Shakira Celebrating And Coming For Spain Tax Authority & Prosecutors

[RenegAde 20,520]

6 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Its not unlawful overreach. As explained to you in another thread - she voluntarily paid mid-investigation. 

My god you make rocks look intelligent.

If it wasn't an unlawful overreach, the National High Court wouldn't have just ordered the government to refund her every single euro PLUS court costs. Unlike you, they understand that a state agency cannot just invent tax liability based on guesswork. What's not clicking ma'am.

[Bronco 24,769]

5 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

Stop virtue signalling. This is a black and white legal issue not an avenue to compare morals. they tried to cash out cuz she settled the first case and they got a reality check.

And you'll know with a black & white legal issue that the decision isn't final until all legal proceedings have been completed.

The High Court is a low ranking court. There are still appeals procedures to take place where the High Court ruling will be tested.

And get to **** out of here with that MAGA c*nt language of virtue signaling. 

[Bronco 24,769]

7 minutes ago, RenegAde said:

If it wasn't an unlawful overreach, the National High Court wouldn't have just ordered the government to refund her every single euro PLUS court costs. Unlike you, they understand that a state agency cannot just invent tax liability based on guesswork. What's not clicking ma'am.

I think you don't understand the word overreach babe and yet you're trying to explain law 😂

To say it was overreach would imply that the treasury had acted beyond its remit. For it to have been overreach - the court would have had to rule that the government can't collect tax from Spanish residents. 

They found that the agency had no proven she had not committed fraud not that the agency had committed an overreach.

And again little miss alternative reality. The High Court's decision is not the final ruling yet you're acting like its a settled matter of law.

And here's the virtue signaling. Regardless of the legal decision - and laws are not the ultimate arbitration of right & wrong. 

Shakira claimed she only resided in Spain for 140 days. The court found she resided for 160.

Shakira claims she had no home in Spain in the 2011 tax year - yet resided in her partner's home for 160 days. And spent the rest of the year working away. In anyone's basic understanding of reality - that means she lived in Spain with her partner. Unless we're all accepting that she was homeless. 

Her "defence" is that she worked away and her primary residence was in a tax haven. Yet all the evidence presented of that residence in the tax haven show she did not reside there and that it followed well established tax evasion methods of maintaining shell residencies in tax havens. That's tax evasion. 

Tax evaders are criminals. Tax evasion costs Spain €27 billion annually. Spain has a relative child poverty rate of 28%. I think we all agree that that stolen €27bn could be used to help uplift children from poverty and if Shakira wants to use her stage to talk about the difficulties facing single mothers - she can put her money where her mouth is.

[RenegAde 20,520]

14 minutes ago, Bronco said:

And you'll know with a black & white legal issue that the decision isn't final until all legal proceedings have been completed.

The High Court is a low ranking court. There are still appeals procedures to take place where the High Court ruling will be tested.

And get to **** out of here with that MAGA c*nt language of virtue signaling. 

Seems you're embarrassingly desperate to make an even bigger ASS of yourself than you already have and I'm happy to help you with that today.

Calling the National High Court a low-ranking court is another painful display of your dogheaded ignorance. Its literally a Federal Court sitting second only to the Supreme court.

And yes, while the Tax Agency can desperately appeal to the Supreme Court, you clearly don'tI understand how appellate jurisdiction works. The Supreme Court does not re-litigate the facts, re-examine the evidence, or recount the days she spent on tour. They only review whether the High Court misapplied specific statutory or constitutional law. Because the High Courts ruling is based on objectives mathematics vs statutory requirements this appeal is as good dead on arrival and a cheap delay tactic but stranger things have happened.

 

[RenegAde 20,520]

25 minutes ago, Bronco said:

And you'll know with a black & white legal issue that the decision isn't final until all legal proceedings have been completed.

The High Court is a low ranking court. There are still appeals procedures to take place where the High Court ruling will be tested.

And get to **** out of here with that MAGA c*nt language of virtue signaling. 

Also since when did "virtue signaling" become maga rhetoric?

Its a standard term used to describe people exactly like you who substitute facts with cheap moral posturing because you can't string together logical and legally sound argument, like a looser you desperately slap problematic labels to the conversation and hope it sticks.

Not today!

[nATAH 56,849]

she's garbage

[RenegAde 20,520]

26 minutes ago, Bronco said:

I think you don't understand the word overreach babe and yet you're trying to explain law 😂

To say it was overreach would imply that the treasury had acted beyond its remit. For it to have been overreach - the court would have had to rule that the government can't collect tax from Spanish residents. 

They found that the agency had no proven she had not committed fraud not that the agency had committed an overreach.

And again little miss alternative reality. The High Court's decision is not the final ruling yet you're acting like its a settled matter of law.

And here's the virtue signaling. Regardless of the legal decision - and laws are not the ultimate arbitration of right & wrong. 

Shakira claimed she only resided in Spain for 140 days. The court found she resided for 160.

Shakira claims she had no home in Spain in the 2011 tax year - yet resided in her partner's home for 160 days. And spent the rest of the year working away. In anyone's basic understanding of reality - that means she lived in Spain with her partner. Unless we're all accepting that she was homeless. 

Her "defence" is that she worked away and her primary residence was in a tax haven. Yet all the evidence presented of that residence in the tax haven show she did not reside there and that it followed well established tax evasion methods of maintaining shell residencies in tax havens. That's tax evasion. 

Tax evaders are criminals. Tax evasion costs Spain €27 billion annually. Spain has a relative child poverty rate of 28%. I think we all agree that that stolen €27bn could be used to help uplift children from poverty and if Shakira wants to use her stage to talk about the difficulties facing single mothers - she can put her money where her mouth is.

Huh?

I stopped reading at that ridiculous definition of overreach.

You don't understand Spanish law/Judicial hierarchy, you don't understand tax litigation, you don't undertand basic legal concept and you clearly don't understand administrative law and you want to explain overreach to me? Get the F out of here 

Take the L,  do you yourself a favour and do some actual research or just sit this one out.

[StrawberryBlond 15,555]

Still don't understand how she's been fully acquitted of this. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't buy Shakira's innocence in all this. The woman song writes, plays multiple instruments, is fluent in 4 languages and has a degree in ancient philosophy. And she wants us to believe that she didn't know a thing about tax law and just naively believed her partner when she asked him if she should have to pay it? Gimme a break.

I'm not as smart as her and don't have a clue about how taxes work...which is why I would know that plenty of people don't even know the laws in their own country so Gerard's word would've have been good enough for me. I would've done my research and then phoned the tax office, maybe even documented what they said in response or asked for it in writing as evidence if I ever get accused of evasion despite following their instructions. She did it because she thought she could get away with it, end of. If she weren't a celebrity, we know this would've been handled very differently. For her to take the smug route with this reaction isn't a good look on her. 

[Economy 52,838]

9 hours ago, Bronco said:

Lick the boot harder babe. 

Plenty of people have jobs that require international travel, they still have a permanent residence. 
Unless you're suggesting Shakira was homeless and stateless? 

Correct me if im wrong but wasnt part of the debate not that she was claiming no residence but rather that she still considered herself based in the US and not Spain?

[Ilia Malinin 2,877]

me walking into this thread

[Bronco 24,769]

6 hours ago, Economy said:

Correct me if im wrong but wasnt part of the debate not that she was claiming no residence but rather that she still considered herself based in the US and not Spain?

She claimed tax residency in the Bahamas at this period of time - but evidence suggests she never actually lived in her Bahamas property as the only costs proven were for basic caretaking costs by permanent staff and there was little to no evidence of her travelling there.

[Bronco 24,769]

13 hours ago, RenegAde said:

Huh?

I stopped reading at that ridiculous definition of overreach.

You don't understand Spanish law/Judicial hierarchy, you don't understand tax litigation, you don't undertand basic legal concept and you clearly don't understand administrative law and you want to explain overreach to me? Get the F out of here 

Take the L,  do you yourself a favour and do some actual research or just sit this one out.

Babe. A government agency can only overreach if it acts outside of its remit.

That gets taught in highschool. I have an MRes in Politics. 

[RenegAde 20,520]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

Babe. A government agency can only overreach if it acts outside of its remit.

That gets taught in highschool. I have an MRes in Politics. 

Imagine trying to flash an irreverent political science research degree to explain administrative tax law. Your definition of overreach is flawed.

A legal overreach happens when an agency enforces rules and issues penalty outside its statutory authority. The Spanish agency only has the authority to tax residents who meet the 183 days threshold which the court have verified that she did not meet. By ruthlessly tracking her down and issuing the penalties anyway, the agency acted outside their authority. This is a text book definition of administrative overreach.

That MRes needs to be revoked for being this loud and wrong baby.

[Bronco 24,769]

1 hour ago, RenegAde said:

Imagine trying to flash an irreverent political science research degree to explain administrative tax law. Your definition of overreach is flawed.

A legal overreach happens when an agency enforces rules and issues penalty outside its statutory authority. The Spanish agency only has the authority to tax residents who meet the 183 days threshold which the court have verified that she did not meet. By ruthlessly tracking her down and issuing the penalties anyway, the agency acted outside their authority. This is a text book definition of administrative overreach.

That MRes needs to be revoked for being this loud and wrong baby.

That's not what government overreach is nor is it the conclusion of the court. 

The agency did not "ruthlessly track her down". They opened an investigation into her - which she then chose to voluntarily pay before the completion of the investigation. 

They hadn't issued a penalty when she decided to pay.

The court did not rule that the agency had committed overreach. 

The court ruled that the agency's evidence did not meet the legal threshold necessary under the case of vital interests test and that they ruled that working abroad does not meet the "sporadic absence" test. Not that they had committed an overreach. 

Honestly I can't wait for the world to allow us to deal with class traitors properly. 

[RenegAde 20,520]

16 minutes ago, Bronco said:

That's not what government overreach is nor is it the conclusion of the court. 

The agency did not "ruthlessly track her down". They opened an investigation into her - which she then chose to voluntarily pay before the completion of the investigation. 

They hadn't issued a penalty when she decided to pay.

The court did not rule that the agency had committed overreach. 

The court ruled that the agency's evidence did not meet the legal threshold necessary under the case of vital interests test and that they ruled that working abroad does not meet the "sporadic absence" test. Not that they had committed an overreach. 

Honestly I can't wait for the world to allow us to deal with class traitors properly. 

That’s exactly what it means for people who understand legal concepts. Its one thing to be factually illiterate and its another to be willfully ignorant and incapable of admitting when you're are wrong.