Hear
During Wednesday, the Bases Law and the fiscal package were discussed in the Senate and some measures that will lead to more people paying for Personal Property were rejected, in addition to eliminating the possible update of the amount of interest deduction for mortgage loans, which would alleviate to those who requested a loan and pay the tax to profits. Anyway, A change was approved regarding the monotax that represents advantages for those who offer rental homes.
Among the changes discussed in the tax package, there is a possible benefit for monotributistas who are owners and offer their property in rent. Given that in the fiscal package the maximum billing for the monotax rose to $68 million (annual), whoever was previously left out of the monotax (since the billing of the rent made it exceed the limit) They will be able to remain in the monotax regime and have a lower cost in the general regime.
If the owner is a monotributistathe rental is exempt from VAT, regardless of the destination given by the tenant. In the event that the owner is registered responsible, the rent It is exempt from VAT if the property is used as the home of the tenant and his family (that is, the tenant uses the property to live with his family), but must pay VAT if it does not fit into that situation.
Within the fiscal package to be discussed there was a measure related to taxes which, for some specialists, could imply a certain relief for those taking mortgage loans and would encourage more people to apply for them: The amount of the interest deduction for mortgage loans from income tax would be updated.
In other words, just as concepts such as rentalshealth insurance, donations – if this measure of the fiscal package, which was discussed yesterday together with the Bases Law, was approved – also Interest paid on mortgage loans could be deducted (which would have been granted for the purchase or construction of properties intended for the taxpayer’s residence) for a maximum amount that to date was $20,000 and in this project would have amounted to $3,091,035 (an amount equivalent to the deduction for Non-Taxable Income, one of the personal deductions allowed in the tax to profits).
Since this measure was introduced in the Senators and was rejected, it can no longer be incorporated in the Deputies.
Among some of the rejected measures is the Personal Assets proposal. The Senate did not move forward with updating the non-taxable minimum for Personal Assets (the floor from which this tax is paid) that raised the general Personal Property tax from $27,377,408.28 to $100 million and updated the floor of that tax related to properties intended for residential purposes from $136,887,041.42 to $350 million.
Furthermore, the rates that are applied once the non-taxable minimum is exceeded (the table of the tax with the different scales) are currently up to 1.75% for goods in the country and up to 2.25% for goods abroad: The project eliminated discrimination between goods in the country and goods abroad, and modified the sections of the scales, reducing them.
The rejected project also raised the possibility of making an advance payment of the personal property tax (for assets that were already declared), in which a unified payment could be made that would pay off the tax for five years (the periods 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027) which was 2.25%. In the case of laundered assets, another advance payment scheme was proposed that was four years, in short, it was 2%. This was called the special income regime of the Tax on Personal Assets and was considered optional.
In any case, as mentioned before, the Senate did not move forward with these measures. Onwards, Since it was not rejected with 2/3 of the votes, Deputies (with a simple majority of half plus one) can insist on their original project. In this way, I could incorporate again what had sanctioned Personal Property.
“The non-taxable minimums and the sections of the tax scales were outdated due to the effect of the inflation that has occurred.“, says tax expert Sebastián Domínguez, and adds: “This will lead to more people paying taxes on Personal Assets, perhaps having (in constant value) the same updated amount of assets.”
