IUC Vehicle Tax Liquidation Annulment: CAAD Arbitral Decision 782/2014-T

ARBITRAL DECISION

I. - REPORT

A - PARTIES

The company A… - ... UNIPESSOAL, LDA, legal entity no. …, with registered office at …, Building … - …, …..., hereinafter referred to as the "Claimant," submitted a request for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph a) of n.º 1 of article 2.º and articles 10.º et seq. of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to as "RJAT"), with a view to the assessment of the following dispute opposing it to the Tax and Customs Authority (which succeeded, inter alia, the General Directorate of Taxes) hereinafter referred to as "Respondent" or "AT".

B - REQUEST

1 - The request for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by His Excellency the President of CAAD on 24 November 2014 and notified to the AT on 28 November 2014.

2 - The Claimant did not proceed with the appointment of an arbitrator; therefore, pursuant to the provisions of n.º 1 of article 6.º of the RJAT, the undersigned was, on 15-01-2015, designated by the Deontological Council of the Centre for Administrative Arbitration as arbitrator of a Single Arbitral Tribunal, having accepted in the terms legally provided.

3 - The Parties were, on 15-01-2015, duly notified of such designation, and did not manifest the will to refuse it, in the terms of the combined provisions of subparagraphs a) and b) of n.º 1 of article 11.º and of articles 6.º and 7.º of the Deontological Code.

4 - In these circumstances, in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph c) of n.º 1 of article 11.º of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January, in the version introduced by article 228.º of Law no. 66-B/2012, of 31 December, the arbitral tribunal was regularly constituted on 30-01-2015.

5 - On 7 July 2015, the Arbitral Tribunal considered it unnecessary to hold the meeting provided for in article 18.º of the RJAT, taking into account both the orders issued in this regard in the SGP and the fact that the dispute fundamentally concerns a matter of law, as well as the will of the parties to dispense with such meeting.

6 - The present Claimant requests that this Arbitral Tribunal:

a) - Declare the annulment of the decisions denying the gracious appeals n.ºs … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014… and … 2014….

b) - Declare the consequent annulment of the assessment acts relating to the Single Circulation Tax (hereinafter referred to as IUC) and to Compensatory Interest (hereinafter referred to as JC) recorded in the assessment notifications referenced in the case file, relating to the years 2013 and 2014 and concerning the vehicles identified in the records, which are hereby deemed fully reproduced;

c) - Condemn the Tax and Customs Authority to the reimbursement of the amount of € 48.479,98, which it indicates as the value of the claim:

d) - Condemn the Tax and Customs Authority to the payment of indemnatory interest for the payment of the amounts unlawfully assessed and paid.

C - CAUSE OF ACTION

7 - The Claimant, in substantiating its request for arbitral decision, affirms, in summary, the following:

8 - That it is a commercial company whose principal activity is centered on the purchase, sale, and rental of machinery and motor vehicles, offering, in these circumstances, to its clients various solutions, within the scope of long-term leasing and the sale of motor vehicles.

9 - That it was notified of IUC assessments, as identified in the case file, relating to the years 2013 and 2014, concerning the vehicles identified in the records.

10 - That in order to avoid future tax enforcement proceedings, as well as the costs inherent to the provision of guarantees for the suspension of the corresponding proceedings, it proceeded to the payment of the assessed amounts in the total value of € 48.479,98.

11 - That it filed gracious appeals against the aforementioned assessments, and the AT chose to deny them, which was notified to it on 29 August 2014.

12 - That when it filed the aforementioned gracious appeals, it demonstrated that the transfer of the vehicles to third parties occurred at moments prior to the dates of the tax obligation, as results both from the invoices for the sale of such vehicles and from the sale of salvage, copies of which it then presented, and which now form part of the records.

13 - That all vehicles referenced in the request for arbitral decision were sold to third parties, either as used vehicles or as salvage, on dates prior to those relating to the obligation to assess the respective IUC.

14 - That the vehicles are actually registered in the name of the Claimant, given that the acquisition by third parties was not, at the opportune time, registered in the name of the respective acquirers; however, such registration constitutes only a presumption, that the right exists and belongs to the owner recorded in the precise terms defined in the registration, which may be rebutted.

15 - That the contract for the purchase and sale of motor vehicles has a real nature, resulting in such effect from the contract itself, not depending on any subsequent act, namely the registration.

16 - That motor vehicle registration does not have a constitutive nature, serving only to give publicity to the registered act, and thus having a declarative nature, and the fiscal legislation and, in particular, the CIUC, cannot ignore the role of motor vehicle registration.

17 - That what interests fiscal law is more the substance than the form, and thus one should heed the invoices presented, which attest to the transfer of ownership of the vehicles in question, this being the understanding that best comports with the nature of the tax itself, which is subordinated to the idea that taxpayers should be burdened in the measure of the cost they cause to the environment and to the road network.

18 - That the expression "considering-se as tais" contained in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC configures a legal presumption which, in light of the provisions of article 73.º of the LGT, is rebuttable, and therefore the Claimant cannot be considered a taxpayer subject of the IUC that was assessed to it.

19 - That, with a view to rebutting the aforementioned presumptions, it attached, both in the context of the gracious appeals and in the scope of the present proceeding, copies of all invoices for the sale, both of used vehicles and of salvage, from which it is apparent that the sales of the vehicles are dated prior to the date of the tax event, whereby at the time of the exigibility of the IUC the Claimant was no longer the owner of the vehicles, and is not, consequently, a taxpayer subject of the tax.

D - RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT

20 - The Respondent, the Tax and Customs Authority, (hereinafter referred to as AT), submitted its Response on 16-03-2015, and also provided a copy of the tax administrative proceeding to be attached to the records.

21 - In the said Response, the AT considers that the allegations of the Claimant cannot at all be sustained, inasmuch as they make a notoriously erroneous interpretation and application of the legal norms applicable to the case, in that, from the outset,

22 - They translate an understanding that incurs not only in a skewed reading of the letter of the law, but also in an interpretation that does not heed the systematic element, violating the unity of the regime enshrined in the entire CIUC and, more broadly, in the entire legal-fiscal system, further resulting from an interpretation that ignores the ratio of the regime enshrined in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC. (Cfr. article 13.º of the Response)

23 - It refers that the tax legislator in establishing, in article 3.º, n.º 1 of the CIUC, who the taxpayer subjects of the IUC are established expressly and intentionally that these are the owners (or in the situations provided for in n.º 2 the persons there mentioned), considering-se as such the persons in whose name they are registered. (Cfr. article 14.º of the Response)

24 - It emphasizes that the legislator did not use the expression "it is presumed" as it could have done, for example, in the following terms: "the taxpayer subjects of the tax are the owners of the vehicles, presuming-se as such the natural or legal persons, of public or private law, in whose name they are registered". (Cfr. article 15.º of the Response)

25 - It considers that the wording of article 3.º of the CIUC corresponds to a clear choice of legislative policy adopted by the legislator, whereby to understand that a presumption is enshrined there would unequivocally be to make an interpretation contra legem. (Cfr. article 22.º of the Response)

26 - It refers that the aforementioned understanding has already been adopted by the Jurisprudence of our courts, transcribing for this purpose part of the decision of the Administrative and Tax Court of Penafiel, issued in Case no. 210/13.OBEPNF. (Cfr. article 24º of the Response)

27 - On the systematic element of interpretation, it considers that the solution advocated by the Claimant is intolerable, not finding the understanding sustained by this any legal support. (Cfr. article 26.º of the Response)

28 - On the ignoring of the "ratio" of the regime, the AT considers that, in light of a teleological interpretation of the regime enshrined in the entire Code of the IUC, the interpretation advocated by the Claimant, to the effect that the taxpayer subject of the IUC is the actual owner independently of not appearing in the motor vehicle registration as the holder of such quality, is manifestly erroneous, in that it is the very ratio of the regime enshrined in the CIUC that constitutes clear proof that what the fiscal legislator intended was to create a tax based on the taxation of the owner of the vehicle, as it appears in the motor vehicle registration. (Cfr. articles 43.º and 44.º of the Response)

29 - It adds that the CIUC carried out a reform of the regime for the taxation of vehicles in Portugal, substantially altering the regime for motor vehicle taxation, with the taxpayer subjects of the tax becoming the owners appearing in the property registration, independently of the circulation of the vehicles on the public road. (Cfr. article 46.º of the Response)

30 - In this sense, it refers that this is the understanding inscribed, in particular, in recommendation no. 6-B/2012, of 22-06-2012, of the Ombudsman addressed to the Secretary of State for Public Works, Transportation and Communications.

31 - The interpretation conveyed by the Claimant also shows itself, beyond what has already been referred to, to be out of conformity with the Constitution, namely because, among others, it violates the principle of the efficiency of the tax system, which has constitutional dignity, a violation that would translate into a hindering and increasing of the costs of the competencies attributed to the Respondent, with obvious prejudice to the interests of the Portuguese State, of which both the Claimant and the Respondent are part. (Cfr. article 59.º of the Response)

32 - It adds that invoices, as documents unilaterally issued by the Claimant, are not apt to confirm the conclusion of a synallagmatic contract, as is the purchase and sale. (Cfr. article 69.º of the Response)

33 - Finally, it refers that it was not the Respondent who gave rise to the filing of the request for arbitral decision, but rather the Claimant, and consequently the Claimant should be condemned to pay the arbitral costs "in the terms of article 527.º/1 of the New Code of Civil Procedure ex vi article 29.º/1-e) of the RJAT", also emphasizing that the legal prerequisites are not met that would allow considering unlawful the assessment of indemnatory interest, whose request was made by the Claimant.

34 - It considers, finally, that, in light of all the arguments presented, the tax acts in question are valid and legal, and the request for arbitral decision underlying the present proceeding should be judged groundless, the tax assessment acts challenged remaining in the legal order, and the Respondent entity should be absolved from the claim.

E - QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED

35 - It is therefore necessary to assess and decide.

36 - In light of the foregoing, relative to the positions of the Parties and the arguments presented, the questions to be decided are those of knowing:

a) Whether the rule of subjective incidence contained in article 3.º n.º 1 of the CIUC establishes or does not establish a presumption.

b) What is the legal value of motor vehicle registration in the economy of the CIUC, particularly for the purposes of the subjective incidence of this tax.

c) If, on the date of the occurrence of the tax event, the vehicle has already been previously alienated, although the property right of the vehicle remains registered in the name of its former owner, for the purposes of the provision in article 3.º, n.º 1 of the CIUC, the taxpayer subject of the IUC is the former owner or the new owner.

d) Whether the documents presented relating to the sale of the vehicles identified in the proceeding are apt to make proof of the purchase and sale of such vehicles.

F - PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

37 - The Arbitral Tribunal is regularly constituted and is materially competent, in the terms of subparagraph a) of n.º 1 of article 2.º of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January.

38 - The Parties enjoy personality and judicial capacity, are legitimate and are legally represented (cfr. article 4.º and n.º 2 of article 10.º of Decree-Law no. 10/2011 and article 1.º of Ordinance no. 112/2011, of 22 March).

39 - The proceeding does not suffer from defects that would invalidate it.

40 - Taking into account the tax administrative proceeding, a copy of which was attached to the records by the AT, and the documentary evidence included in the proceeding, it is now necessary to present the factual matter relevant to the understanding of the decision, as is established in the terms mentioned below.

II - REASONS

G - FACTUAL REASONS

41 - With respect to relevant facts, this tribunal establishes as proven the following facts:

42 - The Claimant is a commercial company whose principal activity is centered on the purchase, sale, and rental of machinery and motor vehicles, offering, in these circumstances, to its clients various solutions, within the scope of long-term leasing and the sale of motor vehicles, having, as results from the corresponding Permanent Certificate, incorporated the company B… - …, SA, by means of the global transfer of assets of this company (Incorporated Company) to the Claimant (Incorporating Company).

43 - The Claimant was notified of assessments of IUC and JC, relating to the years 2013 and 2014, concerning the vehicles identified in the records, and proceeded to their payment in the amount of € 48.479,98.

44 - The Claimant filed gracious appeals against the aforementioned assessments, which were denied, which was notified to it on 29 August 2014.

45 - The gracious appeals, after being substantially analyzed, in the Finance Service of ... …, that is, after the legality of the assessment acts in question has been reconsidered, resulted in the maintenance of the IUC assessments in question, reaffirming the legality of these assessment acts, resting on the fact that "The tax legislator intentionally and expressly wanted those to be considered as owners of the vehicles, those in whose name they are registered".

46 - The vehicles referenced in the request for arbitral decision were sold to third parties or declared a loss with cancellation of registrations, and the acquirers of such vehicles did not, at the opportune time, proceed with their respective registrations, and they remained registered in the name of the Claimant.

47 - The Claimant, as proof of the aforementioned sales and to rebut, in particular, the presumption that it understands to be enshrined in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC, attached, both when it filed the gracious appeals and also in the context of the corresponding prior hearings, as well as in the scope of the present proceeding, copies of all invoices for the sale of used vehicles and the sale of salvage, having, in this latter case, also presented the accounting entries relating to the sales of the vehicles in question.

48 - On the dates relating to the tax events and their exigibility, relating to the IUC assessments at issue in the present proceeding, the ownership of part of the vehicles in question belonged to other persons, as identified in the records.

REASONS FOR THE FACTS PROVEN

49 - The facts established as proven are based on the documents mentioned, relative to each of them, insofar as their conformity to reality was not questioned.

FACTS NOT PROVEN

50 - With respect to facts, with relevance for the decision, this tribunal considers as not proven the sale, prior to the exigibility of the tax, of the vehicles with the license plates: …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…;…-…-…; …-…-…;…-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…;…-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-…; …-…-….

H - LEGAL REASONS

51 - The factual matter is established; it now becomes necessary to proceed to its legal subsumption and determine the law applicable to the underlying facts, in accordance with the questions to be decided enunciated in n.º 36.

52 - The essential and decisive question in the present records, relative to which there are absolutely opposite understandings between the Claimant and the AT, translates into knowing whether the rule of subjective incidence contained in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC establishes or does not establish a rebuttable presumption.

53 - The positions of the parties are known. Indeed, for the Claimant, the expression "considering-se as tais" contained in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC configures a rebuttable legal presumption, allowing that the persons recorded in the registration as owners of the vehicles may present elements of proof intended to demonstrate that such ownership is inscribed in the legal sphere of other persons, that is, those to whom such ownership has been transferred.

54 - The Respondent, on the other hand, considers that the interpretation defended by the Claimant is manifestly erroneous, in that it is the very ratio of the regime enshrined in the CIUC that constitutes clear proof that what the fiscal legislator intended was to create a tax based on the taxation of the owner of the vehicle, as it appears in the motor vehicle registration, the article 3.º of the CIUC not including any legal presumption.

I - INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE OF SUBJECTIVE INCIDENCE CONTAINED IN N.º 1 OF ARTICLE 3.º OF THE CIUC

55 - It should be noted, first and foremost, that it is settled understanding in the doctrine that the general principles of interpretation fully apply in the interpretation of tax laws. This is an understanding that, moreover, finds acceptance in article 11.º of the General Tax Law.

56 - It is commonly accepted that, with a view to grasping the meaning of the law, interpretation resorts to various means, it being important, first and foremost, to reconstruct the legislative thought through the words of the law, which means to seek, from the outset, its literal sense. The said sense, as is also settled, corresponds to the lowest degree of interpretive activity, it being important, for this reason, to value and assess it in light of other criteria, with the so-called elements of a logical nature intervening in this regard, whether of a rational sense (or teleological), of a systematic character or of a historical order.

57 - With respect to the interpretation of tax law, it is appropriate to recall, as indeed jurisprudence has been noting, in particular in the Decisions of the STA of 05/09/2012 and 06/02/2013, cases nos. 0314/12 and 01000/12, respectively, available at: www.dgsi.pt, the importance of the provision in article 9.º of the Civil Code (CC), as a fundamental precept of legal hermeneutics, which in this context cannot be disregarded.

58 - Interpretive activity is thus unavoidable with respect to the resolution of the doubts raised by the application of the legal norms in question.

59 - In the understanding of FRANCESCO FERRARA, in Interpretation and Application of Laws, translated by MANUEL DE ANDRADE, (2nd ed.), Arménio Amado, Editor, Successor - Coimbra, 1963, p. 131, the said interpretive activity "[…] is unique [and] complex, of a logical and practical nature, as it consists in inferring from certain circumstances the legislative will", adding, ibidem, p. 130, that "Looking to the practical application of law, legal interpretation is by its nature essentially teleological".

60 - The purpose of interpretation, the said author also tells us, ibidem, pp. 134/135, is "[…] to determine the objective meaning of the law […]". The law, being the expression of the will of the State, is a "[…] will that persists autonomously, detached from the complex of thoughts and tendencies that animated the persons who contributed to its enactment". Hence, the activity of the interpreter should be to "[…] seek not what the legislator wanted, but what appears objectively wanted in the law: the mens legis and not the mens legislatoris".

61 - For MANUEL DE ANDRADE, quoting FERRARA, in Essay on the Theory of Interpretation of Laws, p. 16 (2nd ed.), Arménio Amado, Editor, Successor - Coimbra, 1963, "Interpretation seeks the voluntas legis, not the voluntas legislatoris […], and seeks the current will of the law, not its will at the moment of application: it is not, therefore, a will of the past, but a will always present as long as the law continues to be in force. That is to say that the law, once formed, detaches itself from the legislator, gaining autonomous consistency; and more than that, it becomes a living entity, not merely an inanimate body […]".

OF THE LITERAL ELEMENT

62 - It is in this context that it becomes necessary to find an answer to the questions to be decided, particularly to the one aimed at knowing whether article 3.º, n.º 1 of the CIUC establishes or does not establish a presumption, beginning, from the outset, with the literal element.

63 - Since the literal element is the first that is important to use, in search of the legislative thought, it is, necessarily, from there that one should begin, seeking to reach the meaning of the expression "[…] considering-se as tais as pessoas […]" to which the said article 3.º, n.º 1 of the CIUC alludes.

64 - Article 3.º, n.º 1 of the said CIUC provides that "The taxpayer subjects of the tax are the owners of the vehicles, considering-se as such the natural or legal persons, of public or private law, in whose name they are registered." (emphasis ours)

65 - The formulation used in the said article, it will be important to note, first and foremost, resorts to the expression "considering-se", which raises the question of whether such expression can be attributed a presumptive sense, thus equating it with the expression "presuming-se". These are expressions frequently used with equivalent senses, as is apparent in various situations of Portuguese legal order.

66 - In truth, there are countless norms that enshrine presumptions, conjugating, for this purpose, moreover, the verb consider in various forms. It is not, therefore, difficult to identify situations in various areas of law in which the expression "considering-se" or "considers-se" is used with a sense equivalent to the expression "presuming-se" or "presumes-se", expressions to which, whether at the level of irrebuttable presumptions, whether in the context of rebuttable presumptions, an equivalent meaning is countless times conferred.

67 - Since it does not seem pertinent to again reference examples revealing these situations, given that such examples are abundantly stated in some of the decisions of the tax arbitral tribunals, in particular in those issued in the context of Cases nos. 14/2013 - T, 27/2013 - T and 73/2013 - T, we hereby consider them fully reproduced.

68 - In these circumstances, since the aforementioned expressions are recurrently used with an equivalent purpose and meaning, it can be concluded that it is not only the use of the verb "presume" that places us before a presumption, but also the use of other terms can serve as the basis for presumptions, as, in particular, occurs with the expression "considering-se", which, in our understanding, will precisely be what occurs in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC.

It is thus an understanding which, not appearing to correspond to a skewed reading of the letter of the law, as the AT considers, reveals itself to be in tune with the provision in n.º 2 of article 9.º of the CC, insofar as it assures, to the legislative thought, the minimum of verbal correspondence required there.

69 - In the literal perspective, in light of what has been set forth, there is no doubt that the interpretation that considers a rebuttable presumption established in n.º 1 of article 3.º has full support in the formulation there enshrined, in light of the aforementioned equivalence between the expression "considering-se as such" and the expression "presuming-se as such".

The linguistic element, as previously referred to, being the first that should be used in search of the legislative thought, should, however, in order to find the true meaning of the norm, be submitted to the control of the other elements of interpretation of a logical nature (whether such elements be of a rational sense (or teleological), of a systematic character or of a historical order).

70 - Indeed, as is apparent from the work of MANUEL DE ANDRADE, previously cited, p. 28, "[…] the purely linguistic analysis of a legal text is only the beginning […], the first degree […] or the first act of interpretation. In other words, it provides us only with the probable legislative thought and will […] or, rather, the grammatical delimitation of the possible substance of the law […], the framework within which its true content resides".

71 - Thus, let us then see the rational (or teleological) element.

OF THE HISTORICAL AND RATIONAL (OR TELEOLOGICAL) ELEMENT

72 - Attending to the elements of interpretation of a historical character, it is first and foremost appropriate to recall what expressly comes written in the statement of reasons of Bill no. 118/X of 07/03/2007, underlying Law no. 22-A/2007 of 29/06, when it refers there that the reform of motor vehicle taxation is accomplished via the shifting of part of the fiscal burden from the moment of acquisition of vehicles to the phase of circulation and aims to "form a coherent whole" which, although destined for the raising of public revenue, intends that the same be raised "in the measure of the environmental costs that each individual causes to the community", adding, with respect to the tax in question and the different types and categories of vehicles, that "as a structuring and unifying element […] the principle of equivalence is enshrined, making it clear that the tax, as a whole, is subordinated to the idea that taxpayers should be burdened in the measure of the cost they cause to the environment and to the road network, this being the reason for being of this tax figure".

73 - In this context, it seems clear that the logic and rationality of the new system of motor vehicle taxation could only coexist with a taxpayer subject of the tax, on the assumption that it is this, and no other, the real and actual subject causing road and environmental damage, as results from the principle of equivalence, inscribed in article 1.º of the CIUC.

74 - The said principle of equivalence, which informs the current Single Circulation Tax, has, at least insofar as it specifically respects the environment, underlying the polluter-pays principle, and embodies the idea, inscribed in it, that whoever pollutes should, for this reason, pay. The said principle has, moreover, in some way, constitutional footing, insofar as it represents a corollary of the provision in subparagraph h) of n.º 2 of article 66.º of the Constitution.

75 - What is aimed to be achieved via the said principle is to internalize negative environmental externalities, which, after all, in the case of the records, means nothing more than making it so that the harms that come to the community, resulting from the use of motor vehicles, are assumed by their owners, as "economic - user" subjects, as costs that only they should bear.

76 - Returning to the aforementioned principle of equivalence, it will be said that this has, in the economy of the CIUC, an absolutely structuring role, the normative edifice of the Code in question being based on it. The said principle cannot, therefore, fail to constitute a purpose that is intended to be legally pursued, embodying, in that measure, a legal sense that the interpreter has to consider.

77 - With respect to the said principle, it is appropriate to note what Sérgio Vasques tells us, when, in Special Consumption Taxes, Almedina, Coimbra, 2001, p. 122, with respect to the technical implementation of this principle, considers that "In obedience to the principle of equivalence, the tax should correspond to the benefit that the taxpayer derives from the public activity; or to the cost that the taxpayer imputes to the community by its own activity".

78 - Addressing specifically the IUC, the aforementioned author adds, op. cit., that "Thus, a tax on automobiles based on a rule of equivalence will be equal only if those who cause the same road wear and the same environmental cost pay the same tax; and those who cause different wear and environmental cost, pay different tax also", adding that the implementation of the said principle "[…] dictates other requirements still with respect to the subjective incidence of the tax […]".

79 - In light of what has just been referred to, it is clear that the taxation of the real and actual polluters corresponds to an important purpose aimed at by the law, in this case by the CIUC, a purpose which, in the words of Francesco Ferrara, in Interpretation and Application of Laws, 2nd Edition, Arménio Amado, Editor, Successor, Coimbra, 1963, p. 130, should always be before the eyes of the jurist, given that, as the said author refers there, "[…] legal interpretation is by its nature essentially teleological".

80 - Thus, it should be noted that, whether in light of the said historical elements, or in light of the elements of a rational or teleological character of interpretation that are left referenced, it is equally necessary to conclude that n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC can only enshrine a rebuttable presumption.

81 - Consideration should also be given to the systematic element of interpretation.

OF THE SYSTEMATIC ELEMENT

82 - On the systematic element BAPTISTA MACHADO tells us, in Introduction to Law and Legal Discourse, p. 183, that "this element comprises the consideration of the other provisions that form the complex of norms of the institute in which the rule to be interpreted is integrated, that is, that regulate the same matter (context of the law), as well as the consideration of legal provisions that regulate parallel normative problems or related institutes (parallel places). It also comprises the systematic place that corresponds to the rule to be interpreted in the global legal order, as well as its consonance with the spirit or intrinsic unity of the entire legal order".

83 - It is well known that a legal principle, in this case the principle of equivalence, does not exist in isolation, but rather is linked by an intimate nexus with other principles that integrate, at a more global level, the respective legal order, in this case, with the other principles embodied in the system inscribed in the CIUC. In that sense, each article of a given legal instrument, in this case the CIUC, will only be understandable if we place it before the other articles that follow or precede it.

84 - With respect to the systematization of the CIUC, environmental concerns were determining for the aforementioned principle of equivalence to be inscribed from the outset in the first article of the said Code, which necessarily leads to the subsequent articles, insofar as they have their footing in such principle, being influenced by it. This occurred, in particular, with the tax base, which came to be constituted by various elements, particularly those relating to pollution levels, and with the rates of the tax, established in articles 9.º to 15.º, which were influenced by the environmental component, and, naturally, also with the subjective incidence itself, provided for in article 3.º of the CIUC, which could not escape the said influence.

85 - The systematic element of interpretation and the interaction between the various articles and principles that integrate the system inscribed in the CIUC, also call for the understanding that what is established in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC cannot fail to embody a presumption.

86 - Article 9.º, n.º 1 of the CC provides that the search for the legislative thought should "[…] especially take into account […] the unity of the legal system, the circumstances in which the law was elaborated and the specific conditions of the time in which it is applied", circumstances and conditions that, today more than ever, are of sensitivity for the environment and respect for issues related to it.

In this context, the considerations formulated on the aforementioned elements of interpretation, whether they be of a literal character or of a historical character, whether they be of a rational or systematic nature, all point in the direction that article 3.º, n.º 1 of the CIUC establishes a presumption, which means that the taxpayer subjects of the IUC, being, in principle, the owners of the vehicles, considering-se as such, the persons in whose name they are registered, could, after all, be others.

It will even be said that the establishment of the presumption in the aforementioned norm will correspond to the only interpretation that comports with the principle of equivalence, previously mentioned.

87 - Still with respect to the presumption that has been referred to and that is understood to be enshrined in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC, it is appropriate to note what comes written in the preamble of Decree-Law no. 177/2014, of 15 December, when, referring to motor vehicles, it considers that "The non-regularization of the property registration presents grave consequences, both for those who remained owner in the registration, and for those who acquired and did not promote the registration in their favor, as well as for the various public entities that base their decisions on ownerships that they presume to be substantively true". (emphasis ours)

88 - Having reached this point, it is appropriate to recall the provision in article 73.º of the LGT, when it establishes that "The presumptions enshrined in the norms of tax incidence always admit proof to the contrary", (emphasis ours), which means that the legal presumption, which appears to be established in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC, will necessarily be rebuttable.

89 - In this context, the taxpayer subjects of the tax are, presumptively, the persons in whose name the vehicles are registered, that is, the said taxpayer subjects are, in principle, and only in principle, the persons in whose name such vehicles are registered.

90 - Indeed, if the owner in whose name the vehicle is registered should, as occurs in the present proceeding, indicate and prove who were the owners of the vehicles in question, nothing justifies, in our understanding, that the former owner should be held responsible for the payment of the IUC that is due.

91 - Furthermore, this interpretation of n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC is the one that, in our opinion, best adjusts to the principles to which the AT should subordinate its activity, in particular the inquisitorial principle, in order to discover material truth.

92 - With respect to the aforementioned inquisitorial principle, it is appropriate to allude to the teachings of Diogo Leite Campos, Benjamim Silva Rodrigues and Jorge Lopes de Sousa, in General Tax Law, Annotated and Commented, 4th Edition 2012, Writing Encounter, Ltd., Lisbon, p. 488/489, when, in annotations to the cited article 58.º, they refer that it falls to the administration to play a dynamic role in the collection of elements with relevance for the decision, adding that the "[…] lack of diligences deemed necessary for the construction of the factual basis of the decision will affect this not only in the case in which they are mandatory (violation of the principle of equality), but also if the materiality of the facts considered is not proven or if facts relevant to the interested party are lacking in that basis, alleged by lack of proof that the Administration should have collected (error in the factual prerequisites) […]".

The inquisitorial principle, add the aforementioned authors, op. cit, "[…] has to do with the powers (-duties) of the Administration to proceed with the investigations necessary to the knowledge of the facts essential or determining for the decision […]".

93 - The material truth, embodied in the present case in the circumstance that the vehicles identified in the request for arbitral decision have, in their totality, been sold by the Claimant, either as used vehicles or as salvage, at a moment prior to that of the exigibility of the tax, that is, the date from which the tax creditor could enforce its right to payment of the tax against the tax debtor, was, in light of the elements inscribed in the tax administrative proceeding, within the knowledge of the AT.

94 - Do not say, as the AT does, that the establishment of a presumption in article 3.º of the CIUC and the consequences resulting therefrom would offend the principle of the efficiency of the tax system, in that they would lead, in particular, to "hindering and increasing of the costs of the competencies attributed to the Respondent […]". (Cfr. article 59.º of the Response)

The efficiency of the Administration in general, or of the AT in particular, in the current sense, will correspond to the capacity/methodology of work oriented towards the optimization of the work performed or of the services rendered, which will mean to produce the maximum, in quantity and quality, with the minimum of costs, having nothing to do with the observance of legally enshrined principles and with respect for the rights of citizens, whether in the capacity of taxpayers or not.

95 - In a technical sense, it will be said that the principle of the efficiency of the tax system is, commonly held, in the domain of the tax proceeding, as a corollary of the principle of proportionality, which as is known, imposes an adequate proportion between the legal purposes and the means chosen to achieve those purposes, or, as refer Diogo Leite Campos, Benjamim Silva Rodrigues and Jorge Lopes de Sousa, in General Tax Law, Annotated and Commented, 4th Edition 2012, Writing Encounter, Ltd., Lisbon, p. 488, in annotations to article 55.º of the LGT, it is a principle that obliges "[…] the tax administration to refrain from imposing on taxpayers obligations that are unnecessary to the satisfaction of the purposes that it aims to pursue".

In this context, the aforementioned principle of the efficiency of the tax system will mean the capacity to achieve the objectives legally fixed by reason of the available means, or better, with the minimum of means, which will also have nothing to do with respect for the rights of citizens, nor with the need for observance of the principles to which the tax administration should subordinate its activity, in particular the inquisitorial one and that of the discovery of material truth, and it cannot, obviously, the application of the aforementioned principle of the efficiency of the tax system be done with prejudice to the rights of citizens.

J - ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VALUE OF THE REGISTRATION

96 - First and foremost, it should be added, in light of what will be explicitly said below on the value of the registration, that the acquirers of the vehicles become owners of those same vehicles via the conclusion of the corresponding purchase and sale contracts, with registration or without it.

97 - There are three articles of the Civil Code that it is important to take into account, with respect to the acquisition of ownership of a motor vehicle. They are, first, article 874.º, which establishes the notion of a purchase and sale contract, as being "[…] the contract by which the ownership of a thing, or another right, is transferred, by means of a price"; article 879.º, in whose subparagraph a) it is provided, as essential effects of the purchase and sale contract, "the transfer of the ownership of the thing or the titularity of the right" and article 408.º, which has as its title contracts with real efficacy, and establishes in its n.º 1, that "the constitution or transfer of real rights over a determined thing occurs by mere effect of the contract, except for the exceptions provided for in the law". (emphasis ours)

We are, indeed, in the domain of contracts with real efficacy, which means that their conclusion produces the transfer of real rights, in this case, motor vehicles, determined by mere effect of the contract, as results expressly from the norm previously mentioned.

98 - With respect to the aforementioned contracts with real efficacy, it is appropriate to note the teachings of Pires de Lima and Antunes Varela, when, in annotations to article 408.º of the CC, they tell us that "From these contracts called real (quoad effectum), because they have as their immediate effect the constitution, modification or extinction of a real right (and not merely the obligations tending toward that result), the so-called real contracts (quoad constitutionem) are distinguished, which require the delivery of the thing as an element of their formation (cfr. articles 1129.º, 1142.º and 1185.º) ".

We are thus before contracts in which the ownership of the sold thing is transferred, without more, from the seller to the buyer, having, as its cause, the contract itself.

99 - Also from jurisprudence, in particular from the Decision of the STJ no. 03B4369 of 19/02/2004, available at: www.dgsi.pt, it is apparent that, in light of the provision in article 408.º, n.º 1 of the Civil Code, "the constitution or transfer of real rights over a determined thing occurs by mere effect of the contract, except for the exceptions provided for in the law". This is the case of the purchase and sale contract of a motor vehicle (articles 874.° and 879.º al. a) of the Civil Code), which does not depend on any special formality, being valid even when concluded in verbal form - conf. Decision of the STJ of 3-3-98, in CJSTJ, 1998, year VI, Volume I, page 117". (emphasis ours)

100 - The purchase and sale contract having, in light of what has been said, a real nature, with the aforementioned consequences, one must also consider the legal value of the motor vehicle registration that is the object of such contract, insofar as the transaction of the said good is subject to public registration.

101 - It establishes, indeed, n.º 1 of article 1.º of Decree-Law no. 54/75, of 12 February, relating to the registration of motor vehicles, that "The registration of vehicles has essentially as its purpose to give publicity to the legal situation of motor vehicles and their trailers, with a view to the security of legal commerce". (emphasis ours)

102 - While it is clear, in light of the said norm, what the purpose of the registration is, there is, however, no clarity, within the scope of the said Decree-Law, on the legal value of such registration, it being important to consider article 29.º of the aforementioned legal instrument, relating to the registration of motor vehicle ownership, when it provides there that "The provisions relating to land registration are applicable, with the necessary adaptations, to the registration of motor vehicles […]". (emphasis ours)

103 - In this context, in order for us to achieve the sought knowledge on the legal value of motor vehicle property registration, it is important to take into account what is established in the Land Registration Code, approved by Decree-Law no. 224/84, of 06 July, when it provides in its article 7.º that "the definitive registration constitutes a presumption that the right exists and belongs to the owner recorded in the precise terms in which the registration defines it". (emphasis ours)

104 - The combination of the provisions previously mentioned, particularly what is established in n.º 1 of article 1.º of Decree-Law no. 54/75, of 12 February and in article 7.º of the Land Registration Code, allows us to consider, on the one hand, that the fundamental function of the registration is to give publicity to the legal situation of the vehicles, allowing, on the other hand, to presume that the right exists and that such right belongs to the owner in whose favor it is registered, in the precise terms in which it is defined in the registration.

105 - Thus, definitive registration is nothing more than the presumption that the right exists and belongs to the owner recorded, in the exact terms of the registration, but a rebuttable presumption, admitting, for this reason, counterproof, as results from the law and jurisprudence has been noting, it being possible, to this purpose, to see, among others, the Decisions of the STJ nos. 03B4369 and 07B4528, respectively, of 19/02/2004 and 29/01/2008, available at: www.dgsi.pt.

106 - The function legally reserved to the registration is, thus, on the one hand, to publicize the legal situation of the goods, in this case, the vehicles and, on the other hand, to allow us to presume that the right over those vehicles exists and that it belongs to the owner, as such recorded in the registration, which means that the registration does not have a constitutive nature of the property right, but only declarative, hence the registration does not constitute a condition of validity of the transfer of the vehicle from the seller to the buyer.

107 - Thus, if the buyers of the vehicles, as their "new" owners, do not immediately promote the adequate registration of their right, it is presumed, for the purposes of n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC and the provision in article 7.º of the Land Registration Code, that the vehicles continue to be property of the person who sold them and who remains in the registration as their owner, this person being the taxpayer subject of the tax, in the certainty, however, that such presumptions are rebuttable, whether by force of the provision in n.º 2 of article 350.º of the CC, or in light of the provision in article 73.º of the LGT. Hence, from the moment such presumptions are overcome, in particular, by means of proof of the aforementioned sales, the AT cannot persist in considering the seller of the vehicle, who in the registration continues to appear as its owner, as the taxpayer subject of the IUC.

L - MEANS OF PROOF PRESENTED

108 - Always bearing in mind the verbal nature that purchase and sale contracts of motor vehicles can have, proof of the sale of such goods can be made by any means, in particular by way of documentation, in which is included, in particular, the invoices relating to the sales of the vehicles.

109 - On the value of invoices as documents capable of proving the sales of motor vehicles, it is appropriate to recall the provision in Decree-Law no. 177/2014, of 15 December, when, in n.ºs 1 and 2 of its article 2.º, it expressly comes to consider invoices as documents adequate to make proof of the sale of vehicles, which is quite revelatory of the concerns inscribed in the law, regarding the negative consequences resulting from the non-regularization of the property registration of the vehicles and, consequently, the need to regularize such situations.

110 - As a means of proof that it proceeded with the sale of the vehicles identified in the present proceeding, on a date prior to that of the exigibility of the tax, the Claimant attached copies of the receipt invoices relating to the sales of those same vehicles.

111 - On the invoices presented by the Claimant, as proof of the sale of the vehicles in question, the AT considers that the same, as documents unilaterally issued by the Claimant, do not prove the conclusion of a synallagmatic contract, as is the purchase and sale, emphasizing the absence of attachment of a copy of the official form for the registration of motor vehicle ownership.

Let us see,

112 - First and foremost, it should be emphasized that nothing allows us to consider that the invoices presented, as support for the sales of the vehicles in question in the records, do not translate and correspond to the sales that, allegedly, were accomplished. Indeed,

113 - The invoices attached to the records, as proof of the alienation of the vehicles, taking into account the corporate purpose of the Claimant and its business activity, translated, in particular, in the purchase and sale of vehicles and in the conclusion of long-term leasing contracts of motor vehicles, show themselves to be totally adjusted to the aforementioned business reality, being absolutely plausible the sale of the vehicles that the invoices presented aim to prove, with no elements being identified that embody any simulated contract, rather allowing us to conclude that we are before invoices that reproduce the real and true sale of the vehicles to the persons indicated therein.

114 - It will even be said that, in the case of the records, in light of the economic activity of the Claimant embodied and centered on the purchase, sale and long-term leasing of machinery and motor vehicles, it will not be strange, quite the contrary, the transfer of the ownership of the vehicles identified in the records. On the other hand,

115 - Furthermore, in the wake of the measures ordered by the tribunal, aimed at the discovery of material truth, the Claimant proceeded with the attachment to the records of accounting entries, whether, in particular, with respect to the vehicles sold as used, or to those sold as salvage.

116 - The aforementioned accounting entries prove the receipt of the amounts relating to the sales of the vehicles in question, whether with respect to the vehicles for whose sales receipt invoices were presented, or relative to those in which receipt invoices were presented with the indication that their "validity occurs only after good collection", or, finally, for situations in which the vehicles were sold as salvage.

117 - The said documents, such as, moreover, the invoices that complement them, relating to the sale of the vehicles, enjoy the presumption of truthfulness, as results from the provision in article 75.º, n.º 1 of the LGT, which allows us to conclude that such documentation constitutes a sufficient means of proof to rebut the presumption enshrined in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC, in that they prove the sale of the vehicles in question prior to the date relating to the exigibility of the IUC, with the Claimant not being the owner of the vehicles, at the time to which the assessments of that tax refer.

118 - Having reached this point, it is important to refer that the aforementioned conclusion is not valid for the 46 vehicles listed below, the object of the assessments, whose amounts are also mentioned: …-…-… (€54.76); …-…-… (€51.00); …-…-… (€51.00); …-…-… (€51.00); …-…-… (€32.00); …-…-… (€41.72); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€35.41); …-…-… (€35.41); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€32.00); …-…-… (€32.00); …-…-… (€122.47); …-…-… (€19.90); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€17.64); …-…-… (€17.64); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€17.64); …-…-… (€17.64); …-…-… (€32.00); …-…-… (€52.00); …-…-… (€52.00); …-…-… (€122.47); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€140.34); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€52.00); …-…-… (€122.47); …-…-… (€122.47); …-…-… (€53.19); …-…-… (€53.19); …-…-… (€23.45); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€55.31); …-…-… (€36.54); …-…-… (€35.06); …-…-… (€35.06); …-…-… (€32.00); …-…-… (€54.76); …-…-… (€51.00); …-…-… (€41.72); …-…-… (€52.00).

119 - For the aforementioned vehicles, no invoices and/or accounting entries were, indeed, presented, whereby the sale thereof cannot, thus, be held as having occurred on a date prior to that of the exigibility of the corresponding IUC.

120 - The total amount resulting from the assessments associated with the aforementioned vehicles corresponds to the value of € 2.401,36, an amount that, consequently, does not form part of the value of € 48.479,98, indicated in the present proceeding as corresponding to the total value of IUC, unlawfully assessed and paid, relating to all the vehicles identified in the request for arbitral decision.

121 - In light of what has just been referred to, and taking into account both the circumstance that the assessment acts challenged have been substantially analyzed within the context of the corresponding gracious appeals, and the fact that the presumption enshrined in n.º 1 of article 3.º of the CIUC has been rebutted, and the transfer of ownership of the vehicles, by mere effect of the contract, prior to the date of the exigibility of the tax, and the legal value of motor vehicle registration in the economy of the CIUC, the tax acts in question cannot receive our agreement, whether because adequate interpretation and application of the legal norms of subjective incidence were not taken into account, which embodies an error on the legal prerequisites, or because the aforementioned acts rested on a matter of fact, clearly divergent from the effective reality, which embodies an error on the factual prerequisites.

122 - In these circumstances, taking into account, on the one hand, that the presumption enshrined in article 3.º, n.º 1 of the CIUC has been rebutted and that, on the other, both the used vehicles and the salvage, in question in the present proceeding, were alienated on dates prior to those of the exigibility of the tax, that is, at the moment when the Tax Administration can demand the tax obligation, one cannot fail to consider that, at the time of the exigibility of the tax, in light of the provision in n.º 3 of article 6.º, combined with n.º 2 of article 4.º, both of the CIUC, the Claimant was not a taxpayer subject of the tax in question.

123 - The AT, when it understands that the taxpayer subjects of the IUC are, definitely, the persons in whose name the motor vehicles are registered, without considering that article 3.º, n.º 1 of the CIUC embodies a presumption, and not taking into account the probative elements that were presented to it, as results from the tax administrative proceeding, is proceeding to the unlawful assessment of the IUC, based on the erroneous interpretation and application of the norms of subjective incidence of the Single Circulation Tax, contained in the aforementioned article 3.º of the CIUC, whether at the level of the prevision or of the provision, which configures the commission of a tax act deficient in legality due to error on the factual and legal prerequisites, which determines the annulment of the corresponding tax acts, due to violation of law.

124 - In sum, it will be said, in consonance with what has been left exposed above, that with the exception of the assessments relating to the forty-six vehicles indicated in point 118, for which the Claimant failed to present proof supporting its alleged sales prior to the date relating to the exigibility of the IUC, all the remaining assessments, relating to the other vehicles, occurred at times when the Claimant was not the true and actual owner of the vehicles in question, and is not, therefore, a taxpayer subject of the tax.

125 - The amount assessed and paid with respect to the aforementioned forty-six vehicles totals, as has already been indicated above, the sum of € 2.401,36, whereby the amount unlawfully assessed and paid by the Claimant is reduced to the total of € 46.078,62.

M - REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNT PAID AND INDEMNATORY INTEREST

126 - Pursuant to the provision in subparagraph b) of n.º 1 of article 24.º of the RJAT, and in accordance with what is there established, the arbitral decision on the merits of the claim that is not subject to appeal or challenge binds the tax administration from the expiration of the period provided for appeal or challenge, and it must - in the exact terms of the grant of the arbitral decision in favor of the taxpayer subject and until the expiration of the period provided for the voluntary execution of the decisions of tax judicial tribunals - "Restore the situation that would have existed if the tax act that was the object of the arbitral decision had not been committed, adopting the acts and operations necessary for this purpose." (emphasis ours)

127 - These are legal commandments that are in full harmony with the provision in article 100.º of the LGT, applicable to the case by force of the provision in subparagraph a) of n.º 1 of article 29.º of the RJAT, in which it is established that "The tax administration is obliged, in case of full or partial grant of appeals or administrative remedies, or of judicial proceeding in favor of the taxpayer subject, to the immediate and full restoration of the situation that would have existed if the illegality had not been committed, comprising the payment of indemnatory interest, in the terms and conditions provided for in the law." (emphasis ours)

128 - The case contained in the present records raises the manifest application of the aforementioned norms, in that in the wake of the illegality of the assessment acts referenced in this proceeding, there will, by force of such norms, have to be place for the reimbursement of the amounts paid as tax and compensatory interest, which in the case of the records is concretized in the amount of € 46.078,62, as a form of achieving the restoration of the situation that would have existed if the illegality had not been committed.

129 - As to the indemnatory interest, it appears manifest that, in light of what is established in article 61.º of the CPPT and with the requirements of the right to indemnatory interest fulfilled, that is, verified the existence of error attributable to the services from which results payment of the tax debt in an amount superior to that legally due, as provided for in n.º 1 of article 43.º of the LGT, the Claimant has the right to indemnatory interest at the legal rate, calculated on the sum of € 48.479,98, which will be counted from the date of payment of the tax and of the corresponding compensatory interest, until the complete reimbursement of that same amount.

N - ARBITRAL COSTS

130 - With respect to the arbitral costs, more concretely on the responsibility for their payment, which the AT, in that it did not give rise to the request for arbitral decision, considers to be due by the Claimant, "in the terms of article 527.º/1 of the New Code of Civil Procedure ex vi article 29.º/1-e) of the RJAT", it is only appropriate to note that, in light of what is provided in n.º 2 of the said article 527.º of the CPC, the "[…] costs of the proceeding are incurred by the defeated party, in the proportion in which it is defeated", being therefore what will apply in the case of the records.

CONCLUSION

131 - Within the circumstantial framework that has come to be referred to, the AT, in committing the assessment acts in question in the present proceeding, based on the idea that article 3.º, n.º 1 of the CIUC does not enshrine a rebuttable presumption, makes an erroneous interpretation and application of this norm, committing an error on the legal prerequisites, which constitutes violation of law.

132 - On the other hand, because the AT, at the date of the occurrence of the tax facts, considered the Claimant to be the owner of the vehicles referenced in the present proceeding, considering it as such a taxpayer subject of the tax, when such ownership, with respect to part of the vehicles in question, no longer was inscribed in its legal sphere, basing itself thus on a matter of fact divergent from the effective reality, commits an error on the factual prerequisites, and therefore of violation of law.

133 - The decisions of the AT that deny the gracious appeals identified in the records are, likewise, in these circumstances, deficient in legality, and cannot remain in the legal order.

III - DECISION

134 - Accordingly, in light of all that has been set forth, this Arbitral Tribunal decides:

• To annul the decisions issued in the context of the gracious appeals referenced in the records, with the n.ºs … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014…; … 2014… and … 2014…, being that the appeals that are underlined are not annulled in the part that concerns the assessments relating to the vehicles for which no invoices and/or accounting entries were presented, as probative documents of their sale, on a date prior to that of the exigibility of the corresponding tax.

• To judge partially granted, as proven, on the grounds of a defect of violation of law, the request for arbitral decision with respect to the annulment of the assessment acts of IUC and compensatory interest, relating to all the vehicles identified in the records and relating to the years 2013 and 2014, except for the forty-six vehicles whose license plates are referenced in point 118;

• To annul, consequently, both the assessment acts of IUC and the assessment acts of compensatory interest that are associated with it, relating to the years 2013 and 2014, relating to the vehicles, as identified in the records, except for the forty-six vehicles whose license plates are referenced in point 118;

• To condemn the AT to the reimbursement of the sum of € 46.078,62, relating to the IUC assessed and paid by the Claimant, in the terms that are mentioned in the Proceeding, and to the payment of indemnatory interest at the legal rate, counted from the date of payment of the aforementioned sum, until its complete reimbursement;

• To condemn the Claimant and the Respondent to costs, which are fixed, for each, in the proportion of 5% for Claimant and 95% for Respondent.

VALUE OF THE PROCEEDING

In accordance with the provision in articles 306.º, n.º 2 of the CPC (formerly 315.º, n.º 2) and 97.º - A, n.º 1, subparagraph a), of the CPPT and in article 3.º, n.º 2 of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the proceeding is fixed at € 48.479,98.

COSTS

In accordance with the provision in article 12.º, n.º 2, in fine, in article 22.º, n.º 4, both of the RJAT, and in article 4.º of the Regulation of Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings and Table I attached thereto, the amount of the total costs is fixed at € 2.142,00.

Let it be notified.

Lisbon, 29 September 2015

The Arbitrator

António Correia Valente

(The text of the present decision was produced on a computer, in accordance with article 131.º, n.º 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (formerly 138.º, n.º 5), applicable by referral of article 29.º n.º 1 subparagraph e) of Decree-Law no. 10/2011, of 20 January (RJAT), its drafting governed by the spelling prior to the Orthographic Agreement of 1990.)