The Supreme Court stops the Treasury in its persecution of the executive partners for their diets

The Supreme court (TS) has charged against the massive verification of the Tax Agency (Aeat) of the allowances of the partners or administrators of the companies that carry out, also, executive duties. The Supreme, in a sentence of 18 May 2020, establece que estos directivos are not obliged to justify their expenses to access the exemption prevista en la normativa para estas retribuciones. The ruling reminds that it is the company that must accredit them.




The Supreme Magistrate Jesús Cudero, rapporteur for the judgment, highlights that the Tax Agency, by requiring this check, has confused the personalities of payer and recipient of diets. “Hacienda no puede exigir esta comprobación cuando la actuación administrativa se ha dirigido al contribuyente como tal y no como representante legal de la sociedad”.

To access the exemption of the allowances in the personal income tax, the law requires that these payments be to cover travel expenses, maintenance and stay. El Supremo resolvió en otra sentencia que who must demonstrate if these diets, effectively, were used for these purposes, it is the company and not the worker. “In this way, la Agencia Tributaria no puede dirigirse a un socio ejecutivo en su condición de trabajador para exigirle que pruebe los gasto”.

Nevertheless, both the administrative courts of Finance and the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) from Galicia thought otherwise. Entendieron que en el supuesto de los administradores no era la empresa como tal la llamada a prove the exemption of these diets. They explained that the perceiver-the administrator- era, at the same time, the legal representative of the payer, being so he had to be himself - already in his own condition as a personal income taxpayer, and not exercising the representation of the company- who should try it.

No cabe alterar las reglas esenciales de distribución de la carga de la prueba en la materia, that determine that it is not the employee who must prove, sino que la Administración you must contact the employer“, argues the High Court. “La condición de trabajador y administrador del perceptor de la dieta no determina per se que sea éste el que, ineluctablemente, deba acreditar la realidad de los desplazamientos o de los gastos de manutención y estancia”, add the sentence.

El Supremo destaca que the Administration never addressed the affected person as administrator of the entity. “Lo hizo, forever, as a taxpayer of the tax that was being verified, this is, como sujeto pasivo del IRPF”, point the fault.

He acted against the worker


In the tax investigation and inspection procedure, the taxpayer was always considered as the natural person who had received the diets, to the point that it went to him, and not to the company that administered or represented, from whom that justification was demanded. “Para el Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional (TEAR) and for Galician TSJ, he requirement addressed only to the natural person receiving the diets, It is completely irrelevant since the fundamental thing for both is that the person affected was an administrator and, as such, had access to the required documentation and, thus, debió aportarla a Hacienda”, argues the Supreme to rebut the position of the TSJ and TEAR.

El Supremo ha pacificado un debate cuya resolución conforme a Derecho dota de las siempre deseables peace of mind and security for tens of thousands of social administrators in all Spain”. “Unfortunately, given the clear terms of the Supreme Court's sentence, the Chamber no longer considered it appropriate to enter to assess, as it had been pointed out in the Order for admission to process, if the full elevation rule is applicable, also by the administrators themselves, en las mismas condiciones que el resto de contribuyentes”.

The Aeat initiated thousands of processes


El Tribunal Supremo resolvió hace meses la controversia acerca de sobre quién recaía la carga de la prueba del displacement, maintenance and stay that determine the exemption of the diets in the IRPF, if about the worker or about the company. In a sentence, the Supreme was exhaustive, pointing out that it is about the company and that it is this that must prove the expenses.

Nevertheless, the Tax Agency(Aeat), on the occasion of his comprobación masiva de la exención de las dietas in Income Tax (IRPF), involved thousands of administrators and partners of companies in which they, also, perform leadership or management functions.

En este concreto supuesto, the violation of those forms, addressing someone in such a condition that they were not required to attend to what was required of them, it was so serious that this violation became substantial, background, becoming the reason why the Supreme agrees to the cassation, anulando la sentencia del TSJ-Galicia y la resolución del Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional”.

Legal security


Tax advisors consider that the Tax Agency must maximize the legal neatness of its verification actions. In his opinion, “debe velar por no perturbar la esfera jurídica de los contribuyentes”.

Afortunadamente, like in this case, hay contribuyentes que no están dispuestos a rendirse y perseveran en la defensa de los que consideran sus legítimos intereses y derechos”. “Estos primeros años del nuevo recurso de casación están siendo clave para dotar de protección al contribuyente”.

Source: the Economist.- 28/05/20.