Spain: When should taxpayers recognise refunds of taxes declared contrary to law?

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Spain: When should taxpayers recognise refunds of taxes declared contrary to law?

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-garrigues.png
money-5350262.jpg

The Spanish Supreme Court has confirmed its stance on the fiscal year in which income from a refund of taxes should be recognised, report Alejandro Fernández and Sandra Díaz of Garrigues Spain

The Spanish Supreme Court recently handed down several judgments reiterating and extending its interpretation regarding the fiscal year in which taxpayers should recognise in their corporate income tax returns the income derived from a refund of taxes declared unconstitutional.

In 2010 and 2011, the Supreme Court ruled on cases in which the unconstitutionality of the provision creating a charge supplementing the tax on games of luck had been declared, and the taxpayer had asked when it had to recognise that refund in its corporate income tax return:

  • In the fiscal year in which it accounted for, and paid, the tax being refunded; or

  • In the fiscal year in which the refund is received.

The importance of this clarification is undeniable, given that in the first case, the refund could be deemed income relating to a statute-barred year; in which case, it would not be subject to corporate income tax.

In this regard, the Supreme Court (through its judgments 2984/2010, of March 25 2010; 4046/2010, of May 25 2010; 5556/2010, of October 27 2010; 5962/2010, of November 10 2010; and 7340/2011, of November 7 2011) upheld the view that the first alternative was more lawful. Specifically, according to the court, the payment of the tax subsequently declared unconstitutional is incorrect ab initio, in so far as the effects of the unconstitutionality of the provision are not constitutive of the right to a refund of the amount incorrectly paid but are merely declaratory.

This case law on the recognition, for corporate income tax purposes, of a refund of taxes declared unconstitutional was expressly invoked by the Directorate-General of Taxes in its binding ruling V2149-13, in which it stated that refunds of port fees relating to fiscal years 1996 to 2002 that had been declared unconstitutional should be recognised as income in the corporate income tax base of the years in which the taxpayer had deducted those fees as a tax expense, regardless of when the fees had been recognised for accounting purposes.

Nonetheless, the tax inspectors’ interpretation, along with a judgment by another court – namely, National Appellate Court judgment 2988/2021, of June 23 2021 – had generated a certain debate (due to being a questionable interpretation, to say the least) about whether this case law remained in force and whether it could extend to the recognition of refunds of taxes that had been declared contrary to EU law.

As stated above, the Supreme Court has handed down judgments – 200/2024, of February 6 2024; 224/2024, of February 8 2024; and 238/2024, of February 12 2024 – concluding that refunds of taxes declared contrary to EU law must be recognised in the corporate income tax base of the fiscal year in which the tax in question was paid, making reference to its case law on refunds of taxes declared unconstitutional, thereby clarifying not only the extension of that criterion but also its absolute validity, in contrast to certain theories invoked by the tax authorities to deny its applicability.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court has appeared to clarify its doctrine regarding the corporate income tax treatment of income obtained by taxpayers as a result of a refund of taxes declared unconstitutional or contrary to EU law. However, it is still important to consider all the nuances of each case, and therefore it is advisable for a tax expert to analyse the appropriate tax treatment of such income.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article