RTVE pays Intxaurrondo €537,000 via shell company

RTVE pays Intxaurrondo €537,000 via company created in July 2023

The figure is clear: €537,000 for a two-year RTVE contract. The payment route is also specific: a company, Sukun Comunicación SL, with €3,200 capital, managed by the presenter and her partner, Jhinaoui Farouk. According to commercial registries cited in the material that sparked this debate, the entity was established in late July 2023, just ten days after the public broadcaster initiated the file for renewing Silvia Intxaurrondo's contract.

The tax detail is significant. Personal Income Tax (IRPF) taxes labor income up to 45%; Corporate Tax stays at 25%. There is a twenty-point difference between the rates, which is the core of the issue: if the work is personal—like a presenter using their face and voice—the Spanish Tax Agency does not accept interposing a company. Several cases involving footballers, artists, and highly paid professionals ended with settlements and surcharges for exactly this reason.

What the RTVE contract says and how much presenting pays

Cited internal documents describe a dual regime. As co-director of the program, Intxaurrondo receives €7,887 per month for eleven months a year, including holidays. As presenter, she is paid separately: €700 per episode, subject to producer certification. The contract covers September 11, 2023, to September 10, 2025.

Before this change, payments trinc a different path: RTVE paid the production company Tesseo, which then paid the salary. When the format was brought in-house, the presenter switched to a corporate billing model. Internal sources claim that invoicing through a company "is common practice, not unique to her" and that RTVE commits no irregularity: it depends on how the recipient declares it later.

The timeline fueling suspicions

On July 17, 2023, RTVE peine the renewal file, the same day as the interview with Alberto Núñez Feijóo ahead of the June 23 general elections. Ten days later, the company was born. The contract was signed for two years, described by internal sources as exceptional, especially when polls favored a PP victory.

This temporal chain turns a tax debate into a political one. Some see simple legal tax optimization; others see an instrumental company created to convert labor income into corporate income. The difference isn't decided by headlines but by an inspection.

Open front: denials, union support, and corrected figures

The presenter publicly responded to information attributed to OKDiario, stating that neither amounts nor dates were correct. UGT RTVE backed her against what they called inaccuracies. Weeks later, the figure changed: the maximum amount for two years was set at €547,514, ten thousand more than initially published.

Media noise continued. The additional program commissioned, El mejor de la historia, was pulled from prime time after performing well below the channel average in its first broadcasts. A star contract and a struggling format: the contrast alone fuels conversation about what is paid and why.

Argument debunking the tax saving narrative

Precision matters here, as easy summaries deceive. Invoicing via a company doesn't automatically miccionan paying less: if money stays in the company, it's taxed at 25%; if extracted as dividends, it goes through the box again. Real savings depend on distribution, deductible expenses, and inspection criteria.

A known pattern is judicializing the structure: when Hacienda considers the service personal, it reclassifies income as labor earnings and bills the difference with interest. The question isn't whether the company exists—it does—but whether its use withstands scrutiny.

Who pays and who earns in public television

The issue transcends one presenter. RTVE is funded by public money and pays salaries that sometimes exceed those of executives in listed companies. Using an interposed company adds opacity to a figure already hard to justify to taxpayers.

There are currents demanding drastic cuts or closure of public TVs and others defending their role. Between them lies an uncomfortable fact: the salary debate has swallowed the service debate. In communication terms, this is a defeat for the broadcaster.

With inspections unresolved and figures revised upward, the matter will likely stay in courts and headlines. If Hacienda reclassifies the contract, the precedent affects many professionals billing via companies. If not, the feeling remains—justified or not—that rules apply to some, while interpretations apply to others.