Paz Vega he has won a battle, although not a war, against the Tax Agency. The actress has been immersed for years in a long procedure against the Tax Agency and the National Court has just partially agreed with her and condoned her 560,000 euros fine. The sentence, on November 18, came just weeks before the Treasury included the actress in the list of large defaulters with a debt of three million euros.
The lawsuit dates back to the Treasury liquidated the actress an act for income tax from 2005 and 2006. The Tax Agency claimed her 958.329 euros to which he added a penalty of 560,409 euros. Paz Vega appealed to the Madrid Administrative Economic Court, which on July 23, 2014 rejected his claim.
Four years later, in July 2018, the defense of the actress opened a dispute in the National audience. The sentence, dated November 18 and which is already public, partially agrees with the actress. ‘El Periódico de España’ tried unsuccessfully on Tuesday to obtain his lawyer’s version.
Like many actors, television presenters, journalists, lawyers, singing doctors with high incomes, Paz Vega used a society, Max club 69, to pay taxes. Thus he managed to pay less taxes since companies pay 25% taxes for almost up to 50% high income in personal income tax. It was something that tax advisers recommended for years, but what the Treasury put the magnifying glass on a decade ago.
The Treasury only accepts the use of these companies when they are not a mere fiscal instrument, but have material means to act as producers and pay a market salary to the owner, in this case Paz Vega. Thus, for example, he defeated Hacienda Maria Teresa Campos, that he had his daughters employed at the production company.
But in the case of Paz Vega, the inspection concluded that nor there were real means in addition to finding “a series of expenses that, declared as deductible, should not have been because they were not related to the activity of the entity” and “undeclared income from work obtained outside of Spain.”
Paz Vega’s defense alleged that “Society, in addition to having the services of the interested party, effectively has material and personal means”. He added that in any case, his taxes were covered by “a reasonable interpretation of the rule” so he could have to pay more in rent, but never with a penalty, which in this case was half a million euros.
The ruling gives the figures of what Paz Vega entered in 2005 and 2006 “with the direct and exclusive participation of the artist of 859,387 euros and 713,711.51 euros respectively (image rights, reportage and participation in a series and in films of the actress)”.
The sentence considers the approach of the actress very weak but also criticizes the Treasury
The National Court does not buy Vega’s arguments because it considers that his approach “is very weak when crediting […] in particular that the entity actually had the material and personal means to carry out its activity ”. And he adds that “his allegations are very vague and imprecise […] without going so far as to explain in a minimally convincing way why society really had such means at its disposal, providing real added value ”.
Of course, the sentence is on the part of the actress when criticizing the sanctioning agreement of the Treasury, to which her “Lack of rigor” and that it is not sufficiently substantiated. That is why he annuls the sanctioning agreement with which Paz Vega earns half a million from the Treasury.
In 2017 the actress spoke in public about her problems with the treasury. “That is simply a debt that obeys a disparity of criteria with the Tax Agency and that is in the hands of the courts and when the court decides …”. The court has already ruled, although there is an appeal to the Supreme Court.