Summary
Full Decision
ARBITRATION DECISION
- Report
A - General
A… – INVESTMENT FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, S.A., with registered office at …, with share capital of €1,550,000.00, registered at the Commercial Registry Office of … under the single registration and tax identification number … as the managing company of the investment fund «B... – CLOSED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FUND FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL» registered with the Securities Market Commission, with tax identification number … (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant"), presented, on 27.11.2015, a request for constitution of a singular arbitral tribunal in tax matters, which was accepted, seeking: (i) the declaration of nullity of the acts of assessment of Municipal Tax on Real Estate Transfers ("IMT") and Stamp Tax ("IS") that were notified to it by documents no. ... and no. ..., respectively, both of 27.10.2015, (doc. no. 1 attached to the case with the request for arbitral pronouncement) and (ii) the condemnation of the Tax and Customs Administration to pay compensatory interest for undue payment of tax obligations.
1.1. Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph a) of section 2 of article 6 and paragraph b) of section 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 of the Center for Administrative Arbitration (CAAD) appointed Nuno Pombo as arbitrator, and the parties, after being duly notified, did not express opposition to this appointment.
1.2. By order of 15.12.2015, the Tax and Customs Administration (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") proceeded with the appointment of Dr. … and Dr. … to intervene in the present arbitral process, in the name and representation of the Respondent.
1.3. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph c) of section 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 arbitral tribunal was constituted on 05.02.2016.
1.4. On 05.02.2015 the highest-ranking official of the Respondent's service was notified to, if willing, within a period of 30 days, present a response and request additional evidence production.
1.5. On 07.03.2015 the Respondent presented its response.
B – Position of the Claimant
1.6. The Claimant is the managing company responsible for the management of the investment fund «B... – CLOSED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FUND FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL», which is a closed real estate investment fund for residential rental (hereinafter referred to as "FUND B...").
1.7. As of the date of entry into force of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget Law for 2014), the FUND B... included the property U-...-DN located at …, 4th Floor, registered in the urban property register of the Parish of ... and ....
1.8. Based on the provisions added to article 8 (Tax Regime) of the legal regime applicable to Real Estate Investment Funds for Residential Rental (hereinafter "FIIAH"), and the transitional rule contained in article 236 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, the now Claimant requested from the Tax and Customs Authority the assessments of IMT and IS (hereinafter "Assessments"), which were paid by the Claimant on 28.10.2015.
1.9. The Claimant understands that the Assessments are vitiated by illegality due to violation of the provisions of section 3 of article 103 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (hereinafter "CRP").
1.10. The IMT and the IS, as regards the factual circumstances of the case, are single obligation taxes, which means that at the moment the property on which the Assessments were levied entered the assets of FUND B..., the exemptions then in force under the Tax Regime of the FIIAH were permanently crystallized in the legal-tax order, given that they were not conditioned to the subsequent verification of any facts or circumstances nor subject to any expiration regime.
1.11. Article 236 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, in extending the application of the current Tax Regime of the FIIAH "to properties that have been acquired by FIIAH before 1 January 2014, counting, in those cases, the three-year period provided for in section 14 from 1 January 2014" - is directly and unequivocally violating the constitutionally enshrined principle of non-retroactivity of tax law.
1.12. As the principle of non-retroactivity of tax law is a fundamental right, the violation of that right by the Assessments entails its nullity, if not even its non-existence.
C – Position of the Respondent
1.13. The Respondent, in its response, begins by arguing the impossibility of disapplying a legal norm on the grounds of its unconstitutionality, since public administration bodies, unlike courts, are not tasked with carrying out concrete review of the constitutionality of laws.
1.14. The Respondent does not accept the suggestion that the Assessments are null, since the sanction that falls on an invalid administrative act is its annulability (article 135 of the [former] CPA), nullity only occurring when it lacks one of its essential elements or when the law expressly sanctions it with this form of invalidity (article 133 of the [former] CPA), a consequence that better harmonizes with the principles of certainty and stability, fundamental in administrative activity and relations, so as not to jeopardize the efficacy and security of this administrative activity with its administered subjects.
1.15. However, the Assessments do not even rest on unconstitutional legal norms.
1.16. The special regime applicable to FIIAH, approved by articles 102 to 104 of Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December (State Budget Law for 2009), applied to funds established during the five years following the entry into force of that law and to real estate acquired by these during the same period.
1.17. The tax regime then in force provided for the exemption of IMT for "acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous fractions of urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing, by the investment funds referred to in section 1", with exemption from IS also provided for "all acts performed, provided they are connected with the transfer of urban properties intended for permanent housing that occurs as a result of the conversion of the right of ownership of those properties into a rental right over the same".
1.18. Now, it was required, as can be seen, that the acquisition of the properties had as its exclusive purpose "rental for permanent housing", so the statement of the Claimant that the exemptions in question were not conditioned to the subsequent verification of any facts or circumstances is not accurate.
1.19. Section 14 of article 8 of the Tax Regime of the FIIAH, as the Claimant acknowledges, came to specify the meaning of the expression "urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing", considering that "urban properties are intended for rental for permanent housing whenever they are the subject of a rental contract for permanent housing within a period of three years from the moment they came to form part of the fund's assets", now providing for a regime of termination of the benefit in case the legal requirement contained in section 14 is not observed.
1.20. The cited section 14 of article 8 of the Tax Regime of the FIIAH did not alter the ratio of the enshrined exemptions. It merely specified the concept, in non-innovative terms and establishing an adequately broad period so that the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations would not be breached.
1.21. In truth, the exemptions in question did not simply cease to apply: what happened was that criteria were established to specify a legal requirement provided for in an indeterminate manner. Moreover, in the specific case, the termination of the benefit could always occur if, following a supervisory action, it was verified that the prerequisites on which the law makes its granting depend were not met.
1.22. It does not make sense, therefore, to speak of authentic or proper retroactivity, since the new law did not simply come to determine, without further ado, that previously acquired properties were to be subject to taxation under IMT and IS.
1.23. For all the foregoing, the Respondent should likewise not be condemned to pay the Claimant compensatory interest, since an error attributable to the AT services cannot be imputed to the Claimant in a way that has determined payment of a tax debt in an amount higher than legally due.
D – Conclusion of Report and Case Management
1.24. By order of 13.06.2016, the arbitral tribunal waived the meeting provided for in article 18 of the Legal Regime of Arbitration in Tax Matters (RJAT), since it was its understanding that the parties had brought to the process all the necessary and sufficient factual elements for the issuance of the decision, although the Claimant did not waive its right to present its arguments in writing.
1.25. Thus, the arbitral tribunal granted both Parties the right to, if willing, present their arguments, which both did within the period that had been stipulated.
1.26. The parties have legal personality and capacity and have legitimacy pursuant to article 4 and section 2 of article 10 of the RJAT, and article 1 of Order no. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.
1.27. The joinder of claims made in the present request for arbitral pronouncement, in homage to the principle of procedural economy, is justified since article 3 of the RJAT, by expressly allowing for the possibility of "joinder of claims even if relating to different acts", accommodates, without hermeneutical abuse, the consideration of a claim that flows, in necessary terms, from the judgment that the arbitral tribunal reaches regarding the validity of the assessment placed in question.
1.28. The process does not suffer from any nullity. However, the Respondent raised the exceptions of material incompetence of the arbitral tribunal to assess the abstract illegality of the Assessments, by alleged unconstitutionality of the legal norm that authorizes them and, consequently, the lack of passive legitimacy of the Respondent, so these must be assessed.
- The exceptions of material incompetence of the arbitral tribunal and lack of passive legitimacy of the Respondent
As stated, the Respondent expresses the understanding that the Claimant petitions for the assessment of the abstract illegality of the Assessments, by alleged unconstitutionality of the legal norm that authorizes them, arguing that the Constitutional Court is the competent forum to know both the illegality and the unconstitutionality of legal norms [arts. 280, section 2, paragraphs a) and d) and 281, section 1, paragraphs a) and b) and section 3 of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic and arts. 6 and 66 of the Constitutional Court Law].
Unless better advised, the Respondent is not correct. What is requested of this arbitral tribunal is not that it declare the unconstitutionality of the norms that authorize the challenged assessment acts. What is at issue is whether the Assessments are, or are not, valid, and this judgment depends on another that verifies, in concreto, the harmony of these assessments with the legal order. The reading that the Respondent makes of the claim is so reductive that it would seem impossible for any organ of a jurisdictional nature, such as this arbitral tribunal, to judge a legal norm unconstitutional outside the process of abstract review of unconstitutionality. As is plain to see, that reading cannot prevail.
Thus, this arbitral tribunal understands it is materially competent to assess the claim, and the question of the lack of passive legitimacy of the Respondent does not arise, since one is not materially within the scope of abstract review of unconstitutionality.
- Factual Matter
3.1. Proven Facts
The following facts are considered proven:
3.1.1. As of the date of entry into force of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December (State Budget Law for 2014), the FUND B... included the property U-...-DN located at …, 4th Floor, registered in the urban property register of the Parish of ... and ... under article ...[1] (the "Property") (consensus of the Parties).
3.1.2. The acquisition of the Property benefited from exemption of IMT and IS under paragraph a) of section 7 of article 8 (tax regime) of the legal regime of FIIAH – IMT assessment no. 2013/…, of 26.07.2013 (doc. no. 1, attached with the request for arbitral pronouncement).
3.1.3. The Claimant requested from the Respondent the assessment of IMT and IS, which were notified to it by documents no. ... and no. ..., both of 27.10.2015, in the amounts of € 20,164.75 and € 3,120.00, respectively (doc. no. 1, attached with the request for arbitral pronouncement).
3.1.4. The Claimant proceeded with full payment of both IMT and IS assessments better identified in 3.1.3 on 28.10.2015 (doc. no. 2, attached with the request for arbitral pronouncement).
3.2. Facts Not Proven
It was not proven that between the acquisition of the Property by the Claimant and its disposal, it was ever the subject of any rental contract for permanent housing.
- Legal Matter
4.1. Questions to Decide
From what has been stated above, the issues to be assessed are, in essence:
a) Whether the acquisition of the Property, which occurred before 01.01.2014, can be taxed by virtue of the Property having been sold before the expiration of the three-year period counted from 01.01.2014, without it having ever been the subject of a rental contract for permanent housing;
b) Whether, if the claim for declaration of illegality and consequent annulment of the Assessments is upheld, the Claimant, within the scope of this arbitral process, may obtain the condemnation of the Respondent to payment of compensatory interest.
4.2. The Applicable Law
Included in chapter X, dedicated to tax benefits, Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December, through its articles 102 to 104, approved the special regime applicable to FIIAH. Article 8 of that special regime established its respective tax regime, with sections 7 and 8 of that provision dedicated to IMT and IS, respectively:
7 - The following are exempt from IMT:
a) The acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous fractions of urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing, by the investment funds referred to in section 1;
b) The acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous fractions of urban properties intended for permanent and personal housing, as a result of the exercise of the purchase option referred to in section 3 of article 5 by tenants of the properties that form part of the assets of the investment funds referred to in section 1.
8 - All acts performed are exempt from stamp duty, provided they are connected with the transfer of urban properties intended for permanent housing that occurs as a result of the conversion of the right of ownership of those properties into a rental right over the same, as well as with the exercise of the purchase option provided for in section 3 of article 5.
Article 235 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December added to the Tax Regime of the FIIAH (article 8) sections 14 to 16:
14 - For purposes of the provisions of sections 6 to 8, it is considered that urban properties are intended for rental for permanent housing whenever they are the subject of a rental contract for permanent housing within a period of three years from the moment they came to form part of the fund's assets, and the taxpayer must communicate and provide proof to the AT of the respective actual rental, within 30 days following the end of said period.
15 - When the properties have not been the subject of a rental contract within the three-year period provided for in the previous section, the exemptions provided for in sections 6 to 8 cease to have effect, and in that case the taxpayer must request from the AT, within 30 days following the end of said period, the assessment of the respective tax.
16 - If the properties are disposed of, with the exception of the cases provided for in article 5, or if the FIIAH is subject to liquidation, before the expiration of the period provided for in section 14, the taxpayer must likewise request from the AT, before the disposal of the property or the liquidation of the FIIAH, the assessment of the tax due pursuant to the previous section.
For its part, article 236 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December established the following transitional regime within the scope of the special regime applicable to FIIAH:
1 - The provisions of sections 14 to 16 of article 8 of the special regime applicable to FIIAH and SIIAH, approved by articles 102 to 104 of Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December, apply to properties that have been acquired by FIIAH from 1 January 2014.
2 - Without prejudice to the provisions of the previous section, the provisions of sections 14 to 16 of article 8 of the special regime applicable to FIIAH and SIIAH, approved by articles 102 to 104 of Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December, are also applicable to properties that have been acquired by FIIAH before 1 January 2014, counting, in those cases, the three-year period provided for in section 14 from 1 January 2014.
4.3. The IMT and IS Exemptions Provided for in Law no. 64-A/2008, of 31 December
The State Budget Law for 2009 enshrined a special regime applicable to FIIAH. This legislative initiative was confessedly aimed at stimulating the residential rental market, requiring that at least 75% of the fund's assets be constituted by real estate located in Portugal and intended for rental for permanent housing, favoring these collective investment vehicles with the tax benefits contained in article 8 of their respective legal regime, with those relating to IMT and IS being those contained in sections 7 and 8 of that article.
It should be emphasized that the special regime of the FIIAH and the tax benefits at its disposal assume the nature or the vocation of true instruments of economic policy, placed at the service of a clear purpose: the promotion of the permanent residential rental market. It is in light of this objective that the tax regime of the FIIAH must be read and understood.
Section 7 of the tax regime of the FIIAH establishes that acquisitions of urban properties or autonomous fractions of urban properties intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing are exempt from IMT.
It is stated in the Opinion attached to the case with the arguments of the Claimant (the "Opinion") that "nothing was provided about the need to keep the properties in the assets of the FIIAH for a certain period, or about the need to effectively conclude the rental contract also within a certain period"[2].
If we read that normative provision correctly, we must conclude that the IMT exemption did not depend solely on the identity of the acquirer of the properties in question. The law is not limited to exempting (nor did it exempt at that time) the mere acquisition of properties by FIIAH. It granted this exemption to FIIAH, yes, but only insofar as the acquisition referred to urban properties or autonomous fractions of urban properties "intended exclusively for rental for permanent housing".
Now, as the distinguished authors of the Opinion well point out, the scope of the law is not (it is not today as it was not then) the promotion of real estate speculation. However, it was also not, as can be read in it, the protection of the funds for rental[3], let the apparent paradox pass. The law intended, rather, to stimulate the rental market itself. This objective was pursued through various initiatives, including the establishment of a special, and advantageous, regime dedicated to FIIAH, but the conclusion that the legislator intended, simply, to support said FIIAH would be hasty. To say what has just been said is not intended to mean more than this: it is reductive, and to that extent inaccurate, to argue that the exemption referred to in section 7 of article 8 (tax regime) of the special regime applicable to FIIAH is satisfied with two prerequisites, namely that of the identity of the acquirer and that of its declaration at the time of acquisition of the property that it is intended for rental for permanent housing.
The purpose, indeed exclusive, to be given to the properties acquired by FIIAH must not be, by the reading we make of the norms, purely intentional or volitional. It is not enough that the FIIAH, at the time of acquisition of a property, to benefit from the exemption of IMT and IS, declares that it intends to give the said property the purpose of rental for permanent housing. For that benefit to fulfill its purpose, for the tax expenditure associated with it to be economically and socially justified, that purpose must be effective.
The postulate that has just been expressed, however, has a scope less comprehensive, less impressive, than it may at first suggest. Indeed, the effectiveness of a given purpose of a real property can only be undermined, prejudiced, by the actual verification of the attribution to that specific property of a different purpose.
4.4. The Applicability to the Specific Case of the Changes to the IMT and IS Exemptions Introduced by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December
The State Budget Law for 2014 amended the tax regime of the FIIAH, adding, for what concerns us here, sections 14 to 16 to article 8.
Section 14 came to specify what should be understood as a property intended for rental for permanent housing, imposing a three-year period, counted from the moment the property comes to form part of the FIIAH's assets, for that property to be the subject of a rental contract for permanent housing, under penalty of the exemptions granted at the time of its acquisition ceasing to have effect.
Section 16, on the other hand, establishes the same sanction (the exemptions granted at the time of acquisition ceasing to have effect) if the property in question is disposed of[4] (except in case of disposal to the former owner and tenant, in exercise of purchase option) within the three-year period from the moment it came to form part of the FIIAH's assets.
These rules do not suggest special precautions if applied to acquisitions of properties made by FIIAH after their entry into force. The problem arises, however, when one seeks to apply them, as in the case at bar, to situations where the acquisition of the property took place before the effectiveness of these new provisions.
Now, as seen, section 2 of article 236 of Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December mandates the application of these rules "to properties that have been acquired by FIIAH before 1 January 2014, counting, in those cases, the three-year period provided for in section 14 from 1 January 2014".
The question is, therefore, whether the assessment acts now challenged are valid, undertaken by the Respondent in light of what is unequivocally established by that transitional regime.
This exercise cannot be carried out in isolation from the concrete assessment of the factual situation, which is this: FUND B... acquired the Property in 2013, having benefited from the respective IMT and IS exemptions, since the Claimant declared that the acquired property, the Property, was intended for rental for permanent housing. It happens that in 2015 FUND B... disposed of the Property, and the Respondent considered, in accordance with the norms just examined, that the said exemptions ceased to have effect, whereby it proceeded, on the basis of an oral request from the Claimant, to the assessment of IMT and IS, that is, the Assessments.
It is true that, in the previous regime, applicable at the time of acquisition of the Property, nothing was expressly stated about the need to keep the properties in the assets of the FIIAH for a certain period. However, it also seems evident to us that the purpose to be given to the acquired properties was a requirement and that that purpose cannot be merely "psychological" or intentional.
As we have seen, it is the law that expressly requires, and in exclusive terms, a certain purpose to be given to the properties acquired with the tax benefits we have been addressing. Different would have been the wording of the norm that enshrines the exemptions of IMT and IS if their attribution had been left to depend exclusively on the identity of the respective acquirer: being a FIIAH. The acquisition of properties by FIIAH is a necessary condition, but it cannot be seen, in light of the norms in force in 2013, as a sufficient condition[5].
However, it must be acknowledged that it would not be reasonable to immediately impose the need to assign, in effective terms, the real property to rental for permanent housing. At a first moment, that of acquisition, what will matter is the intention declared by the acquirer who is a FIIAH. At the time of acquisition, the FIIAH must manifest the intention to allocate the acquired property to that form of rental, with the presumption that the acquirer cannot, without loss of benefits, assign to the properties acquired with these exemptions a purpose different from the one declared.
Let us agree that assigning a different purpose to real property with IMT and IS exemptions cannot be understood as synonymous with the attribution to those properties of an effective rental for permanent housing. The same is to say that the period that elapses between the acquisition by the FIIAH of a property for rental for permanent housing and the effective conclusion of a rental contract for permanent housing having it as its object, regardless of the duration of that period, is a time lapse that does not authorize the conclusion that the property in question has been assigned a purpose different from rental for permanent housing. In truth, having a property on the rental market, available to be rented, is still a manifestation of that declared purpose. It is sufficient, we believe, for that property to be susceptible to being the subject of a rental contract in which the FIIAH appears as lessor for the requirement of the purpose to be given to the property to be satisfied, which, recall, was acquired with the aforementioned tax benefits.
As we have already had occasion to state, the rules in force in 2013, the year in which the Property was acquired by FUND B... with the exemption of IMT and IS, did not establish, in rigidly temporal terms, the need for an effective conclusion of a rental contract for permanent housing. However, we believe that the benefit of the IMT and IS exemption – within the framework of the economic policy of which it is an instrument – rests on the need to assign it that effective purpose (regardless of knowing – that is another question – the period the FIIAH has to assign it that effective purpose).
Now, the property does not receive the effective purpose of rental for permanent housing when the owner allocates it to a different purpose – for example, commercial rental – or when it ceases to be able to give it the desired purpose of housing rental (because the owner disposes of the property, for example).
We do not believe that the problem can be analyzed from the point of view of risk, in terms of being able to sustain that the exemptions provided for did not intend to place on the FIIAH the risk of not being able to rent the properties, or not being able to dispose of them. It happens that the FIIAH, as collective investment bodies, are true economic agents and must weigh the risks arising from their own activity, which includes the duty to consider the consequences of not allocating a certain property to a certain purpose.
It is stated in the Opinion that "the destination is compatible, particularly in periods of crisis in the rental market, with difficulties and delays in implementing the rental", a statement that does not merit contest. What will not, however, merit unanimity is the conclusion that these difficulties and delays do not constitute an integral part of the risks associated with this specific economic activity. If the law established incentives for the acquisition of properties with the objective of their being intended for rental for permanent housing, it falls to the acquirer of those properties and beneficiary of those incentives to manage the risks of their business, which must include consideration of the possibility that those properties will not arouse in the market the interest that the owner of them, the FIIAH, foresaw[6].
4.5. Conclusion
It appears to this arbitral tribunal that the need for a FIIAH to intend for the property acquired with the benefit of the IMT and IS exemption to be used for rental for permanent housing is not an innovation of the State Budget Law for 2014, being already a requirement of the previous normative, applicable in 2013.
Note that in the case at hand, the contested IMT and IS assessments are not based on the fact that the property acquired by FUND B... with tax benefits, the Property, remained in the fund's assets for a period equal to or greater than 3 years, without having been given the necessary allocation for rental for permanent housing. In the present case, the Property was disposed of without having been allocated to permanent housing rental. Therefore, in the case at bar, the problem does not concern the period.
Concluding, it does not appear to be truly a problem of retroactivity of the law, since the solution that the case warrants, in our understanding, is the same, whether applying the new law or making use of the old law, since one and the other do not dispense with the requirement that the acquisition of urban properties or autonomous fractions of urban properties by FIIAH be effectively intended, and in exclusive terms, for rental for permanent housing.
- Decision
On the grounds and with the foundations set out above, the arbitral tribunal decides to maintain in the legal order the acts of assessment of IMT and IS subject to the request presented by the Claimant, ruling it unfounded.
- Value of the Case
In accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article 306 of the CPC, paragraph a) of section 1 of article 97-A of the CPPT and also section 2 of article 3 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Processes, the value of the case is set at € 23,284.75 (twenty-three thousand two hundred eighty-four euros and seventy-five cents).
- Costs
For purposes of the provisions of section 2 of article 12 and section 4 of article 22 of the RJAT and section 4 of article 4 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Processes, the amount of costs is set at € 1,224.00 (one thousand two hundred twenty-four euros), in accordance with Table I attached to that Regulation, to be borne entirely by the Claimant.
Lisbon, 9 July 2016
The Arbitrator
(Nuno Pombo)
Text prepared by computer, pursuant to section 5 of article 131 of the CPC, applicable by reference of paragraph e) of section 1 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January and in the spelling prior to the said Orthographic Agreement of 1990.
[1] It was acquired on 05.08.2013 (v. § 20 of the Claimant's Arguments).
[2] Page 16 of the Opinion.
[3] Page 22 of the Opinion.
[4] Or in case the fund is liquidated in the same period.
[5] The Statute of Tax Benefits, in the wording of article 7 at the date of the facts, established the subjection to supervision of all natural or legal persons, of public or private law, to whom tax benefits were granted, automatic or dependent on recognition, to control verification of the prerequisites of the respective tax benefits. For its part, article 9 of the same diploma provided (as it also provides today) that the holders of the right to tax benefits are obliged to declare, within 30 days, the cessation of the fact or legal situation on which the benefit was based.
[6] Indeed, said interest is not to be limited to the properties objectively considered, to their physical characteristics, since the reaction of the market will not be indifferent to the conditions on which the owner proposes to rent them.