CAAD 773/2015-T: IRS Joint Taxation for De Facto Unions – Legal Requirements and Tax Assessment Challenge

ARBITRAL DECISION

I. REPORT

A…, Lawyer, single, taxpayer no.…, resident at …– …, lot …, …, …, in Leiria, filed a petition for the establishment of a singular Arbitral Tribunal, in accordance with the combined provisions of articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime of Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to as RJAT), in which the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter AT) is the Respondent, with the objective of obtaining the declaration of illegality of the assessment act no. 2015 … for Income Tax of Natural Persons (IRS) relating to the year 2013, in the amount of €4,785.88.

The petition for establishment of the Arbitral Tribunal was accepted by the Honourable President of CAAD on 4 January 2016 and automatically notified to the AT.

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph c) of no. 1 of article 11 of RJAT, the singular Arbitral Tribunal was established on 2 March 2016.

The AT responded, arguing for the dismissal of the petition.

On 11 April 2016, the meeting referred to in article 18 of RJAT was held with the Parties, of which minutes were drawn up and are attached to the file, and the witnesses presented were examined and final arguments were made.

The Arbitral Tribunal is regularly established and is materially competent, in accordance with paragraph a) of no. 1 of article 2 of RJAT.

The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are represented (article 4, and no. 2 of article 10 of RJAT and article 1 of Order no. 112/2011, of 22 March).

There are no nullities, exceptions or preliminary questions that prevent immediate consideration of the merits of the case.

II. FACTUAL MATTERS

Based on the evidence in the file, the following facts are deemed proven:

A) On 29 May 2014, the Claimant submitted a joint return, under the legal framework of de facto union, with taxpayer B, B… for IRS – see document no. 3;

B) From the joint return submitted, a refund value resulted, in favor of the Claimant taxpayer, in the amount of €2,169.92 – see document no. 4;

C) By electronic notification dated 17 June 2014, the AT communicated to the Claimant the following – see document no. 5:

"The income return relating to the year 2013, with identification J0…/…, was selected for analysis because the following situation(s) was/were detected: Non-compliance by the taxpayers with the legal requirements of de facto union."

D) By petition of 4 July 2014, the Claimant made submissions regarding the divergence raised by the AT, as per document no. 6;

E) Following such petition, the Claimant was notified by the AT of the Information/Draft Amendment of Income as per order of 23 October 2014 (document no. 7);

F) Regarding such draft official amendment of the income return, the Claimant exercised the right to prior hearing by petition of 6 November 2014, as per document no. 8.

G) By order dated 10 November 2014, the official amendment of the "net income from IRS to the value of 73687.77, as determined in point II" was carried out, all in the exact terms of such order whose content is hereby expressly and fully reproduced for the due legal effects (see document no. 9).

H) An official assessment was issued in which the amount owed by the Claimant was determined at €2,615.96, of which €2,570.06 refers to the IRS assessment of income for 2013 and €45.90 corresponds to compensatory interest (document no. 1);

I) On 2 January 2015, the Claimant was notified of the official assessment of IRS income for the year 2013, through the collection document no. 2015…, in the amount of €2,615.96;

J) On 2 March 2015, the Claimant made payment of the assessment value subject to challenge (see document no. 10);

K) The Claimant and Ms. B… are not married, but have lived, since (at least) the year 2007 to date, continuously, as if husband and wife (testimony of witnesses Ms. C… and Mr. D…);

L) The Claimant and Ms. B… reside at …, …, Street …, …, …, …, in Leiria – documents no. 12 to 17);

M) Since 2007, the Claimant and Ms. B… have shared house, bed and board, under conditions identical to those of a couple united by marriage - (testimony of witnesses Ms. C… and Mr. D…);

N) Both taxpayers share and pool efforts and savings, sharing the common benefit of their professional activities and income - (testimony of witnesses Ms. C… and Mr. D…);

O) It is at that address that both taxpayers (Claimant and Ms. B…) receive and socialize with the couple's friends – (testimony of witnesses Ms. C… and Mr. D…);

P) The Claimant and Ms. B… share vacations, weekends and leisure periods together, under conditions analogous to those of spouses united by marriage – (testimony of witnesses Ms. C… and Mr. D…).

Q) In 2007, Ms. B…, although maintaining her tax domicile in …, already resided in Leiria (testimony of witnesses Ms. C… and Mr. D…);

R) Namely, in the years 2007 and until the year 2009, Ms. B…, who exercises the professional activity of teacher, taught at …, in Souselas, alternating her residence between the address she maintained in … and the address located in …, according to the convenience of her professional duties – (testimony of witnesses Ms. C… and Mr. D…);

S) However, every weekend in the said period from 2007 to 2009, she resided at the address located in … – (testimony of witnesses Ms. C… and Mr. D…);

T) Since 2009 and to the present date, Ms. B… resides exclusively and continuously at the address located in …, Street …, …, …, …, Leiria, with the Claimant (testimony of witnesses Ms. C… and Mr. D…);

U) Moreover, since 28 April 2011, Ms. B… has changed her tax domicile to said address – see document no. 11;

V) The Claimant has his tax domicile and resides at the cited address since, at least, the year 2005, the date on which he acquired said unit which constitutes both the tax domicile and the permanent residence and home of the couple – see documents no. 12 and 13;

W) It is to taxpayer B that over the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, the supply of telephone, internet and cable TV is billed concerning the address and residence of the couple located on Street …, …, …, …, Leiria – see documents no. 15;

X) And it is the Claimant who over the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 is billed for the supply of water and gas concerning the address and residence of the couple located on Street …, …, …, …, Leiria – see documents no. 16;

Y) The Claimant and Ms. B…) are parents of a minor child (E… NIF …) since 22 January 2013 – see doc. no. 17;

Taking into account the positions assumed by the parties, in light of article 110, no. 7 of CPPT, the testimonial evidence produced and the documentary evidence attached to the file, the facts listed above are deemed proven, with relevance to the decision.

Taking into account the principle of free evaluation of evidence inherent in article 607, no. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), applicable by virtue of article 2, paragraph e) of the Code of Tax Procedure and Process (CPPT), the Tribunal based its decision, regarding the evidence produced, on its intimate conviction, based on the examination and evaluation of the means of proof brought to the process and in accordance with its life experience and knowledge of persons.

In this context, it is considered that the testimony produced by Witnesses Ms. C… and Mr. D… reveals that the Claimant and Ms. B… have a romantic relationship dating back to the year 1999, and that they have lived in de facto union since, at least, the year 2007.

Also, the documents attached to the file, in particular, document no. 14, reveals that the wife of the Claimant had centralized at the Claimant's address her accounts relating to communications.

Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal is convinced that the Claimant and his wife live as a couple, united de facto, for certainly more than 5 years, since the occurrence of the tax fact sub judice.

III. LEGAL MATTERS

The principal issue raised in these proceedings boils down to determining whether the Claimant could present the IRS return for the year 2013 jointly with Ms. B…, under article 14 of the IRS Code.

In this regard, the Claimant alleges in his petition for arbitral pronouncement the following:

• The Claimant and Ms. B… (hereinafter wife) live under the regime of de facto union, for more than 2 years, which is why they should benefit from the tax regime equivalent to married taxpayers not separated in persons and property;

• Article 19, no. 6 of the LGT provides that "The tax administration may officially rectify the tax domicile of the taxpayers if such results from the elements at its disposal.";

• The material criterion should be relevant and override the mere formal criterion limited to the mere coincidence of tax domicile, which criterion, as to the demonstration of its prerequisites – actual cohabitation of the couple in a situation analogous to that of spouses – effectively reveals nothing;

• The communication of the change of tax domicile relates solely to the formal scope of the legal-tax relationship that the administration maintains with the taxpayer at the level of communication of acts, and such communication cannot assume substantive or material effects on the tax situation of the taxpayers, especially preventing a particular tax regime;

• On the other hand, the identity of tax domicile contains a mere presumption of de facto union, which clearly does not prevent the demonstration, by any other legally admissible means of proof, of de facto union;

• Furthermore, article 1, no. 2-A of Law no. 7/2001, of 11 May, in the version conferred by Law no. 23/2010, of 30 August, provides that proof of de facto union can be demonstrated by any legally admissible means, except if there is any legal or regulatory provision requiring specific documentary proof;

• Moreover, not forgetting that article 14 of the IRS Code is a tax incidence norm, it must always admit proof to the contrary as clearly determined by article 73 of the LGT.

• Thus, being article 14, no. 2 of the IRS Code a norm of personal-tax incidence, the presumption contained therein must always be susceptible to rebuttal.

• Furthermore, such possibility of rebuttal came to be embodied in tax law through the drafting given to article 13 of the IRS Code, by introducing its innovative numbers 10 to 13, not only providing for such possibility of rebutting said presumption, but also the form and legally admissible means and, finally, the distribution of the burden of proof.

• Moreover, the change of tax domicile cannot be assumed as a constitutive element of the right to opt for the taxation regime, nor does the omission of such formality constitute grounds for the non-recognition of that same right.

• Rather, the failure to communicate the taxpayer's domicile concerns a question of the effectiveness of that same change which does not affect the substance or materiality of the legal concept of tax domicile set forth in no. 1 of article 19 of the LGT.

• In support of everything stated above, in a situation analogous to that of the present proceedings, reference is made to the Ruling of the Central Administrative Court of the South of 07.04.2011, available at www.dgsi.pt, whose summary is transcribed: "I) - The concept of tax domicile established in article 19° of the LGT, namely in its n°1, is a special domicile that refers to a determined place for the exercise of rights and compliance with duties provided for in tax rules which, being special, is independent of that provided in article 82° of the C. C., although, ideologically and in its essence, the provision in that first legal provision connects with the need for the taxpayer and the A.F. to be in contact whenever necessary for the exercise of their respective rights and duties, in homage to the principle of collaboration inherent in art° 59° of the LGT. II) - The domicile of taxpayers can and should be officially corrected based on elements that were at the disposal of the tax administration in compliance with the provision in n°6 of the said rule because this is exactly what it is: a power-duty, intended first and foremost to protect the tax truth in implementation of the said principle of collaboration enshrined in art° 59° of the L.G.T.. III) - Living the Claimant in de facto union with another person, meeting the prerequisites contained in the respective law, they could opt, as they did in the income return filed, for the taxation regime of married taxpayers not judicially separated in persons and property and, since there was identity of tax domicile of the taxpayers during the period required by law to verify the prerequisites of de facto union and during the taxation period, as well as the signature, by both, of the respective income return, everything is in accordance with the law (art° 14° n°s 1 and 2 of the CIRS)."

• Also in this sense the recent Ruling of the Central Administrative Court of the South of 19.02.2015 given in the proceedings of case no. 08313/14, available at www.dgsi.pt, whose summary, being wise and pertinent, is transcribed: "I – The persons who live in de facto union need, in order to benefit from the right to be taxed according to the taxation regime of married taxpayers not judicially separated in persons and property established in article 14 of the CIRS, to prove that such de facto union lasts for, at least, two years, that they possessed during that period of time the same tax domicile and submitted income return signed by both taxpayers united de facto. II – Being the tax domicile of natural persons, as a rule, the place of habitual residence and, consequently, this habitual residence the place determined for the exercise of rights and compliance with duties provided for in tax rules (art. 19, n. 1, al. a), General Tax Law), it is this identity that must be respected by the taxpayer and it is this identity that must be respected by the Tax Administration, namely to ascertain whether or not the conditions required by law are met for two persons who live in de facto union to benefit from the regime enshrined in article 14 n. 1 of the CIRS. III – The communication of the change of tax domicile not being a constitutive element of the right referred to in I-, the omission of such formality cannot constitute grounds for the non-recognition of that same right. IV – Having been proven that, when the Claimants submitted the joint income returns for IRS purposes, they had lived for more than twenty years in conditions analogous to those of spouses and that throughout all those years both resided in the same house, the requirements set out in article 14, nos. 1 and 2 of the CIRS should be deemed to be met".

• In this way, the Claimant and his wife actually live in de facto union, for more than two years, and even if it is understood that there was no identity of tax domicile for the same period – without conceding – it should always have been possible for them to demonstrate this reality.

• Consequently, and insofar as the respective legal prerequisites are met, they could opt, as they actually did in the 2013 income return, for the taxation regime of married taxpayers not judicially separated in persons and property.

• As a consequence, the amount referred to in the preceding article should be paid to the Claimant, which amounts to €4,785.88, plus default interest calculated from 29 May 2014 on the amount of €2,169.92 and from 2 March 2015 on the amount of €2,615.96, until full and complete payment.

For its part, the AT alleges, in summary, the following:

• In accordance with no. 2 of article 14 of the IRS Code, the application of the taxation regime of married taxpayers to persons who live in de facto union depends on the identity of tax domicile of the taxpayers during the period required by law, which according to article 1 of Law no. 7/2001, of 11/05, must be "…for more than two years".

• According to the provisions of article 14 of the IRS Code:

"1 - Persons who, living in de facto union, meet the prerequisites contained in the respective law, may opt for the taxation regime of married taxpayers not judicially separated in persons and property.

2 - The application of the regime referred to in the preceding number depends on the identity of tax domicile of the taxpayers during the period required by law to verify the prerequisites of de facto union and during the taxation period, as well as the signature, by both, of the respective income return.

3 - In the case of exercise of the option provided for in no. 1, the provision of no. 2 of article 13 is applicable, both de facto united being responsible for compliance with tax obligations""

• Article 19 of the LGT, in turn, provides the following:

"1 - The tax domicile of the taxpayer is, except where otherwise provided:

a) For natural persons, the place of habitual residence;

b) For legal entities, the place of the registered office or actual management or, failing that, of their stable establishment in Portugal.

2 - The tax domicile also includes the electronic mailbox, as provided in the public electronic mailbox service.

3 - It is mandatory, in accordance with the law, to communicate the domicile of the taxpayer to the tax administration.

4 - The change of domicile is ineffective unless communicated to the tax administration. (…)

8 - The tax administration may officially rectify the tax domicile of taxpayers if such results from the elements at its disposal. (…)"

• Finally, article 2-A of Law 7/2001 of 11/05:

"Proof of de facto union

1- In the absence of a legal or regulatory provision requiring specific documentary proof, de facto union is proved by any legally admissible means.

2- In the case of proving de facto union by statement issued by the competent parish board, the document must be accompanied by a statement by both members of the de facto union under pledge of honor, that they have lived in de facto union for more than two years, and certified copies of the birth registration of each of them. (…)"

• It is thus verified, in view of the applicable legal framework, that, according to the personal incidence rules of the IRS Code: persons who, living in de facto union, meet the prerequisites contained in the respective law, may opt for the taxation regime of married taxpayers not judicially separated in persons and property; the application of such regime depends on the identity of tax domicile of the taxpayers during the period required by law to verify the prerequisites of de facto union and during the taxation period, as well as the signature, by both, of the respective income return.

• The respective law, cited above, in turn provides that persons who live in conditions analogous to those of spouses for more than two years are considered to be in de facto union. Finally, de facto union can be proven by any legally admissible means of proof, namely by statement issued by the competent parish board, provided that such statement is accompanied by a statement by both members of the de facto union, under pledge of honor, that they live in such circumstances for more than two years, and certified copies of the birth registration of each of them.

• In view of the legal framework of the legal regime that the Claimant seeks to assert, it is found that the above-listed requirements, required by law, are not proven.

• From the file, rather, it appears that there is not identity of tax domicile of the taxpayers.

• The law makes the application of the de facto union regime under the personal incidence of IRS dependent on the identity of tax domicile – article 14, no. 2 C.IRS.

• In view of the obligation to communicate the change of domicile, under penalty of ineffectiveness thereof, until such is communicated – see nos. 1, 3 and 4 of article 19, no. 1, of the LGT, the provisions of article 1, no. 2, of Law 7/2001 of 11 May "persons who, regardless of gender, live in conditions analogous to those of spouses for more than two years" are not applicable.

• Now, the alleged taxpayer B. did not communicate the change of tax domicile, together with A., nor did he communicate it "for more than years" (by reference to the 2013 tax year).

• Regardless of the reasons it alleges, and the documentation it provides, it did not proceed with the required communication, thus rendering ineffective the alleged – and not proven – joint living.

• In fact, it would always be important to understand why only now the taxpayers in question are presenting a joint return, since according to what they claim, they were already in de facto union, as if husband and wife.

• As has been decided at a higher level, see Ruling of the STA South, handed down on 22/01/2015, proc. 06655/13:

"2. The law makes the application of the de facto union regime under the personal incidence of IRS dependent on the identity of tax domicile – art. 14° no. 2 C.IRS, contrary to what the first instance judgment states. The concept used by the legislator in the personal incidence rule of IRS referred to above is that of tax domicile, and not any other, such as family household residence, habitual address, whereabouts or other.

1. The law establishes that it is "mandatory (...), the communication of the domicile of the taxpayer to the tax administration" and "ineffective the change of domicile unless communicated to the tax administration" (nos. 3 and 4 of the same legal provision). Thus, it is understood that in view of the obligation to communicate the change of domicile, under penalty of ineffectiveness thereof, until such is communicated – see nos. 1, 3 and 4 of article 19, no. 1, of the General Tax Law, the provisions of article 1, no. 2, of Law 7/2001 of 11 May – «persons who, regardless of gender, live in conditions analogous to those of spouses for more than two years» – are not applicable."

• Collecting, the application of the regime referred to in art. 14, no. 1 of the CIRS depends on the identity of tax domicile of the taxpayers during the period required by civil law (2 years) and during the taxation period (2013), as established in no. 2 of that article.

• No. 1 of article 14 refers to civil law, more specifically to Law no. 7/2001 of 11 May, while no. 2 adds a special requirement indispensable for taxpayers to benefit from the taxation of married taxpayers not judicially separated in persons and property - the identity of tax domicile.

• It is not enough to meet and prove the requirements of de facto union (no. 1 of article 14 of the IRS Code); it is still necessary to have identity of tax domicile during the two previous years and during the taxation period (no. 2).

• All in keeping and conjunction with that established in other applicable tax rules - articles 130, no. 7 of the IRS Code, 19, no. 2 of the LGT and 43, no. 1 of CPPT.

• The taxpayers had the obligation to change their tax domicile so that it would be opposable to the AT.

• Regarding what is alleged in 63. B) of the PI, and without conceding, A. cannot, under any circumstances, claim that, should the assessment sub judice be annulled, he is owed a refund in the amount indicated in doc. 4 attached to the PI;

• In effect, if the return contained in document no. 3 is to be considered valid, it will be subject to assessment, the value of which may or may not coincide with the estimated value at the exact moment of submission of the return (this value indicated automatically by the system and which does not constitute an assessment, but a mere transitional operation - information which, moreover, is also provided automatically by the system).

• Thus, the claim for payment of default interest would also fail, as these are due only in the period between the date of completion of voluntary execution of a final judicial decision and the date of issuance of the credit note, regarding the tax that should have been refunded by final judicial decision – as clearly results from article 43, no. 4 and article 102, no. 2, both of the LGT.

In view of the foregoing, regarding the position of the Parties and the arguments presented, to determine whether the assessment act of IRS sub judice is or is not illegal, it will be necessary to verify whether the income return of IRS presented jointly by the Claimant and Ms. B…, under article 14 of the IRS Code, should be accepted even if during that period they did not share the same tax domicile.

Let us see what should be understood.

Article 14 of the IRS Code provides, in the version in force at the date of the facts, as follows:

"Article 14
De Facto Unions

1 - Persons who, living in de facto union, meet the prerequisites contained in the respective law, may opt for the taxation regime of married taxpayers not judicially separated in persons and property.

2 - The application of the regime referred to in the preceding number depends on the identity of tax domicile of the taxpayers during the period required by law to verify the prerequisites of de facto union and during the taxation period, as well as the signature, by both, of the respective income return.

3 - In the case of exercise of the option provided for in no. 1, the provision of no. 2 of article 13 is applicable, both de facto united being responsible for compliance with tax obligations." (Version of DL 198/2001 of 3 July)

For its part, Law no. 7/2001, of 11 May, provides in its article 1 as follows:

"Article 1 – Object

1 - This law adopts measures to protect de facto unions.

2 - De facto union is the legal situation of two persons who, regardless of gender, live in conditions analogous to those of spouses for more than two years.

Finally, it is established in paragraph d) of article 3 of Law no. 7/2001 that persons who live in de facto union in the conditions provided in that Law have the right to the application of the regime of income tax of natural persons under the same conditions as married taxpayers not judicially separated in persons and property.

In view of the provisions mentioned, it may be said that, for persons who live in de facto union to benefit from the taxation regime of married taxpayers not judicially separated in persons and property, it is necessary:

• To prove de facto union for at least 2 years;

• To have the same tax domicile for 2 years;

• To jointly sign the income return.

Taking into account the facts brought to the proceedings and the evidence produced, it is considered that the Claimant lives with his wife (Ms. B…) since the year 2007, and the IRS return for the year 2013 was jointly signed by both.

The Claimant and his wife did not have their tax domicile at the same address at the date of submission of the IRS return sub judice during the 2 years prior.

However, according to the facts brought to the proceedings and the evidence carried out, it is understood that the Claimant actually lived in de facto union with his wife, the tax domicile of both being, in the sense of place of habitual residence, the same since the year 2007.

In fact, as results from the Ruling of the Central Administrative Court of the South, handed down in the context of case no. 8313/14, of 19 February 2015, "although the concept of tax domicile and its fixation are not identical to the concept and requirements for determining habitual residence as it appears determined in article 82 of the Civil Code, and that first one cannot fail to be understood as a special domicile, 'the place determined for the exercise of rights and compliance with duties provided for in tax rules' and, consequently, regardless of what is stipulated in Civil Law, the fact is that the legislator in establishing as a rule this identity between one and the other, within a natural logic (it is natural that the proper place for the exercise of tax rights and compliance with duties is the place where the taxpayer habitually resides) and, once again, of coherence and unity of the legal system (if the domicile ('voluntary general') is in the place of habitual residence (or in any of the places that alternately resides or even where occasionally resides – article 82, nos. 1 and 2 of the Civil Code), it is understood that it was this one that was first also considered, as a matter of coherence and uniformity of the legal system, by the tax legislator for purposes of the tax domicile rule).

As a consequence of the foregoing, the AT is obliged to respect the identity between tax domicile and habitual residence, to ascertain whether or not the conditions required by law are met for two persons who live in de facto union to benefit or not from the regime provided for in article 14 of the IRS Code.

The obligation to communicate tax domicile and its alteration provided for in nos. 3 and 4 of article 19 does not have the power to prevent the proof of a true de facto union. In fact, the lack of communication and alteration of tax domicile only produces effects at the level of its effectiveness, which does not affect the substance, and at the level of administrative offense - (see Ruling of the Central Administrative Court of the South, handed down in the context of case no. 8313/14, of 19.02.2015, case no. 4550/11, of 7.04.2011 and 5655/12, of 5.03.2015).

Considering that article 19 of the LGT provides that the tax domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence, it is understood that the legal condition provided for is met, in the case under analysis, since it has been proven that the Claimant and his wife live in conditions analogous to those of spouses, for about 6 years.

In sum, having in this specific case been proven that the Claimant and Ms. B… live in conditions analogous to those of spouses, for more than 5 years, when they presented the joint IRS return, residing throughout those years in the same house, in community of life, it cannot fail to be deemed that the requirements set out in article 14, nos. 1 and 2 of the IRS Code are met.

As a consequence, the annulment of the IRS assessment act sub judice is imposed, and the recognition of the right to indemnitary interest of the Claimant, since the illegality of the assessment act is attributable to error of the Respondent, in accordance with the provisions of articles 43 and 100 of the LGT.

Regarding the claim for payment of default interest, as the AT alleges, default interest is due only in the period between the date of completion of voluntary execution of a final judicial decision and the date of issuance of the credit note, regarding the tax that should have been refunded by final judicial decision, as results from article 43, no. 4 and article 102, no. 2, both of the LGT.

IV. DECISION

Therefore, this Arbitral Tribunal decides:

A) To declare the petition for annulment of the IRS assessment act relating to the year 2013 entirely well-founded;

B) To condemn the Tax and Customs Authority to refund to the Claimant the amount of tax paid, plus indemnitary interest;

C) To condemn the Respondent in the costs of this proceeding, as the losing party.

V. VALUE OF THE PROCEEDING

In accordance with the provisions of article 306, no. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 97-A, no. 1 a) of CPPT and article 3, no. 2 of the Regulation of Costs in Proceedings of Tax Arbitration, the value of the petition is fixed at €2,570.06.

VI. COSTS

In accordance with the provisions of articles 12, no. 2 and 22, no. 4, both of RJAT, and article 4, no. 4 of the Regulation of Costs of Proceedings of Tax Arbitration, the value of the arbitration fee is fixed at €612.00, in accordance with Table I of the aforementioned Regulation, to be borne by the Respondent.

Let it be notified.

Lisbon, 3 May 2016

The Arbitrator

Magda Feliciano

(The text of this decision was prepared by computer, in accordance with article 131, no. 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicable by reference from article 29, no. 1, paragraph e) of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (RJAT), and its drafting is governed by the orthography prior to the Orthographic Agreement of 1990.)