The Senate Economic Affairs Committee approved the bill without amendments, despite initial veto attempts that were rejected on the first ballot. Temporary taxes targeting banks, energy companies, and large fortunes were among the measures considered, reflecting a broader political clash as citizens weighed the distribution of wealth. The proposal now proceeds to the Senate plenary and is expected to secure final approval next week, removing the need for another round in Congress.
The socialist parliamentary group signaled its intent not to introduce additional changes, a stance that helped ease discussions within the committee. With 72 amendments already recorded, most groups chose not to intervene further. The party line remained focused on preserving the core elements of the proposal while allowing for minor adjustments through parliamentary procedures.
PP accuses him of fraud
The Partido Popular entered the debate forcefully, labeling the bill a fraud. They argued that there is no existing draft law, that the measure bypasses the Council of State, and simultaneously creates a new tax. The PP framed the proposal as a conflict between the rich and the poor. In response, the PSOE argued that the bill should be vetoed; they contended that wealth should not be distributed across the European Union in an extraordinary situation requiring extraordinary measures.
Senate groups also logged 72 partial amendments to the bill, with contributions from Ciudadanos (23), Más Madrid (10), ERC (8), Vox (8), PP (5), PNV (4), JxCAT (4), Bildu (3), the Canary Islands Coalition (2), Més per Mallorca (2), Agrupación Socialista Gomera (2), and Teruel Existe (1).
The PP amendments seek to align the energy tax with the European levy on windfall profits for fuel companies, abolish both the wealth tax and the bank tax, and, in parallel, strengthen the code of good practices for banks to protect vulnerable borrowers. Mortgagers are a focal point for these proposals.
In parallel, 23 citizen amendments proposed abolishing the tax on large fortunes and adapting banking and energy taxes to European benchmarks. They also introduced various exemptions tied to company size and other factors.
The CKD changes aim to dedicate 50 percent of the revenue from the three taxes to autonomous communities, raise the rates on financial transactions or gambling profits, and tax speculative products such as derivatives.
The PNV added four modifications to the energy tax to tax extraordinary gains instead of income, introduced a rebate for energy conversion investments, and separated income for non-energy group companies.
Other amendments propose taxing income earned outside Spain within the banking tax framework and align the large-estate tax with the Basque Country and Navarre.
Vox wants only extraordinary benefits taxed
Vox proposed that bank and energy company taxes apply solely to extraordinary benefits and be given a final character, with revenues used to reduce energy bills or support housing benefits. They also supported reimbursing investment reductions tied to habitual residences. The Canary Islands Coalition and the Gomera Socialist Association pushed for exemptions from energy tax on revenues from fuel distribution and sales on Ceuta and Melilla. JxCAT aimed to allocate tax-derived resources to autonomous communities, exclude operators without oil refining capacity from the energy tax, and cap payments at 20 percent of company profits.
Más Madrid argued for permanence of all three taxes and that half of the collections should go to autonomous communities. Més per Mallorca supported that approach as well, while Teruel Existe proposed deducting the commissions of legal entities from the bank tax when there is no profit.
The dialogue throughout the plenary stage underscored a broader debate about how to balance fiscal responsibility with social protection. Across parties, there was a shared concern about ensuring that any new taxes do not disproportionately burden households while still funding essential public services. The discussion also reflected regional considerations as communities sought to secure a fair share of tax revenues for local needs. In this evolving policy environment, committees and party groups continued to shape the proposals ahead of the final vote, with the aim of delivering a framework that aligns with European standards and domestic priorities. Attribution: Senate records.