Consumers faced with the reversal of the Supreme Court on mortgages

Consumers faced with the reversal of the Supreme Court on mortgages

"A scandal" and an "incomprehensible fiasco". These are the first reactions of the Facua and Adicae consumer associations after the decision announced this Friday by the Supreme Court to convene a plenary session of 31 members to confirm or annul the jurisprudence collected in the judgment, known on Thursday, in which the High Court corrected its own doctrine when ruling that banks are required to pay the Tax on Acts Documented Law (AJD) in the public deeds of loan with mortgage guarantee.

In a statement, Facua recalled that the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the fraud could not be recovered with the floor clause for "risk of serious disorders with a transcendence to the public economic order", but that the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) He was the one who finally passed a resolution that protected consumers.

"Now, the Supreme Court intends to make use of an argument similar to that which was rejected by the European court." The association does not understand that only a day later a question that previously had been resolved with a final judgment was raised again, "said Facua. it's a statement. "This is a scandal and it smells very bad", lamented the spokesman of the association, Rubén Sánchez.

For its part, the Management Committee of ADICAE Legal Services and the National Board of Directors of this association, "gathered urgently before the incomprehensible fiasco of the changes of criteria of the Spanish Supreme Court", has convened a press conference for this afternoon " against the abandonment on the part of the Supreme Court of the protection of consumers, so clearly dictated by the European Directives, and whose arbitrariness has been corrected by the European Union. "

The association plans to announce "the actions it has organized for this Saturday and next week throughout Spain, anticipating that it will not change its plan of informative assemblies and the filing of 60 collective lawsuits in front of as many entities in relation to the abusive clause of imposition of the expenses of formalization of mortgages ".

Claim now

From the Registry of Tax Advisors Economists (REAF), citizens who signed mortgage loans in the second half of September 2014 are still being encouraged to claim the return of the AJD payment, as the fiscal years prescribe after four years and the limitation period begins to be counted 30 business days after signing the public document.

Despite the "surprise" of the turn of the Supreme, the REAF recommends that until the taxpayer who must satisfy the tax is definitively clarified, those borrowers for whom the statute of limitations can be fulfilled imminently request the rectification of the tax. self-assessment and the return of undue income.

On the contrary, to the rest of possible affected, it recommends to them that they wait for the definitive solution.

In a first communication sent this morning, the REAF clarified that from mid-September of 2014 onward, fiscal years not yet prescribed, it could be claimed to the Treasury the return of said tax.

"If the statute of limitations has not elapsed, they have the right to request the entrance unduly made, in this case, to the corresponding regional tax administration," they stated from the REAF, which is now ratified again in this idea through a second press release. , after knowing that the Supreme leaves in the air the decision of yesterday.

To claim, they must go to the corresponding Autonomous Community Treasury (the AJD is a tax assigned to the communities) to request the rectification of the self-assessment and the refund of undue income, together with a written statement explaining the issue and attaching the loan deed and the tax payment letter.

Likewise, the REAF clarifies that if the self-assessment was filed after the established period, the four years will be counted from the date in which said presentation was made to the Treasury, and add that if the tax was checked and an appeal or claim was filed against the administrative liquidation, it will be necessary to make see to the administrative organ or to the corresponding court that must apply the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, the REAF ensures that this has nothing to do with a claim for mortgage expenses to the lender, as may happen in the case of expenses unduly reimbursed to the client, such as those of agency or notary.

However, the judgment of the Supreme Court, the tax advisors specify, deals with the relationship between the bank's client and the tax administration that, subsequently, may then demand the tribute from the bank.


Source link