Shakira wins the battle against the Treasury: the Court rules that they 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 to having to return more than 60, if the State does not have its way in its appeal (nothing will be returned until there is a final judgment). 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 that was in dispute. The State demanded that she pay in Spain the taxes derived from all 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 penalty of 24.9 million, a second settlement (this relating to wealth tax) of 2.7 million, and another additional penalty also of 2.7 million. As the wealth part corresponds to the Generalitat, the Catalan Administration appeared as a co-defendant in her appeal.
Shakira's legal team has issued a statement celebrating the ruling. "Under the pretext of tax obligations that the courts have shown never existed, the Treasury improperly withheld 60 million euros for years, funds that corresponded precisely to the working capital and expenses of this world tour. Through this resolution, the court orders the Administration to return this amount in full to the singer, plus the corresponding interest and the full reimbursement of the extremely high legal costs incurred by the artist." According to her lawyers, "the retention of these funds was such an absolute abuse that the National High Court adopted the exceptional measure of ordering the AEAT to pay costs." In her appeal, the artist argued that the net income to be attributed to her for tax purposes in Spain was only 2,105,966.46, as she was a resident for less than half the year.
The Tax Agency 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 according to which she resides "permanently" on these islands, something that the Tax Agency 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 limit. And she recalled that the two children 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 actually exceeded in Spanish territory and could only accredit 163 days (while her legal team placed this presence at 143 days).
One of the keys are the so-called "presumed days". That is, and as an 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 it cannot prove each one 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 her then-current romantic relationship, with Gerard Piqué. "It cannot be legally equated to a marital bond," they conclude. Not having yet married the former Barcelona player 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.
Meanwhile, the AEAT recalls that "the taxpayer already accepted in conformity the convictions for crimes against public finance for the years 2012-2014" and that the Court of Appeal's sentence refers only to the 2011 tax year in an administrative proceeding. In this regard, they explain that they will urge the State Attorney's Office to appeal the sentence to the Supreme Court. Therefore, until there is a final ruling, the agency does not have to refund anything to her, according to legal sources to el ARA. Contrary to what her lawyers explain, the same sources assure el ARA that the singer paid the amount corresponding to the settlement, but not the penalty. They recall that when a fine like this is appealed, the affected taxpayer is obliged to deposit into the public coffers the part corresponding to the settlement, but not the fine, until the outcome of the appeal is known, informs Núria Rius Montaner. In fact, Shakira's defense does not explicitly state that she has disbursed 60 million, but rather that the figure comes from a calculation where there are also "withholdings", presumably from other tax years.
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 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 image 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 economic and emotional ruin".
