The writer Lucía Etxebarria will have to pay the Treasury almost 270,000 euros for the settlement and penalty agreements imposed on her by the Regional Economic Administrative Court (TEAR) of Madrid in 2019 for the years 2010 and 2011 in her personal income tax return, according to the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court (TS), to which Europa Press has had access.
In its resolution, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the TS rejects the appeal presented by the writer, thus confirming the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) of October 6, 2021, which ruled in favor of TEAR against Etxebarria’s claims.
According to the ruling of the TSJM, the tax inspection carried out a settlement of 201,200.95 euros (166,524.63 in fees and 34,676.32 in late payment interest) for the years 2010 and 2011, to which it added a penalty of 66,825.91 , a total of 268,026.86 euros, which is what you will now have to pay.
The magistrates assure that “the aim is to determine whether the settlement carried out on the latter must be final to continue tax proceedings against the related parties or, on the contrary, whether such proceedings can be followed simultaneously.”
According to the ruling, the Chamber recalls Etxebarria was a partner and sole administrator of Perravida, a company that in 2010 and 2011 obtained income from the provision of services whose essential content was the publication of articles in the author’s press, the collection of copyright for his literary works, interventions in television programs and in “other types of events or activities.”
The operating income invoiced and declared by Perravida was 342,034.20 euros in 2010 and 236,605.67 euros in 2011. In those same years, Etxebarria was compensated with 50,000 and 80,000 euros, respectively. However, “the appellant declared in personal income tax remuneration noticeably lower than the income obtained by the entity for said services.”
The Supreme Court justices conclude that these were “two simultaneous liquidations, so the homogeneity of the adjustment, as well as the legitimate interests of the related parties, were preserved.” The high court also rules out any defenselessness because “the related taxpayers have had the opportunity to intervene and defend their position, each of them in their respective procedure.”
In this sense, he recalls the arguments put forward by the State Attorney’s Office, which ruled out Etxebarria’s “capacity for reaction or defense” having been compromised by not following the regulation on linked operations that the writer alleged.
