Spanish court orders $64M tax refund to Shakira; 2023 fraud ruling unchanged

[princedeeblebleble 3,648]

I don't really get this system of taxing, where I live  your income generally gets automatically deducted and then at the beginning of the next year you get a calculation from the tax agency where you either get some money back or you pay. If you're a business you hire someone to do it, and then they do the calculations and once again you get from the agency either money back or pay the difference. 

Edited May 19 by princedeeblebleble

[Bronco 25,131]

2 hours ago, princedeeblebleble said:

I don't really get this system of taxing, where I live  your income generally gets automatically deducted and then at the beginning of the next year you get a calculation from the tax agency where you either get some money back or you pay. If you're a business you hire someone to do it, and then they do the calculations and once again you get from the agency either money back or pay the difference. 

This is a fairly standard taxation system for individuals who's main source of income isn't employment. 

[Juanlittlem 49,440]

2 hours ago, princedeeblebleble said:

I don't really get this system of taxing, where I live  your income generally gets automatically deducted and then at the beginning of the next year you get a calculation from the tax agency where you either get some money back or you pay. If you're a business you hire someone to do it, and then they do the calculations and once again you get from the agency either money back or pay the difference. 

This is how it works here as well. But taxes aint only about employment, it also comes from your properties (houses you own, actions in companies, cars, jewelry, art pieces).

Theres multiple things to take into account for taxes.

[TaylorSwift 162,478]

5 hours ago, RenegAde said:

The fact that she got this ruling is very telling, the tax agencies should have their docs in row before coming for people.

she paid while she was under investigation and they weren't coming for her for no reason. in 2011, she has spent most of her time in Spain with her boyfriend . Investigators were able to prove that she had been in Spain for 163 days and between 2012 and 2014 she spent more than 200 days in Spain, but it was not until 2015 that she declared Spain as her place of residence for tax purposes.

Edited May 19 by Teletubby

[RenegAde 20,558]

13 minutes ago, Teletubby said:

she paid while she was under investigation and they weren't coming for her for no reason. in 2011, she has spent most of her time in Spain with her boyfriend . Investigators were able to prove that she had been in Spain for 163 days and between 2012 and 2014 she spent more than 200 days in Spain, but it was not until 2015 that she declared Spain as her place of residence for tax purposes.

You are confusing me

The 163 days you mentioned is exactly why the tax agency lost. The legal threshold for residency is more than 183 days. By proving she was only there for 163 days in 2011 (because she was on a global world tour), the investigators proved she wasn't a resident.

The 200+ days and the settlement you're talking about happened between 2012 and 2014, which is a completely separate case. For 2011, the agency tried to use her relationship with her boyfriend to claim residency, and the High Court just ruled that was entirely illegal.  

So they didn't have their docs in a row at all and that is why they just got hit with a €60 million reality check. Good for her and serves them right.

 

[Bronco 25,131]

58 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

Good for her and serves them right.

Lol cheerleading a blatant tax dodger while 28% of spanish children live in relative poverty. 

"Good for her she had a tax dodge in the Bahamas in 2011"

[RenegAde 20,558]

2 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Lol cheerleading a blatant tax dodger while 28% of spanish children live in relative poverty. 

"Good for her she had a tax dodge in the Bahamas in 2011"

Blaming Shakira for child poverty in Spain while defending a government agency that just got caught violating its own laws is a wild and ridiculous take.

Tax needs to be collected LEGALLY, not through guess work.

Maybe look into other instances of corruption within the Spanish government and its authorities that actually playing a bigger role in the poverty crises instead of blaming a musician who won her case in a court of law.

[TaylorSwift 162,478]

1 hour ago, RenegAde said:

You are confusing me

The 163 days you mentioned is exactly why the tax agency lost. The legal threshold for residency is more than 183 days. By proving she was only there for 163 days in 2011 (because she was on a global world tour), the investigators proved she wasn't a resident.

The 200+ days and the settlement you're talking about happened between 2012 and 2014, which is a completely separate case. For 2011, the agency tried to use her relationship with her boyfriend to claim residency, and the High Court just ruled that was entirely illegal.  

So they didn't have their docs in a row at all and that is why they just got hit with a €60 million reality check. Good for her and serves them right.

She was not legally forced to pay, she voluntarily paid during ongoing investigation "as a gesture of good faith" to settle the 2011 tax year.

[Bronco 25,131]

2 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

Blaming Shakira for child poverty in Spain while defending a government agency that just got caught violating its own laws is a wild and ridiculous take.

Tax needs to be collected LEGALLY, not through guess work.

Maybe look into other instances of corruption within the Spanish government and its authorities that actually playing a bigger role in the poverty crises instead of blaming a musician who won her case in a court of law.

Did Shakira commit fraud? 
Yes. And she's still not served her jail time. 

Did Shakira in this specific case lie about how long she was a resident? 
Yes. She still claims it's lower than what the court found to be proven. 

And yet you think she's innocent. 

Has Shakira abused her wealth to avoid serving prison time for her convictions? 
Yes. 

Would the average person be able to do so? 
No.

Are you a boot licker? 
 

1 hour ago, RenegAde said:

The 163 days you mentioned is exactly why the tax agency lost. The legal threshold for residency is more than 183 days. By proving she was only there for 163 days in 2011 (because she was on a global world tour), the investigators proved she wasn't a resident.

Clearly. 
"She was on holiday so she shouldn't be seen as a resident" 
LOL

[RenegAde 20,558]

19 minutes ago, Teletubby said:

She was not legally forced to pay, she voluntarily paid during ongoing investigation "as a gesture of good faith" to settle the 2011 tax year.

This is a massive distortion of how tax litigation works. She literally had to tranfer the money to stop the government from seizing her assets while they fought them in court. 

The court didn't just order a refund, it condemned the tax agency's procedural recklessness and ordered the government to pay her legal costs plus accrued interest. That's embarrassing

https://uz.kursiv.media/en/2026-05-18/shakira-secures-e60-mln-payout-as-spanish-court-overturns-2011-tax-fraud-fine/?hl=en-GB

[RenegAde 20,558]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

Did Shakira commit fraud? 
Yes. And she's still not served her jail time. 

Did Shakira in this specific case lie about how long she was a resident? 
Yes. She still claims it's lower than what the court found to be proven. 

And yet you think she's innocent. 

Has Shakira abused her wealth to avoid serving prison time for her convictions? 
Yes. 

Would the average person be able to do so? 
No.

Are you a boot licker? 
 

Clearly. 
"She was on holiday so she shouldn't be seen as a resident" 
LOL

Huh?

The Courts ruling on this specific case just confirmed she was only in Spain for 163 days because she was working on a 120-date global tour. This means the court explicitly found her timeline to be true and the tax agency’s claims to be illegal.

Also, For the 2012–2014 was never found guilty of fraud by weight of evidence, she took a plea deal specifically to avoid a lengthy trial and under Spanish law, any sentence under two years for a first-time, non-violent offense is automatically suspended. It has nothing to do with her "abusing her wealth" any average citizen in Spain should get the exact same suspended sentence.

Courts do not penalize the government and pay a billionaire’s legal fees unless the government was entirely in the wrong.

Calling me a bootlicker is so typical of you to shift the goalpost and virtue signal. You're trying to project that onto me, but you're really just showing how ignorant you are on this issue and making an ass out of yourself.

Edited May 19 by RenegAde