MADRID, 4 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) -
The Supreme Court will determine whether the temporary suspension or limitation of a certain economic sector ordered by the decree declaring the state of alarm, derived from the Covid-19 pandemic, allows it to be considered that the taxable event of the Activity Tax did not occur. (IAE) during the period in which such measure was in force and, based on it, annul the liquidation of the aforementioned municipal tax in the 2020 financial year.
According to the order of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, resolving this issue is of interest for the formation of jurisprudence, because this legal issue is being resolved "in a contradictory manner" by different contentious-administrative courts.
In addition, it affirms that the question raised affects a large number of situations, specifically, it can affect all companies in the hospitality sector and other sectors such as transport, leisure, etc., which saw their activities suspended during the declaration of the state of alarm.
The specific case to which the Supreme Court order refers is that of the Santander company, Servicios Turísticos de Sardinero, which carries out hotel and lodging activities. In March 2020, the decree of the state of alarm ordered the suspension of hotel and restaurant activities, and only home delivery services could be provided. This measure was in force, after successive extensions, until June 21, 2020.
The City Council of Santander, who settles and manages this tax, taking into account the consequences of the suspension and limitation of business activities, established a 25% reduction in the municipal share of this tax for all taxpayers that figured in the activities affected by the pandemic. As a result, it issued an IAE settlement to the company for an amount of 7,212.09 euros.
The company, on its side, filed an appeal before the Administrative Litigation Court number 2 of Santander, which agreed with it and annulled the payment of the tax. Now the Santander City Council has filed an appeal against this ruling before the Supreme Court and it will be the high court that will decide whether or not it is appropriate to pay this tax despite the consequences of the pandemic.
The high court argues that in the liquidation of the tax the basic premise that profits have been obtained in the fiscal year in question is not fulfilled and, in fact, affirms that the liquidation drawn has really constituted a "confiscation" due to its automaticity and not taking in consideration of the concurrent circumstances in the year 2020 in which the sector clearly entered into losses.
