The Supreme Court confirms that Sabina must pay 2.5 million to the Treasury for copyright

The court does not enter into the merits of the matter and ends the judicial journey by confirming the sentence of the National Court

MADRID, 2 Ago. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court has inadmissible the appeal of the singer Joaquín Sabina against the sentence of the National Court that confirmed that he had to pay 2.5 million euros in taxes for personal income tax for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 in concept of copyright, transferred to family businesses.

In an order to which Europa Press has had access, the court has not entered into the analysis of the merits of the appeal, since it did not appreciate a cassational interest that warrants the pronouncement of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court.

In this sense, the magistrates have indicated that the issues raised by Sabina's appeal "must be understood as essentially resolved" in the jurisprudence of the high court. Against this decision there is no appeal, so the legal journey of the artist comes to an end.

The singer had gone to the Supreme Court with the intention of amending the judgment of the National Court that in June 2022 sided with the Tax Agency against Sabina's judicial appeal, which had already unsuccessfully claimed administratively before the Economic Court -Central Administrative (TEAC). The State Attorney also wanted the dismissal of the appeal.

Along with family members, Sabina was a partner or administrator of three companies: Ultramarinos Finos, Relatores and El Pan de Mis Niñas, with which she managed her copyrights, real estate in Madrid and Rota, a sailboat and old books, according to the inventory collected in the sentence, dated April 13 and consulted by Europa Press.

During the three years covered by the tax inspection, these three companies generated more than 12 million euros in operating income: "All this income has a direct relationship with the plaintiff, either for billed services or for copyright collection ( ceded by the plaintiff to the company), with the professional activities in which the intervention" of Sabina "constituted the essential and very personal element of the provision of the corresponding service (realization of galas, 'royalties', national record sales, collaborations in press, etc.).

In her defense, Sabina argued that she had no relationship with any of those companies, although the AN magistrates cite judgments from the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid that declared that argument "implausible" and determined that the singer had a tax of less than the one that corresponded to him by application of the normal market value, "which would have determined a tax rate higher than that of the Corporation Tax, and a consequent increase in income to be attributed" to the singer by personal income tax.

The Treasury, in its liquidation to Sabina, agreed to increase the tax base of the IRPF after the singer had paid less taxes with his companies for the Corporation Tax.