Fairness in “Plusvalia” Tax.

On some values ​​established by the urban planning office, the municipalities mark certain coefficients, and depending on the years owned of the property, they calculate (rather they assume) an amount of increase in the value of the land and issue a settlement that corresponds to pay the seller.

In the previous financial crisis of 2007, the controversy was already created, since many owners were forced to sell their houses for values ​​lower than the purchase, to hand it over to the bank to cancel the debt or lose it at auction, and then an additional debt with the "plusvalia" tax. These situations caused some changes that some municipalities accepted and if the seller showed an economic loss in the sale, they settled him at zero. Of course they did not make it easy and most municipalities forced you to pay and then have to proceed to a claim against them, with added bureaucracy and complications.

Recently it seems that the municipalities have been challenged again, since a Supreme Court ruling has labeled it as a confiscatory effort and has declared the liquidation of this tax null and void in cases where the real profit from the sale is equal to or less to the tax quota, that is, if you sell cheaper than you bought, there is no doubt, but even if you sell a little more expensive, generating some profit and it does not exceed the tax settlement quota, it cannot be generated either and considered null. The Court considers confiscatory a tax quota that completely absorbs the taxable wealth, that is, that fully coincides with the “pluvalia”.

Of course they did not make it easy and most municipalities forced you to pay and then have to proceed to a claim against them, with added bureaucracy and complications.

The Court considers confiscatory a tax quota that completely absorbs the taxable wealth, that is, that fully coincides with the “plusvalia”.