According to the Real Estate Tax (IBI) ordinance, several different rates are established in relation to urban real estate, not including property for residential use and counting property that exceeds the cadastral regulations for the valuation of buildings.
The judgement upholds the indirect challenge and as a consequence nullifies the precept which establishes as a use that is susceptible to apply a differentiation and does not adjust to the criteria and parameters established in article 72.4 of the Revised Text of the Local Finances Act (TRLHL).
In the case under discussion, the appellant needs two floors dedicated to the use of a warehouse establishment, within a building. However, each floor is established as a separate registered property, so there is no plural or shared use.
Confusion arises due to the combination of article 72.4 and 15th transitory provision of the TRLHL, as this must be diluted in accordance with the principle of the preponderance of the common rule, as tax burdens must be deduced from clear and comprehensible rules as aggravating provisions of legal situations.
The Court therefore ruled that article 72.4 and 15th transitory provision of the TRLHL must be interpreted in the sense that the uses of furniture that qualify for the aggravated rate of taxation are those indicated in the transitional provision, without it being, therefore, admissible to refer to combined uses other than those that appear in the column that is referred to as uses in the aforementioned table.
Article 8.3 of the city ordinance is declared null and void, as it must order the publication of its ruling for the purposes of erga omnes effectiveness of the annulment.
B Law & Tax International Tax & Legal Advisors.
“En B LAW&TAX somos especialistas en asesoramiento fiscal internacional tanto a empresas como para particulares. Si desea ampliar la presente información, estaremos encantados de poder atenderle en el 917817194 o en [email protected]”