than it decided - it can only be concluded that no compensatory interest is due in accordance with article 43 of the GTL."
2.4. AT concludes, finally, that "the present request for arbitral decision should be judged without merit and, consequently, the Respondent absolved of all requests, in the terms above stated, all with the proper and legal consequences, or, should it not be understood thus, it is requested, by appeal to the provision of article 280, no. 3, of the CRP and article 72, no. 3, of the Constitutional Court Law, that the notification to the Public Prosecutor of the learned arbitral decision be determined."
III – Proven Factuality, Unproven Factuality and Respective Grounds
3.1. The following facts are considered proven:
i) The herein Claimant requested from AT the assessment of IMT and IS of the acts of alienation of immovable property by "Fund B...", according to the following information: property U-...-AD located at Avenue ..., ..., Block ..., ... Apt., registered in the property register of the parish of ... and ...; IMT assessment no. ... and IS assessment no. ..., in the amounts, respectively, of €32,524.75 and €4,356.00 (which, added together, correspond to the amount in question: €36,880.75) – see Doc. 1 appended.
ii) The property in question was acquired benefiting from the IMT and IS exemptions contained, respectively, in no. 7, al. a), and no. 8 of article 8 of the special regime applicable to REIHF (which were recognized at request, in accordance with article 10 of the CIMT).
iii) The aforementioned assessments were paid by the Claimant on 29/9/2015 (see Doc. 2).
3.2. There are no unproven facts relevant to the decision of the case.
3.3. The facts considered pertinent and proven (v. 3.1) are based on the analysis of the positions exposed by the parties and the documentary evidence attached to the record.
IV – On the Law
In the case analyzed here, there are two matters of law in dispute: 1) to know whether the IMT and IS assessments are illegal, because made under article 236 of Law 83-C/2013, of 31/12, which the Claimant understands to be unconstitutional due to violation of the provision of article 103 of the CRP (and, further, null due to alleged offense of the essential content of a fundamental right, in accordance with article 133, no. 2, al. d), of the CPA); and 2) to know whether compensatory interest is owed to the Claimant.
Let us see, then.
- The herein Claimant alleges that the assessments at issue are illegal because made under article 236 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31/12 (SOB 2014) – article which the Claimant considers unconstitutional due to violation of the said article 103 of the CRP.
In its understanding, "article 236 (Transitional Norm within the scope of the Special Regime Applicable to REIHF and SEIHF) of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, by extending the application of the current Tax Regime of the REIHF «to properties that were acquired by REIHF before 1 January 2014, counting, in such cases, the three-year period provided in no. 14 from 1 January 2014» – is violating directly and unequivocally the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law constitutionally enshrined. Indeed, the extension provided there constitutes a new regime of expiration of the exemptions provided in numbers 7, paragraph a) and 8 (Tax Regime) and not a mere specification of a criterion previously provided." Based on the above, the herein Claimant concludes that "in the case sub judice there are no doubts whatsoever that the tax facts that the new law intends to regulate have already produced all their effects under the old law".
It does not appear, however, that this is the matter at issue here.
First of all, it is appropriate to observe Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31/12, which approved the special regime applicable to REIHF. In that regime it was provided, in particular: in no. 7 of article 8, that became exempt from IMT "the acquisitions of urban properties or of autonomous fractions of urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing" by the said funds; and, in no. 8 of that same article, that became exempt from Stamp Duty "all acts performed, provided they are connected with the transmission of urban properties intended for permanent housing that occurs by force of the conversion of the right of ownership of such immovable property into a right of rental over the same".
Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31/12, altered the wording of the said article 8, adding nos. 14 to 16, which are reproduced here:
"14 - For purposes of the provision of nos. 6 to 8 of the said article 8, it is considered that "urban properties are intended for rental for permanent housing whenever they are the object of a rental contract for permanent housing within three years counted from the moment they became part of the fund's patrimony, the taxpayer being required to communicate and provide proof to AT of the respective rental, within 30 days following the end of the said period.
15 - When the properties have not been the object of a rental contract within the three-year period provided in the previous number, the exemptions provided in nos. 6 to 8 cease to have effect, the taxpayer being required in such case to request from AT, within 30 days following the end of the said period, the assessment of the respective tax.
16 - If the properties are alienated, with the exception of cases provided in article 5, or if the REIHF is subject to liquidation, before the expiration of the period provided in no. 14, the taxpayer must equally request from AT, before the alienation of the property or the liquidation of the REIHF, the assessment of the tax due in accordance with the previous number".
In article 236 of the said Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31/12, was further established the following transitional norm:
"1 - The provision of nos. 14 to 16 of article 8 of the special regime applicable to REIHF and SEIHF, approved by articles 102 to 104 of Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December, is applicable to properties that have been acquired by REIHF from 1 January 2014.
2 - Without prejudice to the provision of the previous number, the provision of nos. 14 to 16 of article 8 of the special regime applicable to REIHF and SEIHF, approved by articles 102 to 104 of Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December, is equally applicable to properties that have been acquired by REIHF before 1 January 2014, counting, in such cases, the three-year period provided in no. 14 from 1 January 2014".
From this it is concluded that the said Law established a transitional period for application of the legal changes, with a view, according to what the Respondent states (v. §62-6 of the reply), "in favor of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and in keeping with the spirit of the legislator, when creating the regime, [...] merely to specify the criterion already required [...]. Being certain that, in any case, given the alienation of the properties pending the year 2015, it results unequivocally that the Claimant could not [...] benefit from the requested exemption."
In the same sense, the DA dated 14/3/2016, rendered in proc. 398/2015-T, emphasizes that "the obligation to dedicate the immovable property to residential rental is not a requirement of the changes introduced by the State Budget for 2014, but rather a requirement of the tax regime of the REIHF ab initio, indeed a natural consequence of the motivations that led to the creation of these funds. However, this was not the case in the present matter [...]. The IMT assessments made [...] were not based on their maintenance in the fund for a period equal to or greater than 3 years without dedication to rental for permanent housing. [...]."
Indeed, as is also mentioned in the DA dated 22/4/2016, rendered in proc. no. 691/2015-T: "The State Budget for 2014 does, certainly, establish a new requirement for the exemption: if the dedication to rental for permanent housing does not occur within the 3-year period following the entry of the immovable property into the fund, the fund must request the assessment of the IMT that was not assessed. However, this was not the case in the present matter [...]. The assessments of IMT and Stamp Duty in question were not based on their maintenance in the fund for a period equal to or greater than 3 years without dedication to rental for permanent housing. [...]. In fact, the assessments at issue, as follows from the assessment notes attached to the case, were based on the fact that the immovable property was given "a different purpose than that on which the benefit was based" [see, also in the case of the present record, the same description, which appears in the documents contained in Doc. 1 appended to the record]. Thus, we understand that retroactivity, or otherwise, of the norm applied is not at issue".
Indeed, it is sufficiently demonstrated that the property in question was alienated in the year 2015, with the consequent dedication of the same to a purpose different from that for which the exemptions were granted. This is not, then, a matter of a time period, as the herein Claimant alleged.
In this respect, and as is also well emphasized by the DA dated 2/5/2016, rendered in proc. 689/2015-T, "the alienation of the property would always determine the expiration of the exemption by application of the provision of no. 3 of article 14 of the EBF, it not being, therefore, at issue, in the situation sub judice, any retroactive application of a norm that comes to introduce a new regime of expiration of the exemptions, nor does there exist lesion of expectations of the Claimant or aggravation of its tax position, therefore we understand that the assessments of IMT and Stamp Duty in question are legal. Thus, the analysis of the question raised by the Claimant regarding the alleged retroactivity of the regime provided by article 236 of the State Budget Law for 2014 is foreclosed to the extent that, as above was demonstrated, the conditions that originated the tax assessments in question in no way relate to the additions originated by the said article, only to the alienation of the immovable property and consequent dedication to a purpose different from that for which the IMT and Stamp Duty exemptions were granted."
For the reasons noted, with which agreement is expressed, it is concluded – also in the present case – that the analysis of the question of the alleged retroactivity of the regime contained in article 236 is foreclosed, and that there did not occur, as a result of the assessments at issue, unjustified lesion of expectations of the herein Claimant or an unjustified aggravation of its tax position. In these terms, it is concluded, consequently, that the assessments of IMT and IS at issue should be fully maintained in the legal order.
Note, finally, and as a final note, that, in the present case, there would never be at issue the (also alleged by the Claimant) nullity due to offense of "essential content of a fundamental right" [vd. §32 to §38 of the initial petition], since, as has been uniform understanding of the jurisprudence of the STA, the defect of violation of law due to error in the legal premises (which is what could be at issue here) generates mere voidability, unless the tax act were to violate the content of a fundamental right (a situation that, clearly, is not at issue here) – which does not occur even if there has been violation of the principles of tax legality or non-retroactivity of tax law (see, in this respect and by way of mere example, the following Decisions of the STA: no. 1709/03, of 28/1/2004; no. 1938/03, of 3/3/2004; no. 1259/04, of 22/5/2005; no. 669/05, of 9/11/2005; no. 612/05, of 23/11/2005; no. 231/13, of 26/6/2013; no. 481/13, of 26/2/2014; no. 1916/13, of 12/3/2014; no. 703/14, of 21/1/2015).
See, also, in the same sense, the following excerpt from the Decision of the TCAN of 26/3/2015 (proc. 00354/08.0BEPRT): "Alleges [...] the Appellant [that the tax in question] is null due to [...] offense of the essential content of a fundamental right. It follows from the provision of article 133, nos. 1 and 2, paragraph d), of the Code of Administrative Procedure applicable ex vi of 2, paragraph c), of the GTL, that null are the acts to which any of the essential elements fail or for which the law expressly sanctions that form of invalidity, in particular acts that offend the essential content of a fundamental right. It has no ground [to the Appellant]. Acts that offend a fundamental right must be those that contend with the rights, freedoms and guarantees of citizens; not those that contend only with the principle of legality, as occurs in the case of the record. [...] it is settled in the jurisprudence of tax litigation that the nullity of a norm on which a tax assessment act is based does not imply the nullity of this, generating only a situation of abstract illegality of the assessment [...] (cf. in that sense, among many others, the decisions of the STA of 25/05/2004, proc. no. 208/04, 9/11/2005, proc. 669/05, 7.05.2008, proc. no. 1034/07, of 5.07.2007, proc. no. 479/06, of 16/09/2009, proc. no. 0418/09, and of 23/10/2013, proc. no. 0579/13). Thus, the tax act that applies [allegedly] unconstitutional norms [...] does not originate the nullity of the assessment, but generates mere voidability, with a defect of violation of law due to error in the legal premises being at issue."
- In accordance with article 43, no. 1, of the GTL, compensatory interest is owed when it is determined, in a gracious appeal or judicial challenge, that there was an error attributable to the services which resulted in payment of the tax debt in an amount greater than that legally owed.
It is, therefore, a necessary condition for the award of said interest the demonstration of the existence of an error attributable to the services. In that sense, see, for example, the following decisions: "The right to compensatory interest provided in no. 1 of article 43 of the GTL [...] depends on it being demonstrated in the case that that act is affected by error in the factual or legal premises attributable to AT." (Decision of the STA of 30/5/2012, proc. 410/12); "The right to compensatory interest provided in no. 1 of article 43 of the General Tax Law presupposes that in the case it be determined that in the assessment «there was an error attributable to the services», understood as the «error in the factual or legal premises attributable to the Tax Administration»" (Decision of the STA of 10/4/2013, proc. 1215/12).
Now, as there has not been, as follows from what was said in 1), any error attributable to the services, it is concluded by the lack of merit of the request for payment of compensatory interest to the Claimant.
V – DECISION
In light of the above stated, it is decided:
-
To judge without merit the request for arbitral decision, maintaining fully in the legal order the acts of assessment now challenged, and absolving, accordingly, the requested entity of the request.
-
To judge without merit the request also in the part that relates to the recognition of the right to compensatory interest in favor of the claimant.
The value of the case is fixed at €36,880.75 (thirty-six thousand eight hundred and eighty euros and seventy-five cents), in accordance with article 32 of the CPTA and article 97-A of the CPPT, applicable by force of the provision of article 29, no. 1, als. a) and b), of the LRAT, and article 3, no. 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Processes (RCPAT).
Costs to be borne by the Claimant, in the amount of €1,836.00 (one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six euros), in accordance with Table I of the RCPAT, and in compliance with the provision of articles 12, no. 2, and 22, no. 4, both of the LRAT, and the provision of article 4, no. 4, of the said Regulation.
Notify.
Lisbon, 15 June 2016.
The Arbitrator
(Miguel Patrício)
Text prepared by computer, in accordance with the provision
of article 131, no. 5, of the CPC, applicable by remission of article 29, no. 1, al. e), of the LRAT.
The wording of this decision is governed by the spelling prior to the Orthographic Agreement of 1990.