The Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Catalonia has confirmed that a taxpayer must pay 22,520.29 euros to the Tax Agency (AEAT) as IRPF (Personal Income Tax) for two fiscal years. The Chamber concludes that he was a tax resident in Spain, despite the fact that He maintained that he lived in the Dominican Republic.
The resolution agrees with the Treasury and the Regional Economic Administrative Court of Catalonia (TEARC) and dismisses the appeal, imposing the payment of legal costs on the appellant, which amounts to 3,000 euros according to the ruling STSJ AR 603/2026.
Tax residence is the key in this case, because the Law establishes that a person must pay taxes in Spain when they remain in the country for more than 183 days a year or if they have the main core of their economic interests here. And this was the case with this man, who met both criteria.
As the ruling indicates, the taxpayer lived in Spain during the period of time investigated. The evidence presented supports that he made around 400 medical visits to hospitals in the city where he lived, including rehabilitation treatment.
To this we must add that regular use of mobile phones has been demonstrated in Spain, with thousands of calls from national territory and almost none from abroad. But they also found health insurance, bank accounts, notary services and safe deposit boxes in his home with documentation supporting that he was living in Spain.
He directed his business and economic activity from Spain
In the ruling, it is noted that the magistrates found evidence that the taxpayer was directing his business activity from Spain, managing his assets, companies and finances, both national and international. For this reason, the court concluded that it was in our country where it had its economic interests.
His defense, then, alleged that the man resided in the Dominican Republic where he claimed to have his habitual residence and business activity. But he did not prove that tax residence, which is where the first problem appears.
According to the legal text, there was no official certificate of tax residence, which is a key requirement in these cases. The documents that you had provided such as licenses or administrative records do not serve to prove residency for tax purposes.
The Chamber concluded that there was no real taxation in the Dominican Republic
The tax returns that he had presented in the Dominican Republic were of very low income and without payment of taxes, which, according to the Chamber, reinforces the conclusion that there was no taxation outside of Spain.
In addition, the absence of trips to this country, the lack of evidence about daily expenses or simply that they reflected living there were taken into account. It was also proven that his partner’s residence was in Spain, so an additional legal presumption of residence was activated.
The opening of the safe was legal
The defense challenged the actions of the inspection that opened and sealed a safe. He alleged that fundamental rights were being violated but the court rejected this argument. The reason is that safe deposit boxes cannot be equated with the home, which is protected by the Constitution.
The reason is that they are spaces in which both documents and property are questioned, without any relation to private life. For this reason, they explain “a judicial authorization was not necessary for its opening.”
Therefore, the TSJ concludes that this taxpayer should have paid taxes in Spain on all of his income during the years analyzed. Also that the alleged residence abroad lacks evidentiary support. For this reason, it confirms the liquidation of the Treasury and his heir will have to pay the 22,250 euros claimed, in addition to the costs.
This resolution can be appealed to the Supreme Court (TS).