Process: 77/2017-T

Date: September 8, 2017

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

Process 77/2017-T addresses a critical dispute regarding the application of Verba 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table (TGIS) to urban properties in Lisbon. The claimant company challenged stamp duty assessments on two urban properties, arguing that the €1,000,000 threshold should apply individually to each floor or division capable of independent use, rather than to the property's total tax value. The central legal question involves whether properties held in vertical ownership with multiple independent-use units should be assessed as a single taxable entity or as separate units for stamp duty purposes. The claimant contended that under the Municipal Property Tax Code (CMTRE), each floor or part with independent use constitutes an autonomous entity with its own matrix registration and individual tax value, regardless of formal ownership structure. Therefore, Verba 28.1 should only apply when individual units exceed €1,000,000. The Tax Authority maintained that the relevant tax value is the overall property value. The claimant also raised constitutional concerns, arguing that the special taxation under Verba 28 violates equality principles enshrined in Articles 13 and 104(3) of the Portuguese Constitution. The arbitration was initiated following dismissal of hierarchical appeals, with proceedings conducted under Decree-Law 10/2011 (RJAT). This case reflects recurring litigation on high-value property taxation and demonstrates taxpayers' ability to challenge stamp duty assessments through CAAD arbitration, particularly regarding interpretation of valuation criteria for properties with multiple independent-use units.

Full Decision

ARBITRATION DECISION

I - REPORT

  1. On 19 January 2017, company A..., with tax identification number ... and with registered office in ..., ..., ..., Lisbon, (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant") represented by management company B..., S.A., with tax identification number..., filed an application for the establishment of a single arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to as "LFATM").

  2. The application for establishment of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by the Honourable President of CAAD and notified to the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter designated as "TCA" or the "Respondent") on 31 January 2017.

  3. The Claimant seeks a declaration of the illegality of the orders of dismissal of the hierarchical remedies it filed and consequently of the tax assessments for Stamp Duty (hereinafter "SD") relating to urban properties with registration numbers ... and ..., both located in the parish of ..., municipality and district of Lisbon, which are to be annulled, with all legal effects.

  4. In the application for arbitral ruling, the Claimant chose not to designate an arbitrator. In accordance with subparagraph a) of paragraph 2 of Article 6 and subparagraph b) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the LFATM, with the wording introduced by Article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Deontological Board of CAAD designated as arbitrator of the single arbitral tribunal the Honourable Dr. Olívio Mota Amador who, within the applicable period, communicated acceptance of the appointment.

  5. The parties were notified on 15 March 2017 of the designation of the arbitrator, and did not express their intention to challenge the designation of the arbitrator, in accordance with Articles 11, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and b) of the LFATM and Articles 6 and 7 of the Deontological Code.

  6. In accordance with the provisions of subparagraph c) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the LFATM, with the wording introduced by Article 228 of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 30 March 2017.

  7. On 15 May 2017, the Respondent, duly notified for this purpose, filed its Reply.

  8. On 14 June 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal dispensed with the holding of the meeting provided for in Article 18 of the LFATM, as there was no need for the production of evidence, which it did in accordance with the principles of the Tribunal's autonomy in the conduct of proceedings and in order to promote expedience, simplification and informality thereof (see Articles 19, paragraph 2 and 29, paragraph 2 of the LFATM). The Tribunal ordered notification to the parties to declare within 5 days whether they wished to submit written submissions. The Tribunal also set 8 September 2017 as the final deadline for the issuing of the arbitration decision.

  9. The Claimant made no statement regarding the submission of written submissions and the Respondent in its Reply had already requested dispensation from submissions.

  10. The position of the Claimant, in accordance with the application for establishment of the Arbitral Tribunal, is, in summary, as follows:

10.1. The claimant contends that the properties identified in this case cannot be included, as the TCA intended, within the objective scope of item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table (GSDT), because in fact, they are properties in full ownership, consisting of "floors and divisions capable of independent use" some intended for residential purposes.

10.2. Those "floors and divisions" have an individual or own tax value, calculated in accordance with the Code for Municipal Tax on Real Estate (hereinafter "CMTRE"), which must be considered for the application – or non-application – of item 28.1 of the General Table of Stamp Duty (hereinafter "GSDT").

10.3. For purposes of CMTRE, the formal situation of urban properties is of no relevance, the law making no distinction according to whether they are held in horizontal property ownership – formally divided into autonomous fractions – or in vertical property ownership – formally consisting of floors or parts with independent use. Indeed, according to the CMTRE, only the effective "use" conferred on the urban property is relevant, regardless of the manner in which it is constituted.

10.4. Thus, the formal situation of the urban property – which determines that it consists of "autonomous fractions" or of "parts with independent use" – cannot serve as a criterion for application (or non-application) of item 28.1 of the GSDT.

10.5. Having regard to the provisions of Articles 7, paragraph 2, subparagraph b), and 12, paragraph 3, of the CMTRE, "each floor or part capable of independent use" is considered as an autonomous entity within the urban property in which it is situated, being assigned a separate registration in the matrix and its own tax value, independent from the property in vertical ownership and from the tax value of the latter.

10.6. Also in the application of item 28.1 of the GSDT, each "floor or part of property capable of independent use" must be considered in isolation, as an autonomous entity, with its own entry in the matrix and with an individual tax value. Thus, item 28.1 of the GSDT can only be applied to parts, floors or divisions with independent use of a property in horizontal or vertical ownership with residential use which, considered in isolation, have a tax value exceeding €1,000,000.00.

10.7. To consider, for purposes of application of the aforesaid item 28.1 of the GSDT, the total tax value of the property in vertical ownership will always be contrary to law, constituting a total distortion of the content of that item, of its genesis and of those of the CMTRE. In conclusion, it is evident that the SD assessments sub judice must be annulled, due to violation of law, due to errors in the factual and legal assumptions. Furthermore, the tax enforcement proceedings instituted with reference to the assessments under analysis should be terminated, because they are based on the non-payment of unlawful tax acts.

10.8. This matter has already been the subject of reiterated case law from Arbitral Tribunals and Common Courts, which have ruled on the illegality of the SD assessments issued.

10.9. As a subsidiary argument, the Claimant contends that the special taxation provided for in item 28 of the GSDT is contrary to the fundamental principle of equality, enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution and, in parallel, contrary to the principle of tax equality and contributive capacity enshrined in Article 104, paragraph 3, of the Constitution.

  1. The position of the Respondent, expressed in its Reply, can be summarized as follows:

11.1. What is at issue in this case is the legal question of whether the tax value relevant as a criterion for tax incidence corresponds to the sum of the value of each of the units with residential use, capable of independent use, or to the individual tax value of each of those units capable of independent use, considered autonomously and in themselves. The interpretation underlying the assessment acts challenged is that the tax value on which the incidence of SD depends, through item 28.1 of the GSDT, must be the overall tax value of the property and not that of each of its independent parts.

11.2. According to Articles 7, paragraph 2, subparagraph b), 2, paragraph 4, of the Stamp Duty Code, the taxpayers liable for the tax are the taxpayers subject to CMTRE, in accordance with Article 8 of the CMTRE, and according to Article 3, paragraph 3, subparagraph u), of the CMTRE, the burden of SD equally falls on the taxpayers referred to in Article 8 of the CMTRE. It follows from these legal rules that the taxable event for SD under item 28.1 of the GSDT consists of the ownership, usufruct or surface right of urban properties whose tax value recorded in the matrix, in accordance with the CMTRE, is equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00.

11.3. The tax value relevant for purposes of the incidence of SD will be the total tax value of the urban property and not the tax value of each of the parts that compose it, even when capable of independent use. Thus, the SD assessments challenged do not violate the literal wording of item 28.1 of the GSDT.

11.4. In fact, Article 80, paragraph 2, of the CMTRE states that, save as provided in Articles 84 and 92, each property corresponds to a single entry registered in the matrix. Although, according to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the CMTRE, each autonomous fraction is deemed to constitute a property, each building under horizontal property ownership has only one matriculation entry.

11.5. The urban property was not constituted under a horizontal property ownership regime on the date of the taxable event for SD, in which case each of the autonomous fractions would be deemed an urban property, but under a vertical property ownership regime.

11.6. The unity of the urban property in vertical ownership composed of several floors or divisions is not, however, affected by the fact that all or some of these floors or divisions are capable of independent economic use. Such property does not cease to be one single property, thus its distinct parts are not legally equated with autonomous fractions under horizontal property ownership.

11.7. In summary, the tax value on which the incidence of SD depends, through item 28.1 of the GSDT, had to be, as it was, the overall tax value of the property and not that of each of its independent parts.

11.8. The fact that CMTRE was calculated on the basis of the tax value of each part of property with independent economic use does not equally affect the application of item 28.1 of the GSDT. This is the result of the determinative fact for the application of that item of the GSDT being the total tax value of the property and not separately that of each of its portions.

11.9. In sum, the Respondent concludes by the legality of the assessments challenged, such that the Claimant's claim should be deemed admissible and the Respondent absolved of all claims.

II – PROCEDURAL DISMISSALS

  1. The arbitral tribunal is materially competent and is duly constituted, in accordance with Articles 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph a), 5, paragraph 2, and 6, paragraph 1, of the LFATM.

  2. The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and duly represented, in accordance with Articles 4 and 10 of the LFATM and Article 1 of Ordinance no. 112-A/2011 of 22 March.

  3. No exceptions have been raised that need to be addressed.

  4. The proceedings suffer from no defects that would invalidate them.

III – FACTUAL MATTERS

16. Established Facts

16.1. Based on documentary evidence attached to the case file, the following facts are established:

A) The Claimant is the owner of the property registered under registration number ... situated in the parish of ..., municipality and district of Lisbon which comprises a total of 15 floors or divisions capable of independent use, and having a total tax value of €1,876,235.14, as per the property certificate attached to the case file.

B) The Claimant is the owner of the property registered under registration number ... situated in the parish of..., municipality and district of Lisbon which comprises a total of 13 floors or divisions capable of independent use and having a total tax value of €1,477,100.00, as per the property certificate attached to the case file.

C) Each of the "floors and divisions with independent use" of the properties identified in subparagraphs A) and B) has an individual tax value less than €1,000,000.00.

D) With respect to the property registered under registration number..., on 16 April 2014, the following SD assessments for the year 2013 were issued by the Finance Service of Lisbon-..., which are attached to the application for establishment of the Arbitral Tribunal, whose contents are hereby reproduced:

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-1stF, in the amount of €1,423.60.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-1stE, in the amount of €1,538.90.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-2ndF, in the amount of €1,423.60.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-2ndE, in the amount of €1,538.90.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-3rdF, in the amount of €1,438.20.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-3rdE, in the amount of €1,554.60.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-4thF, in the amount of €1,438.20.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-4thE, in the amount of €1,554.60.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-5thF, in the amount of €1,452.70.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-5thE, in the amount of €1,570.30.

E) With respect to the property registered under registration number ..., on 17 March 2014, the following SD assessments for the year 2013 were issued by the Finance Service of Lisbon-..., which are attached to the application for establishment of the Arbitral Tribunal, whose contents are hereby reproduced:

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-1stF, in the amount of €439.06.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-2ndF, in the amount of €439.06.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-2ndE, in the amount of €462.01.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-3rdF, in the amount of €439.06.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-3rdE, in the amount of €462.01.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-4thF, in the amount of €439.06.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-4thE, in the amount of €462.01.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-5thF, in the amount of €439.06.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-5thE, in the amount of €462.01.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-BASEMENT, in the amount of €182.44.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-GR F, in the amount of €439.06.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-GR E, in the amount of €439.06.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-1stF, in the amount of €439.06.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-1stE, in the amount of €461.99.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-2ndF, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-2ndE, in the amount of €461.99.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-3rdF, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-3rdE, in the amount of €461.99.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-4thF, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-4thE, in the amount of €461.99.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-5thF, in the amount of €439.06.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-5thE, in the amount of €461.99.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-BASEMENT, in the amount of €182.43.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-GR F, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-GR E, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-1stF, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-1stE, in the amount of €461.99.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-2ndF, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-2ndE, in the amount of €461.99.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-3rdF, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-3rdE, in the amount of €461.99.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-4thF, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-4thE, in the amount of €461.99.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-5thF, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-5thE, in the amount of €461.99.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-BASEMENT, in the amount of €182.43.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-GR F, in the amount of €439.05.

  • Assessment no. 2014 ... relating to registration U-...-GR E, in the amount of €439.05.

F) With respect to the assessments on the property with registration number ..., the Claimant filed a gracious complaint no. ...2014..., which was dismissed by order of the Head of the Finance Service Lisbon... of 28 November 2014, and against which it filed a hierarchical remedy on 31 December 2014 (with no. ...2014...) which was dismissed by order of 12 December 2016 issued by the Director of the Central Service, pursuant to a delegation of powers.

G) With respect to the assessments on the property with registration number ..., the Claimant filed a gracious complaint no. ...2014..., which was dismissed by order of the Head of the Finance Service Lisbon... of 28 November 2014, and against which it filed a hierarchical remedy on 31 December 2014 (with no. ...2014...) which was dismissed by order of 12 December 2016 issued by the Director of the Central Service, pursuant to a delegation of powers.

16.2. The facts stated in the preceding paragraph constitute uncontested matters which have been documentarily demonstrated in the case file.

17. Unproven Facts

There are no facts relevant to the decision which have not been proven.

IV – LEGAL MATTERS

18. Legal Framework

18.1. Item 28 was added to the GSDT by Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October and has the following wording:

"28 – Ownership, usufruct or surface right of urban properties whose tax value recorded in the matrix, in accordance with the Code for Municipal Tax on Real Estate (CMTRE), is equal to or greater than €1,000,000 – on the tax value used for CMTRE purposes:

28.1 – For property with residential use – 1%;

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

18.2. Law no. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, added Article 67 to the Stamp Duty Code which establishes in paragraph 2 the following: "To matters not regulated in this Code relating to item no. 28 of the General Table, the provisions of the CMTRE shall apply, on a subsidiary basis."

18.3. The CMTRE, in Article 12, which is entitled "Concept of property matrices", provides in paragraph 3: "Each floor or part of property capable of independent use is considered separately in the matriculation entry, which also discriminates its respective tax value."

19. The question to be decided in the present case concerns which tax value is relevant for purposes of the incidence of SD relating to floors and divisions with independent use intended for residential purposes in an urban property in full ownership.

20. The arbitrator in this proceeding has previously issued a decision in a single arbitral tribunal in proceedings no. 281/2013-T, on a matter identical to that presented in this case, having ruled the claim admissible. The submission of the same question of merit in a new proceeding may always result in a modification of the position previously adopted, because from the new contradictory proceedings may result a deeper analysis and a reconsideration of the legal matters. The case file does not contain elements that justify a change to the position subscribed to by the arbitrator in this proceeding from the aforesaid arbitration decision, and to the contents of which we hereby refer.

21. In accordance with the legal provisions cited in paragraph 18, the rule contained in the CMTRE implies the issuing of individualized SD assessments in relation to each of the parts capable of independent use. This rule is equally applicable to the issuing of SD assessments.

It is important to note that the legal criterion which requires the issuing of individualized assessments for the autonomous parts of properties is unique, with no differentiation between properties in horizontal ownership and properties in vertical ownership.

22. In accordance with the legally established criterion, there will only be an incidence of SD under item 28 of the GSDT if any of the parts or divisions with independent use presents a tax value equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00.

23. Having regard to the facts which are the subject of these arbitration proceedings (see above paragraph 16.1), the properties in question are in vertical ownership and none of the floors intended for residential purposes has a tax value equal to or greater than €1,000,000.00. Thus, it is concluded that the legal requirement for the incidence of SD provided for in item 28 of the GSDT is not met.

24. The position adopted by the TCA in the present case introduces a differentiation of regime that has no legal basis and that contravenes the rule of the CMTRE, which is equally applicable in the context of SD, due to the referral provision of Article 67, paragraph 2, of the Stamp Duty Code.

25. Arbitral case law, through Arbitration Decisions issued, particularly in proceedings nos. 50/2013-T, 248/2013-T and 268-2013-T, has ruled on the illegality of the criterion used by the TCA in the taxation of vertical ownership in SD, item 28 of the GSDT.

26. The Claimant also alleges the unconstitutionality of item 28.1 of the GSDT, with the wording given by Law no. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, for violation of constitutional principles of equality and contributive capacity. Having regard to the provisions of Article 124 of the Code of Tax Procedures, subsidiarily applicable pursuant to Article 29, paragraph 1 of the LFATM, and due to the declaration of illegality of the tax assessment acts which are the subject of this proceeding, the examination of the unconstitutionality defect invoked by the Claimant is rendered moot.

V – DECISION

Accordingly, this Tribunal agrees to rule the arbitration claim admissible, determining the annulment, with all legal effects, of the Stamp Duty assessment acts hereinbefore identified.

VI – CASE VALUE

In accordance with the provisions of Article 306, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 97-A, paragraph 1, subparagraph a), of the Code of Tax Procedures, applicable pursuant to Article 29, paragraph 1, subparagraphs a) and e) of the LFATM and Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the case is valued at €31,630.97 (thirty-one thousand six hundred and thirty euros and ninety-seven cents).

VII – COSTS

In accordance with the provisions of Articles 22, paragraph 4, and 12, paragraph 2, of the LFATM and Articles 2, 3, paragraph 1 and 4 of the Tax Arbitration Costs Regulation, as well as Table I attached to this instrument, the total amount of costs is set at €1,836.00 (one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six euros), to be borne by the Respondent.

Notify parties.

Lisbon, Centre for Administrative Arbitration, 8 September 2017

The Arbitrator

Olívio Mota Amador

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

What is Verba 28.1 of the Tabela Geral do Imposto do Selo (TGIS) and how does it apply to urban properties?
Verba 28.1 of the TGIS imposes annual stamp duty on ownership, usufruct, or surface rights over urban properties for residential use with a tax value exceeding €1,000,000. The key interpretative issue is whether this threshold applies to individual floors or divisions capable of independent use within a property, or to the aggregate value of the entire property in vertical ownership. Under CMTRE provisions (Articles 7(2)(b) and 12(3)), each floor or part capable of independent use receives separate matrix registration and individual tax valuation, suggesting autonomous treatment for tax purposes regardless of formal ownership structure.
Can Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) liquidation on high-value properties be challenged through tax arbitration at CAAD?
Yes, stamp tax liquidation on high-value properties can be challenged through tax arbitration at CAAD (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa). Process 77/2017-T demonstrates this procedure: the claimant first exhausted administrative remedies by filing hierarchical appeals (recursos hierárquicos) which were dismissed. Following dismissal, the company filed an arbitration request with CAAD on January 19, 2017, seeking annulment of both the hierarchical appeal dismissal orders and the underlying stamp duty assessments. CAAD arbitration provides an alternative to judicial courts for resolving tax disputes, offering specialized expertise and typically faster resolution.
What is the procedure for filing a tax arbitration request under Decree-Law 10/2011 (RJAT) in Portugal?
Under Decree-Law 10/2011 (RJAT - Legal Framework for Arbitration in Tax Matters), the procedure requires: (1) Filing an arbitration request with CAAD pursuant to Articles 2 and 10 of RJAT; (2) The CAAD President accepts the request and notifies the Tax Authority; (3) The claimant may choose to designate an arbitrator or allow CAAD's Deontological Board to appoint one; (4) Parties are notified of arbitrator designation with opportunity to challenge; (5) The arbitral tribunal is formally constituted; (6) The Tax Authority files a reply (prazo de resposta); (7) The tribunal decides whether hearings or evidence production are necessary; (8) Parties may submit written conclusions; (9) The tribunal issues its decision within the statutory deadline.
How does CAAD handle hierarchical appeal decisions (recursos hierárquicos) related to Stamp Tax assessments?
CAAD handles hierarchical appeal decisions related to Stamp Tax assessments by reviewing the legality of both the dismissal orders and the underlying tax assessments. In Process 77/2017-T, the claimant sought declaration of illegality of hierarchical appeal dismissal orders and consequent annulment of stamp duty assessments. The arbitral tribunal examines whether the Tax Authority correctly applied legal provisions, evaluates factual and legal assumptions underlying the assessments, and determines if errors in interpretation or application of tax law occurred. CAAD's jurisdiction extends to substantive review of tax acts following exhaustion of administrative remedies, providing comprehensive analysis of both procedural and substantive legal issues.
What are the legal grounds for annulling Stamp Tax liquidation acts on urban properties in Lisbon?
Legal grounds for annulling Stamp Tax liquidation acts on urban properties include: (1) Violation of law through incorrect interpretation of Verba 28.1 of TGIS, particularly regarding valuation criteria for properties with multiple independent-use units; (2) Errors in factual assumptions, such as miscalculating which tax value (individual unit vs. total property) applies; (3) Errors in legal assumptions concerning the relationship between CMTRE provisions and stamp duty incidence; (4) Violation of constitutional principles, including equality (Article 13) and tax equality/contributive capacity (Article 104(3)) principles; (5) Inconsistency with CMTRE provisions that establish autonomous treatment for floors or divisions capable of independent use with separate matrix registrations and individual tax values; (6) Distortion of legislative intent behind Verba 28.1 and related CMTRE provisions.