The discussion surrounding the sustainability of the tourism sector, propelled by the two significant demonstrations on April 20 and October 20 of the previous year—another is scheduled for the 18th under the same slogan: ‘Canary Islands has a limit’-has spurred a concurrent conversation regarding environmental taxation. Political parties and institutions are proposing various measures in a frenzy where terms like tribute, tax, rate, and ecotasa are all mixed together… yet not every term is interchangeable, nor do all entities—government, councils, municipalities—possess the same legal authority to impose these taxes, which makes the discussion somewhat convoluted.
The latest chapter in this intricate saga arose from the announcement by the Tenerife Division of CC to advance an “insular tourist rate for overnight stays.” A feasible aim, indeed, but this lies neither within the jurisdiction of the councils nor could it materialise through the mechanism of an «Insular rate». It is not permissible to impose a rate for overnight hotel stays. In fact, Rosa Dávila, the Secretary of Organisation of CC in Tenerife—and effectively part of the island council—has already clarified that in strict terms, it would be categorised as a tax, the only viable option available.
Incremental steps. Is it practical to introduce a tax or charge for tourists’ overnight stays? Certainly. However, such a charge must take the legal form of a tax. Thus, it must be approved, if applicable, by the Parliament of the Canary Islands, the legislature of the Autonomous Community.
The taxable event—the action triggering the obligation to pay the tax—would be the overnight stay at the hotel, which would reflect the economic capability of the guest to, as deemed by the legislator, fulfil the payment. This is precisely why CC itself, during its most recent regional congress, resolved to “create” -to promote- “a specific tax targeting the tourism sector.” The phrasing was deliberate; they specified in their proposal that this tax would manifest as “a specific surcharge On the IGIC »—Herein lies a contradiction, as this would not constitute “creating” a tax, but rather modifying an existing one—or “empowering local corporations to impose it.” ‘Empowering them’ Because, it is crucial to reiterate, neither the councils nor the municipalities have the authority to establish that tax.
Measures such as charging for access to the Masca ravine, in Tenerife, represent the ideal model of ‘EcoTasa’
Currently, the CC of Tenerife initially discussed an “insular rate”, and indeed, local entities have the capacity to impose rates. An example can be found in Tenerife, where the council has instituted a rate for traversing the Masca ravine. Why is a rate for access to Masca actionable while a charge for overnight stays in a hotel is not? Because the rate implies a service. The individual paying it—the hiker visiting Masca—receives, in return, specific services such as road maintenance, restrooms, and bus transport, whereas a taxpayer pays a tax mandated by the legislator to finance public administration without receiving a ‘direct’ benefit. What public service does a hotel guest receive? None; thus, taxing overnight stays necessitates a tax, which requires parliamentary intervention. Cabildos can levy rates, but not for overnight stays.
For this reason, the president of the PP in the Canary Islands, Manuel Domínguez, remarked yesterday that the proposal from CC of Tenerife—which the PP opposes—is “not a rate,” but a tax. This distinction was also clarified by Rosa Dávila in her remarks. The disparity between a rate and a tax lies in the fact that the latter does not allow for discrimination; it is the taxable event that creates the obligation to pay, not the nationality of the payer. However, Dávila perceives room for some form of ‘positive discrimination’ favouring local premises. This possibility is limited, as the Constitution is unequivocal: “everyone”—to emphasise “everyone”—”will contribute to supporting public expenses […]”. “If those here cannot be exempt, the PP will not support it,” Domínguez cautioned.
In relation to this, how has the City Council of Mogán managed to implement a rate of 15 cents per night? This is because the principle of direct consideration inherent in the rate is justified by a supposed “provision of services and unique activities based on tourism,” which is currently under judicial scrutiny. This is something that prosecutors have, by the way, considered a given.
Taxation. Cabildo de Gran Canaria: Morales supports a regional ecotasa
The president of the Cabildo de Gran Canaria, Antonio Morales, endorsed a tourist ecotasa yesterday, asserting that “the debate” on this measure should be initiated to “address the deficits and tackle the challenges of intensive land use and public services.” He expressed that the “ideal” scenario would be to reach a consensus “with collective agreement for the Canary Islands” as a whole. Morales conveyed this to the media during the 360 days of the Granca Live Fest Festival. “We have always championed this; it is absolutely essential for every Canary Island to adopt a balanced ecotasa with a targeted purpose,” he explained, for “it should not merely be a quick fix,” but “the vital aspect is that we embrace this collectively with shared criteria.” In that context, he mentioned uncertainty regarding “the feasibility” of the City Council of Mogán’s initiative, which is currently being challenged in the courts, but said, “we will await their decision,” as “I do not believe there will be any legal contention against instituting an ecotasa for the entire archipelago.” For Morales, it is “absolutely necessary and critical that there is a contribution from the segment of society that generates public resources to cover deficits in healthcare, road maintenance, and water resources due to intensive territorial use and public services.”
