Domestic trousseau: new evaluation criterion for ISD purposes

The TS changes the system of valuation of the domestic trousseau, and establishes that, to determine the taxable base of the ISD, the domestic trousseau represents 3% of the value of the goods that compose it, also exempting the taxpayer from the burden of the proof. A private vote is formulated.

The deceased, married under the community property regime, grants a will by which he names his wife as usufructuary, for life, and his children as heirs, in equal parts. After the dissolution of the community property and the acceptance and partition of inheritance, the determination of the domestic value excludes the value of the shares of unlisted companies.

As the ISD regulations are limited to establishing that the household furnishings are part of the hereditary estate and must be valued at 3% of the amount of the deceased’s relict estate, unless the interested parties grant this furnishings a higher value or prove irrefutably its non-existence or that said value is lower than that resulting from the application of the aforementioned percentage, it is asked whether for its computation all the assets that make up the relic property must be included, or if, on the contrary, the assets that, integrating inheritance, are not related to household goods, among which are shares.

The Supreme Court has been maintaining that the household furnishings were made up of the assets of the hereditary estate up to 3% of its value, although they were not clothes, furniture and belongings that constitute the furnishings of the common habitual residence and, in a broader sense , the goods exempted from the LIP article 4.four, as they are assigned to the private use of the taxpayer. However, the Supreme Court changes its criteria in relation to the elements that must be understood to be included within the concept of household furnishings, and clarifies that it includes all movable property assigned to the service of the family home or personal use of the deceased, excluding all others, the taxpayer being able to destroy said presumption by providing all the evidence admitted by law.

Consequently, real estate, inter alia, is excluded from this sphere; goods capable of producing income; money and securities.

For these purposes, in general, it will not be necessary to provide any evidence to exclude from the calculation basis the assets that, in accordance with the previous criterion, should have been left out of it. However, if the valuation of the household goods is for a lower amount, it is necessary to provide sufficient evidence to disprove the presumption.

A private vote is formulated, which although it is contrary to the criterion adopted in the sentence, leaves open a possible unconstitutionality of the norm considering the possibility that the presumption may be contrary to the principle of economic capacity.