International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Spain: Subrogation to tax rights and obligations in mergers

Sponsored by


Subrogation to the tax rights and obligations in mergers, spinoffs and asset contributions, remains unaltered.

Despite the many changes seen in recent years to Spanish corporate income tax legislation, the element discussed in this article, subrogation to the tax rights and obligations in mergers, spinoffs and asset contributions, has remained unaltered.

Originally, the corporate income tax legislation included a separate chapter for the regime envisaged in Directive 90/434/EEC (now, Directive 2009/133/EC) for business reorganisation transactions (neutrality regime), and for the transactions defined therein, it expressly envisaged subrogation of the transferee (of the assets rights and liabilities transferred in those transactions) to all the tax rights and obligations held by the transferor.

Spanish corporate income tax legislation contains also a definition of the treatment of income arising in any transfer of assets and/or rights, which encompasses mergers, spinoffs or asset contributions (general regime), and makes no mention, in this case, of subrogation to the tax rights and obligations of the companies transferring their assets rights and liabilities in these transactions. This regime applies where, for any reason, transactions are not carried out subject to the neutrality regime.

Unrelated to whichever tax regime is applied in each case, the Spanish corporate legislation contains its own definitions, on the matters falling within its scope, for mergers, spinoffs and asset contributions. While these definitions share many points in common with those in Directive 2009/133/EC (the types of transactions qualifying for the neutrality regime), they are not completely identical in all cases. Despite also having been amended in recent years, the corporate legislation has always expressly provided for universal succession by the transferee to the transferor's rights and obligations in some of those transactions, without making any exceptions for tax rights and obligations.

What we may find, therefore, is that the neutrality regime may be applied to some transactions but not to others; and for many of the latter, regardless of their tax regime, corporate law provides for subrogation of the transferee to the transferor's rights and obligations.

The Spanish tax authorities have traditionally defended a self-serving, systematic interpretation of Spanish law, whereby because tax subrogation is envisaged in the neutrality regime, it follows, by logical inference, that under the general regime, the transferor's tax rights and obligations are not transferable to the transferee.

That systematic interpretation might be questionable, however, in that the express recognition that subrogation to the tax rights and obligations comes into play in transactions under the neutrality regime might not be sufficient to displace the right to subrogation existing in every transaction on which corporate law confers the effects of universal succession.

This interpretation was adopted by the Spanish Supreme Court in a judgment rendered on March 9 2017, rejecting the tax authorities' position in a case where they denied the continuity of a tax benefit that had been elected by the absorbed company in a merger (deferred taxation of a gain on condition that the amount obtained would be reinvested and the investment held in the following years).

Besides the effect it may have on decision making in restructuring transactions, this court decision could also impact cases where, due to interpretation differences, the tax authorities have rejected the continuity of tax benefits or advantages in transactions already performed, regardless of whether the neutrality regime has been elected.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.
Karl Berlin talks to Josh White about meeting the Fair Tax standard, the changing burden of country-by-country reporting, and how windfall taxes may hit renewable energy.
Sandy Markwick, head of the Tax Director Network (TDN) at Winmark, looks at the challenges of global mobility for tax management.
Taxpayers should look beyond the headline criteria of the simplification regime to ensure that their arrangements meet the arm’s-length standard, say Alejandro Ces and Mark Seddon of the EY New Zealand transfer pricing team.
In a recent webinar hosted by law firms Greenberg Traurig and Clayton Utz, officials at the IRS and ATO outlined their visions for 2023.
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
An intense period of lobbying and persuasion is under way as the UN secretary-general’s report on the future of international tax cooperation begins to take shape. Ralph Cunningham reports.
Fresh details of the European Commission’s state aid case against Amazon emerge, while a pension fund is suing Amgen over its tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service.