The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) is put on the part of the Tax Administration, and does not cancel the liquidation issued by the Madrid community of the Inheritance Tax of an inheritance of an inheritance of an inheritance of 3.009,751.98 euros, since it was considered firm and cannot be canceled.
According to the judgment of December 2024, after the death of the deceased, the heirs presented to the Community of Madrid the declaration of the Inheritance and Donations Tax, requesting the provisional liquidation of the same. This was issued by establishing that They would have to pay 3,009,751.98 euros. Not being claimed within the planned period became firm.
The problem arises years later when the Tax Administration of the Community of Madrid initiated a Process of verification of the values of the assets of the inheritance. After that they issued a new liquidation in which The heirs would have to pay 10,183,654.39 euros, to those who would discount the 3 million who previously paid. But this liquidation was canceled after several resources because the review was out of time and had prescribed the right to liquidate.
The heirs claim 3 million euros for errors in the liquidation
After these facts, the heirs claimed the liquidation of 3 million euros and requested that it also be canceled, through a Extraordinary appeal for errors in it. And it is that as established in article 244.1. If they are issued and evidenced by the mistake. ”
He Central Administrative Economic Court (TEAC) did not admit said appeal Because it had not been presented by proper route, and the heirs claimed said decision before the TSJM.
This concluded that The liquidation of the 3 million and that of the 10 million were different procedures And that, the annulment of the second does not imply that the first one also has to be annulled. They consider that the sentence that annuls the second liquidation is not an “essential value documents” as the LGT requires, and does not imply that the original liquidation had errors.
They establish that what was considered prescribed in the second liquidation was “the right to liquidate on certain goods of the succession, without affecting those previous settlements that were already firm.
For all this, lJustice does not admit the appeal of the heirs for the annulment liquidation of the 3 million euros, which is considered firm. Despite this, the door of resorting to the Supreme Court was open through a appeal.