IIVTNU: Chronicle of an announced reform
The Tax on the Increase in the Value of Urban Land (IIVTNU), also known as municipal surplus value, is a municipal tax, not exempt from controversy in recent years. Its taxable event has started from the presumption that the mere passage of time increases the value of the land, a question that is very debatable, even more so in those cases in which the taxpayer has generated a patrimonial loss on the occasion of its transmission.
This controversy was transferred to the Courts of Justice, including the Constitutional Court (TC) which declared the unconstitutionality of some of the precepts of the rule that regulates it. However, given the lack of completeness of the Constitutional Court in its Judgment, there are opposing jurisprudential positions in relation to the scope of said unconstitutionality.
This has caused those taxpayers who have paid the tax, having not obtained any capital gain on the occasion of the transfer, have the right to return it, and those who are in the same situation, but have not satisfied it due to the fact that the voluntary payment period has not finished, have sufficient arguments in order not to pay the same. However, the question is not so clear when the taxpayer has obtained a capital gain on the occasion of the transfer.
Well, in this Circular we will intend to clarify the controversial issues, updating the state of the matter according to the latest jurisprudential pronouncements and proposals for regulatory changes.