Shakira wins the battle against the 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 in Spain the taxes derived from all her worldwide income for that year, while the artist assured 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 an assessment of 24.7 million, a penalty of 24.9 million, a second assessment (this relating to the wealth tax) of 2.7 million, and another additional penalty of also 2.7 million. As the wealth part corresponds to the Generalitat, the Catalan Administration appeared as a co-defendant in her appeal.
. Or they 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 wide 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 2013 and 2015. From here, the High 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 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 High Court rejects that the Administration counts them, if they cannot be proven individually and reliably.
In their 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 married the ex-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 enduring brutal public shaming, orchestrated campaigns to destroy my reputation, and entire sleepless nights that ended up affecting my health and my family's well-being, the National High 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 even so, 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 a state of economic and emotional ruin."
Meanwhile, sources from the AEAT recall that "the taxpayer already accepted in conformity the convictions for crimes against public finance for the years 2012-2014" and that the High Court's ruling refers only to the 2011 tax year in an administrative capacity. In this regard, the Agency will urge the State Attorney's Office to appeal the ruling in cassation before the Supreme Court.
