The Supreme Court sides with Banco Santander, and confirms that the Parla City Council will have to damounted to more than 21,000 euros for the settlements that were improperly charged as tax on the increase in value of urban land (IIVTNU), commonly known as “municipal capital gains.” It confirms, therefore, thatIn cases where there is no capital gain, the collection of this tax is unconstitutional and can be claimed.
According to the December 2024 ruling to which NoticiasTrabajo has had access, Banco Santander made a request to the Parla City Council to review the IIVTNU liquidations of 12 of its properties, which amounted to 21,681.33 eurosalleging that there had been no increase in value, according to the door that the Constitutional Court opened to claims with the ruling that will be explained below.
The City Council did not give any response, so the bank filed a contentious-administrative appeal in 2021 and a Madrid Court agreed with it, based on precedents from the Constitutional Court, including STC 59/2017, published in the BOE. This declared the unconstitutionality of articles 107.1, 107.2 a) and 110.4 of the consolidated text of the Law Regulating Local Treasury (TRLHL). Herein The precepts that regulate the IIVTNU are considered null and void when there is no increase in value.
The City Council appeals to the Supreme Court, but it agrees with Banco Santander
After the court’s ruling, the City Council appealed by filing an appeal before the Supreme Court. He The argument used by the local treasury was that the capital gains settlements had already been firmly issued. and, therefore, should not be reviewed.
After analyzing the facts, The High Court reaffirmed that the unconstitutionality of the principles of economic capacity and prohibition of confiscation allows firm settlements to be reviewed according to article 217.1.g of the General Tax Law. He added that “ex tunc nullity has no limits other than the intangibility of situations resolved by a final judgment with the force of res judicata.”
He concluded that The aforementioned principles are violated when a non-existent increase is taxed.something that had happened in the case of these Banco Santander properties whose transfer had meant a loss of value.
This ruling coincides with previous rulings by the Supreme Court in which it is concluded that the Treasury will have to return the capital gain if there is a loss of value even if the liquidation is final. Finally, the Court obliges the city council to return to Banco Santander the amount improperly collected by the IIVTNU, plus the corresponding interests, and warns that we must act diligently in the face of constitutional resolutions.