The Supreme Court has ruled that European Union law precludes the regional hydrocarbon tax, which gives affected taxpayers the right to demand restitution of sums unduly paid between 2013 and 2018.
During these years, Law 38/1992 allowed the autonomous communities to establish a differentiated tax rate depending on the place of consumption of the product. However, this regulation generated doubts about its compatibility with European legislationwhich led the Supreme Court to ask a preliminary question before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
Last May, the CJEU concluded that it was not legal to apply differentiated tax rates according to territory, in this case according to the autonomous community where the hydrocarbons were consumed. As a result, the Supreme Court decided that Taxpayers affected by this regional tax are entitled to reimbursement of the sums paid.
The decision establishes that The restitution of the sums collected corresponds to the autonomous community which collected the taxeven though he was not the ultimate beneficiary of the funds. However, it will be up to the State and the autonomous communities to adjust these payments internally.
However, Fuel consumers cannot claim from the Treasury the corresponding share of this tax they have paid. is now declared illegal, adds the Supreme Court, because there are other means of filing a complaint, directly with the supplier or the State, for the application of a law contrary to EU law.
From now on, they will be courts of first instance those which examine claims which take into account the limitation period, the amount of sums passed on and the direct transfer of all or part of the amount of tax to third parties, since the “mandatory” restitution of unduly paid tax is excessively complex .
The Treasury will have to reimburse the corresponding sumsafter verification that the amounts requested have been paid by the taxable persons by means of the appropriate self-assessments and that these amounts have not already been the subject of a prior reimbursement.
The High Court clarifies that The proof that said direct transfer did not take place does not correspond to the taxpayer. who bore the repercussions, without the Administration being able to reject the reimbursement, arguing that the person concerned has not proven the absence of their economic transfer to customers.
And remember this The State is required to adopt all necessary measures ensure the application of rights and obligations established by EU law
