Go back to News
NEWS
Javier Vinuesa: about 720 | El Confidencial
28 of January, 2022
Our tax partner, Javier Vinuesa, collaborates in this article of El Confidencial on the increase of regularizations and claims against the State after the European setback to 720. In particular, Javier mentions:
“The ruling collects all the legal grounds that we have alleged in the open proceedings on this issue. First, the TJEU has confirmed that the 720 regulation is contrary to the free movement of capital. This is important, because it implies that the judgment deploys its effects with respect to investments in other Member States, but also with respect to assets located in third States.”
“We appreciate that the TJEU prevents the questioning of statutes of limitations that have already expired. We have had several cases in which unjustified capital gains have been settled with respect to assets where there was no doubt that they had been acquired in prescribed tax periods. This proof to the contrary only existed in the Spanish rule with respect to assets located in Spain, but did not apply to assets located abroad. From now on, the same rules will apply regardless of where the assets are located”.
El Confidencial
“The ruling collects all the legal grounds that we have alleged in the open proceedings on this issue. First, the TJEU has confirmed that the 720 regulation is contrary to the free movement of capital. This is important, because it implies that the judgment deploys its effects with respect to investments in other Member States, but also with respect to assets located in third States.”
“We appreciate that the TJEU prevents the questioning of statutes of limitations that have already expired. We have had several cases in which unjustified capital gains have been settled with respect to assets where there was no doubt that they had been acquired in prescribed tax periods. This proof to the contrary only existed in the Spanish rule with respect to assets located in Spain, but did not apply to assets located abroad. From now on, the same rules will apply regardless of where the assets are located”.
El Confidencial
Press contact
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
More information about
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo
¡NEW! 
PUBLICATION
19 Jun, 2025
Company resolutions reached with invalid votes
Although Article 204(3)(d) places them on the same level, the erroneous counting of votes and the counting of invalid votes are very different, given that the latter requires judicial balancing.
19 Jun, 2025 
PUBLICATION
13 Jun, 2025
Limits of the Unified Patent Court's long arm with regard to Spain (IV): the recognition and enforcement of court decisions
The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction, in certain cases and within the limits set by the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention, to hear actions relating to classic European patents validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. Such decisions may be recognised and enforced in those other countries, but there are cases in which such recognition and enforcement will not be appropriate.
13 Jun, 2025
PUBLICATION
12 Jun, 2025
Limits of the Unified Patent Court's long arm with regard to Spain (III): applicable law
The Unified Patent Court has jurisdiction, in certain cases and within the limits laid down in the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Lugano Convention, to hear actions relating to classic European patents validated in States that are not contracting parties to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. However, this does not mean that, when hearing such actions, the Court may apply the same rules as if the actions related to a unitary patent.
12 Jun, 2025
PUBLICATION
11 Jun, 2025
Limits of the Unified Patent Court's long arm with regard to Spain (II): the controversial judgment of the Court of Justice in the BSH/Electrolux case
This document sets out and criticises the doctrine established by the CJEU in its Judgment of 25 February 2025, C-339/22, BSH/Electrolux, ECLI:EU:C:2025:108. Although the dispute underlying the judgment was not brought before the UPC, the interpretation of the CJEU in the BSH/Electrolux judgment is equally applicable, since said court is equivalent to the national courts of the contracting states party to the UPC Agreement.
11 Jun, 2025
PUBLICATION
10 Jun, 2025
Limits of the Unified Patent Court's long arm with regard to Spain (I): international jurisdiction
Ever since coming into operation, there has been a tendency on the part of the Unified Patent Court to extend its jurisdiction to include patents that produce effects in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (the ‘UPC Agreement’ or ‘Agreement’), as is the case of the Kingdom of Spain. This phenomenon is known in specialised circles as the court's ‘long arm’. However, although in certain cases the Unified Patent Court (the ‘UPC’ or ‘Court’) does indeed have such jurisdiction, this is only possible within strict limits, limits that do not seem to be taken into consideration in a consistent manner.
10 Jun, 2025
PUBLICATION
02 Jun, 2025
A foreign judicial authority cannot supplant the will of a Spanish company’s shareholders
The will of a Spanish company’s shareholders in general meeting may not be supplanted by a judge or court clerk, even if the latter is part of another State’s judicature and is acting within the framework of foreign proceedings and in accordance with applicable procedural law.
02 Jun, 2025
PUBLICATION
28 May, 2025
Creditors with standing to sue or be sued for termination of contracts under a pre-insolvency restructuring plan
Notes on Articles 618, 619 and 620 of the Insolvency (Recast) Act 2022,
28 May, 2025
PUBLICATION
22 May, 2025
CJEU clarifies conditions under which EU law may prohibit national tax exemptions
For the Grand Chamber of the CJEU, a tax exemption based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria and integrated into the logic of the legal system which it accompanies is inherent in the ‘normal’ tax regime and does not, in principle, confer a selective advantage. In such cases, the conditions for granting the exemption are neutral from the point of view of competition, as the fact that some undertakings satisfy those conditions, while others do not, is not relevant in the light of the rules on State aid.
22 May, 2025
PUBLICATION
21 May, 2025
Modification of concession when concessionaire no longer has in-housestatus: the CJEU clarifies when a new award procedure is not required
The Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29 April 2025 addresses the modification of public contracts originally awarded to an in-house entity which, during performance of the contracts, has lost such status. The reference for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of a dispute concerning the extension of concession contracts relating to service facilities ancillary to motorways to include the construction, maintenance and operation of fast-charging infrastructure.
21 May, 2025