Should have taxed 2013 income as Personal Income Tax, not Corporation Tax

Rubén Doblas Gundersen (known worldwide as ‘El Rubius’ on the Internet) suffers his first legal defeat against the Treasury. Madrid High Court of Justice Controversial administrative appeal dismissed sued by the representative of ‘SNOFOKK SL’, of which he is the majority shareholder (98.70% of the capital), realizing that the youtuber had unfairly taxed his income in the 2013 fiscal year. which laSexta has access to and which can be appealed in the Supreme Court.

“The inclusion of the proceeds in the company statement and not the natural person partner’s statement – the only person producing them – set a lower taxation than that corresponding to the application of market value, since he is a natural person. did not pay taxes on this income in personal income taxNot compensated by the fee corresponding to the corporation associated with the Corporate Tax “” reads the document of the TSJM and thus confirms the decision of the Madrid Regional Economic Administrative Court of January 2020.

That decision, which determined that ‘El Rubius’ must pay taxes in 2013 as income from business (IRPF) and not through Corporate Tax. “Income generated was subject to personal income tax The issue of not being deducted from Corporate Tax is detailed in the decision.costs are charged to the objector for the rejection of all of its claims”. Although it is qualified: “[…] Considering the scope and difficulty of the issues raised, the maximum amount for all items has been set at 2,000 Euros plus VAT if applicable.

Control actions in this case starting in January 2015 year on youtuber already had a good subscriber base and perks. “During the validation period, SNOFOKK SL declared a net operating income of 230,344.00 euros, all related to professional activities for which the intervention of its partner and manager is the main element of the provision of the relevant service.” in the sentence adding that in the same period the company paid ‘El Rubius’ approximately 99,000 euros ‘for the provision of his professional services’.

However, the evidence in the administrative file it lacked its own personal tools and organizational structure. To provide the above-mentioned services, which is a very personal activity, so that direct and personal interventions are necessary for the company to deliver the services that constitute its corporate purpose “. The appellant had no workers or collaborators and its immovable assets consisted of: computer equipment, video camera, headset, motorcycle and intellectual property. property rights”.

“Therefore, the services the partner provided to the company were the same services the company billed its customers, […] real person partner he could directly carry out his professional activities without having to act through the relevant company.TSJM continues:

In this way, the tribunal concludes that “the plaintiff company did not provide any relevant added value for generating revenue”; this is confirmed in the case – prior to the establishment of the company in question (‘El Rubius’) it did not generate returns from its activities or much lower than in 2013Since the service contract does not require the intervention of a company and the increase in service provision is in many cases a result of the development of the activity performed by the natural person”.