Non resident tax calculation

   

https://www.costablancaforum.com/area/almorad%C3%AD-spain-11/taxes-suma-nie-tax-advice-in-almorad%C3%AD-25/jims-guide-non-resident-tax-part-1-theory-no-rental-income-75479/

How and where would you find out the last time your property was reviewed re catastral valor ?

The most recent value is on your IBI bill that you pay to SUMA.  

There is a lot of information given here by JIM and others

Valor catastral valuation last reviewed for our area.

€18,865.15 x 0.02 x 0.19 = €71.69.

I'm still of the opinion that 1.1% should be used in the majority of cases, and not 2%, but I've given up on wxpecting a reply to the query I sent to Madrid.

Yes Jim, that's where I'm at now.

My fiscal advisor has used 1.1% for as long as I can remember but my solicitor says it should be 2%.

Her argument is that Orihela last did a review in 1994 which exceeds the 10 year period.

It isn't that I am interested in paying more tax but I wouldn't want this biting me in the backside with a large lump sum in the future.

There's no doubt in my mind that Agencia Tributaria's own instructions, as well as the law, say that 1.1% should be used if the catastral value increases, not just if there's a full revaluation, and in the majority of cases it does increase a bit each year.

However, the Agencia Tributaria system seems to be still using 2%. Although non-residents have to calculate the tax themselves, the computer system for a resident who has a second property calculates the second property/imputed tax automatically. I did tax returns last year for friends who'd bought a new property before they sold the old property. On the old property the catastral value had been increased a bit each year by the town hall, but the computer system calculated the tax using 2%. The local tax office couldn't/wouldn't help, so I wrote to Madrid, but didn't receive an answer.

Thanks Jim.

It does sound a very grey area with varied opinion.

I am going to write to my fiscal rep to canvas her opinion and to stress my concern of future liability.

Just to add to your point of increasing catastral values, every year I give this to my fiscal rep and there does seem to be small increases annually so I guess that falls into line with what you say the legal position is.

My Solicitor did send me the instructions for filling in modelo 210 and at the beginning of page 6 it does state ' reviewed or changed '  should use 1.1%

I have copied and pasted but the result isn't the clearest lol

Thanks for your help, Ken.

6 Accruals up to 31 December 2014 • Buildings whose property register value has been reviewed or changed with effect from 1 January 1994 ................ 1.1% • Other buildings ............................................................................................................................................................. 2% Accruals from 1 January 2015 • Buildings whose rateable value has been reviewed or changed and has come into effect within the tax period or the within the ten previous tax periods ............................................................................................................................ 1.1% • Other buildings ............................................................................................................................................................. 2%
EditMy fiscal representative states that each year Orihela does a partial review and as Jim quite rightly says there does seem to be an annual increase in most cases and therefore 1.1% is the correct coefficient to use.Furthermore my fiscal rep has clients in this area who have also sold properties and the tax authorities were happy with the vendors position having used 1.1%