the Treasury department estimates that those affected by the tax of the mortgage you can claim up to 5,000 million
we Can call to mobilize if there is a failure in favor of banking
The Government tries to curb the retroactive claims
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the fast-track to settle the disagreements about who should pay the tax on mortgages: limited to ratify the novelty of jurisprudence agreed in the judgment of the specialized Section on taxes without going to the merits of the case.
That proposal was rejected by the Full of the Room of the Contentious-Administrative, which preferred to go ahead and study the three resources that I had on the table. This was done, and to the last hour of the afternoon, barely a third of the judges had been pronounced, so that the deliberation will continue this Tuesday and there is nothing to guarantee that today is resolved.
The first to expose their position were the speakers of the resources, identical to those that led two weeks ago to the Second Section to change in the law and to establish that the tax is the responsibility of the banks.
The interventions of Nicholas Maurandi (president of the Section) and Jose Navarro advocated for moving forward with what they themselves signed in that sentence is key. Then they began to speak the rest of the magistrates, in the reverse order of their date of access to the Supreme. Intervened seven, which was enough to reflect the situation in the Hall: complete division. Of the nine positions stated, four supported the change of case-law, while five were rejected.
Sources of the court recognized that in the debates, however, the voltage at which the Third Chamber has been installed since the release of the judgment and its president agreed to discuss again the issue in the Plenary. This measure was discussed for various reasons. Because he questioned the Section that had issued the judgment, because prolonging the uncertainty about who should pay, and because it seemed to be cediéndose to the pressures of the banks.
At the Plenary session of Monday not challenged the legality of the call by Luis María Díez-Picazo. However, one of the speakers of the judgment questioned himself proposed to endorse the resolution almost automatically. Both by the own reasoning of the judgment-essentially, the bank is the one that benefited from the mortgage is registered – as by various procedural aspects. For example, the value of the case-law of a section is the same as that of the Full, or that there is a principle of trust of citizens in keeping a decision as notified and public.
Several justices suggested that this proposal meant that, in the background, questioning the call of the Full. Finally it was rejected by 20 votes to eight, which led to the afternoon will be addressed as resources directly.
On the day this Tuesday, and once all the judges have exposed your seem, it will try to bring their positions closer. Various sources of the court consider a decision that reflects the court split in half, it would be wrong for the Supreme and a confusing message to the markets.
The agreement does not seem easy, seen that the postures are not even two, but three: (1) return to the classical measure of the tax is paid by the client, (2) maintain the change of case-law stating expressly that the novelty will only apply to future situations, without any retroactivity; and (3) to ratify that the bank is paying but without the mention of retroactivity, thereby leaving the margin of four years of claims tax to the Treasury.
The decision rests with 28 judges. One of the three members of the board absent from the Full has abstained because a family member has a protected housing in Rivas-Vaciamadrid, precisely the municipality that has submitted the resources.
According to the criteria of
Learn more