When Spain's Constitutional Court strikes down a tax, not everyone who paid it gets their money back. The Spanish Supreme Court's judgment of 22 June 2026 (cassation appeal 191/2025) sets out exactly where the line falls. Self-assessments of the municipal capital gains tax on urban land, known as plusvalía municipal, for which a correction was requested on the very day Constitutional Court judgment 182/2021 was handed down, are treated as settled and can no longer be reviewed on the sole basis of that judgment. Grounds specific to the individual case, such as the absence of any increase in value, remain available within the time limit. The Court departs from the position the TEAC had taken on another constitutional judgment containing an identical clause, and confirms a practical lesson: anyone who wants to benefit from a possible finding of unconstitutionality must claim before the judgment is delivered.
The background: an unprecedented limitation of effects
On 26 October 2021 the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the method for calculating the taxable base of plusvalía municipal, the tax charged by Spanish town halls on the increase in value of urban land when a property is sold or transferred. The judgment was published in the Official State Gazette on 25 November 2021.
What made it unusual was not the finding of unconstitutionality but the way its effects were limited. In addition to protecting, as usual, situations already settled by a final court judgment or administrative decision, the Constitutional Court treated as settled any assessments that had not been challenged, and any self-assessments for which correction had not been requested, "as at the date" of the judgment. Taxpayers who were still within the time limit to appeal or to request a correction, but had not yet done so, were excluded from any refund based on unconstitutionality.
The Constitutional Court used the same technique in judgment 11/2024 of 18 January 2024, which struck down certain restrictions introduced into corporate income tax by Royal Decree-law 3/2016.
What had already been decided
The Supreme Court had already clarified much of the scope of this limitation. Claims filed after the date of the judgment, even before its official publication, are settled situations (judgment of 18 July 2025). So are assessments notified before the judgment but challenged for the first time afterwards, even within the deadline (judgment of 10 July 2023). By contrast, in its judgment of 13 June 2025 the Supreme Court treated as not settled assessments against which an administrative appeal was lodged before the Constitutional Court's judgment, even if court proceedings began later: what matters is that the taxpayer's challenge was already under way. It had previously ruled the other way in closely related cases, so this last line should be handled with caution.
One specific question remained open: what happens to claims filed during the very day on which the judgment is delivered.
The TEAC's view and the Supreme Court's answer
In decisions of 19 November 2024 (RG 3584/2024) and 25 February 2025 (RG 3245/2024), concerning judgment 11/2024, the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central (TEAC, Spain's central administrative tax tribunal) accepted correction requests filed on 18 January 2024 itself. It started from the literal meaning of the words "as at that date", reinforced it with the rules on computing time limits (Article 133.1 of the Civil Procedure Act) and with the pro actione principle, and concluded that the words covered the whole day. Together, the amounts at stake exceeded EUR 18 million.
Interpreting the identical clause in judgment 182/2021, the Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion, for four main reasons. First, the words cannot be read in isolation: the Constitutional Court refers to assessments that "have not been challenged" and self-assessments for which correction "has not been requested", verb forms that point to action already taken before the date of the judgment. Second, this is not a time limit within which to act but a limitation on the effects of nullity, so the rules allowing filings until midnight on the last day do not apply. Third, the purpose of the clause is to close off review from the very moment the judgment is delivered, and allowing claims during that day would open a window to get around it once the decision was known. Fourth, the pro actione principle protects access to the courts but does not require the most favourable substantive interpretation to be chosen every time.
All of this rests on one premise: the removal from the legal order of the provision declared void takes effect from 00:00 on 26 October 2021, so that the words "as at that date" mean "up to that date", excluding the day on which the judgment was delivered.
The reach of this settled status is limited. It only prevents a review from being based on the unconstitutionality declared in judgment 182/2021. Grounds specific to the individual case remain available within the time limit, such as the absence of any increase in value (Constitutional Court judgment 59/2017) or the confiscatory nature of the charge.
What to expect from the TEAC
Formally, the Supreme Court's judgment does not overturn the TEAC's decisions, which concern a different constitutional judgment and a different tax. In substance, however, the clause interpreted is the same, and the Supreme Court expressly addresses the arguments the TEAC had accepted. In our view, the TEAC can be expected to change its position the next time it rules on the point. That is our own reading, not administrative doctrine or case law, and we are not aware of any TEAC ruling to that effect. In principle, decisions already issued in taxpayers' favour could only be revisited through the declaración de lesividad (a declaration that the act harms the public interest) under Article 218 of the General Tax Law, which cannot be adopted once four years have passed since the act was notified; that period remains open for the two decisions cited.
The practical lesson: claim before the ruling
The most significant consequence of this case law goes well beyond plusvalía municipal. Where the constitutionality of a tax rule is in question, or the validity of a municipal tax bylaw is being challenged, a taxpayer who waits for the judgment risks being excluded from its effects, even if still within the time limit to claim.
In light of this case law, the advisable course is to challenge the assessments and request correction of the self-assessments concerned before the judgment is delivered, without waiting for its publication. In principle, starting the challenge is enough: if the appeal or claim is filed in time, the later continuation of the proceedings, administrative or judicial, does not turn the situation into a settled one.
For non-resident owners selling property in the Balearic Islands, who frequently bear plusvalía municipal through a self-assessment or an assessment issued by the town hall, this point matters: the four-year period to request a correction is, in practice, shorter than it looks when a constitutional ruling is on the horizon.
When a tax is under challenge, waiting for the judgment is not prudence. It means giving up its benefits.
From our offices in Palma de Mallorca and Manacor, Lexon's real estate practice monitors cases pending before the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court that may affect our clients, precisely so that their claims are filed in time.
If you are selling as a non-resident, Tramuntana Tax, the international desk run by the same partners, sets out the taxes on buying and selling property in Mallorca.
Source: Articles 104 to 110 of the consolidated Local Finance Law, approved by Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2004; Articles 120(3), 218 and 221 of Ley 58/2003, the General Tax Law; Constitutional Court judgments 59/2017, of 11 May, 182/2021, of 26 October, and 11/2024, of 18 January; decisions of the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central of 19 November 2024, RG 3584/2024, and of 25 February 2025, RG 3245/2024; and judgments of the Third Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court of 10 July 2023 (cassation appeal 5181/2022), of 18 July 2025 (appeal 222/2024), of 13 June 2025 and no. 773/2026 of 22 June 2026 (Second Section, cassation appeal 191/2025).
© Lexon Advisory, S.L.U. All rights reserved.
No part of this content may be reproduced or distributed by any means without the express written consent of the copyright holder. Unauthorised use constitutes an infringement of intellectual property rights under Spanish law.
This article is provided for general information purposes only and reflects the law, administrative doctrine and case law in force at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal or tax advice, nor does it replace the individual analysis of each case.