The Constitutional Court has annulled the municipal surplus value charged by the municipalities. According to legal sources to the world, the Tribunal of Guarantees, in a Specification of Magistrate Ricardo Enríquez, considers that the calculation of the tax is unconstitutional in understanding that the objective computing system does not correspond to reality, affecting the principle of capacity Economic collected in article 31 of the Spanish Constitution.
This encumbrance is currently an important source of financing of the consistories throughout the country.
The decision has been adopted by nine magistrates having refrained to be part of the deliberation of the Plenary John Antonio Xiol and the Magistrate Alfredo Montoya is from low medical. In addition, the ruling of the majority will have the particular votes of the magistrates of the progressive sector María Luisa Balaguer and Cándido Conde-Pumpido and the concurrent vote of President Juan José González Rivas.
The High Court then responds to a matter of unconstitutionality high by the Contentious-Administrative Hall of the High Court of Justice of Andalusia on Articles 107.1, 107.2 a) and 107.4 of Royal Legislative Decree 2/2004 by which the text was approved Reinforced from the regulatory law of local haciendas.
Legal sources consulted explain that with this ruling, where de facto it is annulled "the full" the tax in declaring unconstitutional its calculation, it will be impossible for the municipalities to charge the municipal surplus value, except that the legislator foresees a new feminine that is adequate to the constitutional doctrine. The judgment, in fact, suggests this point, as indicated by the sources consulted.
For its part, the sentence, whose integral content will be announced in the coming days, declares the intangibility of the firm situations existing before the date of approval of it. That is, the resolution will not have retroactive effects on its application.
This failure becomes the definitive blow for the surplus value since in 2019, the municipal surplusity declared unconstitutional when the fee is superior to the patrimonial increase and two years before, in 2017, the court declared unconstitutional two articles of the Royal Decree -107.1 , 107.2 a) and 110.4- Upon the extent submitted to taxation situations of non-existence of value increments.
This was translated that the CT forced the tax not to gravase in any case acts or facts that were not exponents of a real or potential wealth.
For its part, legal sources explain that, at its meeting on Tuesday, the Plenary has been focused on discussing this judgment and will be tomorrow when the debate on the constitutionality of the second state of alarm decreed in pandemic is addressed.Updated Date: 26 October 2021, 14:56