The court confirmed that the singer earned income to several companies, which allowed him to pay lower taxes.
Joacun Sabina will have to pay 2.5 million euros to the treasury. The National Court has dismissed the singer’s appeal against a decision that upheld the ban imposed by tax agency For the activities of Sabina and her companies in 2008, 2009 and 2010.
The system used by Sabina to pay lower taxes is a classic: she ran her business through various merchants to pay corporation tax, which is always more beneficial than personal income tax when the figures are high. The Treasury’s response after the related oversight has also been generic: Recalculate the accounts, which in this case show a debt with the Treasury. 2.501.678,75 Euro,
according to the sentence, which was initially stated CountrySabina, along with several relatives—her daughter, her partner—participated in three companies: Cigarillos Finos, Relatores and El Pan de Miss Nias. Through them he owned real estate (two in Madrid and one in Rota) and managed his works and copyrights. In the previous study, the turnover of the companies was 7.5 million euros.
“All this income,” explains the National High Court, “has a direct relationship with the plaintiff, either for bill services or for the collection of copyrights (assigned to the company by the plaintiff), with professional activities in which Joaquin Sabina’s The intervention constituted an essential and very personal element of the provision of the service concerned (galas, royalties, national record sales, collaboration in the press, etc.)”.
off the market
The companies paid Sabina, but according to the Treasury, the set amount was not in line with the market, meaning the singer should have paid less than she should have. Treasury technicians then “corrected the valuation to market value”, finding that the three companies should have lowered taxes and paid Singer much more.
The ruling overrules Sabina’s list of objections, such as the fact that the Treasury inspection lasted longer than prescribed law or that the system used to perform the calculations was not the most appropriate. The artist also denied his relationship with a society. The court responds to the latter that the allegation it purports to support is “unreliable” and recalls that it has already been pointed out in other open financial proceedings.
Controversial-Administrative Affairs Section 4 The last closes his motion of April 13, which has to pay the cost to the singer, who still has the last bullet left, to appeal the sentence. Supreme court,
according to the norms of