Supreme Administrative Court

Judgment of 5 November 2014

Case No 01508/12

In this judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court states that the sale of real estate by an insolvency administrator, executed by public deed, is judicial in nature, and for this reason, the value subject to tax in this case, for the purposes of Municipal Tax on Real Estate Transfer, is the price stated in the contract, regardless of the higher value that results from the tax value of the real estate.

Supreme Administrative Court

Judgment of 12 November 2014

Case No. 0461/14

In this judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court restates, in line with European and national case law, that the Portuguese regime of definitive withholding of dividends distributed by resident companies to companies of other Member State of the European Union is discriminatory and a breach of the principles of the freedom of establishment and of the free movement of capital, in the event that the Convention to Avoid Double Taxation concluded between the two States does not make it possible to neutralise the effects of the economic double taxation.

In this context, if the dividends are exempt in the State of residence of the company to which the same were distributed, or if they are insufficiently taxed there, and the full deduction, offsetting or recovery of the tax paid in Portugal is not permitted, there is no elimination of the discriminatory effects brought about by the definitive withholding effected in Portugal.

Administrative and Tax Arbitration Centre

Tax Arbitration Court

Arbitration Decision of 15 October 2014, published on 17 November 2014 Case No. 221/2014-T

In this Arbitration Decision, the Arbitration Court restates that the provision that the person liable for the IUC is the registered owner of the vehicle is a rebuttable presumption.

The person registered as the vehicle’s owner may, therefore, rebut such presumption, providing evidence that he or she sold the vehicle prior to the occurrence of the taxable event.

The Arbitration Court,  contradicting the position undertaken in Case No 63/2014-T, states  that  invoices/receipts  relating  to  the  sale  or  transfer  of  vehicles,  issued  in accordance with the commercial legislation, are sufficiently adequate to prove the existence of those transactions, and, therefore, to rebut the said presumption, if the Tax and Customs Authority does not provide evidence that its content is false.

Administrative and Tax Arbitration Centre Tax Arbitration Court

Arbitration Decision of 30 July 2014, published on 27 November 2014 Case No. 134/2014-T

In this Arbitration Decision, the Arbitration Court restates that the person liable for the IUC is the lessee and not the lessor, in the event that a leasing agreement was in force when the taxable event occurred, even if the lessor did not comply in due time with the obligation to inform the Tax and Customs Authority on the lessee’s tax identification number.