A court in San Sebastian has been the first to put into question the constitutionality of the tax ’ of municipal added value when a home is sold in losses, that is to say, When ’ gets a negative performance in the ’ operation because the ’ property is sold below the cost of buying. According to the law firm Legal Penthouse-Salcedo Lawyers, the Basque Court has raised the unconstitutionality of the tribute to understand that violates articles 24 and 31 the Magna Carta.

Apparently, Finance stipulates this tax regardless of the specific circumstances of the transmission of the ’ housing and calculates the tax base so totally oblivious to the profit or loss that you have retrieved from the seller in the ’ operation.

This circumstance, in the operations in which there are losses, infringement containing the ’ article 31 of the Constitution: “All will contribute to the maintenance of the public expenditures of ’ according to their economic capacity through a fair tax system based on the principles of equality and ’ progressiveness that, in no event shall, will be available confiscatori”.

This is, for the Court of San Sebastian the ’ application of the method proposed by the Tax Law, in the case in which an operation ‘ in losses’ shows that the ’ increase in the value of the municipal land is not real or true, so we require your payment could pose a violation of the principle of economic capacity.

In addition to, According to Legal Penthouse, “the fact that the regulations do not consider the possibility that the transmission produces a loss or disability means the burden of ’ a fictitious increase that, to be calculated by default by the method provided in the standard, may not be either the object of expert assessment ’ contradictory for the determination of the tax base, or support test on the contrary”.

This, According to the opinion of the experts, is a clear limitation of the right of defence provisions of the ’ article 24 of the Constitution, It stipulates that all people “have the right to obtain effective protection of the judges and courts in the ’ exercise of their rights and legitimate interests, without that, in no event shall, You can produce yourself defencelessness “and you also have the right” to use the means of proof relevant to their defence”.