Unlike other companies such as energy companies, banks traditionally not very active. competition in court laws that harm them. However, everything shows that this will change with the coming period. new ‘tax‘ to large and medium-sized organizations that were surprisingly announced by Pedro Sanchez last July. Industry thinks unconstitutional in its current design. And waiting for the changes invoice In the parliamentary process, the most common idea in banking today is: appeal in court. Yes, it could be a very long legal battle. up to eight yearsaccording to financial resources.
As it’s a bill submitted by PSOE and United We Can, the only people who can take the bill to parliament Constitutional Court, Once approved, they parliamentary groups or a group of at least 50 deputies or 50 senators. Some of the banks minimal hope oh PP or Vox they could, but they see very unlikely because of the political cost of taking an unpopular initiative in a country primary election year and with inflationary spiral depletes the purchasing power of households.
sources address PP Pilar Santos stated that they have not made it clear whether they will appeal to the Constitutional Court. They claim they don’t know the “specifics of the tax” and want time to know the details and make a decision. In any case, their group table changes “improve as much as possible” the new tax. soundon your own behalf did not answer to your questions about the position of this newspaper.
affect changes
Banks, precisely, are trying to get some parliamentary groups to make presentations. changes that benefit to the industry such as low income level requires paying a minimum tax (€800 million in 2019). If you get a larger number assets will appear affectedsomething the greatest try to achieve so as not to be seen competitively disadvantaged and this would allow the Government to generate an estimated collection (1,500 million per year). small type expected (and therefore, with a lower contribution from each organisation).
In any case, what seems most likely is that banks to wait to the Treasury first settlement ‘tax’ advance February He will take the matter to court next year. Organizations will then be able to appeal, claiming it is against Magna Carta, and ask the judges raise Constitutional Court. If the judge accepts and the Constitutional Court also accepts it to be processed, the court in question takes “between”. six and eight years to solve“, financial sources point out.
double taxation
Legal services of the sector are coming legal arguments to leave a lien. The key question is whether double taxation occurs, that is, whether banks are forced into it. twice the tax for the “same manifestation of wealth”, something that in some cases prohibited by law. ‘Tax’ will apply interest margin (revenue for the difference between what organizations charge for loans and what they pay for deposits) plus commissions. These are the top two items on banks’ income statements, after many other elements (such as losses incurred such as expenses or provisions). make a profitrecorded by, Corporation tax.
To make it difficult to consider double taxation, the government “patrimonial benefit The bill submitted by PSOE and United We Can shows that the Executive Board is aware that banks will use this fact before the courts. seven articles of the constitution Y four sentences The Constitutional Court justifies the use of this figure.
“The necessity of the assistance provided to those who have to pay is not in the context of the legal-tax relationship, but in the context of the State’s intervention in the economy. fit your principles and constitutional values governing our social contract” justifies the text. But banks are masked tributea chance “corporate tax bis”and therefore an unconstitutional double taxation occurs. “It’s like putting patrimonial benefit to salaries certain persons; that would be a tax, and it would be double taxation, because salaries are already taxed with personal income tax.”
confiscated or not
with everything, various sentences and Constitutional orders (such as the 2018 electricity generation tax) double taxation is prohibited In any case, it is produced by. regional taxes in relation to the local or state. The court explained that in the remainder of the cases, it would depend on whether the new lien was adapted to the lien. “economic capacity” who should pay and not have “scope of confiscation” (According to Pedro Sánchez, the principles contained in Article 31.1 of the Constitution that support his initiative).
Banks claim disobey because the payment of the new tax plus corporate tax “too high” amount about your benefits. The text of the bill also envisages the following argument: the expectation of collecting 1,500 million euros per year, past or estimated benefits for the next few years and dividends distributed to shareholders”. Organizations also constitutional principle of equalitybecause the youngest are exempt from paying taxes.
embezzlement
Another legal argument they consider is Treasure explored how to express ‘tax’ so that it can be presented later PSOE and United We Can. In this, there is abuse of management, even a embezzlement of public funds, because parliamentary groups are not part of the Government. They also criticize the fact that National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC) ensures that tax is not passed on to customers when they need to be more concerned about the impact on competition that some organizations have to pay and others do not.
While there are doubts about how to interpret the project, in principle it seems that the tax will affect Santander, BBVA, CaixaBank, Sabadell, Bankinter, Unicaja, Ibercaja, Cajamar, Kutxabank, Abanca and BNP Paribas. Just CaixaBank and BBVA they announced their estimates of how much the tax would cost them: 400-450 million and 250 million a year, respectively. Adding the results until June to the total of the year, Santander will amount to more than 335 million and SabadellMore than 170 million (the final figure will be higher because the increase in rates accelerated in the second half). The four major banks would therefore have to contribute more than 75% Of the 1,500 million planned by the executive.