Based on the arguments of the Judgment of the Superior Court of Castilla -La Mancha of April 17, 2012, whose practical application we have revealed in the entry of this blog "ABOUT THE CALCULATION OF MUNICIPAL APARTMENTS", some people before the liquidation practiced by LA PAERIA on certain transmissions subject to "plusvalia", they have made a request for the return of undue income. We are receiving news of the answers that the Paería has made, which are dismissed, based on the following arguments:
1.- Taking into account that the STSJ of Castilla-La Mancha number 85/2012 of April 17, which makes up the STS of the Administrative Litigation Court number 366/2010 of September 21, does not establish jurisprudence since a minimum of two sentences that interpret a rule in the same sense.
2.- Taking into account the context, the legislative background, as well as the technical and usual sense, it must be interpreted that, when article 107.4 TRLRHL provides in its first paragraph "on the value of the land at the time of accrual, derived from the provisions In sections 2 and 3 above, the annual percentage determined by each town hall will be applied, without it being able to exceed the following limits..." necessarily implies, and without the law allowing any other possible interpretation, multiplying the value of the land at the time of the accrual (which will generally be the cadastral value of the same on the date of transmission) by the percentage figure approved by the City Council for the period that includes the number of years of increase and the result of said multiplication divided by for 100”.
Recalling a little the issue discussed in the aforementioned sentence, there is an apparent contradiction between the definition of the taxable event of the tax on the increase in the value of urban land (which taxes the increase had) and the formula for determining the taxable base (which taxes the future increase). Well, La Paería tells us that it conforms to the literal interpretation of the calculation of the tax base and that it cannot apply the criteria of the sentence because they do not constitute jurisprudence.
Before this situation and regarding what may happen in the long run, we do not know, because we are not fortune tellers, but it would be either a legislative modification that would clarify the issue, or some type of confirmatory or contradictory sentence with the previous one by of a Superior Court of Justice, or some that the Supreme Court can dictate in cassation for unification of doctrine, making clear what is the interpretation of the norm.
For this reason, we recommend resorting to administrative liquidations, even knowing that they will not prove us right, but it will allow us to be well positioned, if soon, the matter is correctly resolved in legislative or judicial channels.