The legal uncertainty derived from the effects of the declaration of unconsti...

shornasarker789

Since the initial approval of the tax on the increase in value of urban land it has always been under legal suspicion, especially with regard to the determination of its tax base (art. 107 lhl), in the that it has gone from one determination of the tax base of the iivtnu through the real value of the capital gain, provided for in the local finance law (lhl) of 1988, through another based on objective methods, according to law  supposedly to reduce fiscal conflict, reaching the present day, with the ddetermination of the tax base that combines both methods, real and objective, according to rdley 26/2021. But how have we been able to reach this point with the iivtnu.


Well, as we have indicated, the waters were always  Italy Telegram Number Data troubled with this tax, it all started with the well-known ruling of the superior court of justice of castilla-la mancha (cuenca) of april  ruling no.  q.Which provided an alternative formula for the objective calculation of capital gains, which was canceled by a supreme court judgment, in the interest of the law, which returned the calculation procedure to that provided for in article 107 lhl, in force on that date. From this moment on, a series of judgments of the constitutional court were triggered that have declared the unconstitutionality of the method of calculating the tax base of the iivtnu, for different reasons, with a singular determination of the effects of these judgments (articles 39 and 40 lotc), that tax lawyers and tax advisors have been very busy in recent times, and everything seems to indicate that it will continue to be so in view of the writs for the admission of appeals filed before the supreme court.



Over some of them below: in the sentence of the constitutional court constitutional, except for handicaps. In this judgment it is indicated that “is subjecting to tax inexpressible factual situations of economic capacity, which directly contradicts the principle of economic capacity guaranteed by article 31.1 ce” (fj 3). And it resolves that the tax can continue to be settled in the rest of the cases, for which reason the effects are taken into account. Former tunc only in the casos in which there is no surplus value, former origin. The procedural practice focused on the evidence to determine the disability. Stc, also maintains that the tax is constitutional, except for handicaps or quota higher than the profit.