Provenance: IUSI reform, Decreto 18-2026

Compiled 2026-07-29/30. Every number below traces to a primary or named source. This file exists so the claims on the public pages can be re-checked later — a build input that lives only in a chat window has no provenance.

⚠️ THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT: IT IS NOT LAW YET

The reform was approved by Congress on 2026-07-29. It is pending presidential sanction and publication in the Diario de Centro América, and takes effect only after both.

“será remitido al Organismo Ejecutivo para el proceso correspondiente de sanción y publicación en el diario oficial.” — Agencia Guatemalteca de Noticias (AGN, state news agency), 2026-07-29

Prensa Libre independently: the decree “will be remitted to the Executive Branch for sanction and subsequent publication in the official newspaper, in order to enter into force.”

⇒ Until sanction + publication, the Decreto 15-98 rates below remain the law. Any page that tells a reader they no longer owe IUSI today is wrong. Do not rewrite the existing rate tables — add a dated advisory instead. Re-check status before each publish; if the President vetoes, this whole page family changes again.

NEW: Decreto 18-2026 (approved, pending sanction)

• Approved: 2026-07-29 · Vote: 120 in favour · Decree: 18-2026
• Reached the floor via a moción privilegiada (privileged motion), i.e. it jumped the published session agenda.

Rates by USE — this is the structural change. The old law taxed by registered value only, regardless of use. The new one exempts by use, then scales by value:

Exact wording of the commercial scale, confirmed independently by two sources (AGN and Prensa Libre):

“De Q0 a Q500,000, 3 por millar. De Q500,000.01 a Q1,000,000, 6 por millar. De Q1,000,000.01 en adelante, 9 por millar.”

Residential wording:

“los inmuebles destinados a vivienda, de uso residencial o de uso mixto tendrán una tasa de cero por millar” — Soy502

⚠️ Press disagreement, resolved. Soy502’s summary reports commercial as a flat “9 por millar”; La Hora’s headline says “hasta 9 por millar”. AGN and Prensa Libre both print the three-bracket progressive scale verbatim. The progressive scale is correct; the flat “9 por millar” is a headline simplification. Our page should state the three brackets and say so explicitly — this is a fact readers cannot get right from the headlines, which is exactly the kind of page worth writing.

Named quotes:

• Dip. David Illescas, on commercial: “antes el cálculo estaba a 3 por millar y ahora será a 9 por millar” (Soy502)
• Dip. Julio Héctor Estrada warned elimination “podría afectar los ingresos municipales” (Soy502)
• ANAM (Asociación Nacional de Municipalidades) warned it “would directly compromise the finances of the 277 municipalities” (Prensa Libre)

Not addressed in any source I read: whether IUSI already owed (arrears), fines or interest are forgiven. A separate congressional initiative titled “EXONERAR EL IUSI Y ELIMINAR SANCIONES” exists — do NOT conflate it with Decreto 18-2026. State on the page that arrears treatment is unresolved rather than guessing.

OLD / STILL IN FORCE: Decreto 15-98, Ley del Impuesto Único Sobre Inmuebles

Source: full statute PDF from Contraloría General de Cuentas, contraloria.gob.gt/imagenes/i_docs/i_leg_ley/LEY DEL IMPUESTO UNICO SOBRE INMUEBLES.pdf (17 pages, retrieved 2026-07-29 — the host 403s plain curl; fetched with curl_cffi impersonate='chrome', per the free-ladder rule. Do not substitute a summary site for the statute.)

ARTÍCULO 11. Tasas al valor — verbatim:

ARTÍCULO 21. Requerimientos y pago — four equal quarterly instalments (cuatro (4) cuotas trimestrales iguales):

Payable at: cajas receptoras del Ministerio, Administraciones Departamentales de Rentas Internas, Receptorías Fiscales, Tesorerías Municipales, Banco de Guatemala, or banks of the system. ARTÍCULO 22 allows prepaying one or more quarters.

ARTÍCULO 2. Destino del impuesto — who keeps the money (this is the analytical key):

• (a) revenue from taxpayers at 2 por millar → transferred to the respective municipality in its entirety, as fondos propios (100% municipal);
• (b) revenue collected by MINFIN from taxpayers at 6 or 9 por millar → 25% to the State, 75% to the municipality where the property sits, as fondos privativos.
• Municipalities must spend at least 70% on basic services and infrastructure works.

ARTÍCULO 3. Tax base = land + structures + installations + improvements + permanent crops. Excludes machinery/equipment, and on rural properties excludes worker housing, schools, health posts and other social-benefit buildings.

ARTÍCULO 12. Exenciones (pre-existing, by entity): the State and its decentralised/ autonomous entities and municipalities; diplomatic and consular missions where reciprocity exists; international organisations Guatemala belongs to; USAC and other legally authorised universities; authorised religious entities where the property is used for worship/social assistance/education provided generally and free of charge; private schools following official programmes; professional colleges; CDAG and the Guatemalan Olympic Committee; legally constituted cooperatives.

Original analysis we can publish (not in any coverage I read)

The band being eliminated is the only one municipalities kept 100% of. Article 2(a) gives municipalities all revenue from the 2-por-millar band, while the 6 and 9 por millar bands are MINFIN-collected and shared 25/75. So residential IUSI was municipalities’ only fully retained property-tax stream — which is the mechanism behind ANAM’s warning. Every outlet reported the alarm; none reported why.

Honest limits on that claim — state them on the page:

• The old bands were defined by registered value, not use. So “residential” and “the 2-por-millar band” are not the same set. A home with registered value above Q70,000 was paying 9 por millar (shared 25/75) and now pays 0.
• ⇒ The correct statement is: municipalities lose all residential IUSI, and the fully-retained 2-por-millar band maps to low registered values, which in practice skews residential. Sizing the split needs per-municipality matrícula-fiscal data we do not have. Do not publish a percentage.
• Note also the threshold jump: the old top bracket began at Q70,000 of registered value; the new commercial top bracket begins at Q1,000,000. Report the numbers; do not assert a systematic-undervaluation thesis about matrícula fiscal without a source for it.

Sources

Open items to re-verify before/after publishing

1. Presidential sanction — watch for sanction or veto, then the Diario de Centro América publication date. That date is the real “in force” date. Until then the page must say “approved, not yet in force”.
2. Whether the sanctioned text matches the approved text (rates can change in redacción final).
3. Arrears/fines treatment.
4. Whether MINFIN/municipalities issue implementation guidance, and what happens to Q4-2026 instalments already requisitioned (the October and January cuotas straddle the likely effective date).
5. How “uso mixto” is defined for a home with a ground-floor shop — the single most likely reader question, and unanswered in the coverage.