The Council of Seville charged subscribers 21% of the VAT of the chairs despite having the exemption

The Council of Seville charged subscribers 21% of the VAT of the chairs despite having the exemption

The Council of Seville charged subscribers 21% of the VAT of the chairs despite having the exemption

A clearly detrimental management for the subscribers of the official race. A resolution was hidden that has never transpired in almost 20...
Comments Monday, May 11, 2020
The Council of Seville charged subscribers 21% of the VAT of the chairs despite having the exemption

A clearly detrimental management for the subscribers of the official race. A resolution was hidden that has never transpired in almost 20 years and with which it could have been fought to take care of the pocket of the users of the official race. The Council of Brotherhoods charged no less than 21% of the VAT of the chairs and boxes corresponding to Easter 2020, despite the fact that there is a resolution of the Regional Economic-Administrative Court of Andalusia (Teara) that makes clear the exemption from payment of this tax for the sole reason of the "social character" of the entity, not for other considerations that may have been noted. It is a matter already judged. And there is no subsequent modification either in the law or in the regulations that affect the debate. The Council could have fought harder without incurring a position of fiscal failure. He did not stand up, as the Brotherhood Councils of Sevila and Jerez did in their day when signing fiscal acts in disagreement or conformity, which left the option of appealing open.

Extract of the resolution of the Economic-administrative Court of AndalusiaExtract of the resolution of the Economic-administrative Court of Andalusia
Extract from the resolution of the Economic-Administrative Court of Andalusia / M. G. (Seville)

Despite this pronouncement of the court, the Council chose to collect VAT from the subscribers of the 33,000 chairs based on a very specific binding query raised to the Treasury by a brotherhood in Murcia, not by a council of brotherhoods. The brotherhood institution was under no circumstances obliged to submit to the result of that consultation, as Article 89 of the General Tax Law says so. The person who links a query is the Treasury itself. Joining a consultation is a maneuver that the taxpayer does when the result is favorable to his interests, not exactly how much he has to charge 21% more to his clients, in this case the subscribers of chairs and boxes.

The Council chose to use the result of the consultation, in which - in fact - it runs the risk of having to end up paying for the three previous years (2017, 2018 and 2019) for the theory of own acts, except that there is a particular and confidential agreement that the institution has reached with the Treasury, which is impossible because the State cannot reconcile.



It must be remembered that the Treasury, being controlled by the first Aznar Government, drafted fiscal acts for the unpaid VAT on chairs and boxes for the years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. The Teara's resolution that makes clear the position and formula considerations of high interest, even more so in a context where the right to reimbursement for the suspension of the processions 23 days before Palm Sunday is debated.

The court makes it clear that the activity that is subject to taxation is not Easter, its organization, celebration or participation, but the exploitation of chairs and boxes in the so-called official race for the contemplation of processions. The subscription grants the right to enjoy the seat exclusively, which constitutes a service that is provided: seat and guaranteed place to see all the brotherhoods, “in front of the walks, sit-ins, bullets or pushes that attending the processional parades entails out of the official race ”. In exchange for this, a price assigned to each chair or box, variable according to their best or worst position, must be satisfied: “The fact that the Council gives the total of the income to local charitable non-profit organizations does not modify the relationship legal that it maintains with the users in the terms described, nor does it convert the amount that they deliver into a donation, since it is made in exchange for the provision of a certain service ”.

The real question from the point of view of the possible non-subjection to VAT collection is "whether the activity described is business or not". And they meet all the characteristics to consider this activity as business, consisting of the provision of a service through price. It is irrelevant whether the Brotherhood Council is part of the Diocese or an ecclesiastical entity. The key is that the Council meets the requirements to be considered a social entity or establishment, as this was previously recognized, for example, by the Delegation of the Tax Agency of Jerez. With what is clear that the Council of Seville is within the assumption of article 20.uno.14º section d of the VAT Law. With these arguments, the court agreed to uphold the claim and to annul the contested settlement. Neither the Seville nor the Jerez Council had to pay VAT.

diariodesevilla

Comments


No comments

  • Link
  • Link
  • Link
  • Link
  • Link
  • Link
  • Link
  • Link
  • Link
  • Link
  • Link