The National Court has ratified a resolution of the Central Economic Administrative Court (TEAC) in which it imposed on Inversiones Las Teresitas (ILT) the payment of 27 million euros for the sale in 2005 to a company called Desurcic of the rear of the well-known Santa Cruz beach like Las Huertas, for 92 million.
The connection between the Las Teresitas case and the port of Granadilla worried OHL in full commission transfer: “You have to be careful, uncle”
Further
In 2006 the entity was obliged to pay 69.5 million in taxes for the benefits obtained, given that the eight plots were valued at 15 million, which represents an increase of 56.5%. That is to say, 33 million were paid for some land that was worth 15, and they were sold again for 52, with a huge profit.
The money obtained in this operation constituted practically all the income declared by the entity in that year.
The company was formed by businessmen Ignacio González, deceased, and Antonio Plasencia, who bought the beach located in Santa Cruz de Tenerife in 1998 for 33 million, and sold it three years later to the City Council for 52.4 million. This operation was the central axis of the so-called Las Teresitas casea ball planning for which both these two businessmen as well as the then mayor, Miguel Zerolo, of the Canary Islands Coalition, and the former councilor for Urban Planning Manuel Parejo, ended up in prison convicted of embezzlement and prevarication.
In addition, as the sale price tripled the real, the operation was annulled by the courts in 2018.
The sanction is the result of an inspection carried out by the State Tax Administration Agency (AEAT), in which it was determined that 21.5 million were the principal capital and almost 6 million late interest.
The State recriminates that ILT distributed 77.5 million of the profit among the partners, with which the Canary Islands Investment Reserve (RIC) was endowed, not having paid any type of tax and considering that it was not an economic activity but a speculative one .
The reason is that the sale did not imply any added value to the land and, on the contrary, a “very serious” tax offense was incurred, as the company was informed in 2011.
The businessmen argued that the Administration’s right to settle the debt had expired, that the loans paid were not taken into account, and that it was indeed an economic activity.
All these arguments were rejected by the TEAC, which regrets that they were never able to access the deeds of sale, which prevented them from carrying out their inspection work correctly.
The Court recounts the various irregularities committed in this operation, among them that the 77 million never returned to ILT’s coffers and that the rest appeared as benefits.
Regarding the loans requested in 2006 and paid in 2011, the inspectors point out that only 21 million were used for this purpose, which is not even half of the profits.
The Administration concludes that the operation “has been dressed in a legal garb that is not the corresponding one. Therefore, one cannot speak of a conflict in the application of the Law, but of the existence of a real operation, such as the distribution of dividends, and another apparent one, which would be the loan”.
In short, the TEAC concludes that the benefits obtained from the RIC do not come from a real economic activity, but from a simulation that sought to distribute 77 million among the partners under the appearance that it was actually a loan.
Real estate development activities and property purchases were also ruled out, although ILT appealed for professional services expenses, compensation, the Compensation Board and urbanization costs that, according to the AEAT, “do not imply the exercise of a real estate development activity”.
