Supreme Administrative Court

Judgment of 21 May 2014

Case No. 01192/13

In this Judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court reaffirms that withholding at source  made with regard to dividends distributed by a company with registered office in Portugal  to a non-resident shareholder with registered office in Spain, breaches the  European  Union principles of non discrimination, freedom of establishment and free movement of  capital, where an organisation resident in Portugal would not, under the same  circumstances, be subject to taxation for such dividend and the Double Taxation  Convention (“CDT”) does not  allow to compensate the effects of this difference in  treatment.

The Supreme Administrative Court observes that the  CDT signed by and between  Portugal and Spain does not  allow to nullify the effects of the difference in treatment  identified in the case described above, since the mechanism provided for in the  CDT is  dependent, among other factors, on the income in question being included in the taxable  basis in Spain, which did not happen in this case.

South Central Administrative Court

Judgment of 15 May 2014

Case No. 07625/14

In this Judgment, the South Central Administrative Court states that the existence of  credit movements in the bank accounts of a personal income  tax taxpayer, which  represent amounts higher than the income declared to the Tax and Customs Authority, justifies the assessment of the taxable income through indirect methods, in accordance  with Article 88(d) of the General Tax Law.

The South Central Administrative Court further decided that the claim made by the  taxpayer that those amounts in cash came from gains through casino and internet  games, only evidenced by three cheques and by the proof that the taxpayer had been a  casino and poker player for several years,  is not enough to prove the origin of the  transactions underlying said bank movements, not even to give rise to a founded doubt  in favour of the taxpayer.

Administrative and Tax Arbitration Centre

Arbitration Decision of 14 February 2014

Case No. 170/2013-T

In the Arbitration  Decision referred to above, the Arbitration Court reaffirms the  approach previously expressed that Article 3(1) of the  Código do Imposto Único de  Circulação (“IUC”) (Single Road Tax Code) establishes a rebuttable presumption with  regard to the taxpayer of this tax.

The Arbitration Court emphasises that the  ratio legis of this provision is the taxation of  the actual owners-users of the vehicles and that the transfer of ownership can be relied  on against the Tax and Customs Authority, even if the same has not been registered with  the Car Registration Office.

The Arbitration  Decision therefore concludes that the person registered as owner of a  vehicle in the Registry and who, for that reason, was considered to be subject to Single  Road Tax Code by the  Tax and Customs Authority, is entitled to provide evidence  showing that the owner of the vehicle is another person and that, for that reason, he is  not subject to Single Road Tax, and that the tax assessment made is illegal.