because when the new Tax was announced, it was no longer possible to comply with them ,” he warns From his point of view, " the legislator has ignored the announcement effect and has not established any mechanism so that the affected taxpayers could adapt to the new tax." And he asks: “Is it legitimate for a taxpayer not to know his tax burden at the beginning of the tax period and for it to be modified at the end of it when it is no longer possible to make any decision in this regard? We have serious doubts that it complies with the principle of legal certainty and we do not rule out that it also has a European law angle.” For Vinuesa, “in effect, this situation has not only affected residents in Spain subject to the personal obligation tax. Also some real estate investments in Spain by non-residents have been seriously affected by the new tax.” And remember that “ until now, shares of non-resident companies that were indirectly owners of real estate located in Spanish territory were not considered as assets located in Spanish territory. The General Directorate of Taxes had confirmed this in numerous binding resolutions.
This foreign investment would not have been made if the existence of this tax had been known .” And in some areas like the Balearic Islands where the cost of some properties is very high, this will inevitably have an impact on the valuations of those properties.” This expert recalls that “we have cases that “have to unexpectedly face a tax (annual, although in principle temporary) exceeding one million euros. If other local taxes are added such as the IBI or the municipal capital gains when the property is transferred, there is no place in the world with a higher tax burden . It is evident that all this will have a negative impact on foreign investment in Spain.” Harmonization through the back door Javier Morera, a prosecutor's partner at Broseta , believes that claiming retroactivity of the tax is feasible for the Constitutional Court to admit: “It is an important element because although it is true that the TC has accepted what is called improper retroactivity, this is not the case.