Licencia Creative Commons

Monday, December 18, 2023

AUTO TRIBUNAL SUPREMO 22-11-2023: SEGUROS UNIT LINKED E IMPUESTO SOBRE EL PATRIMONIO

 

 

TERCERO.- Verificación de la concurrencia de interés casacional objetivo en el recurso.


El presente recurso presenta interés casacional objetivo para la formación de jurisprudencia, porque en
la sentencia recurrida se han aplicado normas que sustentan la razón de decidir sobre las que no existe
jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo [ artículo 88.3.a) LJCA].
En efecto, esta Sala no se ha pronunciado, hasta el momento, sobre la sujeción o no al impuesto sobre el
patrimonio, en interpretación del artículo 17.Uno de la Ley del impuesto, de aquellos seguros de vida en cuya póliza no se reconoce un derecho de rescate ni, en concreto, de los seguros concertados en la modalidad unit linked, esto es, aquellos en los que el tomador asume el riesgo de la inversión y que, por sus específicas características, permiten apreciar dudas fundadas sobre la exégesis del precepto citado, determinando la conveniencia de un pronunciamiento de este Tribunal Supremo.
Es preciso recordar, al efecto, que mediante auto de esta Sección 1ª de 29 de septiembre último se ha acordado la admisión de otro recurso de casación -nº 8728/2022-, planteado en términos sustancialmente iguales a los que aquí se suscitan.


CUARTO.- Admisión del recurso de casación. Normas objeto de interpretación.
1. Conforme a lo indicado anteriormente, y de acuerdo con lo dispuesto en el artículo 88.1 LJCA, en relación con el artículo 90.4 de la misma norma, esta Sección de Admisión aprecia que este recurso presenta interés casacional objetivo para la formación de jurisprudencia, respecto de la siguiente cuestión:
Determinar si, de conformidad con el artículo 17. Uno de la Ley del Impuesto sobre el Patrimonio , en la redacción originaria, deben someterse a gravamen los seguros de vida concertados bajo la modalidad unit linked , cuando la póliza no reconozca el derecho de rescate durante la vigencia del contrato.


2. La norma que, en principio, será objeto de interpretación es el artículo 17.Uno de la Ley 19/1991, de 6 dejunio, de la LIP, en la redacción original.


Ello sin perjuicio de que la sentencia haya de extenderse a otras si así lo exigiere el debate finalmente trabado en el recurso, ex artículo 90.4 de la LJCA.

Monday, December 11, 2023

LA PRESENTACIÓN DEL PROFESOR DALGLEISH ANTE EL PARLAMENTO BRITÁNICO (4-12-2023)

COVID vaccine program Professor Angus Dalgleish MD FRCP FRACP FRCPath FMedSci Foundation Professor of Oncology, University of London Principal of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy

Monday, December 4, 2023

DEMANDA DEL FISCAL GENERAL DE TEXAS CONTRA PFIZER, INC.

  

 

Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)

 Pfizer has in the course and conduct of trade and commerce, with the requisite mental state, engaged in various false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices declared unlawful by and in violation of section 17.46(a) of the DTPA, including by intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly engaging in conduct specifically defined to be false, deceptive, or misleading under section 17.46(b).

 Count I: Misrepresentations Concerning Relative Risk Reduction.


154. Pfizer misrepresented that its vaccine was 95% effective at preventing COVID- 19 infections in all people, when in fact the data Pfizer relied on was inapposite for such representations, and Pfizer distorted the truth.


155. Pfizer chose a self-serving and deceptive metric reflecting percentage reduction in the rate of infection present in its limited Phase 2/3 trial on a relative basis, not the absolute risk reduction for its vaccine, information that it withheld from the consuming public. See supra ¶¶ 43-156. In doing so, Pfizer violated sections 17.46(a), 17.46(b)(5), 17.46(b)(7), and 17.46(b)(24) of the DTPA.


Count II: Misrepresentations Concerning Durability of Protection.


157. Pfizer misrepresented that its vaccine provided durable and sustained protection against COVID-19 infection, see supra ¶¶ 73-82, when in fact FDA had previously informed the company that it was not possible to know the duration of the vaccine’s effectiveness beyond two months. See supra ¶¶ 43, 49.A,


158. Data revealed throughout the course of 2021 demonstrated that protection from Pfizer’s vaccine waned rapidly. See supra ¶¶ 94, 96, 105-09, 120.


159. Moreover, Pfizer withheld highly relevant data not only showing that efficacy waned rapidly but confirming that Pfizer’s representations about durable efficacy were unwarranted and deceiving when made. See supra ¶ 80.


160. In doing so, Pfizer violated sections 17.46(a), 17.46(b)(5), 17.46(b)(7), and 17.46(b)(24) of the DTPA.


Count III: Misrepresentations Concerning Transmission.


161. Pfizer misrepresented that vaccination against COVID-19 prevented “transmission” between persons, see supra ¶¶ 66-72, including from vaccinated persons with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, when in fact FDA previously made clear to Pfizer that more information was needed to make transmission-related claims. See supra ¶¶ 42, 47, 49.B, 49.D.


162. Data developed throughout the course of 2021 revealed that Pfizer’s vaccine was highly ineffective at preventing vaccinated persons from transmitting infections to other persons. See supra ¶¶ 96, 103-04.

163. Pfizer created this false impression by exploiting the heightened fear and uncertainty amongst the public, insinuating that vaccination constituted an imperative to protect loved ones. See supra ¶¶ 68-70. 164. In doing so, Pfizer violated sections 17.46(a), 17.46(b)(5), 17.46(b)(7), and 17.46(b)(24) of the DTPA.


Count IV: Misrepresentations Concerning Protection Against Variants.


165. Pfizer misrepresented that its vaccine had substantial efficacy against COVID-19 variants—in particular, the Delta variant. See supra ¶¶ 83-90. At minimum, Pfizer created the false impression and led the public to reasonably believe that the vaccine performed comparatively well against variants as compared to the initial virus.


166. In reality, Pfizer clearly lacked data to support such claims, and the modest amount in its possession instead pointed to the opposite conclusion, as well as underscored the baselessness of Pfizer’s claims in the first instance. See supra ¶¶ 95, 110-16, 120-22.


167. In doing so, Pfizer violated sections 17.46(a), 17.46(b)(5), 17.46(b)(7), and 17.46(b)(24) of the DTPA.


Count V: Scheme to Conceal Vaccine Underperformance.


168. Pfizer created the false impression that its vaccine provided a substantially greater amount of protection against COVID-19 infection than what it afforded in reality. Pfizer undertook a continuous and widespread campaign comprised of the deceptive concerning alleged above for the purpose of misleading the public about the efficacy of its vaccine, see supra ¶¶ 125-38.


169. This course deceptive conduct was reinforced and extended by Pfizer’s efforts to censor persons who sought to disseminate truthful information that would undermine is its ongoing deception. See supra ¶¶ 125-38.


170. In doing so, Pfizer violated sections 17.46(a) and 17.46(b)(8) of the DTPA.