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 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 for their inspection, and which areas of the company are protected.
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!
