gremicat

November 5: Second deadline for the 2025 Income Tax Return

gremicat — Fri, 30 Oct 2026 07:00:58 +0000

We remind you that, if you have chosen to pay your 2025 income tax on two installments, November 5, 2026, is the deadline for paying the second installment (the remaining 40% of the tax liability) for the 2025 tax year.

Taxpayers who have chosen to pay their 2025 income tax in two installments and who have also set up automatic payment for the second installment with the participating financial institution where they paid the first installment do not need to fill out any form (in this case, Form 102), since submitting the payment document (Form 100) to that participating financial institution, with the direct debit information duly completed, will serve as a debit order for that second installment.

Taxpayers who, having opted to pay in installments, have not set up direct debit for the second installment with a participating financial institution must make that payment directly by November 5, 2026, inclusive, by filing Form 102, duly completed.

For more information, please contact our tax consulting.

If you find this interesting, please share it on social media, thank you!

The Tax Inspectorate may request information from computers

gremicat — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 07:00:05 +0000

A tax audit at a company’s facilities is not exactly an everyday occurrence. And when it does happen, it’s quite common for questions to arise about what documentation must be provided, how far the tax authorities can go, and which areas of the company are off limits.

A tax audit at a company’s facilities is not exactly an everyday occurrence. And when it does happen, it’s quite common for questions to arise about what documentation must be provided, how far the tax authorities can go, and which areas of the company are off limits.

When an audit takes place, it is important to know the scope of the tax authority’s powers, but also where those limits lie. A recent ruling by the TEAC addresses precisely that boundary and issues an important warning to companies. Refusing to allow auditors to enter a constitutionally protected space may be legitimate under certain circumstances; however, refusing to provide them with tax information stored on computers can have very different consequences.

A ruling by the Central Economic-Administrative Court (TEAC) dated June 23, 2026, is particularly interesting because it distinguishes between two issues that, in practice, can be confused. It is one thing for a company to have the right—when appropriate—to prevent tax inspectors from entering constitutionally protected premises without the proper authorization. It is quite another to use that circumstance as a pretext to withhold tax information requested by the tax authorities.

And that distinction can have very serious financial consequences.

What happened?

The Tax Inspectorate initiated an audit of a company regarding corporate income tax and VAT for the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. During the on-site audit, the company’s representative refused to grant access to the computer equipment, arguing that it was located within a constitutionally protected space. This is precisely where the issue that gave rise to much of the subsequent discussion arose.

However, the auditors proposed an alternative. They requested permission to access the accounting data from a location that was not considered a constitutionally protected space.

The company again refused and made only paper documentation available to the tax authorities. These events were recorded in the corresponding audit report.

The problem was not the refusal to allow access to the premises. This nuance is probably the most important aspect of the entire ruling. The TEAC does not focus the dispute on whether the inspectors could enter certain premises without a court order. In fact, it considers it unnecessary to address that issue. What is being sanctioned is a different conduct: the company failed to provide access to the accounting and tax information stored on its computers when the tax inspectorate offered it the opportunity to do so from an unprotected location.

Therefore, the fact that the servers were physically located within a constitutionally protected space did not resolve the issue. The company could maintain its opposition to entry into that space while simultaneously making the required data available to the inspectors from another location.

This is a distinction worth bearing in mind.

The Tax Authority does not necessarily have to settle the paper

The company also argued that it had cooperated with the tax authorities because it had submitted accounting documentation in paper form. TEAC does not accept this argument either.

The reason is quite simple. The tax authorities were not merely requesting specific accounting documents. They also wanted to examine the data stored in the company’s computer systems. And these two sets of data do not necessarily have to be the same.

In fact, one of the purposes of the audit was precisely to verify whether the information stored electronically matched the documentation submitted on paper. Submitting the latter, therefore, did not satisfy the request regarding the computer files.

For any company that stores its tax and accounting information in digital systems, this point is quite important.

The Tax Inspectorate may examine databases and computer files

The General Tax Law grants the Tax Inspectorate broad powers in this area. We are not talking solely about invoices, accounting books, or supporting documents. Audit proceedings may extend to computerized databases, software programs, records, and computer files related to economic activity when they are relevant for tax purposes.

Furthermore, when the information to be provided is stored in electronic format, it may be required to be submitted in that same format.

This has an obvious practical consequence. A company should not assume that printing out its accounting records and submitting a folder of documents is sufficient to satisfy any request from the Tax Authority. It will be necessary to examine exactly what the Tax Authority has requested.

Be very careful about what is written in an official record

The ruling offers another lesson that may go more unnoticed but is very important in practice. The company’s refusal was recorded in an official record of the Tax Inspectorate, and the representative acknowledged the facts set forth therein.

Subsequently, an attempt was made to submit a formal witness statement, notarized, that offered a different account of what had happened. The TEAC did not consider that this evidence was sufficient to refute what was recorded in the official record.

The reason lies in the probative value of these documents. Reports issued during tax proceedings are considered public documents and serve as evidence of the facts that gave rise to their preparation, unless proven otherwise. Furthermore, the facts accepted by the taxpayer are presumed to be true and correcting them requires proving that a factual error existed.

Therefore, when signing a record during a tax audit, one should not treat it as if it were merely a receipt confirming a visit.

It must be read carefully to ensure that it accurately describes what occurred. If there is disagreement regarding any fact or statement, that is the time to have it noted in the record.

The TEAC Also Finds Fault

To impose a tax penalty, it is not sufficient that a breach of the law objectively exists. Fault must also be present. In this case, the Court finds that fault existed.

The company was aware of the request, had been informed of its obligation to provide the information, and had also been warned that its refusal could constitute a tax violation. Despite this, it maintained its decision not to allow access to computer data from a location that was not constitutionally protected. The TEAC finds that there was no reasonable interpretation of the law that would justify that action and concludes that the conduct was voluntary and culpable.

And the penalty was by no means small

This figure puts the significance of the matter into perspective. The company had a turnover of 25,382,292.25 euros for the reference fiscal year. The tax authorities applied a 2% rate, and the resulting penalty amounted to 507,645.85 euros.

The General Tax Law provides, for this scenario and within the context of a tax audit, for a proportional fine of 2% of the gross revenue for the most recent fiscal year for which the filing deadline had expired at the time the violation was committed.

The law itself sets a minimum of 20,000 euros and a maximum of 600,000 euros.

We are therefore dealing with conduct that can have financial consequences far greater than a company could ever imagine when, during an audit, it simply decides to say “no.”

What should companies keep in mind?

The practical conclusion is not that the tax authorities have unlimited access to any computer, server, or premises of a company. Nor do the rights related to the constitutionally protected home disappear. What this ruling essentially states is something much more specific: If the Tax Inspectorate requests accounting or tax information stored electronically, protecting physical access to certain premises does not, in and of itself, allow a company to also refuse to provide that data through a means that respects such protection.

Furthermore, subsequently submitting the same information on paper may not be sufficient if what the Tax Authority has specifically requested is an examination of the electronic data and files.

It is also worth noting that this is a significant ruling by TEAC, but one that has not yet been reaffirmed and, therefore, does not constitute binding precedent under Article 239 of the General Tax Law.

In short, when faced with an audit by the Tax Inspectorate, acting prudently does not mean automatically accepting every request, nor does it mean refusing them across the board.

It is essential to know exactly what the Tax Authority is requesting, what powers it must do so, and what rights the company can exercise at that time.

Therefore, in a situation of this kind, it is advisable to contact your tax advisor before planning, carefully review each request, and pay special attention to the content of any documents you sign.

A decision made in a matter of minutes can end up—as this case demonstrates—becoming a tax problem of considerable magnitude.

For more information, please consult our tax advisory service.

If you find this interesting, please share it on social media—thank you!

Webinar: New Labor Information Requirements

gremicat — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 07:00:58 +0000

RD 723/2026: What your company must communicate and how to prove delivery.

GREMICAT I Webinar · — October 2026 · — h

Royal Decree 723/2026, in force since 5 October, introduces new labour information requirements for companies. To learn what information must be communicated, when it must be provided and how to prove its delivery, GREMICAT is organising a new online session on — October at — h.

During the webinar, Christian Vilalta, as speaker, and Esteve Tomàs, as moderator, will provide a practical overview of the key aspects companies need to consider: new hires, information requests from employees and changes to employment conditions.

The session will cover how to review existing documentation, identify any outstanding information and properly organise its delivery and the corresponding evidence. It will also explain how a tool such as KairosHR can help centralise documentation and facilitate traceability.

Fill in our form and discover what changes with RD 723/2026 and how to prepare.

Requirement to Hire an Occupational Safety and Health Service

gremicat — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 07:00:20 +0000

We are conducting a reminder campaign for all our clients regarding occupational risk prevention.

Any company that employs workers under the general regime—whether full-time or part-time—is required by Law 31/1995 to hire a specialized firm (External Prevention Service) to provide the mandatory technical services and health monitoring.

In the event of a labor inspection, if the company has not contracted this service or does not have the required up-to-date documentation, the minimum fine imposed is €2,046.00.

Article 42 of the LPRL establishes that employers’ failure to comply with their obligations regarding occupational risk prevention will give rise to administrative liabilities, as well as, where applicable, criminal and civil liabilities for any damages that may result from such noncompliance.

Documentation for Labor Inspections

We remind you that you must have up-to-date documentation available at your workplace in case of labor inspections—whether routine or resulting from a workplace accident:

Agreement with the occupational safety and health service and proof of payment
Risk assessment, prevention plan, and preventive planning
Submission of information records
Provision of PPE
Health surveillance; medical clearances or, failing that, medical waivers
Occupational risk prevention (PRL) training certificates for company employees

Please let us know if you do not have this coverage so that we can follow up and advise you on the matter.

For more information, please consult our Labor Advisory Service.

If you find this interesting, please share it on social media—thank you!

6 days to report terminations to Social Security

gremicat — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 07:00:09 +0000

A routine administrative procedure for businesses will change starting in August. The termination of employees and certain changes to their information no longer need to be reported within three calendar days. The new deadline is six days, although this extension should not be confusing with new hires, for which the rules remain unchanged. The reform also introduces changes regarding debt deferrals.

As of August 1, 2026, companies have slightly more time to complete one of the routine procedures in labor administration. Employee terminations and changes to their information with the General Treasury of Social Security (TGSS) no longer need to be reported within the following three calendar days. The new deadline is now six calendar days.

The change was introduced by Royal Decree 643/2026, dated July 29, published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) on July 30, and responds to quite understandable requests from those who handle many enrollment transactions on a daily basis.

On paper, it does not seem like a dramatic change. In practice, however, those three additional days can prevent quite a few issues, especially when they coincide with weekends, vacation periods, or significant spikes in enrollments and cancellations.

Three to six calendar days

Until now, applications for termination and changes to employee information had to be submitted within three calendar days following the termination or the date on which the change occurred. That deadline has been doubled.

Since the reform took effect, companies and those acting on their behalf have six calendar days following the termination of employment or the date on which the change occurs.

The word “calendar” is important. We are not talking about six business days. Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are included in the count.

For example, if an employee leaves the company on the 1st, the count begins the next day, and the following six days are included in the deadline, regardless of whether a weekend falls in between.

The amendment takes effect on August 1, 2026

The Royal Decree took effect on the first day of the month following its publication, that is, August 1, 2026.

From that point on, the new six-day window applies to terminations and changes subject to the new regulation.

This date is particularly important in situations close to regulatory changes, as it is not advisable to automatically apply the six-day period to changes that occurred before the regulation took effect.

In day-to-day operations, the actual date of termination or modification remains the fundamental starting point for determining which deadline applies.

The change applies to terminations and data updates, but not to new hires

This distinction is worth noting because it can lead to errors. The new six-day deadline applies to termination requests and data updates.

New hires continue to be handled differently and must generally be processed before the employee begins work.

The deadline for data updates has also been extended

The reform does not affect only terminations. Updates to employee data are now also subject to a deadline of six calendar days following the date the change occurs.

For more information, consult with our labor advisory service

If you find this interesting, please share it on social media—thank you!

How to Correctly Calculate the VAT Tax Base

gremicat — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 07:00:03 +0000

Many tax issues arise not from applying the wrong VAT rate, but from miscalculating the taxable base to which that VAT is applied. Pass-through expenses, subsidies, discounts, unpaid amounts, or advances are some of the situations that generate the most errors and, consequently, tax adjustments and penalties.

When it comes to VAT, most companies focus their attention on the applicable tax rate. However, experience shows that many problems with the Tax Agency arise earlier—specifically when determining the tax base.

The tax base is the monetary amount to which the corresponding VAT rate is applied. It seems like a simple matter, but it isn’t always so. The regulations include numerous specific provisions that require certain items to be included and others to be excluded, as well as the need to subsequently adjust the amounts initially reported.

An incorrect interpretation can result in additional tax assessments, penalties, and late-payment interest.

1. Not everything a company collects is excluded from the tax base

As a rule, the tax base consists of the total consideration received from the customer or even from third parties. This means that, in addition to the main price, other incidental amounts related to the transaction must be included.

These include:

Shipping costs.
Commissions.
Insurance premiums.
Expenses passed on to the customer.
Containers and packaging.
Taxes related to the transaction, except for VAT itself.

2. Interest Is Not Always Included in the Tax Base

The general rule states that interest accrued before the time VAT becomes due is included in the tax base. Conversely, interest resulting from deferrals occurring after the supply may be excluded provided certain legal requirements are met.

3. Subsidies may require the collection of additional VAT

Not all subsidies are treated the same. When a government subsidy is directly related to the price of the goods or services provided, it must be included in the tax base. Conversely, subsidies intended to finance infrastructure, investments, or activities of general interest generally do not form part of the tax base.

4. Reimbursements continue to cause numerous errors

Reimbursements are paid by the service provider on behalf of and for the account of their client. They are not part of the tax base, but very strict requirements must be met for this to apply. It is essential that there be an express mandate from the client, the original invoice be issued in the client’s name, the exact same amount paid be passed on, and the service provider does not deduct the input VAT.

5. Subsequent discounts require a VAT adjustment

Discounts granted after the invoice is issued may reduce the tax base. This occurs, for example, with so-called commercial “rebates.”

6. What happens when the customer doesn’t pay?

The VAT Law allows for the recovery of charged but uncollected VAT in certain cases. Among other requirements:

A minimum period of six months or one year must have elapsed since the VAT became due, depending on the volume of transactions.
Collection must be pursued through the courts or by a notary.
The adjustment must be reported electronically to the AEAT.
A corrected invoice must be issued.

Additionally, there are specific rules that apply when the debtor files for bankruptcy.

7. Transactions Between Related Parties Under Special Scrutiny

When there are related-party relationships, the tax authorities may substitute the agreed-upon price with the normal market value. This occurs especially when one of the parties cannot fully deduct the VAT or when the pro-rata rule applies.

For more information, please consult a tax advisor.

If you find this interesting, please share it on social media—thank you!

New Requirements for Employment Contracts Effective October 5

gremicat — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 07:00:19 +0000

Royal Decree 723/2026, dated September 9, published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) on September 15, 2026, expands the information obligations that employers must provide in writing to employees regarding their working conditions.

The regulation will take effect on October 5, 2026.

Who does it affect, and what changes?

It affects all companies and employees when the employment relationship lasts longer than four weeks.

The company must ensure that the employee has, in writing, sufficiently detailed information regarding the essential elements of their employment relationship. If all the information is included in the contract provided to the employee, no additional document is required; if any part of it is missing, it must be provided in a supplementary document.

Information to Be Provided

• Position, job category, duties, and workplace or location.

• Specific reason for the temporary employment, when applicable.

• Base salary, allowances, and criteria for calculating variable compensation.

Variable components: If there are bonuses, commissions, or incentives, the method of calculation and the objective criteria for receiving them must be detailed.

• Daily, weekly, and annual working hours, shifts, overtime, vacation time, and irregular work schedules.

• Probationary period (specify duration).

• Training provided by the company.

• Procedures and notice periods applicable to contract termination.

• Applicable collective bargaining agreement.

• Social Security administering or collaborating entity, voluntary contributions, and pension plans.

• Equality Plan, anti-harassment protocol, work-life balance policies, and, where applicable, LGBTI measures (whether they exist in the company, depending on the company’s obligations)

• The company must disclose the existence of algorithmic or automated decision-making systems when they are used in matters such as work hours, task assignments, wages, career advancement, workplace location, or contract termination, including their guidelines, criteria, and operating rules.

When must the information be provided?

New hires: Before the employment relationship begins.

Regular work abroad: Before departure.

Changes to terms and conditions: As soon as possible and, at the latest, on the day the changes take effect.

Current contracts: The employee may request the information, and the company has 30 business days to provide it, provided the employee does not already have it in their possession.

To prepare new employment contracts and register new employees, we have updated the registration form and contract template for new employees that we send to companies, incorporating the necessary data to process the registration and contracts for new employees.

For more information, please consult our Labor Advisory Service.

If you find this interesting, please share it on social media—thank you!

The tax authorities cannot first act against the administrator

gremicat — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 07:00:05 +0000

The Supreme Court has established a precedent that will have practical implications in many proceedings involving the transfer of liability. When a corporation has already been liquidated and dissolved, the tax authorities cannot take direct action against the director. Instead, they must first seek to collect the debt from the shareholders who have legally succeeded in the corporation.

The way the tax authorities must claim a tax debt when a corporation has been dissolved and liquidated has just been significantly clarified by the Supreme Court (SC). Ruling No. 764/2026, dated June 18, establishes a precedent that directly affects directors and shareholders, as it determines the correct procedure to follow before initiating a liability transfer.

Until now, there were differing interpretations as to whether the tax authorities could act directly against the director or whether they must first claim the debt from the shareholders who have succeeded the dissolved company. The SC resolves this issue and establishes an order that must be followed going forward.

If a company has been liquidated and still has outstanding tax debts, it is advisable to carefully review any liability transfer proceedings that the tax authorities may initiate.

Els socis passen a ocupar la posició de la societat

Quan una societat desapareix jurídicament després de la seva liquidació, no desapareixen automàticament les obligacions tributàries que tenien pendents. La Llei General Tributària (LGT) preveu que aquests deutes es transmetin als socis dins dels límits legalment establerts.

En altres paraules, des del moment en què la societat deixa d’existir, són els socis els qui passen a ocupar la posició de l’antic obligat tributari. L’Administració ha de continuar enfront d’ells el procediment recaptatori previst per la llei.

L’extinció registral d’una societat no elimina els deutes tributaris pendents ni impedeix que Hisenda continuï reclamant-les.

The Partners Assume the Company’s Position

When a company ceases to exist legally following its liquidation, its outstanding tax obligations do not automatically disappear. The General Tax Law (LGT) provides that these debts are transferred to the partners within the limits established by law.

In other words, from the moment the corporation ceases to exist, the shareholders assume the position of the former taxpayer. The tax authorities must continue the collection proceedings provided for by law against them.

The removal of a corporation from the registry does not eliminate outstanding tax debts nor does it prevent the tax authorities from continuing to collect them.

Successors and Liable Parties Are Not the Same

The ruling devotes a significant portion to distinguishing between two concepts that are often confused. The partners are the successors to the dissolved company. In other words, they assume the tax obligations because the law provides so when the legal entity ceases to exist.

The administrator, on the other hand, is liable only as a subsidiary liable party when the legally prescribed requirements are met. These are distinct roles, subject to different legal regimes and different procedures.

Confusing the succession of debts with tax liability can lead to administrative actions that contravene legal procedure.

The Director’s Protections Are Strengthened

The Supreme Court also focuses on the legal protection of the director. If the tax authorities could claim debts directly from the director without first acting against the shareholders, two particularly relevant rights would be rendered virtually meaningless. On the one hand, the right to be held in the first instance, which is inherent to any subsidiary liability. On the other hand, there is the director’s right to subsequently recover the amount paid from the actual debtor. Furthermore, the Court warns of the risk that the same debts could be claimed by both the shareholders and the director, creating situations that are difficult to justify legally.

Proper handling of the proceedings is essential to avoid duplicate claims or violations of the director’s rights.

Special Caution Regarding Tax Penalties

The ruling also makes an important clarification regarding penalties. Although the law provides for certain cases in which penalties may be transferred to successors, the Court notes that penalties must be interpreted in accordance with the constitutional principles of culpability and individual liability. This means that such a transfer cannot occur automatically; rather, it requires an assessment of the specific circumstances that justify such liability.

Not all tax penalties can be automatically transferred to the partners of a dissolved partnership.

The Legal Doctrine Established by the Supreme Court

The ruling establishes a legal precedent that will serve as a reference for future proceedings.

In summary:

Tax debts owed by a liquidated and dissolved corporation must first be claimed from the shareholders who are its legal successors.
Only when appropriate under legal procedure may the director be held secondary liable.
The tax authorities cannot act as if the dissolved corporation continued to exist solely for the purpose of transferring the debt to the director.
The succession of debts provided for in the General Tax Law constitutes a mandatory mechanism and not an option for the tax authorities.

Companies undergoing liquidation, as well as their partners and directors, should review any procedures for transferring liability considering this new Supreme Court ruling.

For more information, consult a tax advisor.

If you find this interesting, please share it on social media—thank you!

Gremicat celebrates La Mercè and will be closed on 24 September

gremicat — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 07:00:08 +0000

On 24 September, Gremicat’s offices will be closed for the La Mercè public holiday.

On the occasion of La Mercè festivities in Barcelona, our offices will remain closed throughout Thursday, 24 September.

If you have any pending queries or matters to manage, we recommend planning them in advance.

We will be back on Friday, 25 September, and will resume our usual activity as normal.

We wish you a wonderful La Mercè!

Separating Business Activities to Protect Your Business Assets

gremicat — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 07:00:01 +0000

As companies grow, so do their risks. What worked when the business was small can, over time, become a source of financial, asset-related, or even family problems. It is common to find companies that carry out several very different activities within the same organization. Although this structure may be convenient at first, it is not always the most appropriate as business volume increases.

Many companies started out by engaging in a single activity. However, over the years, business has evolved. New lines of business are added, real estate is acquired, services are diversified, or even new business units are created. And it is precisely at that point that it’s time to ask an uncomfortable question: Does it make sense to continue keeping everything within the same company?

The answer, in many cases, is no. We frequently encounter companies that carry out very different activities under a single corporate entity, sharing assets, cash flow, personnel, and administrative resources. If everything runs smoothly, the situation often goes unnoticed. The problem arises when a legal claim, an audit, financial difficulties, or a generational transition occurs.

As a result, many business owners discover that all their assets were exposed to the same risk.

Separating business activities can serve as a protective measure

Corporate restructuring allows a company to be reorganized so that each business activity operates within a separate entity, while maintaining a common management structure and, in many cases, a parent company or holding company. This decision can offer significant business advantages:

Protecting real estate assets from risks arising from operational activities.
Gain an accurate understanding of the actual profitability of each line of business.
Facilitate access to specific financing.
Improve financial management and strategic planning.
Prepare for future family succession or the addition of partners.
Facilitate the partial or total sale of the business.

Please note: If your company engages in different activities within the same corporation or owns significant real estate in addition to its operating activities, it is likely advisable to review your current structure.

Example

Consider a corporation that is simultaneously engaged in construction and real estate development, the sale of construction materials, and the leasing of real estate. The company also owns several industrial warehouses and commercial properties valued at 2,800,000 euros. Its annual revenue totals 4,500,000 euros. After analyzing the situation, the decision is made to reorganize the group:

The construction business is carried out by a separate company.
The commercial business is transferred to a second company.
The real estate assets remain in a holding company, which also coordinates the group’s management.

This way, any potential claim arising from the construction business would not automatically affect the real estate assets accumulated over the years. Furthermore, each business has its own earnings, financing, and strategy.

Let’s imagine the following scenario:

Protected real estate assets: 2,800,000 euros.
Revenue from the construction division: 2,700,000 euros.
Revenue from the commercial division: 1,800,000 euros.

A legal claim of 600,000 euros arising from defective construction work could seriously jeopardize the entire business’s assets if all activities are conducted through a single company. With proper corporate separation, the risk is significantly mitigated.

The Tax Authority also reviews these transactions

Tax regulations allow certain corporate reorganization transactions to qualify for the so-called special tax neutrality regime, thereby preventing the reorganization itself from triggering immediate taxation. However, to qualify, it is essential to demonstrate that the transaction is based on genuine economic and business reasons, and not solely on obtaining tax advantages.

Among other valid reasons, the tax authorities have considered the separation of risks, improved management, financial optimization, and the professionalization of the business organization to be reasonable grounds. For example, the General Directorate of Taxes (DGT) recently acknowledged this in Binding Ruling V1028-26, dated May 7, 2026.

Not all transactions are automatically eligible for the special tax regime. Each case requires a prior, individualized analysis of the business activity, assets, human resources, and objectives pursued.

Is now a good time to review your company’s structure?

You may want to consider a review if you find yourself in any of the following situations:

Your company engages in several different activities.
The company owns high-value real estate.
You are considering bringing in partners or investors.
A generational transition is imminent.
You wish to protect part of the company’s assets.
You are considering selling a business line.
You need to improve your financing or management reporting.

For more information, please contact our tax advisory service.

If you find this interesting, please share it on social media—thank you!