{
  "id": 1360743,
  "title": "El Supremo refuerza los poderes de Hacienda en los registros a empresas",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/16/el-supremo-refuerza-los-poderes-de-hacienda-en-los-registros-a",
  "topic": "business",
  "section": "Business",
  "published": "2026-08-16T22:00:11.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Expansion ES",
    "slug": "expansion-es",
    "url": "https://www.expansion.com/fiscal/2026/08/17/6a821891468aeb75678b458a.html"
  },
  "original_language": "es",
  "account": "The Supreme Court has strengthened the powers of the Tax Agency (AEAT) over business registries, as determined in a landmark ruling for tax inspections. This means that if the Tax Inspection enters a company to review a specific year and unexpectedly stumbles upon suspicious data from other years, they can use that information without needing additional judicial permission. According to the court's reasoning, utilizing this information adheres to the doctrine of fortuitous discovery, without requiring supplementary authorization or a new court order to validate the discovered documentation. This decision obliges businesses to meticulously separate their files and electronic correspondence to prevent an inspection of a particular period from leading to a review of all their records. The case stems from a tax inspection aimed at verifying a company's corporation tax and VAT for the years 2016 and 2017. During the registration, the Tax Inspection copied various digital files, hard drives, and emails, which were grouped under generic folders for invoicing and receipts, lacking separate period categorization. Later, while analyzing this digital documentation, the inspectors discovered hidden sales from 2015, outside the scope of the initial judicial authorization. The Tax Inspection subsequently notified the taxpayer of the expanded inspection to include 2015, based on the fortuitously obtained information, resulting in additional taxation and a penalty. The taxpayer challenged the administration's actions, arguing that using these documents exceeded the scope of the judicial authorization and violated constitutional rights to the inviolability of domicile. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these claims, validating the administrative action. The court emphasizes that the entry and registration were conducted under a legitimate judicial order that was not revoked and that the extraction of the computer material occurred within the limits of this authorization. The Supreme Court ruled that once the administration encounters documentation revealing potential fraud in other periods, there is no need to request a new judicial order or supplementary authorization to utilize it as evidence. The court establishes five cumulative conditions for the fortuitous discovery to be fully valid: a legitimate initial domicile entry for specific taxes and years; the legal validity of the judicial order not being revoked by courts; the fortuitous discovery of information from other years occurring during the examination of legitimately intervened files; notification to the taxpayer of the expanded inspection to the new periods affected; and direct relevance of the discovered information to the ongoing business activity of the taxpayer.",
  "summary": "El Alto Tribunal valida el uso de pruebas de otros ejercicios fiscales descubiertas de forma casual durante un registro, eximiendo a los inspectores de la Agencia Tributaria de pedir una nueva autorización complementaria al juez. Leer",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}