Home » The Supreme Court forces Mourinho to pay a personal income tax debt when he coached Real Madrid

The Supreme Court forces Mourinho to pay a personal income tax debt when he coached Real Madrid

by admin
The Supreme Court forces Mourinho to pay a personal income tax debt when he coached Real Madrid

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Portuguese coach Jose Mourinho must pay a debt corresponding to the tax settlement related to the Personal Income Tax (IRPF) of 2011 and 2012, when he managed Real Madrid.

In 2018, the Central Economic Administrative Court dismissed his claim relating to personal income tax for the periods 2010-2012, which resulted in a tax fine of 571,073 euros and a settlement agreement of 881,368 euros.

The National Court later annulled the sanction and declared the right of the Administration to determine the tax debt corresponding to 2010 to have expired, but it did maintain the years 2011 and 2012.

Mourinho appeal

The Portuguese coach of Real Madrid, José Mourinho. EFE/JuanJo Martín

Mourinho appealed the settlements for these two years because he alleged the economic court’s incorrect assessment of the taxation related to the payments received through the mediation of his contract with Real Madrid.

Specifically, he alleged that these payments could not be considered his remuneration because it was not proven that the club paid the Gestifute company – dedicated to intermediation between athletes and football clubs – on its behalf, but rather that it was Real Madrid that required the services. of this company and paid him for it.

The Supreme Court rejects the appeal

But now the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Supreme Court rejects his appeal and forces him to complete the settlements for 2011 and 2012 by remembering that there was no withholding, nor was the coach’s performance declared subject to those payments, so the included in your personal income tax return.

See also  Attacks on military installations will be conveyed to the various roles, Formation Commanders' Conference

And he highlights that “the Tax Administration cannot be blamed for any infraction in those years, since “no lack of diligence is evident in the present case, especially considering that it was not until the corresponding legal qualification, carried out by the inspection, regarding of the amounts paid on which no withholding was made, when the obligation to withhold said amounts by the payer was verified.” With EFE

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy