The Treasury continues to tighten the siege against the expenses that it considers not deductible on the part of societies of artists and celebrities. On this occasion, the Tax Agency has managed to get the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid to confirm a fine to the presenter Patricia Conde for deduction from her company, Creative Management and Producciones, of VAT on expenses such as the renovation of her house in La Moraleja, furniture, his car, underwear, perfumes, makeup and two mobiles, among others. For the fine of the Treasury and its confirmation, the testimony of the doorman of his house has been "decisive", according to the sentence to which Cinco Días has had access.
Patricia Conde appeared in 2017 in the list of defaulters of the Treasury with a debt of 1.3 million (which rose to 1.8 million the following year). Then, the presenter defended herself through her Instagram account: "Of course I pay my taxes in astronomical amounts and since I was a child, and I have not stopped paying them for a single day (...) The reason my name appears in that happy one list is that the Treasury understands that at a certain moment, which goes back more than 10 years, I paid according to a criterion that does not share ". And he added "To clarify who is right, if the Treasury or those who advised me, corresponds to the Courts, and as of today everything is pending judgment by them."
Now, the courts have ruled on a part of the amounts in dispute in a ruling in which they agree with the Treasury. Other litigations are open, the outcome of which will have to wait, but the recent ruling clarifies in detail what some of these differences of opinion are.
The Tax Agency raised a record for an amount to be paid of 77,681.47 euros for the VAT settlements of 2007 and 2008 and also fined Patricia Conde's company for 58,180.17 euros, for deduction of the VAT quotas borne by the purchase and renovation of a flat in La Moraleja as well as the cost of clothing, beauty treatments and cosmetics.
Patricia Conde appealed the fine in court. He alleged that the apartment was not his usual residence. He said that his company (first called Pati Conde SLU and then Creative Management and SLU productions) bought the apartment, located on Ivy Street, to "establish there his headquarters for his activity representing artists and to locate his recording studio there , production and show room for advertising events. "" Hence, the reform carried out in that building was to adapt the house to those needs, "he added.
The company also justified the acquisition of costumes and makeup and beauty expenses, since they were totally necessary for the public image of Patricia Conde and defended its correlation with the income obtained by the entity.
The State's lawyer answered that the company could not deduct the VAT quotas borne in the acquisition and reform of the floor, underlining that the majority of the income of the 2007 and 2008 financial years is due to the presentation of a program (I know what you did...) that occurs in audiovisual studies outside of society.
The amounts deducted included "fees for services of the agency, the registry, the notary, the project of reform of the architect and its execution, as well as those coming from the periodic supplies, and quotas for acquisitions of goods, such as the purchase of all kinds furniture, sanitation, decoration, lighting, gardening, carpentry ... ", according to the settlement agreement of the Treasury, issued in 2012. Finance argued that although" occasionally and exceptionally "the property had been used for work, this did not prevent its use as a home.
"To this is added the characteristics of the property, located in a residential area, without signs of activity, the reform carried out, focused on its use as a dwelling, and the declarations of the doorman (recognizes that the member lives there), which conclude that the use as the partner's home is the main and almost only use of the property ".
Hacienda also refused to deduct the fees for the purchase of a car. He concluded that "the artist uses these vehicles for her private life, since she uses taxis and car rentals on her professional trips".
And also rejected the deductions for costumes, alleging that Patricia Conde uses "in the television program (main source and majority of income) is given by brands (she recognizes that she has freedom to choose, not that she contributes. ..) according to figure in the TV program, then to obtain that income has not required an investment in costumes ".
When ruling, the court recalls that the law requires that VAT quotas can be deducted only for expenses that "directly and exclusively affect their business or professional activity" and that the burden of proving that they are deductible corresponds to the taxpayer. And he concludes that Patricia Conde has not shown in this case that the apartment did not serve as her private residence.
The declaration of the goalkeepers
The court is sharp: "It is seen in the administrative file that the aforementioned property had a floor area of 198.80 m², in addition to storage and garden with an area of 208 m², also having a participation of 160.45 m² in the areas common urbanization and also had a parking space, located on the ground floor of portal number 4. It is clear that it is totally disproportionate to acquire a house of such characteristics to allocate, in an area and residential building to representative office of artists, in this case of the member herself, and for the realization of advertising or fashion activities In that house the plaintiff carried out a reform for an amount of 205,284.03 euros, in which the installation of a kitchen stands out, for the amount of 74,255 euros, as well as the supply and installation of furniture in the amount of 78,164.28 euros, which is totally absent in relation to the needs or expenses of the company. e some offices or a diaphanous space for the production of events or publicity ".
According to the court, "the declaration, which works in the administrative file, of the doormen" of the urbanization where Patricia Conde lived in 2007, which declared that she no longer lived there, and that of the doorman of the new development, which revealed that "It was the usual residence of the member."
Wardrobe, towels and underwear
With regard to the cost of clothing and makeup, the court also agrees with the State, which rejected Patricia Conde "is a character, a kind of 'avatar' other than his person." Thus, "there is no evidence that there was an exclusive use of clothing, makeup or beauty products or treatments for the development of activities" of society.
Again, the court is blunt: "It is significant an examination of the supported VAT quotas that the appellant intends to deduct for locksmith purchases, purchases in Bimba and Lola, in Zara, in the Hipercor, or in El Corte Inglés in articles such as perfume, towels or paintings, as well as the purchase of two Patricia Conde mobiles and aesthetic treatments, capillaries, underwear, trip to Monte Carlo, unspecified clothing, sunglasses or products of beauty. It has not been shown, at all, the link of the purchase of that clothing or beauty products with certain events or productions of programs that constituted the income of the plaintiff society ".
The judgment, appealable to the Supreme, also confirms the sanction imposed by the Treasury considering that at least there was negligence. And also fixed costs to the company Patricia Conde for a maximum amount of 4,000 euros. More VAT