Uniform case law on liability for payment of IUC.
*
Until the entry into force of Decree-Law no. 41/2016, of August 1, the majority of case law and doctrine argued that Article 3(1) of the CIUC enshrined a rebuttable presumption of registration, i.e. susceptible to proof to the contrary.
With the entry into force of Decree-Law no. 41/2016, of 01-08, Article 3(1) of the CIUC now provides that "Individuals or legal entities, whether public or private, in whose name the ownership of vehicles is registered, are liable for the tax.".
In the case in question, and on the basis of opposing judgments, an appeal was lodged to standardize case law in order to determine whether or not the new wording of Article 3(1) of the CIUC includes a presumption susceptible to proof to the contrary as to "who is considered to be the owner of the vehicle, namely whether the person in whose name the vehicle is registered can avoid liability for payment of the tax if he proves that on the date of the taxable event the vehicle no longer belonged to him."
As stated in the aforementioned judgment,
"in this area, the legislator, perhaps in the light of the understanding defended by the AT to the effect that, for reasons of efficiency in the collection of the IUC, required the tax assessment procedure to be based on the data in the vehicle registration, electing as the taxable person the person who appears in it as the holder of the right of ownership of the vehicle"; as well as
"taking into account the historical and systematic element, it is clear that the legislator chose as the taxable person not the owner of the vehicle, but the person registered as such in the vehicle register, which means that, for the purposes of the subjective incidence of the tax, the legislator chose 'the natural or legal persons, of public or private law, in whose name the ownership of the vehicles is registered', regardless of whether or not they were the owners of the vehicle at the time of the taxable event".
On the other hand, "the status of owner or holder of the registration does not differ in terms of the relationship that each has with possible environmental damage, since the vehicle may or may not be used by the owner; the same is true of the holder of the registration. In both situations, sometimes the use that has the potential to generate environmental damage is done by a third party, or even does not have to exist, and the vehicle may not even be used, which does not interfere with the status of the taxable person, i.e. any conclusion that may be drawn in terms of compliance with the principle of equivalence, from the fact that the taxable person may not be the owner, but only the holder of the registration, appears to be fallacious", so the principle underlying car taxation will be considered to the extent of the potential damage to the environment and road infrastructures resulting from the vehicle itself.
Nor should the principle of ability to pay be taken into account, since in the field of environmental taxes, as is the case here, this principle has to be combined with the principle of equivalence, which means that its subjects are not those who, in classic terms, have the greatest ability to pay, measured on the basis of the concept of income
Nor does the option of taxing the taxable person in which the vehicle is registered at the time of the taxable event offend the principle of proportionality and the prohibition of excess.
As a result, the S.T.A. has standardized case law to the effect that "For the purposes of the provisions of Article 3(1) of the CIUC, as amended by Decree-Law no. 41/2016, of 01-08, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered on the date of the taxable event is liable for payment of the tax, regardless of whether ownership has already been transferred to another person on that date."
*
Summary:
"For the purposes of Article 3(1) of the CIUC, as amended by D.L. No. 41/2016, of 01-08, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered on the date of the taxable event is liable for payment of the tax, regardless of whether on that date there has already been a transfer of ownership to another person."
Kommentare