Inmobiliaria Vistahermosa SA got rid of the Fusión commercial park losing money and the judges have once again explained to the Toledo City Council (and its Administrative Economic Court), very slowly, very clearly and with very simple arguments, that it cannot collect capital gains (it passed a receipt of 466,149 euros) when a property is sold below the purchase price.
In one go, the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha revokes the judgment of the Administrative Contentious Court number 1 of Toledo (October 2018) that accepted the version of the City Council, declares the Court’s resolution not in accordance with the law Municipal Administrative Economic of Toledo (July 2016) that rejected Vistahermosa’s claim and annulled the enormous settlement of the Tax on the Increase in the Value of Urban Land that was intended to be collected.
The facts are that Vistahermosa acquired in 2005 the plot of the Contact Zone of Toledo capital paying 11,901,100 euros, that there was no building there, that in 2007 it built the Fusión commercial park, valuing the building at 3,407,000 euros and that in December 2015 sells everything for 11,130,000 euros. To back up these figures, he provides the deeds and adds various certificates and appraisals.
mortgage. Although the numbers sing, the Toledo City Council considers that Vistahermosa “has not proven the handicap” of the operation and reveals that the property is encumbered with a mortgage of 20,000,000 euros in favor of La Caixa as well as that the buyer (Buildingcenter ) “Is integrated into Servihábitat, the company that manages mortgages and real estate for La Caixa.”
From all this, the City Council deduces that “it is not true” that it has been sold cheaper than it was bought “since it omits that it obtained a mortgage loan from La Caixa, and it is notorious that this affects the real sale price of the property.”
From there, the magistrates reprimand Vistahermosa for omitting the information on the mortgage but, once the explanations have been heard, they come to the conclusion that it does not effectively affect the value of the property because in part it has been amortized (7,800,593), another part will be paid with the 11,130,000 euros of the sale and the rest (145,752) remains in the name of the seller, therefore the plot and everything built there is free of charges
there is no capital gain. “There having been no probative activity by the City Council” in order to counteract these arguments, the Supreme Court concludes that “the sale price, even adding those 145,752 euros” of rest, “is lower than the acquisition price” that appears in the Deed of December 2005 (11,901,100 euros just for the floor).
“If we add to this that the deed of sale also includes a commercial center, already operational and in operation, we can only conclude that, through its Deed of sale, a lower price than the purchase is accredited and, with it, the non-existence of capital gain”.
It emphasizes that it is the doctrine established by the Constitutional Court, later clarified and clarified by the Supreme Court, which admits to incidentally prove this loss of value through the Deeds of acquisition and sale.
Consequently “we must revoke the sentence and declare the non-conformity to the law of the contested administrative resolution and the liquidation that it confirms.”
– .
