You do not have any favourites
News
-
How to claim after buying a home if hidden defects appea
13th April 2022 -
How to claim after buying a home if hidden defects appear
12th April 2022 -
How to claim after buying a home if hidden defects appea
11th April 2022 -
The swift system and other financial sanctions on Russia: what they consist of and what their effects are
13th March 2022 -
The swift system and other financial sanctions on Russia: what they consist of and what their effects are
12th March 2022 -
Rustic land in Spain ages: only 10% of the owners are under 40 years old
11th March 2022 -
Spain needs 1.2 million rental homes to meet demand, according to Savills
10th March 2022 -
Spain needs 1.2 million rental homes to meet demand, according to Savills
9th March 2022 -
Spain needs 1.2 million rental homes to meet demand, according to Savills
8th March 2022 -
THE HOUSING LAW REACHES CONGRESS
7th March 2022
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFIRMS THAT PLUSVALIA CAN BE CONFISCATORY
26th November 2019Some time ago the Constitutional Court determined that, if the transfer of the good had not generated profits, the Tax of the Increase on the Value of Urban Nature Lands (IIVTNU), better known as Municipal Capital Gain, could be collected when considering several articles of the Law of Local Haciendas.
Now the Constitutional Court goes further and has declared the capital gain tax unconstitutional when the tax quota is greater than the profit obtained by the taxpayer when transferring the property. That is, if there has indeed been a gain, but you have to pay surplus value more than what you have earned. This decision is taken after considering the Contentious-Administrative Court No. 32 of Madrid the unconstitutionality of demanding from the taxpayer a fee higher than the liquid benefit obtained by a transaction.
The Constitutional states that if the quota to be paid by the city council for this tax is greater than the gain that has been obtained with the transfer, the taxpayer would be paying for a non-existent, virtual or fictitious income, resulting in an excess of taxation that is contrary to the constitutional principles of economic capacity and non-confiscatoriness of article 31.1 of the Constitution, and that is why it determines that the payment of this tribute is unsurpassed and cannot be demanded.
The Constitutional Court, like the Contentious Court of Madrid, assumes that the expenses and taxes incurred in the acquisition and transfer of the property (registration, mortgage cancellation.) Can be discounted.
Source: ocu.org