The proportionality of tax penalties is a central issue in Spanish and European jurisprudence, whose proper application decisively influences the protection of taxpayers’ rights.
In this article, we analyze some of the most relevant rulings, highlighting how the judicial interpretation of the principle of proportionality is transforming the way these penalties are imposed and justified.
Key issues on proportionality in tax penalties
The principle of proportionality in the tax field requires that the penalties imposed for tax violations be appropriate and balanced in relation to the seriousness of the offense committed.
The application of the principle of proportionality allows penalties to be fair and deterrent, without being arbitrary or disproportionate. It seeks to avoid excessive or unreasonable penalties that could violate taxpayers’ fundamental rights.
Differences between proportionality and other legal principles applied in penalties
The principle of proportionality is distinct from other legal principles applicable to tax penalties such as legality and culpability.
While the principle of legality establishes that a penalty cannot be imposed without a prior law that determines it, and the principle of culpability requires that only conduct committed intentionally or negligently be punished, the principle of proportionality focuses on ensuring that the penalty imposed maintains a fair and balanced relationship with the offense committed.
Analysis of main rulings on proportionality in tax penalties
Many court decisions have addressed this principle in their judgments, establishing criteria and limits for its application.
Main Supreme Court rulings on proportionality
The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for tax penalties to respect the principle of proportionality. In its ruling of July 25, 2023, the Court addressed a case in which a taxpayer failed to declare a transaction subject to but exempt from VAT, applying the reverse charge mechanism. The penalty imposed was 10% of the relevant amount.
The Court, based on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, annulled the penalty for being disproportionate to the offense committed. In another ruling, the Supreme Court declared illegal the regional section of the hydrocarbons tax, in force between 2013 and 2018.
This decision aligned with a previous judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which determined that Member States cannot establish differentiated regional tax rates for the same product and use. This ruling opened the door for companies that paid this tax to claim refunds. (elpais.com)
Notable interpretations from the Constitutional Court and their impact
The Constitutional Court has addressed the principle of proportionality in the field of tax penalties. In ruling 74/2022, it dismissed a question of unconstitutionality regarding article 203.6.b) 1º of the General Tax Law, raised by the Supreme Court.
The Constitutional Court considered that the penalty imposed did not violate the principle of proportionality, although this decision has been subject to criticism by legal scholars.
Relevant cases involving the Court of Justice of the European Union
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has intervened in the interpretation of the principle of proportionality in the tax field.
A noteworthy case is the confirmation of the fine of more than 13 billion euros imposed on Apple for illegal tax advantages in Ireland. The CJEU supported the European Commission’s decision, emphasizing the importance of proportionality in the imposition of tax penalties.
Another relevant case is the annulment by the CJEU of a 1.49 billion euro fine imposed on Google for abuse of dominant position through AdSense. The Court considered that the European Commission did not properly assess the duration of the contractual clauses involved, leading to the annulment of the penalty for lack of proportionality.
These rulings underscore the importance of the principle of proportionality in the field of tax penalties, both nationally and at the European level, and the need for penalties to be appropriate and fair in relation to the offenses committed.
How the Supreme Court establishes its approach on proportionality in penalties
Contact us
Need help
Factors considered by the Supreme Court when assessing proportionality
The Supreme Court considers various elements when analyzing the proportionality of tax penalties:
- Seriousness of the offense: assesses the nature and impact of the breach on the tax system.
- Economic harm: determines the financial damage caused to the public treasury.
- Taxpayer’s conduct: analyzes whether there was intent, negligence, or unintentional error.
- Recidivism: considers whether the taxpayer has committed similar offenses before.
- Cooperation with the Administration: values the taxpayer’s willingness to correct noncompliance and provide the required information.
Examples of cases where the penalty has been mitigated or increased
On several occasions, the Supreme Court has adjusted the severity of penalties based on specific circumstances:
- Mitigation: in a case where a company deducted expenses without complete documentation, the Court determined that the lack of evidence does not automatically imply culpability, emphasizing the need for individualized analysis before imposing penalties.
- Increase: in situations where repeated and intentional conduct by the taxpayer is detected, the Court has upheld more severe penalties to deter future offenses.
Consequences of these decisions in tax practice
The Supreme Court’s rulings on proportionality have several implications:
- Greater legal certainty: they provide clear criteria for the imposition of penalties, reducing arbitrariness.
- Adaptation by the Tax Administration: they require the Tax Authority to carry out more detailed and personalized assessments before imposing penalties.
- Taxpayer protection: they ensure that penalties are fair and commensurate with the offense committed, avoiding disproportionate punishments.
Impact of European Union law on the proportionality of tax penalties
In Spain, the General Tax Law establishes penalties that may be considered disproportionate according to European standards. For example, article 203.6.b) 1º of the LGT provides for fixed and high fines for formal breaches, which has generated debate about their suitability under the European principle of proportionality. The Supreme Court has raised constitutional questions regarding these penalties, challenging their compatibility with constitutional and European principles.
The Spanish Supreme Court has recognized the primacy of European Union law in terms of the proportionality of tax penalties. In recent cases, it has applied this principle by considering factors such as the seriousness of the offense and the harm caused. This case law reflects a trend towards harmonization with European guidelines, seeking to ensure that penalties are just and proportionate.
Main debates on proportionality in the tax penalty system
The principle of proportionality in tax penalties has been analyzed by various experts. Carlos David Delgado Sancho highlights that, although the General Tax Law lists this principle, its effective application can be limited by the rigidity of penalty rules, which could lead to disproportionate penalties in certain cases.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of this principle, noting that penalties must be proportional to the seriousness of the offense and to the harm caused. In this regard, it has overturned penalties considered excessive relative to the infringing conduct.
Influence of proportionality on the evolution of spanish tax legislation
Over the years, various tax reforms have been driven by the need to align penalties with this principle. For example, the General Tax Law has been amended to ensure that penalties are proportional to the seriousness of the offenses, thus avoiding punishments that may be arbitrary or excessive.
The case law has been a key driving force in this process of regulatory adaptation. Rulings from the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court have emphasized the importance of applying the principle of proportionality in tax penalty matters.
These rulings have led to the review and, in some cases, the annulment of penalties that did not respect this principle, setting precedents that have forced legislators to adjust current regulations. In addition, the Tax Administration has had to adapt to these judicial decisions.
Following rulings that questioned the proportionality of certain penalties, changes have been implemented in penalty procedures and in the interpretation of rules, seeking a fairer and more balanced application of tax penalties.
Reflection and perspectives on proportionality in tax penalties
The principle of proportionality in tax penalties seeks to balance the seriousness of the offense with the penalty imposed. However, the lack of consistent application can generate legal uncertainty and negatively affect the relationship between the Tax Administration and taxpayers.
Currently, and with the historical background we know, there is a trend towards adapting tax penalties to the offender’s economic capacity.
For taxpayers, understanding the principle of proportionality and its application in the tax field can help them identify it in their case and challenge penalties they may consider disproportionate.
Do you think you have an excessive penalty?
Contact us
