We saw in section 4.9 of this Manual that the Act contains a limitation of the guarantee which means that the taxpayer can provide for the suspension of an administrative act. Paradoxically, to request postponements and instalment of the tax debt, the law allows, but defers to the background; other means of guarantee (see section 5.4).
In our opinion, this limitation puts into question the principle of effective protection of the courts, as they are not infrequent cases where the taxpayer cannot get bank guarantees, given its delicate financial position.
This system favours taxpayers with a greater ability to pay, which easily get the suspension of the administrative act against those who do not have such capability and they see, irretrievably, how the Administration tends to the implementation to their equity.
It would be desirable that the legislature extended the validity of the guarantees to other means that common law provides, such as mortgages, pledges, etc.., but condition its validity, in each case, with an examination of the sufficiency of collateral. It is true that this "quality" of guarantees, in terms of settlement can be harmed but would be fully guaranteed as fundamental rights for taxpayers such as the effective protection of the courts and equality.
As we have had the opportunity to comment in paragraph 4.9, the recent Law of Partial Reform of the General Tax Law admits, in the alternative, the contribution of other guarantees, when the execution would cause difficult damage or is impossible to repair. This rule is to be welcomed, but we understand that such a possibility should not be the alternative.