Cadastral Reference Value and Municipal Plusvalía: the dangerous DGT doctrine (V0792-26) versus Supreme Court case-law

A binding ruling that sets off every alarm bell

The Spanish Directorate-General of Taxes (DGT) has issued a controversial binding ruling — Consulta Vinculante V0792-26 of 9 April 2026 — allowing town halls to use the Cadastral Reference Value (Valor de Referencia Catastral, VRC) as a method to review the taxable base of the Tax on the Increase in Urban Land Value (IIVTNU), commonly known as the Municipal Plusvalía.

The decision creates major legal uncertainty: it dilutes the requirement to tax only real capital gains and clashes head-on with Spanish Supreme Court case-law and with Constitutional Court ruling STC 182/2021.

1. What the V0792-26 ruling actually says

The DGT initially acknowledges that the Local Finance Act (TRLRHL) does not automatically grant the VRC the status of "transfer value" for plusvalía purposes. The scripted sale price therefore cannot be replaced automatically by the cadastral figure.

Yet, through a controversial leap, the ruling allows town halls to rely on the VRC under Article 57.1.b) of the General Tax Act (valuation by reference to figures in tax registers) within a value-checking procedure.

As Professor Leopoldo Gandarias (Koana / Complutense University of Madrid) warns, the VRC is not an ordinary checking method: it is an objective regulatory determination specifically designed as the taxable base for other taxes — Transfer Tax (ITPAJD) and Inheritance and Gift Tax (ISD). Importing this statistical figure as a "checked value" in the IIVTNU is, in his words, a textbook *ultra vires* exercise.

2. Clash with STC 182/2021 and the risk of taxing loss-making sales

After the landmark Constitutional Court Judgment 182/2021, which forbade taxing non-existent gains, the legislator introduced:

• A non-taxation clause for capital losses.
• A rule allowing taxation on the real gain (not only the objective method).

The risk now is that a town hall, faced with a sale showing a loss in the deed, applies the VRC through a value-checking procedure. That would effectively fabricate a fictitious gain that does not reflect the real economics of the deal, replacing the actual price with a statistical figure alien to the nature of the tax — undermining the constitutional guarantees of the taxpayer.

> In practice, this could force taxpayers to pay on a non-existent gain in areas such as Torrevieja, Orihuela Costa, Moraira or Calpe, where the VRC does not always reflect real market deterioration.