The Supreme Court declared the regional section of the fuel tax illegaland in three decisions from July of this year, to which EFE had access, it indicates who can file a complaint with the Treasury and the modalities for requesting compensation for damages arising from its application.
In a note, the High Court also refers to a judgment of September 20 which indicated that European Union (EU) law opposes regional hydrocarbon tax rateand that the taxpayers to whom this tax was passed on are entitled to reimbursement of the sums which they would have, for this reason, unduly borne.
Between 2013 and 2018, the year in which the special tax law was abolished and a uniform rate was established throughout Spain. allowed autonomous communities to establish a regional tax rateallowing differentiated taxation according to the place of consumption of the product subject to tax, which has raised many doubts.
The controversy arises from the interpretation of the directive which restructures the Community regime for taxation of energy products and electricity, which is why the Supreme Court referred a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU ), which in May 2024 considers that it is not possible to establish differentiated prices depending on the territories.
SO, The Supreme Court now recognizes the legitimacy of those who paid the costs to ask the administration to return the income undue taxes, derived from a tax contrary to EU law, by rectifying the corresponding self-assessments.
It is the autonomous community which must return these sums, specifies the Supreme Court, even if it was not the final recipient, without prejudice to internal adjustments between the State and the autonomous communities. Fuel consumers cannot ask the Treasury for the corresponding share they paid of this tax now declared illegal, adds the Supreme Court, because there are other ways to complain, directly to the supplier or the State , the application of a law contrary to EU law.
From now on, It will be the lower courts which will examine the requests which take into account the prescription, the amount of the sums passed on and the direct transfer of all or part of the amount of the tax to third parties, the “mandatory” declaration of the tax unduly paid being excessively complex.
The Treasury will have to reimburse the corresponding amounts, after verifying that the requested amounts have been paid by taxpayers through the appropriate self-assessments, and that these amounts have not already been previously reimbursed.
The higher court specifies that the proof that said direct transfer did not take place does not correspond to the taxpayer who suffered the repercussion, without the Administration being able to reject the reimbursement, arguing that the person concerned has not proven the absence of its economic transfer. to customers. And remember that the State is obliged to adopt all necessary measures to ensure the application of the rights and obligations established by EU law.
