The Contentious Chamber of the Supreme Court (TS) has agreed to study the lawsuit filed by some businessmen after a search was carried out at their offices in Santa Cruz de Tenerife and, subsequently, a sanction was imposed on them.
At the time, this appeal was rejected by the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC), which also asked to recognize the illegality that, from its point of view, had been committed.
On April 11, 2018, the Contentious-Administrative Court of Santa Cruz authorized the entry and registration at the headquarters of this company located in the capital of Tenerife and which is dedicated to the operation of bars and restaurants.
The intervention had been requested by the Spanish Tax Administration Agency (AEAT), it was carried out two days later and had the “express” permission of one of the joint partners, according to the Supreme Court’s letter.
Before this court, it is alleged that several articles of the Constitution, the tax law and, especially, the decrees that regulate management and inspection procedures have been violated by failing to comply with state legislation.
The appellants believe that it is an opportunity to establish jurisprudence, given the void that exists, so they believe it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to rule on the matter.
The order authorized the agents to take all types of accounting and non-accounting data related to Corporate Tax for the period 2013 to 2016 and on April 13, the start of the inspection actions was notified.
The result is that months later a total tax debt of 305,000 euros was reported, for which a fine of 57,000 euros was also imposed.
The Regional Economic Administrative Court of the Canary Islands (TEARC) partially accepted a claim, so the company then filed an appeal before the TSJC and has now just done the same before the TS.
In this last area, it is indicated that the issue would be of interest as soon as the validity of the requirements to endorse these records was determined, such as, for example, whether the data obtained was decisive when imposing the sanction.
The Supreme Court concludes that the case raised from Tenerife is different from those addressed in previous rulings in which the evidence obtained was considered illicit and in this way, so this court could provide legal and uniform security to the application of these inspections.
Specifically, the aim is to determine whether all constitutional guarantees are extendable to actions carried out with the consent of the interested party or a person who has been authorized.
We also want to know if the annulment of the registration or if it is considered illegal means the sanctions are null and void or if it must be specified whether the data obtained were decisive or not for the regularization and imposition of the sanctions.
