Last updated: 5 August 2026.
Quick answer. Under Article 42.2.a) of the Spanish General Tax Law (LGT), those who are responsible for or collaborate with the concealment or transfer of goods or rights of the person obliged to pay a tax debt, in order to prevent the actions of the Tax Administration, are jointly and severally liable for payment of that debt. The Supreme Court defined the scope of the rule in Ruling 3935/2009 of 11 April: its purpose is to guarantee the collection of the debt by preventing fraudulent manoeuvres of distraction or concealment. The Central Economic Administrative Court defines concealment as the activity which distracts goods or rights by material or juridical detachment. No material result or benefit is required — what is essential is that the purpose of hindering collection is pursued.
“I have not done so, Your Honor. I am innocent”.After this statement: To commit a tax offense, do you have to materialize it or is it sufficientto have the intention to commit it? It seems that both answers are correct.
Spanish law intends to regulate this in article 42.2.a) LGT. Stating that those who are responsible for or collaborate with the concealment or transfer of goods or rights of the person obliged to pay the debt in order to prevent the actions of the Tax Administration will be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the debt.
The scope of this rule has been defined by the Supreme Court in Ruling 3935/2009 of 11 April. The purpose is to guarantee the collection of the debt. The aim is to prevent fraudulent manoeuvres of distraction or concealment that prevent or hinder its realization.
What is concealment?
It has been defined by the Central Economic Administrative Court as ‘that activity which distracts goods or rights either by material or juridical detachment’. And this must be done in order to avoid being held responsible for them.
It is clear, then, that it is not necessary that there be a material result of the concealment, but it is essential that the purpose be sought. That is to say, it is not necessary to obtain any benefit, but rather that a collaboration has prevented the Administration from collecting a debt.
Si te ha interesado este artículo no dudes en leer:
What is fraud? Difference from gross negligence
What are the requirements for concealment?
It is the Supreme Court itself that has developed this article, through several rulings, the most recent being 1987/2017, December 14. He thus outlined the following factual requirements and qualified the need for:
- Proving the existence of a tax debt of the principal, in a state of liquidity.
- Being the cause or collaborate in the concealment of goods and rights with the purpose of preventing the obstacle by the Administration. It is required that the responsible party has an ‘animus noscendi’ or ‘sciencia frauds’. That is, an awareness or knowledge that a damage may occur.
- It is not necessary to achieve a result, being sufficient that the acts is heading to conceal or transmit, without the need for consummation.
When does the payment obligation arise?
Firstly, we would like to emphasize that no prior administrative collection action is required. On the contrary, it is essential to prove the existence of full knowledge of the debt on the part of the joint debtor. Furthermore, this must be accredited with unquestionable evidence. It is very indicative what the Ruling of the High Court of Valencia No. 922/2009 provides in this regard. There must be ‘ Rationally indicative objective elements that the application of taxes will lead to the seizure of property’.
In answering the question, it is understood that, for the debtor, it arises with the realization of the taxable event. Therefore, it will be from this moment on that his assets are linked to the tax debt. It will be from this moment that any depatrimonialization operation carried out by the debtor may constitute an unlawful act. Therefore, his collaborator may fall in the case of concealment, provided that he is aware of his illegitimate end.
The TEAC specifies, in its resolution No. 442/2016 that ‘a tax debt requires a fee or amount to be paid’.
Therefore, the regulation is sharpened even more and the jurisprudence more than a target, it is again a dart.
If this article has been of interest, we also suggest you to read the following article published on our website: Tax Prescription.
For advice applied to your case, see our Criminal Proceedings practice area.
Don’t be left in doubt, get in touch. We’ll be happy to help and offer you solutions.
Frequently asked questions
The Central Economic Administrative Court has defined concealment as that activity which distracts goods or rights, either by material or juridical detachment, carried out in order to avoid being held responsible for them. It is not necessary that there be a material result of the concealment; what is essential is that the purpose be sought — that a collaboration has prevented the Administration from collecting a debt, even without obtaining any benefit.
It establishes that those who are responsible for or collaborate with the concealment or transfer of goods or rights of the person obliged to pay a tax debt, in order to prevent the actions of the Tax Administration, will be jointly and severally liable for the payment of that debt. Its scope has been defined by the Supreme Court, and its purpose is to guarantee the collection of the debt against fraudulent manoeuvres.
No. It is not necessary that the concealment produce a material result, nor that the responsible party obtain any benefit. What is essential is that the purpose be sought: a collaboration that prevents or hinders the Tax Administration from collecting the debt. Intention is therefore at the core of this form of joint and several liability, rather than the actual outcome of the manoeuvre.
Through several rulings, the most recent being Ruling 1987/2017 of 14 December, the Supreme Court has outlined the following factual requirements: proving the existence of a tax debt of the principal, in a state of liquidity; being the cause of, or collaborating in, the concealment of goods and rights with the purpose of preventing the action of the Administration; and the responsible party having an animus noscendi, that is, awareness of the manoeuvre.
Its purpose is to guarantee the collection of the tax debt. The rule aims to prevent fraudulent manoeuvres of distraction or concealment of goods or rights that would impede or hinder the realisation of the debt by the Tax Administration, by extending liability for payment to those who cause or collaborate in such manoeuvres alongside the principal debtor.
Contact
Don’t be left in doubt, get in touch. We’ll be happy to help and offer you solutions.
