Tag: Torrox

PREFERRED SHARES: THE GREAT SCANDAL

Written by Gustavo Calero Monereo on 11 June, 2013. Posted in Andalucia, english speaking solicitor, fraud, Headline, interest, lawyer, legal advice, malaga, preferred shares, solicitors Nerja. No Comments on PREFERRED SHARES: THE GREAT SCANDAL

By the end of 2008, Spanish saving banks and banks already had clear reports stating that current high interest rates may drop and the property bubble was about to burst. In addition, they also knew that the lucrative business of saving banks in the construction sector by means of credits for developers and mortgages for individuals, was about to go to ruin.

Regarding that their core business in the housing sector was about to finish and that saving banks could not issue shares as banks could, they “invented” the sale of a product to obtain funds known as participaciones preferentes (preferred shares). This financial term may be defined as debt securities issuances for an undetermined period of time, in which saving banks pay returns depending on their profits. But they may not even pay anything at all—although this product offered up to 7% returns—, because the payment of these returns depended on the financial entity profits. Thus, as a result of the housing sector slump and saving banks loss, there was no profit. Furthermore, these preferred shares have no voting rights and are not guaranteed by the Deposit Guarantee Fund—which covers people’s savings up to 100,000 Euros—and has no maturity, that is, they are perpetual.

Most of the investors who purchased these preferred shares were retail clients of these financial entities. Most of them thought that this product was similar to fixed income deposits. In most cases, these clients did not have any knowledge about financial risks neither any intention to risk their savings—their money was invested in fixed term deposits and one day they received a telephone call from the bank convincing them of the “advantages” of purchasing preferred shares; however, most of the disadvantages were not explained to them, because the bank employees did not probably even know what they were offering. They just followed the financial entity instructions.

Result: 300,000 people affected by the purchase of these preferred shares which may amount to 30,000 million Euros, although this sum may be higher.

Financial entities are allowed to sell this type of products if they carry out the following: study of the investor’s profile and performance of the private investor test for suitability. In most cases, it is obvious that financial entities should have not sold the aforementioned preferred shares to most of their retail clients, because they did not match the suitable profile to purchase this type of products and had limited savings to be invested only in conservative products, such as fixed income deposits.

Holders of the aforementioned preferred shares have the following options:

A) Secondary market offering, although they may be sold at a loss considering current circumstances.

B) Conversion into shares of the entity—this is the solution offered by saving banks. However, this exchange is also at a loss, as Bankia has already done two weeks ago—in this case, its clients have lost up to 70% of their investment when the preferred shares were converted.

C) Going to the arbitration offered by the Government—we sincerely have misgivings about its results and clients may also have to assume significant losses.

D) Going to court through civil proceedings to claim for the invalidity of the contract which served as a basis for purchasing preferred shares. This is the most recommended procedure for all people affected, as court orders which have been already known are pronounced in favour of these people. Although this action may imply a longer procedure to recover the invested money, the result is much more advantageous.

We finally recommend you to consult an expert before taking any decision if you are a person affected by this matter, so that all possible options are explored particularly.

Author: Gustavo Calero Monereo, C&D Solicitors (lawyers)
Torrox-Costa (Malaga/Costa del Sol/Andalucia)

TAX EXEMPTION WHEN SELLING YOUR PROPERTY IN SPAIN

Written by Francisco Delgado Montilla on 12 April, 2012. Posted in conveyancing, Featured, Headline, Income, lawyer, legal advice, NON RESIDENT, PREVENTION, property law, Property law, solicitor, taxes, torrox. No Comments on TAX EXEMPTION WHEN SELLING YOUR PROPERTY IN SPAIN

The Spanish Constitution and the regulations (tax and social) developed thereof, regarding the protection of the elderly, guarantee that the elderly will receive a comprehensive system of care and protection that promotes and enhances the wellbeing of this section of the population, within which this article highlights the area of economic protection.

The purpose of this type of protection is to formulate a system of regulations that provide the elderly with the necessary economic resources, which will contribute towards their independence and improve their quality of life.

As principle provisions or benefits within this economic protection of the elderly, we can highlight, among other things: retirement pensions (contributory and non-contributory), supplementary economic provisions, various subsidies and aid, which is granted within the scope of Social Services, as well as certain tax benefits.

In relation to this matter, this article will focus on the exemption from capital gains tax, which, for those over 65, occurs at the time that their habitual residence is sold.

Gains derived from the transfer of immovable property are taxed, for non-residents, at a fixed rate of 19%. For residents, the first €6,000 is taxed at 19% and the rest is taxed at 21%.

Moreover, in the case of the transfer of property by a non-resident, the purchaser shall be obliged to withhold and pay 3% of the sale price as payment on account of taxes which should meet the requirements of capital gains for non-residents and that should be paid directly to the Tax Authorities. Said retention from the sale price is not incurred if the seller has the right to tax reduction for the transfer of property that is their habitual residence, for those over the age of 65.

Article 31.4 b) of Law 40/1998, which regulates personal income tax, establishes that those over the age of 65 shall be exempt from capital gains in the event that the property transferred is their habitual residence.

The only two requirements for eligibility for this tax exemption are the following:

The taxpayer must be over 65 at the time that the transfer takes place.
The transferred property must be their habitual residence. In order that the property be considered a place of habitual residence for the purpose of this tax, two temporal limits are established: 1) it must be effectively occupied by the taxpayer within a period of 12 months from the date of acquisition or from the termination of any building work; 2) it must constitute their place of habitual residence for an on-going period of at least three years prior to the date of sale.

Author: Francisco Delgado Montilla, C&D Solicitors (lawyers)
Torrox-Costa (Malaga/Costa del Sol/Andalucia)

MALAGA, AXARQUÍA AND URBAN PROBLEMS.

Written by Gustavo Calero Monereo on 2 October, 2010. Posted in Featured, Property law. No Comments on MALAGA, AXARQUÍA AND URBAN PROBLEMS.

I recently read an article in Diario Sur talking about Alcaucín Town Hall. It is still bogged down with the properties built in non building lands.

Consequences arisen from the urban corruption existing in Alcaucin (Malaga) since 2009, has resulted in a lack of legal security for part of the owners and people who are interested in investing in a property around this area of Malaga, provoking, as main conclusion, an important loss on the buying and selling property market, and a horrible publicity abroad of our local institutions and our legal system as well, for a non response in view of the abuse competence of some Town Halls in urban matters and, in the permission of the Andalusian Government, who has looked the other way for many years while the many urban irregularities happened; of course cashing up thanks to taxes and prices for the usufruct and enjoyment of the properties and for asset transfers.

Some of the professionals that work in this area, we wonder why so many legal proceedings are opened where the owners turn out accused. Most of them are not responsible of this illegal urban activity, but they can be seriously affected.

From a legal point of view, most of these procedures would end into nothing because of the prescription of many of the charged urbanizing crimes and because of the possibility of regularization of buildings, as it has been stated by the doctrine. Passing of time in the resolution of these judiciary procedures only provokes an overextension of this chaotic situation.

I do agree in the fact that town halls should be meticulous in the fulfilment of urban rules and that the Andalusian Government must closely watch private as well as local building activities. However, I do not quite understand that there should be a series of judicial procedures opened against illegal urban licenses that have enjoyed a tacit acknowledgement for years due to lack of control; specially, when these acts have been carried out in such an evident way and for such a long period of time.

The intervention line that is being carried upon the misuses of non-urban ground, not only arrives late but it does not solve the problem, thus causing the situation to worsen by overextending the resolution to the problem within the eternal judiciary channels. In many of these procedures the solution will not only be the least adequate but it may not even be possible to re-establish the original status to the illegally urbanised ground, which would be the desired thing to be done in this last instance. All this without taking into account the patrimonial responsibility that this will mean to the city council already in great debt and what’s more, the nullity of the illegal local licenses as well as the prejudices that may arise among those property owners who were counting on the city council to achieve a building permission.

In such a time of chaotic urbanism and autonomic and local irresponsibility associated to periods of growth, it would have been logic to establish a strict action line to be followed from now on, being categorical to all the illegal behaviour and conduct, reaching a consensus on the different competent institutions with logic and coherence by the assumption of responsibility over these illegal acts from those truly responsible. There are always solutions and technical means to be applied if both parts are implied in it.

We finally hope that coherence finally imposes itself. However, if this long period of uncertainty were here to stay, the image of the real estate would be irreparably damaged and the efficacy of the public and professional institutions in question. It will be difficult to overcome this situation because of this feeling of judicial insecurity and chaos in the criteria due to the arbitrary decisions that weaken us all.

Author: Gustavo Calero Monereo, C&D Solicitors (lawyers)
Torrox-Costa (Malaga/Costa del Sol/Andalucia)