You do not pay as long as you hold a Spanish residence permit or an EU Certificate of Registration for the last 3 years or more and have lived in your property as your home during such term at least. If this is not the case, we are afraid you have to pay capital gains tax even if you are over 65.
In a verdict released several days ago, the Chamber of civil matters of the High Court partially admits the appeal filed by the Spanish Organization of consumers and users (OCU) against the decision of the provincial court of Madrid who had declared as valid several reported clauses in the year 2005.
Amongst the clauses now voided by the Supreme Court are the ones that exclusively penalised the owners of credit or debit cards for the damage carried by its fraudulent misuse as long as those circumstances were not communicated to the bank. The verdict establishes that “the existence of a loss or theft must be communicated without undue delay since the disappearance is known”.
However, the verdict declares that “clauses totally exempting the Bank of liability indiscriminately and without nuance or modulation are abusive” and “disproportionate”, since “there are very frequent cases where the bank’s diligence warned about undue uses and even warned users, who were unaware”.
The Court situates on the same line those clauses that exclude “whatever the case” the responsibility of the bank when the PIN or card password is obtained by coercion or force majeure.
Magistrates insist that “is noteworthy that, in certain circumstances, banks can warn undue uses using the diligence which from them is enforceable in harmony with their experience and technical resources”.
Pretext to rescind the contract
In thye paragraph about mortgages, the magistrates declared abusive those clauses prohibiting the leasing of mortgaged estates, even though they admit such deeds can decrease the value of the property. Therefore they argue that these clauses should establish how much rent must the owner demand in order to correct the “decreasing value” the lease may cause the bank in the case of non-payment of the loan and of need to repossess the property.
The Supreme Court also rejects that banks include contract clauses regarding the resignation of customers receiving a mortgage or other loans about being informed of these being transferred to another bank or entity. “Its unfairness is unquestionable” because “it implies a waiver or limitation of the rights of the consumer”, the judgment argues.
Another voided condition in the loans paragraph it the one allowing Banco Santander to compensate receivables from clients with those positive balances held in other products, even if they were not their only holders. The Supreme Court understands that this type of clause is valid only if they are “transparent, clear, concrete and simple”, conditions that the wording of the clause of Banco Santander was not meeting.
The Court also termed as “illicit” the power of a bank to resolve in advance term-granted loans when an embargo of the borrower’s assets occurs or his solvency is diminished by any cause.
In this regard, judges believe that this condition is looking for “any negative impact on the borrower’s heritage, actual or potential, can serve as an excuse” to have the contract early terminated, thus ”giving the financial institution a discretionary and disproportionate power (…)”.
You can legally have just one permanencia in a calendar year. This means that even with the additional 90 days you have a total of six months. For any stay longer than that you need to apply for a residence permit.
No, you will not, I am afraid. From January 20, 2006 there is no exemption from capital gains tax for property sellers. Those long-term proprietors who bought before 1986 had privileges of reduction which reduced their tax to zero after 10 years. At the present, however, they must pay capital gains tax on the part of their profit calculated since January 20, 2006. Therefore, all sellers of property can now apply only a coefficient of reduction that approximately matches the inflation rate, but then again no matter how long you have owned your property, you will certainly have capital gains tax to declare when you sell it.
As becoming a resident in Spain makes that you are tax-liable for any worldwide income, first of all it depends on whether you have income earnings from other country than Spain and whether or not your non-Spanish income is taxed at the country of origin that may or may not have a double taxation treaty signed with Spain.
This being said, in most of the cases taking out an official residence permit in Spain will cost foreigners who own property less money in taxes than staying non-resident, as there are tax exemptions to residents that do not apply to non-residents. For a detailed analysis, you can contact us in Emilio Pino – Abogados in order that all your aspects are contemplated.
You cannot do it without offering the business first to your landlord, bearing in mind you need to offer it to him for the same price your potential buyer is offering as the landlord has a legal first refusal right.
You can have it permanently. However, legally speaking, you can only drive it for six months in a calendar year. This means the six months need not be continuous and also means every 1st of January the term starts automatically from zero.
Now, let us come to real life. Given the fact that EU citizens no longer have to have their car formally sealed, there is no effective method for the authorities to prove whether or not you are driving the car and for how long.
I am afraid it does not. This exemption, made to the first €175,000 when passed to direct family members, applies only to residents of Andalucía, and both the deceased and inheritor must be residents in Andalucía. The same rule applies to Spaniards.
The new PGOU was approved on Friday by COTUA, the Andalucía Territorial Planning Commission and is thought to bring order back to the town where more than 18,000 properties have been built outside the regulations. However, the decision about what will happen to the, built on land destined for other uses, generally because they are on public coastal land, remains in court’s hands. More specifically, these are the 297 homes in Banana Beach, 50 in Golf Rio Real, 30 in Torrevigía and another 50 in urbanisations outside the plan, all of them having seen their licence to build negated by the courts.
The courts will have to decide whether these properties –mainly homes- will be demolished as they remain outside the plan. In theory the courts will consider the interests of all involved parties.
By now, several residents groups, including the residents of Banana Beach, have announced their purpose to appeal against the PGOU. Their defence includes placing a criminal complaint against the PP and PSOE councillors who voted for the plan last July, accusing them of perversion of the course of justice. They also consider that Juan Espadas, the regional councillor for housing and town planning in the Junta should be charged in the same way because there are other developments in the same situation which have now been accepted into the plan.
It remains therefore, despite the approval of the new PGOU, in the hands of judges whether there are widespread demolitions, if compensation is ordered in such cases, who is deemed responsible for the payment of such compensation, or if a greater flexibility is found in the search for a legally acceptable way to keep the owner-occupied properties standing.