The Full Chamber of the Constitutional Court decided that the lawsuit filed against the section of the 2019 Tax Statute, which establishes the tax base, He did not present sufficient reasons to rule on the matter in substance.
(The law that suspended the expiration of driving licenses falls).
According to Constitutional court, “No reason was given to justify the need for the Court to vary its criteria regarding the relationship between the provisions of legal status that define the taxable bases of taxes on wealth and the tax reserve established in the first paragraph of article 317 constitutional”.
“In the absence of these two elements, the Court did not have the minimum elements to initiate a trial to review the change in binding precedent in force, so the lawsuit failed to raise a minimum doubt about the constitutional need for a jurisprudential change to review the accused article, ”said the Plenary Chamber.
The tax base refers to the value of the gross equity of natural persons, successions, companies or foreign entities, as of January 1, 2021 and 2022, which excludes debts and an amount on the value of the home where the person lives.
(Abortion in the US: the other rights at risk after the Court’s ruling).
According to the lawsuit filed by Sandra Sarmiento, although it is allowed to deduct part of the value of the dwelling, this would not be enough because the Constitution would exclude all real estate from the tax baseregardless of its value, nature or destination.
It is worth noting that the rapporteur magistrate, Alejandro Linares Cantillo, clarified that although the lawsuit did not have sufficient elements, it did raise a constitutional debate on the tax reserve in favor of the municipalities.
BRIEFCASE
*With information from EL TIEMPO
