The Supreme Court postpones to November 5 the decision on whether the bank or clients should pay the mortgage tax
The president of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, Luis María Díez Picazo, has convened the plenary session on November 5, which will decide whether to confirm the doctrine that attributes to the bank the payment of the tax on legal acts documented in a mortgage.
This has been agreed by the representative of the room after the meeting convened on Monday by the president of the institution, Carlos Lesmes, with the six judges who adopted that decision. In its ruling, issued last Thursday, the third section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber determined that it was the bank, and not its clients, who had to take charge of the payment of the lien in the signing of a mortgage, a ruling that contradicted one previous, of February of this year .
The president of the Supreme Court, Carlos Lesmes , in the note issued by the court, assures that the judgment of October 19 “is firm and not subject to review by the Plenary of the Third Chamber, producing full effects in relation to the parties in litigation and regarding the annulment of Article 68, of the Regulation of the Tax on Documented Legal Acts “. But at the same time, he says that judgments in the opposite direction are not subject to any revision either. “
“The judges integrated in the second section of the Third Chamber of this Supreme Court and the president of said section have acted at all times in relation to these matters with full loyalty to the High Court, as well as with independence, professionalism and technical competence in the interpretation and application of the law, and with scrupulous respect for the procedural rules applicable to this case “, defends Lesmes.
“The call to the Plenary of the Chamber of pending and unresolved issues on this matter by the President of the Chamber is part of its legal powers when it deems necessary for the Administration of Justice, without prejudice to the powers of the Plenary to resolve what in Law proceed “, ditch.
Who should take care of the tax?
Lesmes had met on this day with the magistrates who dictated the sentence that established that the bank should be responsible for paying the tax. An internal meeting that has only served to analyze the situation created after the aforementioned ruling.
Last Thursday the 18th, the Supreme Court decided that it is the financial institution, and not the client, that takes charge of the tax of documented legal acts , against its own criterion of February of this year, when a judgment estimated that the payment It should lie with the client. Given the avalanche of criticism and the collapse of the price of the banks, the next day, on Friday, the high court announced that it paralyzed with urgency all the raised resources.
In a note, the president of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, Luis María Díez-Picazo, explained that this decision was based on the “radical turn” in the jurisprudence and in the “enormous economic and social repercussion” of the judgment attributed by the payment of said tax to the entities, as they are those interested in the operation.
If applied, the judgment allows the mortgaged to claim all the expenses of formalizing a mortgage that are imposed by the bank in the loan deed: notary, property registry, agency, appraisal and tax of documented legal acts.
Assemblies of banking users
On the other hand, this Monday Adicae, the Association of Users of Banks, Savings Banks and Insurance, has convened assemblies, at 6.30 pm, in more than thirty cities of all the autonomous communities to inform and organize the mortgaged consumers affected by the abuse of the so-called “mortgage expenses”.
Adicae has made “a global appeal” to all consumers to answer a banking sector “determined to apply abuse as a norm of operation and to threaten and pressure governments, institutions and citizens when they are required to comply with the legislation in force.” vigor”.
It also aims to clarify to the consumers the judicial and mortgage situation after the truce to the bank announced by the Supreme Court, which has taken time to study whether it consolidates the recent change of the rules and if it obliges in a generalized way the entities to load with the IAJD.
The Association of Users calls the actions of the High Court “swings” and “incomprehensible position” , while clarifying in a note that the ruling issued by the Supreme Court on the IAJD “has not been revoked, annulled or suspended.”