The Full Chamber analyzed the public action of unconstitutionality filed by three citizens against Section 35(5), as well as Sections 36 and 37 of Law 2277 of 2022, that set forth the taxpayers, the taxable event and the tax base of the Wealth Tax. The claims initially admitted by the Constitutional Court included two specific arguments: (i) first argument: the law violates the principles of equality and tax equity, since it a different tax treatment for domestic and foreign entities; and (ii) second argument: the inclusion of real estate in the tax base violates the taxing power of the municipalities (according to the Political Constitution, territorial entities have taxing rights over real estate property). 

However, after an exhaustive analysis of the claimant and the structure of the arguments raised, the Full Chamber decided to abstain from deciding on the merits, as it considered that the claims did not meet the necessary requirements for a substantive study.

Regarding the firs argument presented by the plaintiffs, the Court concluded that the claim did not demonstrate that the distinction between local and foreign companies was unjustified. In addition, the Court considered that the plaintiffs failed to take into account the purposes of the Equity Tax as provided for in Law 2277 of 2022. 

As for the second argument, the Court determined that the plaintiffs did not meet with the burden of proof and did not present sufficient arguments to modify the existing case law that validates the inclusion of real estate in the tax base. In addition, the Court stated that plaintiffs failed to explain how this inclusion affected territorial autonomy in a concrete manner.