Go back to News
NEWS
Javier Vinuesa and Adrián Boix on late interest on personal income tax arrears
12 April, 2023
Javier Vinuesa and Adrián Boix talk about late payment interest on personal income tax.
The Supreme Court, in a controversial ruling and with two dissenting votes within the chamber, ruled that taxpayers must pay late payment interest. Just two years earlier, in 2020, it had said the opposite, which changed its criteria and turned the tax experts’ offices upside down, with the fear that there would be retroactivity over the last four years.
The Tax Department’s decision contrasts with previous resolutions of the Treasury body, “which did allow this deduction. This is another change of criteria, in the same area, and without justification, which once again contributes to legal uncertainty when filing the self-assessment for the Personal Income Tax for 2022”, argue Javier Vinuesa and Adrián Boix, from Gómez Acebo & Pombo.
Read full article here
The Supreme Court, in a controversial ruling and with two dissenting votes within the chamber, ruled that taxpayers must pay late payment interest. Just two years earlier, in 2020, it had said the opposite, which changed its criteria and turned the tax experts’ offices upside down, with the fear that there would be retroactivity over the last four years.
The Tax Department’s decision contrasts with previous resolutions of the Treasury body, “which did allow this deduction. This is another change of criteria, in the same area, and without justification, which once again contributes to legal uncertainty when filing the self-assessment for the Personal Income Tax for 2022”, argue Javier Vinuesa and Adrián Boix, from Gómez Acebo & Pombo.
Read full article here
Press contact
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
More information about
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo
¡NEW! 
PUBLICATION
¡NEW!
Compensation for ‘loss of chance’ to reorganise the company had the banks fulfilled their financing commitments (Supreme Court (First Chamber) Judgment no. 1944/2025 of 23 December)
The Supreme Court applies compensation for loss of chance a second time outside the scope of healthcare liability and goes so far as to compensate cases that would have otherwise remained uncompensated.
¡NEW! 
PUBLICATION
¡NEW!
European reform of the sustainability reporting regime under Directive (EU) 2026/470: consequences of its non-transposition into domestic law
Directive (EU) 2026/470 (Omnibus I) has been published, limiting the obligation to prepare a sustainability report to public-interest entities with more than 1,000 employees and a net turnover of more than €450 million during the preceding financial year, as well as to parent companies of a large group that exceed these figures on a consolidated basis. The Directive amends the audit directive, the accounting directive, the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD) and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive (CSDDD).
¡NEW!
PUBLICATION
2 days ago
Uncertificated share pledge creation, enforceability and avoidance (Supreme Court Judgment no.183/2026 of 10 February)
In Judgment no. 183/2026, of 10 February, the Supreme Court analysed the requirements for the validity and enforceability of an uncertificated registered share pledge and examined the conditions for its avoidance in the context of insolvency proceedings.
2 days ago
PUBLICATION
One week ago
The long arm of the Unified Patent Court based on the "event giving rise to the infringement" and considerations on the application of lex loci protectionis
This paper analyses the decision of the Mannheim Local Division of 2 October 2025, where the Unified Patent Court (UPC) justifies its jurisdiction on the basis of shipment of products from a UPC territory by company listed as authorized representative in the EC and UK markets as event giving rise to damage. Furthermore, although the applicable law with regard to the infringement of the European patent validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is the national law of those States, with regard to the scope of patent protection, the UPC imposes on the defendant—unduly—the burden of proving the specifics of national law.
One week ago
PUBLICATION
03 Mar, 2026
Legal doctrine of the UPC’s Court of Appeal on the patent invalidity defence: is the way in which the ‘long arm’ is applied compatible with the UPC's own Rules of Procedure?
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court has ruled that a patent invalidity defence cannot be raised before the Unified Patent Court, with only a counterclaim being possible. This calls into question the way in which the ‘long arm’ is being applied with regard to European patents validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), whether or not they are members of the European Union, since no counterclaim for revocation or plea of invalidity as a defence can be filed or raised with regard to such patents. This raises significant doubts about the compatibility of how the ‘long arm’ is applied in the Unified Patent Court system, given its own Rules of Procedure.
03 Mar, 2026
PUBLICATION
26 Feb, 2026
A restructuring plan sanctioned in England and Wales that modifies debt subject to German law has no effect in Germany
Recognition of UK restructuring plans remains a contentious issue in the European Union. This decision by the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court is controversial, but it raises questions about the consequences of the application of the rule in Gibbs by the courts of England and Wales in this context.
26 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
26 Feb, 2026
Pharma & Healthcare No. 47
The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.
26 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
23 Feb, 2026
Irregularities in public sector staffing. Jurisdiction and/or substantive law
When a serious irregularity is found in administrative contracts owing to their employment character, jurisdiction lies with the employment branch of the court system. However, if the administrative route is not outside the scope of the law, jurisdiction lies with the judicial review branch of the court system.
23 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
17 Feb, 2026
Squeeze-out of minority shareholders following successful mandatory takeover bid: rebuttable presumption of fair consideration
The Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber), in its judgment of 27 November 2025 (Case C-567/24, Svema Trade), concerning the equitable price in a squeeze-out requiring minority shareholders to sell their shares to an offeror who, following a mandatory takeover bid, has acquired more than 90% of the capital carrying voting rights in the company subject of the takeover bid, states that the presumption that the price offered in the bid, in the context of such a squeeze-out of holders of securities, is equitable is rebuttable.
17 Feb, 2026