I INTRODUCTION

Tax litigation in Portugal has constituted a heavy burden over the years for the administrative authorities, the judicial courts and, most of all, taxpayers. This burden is attested to not only by the number of cases pending decision (in 2014, there were 52,649 in all the tax courts, as opposed to the 45,728 cases in 20092) but also by their average length, which far exceeds the indicative two years laid down by law.3 Added to all of this are taxpayer success rates of approximately 50 to 60 per cent in judicial courts4 and 59 per cent in tax arbitration courts.5 The immediate interpretation to be made of these rudimentary data is that the Portuguese tax system and, in particular, the tax administration itself, has a propensity towards generating contentious tax situations, a substantial portion of which are subsequently declared illegal by the judicial courts.

There are many reasons for this state of affairs, some of which are endemic. Foremost among them, however, are the growing complexity of the entire tax system, the emergence of new taxes and forms of taxation as a last resort for raising tax revenue, primarily in the past five years, and a tax administration stance and mode of operation overly focused on concerns relating to the assessment and collection of taxes.

II COMMENCING DISPUTES

Portuguese tax litigation has several administrative and judicial reaction mechanisms, the most significant of which are the tax claim (an administrative procedure) and the judicial tax claim (court proceedings). In parallel, albeit with a narrower scope of application, there is also tax arbitration, which, although initially introduced into the law as a simple alternative to court proceedings for tax disputes, has acquired especial prominence in its five years of existence.

In essence, tax litigation consists of annulment proceedings, and its quintessential subject matter is tax acts, with tax assessments being of particular significance in this respect.

As a rule, the time limits for contesting tax assessments only begin to run after the final date for voluntary payment, which is generally 30 days after the assessment notice. In cases of assessment where the tax is computed at zero, the time limits for any corresponding litigation begin to run from the time of the notice.

The tax claim is an administrative proceeding before the tax administration and, in general terms, must be lodged within 120 days. The decision in these proceedings may be appealed to the next hierarchical level or tax claim in court, or an application to constitute a tax arbitration court may be filed within time limits of 30 days, three months and 90 days respectively.

Within the field of this administrative litigation, the law establishes, to the benefit of taxpayers, an option aimed at avoiding decisions dragging on eternally: the possibility of lodging a hierarchical appeal, a judicial tax claim or applying for a tax arbitration court to be constituted if the tax administration has not made a decision on the complaint within four months after its filing.

The law provides for situations where access to the judicial courts or arbitration implies prior recourse to administrative litigation, whether by way of a tax claim or through some other administrative procedure. The former includes, inter alia, if certain circumstances are not fulfilled, disputes regarding self-assessments of tax, tax withholding or real estate property valuations, and, with regard to tax withholding, disputes relating to the application of indirect methods for determining the tax base. In either situation, prior administrative litigation is a condition for access to the courts or arbitration.

The judicial tax claim is a process that takes place in the tax courts. It is a relatively simple process, and essentially one that is conducted in writing and with little in-person intervention on the part of lawyers. According to the applicable legal provisions, the key stages of this process are:

  • a filing the statement of claim;
  • b the tax administration’s statement of defence;
  • c the taking of expert and witness evidence when requested and not dispensed with;
  • d optional written statements of case; and
  • e the judgment.

This decision may be appealed to a higher court: the Central Administrative Court if it comprises points of fact or points of fact and points of law, or the Supreme Administrative Court if it only comprises points of law. The rulings of either of these higher judicial courts may also be the subject of an appeal, which, due to the admissibility requirements thereof, is ‘extraordinary’ by nature.

Tax arbitration is, in turn, a relatively recent means of alternative dispute resolution (having been in existence for five years), but has been consolidating its position not only as an instrument to which more and more taxpayers are resorting, but also due to the quality of the awards delivered in arbitration proceedings. Arbitration courts decide in accordance with the law, and there can be no recourse to equity.

The scope of tax arbitration is narrower than that of the judicial courts, given their legal scope and the terms and limits in accordance with which the tax administration may have accepted a binding tax arbitration.6 The contours of this scope and commitment are essentially the following:

  • a claims for a declaration of illegality of additional tax assessments and self-assessments, tax withholding and payments on account when these latter have been preceded by an administrative process;
  • b claims for a declaration of illegality of decisions that fix the taxable income, when it does not give rise to the assessment of any tax, of decisions determining the taxable base and decisions that fix asset values, with the exception of those that result from the application of indirect methods.

By virtue of that commitment, claims relating to customs duties on imports and related indirect taxes, as well as claims relating to the classification, origin and customs value of goods, are excluded from the scope of tax arbitration.

The commitment is limited further by the value of the disputes themselves, which may not be higher than €10 million. Cases with a value of up to €60,000 are decided by a single arbitrator, while cases in excess of this figure are decided by a panel of three arbitrators.

Two characterising features of tax arbitration are its swiftness and the absence of ordinary appeals (i.e., the right to appeal in tax arbitration is extremely restricted to only exceptional cases).

The swiftness of tax arbitration derives from the fact that there is a six-month time limit for delivering an award after the constitution of a tax arbitration court (deferrable for a further two periods of three months), while on average an award is delivered within four months and 20 days, according to the most up-to-date information.7

The Portuguese legal order has no stare decisis rule, but there is a legal principle that the tribunals must respect previous case law in their decisions. For this reason, the swiftness of arbitration proceedings places the awards by these tribunals in a favourable position for defining case law (all the more so because, owing to the limited possibility of appeals, these awards are usually final).

Appeals from arbitral awards are made specifically to judicial courts with jurisdiction over tax matters. The law lays down three possible ways in which to react to an arbitral award: challenging the arbitral award (when it contains flaws that affect its validity), lodging an appeal with the constitutional court (when the application of the rule is rejected on the ground on unconstitutionality, or when the unconstitutionality of the rule that is applied has already been raised) and lodging an appeal based on conflicting rulings (when, in respect of the same fundamental point of law, the award of the arbitration court clashes with a decision of the central administrative courts (CAC) or the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). In other words, the law entrusts the examination of arbitral awards to the judicial courts in cases where more critical situations are involved, whether because their validity may be affected or they clash with other higher judicial court decisions, or because some constitutional provision or principle is involved.

This is a detraction from the principle of tax arbitration swiftness – because the desired swiftness is affected upon entering the judicial court circuit – for the benefit of a higher system guarantee, since it is aimed at safeguarding the conformity and stability of the legal order itself.

One special rule must be mentioned: the delivery of an arbitral award favourable to a taxpayer’s claim immediately terminates the bank guarantee that was provided to suspend collection of the tax debt, regardless of whether an appeal is lodged.

Tax law enshrines certain principles and procedures that, although they cannot be deemed covered by a broad concept of tax litigation, have such a degree of connection with it that taking them into consideration in any analysis is implied. Among other equally relevant principles, we highlight cases of the principle of enforceability of the tax act and of the advance binding information.

The principle of enforceability of tax acts brings about an effect of extreme significance, which is that payment of the additional tax assessed by the tax administration is claimable immediately and may only be suspended if the relevant tax proceedings (whether administrative, judicial or arbitral) are underway and if a guarantee is provided that covers, where applicable, payment of the amount owed.

In other words, from a legal standpoint, litigation is not sufficient to suspend collection of the tax until a judgment declares its illegality. That said, as a rule, the taxpayer will have to pay or provide a guarantee when faced with a tax assessment, even in cases where he or she takes legal action in respect of that assessment. There is, however, an exception to this rule, which involves the possibility of a guarantee dispensation being authorised on an exceptional basis.

This possible dispensation of the guarantee has extremely restrictive prerequisites, since it can only be authorised in the case of such a provision causing irreparable harm to the taxpayer, or where the lack of financial resources is both obvious and not caused by the taxpayer subject to enforcement proceedings.

As a counter to the immediate enforceability of tax acts, however, provision is made for the right to compensation for a taxpayer who, having paid or provided a guarantee, is successful in his or her litigation and the tax administration is deemed liable for the error in the tax assessment. In situations where the taxpayer has paid the additional tax assessment, compensation is effected through the payment of interest,8 and in cases where a guarantee is provided, by means of payment of the expenses incurred.

It follows from this that the enforceability of tax acts is of particular significance, since a taxpayer faced with a tax assessment has two practically simultaneous decisions imposed on him or her: whether to contest its legality and, consequently, whether to pay or present a guarantee.

As to advance binding information, its significance derives from two fundamental aspects. The first, owing to its very nature, is that of permitting the interpretation and application of the law to be fixed in a specific case binding the tax administration, while the second is the fact that this paves the way for litigation.

In relation to the first aspect, similarly to the situation in other jurisdictions, once this ruling has been issued, the tax administration is prevented from proceeding differently, save in compliance with a court decision. However, the law affords the possibility of the tax administration revoking the ruling after one year subject to a prior hearing for the taxpayer.

The application for advance binding information must contain a description of the facts for which the legal and tax classification is requested, and the ruling will be issued within a 150-day period.

The advance binding information may, in exceptional cases, be urgent in nature. This circumstance gives rise not only to greater speed in issuing the ruling in comparison to the norm (the time limit is 90 days), but also, inter alia, differences in the treatment given to the content of the application for a ruling in terms of costs and the effects of any tacit decision. Effectively, an application for an urgent ruling must, apart from the relevant factual framework, also contain a proposed legal and tax framework. In addition, it implies the payment of a fee that may vary, according to the complexity, from 25 to 250 account units.9 Finally, if the ruling is not given within the above-mentioned 90-day period, the proposed legal and tax framework for the facts will be deemed tacitly approved as a binding ruling.

The decision underlying the binding ruling may be appealed to the extent that it concerns the non-existence of the assumptions for an urgent binding ruling; the existence of a particular technical complexity that renders a binding ruling impossible; or the legal and tax framework for the facts contained in the reply to the application for a binding ruling.

This possibility of appeal also has a short life span (three years) but, especially in cases where the subject of the appeal concerns the legal and tax framework for the facts, constitutes an extremely relevant step for affording taxpayers all the mechanisms necessary for consolidation of their tax affairs and the relevant operations, without the need to do so solely when faced with tax acts (mainly tax assessments) of the tax administration.

Apart from the principle and procedure described above, there is also a form of tax litigation proceedings that must be highlighted: the figure of opposition to enforcement. Opposition to enforcement is a mechanism that seeks, in essence, to ensure the possibility of reaction by the taxpayer to any illegal forcible collection of a tax (because it is already paid, because the tax obligation is time-barred, for lack of grounds, etc.). Similarly to what is mentioned above, in these cases, too, the collection of the tax is only suspended if, in parallel with the opposition to enforcement, a guarantee is presented or the right to dispensation from the same is recognised.

This opposition to enforcement must be filed within 30 days as of service of the summons on the taxpayer.

However, in this regard we note that despite being a procedural expedient designed specifically for reacting to the illegal collection of a tax – with the law reserving the reaction to the illegality of the tax assessments that underlie it to the tax claim, judicial tax claim and tax arbitration – this same law permits (albeit in exceptional circumstances) that the illegality of the tax assessment may also be disputed through it. This is only possible, however, when the law provides no legal means of challenging or appealing the assessment.

III THE JUDICIAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

As stated in the previous section, the three quintessential mechanisms for initiating tax litigation are the tax claim, the judicial tax claim and tax arbitration.

A tax claim is an administrative proceeding before the tax administration and must be decided by the latter. The normal reaction mechanism within the tax administration framework to a decision on a tax complaint is the hierarchical appeal. This appeal, which is optional and has non-suspensive effect, must be lodged within 30 days of the notice of the decision on the complaint – that is to say, its decision is not subject to appeal. Nevertheless, in the specific case of decisions on hierarchical appeals lodged against tax claim decisions, the law expressly provides that these decisions may be appealed to the judicial courts, which is to say that, in such cases, the taxpayer may opt to exhaust the administrative avenues (tax claim and subsequent hierarchical appeal) before transferring the case to the judicial courts.

The tax courts are judicial courts and naturally independent of the tax administration. In these courts, as a rule, there is a double degree of jurisdiction, with cases being weighed up and decided on first by a first instance court and, at an appeal stage, by a higher court, which, as mentioned, may be a CAC or the SAC, depending on the grounds for the appeal.

The decisions of these higher courts may also be appealed but, from an ordinary standpoint, the power of these judicial courts is practically exhausted given the exceptional requirements for lodging further appeals. Nevertheless, we shall elaborate on appeals from judicial tax claim proceedings. They are based on conflicting rulings of the CAC, of the CAC with the SAC, or of the latter with itself. Another reason for appealing is the refusal to review CAC rulings when the questions at issue, owing to their legal or social importance, are of fundamental importance, or when the admission of the appeal is clearly necessary for a better application of the law. Both the appeals mentioned must be decided by the SAC. Finally, if an issue of unconstitutionality has been raised during the proceedings, an appeal may be made to the Constitutional Court.

IV PENALTIES AND REMEDIES

The infringement of a tax provision has consequences at levels other than that of the obligation to pay or pass on any outstanding tax. From the outset, the failure to pay or pass on tax may be associated with an obligation to pay compensatory interest,10 which accrues from the end of the deadline for filing the tax return until such time as the situation is detected or corrected.

There are other consequences relating to administrative or criminal offences. The law provides, in this respect, for a close relationship between a criminal and an administrative offence, whereby the latter applies if the former does not; moreover, the relevant offences are set down in the same legislation.

There are various offences, at both administrative and criminal offence level, but we give particular emphasis to those whose application to specific cases is called upon more often.

Foremost among criminal offences are fraudulent tax evasion and misappropriation of funds; and failure to pay or pass on tax and omissions and inaccuracies in tax returns and other tax-relevant documents on the side of administrative proceedings.

Fraudulent tax evasion is only punishable when the unlawful gain is greater than or equal to €15,000, and penalties vary from a minimum penalty payment of up to 360 days to a maximum five-year term of imprisonment for aggravated fraud.

Certain behaviours aimed at evading the assessment, payment or passing on of tax, or at unduly obtaining tax relief, refunds or other pecuniary advantages capable of causing a fall in tax revenue that may be classified as capable of falling within the offence of fraudulent tax evasion are the following;

  • a the concealment or alteration of facts or figures that must be contained in accounting books or records, or of the returns filed or provided for the specific purposes of the tax administration inspecting, determining, assessing or checking the taxable income;
  • b the concealment of undeclared facts or figures that should be disclosed to the tax administration; and
  • c carrying out a simulated transaction, whether as to its value, its nature, or by interposing, omitting or substituting people.

Misappropriation of funds is punishable if the tax that is not paid or passed on is greater than or equal to €7,500, and carries penalties that vary from a minimum of a 360-day penalty payment to a maximum five-year term of imprisonment.

Noteworthy among the administrative offences is that of failing to pay or pass on tax, which is only applicable if the facts do not constitute a tax crime, and which carries penalties of between 15 per cent and double the amount of the missing tax in the case of individuals, and 30 per cent and quadruple the amount of missing tax in the case of legal persons.

In either case, the fines are subject to a maximum limit of €165,000 for legal persons and €82,500 for individuals in cases where there is intent, and €45,000 for legal persons and €22,500 for individuals in cases of negligence.

For administrative offences involving omissions and inaccuracies in tax returns or other tax-relevant documents, the applicable fines range from a minimum of €93.75 for individuals and €187.50 for legal persons to a maximum of €22,750 for individuals and €45,500 for legal persons.

A reduction of the fines, depending on the time at which it is requested, may be obtained:

Reduction

Base

Request filed

12.5%

Legal minimum amount

Within 30 days after the infringement and, provided that the charge sheet has not been drawn up, a report received or a tax inspection initiated

25%

Legal minimum amount

Within 30 days after the infringement and, provided that the charge sheet has not been drawn up, a report received or a tax inspection initiated

75%

Legal minimum amount

By the end of the tax inspection when the infringement is merely negligent

Legal minimum

Legal minimum amount

By the end of the time limit for defence in administrative offence proceedings in the case of a simple administrative offence

75%

Fixed amount

Before the decision in administrative offence proceedings

Apart from these reductions, the law also provides for the possibility of waiver or special mitigation of the fine. There may be a waiver if the following cumulative conditions are met: the infringement has not generated any actual loss in tax revenue; the situation is now in order; and there is an extremely small degree of fault. Regardless of whether the requirements are fulfilled, the fine may be especially mitigated when the infringer acknowledges his or her responsibility and puts his or her tax affairs in order before the decision in the proceedings.

The taxpayer has a right to appeal any decision to impose a fine to the judicial courts within a 20-day period.

As a rule, if litigation regarding the tax assessment is underway,11 the criminal and administrative offence proceedings will be stayed until the decision is handed down in that case.

V TAX CLAIMS

i Recovering overpaid tax

A self-assessment of tax that has resulted in the payment of more tax than due or the refund of less tax than due may be corrected by filing a tax claim within the time limits and on the terms set down in the Portuguese Administrative and Court Tax Procedure Act (CPPT).

Tax withholding and payments on account may also be contested on grounds of error by means of a tax claim filed on the terms and within the time limits set down in the CPPT. If the tax claim is rejected, the taxpayer may then contest the legality of the act in the tax courts.

On an exceptional basis, the law also permits an ex officio review of tax acts, on the ground of an error attributable to the tax department, or of serious and flagrant injustice, within the time limits and on the terms set down in the General Taxation Law, the rejection of which also opens up the possibility of an appeal to the courts.

As stated above, undue payment of the tax affords a right to the payment of compensatory interest on the terms set down by law in the case of an error attributable to the tax administration departments. However, this right also exists in the case of failure to comply with the legal time limit for ex officio restitution of taxes, delays in the processing of the credit note or in the decision on the review of the tax act. The decisions of the tax administration departments on the payment of compensatory interest or the tax acts issued in respect of the same may also be contested on the terms set down by law.

Apart from the above-mentioned reaction mechanisms, non-resident taxpayers also have a number of legal mechanisms aimed specifically at the recovery of unduly paid tax based on the application of double taxation treaties (DTTs) and EU directives.

In addition, there is a VAT refund system for taxable persons not established in the refunding Member State.12

ii Challenging administrative decisions

In general, tax acts and tax matters are binding and provide no leeway for free appraisal by the tax administration departments. However, tax law sometimes resorts to indeterminate concepts that entail some degree of discretion in the appraisal of the same and in the decision to be delivered by the tax administration.

In such situations, taxpayers may take legal action using the reaction mechanisms, exercising their powers in terms of control and examination of the binding powers of the tax administration and in terms of the reasonableness of the solution adopted by the latter.

This involves a jurisdictional appraisal with a reach that depends inevitably on the circumstances of facts attendant to the specific case. In certain situations, the discretion of the tax administration departments is reduced to nothing, enabling them only to rubber stamp a certain kind of solution.

iii Claimants

The general rule on standing is that any person who has a legally protected interest has standing to take part in administrative and judicial tax proceedings.

In particular, we emphasise the standing of the affected taxpayer to file a tax claim or a judicial tax claim against tax acts, irrespective of the initiative of the taxable person and the standing of the tax substitute to file a tax claim or a judicial tax claim against withholding assessment acts that, although still disputed by the tax administration, has been embraced by tax court jurisprudence.

In terms of stamp duty, when the burden of the tax falls on someone other than the taxable person, the standing of the former to act must also be understood, ultimately in conjunction with the taxable person, with the objective of guaranteeing and ensuring the refund of any undue tax.

VI COSTS

Administrative proceedings, as is the case with tax claims, are not subject to fees or rates. The only exception concerns an increase of up to 5 per cent of the tax base that is the subject matter of the application when there is no reasonable foundation for the complaint.

Actions in the judicial courts imply the payment of a court fee that represents, in average approximate terms, between 3 per cent of the financial value of the action for the amounts of inferior value and 1.2 per cent for the higher amounts.

In tax arbitration, the fees to be paid represent 5 per cent in average approximate terms of the financial value of the action for the amounts of inferior value and 1.3 per cent for the higher amounts.

In the case of success in either judicial or arbitration proceedings, the fee paid is recoverable. In judicial proceedings, the refund is requested from the losing party (tax administration), while in arbitration proceedings it is assured by the arbitration centre itself.

VII ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Arbitration is an alternative means of tax dispute resolution. Its main characteristic is its swiftness: the time limit for delivering the arbitral award after a tax arbitration court is constituted is six months. Its greatest limitation, inherent to its very nature, is that there is no ordinary appeal from an arbitral award. Appeals are only allowed on relatively narrow assumptions. Even so, the fact of the admissibility of a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) being unquestionable today confers a relative elasticity on arbitration proceedings that, along with their swiftness, has seen recourse to this mechanism grow steadily over the years.

VIII ANTI-AVOIDANCE

Since 1995, specific anti-abuse provisions on transfer pricing, payments to non-resident entities subject to a more favourable tax system and undercapitalisation have been inserted in the Corporate Income Tax Code. Taxpayer transactions that hint at tax evasion are also combated by the general anti-abuse clause, which implies a devaluation of the sought-after tax consequences in legal and tax terms. There is also a mechanism that seeks to combat the same phenomenon ex ante by way of provisions governing duties of communication, information and clarification to the tax administration by tax consultants and financial entities of pre-fabricated ‘aggressive’ tax planning schemes to offer clients that seek to obtain a tax advantage.

IX DOUBLE TAXATION TREATIES (DTTs)

Portugal has a network of 77 DTTs, approximately nine of which have yet to come into force. In general, the provisions of the DTTs follow the provisions of the OECD Model Convention. Apart from the DTTs, EU treaties and directives are also of undeniable importance, particularly in harmonisation matters.

The Portuguese legislation is adapted to the relevant provisions in international tax law and EU tax law, and the tax administration supports the more recent positions of the CJEU, although disputes still persist in which the interpretation of treaties and directives, or the conformity of national provisions with the international and EU rules that prevail over them, is argued. This type of dispute can and is often the subject of a request for a preliminary ruling from the CJEU.

In Portugal, there are template forms designed, specifically, to prove satisfaction of the requirements on which the application of DTTs is dependent, which must be certified by the competent tax authorities of the state of residence or accompanied by a document issued by the competent authorities of the relevant state of residence attesting to residence in that state for tax purposes during the period in question and being liable to tax therein. A significant number of disputes also persist in the judicial courts in which the need to obtain and present these forms is contested, which are not unrelated to the difficulties in having the beneficial owners certified in some states of residence.

For the purposes of VAT and without prejudice to EU harmonisation in this field, it must be pointed out that the right to deduction or refund of the excess tax paid or passed on may only be exercised for up to four years after the right to the deduction or the overpayment of the tax, respectively, came into being. In addition, for the purposes of putting tax affairs in order, the law has established a number of requirements and time limits that must be followed for the taxpayer to be able to make the relevant corrections.

X AREAS OF FOCUS

A new trend in recent years has been the application of a general anti-abuse clause. Companies with restructuring operations and shareholdings in non-resident entities may be targets. However, despite the intensified use of this measure, the judicial courts have not yet fleshed out or sufficiently framed the concept of tax abuse owing to the particularities of the specific cases.

The preferred actions of tax inspectors are also VAT refunds and fraud in intra-community acquisitions (carousel fraud), while the financial sector, construction sector and real estate sector usually fly under the tax administration’s radar. Given the constraints of the state budget and the imperative need to raise revenue, large taxpayers are one of the main, and openly targeted, focus points.

XI OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS

Over the years, the efficiency of the tax machine has been enhanced, specifically with regard to the mechanisms for collecting taxes, dictated of course by the needs for more tax revenue for the state. This circumstance, whether owing to its dynamics or the exponential increase in tax acts, obviously empowers situations of illegality in the actions of the tax administration. This is increasingly more common today, whether with regard to collections, or to tax inspections and the resulting tax assessments. In addition, a number of taxes have been created in the past six years – largely targeting exclusively specific areas of activity13 – or changes made to pre-existing ones, the legality, and sometimes, the constitutionality, of which are still under scrutiny by the judicial courts. In this context, the need for speedy and efficient responses in contentious situations has become imperative. Some legal advances have been made through the creation of tax arbitration, sporadic changes in the administrative and judicial tax procedure codes, and even through intervention in the judiciary system. However, tax litigation is still a long way from a suitable response to illegal actions on the part of the tax administration, whether because of the need to create more efficient administrative and judicial tax procedure mechanisms, or by enhancing the response capacity of the judicial courts through the allocation of more human and material resources.

Footnotes

1 Pedro Miguel Braz is a partner at Garrigues Portugal, SLP.

2 www.cstaf.pt/Paginas/Estatistica-Processual.aspx.

3 See Article 96(2) of the Administrative and Judicial Tax Procedure Code.

4 These are estimated figures, as there are no reliable statistical data.

5 www.caad.org.pt/files/documentos/noticias/CAAD-Estatisticas_Arbitragem_Tributaria-
2013-12-11.pdf.

6 See Ministerial Ordinance No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March.

7 www.occ.pt/fotos/editor2/diarioeconomico16abril.pdf.

8 Currently 4 per cent per year.

9 Each account unit is currently €120.

10 Currently 4 per cent per year.

11 In relation to criminal proceedings, the law limits itself to mentioning the judicial tax claim and opposition to enforcement, while in relation to administrative offence proceedings, the law mentions the judicial tax claim, the tax claim and, in certain situations, opposition to enforcement.

12 Decree-Law 186/2009, of 12 August, which transposes into the domestic legal order Council Directive 2008/09/EC, of 12 February.

13 Banking sector contribution, extraordinary energy sector contribution, pharmaceutical industry contribution, tax on drinks with added sugar or other sweeteners, etc.