Shakira wins battle against Treasury, which will have to return 60 million euros to her
The judges consider that the AEAT has not been able to prove that Shakira lived more than 183 days in Spain in the year 2011
BarcelonaFrom demanding 55 million euros from her to having to return more than 60. The National High Court has ended up siding with Shakira in her battle with the Tax Agency and considers that the public Treasury has not managed to prove that she was a tax resident in Spain during the 2011 tax year in dispute. The State demanded that she pay taxes in Spain derived from all of her worldwide income for that year, while the artist maintained that, having resided less than the 183 days that mark half the year, she only had to do so for the proportional part.
In total, the Treasury demanded that she pay more than 55 million euros, corresponding to a settlement of 24.7 million, a fine of 24.9 million, a second settlement (this one related to the wealth tax) of 2.7 million, and another additional fine of also 2.7 million. As the wealth portion corresponds to the Generalitat, the Catalan Administration appeared as a co-defendant in her appeal.
. Or collect compensation.
Shakira dedicates the victoryThe Treasury inspection, for its part, considered that Shakira controlled a network of companies that allowed her to obtain income in jurisdictions "that guarantee her legal security, through a broad network of agreements, as well as low taxation", that is, tax havens such as the Bahamas. The singer presented a certificate stating that she resides "permanently" in these islands, something that the Treasury inspection disputed, in view of her public activity. But her lawyers argued that, having performed 120 concerts in 37 different countries, she had not exceeded the 183-day threshold. And she recalled that her two children, whom she raised in Catalonia, came later, in the years 2013 and 2015. From here, the Court considers that the Tax Agency has not been able to prove that the 183 days were effectively exceeded in Spanish territory and could only account for 163 days (while her legal team placed her presence at 143 days).
One of the keys are the so-called "presumed days". That is, and for example, if it can be certified that Shakira was in Spain on a Monday, and also on that Thursday, logic suggests that she was also there on Tuesday and Wednesday, but from a legal point of view the Court rejects that the Administration counts them if they cannot be proven individually and reliably.
In its ruling, the judges reject the Tax Agency's assumption that Shakira came to Barcelona between the different legs of her tour to live out her then-romantic relationship with Gerard Piqué. "It cannot be legally equated to a marital bond," they conclude. Not having married the former blaugrana yet will have ended up being a blessing for the economic interests of the singer of the now immortal verse women make money. Or collect compensation.
Shakira dedicates the victory
Beyond the press release sent by her legal team, Shakira wanted to personally comment on the ruling. "After more than eight years of enduring brutal public scrutiny, orchestrated campaigns to destroy my reputation, and sleepless nights that ended up affecting my health and my family's well-being, the National Court has finally set things right," she began her statement. "There was never any fraud and the Administration itself could never prove otherwise, simply because it wasn't true. But, despite that, for almost a decade, I have been treated as guilty, every step of the process has been leaked, distorted, and amplified, and my name and public figure have been used to send a threatening message to other taxpayers," she continued, before dedicating the judicial victory "to the thousands of anonymous citizens who are abused and crushed every day by a system that presumes their guilt and forces them to prove their innocence from financial and emotional ruin."
Meanwhile, sources from the AEAT recall that "the taxpayer already accepted in conformity the convictions for crimes against public finances for the years 2012-2014" and that the Audiencia's ruling refers only to the 2011 fiscal year in administrative proceedings. In this regard, the Agency will urge the State Attorney's Office to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.