Publication: OveOverruling del Tribunal Supremo Español sobre la normativa del principal impuesto de la Constitución de hipotecas. Comentario de la STS 1505/2018, de 16 de octubre
Loading...
Date
2018
Authors
Editor
Director
Advisor
Coordinator
Commentator
Reviewer
Illustrator
Access rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Derecho civil hoy
Abstract
La Sala Tercera (Sección 2ª) del Tribunal Supremo ha optado por un giro jurisprudencial en relación con su doctrina anterior sobre quién es el sujeto pasivo del impuesto que se devenga con ocasión de escriturar la constitución de la garantía hipotecaria entre un consumidor y una entidad financiera, que hasta ahora era constante y reiterada pero dispar de la línea seguida por la Sala Primera. Tiene en cuenta, para ello, que el negocio inscribible es la hipoteca y que el único interesado en la elevación a escritura pública y la ulterior inscripción de aquellos negocios es el prestamista, que solo mediante dicha inscripción podrá ejercitar la acción ejecutiva y privilegiada que deriva la hipoteca. La sentencia anula un artículo del Reglamento del impuesto (que establecía
que el prestatario es el sujeto pasivo del impuesto) por ser contrario a la ley. En concreto, se trata del artículo 68.2 de dicho Reglamento. Esta revisión doctrinal es un overruling, una técnica que, tras aquilatar el interés casacional necesario para franquear el pórtico de la admisión del recurso, permite modificar una tesis anterior en un proceso posterior (con otras partes, otro objeto, etcétera). Este Pronunciamiento tiene efectos ad intra y ad extra. Respecto de los primeros, porque abre una brecha en el propio Tribunal. Cabe recordar que, en marzo de 2018, el Pleno de la Sala Primera, acogiendo doctrina constante y consolidada de la Sala Tercera, se inclinó por considerar que el sujeto pasivo del devengo del impuesto recaía en el consumidor (STS 148/2018, de 15 de marzo). Esta división de posturas sorprende por la proximidad temporal de los pronunciamientos. La propia Sentencia no acoge la doctrina unánime de la Sala. De hecho, la decisión cuenta
con un voto particular discrepante, que postula el mantenimiento de la jurisprudencia anterior, y otro concurrente, que considera que la sentencia debió incidir en la existencia de dos impuestos en el de actos jurídicos documentados y en el principio de capacidad económica del artículo 31CE. Y, también tiene consecuencias ad extra, por cuanto no despeja dudas como, por ejemplo, la retroactividad (o no) de sus efectos, clave para lograr la seguridad jurídica. A partir de un análisis no despeja dudas como, por ejemplo, la retroactividad (o no) de sus efectos, clave para lograr la seguridad jurídica. A partir de un análisis de la fundamentación jurídica contenida en la ratio decidendi de la Sentencia, nos proponemos en este Artículo trazar los aspectos más relevantes que se desprenden de esta importante Resolución.
The Third Chamber (Section 2nd) of the Supreme Court has opted for an overruling in relation to its previous doctrine on who is the taxpayer of the tax that is accrued on the occasion of writing the constitution of the mortgage guarantee between a consumer and a financial institution, which, until now, was constant and repeated but different from the line followed by the First Chamber. It takes into account, for this, that the registrable business is the mortgage and that the only interested party in the elevation to public deed and the subsequent registration of those businesses is the lender, who only by means of said registration may exercise the executive and privileged action that derives the mortgage. The sentence annuls an article of the tax regulation (which established that the borrower is the taxpayer) because it is contrary to the law. Specifically, it is article 68.2 of the aforementioned regulation. This doctrinal revision is an overruling, a technique that, after assessing the necessary casational interest to cross the portico of the admission of the resource, allows modifying a previous thesis in a later process (with other parts, another object, etc.). This pronouncement has ad intra and ad extra effects. Regarding the first, because it opens a gap inthe Court itself. It should be recalled that, in March 2018, the Plenary of the First Chamber, accepting the constant and consolidated doctrine of the Third Chamber, was inclined to consider that the taxpayer of the tax accrued to the consumer (STS 148/2018, of 15 of March). This division of positions surprised by the temporal proximity of the pronouncements. The Judgment itself does not accept the unanimous doctrine of the Chamber. In fact, the decision has a discrepant particular vote, which postulates the maintenance of the previous jurisprudence, and another concurrent, which considers that the sentence should have influenced the existence of two taxes in the legal acts documented and the principle of capacity economic of article 31CE. And, it also has ad extra consequences, since it does not clear up doubts, such as, for example, retroactivity (or not) of its effects, key to achieving legal security. Based on an analysis of the legal basis contained in the ratio decidendi of the Judgment, we propose in this Article to outline the most relevant aspects that emerge from this important Resolution.
The Third Chamber (Section 2nd) of the Supreme Court has opted for an overruling in relation to its previous doctrine on who is the taxpayer of the tax that is accrued on the occasion of writing the constitution of the mortgage guarantee between a consumer and a financial institution, which, until now, was constant and repeated but different from the line followed by the First Chamber. It takes into account, for this, that the registrable business is the mortgage and that the only interested party in the elevation to public deed and the subsequent registration of those businesses is the lender, who only by means of said registration may exercise the executive and privileged action that derives the mortgage. The sentence annuls an article of the tax regulation (which established that the borrower is the taxpayer) because it is contrary to the law. Specifically, it is article 68.2 of the aforementioned regulation. This doctrinal revision is an overruling, a technique that, after assessing the necessary casational interest to cross the portico of the admission of the resource, allows modifying a previous thesis in a later process (with other parts, another object, etc.). This pronouncement has ad intra and ad extra effects. Regarding the first, because it opens a gap inthe Court itself. It should be recalled that, in March 2018, the Plenary of the First Chamber, accepting the constant and consolidated doctrine of the Third Chamber, was inclined to consider that the taxpayer of the tax accrued to the consumer (STS 148/2018, of 15 of March). This division of positions surprised by the temporal proximity of the pronouncements. The Judgment itself does not accept the unanimous doctrine of the Chamber. In fact, the decision has a discrepant particular vote, which postulates the maintenance of the previous jurisprudence, and another concurrent, which considers that the sentence should have influenced the existence of two taxes in the legal acts documented and the principle of capacity economic of article 31CE. And, it also has ad extra consequences, since it does not clear up doubts, such as, for example, retroactivity (or not) of its effects, key to achieving legal security. Based on an analysis of the legal basis contained in the ratio decidendi of the Judgment, we propose in this Article to outline the most relevant aspects that emerge from this important Resolution.
Description
The registered version of this article, first published in “Revista de derecho actual, 5, 2018", is available online at the publisher's website: Derecho civil hoy, file:///C:/Users/Laura/Downloads/Dialnet-OverrulingDelTribunalSupremoEspanolSobreLaNormativ-7612720-4.pdf
La versión registrada de este artículo, publicado por primera vez en “Revista de derecho actual, 5, 2018", está disponible en línea en el sitio web del editor: Derecho civil hoy, file:///C:/Users/Laura/Downloads/Dialnet-OverrulingDelTribunalSupremoEspanolSobreLaNormativ-7612720-4.pdf
UNESCO Categories
Keywords
Giro jurisprudencial, Tribunal Supremo, Derecho de Consumidores, impuesto, gastos hipotecarios, retroactividad, Overruling, Supreme Court, Right of Consumers, Tax, Mortgage Expenses, Retroactivity
Citation
Caballero Trenado, L. (2018). Overruling del Tribunal Supremo Español sobre la normativa del principal impuesto de la Constitución de hipotecas.: Comentario de la STS 1505/2018, de 16 de octubre. Revista de derecho actual, 5
Center
Facultades y escuelas::Facultad de Derecho
Department
Derecho Mercantil