Post by account_disabled on Mar 9, 2024 22:41:52 GMT -5
The informative declaration of assets and rights abroad by tax residents in Spain, el famous model 720, which was approved by Law on October 29, 2012, was canceled As for his specific penalty regime and certain unsubstantiated presumptions of equity gains by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a judgment of January 27, 2022, which resolved the appeal for non-compliance in case C-788/19 promoted by the European Commission against the Kingdom of Spain, based on the violation of the community principle of freedom of movement of capital regulated in article 63 TFUE and article 40 of the EEA Agreement, which is also extensible to non-EU countries. Specifically, said CJEU ruling declared contrary to EU law Spanish regulations sanctioning model 720: For considering the situations of non-presentation (or extemporaneous presentation) of form 720 imprescriptible and, consequently, the tax treatment of foreign assets not declared as unjustified capital gains (which in the case of natural persons were taxed on the general income tax base before the judgment). For penalizing 150% of the unjustified capital gains described in the previous point. By establish additional fixed penalties (frequently called formal sanctions) for each piece of data or set of data not declared or declared inaccurately or erroneously, as it is much higher than the sanctions for other breaches of domestic regulations.
Said sentence, did not contain a time limitation of effects nor did it eliminate the obligation to submit form 720, which is still in force, and ordered the Kingdom of Spain to pay costs. Spanish law was adapted to said CJUE ruling, by Law 5/2022, of March 9, which annulled the aggravated sanctions specific to the 720 model and left them the same as in the casointernal s, banished imprescriptibility in caso for not having submitted the 720 model on time and annulled the penalty of 150% of unjustified capital gains, leaving said gains with the same treatment as those that can occur within Spain. The administrative sanctions of the AEAT for not declaring on time or erroneously the 720 model were brutal and disproportionate in terms of amount, many times much higher than the total amount of undeclared assets, even due to formal sanctions, the same as when USA Phone Number it was understood that there was an unjustified capital gain that was imprescriptible (evidence to the contrary of the prescription was not admitted, even when it came from a year already prescribed with a prescription gained when the model 720 came into force), since the IRPF was charged at the marginal rate of the general taxable base of the last year not prescribed, and that fee had a penalty of 150%. All this was annulled very correctly by the aforementioned CJEU ruling.
The problem arises and was raised with the people to whom the AEAT had previously applied the regulations declared void by the CJEU ruling, with a wide variety of casos and complex situations. Well, the people who had appealed the sanctions and tax assessments that were affected by the CJEU ruling, both administratively (at the beginning there was enormous resistance from the Administration to apply the aforementioned CJEU ruling) and judicial (which was admitted from the outset), as should undoubtedly be the case in a rule of law, In general, they have seen their rights recognized and the tax settlements that went against them annulled. of the CJEU ruling, with special relevance the numerous very correct rulings of our Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, which directly applied the CJUE ruling with all its effects against the excesses of the AEAT, among many other STS (appeal no. , of July 6 (appeal no. of September 1 (appeal no., by which declared the nullity of the contested disciplinary agreements issued in relation to the breach of the obligation to present form 720. The most serious and complex problem arises and was against people who did not appeal or that, having appealed, they had firm acts derived from actions of the AEAT of model 720, and to which the effects of the CJEU judgment were applied.
Said sentence, did not contain a time limitation of effects nor did it eliminate the obligation to submit form 720, which is still in force, and ordered the Kingdom of Spain to pay costs. Spanish law was adapted to said CJUE ruling, by Law 5/2022, of March 9, which annulled the aggravated sanctions specific to the 720 model and left them the same as in the casointernal s, banished imprescriptibility in caso for not having submitted the 720 model on time and annulled the penalty of 150% of unjustified capital gains, leaving said gains with the same treatment as those that can occur within Spain. The administrative sanctions of the AEAT for not declaring on time or erroneously the 720 model were brutal and disproportionate in terms of amount, many times much higher than the total amount of undeclared assets, even due to formal sanctions, the same as when USA Phone Number it was understood that there was an unjustified capital gain that was imprescriptible (evidence to the contrary of the prescription was not admitted, even when it came from a year already prescribed with a prescription gained when the model 720 came into force), since the IRPF was charged at the marginal rate of the general taxable base of the last year not prescribed, and that fee had a penalty of 150%. All this was annulled very correctly by the aforementioned CJEU ruling.
The problem arises and was raised with the people to whom the AEAT had previously applied the regulations declared void by the CJEU ruling, with a wide variety of casos and complex situations. Well, the people who had appealed the sanctions and tax assessments that were affected by the CJEU ruling, both administratively (at the beginning there was enormous resistance from the Administration to apply the aforementioned CJEU ruling) and judicial (which was admitted from the outset), as should undoubtedly be the case in a rule of law, In general, they have seen their rights recognized and the tax settlements that went against them annulled. of the CJEU ruling, with special relevance the numerous very correct rulings of our Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, which directly applied the CJUE ruling with all its effects against the excesses of the AEAT, among many other STS (appeal no. , of July 6 (appeal no. of September 1 (appeal no., by which declared the nullity of the contested disciplinary agreements issued in relation to the breach of the obligation to present form 720. The most serious and complex problem arises and was against people who did not appeal or that, having appealed, they had firm acts derived from actions of the AEAT of model 720, and to which the effects of the CJEU judgment were applied.