A few months have been enough for the Constitutional Court to have debated and, finally, this Tuesday, to have ruled on a matter as complex and filthy as the possible unconstitutionality of the temporary solidarity tax on large fortunes (Itsgf). The result of the ruling – which has rejected the appeal presented by the Community of Madrid and, therefore, will do so equally for those presented by other communities – has not surprised anyone, because in recent months voices were already heard about which one was to be the definitive position in this regard.
Let us remember that this tax was born in an unorthodox way, because instead of beginning its journey through the common procedure, through a bill, it was implemented through an amendment, thus stealing public debate and parliamentary procedures. as well as the statement of the Council of State.
The political situation of uncertainty and the impasse over the foreseeable court ruling have been two key factors for taxpayers to decide to accelerate the planning of their investments in order to minimize the tax cost. Actions, however, that they could not carry out last year because the tax was approved just three days before the end of the year. This deprived some citizens of a margin of maneuver to reorganize their assets and thus comply with the legal requirements to apply business bonuses, especially in territories where wealth tax is not paid.
In addition to the technical defects, which can generate confiscatory situations, it must also be taken into account that this tax has provisions that discriminate against non-residents with respect to residents, a circumstance that could be raised before the Court of Justice of the European Union, for example. what has not yet been said.
On the other hand, the Constitutional Court's ruling on another sister tax of the Itsgf is still pending. I am referring to the wealth tax (IP) – some aspects of which have been appealed before said court since 2021 – which constitutes an anomaly within the set of European tax systems and which, in addition, presents problems of territorial equity, for example. What would be reasonable would be to suppress it – preventing the possibility of it being regulated by the regional treasuries as their own tax – or, at most, for it to remain as a census declaration.
As everyone knows, regional governments have followed two strategies with respect to IP: subsidize it or not. It is evident that those communities that have opted for the second option – as is the case of Catalonia – will have, in the short term, greater resources for this concept. But a reasonable doubt looms in the air: could this tax represent an excessive burden that ends up causing a flight of capital and, in the long run, reduce revenue collection?
