Schlagwort: legal advice

SPANISH PUBLIC TAX ADMINISTRATION REVIEWS PROPERTY TRANSFER VALUES

Geschrieben von admin am 7 Februar, 2014. Veröffentlicht in english speaking solicitor.

Spanish Tax Administration reviews property value

In the last few years, property market prices have dropped in Spain and the cases in which the National or Regional Tax Administration has reviewed declared values for property transfers have increased, whether for conveyance, inheritance or gifts; that is, you may sell your property for a certain and determined price, but the Regional or National Tax Administration may review that value after the sale and for tax purposes; then, it may consider that the real value of this sold property is higher than the one declared on the deed of sale, and therefore, the buyer shall pay the Transfer tax (ITP) on property transfer on the basis of the new value, which has been reviewed by the Regional Tax Administration, although the buyer had bought it for a lower price. In addition, the seller may have to declare capital gains higher than those actually obtained as a result of the review carried out by the National Tax Administration.

The abovementioned situation is legal and possible pursuant to Article 57 of Spanish general taxation law, in which it is provided that the Public Administration may check the property values by using different means.

Regarding urban properties, the Regional Tax Administraions and the Andalusian Regional Government are often supported on the grounds of an Order that is yearly approved to calculate the taxable minimum value of urban properties in this regard. As a result of this, it is possible to calculate this taxable minimum value from applying a rate provided by this Order to the details contained in the real estate tax IBI receipt (council tax). Then, you can know in advance whether the Tax Administration may claim more taxes or not when transferring your property.

Regarding rural real estate or properties with special characteristics, the matter becomes increasingly complicated, since Public Administrations may not always proceed by applying the aforementioned values and sometimes they are supported on the grounds of an expert report drawn up by technical personnel of the Tax Administration, which justifies the proven value of this rural or special property; for example, currently it is very common that the reviewed value for this type of properties is determined according to the estimated average values of construction, which are yearly publish by the Professional Association of Architects of Malaga. These values are indexed in a table containing the construction value per built square metre pursuant to the construction type and its features.

In the last year, as a result of this significant increase of value reviews by the Andalusian Tax Administration and, to a lesser degree, the National Government, our law firm always carries out an estimation of the taxable minimum value for tax purposes when advising our clients about property conveyance issues. Thus, they are warned of the possibility that their property value may be reviewed and the possible extra cost which may arise from this review. This is aimed at preparing our clients for this unpleasant surprise.

In general terms, the Andalusian Regional Tax Administration currently collects every single Euro from value reviews of property conveyances, so that if the taxable minimum value is higher than the conveyance actual value, it is quite normal that the Regional Government notifies you after a few months claiming the payment of the ITP tax on property transfer, stamp duty tax or gift and inheritance tax for the excess value reviewed.

The National Tax Administration, which is the competent body for capital gains collection of property sales, is not as determined as the Regional Tax Administration is when reviewing values. However, in those cases that the seller is not a tax resident and no capital gains has been obtained for the sale, when the 3 % withheld by the buyer is requested to be returned, the National Tax Administration does not hesitate to review the taxable minimum value of that property, so that the 3 % withheld is not returned in full to the seller. Furthermore, as a result of the reviewed taxable value, the seller may also have to pay the Tax Administration for capital gains tax, although no real gains had been obtained from the sale.

Obviously, there are grounds to challenge the property revaluations before the Public Tax Administration; however, in order to know if it is worthy to challenge it, it is important to examine and analyze each particular case in detail and determine if the reviewed value is properly justified before going ahead with the recourse.

Finally, it is also worth mentioning the possibility to file with the Tax Administration, prior to the property transfer, a binding report to obtain from the Tax Office the taxable value of this property. In some cases, it may be advisable to request this report, which commits the Tax Administration to respect it, although the value on this report will also oblige us for tax purposes.

Author: Gustavo Calero Monereo, C&D Solicitors (lawyers)
Torrox-Costa (Malaga/Costa del Sol/Andalucia)

RECENT CONTROVERSIAL DEMOLITION OF TWO PROPERTIES

Geschrieben von admin am 28 Oktober, 2013. Veröffentlicht in english speaking solicitor, lawyer, malaga. Keine Kommentare zu RECENT CONTROVERSIAL DEMOLITION OF TWO PROPERTIES

Controvercial demolition properties Andalucia

Last Monday October 14th, the Regional Andalusia Government Junta de Andalucia carried out the demolition of two houses which were built without construction permit on non-developable land in the rural area of Las Terreras, in the municipality of Las Canteras, Almeria.

In this case, the developer did not have construction permits to build both properties. This is a different situation from that explained in our blog post in March, but there are also involved third parties in good faith, who bought the aforementioned properties to the developer/seller. The demolition of these properties means the infringement of a fundamental property right according to the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which has demanded that:

– People affected by court or administrative proceedings which may imply the loss of their assets shall have the effective and real opportunity to defend their situation.

– Property loss due to general interest—for example, the compliance of planning legality over ownership of assets—shall be previously compensated to the owner.

Therefore, upon consideration of this European case law, it is not sufficient that in these two cases the judgment has assessed civil liability and the seller-developer is sentenced to compensate owners who bought these properties, but this compensation should be made effective prior to demolitions to avoid the risk that the seller fails to pay or is not able to pay and, as a result of this, third parties in good faith are not compensated. It should be noted that subsidiary liability of public administrations is not observed, as no construction permit was granted.

In order to guarantee the payment of compensations, appropriate actions should be taken prior to execute demolitions in the same proceedings for the enforcement of judgments. If this were possible, this situation should be determined as a reason to stop the judgment enforcement until compensations are paid to the affected owners. Obviously, each case should be analysed in order to determine whether the owner knew about the absence of construction permits and even though he was aware of the risk involved, he bought the property. In these cases, protection for these owners should be different.

Regarding certain information compiled by different means, there is a chronological perspective to be pointed out in respect of these two demolitions, which reveal the inefficiency of inspection and penalty procedures in regards of town-planning regulations, as well as the belligerent approach of public administrations participating:

– In 2004, the Andalusian Regional Government initiated a proceeding against the developer and he was fined because of the earthmovings in this area. Then, he was obliged to restore it to its original state. Obviously, the developer failed to comply with this order to restore it to its former state. In addition, the Town Council or Andalusia Regional Government should have acted in this moment, as well as they have done now, when carrying out the demolitions.

– In 2007, the Andalusia Regional Government officially ordered to the Town Council the demolition of the properties, as they have been built on non-developable land without construction permits. From 2004 to 2007, 3 years have elapsed. During this period of time the 4 properties were built and no competent public administrations did paralyze the works before they were completed. As a result of this, the completed houses were entered into legal transactions and then new owners arised. Why were construction works not paralyzed within these years?

– Once that the 4 properties were completed, the Town Council authorized water and electricity supply for them; this illegal authorization granted by the Town Council implied that these homes were appropriate to be occupied, as these supplies were essential for their sales.

– In 2012, The Andalusia Regional Government seemed to request the Town Council to execute the demolitions.

– In October 2013, the demolition of two properties was carried out by the Andalusia Regional Government, because the Town Council did not do so. The other two properties are also pending to be demolished.

Nine years have elapsed since the construction activities without permits are known until their demolitions were indeed executed. During this period of time, third parties in good faith have appeared and been affected by this situation. Have public administrations really done their utmost? Could have they acted earlier and with greater accuracy since 2004?

It would be a rather difficult task to think that the Andalusia Regional Government and Town Councils are not liable for a large number of homes built without permits on non-developable land in Andalusia—liability becomes obvious for those properties built with construction permits—since they had aerial images of each area, cadastral information and documents from the Payments Offices for transfer tax collection, which may have allowed them to protect non-developable land and enforce Andalusia town planning Act (LOUA). But they did not want to do so. Accordingly, as town planning duties have not been complied in respect of inspection and penalty procedures, the liability of Andalusia Regional Government and Town Council is joint and shared.

It is also worth mentioning the existence of certain arbitrariness on the part of public administrations when judgments were enforced, since older proceedings are still pending to be enforced and no actions are being taken on them.

Foreign residential tourism is a key factor for local economies in many areas; different national newspapers have been looked up and all of them echoed the new demolitions, which is a very harmful publicizing. They stressed the absence of economic compensations before demolitions were carried out, rather than demolitions itself.

It is not a question of implementing a general amnesty for all irregular acts executed on non-developable land without permits, since this may lead to a negative message for people who meet regulations. However, the fundamental property right should not be further infringed in conformance with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case law and property right should be protected in Spain as a fundamental right. In addition a legal system which protects third parties in good faith should be provided in order to ensure legal certainty; inspection and penalty procedures should be carried out and should not go on forever due to the lack of interest of public administrations, so that their effectiveness may paralyze these type of constructions before they are entered into legal transactions; common sense and realism should be imposed and Regional Governments should be consistent with what has been accepted in these years, due to their failure to act or interminable penalty and enforcement procedures.

It seems understandable that town-planning legality will be now strictly enforced and hopefully it will be watched over. However, solutions should be provided from a logic and legal perspective for all previous cases.

Author: Gustavo Calero Monereo, C&D Solicitors (lawyers)
Torrox-Costa (Malaga/Costa del Sol/Andalucia)

RELEVANT RULING FOR HOMEBUYERS OF NON-COMPLETED PROPERTIES WITHOUT BANK GUARANTEES

Geschrieben von admin am 2 September, 2013. Veröffentlicht in english speaking solicitor.

Ruling for non-completed Spanish properties without bank guarantees

In the last few years, it has become quite common the significant number of homebuyers who have purchased off-plan properties and paid large sums of money on account for their future homes, however, the developer has never completed nor handed them over. Consequently, the advanced money has been lost in many cases, because the developer may have gone bankrupt and lost all assets to refund these amounts to them.

Spanish Government passed in 1968 the Law 57/1968 dated 27th of July on the receipt of sums paid in advance prior to the construction and sale of homes. This was aimed at stopping several cases of homebuyers who lost their money paid for properties which never were built.

Spanish Law 57/1968 is still in force and solicitors, who are specialised in this issue, know the regulations for homebuyers’ protection in respect of sums paid in advance to developers for off-plan or under construction properties prior to their completion. However, the most relevant point at this moment is the judgment argumentation set out for the court proceedings where 46 homebuyers without bank guarantees securing advanced payments, made a legal claim jointly and severally to the bank and the developer demanding the total amounts paid, because the construction works were never completed. The judgment was pronounced by a court of first instance of Albacete on the 08/06/2012 and was confirmed by the Provincial Court on the 11th of February of this year.

The aforementioned judgment ordered the bank to refund all amounts of money paid by the homebuyers, considering that it was jointly and severally liable together with the developer, pursuant to the interpretation of Articles 1 and 2 of the abovementioned Law of 1968, Article 4 of the Spanish Ministerial Order of 1968 and the First Additional Provision of the Law 38/1999 on building regulations.

Although the bank was not a party on the sale agreement and did not either issue bank guarantees for homebuyers’ payments on account, the main line of argument of this judgment to consider the bank to be jointly and severally liable is that this bank knew about these payments in the developer’s account and was aware that these amounts were paid for the purchase of homes in a property development. As a result of that, the bank did not comply with the obligations provided by Law 57/1968 and committed a banking malpractice, pursuant to the interpretation of Article 1.2 of this Law, as the developer should have been required to open a special account where depositing its funds apart from any other amounts aimed at the construction of the properties. In addition, the bank should have not permitted these deposits in ordinary accounts, and particularly when this bank was the only financial entity financing the development and profited from this real estate business.

This judgment entails a court action to recover the money for those homebuyers without bank guarantee securing the amounts paid on account to developers, because, if appropriate, they could bring an action for joint and several liability against the bank where the developer’s loan was granted, where the payments were deposited and where the developer operated. Thus, homebuyers will have better chances to recover the sums paid, considering that there are already many judgments where developers has been condemned to pay, but court orders cannot be enforced because of their insolvency, while banks are always solvent.

Author: Gustavo Calero Monereo, C&D Solicitors (lawyers)
Torrox-Costa (Malaga/Costa del Sol/Andalucia)

PREFERRED SHARES: THE GREAT SCANDAL

Geschrieben von admin am 11 Juni, 2013. Veröffentlicht in english speaking solicitor, lawyer, malaga. Keine Kommentare zu PREFERRED SHARES: THE GREAT SCANDAL

By the end of 2008, Spanish saving banks and banks already had clear reports stating that current high interest rates may drop and the property bubble was about to burst. In addition, they also knew that the lucrative business of saving banks in the construction sector by means of credits for developers and mortgages for individuals, was about to go to ruin.

Regarding that their core business in the housing sector was about to finish and that saving banks could not issue shares as banks could, they “invented” the sale of a product to obtain funds known as participaciones preferentes (preferred shares). This financial term may be defined as debt securities issuances for an undetermined period of time, in which saving banks pay returns depending on their profits. But they may not even pay anything at all—although this product offered up to 7% returns—, because the payment of these returns depended on the financial entity profits. Thus, as a result of the housing sector slump and saving banks loss, there was no profit. Furthermore, these preferred shares have no voting rights and are not guaranteed by the Deposit Guarantee Fund—which covers people’s savings up to 100,000 Euros—and has no maturity, that is, they are perpetual.

Most of the investors who purchased these preferred shares were retail clients of these financial entities. Most of them thought that this product was similar to fixed income deposits. In most cases, these clients did not have any knowledge about financial risks neither any intention to risk their savings—their money was invested in fixed term deposits and one day they received a telephone call from the bank convincing them of the “advantages” of purchasing preferred shares; however, most of the disadvantages were not explained to them, because the bank employees did not probably even know what they were offering. They just followed the financial entity instructions.

Result: 300,000 people affected by the purchase of these preferred shares which may amount to 30,000 million Euros, although this sum may be higher.

Financial entities are allowed to sell this type of products if they carry out the following: study of the investor’s profile and performance of the private investor test for suitability. In most cases, it is obvious that financial entities should have not sold the aforementioned preferred shares to most of their retail clients, because they did not match the suitable profile to purchase this type of products and had limited savings to be invested only in conservative products, such as fixed income deposits.

Holders of the aforementioned preferred shares have the following options:

A) Secondary market offering, although they may be sold at a loss considering current circumstances.

B) Conversion into shares of the entity—this is the solution offered by saving banks. However, this exchange is also at a loss, as Bankia has already done two weeks ago—in this case, its clients have lost up to 70% of their investment when the preferred shares were converted.

C) Going to the arbitration offered by the Government—we sincerely have misgivings about its results and clients may also have to assume significant losses.

D) Going to court through civil proceedings to claim for the invalidity of the contract which served as a basis for purchasing preferred shares. This is the most recommended procedure for all people affected, as court orders which have been already known are pronounced in favour of these people. Although this action may imply a longer procedure to recover the invested money, the result is much more advantageous.

We finally recommend you to consult an expert before taking any decision if you are a person affected by this matter, so that all possible options are explored particularly.

Author: Gustavo Calero Monereo, C&D Solicitors (lawyers)
Torrox-Costa (Malaga/Costa del Sol/Andalucia)

NEW TAX LIABILITY FOR RESIDENT TAXPAYERS

Geschrieben von admin am 23 Januar, 2013. Veröffentlicht in lawyer, malaga. Keine Kommentare zu NEW TAX LIABILITY FOR RESIDENT TAXPAYERS

New tax liability for resident tax payer in Spain

The Spanish Government passed on the 15th of November 2012 a Royal Decree providing the liabilities to inform about assets and rights located abroad. This information is available at http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2012/11/24/pdfs/BOE-A-2012-14452.pdf.

This liability only affects resident taxpayers; non-residents are not liable for submitting this tax return.

Any account in financial institutions and any kind of real property or real property rights of ownership shall be declared, as well as any securities, interests, insurances and incomes, which are deposited, managed or obtained abroad.

Taxpayers shall inform about these assets and rights which they own abroad as at 31st of December 2012.

This tax return shall include any kind of assets and rights provided that the individual value for each of them exceeds EUR 50,000. This includes the following:

– All accounts in financial institutions—account balances as at 31st of December and average balances for the last quarter.

– Real property, indicating the purchase date and acquisition value.

– Real property rights of ownership, indicating the opening or cancellation date.

– Securities, interests, insurances and incomes which are deposited, managed or obtained abroad as at 31st of December of each year.

The submission of this informative tax return in successive years is only compulsory when the established limit have increased more than EUR 20,000.

The requirements of this tax liability shall be met between the 1st of January and the 31st of March in the following year to which this information refers.

This tax liability refers to both individual residents and bodies corporate which are liable for corporate tax in Spain. Tax form 720 shall be electronically submitted to fulfill the requirements of this tax return.

The recent approval of this tax liability to inform about assets located abroad represents a new control method for liable taxpayers in order to uncover informal economy, tax evasion and money laundering.

Fines are significant and they do not refer to the legal o illegal way of obtaining those assets, but to the fact that they are declared or not. The failure to submit the informative tax return will be considered a very serious infringement and the corresponding sanctions will be applied. This implies the payment of a EUR 5,000 set fine for each point of information which is not declared and the minimum fine amounts to EUR 10,000. The fine for individual taxpayers amounts to EUR 100 for each point of information and the minimum fine amounts to EUR 1,500, where the informative tax return had been submitted after the deadline without previous notification from the Spanish Tax Authority.

It is worth stressing the heavy fines, including for declaration of imprecise information. The above mentioned Royal Decree does not allow misunderstandings. A single mistake may result in a heavy fine. The declaration of incomplete or imprecise information entails the same sanctions. The fact that these assets are correctly declared in the country of origin will never be considered a ground for excluding the liability to pay the fine.

It is also determined that the tax liability to inform shall not be time-barred in respect to the date of origin of the assets and the application of this rule.

If this is your case, please do not wait any longer and prepare all the necessary information for submission to the Spanish Tax Authority in the following days. If you have any doubt or enquiry regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Author: Francisco Delgado Montilla, C&D Solicitors (lawyers)
Torrox-Costa (Malaga/Costa del Sol/Andalucia)

LEGAL COUNSELING: “IF YOU BUY CHEAPLY, YOU PAY DEARLY”

Geschrieben von admin am 5 November, 2011. Veröffentlicht in lawyer. Keine Kommentare zu LEGAL COUNSELING: “IF YOU BUY CHEAPLY, YOU PAY DEARLY”

Some months ago, a foreign prospect client, who we have come to know as “Mr. X”, came in our offices. He requested some information regarding sale procedures, legal work and our professional fees.

After the first free appointment, in all honesty he commented to us that he had contacted a professional offering a 40% cheaper fee than ours. However, he would be interested in contracting our services provided that we could offer him a discount.

At that moment, we considered which option to adopt; naturally, we wanted to win this client, but we also knew that the rural property, which he wanted to buy, required a quite complex searching process.

At the end, Mr. X was offered a “courtesy” discount in our fees, which was not close to the low price offered by the former professional. Finally, Mr. X decided to contract the other professional’s cheaper services.

Regarding the current market and low circulation of clients, some solicitors offer great discounts to stand out from competitors and then win a client. Then, considering the aforesaid, why our legal firm did not offer a higher discount to win Mr. X as a client?

The answer is obvious; because such low fees proposed by Mr. X could not pay for the time of commitment for the searching process to buy the above mentioned property in a rural land and then providing full legal certainty to the client.

Within our professional environment of legal services, you may and shall be flexible and capable for adapting to win a client, considering the current situation of financial difficulties and increase of competitors in our sector. However, you should NEVER compete with lower fees, because if the fees for your services are reduced so much, then the quality of your services becomes also poorer.

Furthermore, if we are realistic, no professional may work with the same intensity neither commit the same time when their fees are so low, because production costs and ideal profits would require much more cases which may not be properly and professionally handled, and as a result, a poorer quality counseling service may be provided.

Later on, we knew that Mr. X hired an agent’s services for the legal counseling instead of a solicitor’s. We do not know how his case finished or whether he received a good counseling service. Similarly, if I do not feel physically well or fell pain, I would contact a doctor for a diagnosis and the prescription of a solution, instead of contacting a person who is not a doctor and claims to know a lot about medicine. As a qualified general practitioner, the doctor is better trained and has a legal responsibility. As a result, the patient-client receives more security and reliability, although he or she may pay more for these services.

In all honesty, an agent will never provide the same legal service as a solicitor will, because a solicitor has been exclusively trained by and for law. Solicitors’ training is eminently juridical; this full time commitment and the responsibility of the practice of law—because of the rules and the professional ethics code and good practice; shall always result in a higher quality legal counseling and greater commitment to the client. But I do not go against agents, as I personally know some of them and I am aware of their worth. However, they are not solicitors.

In short, although we were really looking forward to winning Mr. X as a client, we could not afford to reduce our fees so much in order to avoid a poorer quality service. The fact of highlighting our professionalism and tailor-made customer service in our law firm implies a commitment of time and this commitment implies some costs that the client should pay.

Author: Gustavo Calero Monereo, C&D Solicitors (lawyers)
Torrox-Costa (Malaga/Costa del Sol/Andalucia)