11 Dec 2018 11:30 AM:

Replying to growler: Sorry, no further forward, although I can't say I've devoted any time to pursuing it.  I just console myself that I'm not underpaying my due tax.

Maybe you're right about the local town hall. In my case not sure if that would be Orihuela Costa or inland Orihuela. Anyone? 

Thread: Form 210, cadastral value, and calculating taxable base - 2.0% or 1.1% ?

--------------------------------------

19 Jul 2017 11:11 PM:

Seems to me, Johnzx, that a lot of confusion and grief could be avoided if there was a widespread updating of all the cadastral values. Or is that too simple.

Thread: Form 210, cadastral value, and calculating taxable base - 2.0% or 1.1% ?

--------------------------------------

19 Jul 2017 4:40 PM:

Thanks Juan (great name by the way).

It still puzzles me how I can be told that my cadastral value has not been re-assessed for over ten years (thus attracting the 2% multiplier) when my annual SUMA/IBI bill shows an increasing 'valor cadastral' each year (and that higher cadastral figure is used to calculate the IBI).

 

Thread: Form 210, cadastral value, and calculating taxable base - 2.0% or 1.1% ?

--------------------------------------

19 Jul 2017 11:19 AM:

Hi all,

In another thread there is a guidance form called 'Instructions for filling in your self-assessment form: Non-Resident Income Tax'. It's very useful, but my problem relates to the section that deals with calculating the taxable base. Specifically, whether to use the 2.0% or the 1.1% multiplier.

The firm that prepares my 210 form says that in my municipal area (Orihuela Costa) cadastral values as a whole have not been re-assessed for more than ten years, and therefore I should pay tax on 2% of the cadastral value.

However, my 2016 IBI receipt (and several previous years' receipts for that matter) shows a cadastral value which increases a little each year, and is now 40-odd percent higher than the original 11-year old value.  Additionally, the calculation of each year's IBI bill has been based each year on the increasing cadastral value.

So my argument is that my 2016 tax should be:

a) based on the IBI 2016 cadastral value x 1.1% x 19%.

   as opposed to

b) based on the IBI 2005 cadastral value x 2.0% x 19%).

 

As it happens, the firm that I use have prepared forms as follows:

c) based on IBI 2016 cadastral value x 2.0% x 19%.  That's the worst of both worlds and surely can't be right.

 

Can anyone offer me their opinion or any suggestions?

Thanks,

Noddy.

Thread: Form 210, cadastral value, and calculating taxable base - 2.0% or 1.1% ?

--------------------------------------

11 May 2013 2:21 PM:

Interesting thought, Gus. And so relatively simple. Thanks.

I'm going back to the Town Hall on Monday to ask  exactly how much (or how little) additional detail need to accept the document.

Thread: Looking for my pool architect from 2006..(or a new one)

--------------------------------------