Judge questions unsigned report exonerating Sánchez's brother

Judge questions unsigned report exonerating Sánchez's brother

Why would three high-ranking Hacienda (Spanish Tax Agency) officials sign a report to clear the Prime Minister's brother, only to later claim it was not an expert report? That is the question surrounding a judicial video that has upended the official narrative. During the hearing, an experienced judge confessed she had never seen anything like it: a document without a letterhead, without a signature, and presented as an "automated report" by an internal application. The three officials from Hacienda Territorial maintain they were merely transferring information that was not within their control and that it was a mistake. The scene, captured in a ninety-minute video, leaves an uncomfortable impression: those tasked with monitoring tax compliance are appearing as suspects in the creation of a legal loophole.

Details of the unsigned report exonerating Sánchez's brother

The core of the matter is a document that, according to the testimony, fails to meet the formal requirements of an expert report: it lacks a letterhead, is unsigned, and is justified by the claim that "they have an application for that." The judge, visibly surprised, noted that in all her years of practice, she had never encountered such a situation. The witnesses insist it was not an expert assessment but a simple transfer of information. This distinction, while seemingly technical, could determine whether there was a dereliction of duty or something more serious.

Some argue that if the judge wanted an expert report, she should have requested one as such. On the other hand, it is highly questionable for three inspectors to anonymously produce a report regarding their own actions. Furthermore, the document was allegedly prepared by appointed officials rather than career civil servants, adding a layer of opacity regarding who ordered what and for what purpose.

Tax calculation: €50,000 undeclared and a €3,000 discrepancy

Beyond the judicial clash, the heart of the issue is a tax discrepancy. According to a calculation circulating among those involved, Sánchez's brother allegedly failed to declare approximately €50,000 in IRPF (Personal Income Tax) in Spain after establishing residency in Portugal. However, another calculation suggests the amount owed is much lower, around €3,000, because he had already paid taxes as a non-resident. This gap between the undeclared amount and the actual amount due is what some use to downplay the severity of the case.

The problem, others point out, is not the amount but the procedure. The residency in Portugal appears suspicious: the home where the investigated individual claims to live is reportedly uninhabitable, and there is no full proof of such residency. Two conflicting facts stand out: a position in Badajoz that he allegedly does not attend, and a tax residency in a ruined house. Pulling on this thread, they argue, is more significant than the final figure.

Double taxation and IRNR: the technicality that changes everything

The technical key lies in the IRNR (Non-Resident Income Tax). A tax resident abroad working in Spain does not pay IRPF on their Spanish income, but rather IRNR. The individual notified Hacienda of his residency in Portugal and allegedly paid taxes on that income as a foreigner, invoking double taxation treaties. This is a common mechanism for musicians, artists, and professionals working outside their country of residence.

The debate grows complex when discussing whether the residency was established before or after. The IRPF law is strict: income generated in Spain must be declared in Spain, and foreign residency must be communicated and proven beforehand. If this was not done, the double taxation certificate provides no exemption. The question is whether this was an administrative error or a deliberate strategy. As of this discussion, the answer remains unresolved.

Accountability: career officials, appointed officers, or no one

One of the most biting aspects of the case is the distinction between career civil servants and appointed officials (cargos de libre designación). The former, some argue, are not responsible for political decisions; the latter are. The report was allegedly drafted by high-ranking officials appointed by the government, not by career inspectors. This shifts responsibility toward the political sphere and opens the door to potential charges against the witnesses.

The judge, however, has not charged anyone so far. Some expect her to do so, while others believe the matter will fizzle out. A sense that "nothing will happen" permeates much of the testimony, alongside the suspicion that the tax system applies different standards depending on the taxpayer. A freelancer who fails to declare €80 in VAT is a fraudster; a high-ranking official with an opaque residency in Portugal, according to this account, deserves an unsigned report.

The clash between Hacienda and the judiciary: who has the final word

The video captures a scene that summarizes the conflict: the judge asks questions, and the witnesses shield themselves by claiming it was out of their hands. One even states, "I didn't know, it was a mistake." The judge, for her part, insists she has never seen an expert report presented this way in her career. This clash between judicial logic and administrative logic is the heart of the matter.

It remains to be seen if the judge decides to charge the officials, order a deeper investigation into the Portuguese residency, or if the case fades away. There is also the possibility of a popular action (acción popular) to force Hacienda to act for dereliction of duty. For now, the only certainty is that the report intended to exonerate Sánchez's brother has instead placed those who prepared it under the spotlight.

Ultimately, the question is not whether it was €50,000 or €3,000. The question is who signs the papers that save or sink us, and why sometimes those papers are signed by no one at all.