Process: 84/2015-T

Date: July 3, 2015

Tax Type: Selo

Source: Original CAAD Decision

Summary

CAAD Arbitral Process 84/2015-T addresses a fundamental controversy regarding the application of Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) under Item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table (TGIS) to undeveloped building plots valued over €1 million. A housing cooperative challenged four stamp duty assessments totaling approximately €65,135 for tax years 2012 and 2013, levied at 1% on two building plots with individual tax values exceeding €1,000,000. The claimant advanced two principal legal grounds for annulment: first, that as a cooperative it qualifies for exemption under Article 66-A(12) of the Tax Benefits Statute, which exempts cooperatives from stamp duty on acts and contracts constituting their burden; second, that Item 28.1 applies exclusively to 'properties with residential use,' arguing that undeveloped building plots, lacking any residential capacity by nature, fall outside this taxable category under the combined interpretation of Article 1 of the Stamp Duty Code, Item 28 TGIS, and Article 6 of Law 55-A/2012. The Tax Authority contested both arguments, asserting that building plots constitute urban properties under Article 6(1) of the Municipal Property Tax Code, that the valuation methodology applies residential use coefficients to building plots per Article 45(2) MPTC, and that the legislative choice of 'residential use' rather than 'intended for habitation' encompasses both constructed properties and building plots destined for residential development. The arbitral tribunal was constituted on 21 April 2015 following the cooperative's request, with proceedings conducted through written submissions without oral hearing by mutual agreement. This case presents critical precedential value for determining whether high-value undeveloped land intended for future residential construction falls within the Stamp Tax charging provisions introduced for properties exceeding €1 million in taxable value.

Full Decision

ARBITRAL DECISION

I – Report

  1. On 10 February 2015, the company A… CRL, NIPC …, with registered office at Rua do … n.ºs … to …, …-… …, submitted a request for the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to Articles 10(1) and (2) of the Legal Regime for Tax Arbitration (hereinafter referred to as LRTA), provided for in Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January, and Articles 1 and 2 of Order No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March, with a view to the annulment of the following tax acts:

a) annulment of the stamp duty assessment, embodied in the document numbered 2013 …, referring to the year 2012, dated 22/03/2013, from which resulted a tax collection in the amount of € 21,262.53, to be collected in three instalments, relating to the urban property registered in the property register under article …, of the parish and municipality of …;

b) annulment of the stamp duty assessment, embodied in the document numbered 2014 …, referring to the year 2013, dated 18/03/2014, from which resulted a tax collection in the amount of € 21,262.53, to be paid in three instalments, relating to the urban property registered in the property register under article …, of the parish and municipality of …;

c) annulment of the stamp duty assessment, embodied in the document numbered …/2013, referring to the year 2012, dated 21/03/2013, from which resulted a tax collection in the amount of € 11,015.80, to be paid in three instalments, relating to the urban property registered in the property register under article …, of the parish of … (current art. ….º of the parish of Union of Parishes of …, municipality of …);

d) annulment of the stamp duty assessment, embodied in the document numbered 2014 …, referring to the year 2013, dated 18/03/2014, from which resulted a tax collection in the amount of € 11,594.13, to be paid in three instalments, relating to the urban property registered in the property register under article ….º, of the parish of Union of Parishes of …, municipality of …

In the request for arbitral ruling, the Claimant opted not to appoint an arbitrator.

The request for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal was accepted by His Excellency the President of the CAAD and was automatically notified to the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter ATA) on 18/02/2015.

Pursuant to Article 6(2)(a) and Article 11(1)(b) of the LRTA, the Deontological Council appointed as arbitrators the signatories, who accepted the appointment within the legally prescribed period.

The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 21 April 2015.

The Respondent submitted its reply on 1 June 2015.

On the same date, the Respondent submitted a motion requesting that the hearing referred to in Article 18 of the LRTA be dispensed with, on the grounds that the Claimant had not requested the production of evidence beyond that presented initially and had itself raised no exception capable of preventing the merits of the case from being decided immediately.

Having been notified of the motion identified in the preceding paragraph, the Claimant stated that it had "nothing to object to the immediate determination of the request".

The Respondent's position was granted by the Tribunal, by order dated 6 June 2015.

II. Position of the Parties

The Claimant contends, in summary, that:

10.1. It is a housing cooperative whose principal purpose is the construction, development and acquisition of dwellings for the habitation of its members.

10.2. Its purpose, through the cooperation and mutual assistance of its members, is the non-profit satisfaction of their housing needs and also the promotion of culture in general and of the principles and practice of Cooperativism.

10.3. It holds the right of superficies over the urban property corresponding to a building plot located in …, in …, registered in the property register of the parish and municipality of … under article ….º, whose tax value is € 2,126,252.50.

10.4. It is the owner of the urban property corresponding to a building plot located in …, Lot No. …, in the former parish of …, municipality of …, then registered in the respective property register under article ….º, currently forming part of the Union of Parishes of … (… and …), corresponding currently to article ….º, with the tax value of € 1,101,580.00.

10.5. With regard to the property registered in the property register under article ….º, of the parish and municipality of …, it alleges that:

a) on 22 March 2013, the Respondent informed it that it had proceeded with assessment No. 2013 …, relating to the year 2013, from which resulted the tax collection of € 21,262.53;

b) on 18 March 2014, the Respondent informed it that it had proceeded with assessment 2014 …, relating to the year 2014, from which resulted a tax collection of € 21,262.53.

10.6. With respect to the property registered in the property register under article ….º of the parish of …, municipality of … (currently, article ….º of the Union of Parishes of … (… and …), of the same municipality):

a) the Respondent proceeded with assessment No. …/2013, relating to 2012, having ascertained a tax collection of € 11,015.80;

b) the Respondent proceeded with assessment No. 2014 …, relating to 2013, having ascertained a tax collection of € 11,594.13.

10.7 Both properties correspond to building plots, whose tax value (individual) is greater than € 1,000,000.00.

10.8 All assessments on the aforementioned properties relate to stamp duty assessments relating to item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table, referring to the years 2012 and 2013, at the rate of 1% on the tax value (hereinafter TV).

10.9 The Claimant submitted an administrative review for each of these assessments, as well as appeals for two of them, all rejected by the Respondent.

10.10 The Claimant bases its request in these proceedings on the fact that, being a cooperative, it is exempt from stamp duty pursuant to Article 66-A of the Tax Benefits Statute (hereinafter TBS), whose paragraph 12 provides that "cooperatives are exempt from stamp duty on acts, contracts, documents, titles and other facts, including gratuitous transfers of goods, when this tax constitutes their burden".

10.11 The Claimant further disagrees with the position taken by the Tax Administration in the decisions rejecting the administrative reviews and appeals, contending that only the exemptions established in Article 44 of the TBS would be applicable to item 28 of the General Stamp Duty Table.

10.12 The Claimant further alleges the illegality of the assessments on the ground that the rule in Article 1 of the Stamp Duty Code (hereinafter SDC), combined with item 28 of the respective General Table and Article 6 of Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, applies to urban properties "with residential use", excluding "building plots", which, by nature, do not have residential capacity.

The Respondent alleges, in summary, that:

11.1. Article 6(1) of the Municipal Property Tax Code (hereinafter MPTC) includes within the species of urban properties building plots;

11.2. The notion of use of the urban property has its basis in the section relating to the assessment of properties because it incorporates value to the property, constituting a distinguishing fact (coefficient) for assessment purposes;

11.3. As results from the expression "value of authorized buildings", contained in Article 45(2) of the MPTC, the legislator chose to determine the application of the methodology for the assessment of properties in general to the assessment of building plots, and therefore the coefficient of use provided for in Article 41 of the MPTC is applicable to them;

11.4. The concept of "properties with residential use" for the purposes of item 28 of the General Stamp Duty Table comprises both built properties and building plots, particularly given the literal element of the rule;

11.5. The legislator does not refer to "properties intended for habitation", but instead opted for the notion of "residential use", a different and broader notion, the meaning of which must be found in the need to integrate other realities beyond those identified in Article 6(1)(a) of the MPTC;

11.6. The mere constitution of a right of potential construction immediately increases the value of the property in question, hence the rule in Article 45 of the MPTC that requires the separation of the two parts of the land;

11.7. It concludes that the assessments in dispute constitute a correct interpretation and application of law to the facts, not suffering from the defect of violation of law, whether of the Constitution or of the SDC, and the Claimant's claim should be judged unfounded and the Respondent absolved of the request.

C – Proven Facts

On the basis of the facts alleged by the parties and not contested, as well as the documentation attached to the file, the following relevant factual circumstances are established:

12.1. The Claimant is a cooperative whose principal purpose is the construction, development and acquisition of dwellings for the habitation of its members.

12.2. The Claimant holds the right of superficies over the urban property corresponding to a building plot located in …, …, registered in the urban property register under article ….º, of the parish and municipality of …, with the tax value of € 2,126,252.50.

12.3. The Claimant is the owner of the urban property corresponding to a building plot located in …, Lot …, in the former parish of …, of the municipality of …, then registered in the respective property register under article ….º, corresponding to the current article ….º, of the Union of Parishes of … (… and …), municipality of …, with the tax value of € 1,101,580.00.

12.4. On the property referred to in 12.2, the ATA proceeded with the assessment of Stamp Duty relating to item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table for the year 2012, at the rate of 1% on the respective TV, from which resulted the tax collection of € 21,262.53;

12.5. On the property referred to in 12.2, the ATA proceeded with the assessment of Stamp Duty relating to item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table for the year 2013, at the rate of 1% on the respective TV, from which resulted the tax collection of € 21,262.53;

12.6. On the property referred to in 12.3, the ATA proceeded with the assessment of Stamp Duty relating to item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table for the year 2012, at the rate of 1% on the respective TV, from which resulted the tax collection of € 11,015.80;

12.7. On the property referred to in 12.3, the ATA proceeded with the assessment of Stamp Duty relating to item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table for the year 2013, at the rate of 1% on the respective TV, from which resulted the tax collection of € 11,594.13;

12.8. Both the administrative reviews and the appeals submitted by the Claimant were rejected.

II – CASE MANAGEMENT

  1. The Tribunal is materially competent and is regularly constituted, pursuant to Articles 2(1)(a), 5(2), and 6(1) of the LRTA.

The parties have legal personality and capacity, are legitimate and are legally represented, pursuant to Articles 4 and 10(2) of the LRTA and Article 1 of Order No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.

The proceedings do not suffer from defects that would invalidate it, nor are there any preliminary questions to be decided.

III. REASONING

The fundamental question of law, disputed in the present proceedings, consists in determining the scope of application of item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table, in the version given by Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, more specifically, whether it includes building plots. In brief, the question that arises is whether a building plot is a property with residential use for the purposes of applying item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table, added by Article 4 of Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October.

The Tax Arbitral Tribunal is again called upon to rule on the question of whether building plots, with a tax value equal to or greater than € 1,000,000.00, can fall within the concept of (urban) properties "with residential use", to which the aforementioned item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table refers.

This question has already been considered in several proceedings, both within the scope of Tax Arbitration (cf. decisions issued in the context of cases Nos. 54/2015-T, 42/2013-T, 48/2013-T, 49/2013-T, 51/2013-T, 144/2013-T, among others[1]), and by the successive judgments issued by the Supreme Administrative Court (cf. Judgment STA of 17/06/2015 issued in case 1479/14, 27/05/2015 issued in case No. 387/15, 22/04/2015 issued in case 347/15, and all the case law cited therein, and Judgment STA of 29/04/2015 issued in case 21/15, among others[2]), which have ruled, repeatedly and uniformly, on the question to be decided, with no arguments identified so far that would break the unanimity achieved by the decisions already issued, thus being important to reiterate the established case law, which decided that "building plots" cannot be considered, for the purposes of the incidence of Stamp Duty, provided for in item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table, in the version of Law No. 55/2012, of 29 October, as (urban) properties with residential use.

Notwithstanding the established case law, the Respondent continues to contend that the "concept of properties with residential use" for the purposes of item 28 of the General Stamp Duty Table comprises both built properties and building plots.

Item 28 of the General Stamp Duty Table attached to the SDC was added by Article 4 of Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, effective as at the date of the assessment in question in the present proceedings and had the following content:

"28 – Ownership, usufruct or right of superficies of urban properties whose tax value recorded in the property register, pursuant to the Municipal Property Tax Code, is equal to or greater than € 1,000,000 – on the tax value for purposes of Property Tax:

28.1 – For property with residential use – 1%;

28.2 – For property, when the taxable persons that are not natural persons are resident in a country, territory or region subject to a clearly more favorable tax regime, included in the list approved by order of the Ministry of Justice – 7.5%."

The wording of item 28.1 was subsequently amended by Law No. 83-C/2013, of 31 December, which approved the State Budget for 2014, point 28.1 now using the concept of residential property and providing as follows: "28.1 For residential property or for a building plot whose construction, authorized or envisaged, is for habitation, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Property Tax Code – 1%". However, the legislative amendment made does not apply to the present proceedings which have reference to the year 2013. Indeed, as has already been noted by the Judgment of the STA of 29/04/2015, this amendment does not apply to past situations (assessments for 2012 and 2013), such as the one at issue in the proceedings.

As we have already noted, the question that arises in the present proceedings is to determine the scope of application of item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table in the version given by Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, that is, to determine whether building plots can fall within the concept of (urban) properties with residential use.

Seeing no reason to depart from the reasoning contained in the previous decisions, especially since the Respondent brings no new arguments and, on the other hand, there is an identity of the factual question and the legal matter of the decisions previously issued, we follow closely what was stated in case 54/2015-T[3].

The concept of (urban) property with residential use was not defined by the legislator. Neither in Law No. 55-A/2012, which introduced it, nor in the SDC or in the MPTC to which No. 2 of Article 67 of the SDC refers as a subsidiary matter, when matters not regulated relating to item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table are at issue, was the concept of property with residential use defined.

From a reading of the MPTC we find a distinction between urban and rural properties, defining as urban properties all those that should not be classified as rural – cf. Article 4 of the MPTC. Article 6(1) tells us that urban properties are divided into: residential [subsection a)]; commercial, industrial or for services [subsection b)]; building plots [subsection c)] and others [subsection d)].

The MPTC defines residential, commercial or industrial or for services properties as the buildings or constructions licensed for such or, in the absence of a license, which have as their normal destination each of these purposes – cf. Article 6(2). Building plots are lands situated, within or outside an urban agglomeration, for which a license or authorization has been granted, admitted preliminary notification or issued favorable preliminary information of subdivision or construction operations, and also those that have been declared as such in the acquisition title, excluding lands where the competent entities prohibit any of those operations, namely, those located in green areas, protected areas or that, in accordance with municipal land use plans, are designated for public spaces, infrastructure or facilities – cf. Article 6(3).

It follows, therefore, that the MPTC does not provide a specific definition of what properties with residential use are, and the question has arisen in the various disputes to which the original wording of item 28.1 gave rise, as to the scope of application thereof.

As has been supported in the various judgments and arbitral decisions to which we have already referred, the expression residential use cannot have any meaning other than "utilization" for residential purposes, that is, urban properties with actual use for residential purposes, whether because they are licensed for such purpose, or because they have that normal destination.

Building plots, not being built, do not per se satisfy any condition to be considered as properties with residential use, since they do not possess a license for use for habitation and, on the other hand, are not, by their very nature, habitable.

Indeed, the residential use referred to by the MPTC always appears referred to "buildings" or "constructions" existing, authorized or envisaged, because only these can be inhabited, which does not happen, naturally, with building plots. Or, put more concisely, building plots are not capable of being used for habitation.

The fact that in determining the TV of urban properties classified as building plots, account is taken of the use that will be authorized or envisaged for it for determining the value of the building area (cf. Article 45(1) and (2) of the MPTC) does not transform building plots into properties with residential use.

The expression urban property with residential use that we find in item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table, when compared with the species of properties that we find in Article 6(1), excludes from the scope of application thereof urban properties that are not residential, such as those with commercial, industrial destinations, building plots and others, whose categories we find in subsections b) to d) of No. 1 of Article 4 of the MPTC.

On the other hand, as has already been noted in earlier decisions on this matter, when presenting and discussing, in Parliament, bill No. 96/XII (2nd), the Secretary of State for Tax Affairs expressly referred[4]:

"The Government proposes the creation of a special rate on residential urban properties of higher value. It is the first time in Portugal that special taxation has been created on high-value properties intended for habitation. This rate will be 0.5% to 0.8% in 2012 and 1% in 2013, and will apply to houses with a value equal to or greater than 1 million euros."

As highlighted in decision No. 144/2013-T of the CAAD, the Secretary of State for Tax Affairs presented this bill referring to the expressions "residential urban properties", which are those contained in subsection a) of No. 1 of Article 6 of the SDC and "houses", and it is clear that, in either case, building plots, which are referred to in subsection c) of the cited provision, do not fall within these concepts[5].

Thus, building plots do not fall within the concept of property with residential use, provided for in item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table.

The Claimant further alleged that it would be exempt from stamp duty, as a housing construction cooperative, pursuant to Article 66-A of the Tax Benefits Statute, whose No. 12 provides that "cooperatives are exempt from stamp duty on acts, contracts, documents, titles and other facts, including gratuitous transfers of goods, when this tax constitutes their burden".

Given that the arbitral tribunal found that the legal requirements for subjection to Stamp Duty do not apply, for the purposes of applying item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table, the examination of the issue relating to the exemption provided therein is prejudiced and procedurally futile. Indeed, having concluded that "building plots" cannot be considered as "properties with residential use" for the purposes of item 28 of the General Stamp Duty Table, it makes no sense to assess the application, in this case, of an exemption that logically presupposes that those plots were subject to taxation, which is not the case.

In view of the foregoing, it is reiterated, following the decisions already issued, that building plots are not covered by the concept of (urban) property with residential use contained in item 28.1 of the General Stamp Duty Table, in the version given by Law No. 55-A/2012, of 29 October, that is, in the version prior to the State Budget Law for 2014.

Decision:

For the reasons stated, the arbitral tribunal decides:

a) To declare the request for arbitral ruling well-founded and, consequently, to declare illegal the Stamp Duty assessments relating to the years 2012 and 2013, contained in the documents numbered 2013 …, 2014 …, …, 2014 …, in the total amount of € 65,134.99 and, consequently, to annul those assessments, with all legal consequences;

b) To condemn the Respondent in the costs of the present proceedings.

Value of the Proceedings:

Pursuant to No. 2 of Article 315 of the Code of Civil Procedure, combined with subsection a) of No. 1 of Article 97-A of the Tax Procedure Code and No. 2 of Article 3 of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of € 65,134.99 is assigned as the value of the proceedings.

Costs:

For the purposes of No. 2 of Article 12 and No. 4 of Article 22 of the LRTA and No. 4 of Article 4 of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the amount of costs is set at € 2,448.00, in accordance with Table I attached to the Regulation, to be borne in full by the Respondent.

Lisbon, 3 July 2015

The Arbitrators

(Manuel Luís Macaísta Malheiros)

(Alexandra Gonçalves Marques)

(Nina Aguiar)

[1] All available in the CAAD database, with the exception of case No. 54/2015-T whose publication is pending.

[2] All available at www.dgsi.pt.

[3] Cf. Decision issued on 22 June 2015, by the arbitrators His Excellency Judge Manuel Malheiros (rapporteur), Alexandra Gonçalves Marques (member) and Nuno Pombo (member).

[4] Cf. DAR I Series No. 9/XII-2, of 11 October, p. 32.

[5] Cf. Arbitral decision issued on 12 December 2013, in case 144/2013-T, available in the CAAD database, issued by Dr. Nuno Pombo, here arbitrator member and, also, Judgment of the STA of 29/04/2015 and 23/04/2014, available at www.dgsi.pt.

Frequently Asked Questions

Automatically Created

Is Stamp Tax (Imposto do Selo) under Verba 28.1 of the TGIS applicable to building land (terrenos para construção)?
The central legal controversy in Process 84/2015-T concerns whether Stamp Tax under Verba 28.1 of the TGIS applies to terrenos para construção (building land). The Tax Authority argues affirmatively, contending that 'properties with residential use' encompasses building plots because: (1) Article 6(1) of the Municipal Property Tax Code explicitly classifies building plots as urban properties; (2) the MPTC's valuation methodology applies residential use coefficients to building plots per Article 45(2); and (3) the legislative term 'residential use' is deliberately broader than 'intended for habitation,' capturing undeveloped land destined for residential development. Conversely, the claimant cooperative argues that building plots, being undeveloped and lacking actual residential capacity, cannot constitute 'properties with residential use' under a proper interpretation of Article 1 SDC combined with Item 28 TGIS and Article 6 of Law 55-A/2012. The claimant distinguishes between future intended use and current actual use, asserting the tax provision requires present residential functionality.
Can taxpayers challenge Stamp Tax assessments on high-value urban properties through CAAD tax arbitration?
Yes, taxpayers possess full legal standing to challenge Stamp Tax assessments on high-value urban properties through CAAD (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) tax arbitration. Process 84/2015-T exemplifies this procedural avenue. The claimant cooperative filed its arbitration request on 10 February 2015 pursuant to Articles 10(1) and (2) of the Legal Regime for Tax Arbitration (LRTA - Decree-Law 10/2011) and Articles 1-2 of Portaria 112-A/2011, seeking annulment of four separate stamp duty assessments. The request was automatically notified to the Tax Authority on 18 February 2015, the arbitral tribunal was constituted on 21 April 2015, and proceedings advanced through written submissions. Notably, CAAD arbitration remains available even after exhausting administrative remedies—this claimant had previously filed administrative reviews (revisões administrativas) and hierarchical appeals (recursos hierárquicos) that were rejected before initiating arbitration. The arbitral process provides an alternative judicial forum to ordinary tax courts, with streamlined procedures particularly suited to technical tax disputes.
What are the legal grounds for annulling Stamp Tax liquidations on building land valued over €1 million?
The legal grounds for annulling Stamp Tax liquidations on building land valued over €1 million advanced in Process 84/2015-T comprise two independent bases. First, the cooperative exemption ground: Article 66-A(12) of the Tax Benefits Statute (Estatuto dos Benefícios Fiscais) provides that 'cooperatives are exempt from stamp duty on acts, contracts, documents, titles and other facts, including gratuitous transfers of goods, when this tax constitutes their burden.' The claimant, being a housing cooperative dedicated to non-profit satisfaction of members' housing needs, argues this exemption applies to all stamp duty burdens, including Item 28.1 charges. Second, the substantive scope ground: the claimant contends that Item 28.1's reference to 'properties with residential use' excludes terrenos para construção which, by definition, are undeveloped and possess no present residential use or capacity. This interpretation relies on the combined reading of Article 1 of the Stamp Duty Code, Item 28 of the General Table, and Article 6 of Law 55-A/2012, arguing the legislator intended to tax only properties with actual, existing residential functionality, not merely future potential residential development.
How does CAAD arbitral process 84/2015-T interpret the scope of Verba 28.1 regarding undeveloped construction plots?
Process 84/2015-T presents divergent interpretations of Verba 28.1's scope regarding undeveloped construction plots. The Tax Authority's interpretation, articulated in its response of 1 June 2015, adopts an expansive reading premised on three interconnected arguments: (1) the Municipal Property Tax Code's definitional framework explicitly includes terrenos para construção within urban properties (Article 6(1) MPTC); (2) the property valuation methodology mandated by Article 45(2) MPTC applies to building plots the same residential use coefficients employed for constructed properties, treating building plots as possessing 'use' characteristics for tax purposes; and (3) the legislative choice of 'propriedades de uso habitacional' (properties with residential use) rather than 'propriedades destinadas a habitação' (properties intended for habitation) reflects deliberate selection of broader terminology encompassing both existing residential buildings and land destined for residential construction. The claimant's restrictive interpretation emphasizes literal application: building plots possess no residential use because they remain undeveloped, lack habitation capacity, and cannot functionally serve residential purposes until construction occurs. This interpretive conflict fundamentally determines whether the Item 28.1 tax base extends to high-value undeveloped land or applies exclusively to constructed residential properties.
What procedural steps are required to request annulment of multiple Stamp Tax assessments before a CAAD arbitral tribunal?
The procedural framework for requesting annulment of multiple Stamp Tax assessments before a CAAD arbitral tribunal, as demonstrated in Process 84/2015-T, follows these sequential steps: (1) File a written arbitration request pursuant to Article 10(1)-(2) LRTA identifying all contested assessments with specificity—here, four separate liquidation acts were challenged in a single request, each identified by document number, tax year, assessment date, amount, and affected property article; (2) The request is submitted to CAAD's President for acceptance and automatic notification to the Tax Authority (occurred 18 February 2015); (3) Under Article 6(2)(a) and Article 11(1)(b) LRTA, if the claimant opts not to appoint an arbitrator (as occurred here), the Deontological Council appoints the tribunal members; (4) Following tribunal constitution (21 April 2015), the Tax Authority files its response within the legal deadline (filed 1 June 2015); (5) Either party may request dispensation of oral hearing under Article 18 LRTA if no additional evidence beyond written submissions is required—granted here by tribunal order of 6 June 2015 after the claimant confirmed no objection to immediate determination; (6) The tribunal then proceeds to decision on the written record. Multiple related assessments may be consolidated in a single arbitration request where they share common legal questions.