\u201dEl Tribunal Supremo equipara el cr\u00e9dito y el pr\u00e9stamo hipotecario a efectos fiscales, zanjando la pol\u00e9mica existente entre la Direcci\u00f3n General de Tributos y diversos Tribunales Ec\u00f3nomico-Administrativos y Contencioso-Administrativos\u201d.<\/i><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
La Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo, en reciente Sentencia de 24 de abril de 2.014, y con fundamento en la previa Sentencia de 18 de enero de 2.013 (Recurso de Casaci\u00f3n n\u00ba 33\/2012), equipara el tratamiento fiscal del cr\u00e9dito con la del pr\u00e9stamo hipotecario, zanjando as\u00ed la pol\u00e9mica surgida entre la Direcci\u00f3n General de Tributos y diversos Tribunales Econ\u00f3mico-Administrativos y Contencioso-Administrativos.<\/p>\n
Entiende la Sala, que aunque ambos contratos tienen su propia identidad, siendo posible su diferenciaci\u00f3n, centrada en que el pr\u00e9stamo es un contrato real y unilateral, mientras que el cr\u00e9dito es un contrato consensual y bilateral,\u00a0 es evidente la similitud entre ambos, siendo razonable la equiparaci\u00f3n en su tratamiento fiscal.<\/p>\n
El otorgamiento de escritura p\u00fablica para formalizar la novaci\u00f3n de pr\u00e9stamos o cr\u00e9ditos hipotecarios, est\u00e1 sujeta al Impuesto de Actos Jur\u00eddicos Documentados, ahora bien, el art\u00edculo 9 de la Ley 2\/1994, de 30 de marzo, sobre subrogaci\u00f3n y modificaci\u00f3n de pr\u00e9stamos hipotecarios, contempla la exenci\u00f3n del impuesto en caso de escritura de novaci\u00f3n modificativa de un pr\u00e9stamo hipotecario, que sin embargo no viene prevista en el supuesto del cr\u00e9dito hipotecario.<\/p>\n
La cuesti\u00f3n debatida era si resultaba aplicable o no al cr\u00e9dito hipotecario la exenci\u00f3n prevista en dicho precepto legal, y si dicha aplicaci\u00f3n podr\u00eda entenderse como una extensi\u00f3n anal\u00f3gica de la norma que regula el beneficio fiscal, en contravenci\u00f3n del art\u00edculo 14 de la Ley General Tributaria.<\/p>\n
La Sala de Tribunal Supremo zanja la pol\u00e9mica, equiparando el tratamiento fiscal del cr\u00e9dito con la del pr\u00e9stamo hipotecario y, por tanto, reconociendo la aplicaci\u00f3n de la exenci\u00f3n, indicando adem\u00e1s, que ello no supone una extensi\u00f3n anal\u00f3gica de la norma y una contravenci\u00f3n de la Ley General Tributaria, sino una integraci\u00f3n interpretativa de la misma, conforme dispone el art\u00edculo 3.1 del C\u00f3digo Civil.<\/p>\n
En Estepona a 9 de junio de 2.014.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
P\u00e9rez de Varga Abogados.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201dEl Tribunal Supremo equipara el cr\u00e9dito y el pr\u00e9stamo hipotecario a efectos fiscales, zanjando la pol\u00e9mica existente entre la Direcci\u00f3n […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":1251,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[93,31,151,152],"class_list":["post-683","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articulos-de-opinion","tag-bancario","tag-derecho-bancario","tag-efectos-fiscales","tag-prestamo-hipotecario"],"yoast_head":"\n