Millionaire blow from the National Court to Spain’s leading football clubs

These decisions of the National Court against Sevilla team and Atlético de Madrid maintain the criteria set since 2019. In return for the money payment made by Real Madrid, FC Barcelona and Valencia CF to different managers, which also benefits the players. In any case, the allegations made by Real Madrid and former Valencia CF player Víctor Ruiz will mean that the Supreme Court will have the final word on million-dollar sanctions against the ‘nobility’ of Spanish football. at least two appeals about the facts.

In the latest sanctions accessed by EL PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA from Prensa Ibérica, the judges are currently Atlético Madrid Paying 469,756 Euros to the Treasury as VAT is deducted from the payments made to player representatives in 2010 and 2013 it also reduces the joint cost of up to six signatures, transfers or renewals, respectively.

multiple players

Like this, The National Court affirms the position of the Central Economic Administrative Court and determines the amount of resources at 247,290 and 222,466 euros, respectively.. In the first case, the order affects the 2010 Non-Resident Income Tax on operations conducted with the representative organizations NCS Universal Rights BV and IMG Overseas. Second, it establishes the 2013 Non-Resident Income Tax sanction on operations conducted by Atlético de Madrid with Essel Sports Management and SMTM companies. Among others, Interventions on contracts with footballers José Antonio Reyes, José Manuel Jurado and Toby Alderweireld.

The Treasury Inspectorate also rejected Sevilla FC’s version arguing that the managers provided a service commissioned by the team: “The claimant does not specifically submit any procedure that the club has designed to determine its needs, nor any documentation proving how the budget so-called contracted services have been determined, neither entrusted to intermediaries.” “The establishment of mechanisms or protocols to control the correct execution of the work undertaken, nor the establishment of key lines of action that allow for the homogenization of the tasks of different intermediaries” underlines the September resolution. 6, which Acting as the representative of player Antonio Luna, who transferred to RCD Mallorca in 2013, Promoesport Baster BCN alludes to the actions of a person affiliated with the SL agency.

Valencia CF

In the Valencia CF case, another judgment of the National Court of 23 March confirms the two judgments of the Central Economic-Administrative Court of 24 June 2020 and 25 January 2021. He forced the Valencia team to pay 2,234,905 euros..

One of the players affected is Víctor Ruiz, who left Valencia club, who signed with Ché team from Napoli on 30 August 2011. On July 25, 2016, the Regional Inspection Unit of the Special Delegation of Valencia gave the player a tentative agreement for the concept of Personal Income Tax (IRPF) for 2011, 2012 and 2013 for the amount of 163,485 euros.As stated in another sentence of 15 June, EL PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA had access. The arrangement occurred due to the athlete’s failure to declare to his manager the payments made by Valencia CF.

As proof that the agent is working for the player and not the team, the Treasury refers to one of the bills drawn and attended by the player’s agent, issued by the agency Tacle Players 80 SL.as the first payment of brokerage fees for the transfer of professional footballer’s federative rights from SS Napoli to Valencia CF SAD“.

This society given to the player an invoice of 120,000 euros with the concept according to the sentence: “Commission for the negotiation of the professional football player’s employment contract with Valencia CF SAD for the sports seasons 2011-2016”, after leaving the Italian team for Valencia CF, which was transferred to Villarreal in 2014. He now plays for Real Betis.

jorge mendes

In the same sense, the Contested-Administrative Chamber confirmed the Treasury decisions of May and June 2021 in five more sentences. Real Madrid illegally deducted 3.2 million euros of VAT from funds paid to managers and players.. Only in case of former Real Madrid coach Jose Mourinhoowner’s representative Gestifute International Limited, jorge mendes, The total was 400,000 euros.

In the case of the Portuguese drafter, the Treasury Inspectorate, The regulations were “clear and emphatic”, the manager being paid by Real Madrid, which meant “a lower amount of the income he earned” for the manager, which would have resulted in higher taxation if done correctly. Because such expenses are not included in the list of assessed expenses that can be deducted in the personal work income section, expenses incurred when making payments to the agent cannot be deducted as work income.

Therefore, the Treasury Mourinho ‘hides payments made by the Tax Administration’ real Madrid to the “Gestifute” organization carried out on behalf of. “These amounts are classified as income from the business and must be included in the tax base of Mourinho’s personal income tax. Therefore, data from the Public Treasury is hidden in personal income tax returns for the period 2010-2011,” the Inspectorate said. continued. However, the National Court annulled the tax assessments for the current Roma coach for 2010, 2011 and 2012, as it foresees sanctions.

The Contested-Administrative Division of the National Court, in the aforementioned sentence of 6 September against Sevilla FC, in two other judgments of 12 June and 13 May 2019, FC Barcelona prefers ex-player’s manager for payments Gerard Pique pay less in personal income tax.

“The way it works”

The ‘working style’ of clubs, whose sanctions are now upheld by the National Court, was determined by the Treasury Inspectorate, which revealed that teams paid commissions from player contracts to managers. This transaction benefited the clubs financially as they covered the cost of VAT deducted and reduced the joint cost (players and managers) of the transfer, transfer or renewal.“denotes the sentence of the Fourth Division of the National Court against Sevilla FC on 6 September.

However, this performance also benefited the players:’They were exempted from paying the VAT quota or managed to lower their taxation in the IRPF.“Remember the contentious-administrative judges of the National Court.

Finally, the Central Economic-Administrative Court, which approved the Treasury Inspectorate’s criteria, understood that the said payments made by the main teams to the players’ representatives prevented them from having to pay them for the services rendered. And therefore he found that the monies paid should be attributed to the income of the football players: “As the resulting services refer to factors that clearly affect and benefit athletes” denotes the sentence mentioned above.