The court annuls the inclusion of two persons related to a criminal offense on the list that the Tax and Customs Administration draws up annually
The Supreme Court is ruling for the first time on the scope and interpretation of the list of defaulters, which has been published annually by the Tax and Customs Administration since 2015, when the then minister Cristóbal Montoro launched it. And it does this to make it clear that this ranking can only include natural or legal persons who owe money to the Treasury for having “heavy” debt, which is not currently happening. The meaning of the sentence opens the door for many taxpayers to request their exclusion from the list. To begin with, the Supreme Court analyzed four appeals. The government services have been involved in two of them.
The most notable is that of the General Treasury of Social Security against the City Council of Madrid, which considered it inappropriate to include it in the list of debtors of the Municipal Public Treasury. The Supreme Court overturns the city government’s decision, deeming it “extremely serious” as there is no legal certainty other than the Social Security debtor statute.
As he explains in his sentence, the inclusion of a public administration in the list of defaulters in these circumstances causes “a justified social alarm” among citizens.
The text adds that “the merit and discredit of the one thus included, if the publication proves to be erroneous a posteriori, with the resulting loss of reputation, can scarcely be sufficiently repaired by the mere explanation of the erroneous inclusion in the above list.” In this sense, it urges government agencies to be “extremely careful” when using the list.
The Supreme Court has examined a total of four appeals. In addition to the two corresponding to public administrations, it establishes case law for two other persons, which also decided to annul their inclusion in the list of defaulters. Specifically, these two people were listed for “crime-related settlements.” That is, those that occur when the administration sees evidence of a crime against the Treasury.
Now the court understands that in these cases where there is a criminal connection, the liquidations are sent to the criminal court to be integrated into the case that could be opened. For this reason, they believe they are not generating appropriate tax debts for those affected to appear on the offender list.
Such a recording, the Supreme Court understands, would clash “head-on” with the principle of the presumption of innocence, “which can only be overturned by a final convicting judicial verdict, not before it, nor by anyone who is not a judge.”
Source: La Verdad
I’m Ben Stock, a journalist and author at Today Times Live. I specialize in economic news and have been working in the news industry for over five years. My experience spans from local journalism to international business reporting. In my career I’ve had the opportunity to interview some of the world’s leading economists and financial experts, giving me an insight into global trends that is unique among journalists.
