Reinaldo Pipiria
The Housing Tax should never be reduced to a game of meaningless numbers, and even more so to the stagnation of legal uncertainty.
The Effective Rate of Revaluation Tax has been, is and will be 5% throughout this revaluation campaign. Contrary to what was stated for many months, there has been and is no favor towards individuals who revalue assets according to the reference price. The 1%/year depreciation does not cause any effective change, moreover it is applied arbitrarily, without any possibility of choice.
From the practice so far, it results:
House purchased for the first time in 2005, 60'000 EUR, 20 full years in possession with ownership certificate.
Today there is a minimum Fiscal Value of 100'000 EUR (reference price).
The individual decides to follow the revaluation process according to the Minimum Fiscal Value (without real estate appraiser).
5% of the difference between the Minimum Fiscal Value (Amortized -1% for each year from the moment of first acquisition of the title of ownership/first certificate, automatically applied to the ASHK) and the Purchase Price. In this case the amortization is 20 thousand euros (20 years *1%*100'000) and the minimum fiscal value goes to 80 thousand euros.
Consequently, the tax that the individual will pay is (80'000-60'000) *5% = 1'000 EUR.
But the trick lies in the fact that the value that is placed on the Card is the Minimum Fiscal Value automatically amortized by 1%/each full year of use, so 80,000 EUR is placed and consequently the effective Revaluation rate remains the same 5%, without any favor.
Furthermore, in the future the taxable base will start from the value truncated on the card, artificially expanding the burden. So if the individual sells the house later, he will be charged with a purchase price of 80 thousand euros and not 100 thousand euros.
If the minimum fiscal price of EUR 100,000 were set on the card but the tax were calculated on the depreciated value, then we would truly be at the effective rate according to several months of advertising.
Thus, I continue to believe that 1% depreciation/year of age, at best, does not benefit anyone (especially with these reference prices)... at worst, it creates uncertainty, arbitrariness, and a fiscal disadvantage for the future.
Editorial
