LadyJessie
Well-Known Member
Have I missed something? Has there been a new 'Fiction Writer's Award Competition' announced on this thread?
PLEASE HELP! Boat Seized in Spain by Pirates (Policemen)
- Thread starter GoahAbaddi
- Start date
jordanbasset
Well-Known Member
Hi sorry to hear of your troubles, but really do not understand the advice you were given not to disclose any more of your details. From your first post you you gave your details to the spanish authorities, nothing you have written on here would contradict this. Also you gave your name on this thread, so if the spanish authorities were minitoring this thread (which I doubt, think they have better things to do, but could be wrong) they already know who you are and could easily cross check from their records if they have seized your boat, so why not give your location.
The advantage of saying where you are would mean that other forumites may be able to provide moral support, there is nothing like seeing a friendly face and would have the added benefit of satisfying every one this is not a wind up. I do hope this is not a wind up as you will be worrying people unnecesarily (me for one as I will be in a similar situation next year), still want to give you the benefit of the doubt.
The advantage of saying where you are would mean that other forumites may be able to provide moral support, there is nothing like seeing a friendly face and would have the added benefit of satisfying every one this is not a wind up. I do hope this is not a wind up as you will be worrying people unnecesarily (me for one as I will be in a similar situation next year), still want to give you the benefit of the doubt.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
I do hope this is not a wind up as you will be worrying people unnecesarily (me for one as I will be in a similar situation next year), still want to give you the benefit of the doubt.
[/ QUOTE ]It is a 'wind-up', and a particularly cruel one at that for the reasons you have given. I hope the the moderator has checked IPs. Neither of the 'new users' are credible. Pretty sick. To anyone who has been worried by the 'stories' from the two 'new users' I will say that the Spanish authorities have NEVER been know to have behaved in such a heavy-handed manner with ordinary yachtsmen, even those who have been in Spanish waters for many years and who are 'well-over' the time limits. There are tax issues but this spoof thread is not the place to discuss them.
See the RYA and/or the Cruising Association -- there are uncertainties about the published information but it should give you some reassurance.
I do hope this is not a wind up as you will be worrying people unnecesarily (me for one as I will be in a similar situation next year), still want to give you the benefit of the doubt.
[/ QUOTE ]It is a 'wind-up', and a particularly cruel one at that for the reasons you have given. I hope the the moderator has checked IPs. Neither of the 'new users' are credible. Pretty sick. To anyone who has been worried by the 'stories' from the two 'new users' I will say that the Spanish authorities have NEVER been know to have behaved in such a heavy-handed manner with ordinary yachtsmen, even those who have been in Spanish waters for many years and who are 'well-over' the time limits. There are tax issues but this spoof thread is not the place to discuss them.
See the RYA and/or the Cruising Association -- there are uncertainties about the published information but it should give you some reassurance.
Plomong
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I will say that the Spanish authorities have NEVER been know to have behaved in such a heavy-handed manner with ordinary yachtsmen, even those who have been in Spanish waters for many years and who are 'well-over' the time limits. There are tax issues but this spoof thread is not the place to discuss them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lemain, not true.
I won't give details over an open forum, but what you say is NOT true.
As for the legislation and its application, I sent you some time ago a PM with some comments and other information. In that information I spoke of a certain case known to me. A short time later, an "additional tax assessment" plus fine for not having paid that additional amount when originally assessed, was received by the person involved in that other case, a Spanish national, and had to be paid in full in order to avoid bigger problems. And I am talking about that same legislation, applied in the same manner, with all the "trimmings", so please try to understand the position of these people, and don't call them trolls without having the slightest shred of evidence to support your assertions.
In Spain, officialdom can be sometimes rather "upsetting", to say the least of it. And when, as is the case here, the relevant legislation is spottily applied both in its details and geographically, it is no wonder that a foreigner, presented with a whopping demand with no previous notice or knowledge, can lose their cool and maybe say something they would later regret. I sincerely hope the OP can get a just resolution of their problem.
One point I would like them to take into consideration:
If their boat was originally purchased for 185,000 Euros, that is not the amount that should be declared as its current value. If that 185,000 Euros includes taxes (Vat or whatever), they should be removed, then the resulting figure adjusted for the age of the boat, etc etc. If that adjusted figure is higher than the street value of the boat, the latter applies, but street value is usually difficult to determine.
To me, the most disturbing aspects of this legislation and its application are:
A foreigner staying with a car, caravan or boat in Spain over 6 months must pay the tax. If that person elects to leave THEY MUST STILL PAY THE TAX, and a fine, even though they are just one day over the limit, and depart the next day. Further, the tax is not refundable when leaving the country. That is just plain silly.
A person living near the French or Portuguese border could move their residence across the border and commute to work, thus avoiding the tax. So all European citizens are not equal nor do they get equal treatment. Only companies and businesses have that benefit !!! So the EC is then just a club for the benefit of .....
The tax was originally a luxury tax, was later changed to a registration tax and is now disguised as a pollution tax, and is applicable to "certain means of transportation". To consider a pleasure boat as a means of transport is stretching it a bit, but in the case of a live-aboard, it is probably correct, as their boat is also their means of transport. However, if the purpose is to deter pollution, they should start with factory chimneys, some of which belch forth ample quantities of noxious substances without paying any pollution tax.
I will say that the Spanish authorities have NEVER been know to have behaved in such a heavy-handed manner with ordinary yachtsmen, even those who have been in Spanish waters for many years and who are 'well-over' the time limits. There are tax issues but this spoof thread is not the place to discuss them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lemain, not true.
I won't give details over an open forum, but what you say is NOT true.
As for the legislation and its application, I sent you some time ago a PM with some comments and other information. In that information I spoke of a certain case known to me. A short time later, an "additional tax assessment" plus fine for not having paid that additional amount when originally assessed, was received by the person involved in that other case, a Spanish national, and had to be paid in full in order to avoid bigger problems. And I am talking about that same legislation, applied in the same manner, with all the "trimmings", so please try to understand the position of these people, and don't call them trolls without having the slightest shred of evidence to support your assertions.
In Spain, officialdom can be sometimes rather "upsetting", to say the least of it. And when, as is the case here, the relevant legislation is spottily applied both in its details and geographically, it is no wonder that a foreigner, presented with a whopping demand with no previous notice or knowledge, can lose their cool and maybe say something they would later regret. I sincerely hope the OP can get a just resolution of their problem.
One point I would like them to take into consideration:
If their boat was originally purchased for 185,000 Euros, that is not the amount that should be declared as its current value. If that 185,000 Euros includes taxes (Vat or whatever), they should be removed, then the resulting figure adjusted for the age of the boat, etc etc. If that adjusted figure is higher than the street value of the boat, the latter applies, but street value is usually difficult to determine.
To me, the most disturbing aspects of this legislation and its application are:
A foreigner staying with a car, caravan or boat in Spain over 6 months must pay the tax. If that person elects to leave THEY MUST STILL PAY THE TAX, and a fine, even though they are just one day over the limit, and depart the next day. Further, the tax is not refundable when leaving the country. That is just plain silly.
A person living near the French or Portuguese border could move their residence across the border and commute to work, thus avoiding the tax. So all European citizens are not equal nor do they get equal treatment. Only companies and businesses have that benefit !!! So the EC is then just a club for the benefit of .....
The tax was originally a luxury tax, was later changed to a registration tax and is now disguised as a pollution tax, and is applicable to "certain means of transportation". To consider a pleasure boat as a means of transport is stretching it a bit, but in the case of a live-aboard, it is probably correct, as their boat is also their means of transport. However, if the purpose is to deter pollution, they should start with factory chimneys, some of which belch forth ample quantities of noxious substances without paying any pollution tax.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will say that the Spanish authorities have NEVER been know to have behaved in such a heavy-handed manner with ordinary yachtsmen, even those who have been in Spanish waters for many years and who are 'well-over' the time limits. There are tax issues but this spoof thread is not the place to discuss them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lemain, not true.
I won't give details over an open forum, but what you say is NOT true.
As for the legislation and its application, I sent you some time ago a PM with some comments and other information. In that information I spoke of a certain case known to me.
[/ QUOTE ]Are you telling me that that case had similar heavy handedness by the authorities? That's not what you told me in your PMs, which I still have on file.
[ QUOTE ]
I will say that the Spanish authorities have NEVER been know to have behaved in such a heavy-handed manner with ordinary yachtsmen, even those who have been in Spanish waters for many years and who are 'well-over' the time limits. There are tax issues but this spoof thread is not the place to discuss them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lemain, not true.
I won't give details over an open forum, but what you say is NOT true.
As for the legislation and its application, I sent you some time ago a PM with some comments and other information. In that information I spoke of a certain case known to me.
[/ QUOTE ]Are you telling me that that case had similar heavy handedness by the authorities? That's not what you told me in your PMs, which I still have on file.
Plomong
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me that that case had similar heavy handedness by the authorities?
[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on what you call "heavy handedness". PM sent.
The OP gave the impression that his vessel was now "precintado", effectively impounded, implying he was not able to use it as his place of abode. For a live-aboard that is certainly heavy-handed and IMHO quite unnecessary, even if it is within the powers of Aduanas. Impounding (precintado) is the correct procedure, but not allowing the owners to live aboard in the interim is certainly going too far and should be easily overturned. I hope they have achieved at least this much by now.
In Spain, when a premises is "precintado" the tape is put across doors, windows and other openings so that if someone breaks the "precintado" it is visually obvious. It probably has other deeper legal meanings based on old customs and so on, but these are beyond me. I have never heard of these tapes being physically put on a boat because of an IEDMT problem. I have seen them in other circumstances -- when the boat was "precintado" and made legally inaccessible, but for other reasons.
If the OPs boat had those tapes affixed, it implies that he could not, and maybe cannot yet, access his boat, unless he wishes to break them and incur a further offence, this time I think penal or criminal, with heavier and more dire consequences. Those tapes were probably affixed as a result of his comment about making a run for it -- the Aduanas would like to impede his doing so, hence the tapes. If caught at sea having broken those tapes, he would be in deep doo-doo.
As for other cases: whenever a boat is impounded (precintado) the tapes should be affixed. If Aduanas do not do so, it means they trust the individual concerned to not do a bolter. If the person is Spanish and lives locally, I would consider that as a normal procedure for such administrative matters. However, in the case of a foreigner, it is conceivable that such a tape would be affixed in the ordinary course of a precintado (Note: Cintado = taped, so precintado is bonded or impounded). What I dont know is whether the Aduanas can apply a precintado without judicial intervention -- I think they can, but I may be wrong.
Are you telling me that that case had similar heavy handedness by the authorities?
[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on what you call "heavy handedness". PM sent.
The OP gave the impression that his vessel was now "precintado", effectively impounded, implying he was not able to use it as his place of abode. For a live-aboard that is certainly heavy-handed and IMHO quite unnecessary, even if it is within the powers of Aduanas. Impounding (precintado) is the correct procedure, but not allowing the owners to live aboard in the interim is certainly going too far and should be easily overturned. I hope they have achieved at least this much by now.
In Spain, when a premises is "precintado" the tape is put across doors, windows and other openings so that if someone breaks the "precintado" it is visually obvious. It probably has other deeper legal meanings based on old customs and so on, but these are beyond me. I have never heard of these tapes being physically put on a boat because of an IEDMT problem. I have seen them in other circumstances -- when the boat was "precintado" and made legally inaccessible, but for other reasons.
If the OPs boat had those tapes affixed, it implies that he could not, and maybe cannot yet, access his boat, unless he wishes to break them and incur a further offence, this time I think penal or criminal, with heavier and more dire consequences. Those tapes were probably affixed as a result of his comment about making a run for it -- the Aduanas would like to impede his doing so, hence the tapes. If caught at sea having broken those tapes, he would be in deep doo-doo.
As for other cases: whenever a boat is impounded (precintado) the tapes should be affixed. If Aduanas do not do so, it means they trust the individual concerned to not do a bolter. If the person is Spanish and lives locally, I would consider that as a normal procedure for such administrative matters. However, in the case of a foreigner, it is conceivable that such a tape would be affixed in the ordinary course of a precintado (Note: Cintado = taped, so precintado is bonded or impounded). What I dont know is whether the Aduanas can apply a precintado without judicial intervention -- I think they can, but I may be wrong.
Grehan
Well-Known Member
GoahAbbadi's postings are literally unbelievable and consequently I am very sceptical.
Some forumites seem to take the position that the whole IEDMT subject is a non-issue, or is just-deserts, or is somehow humorous but I'm sure it is indeed a real problem for an unlucky few; innocently ignorant and clobbered for a boat importation tax that was, up until relatively recently, relatively unheard-of even if it did, indisputably, exist.
I know people who have been the subject of the tax, but I have not heard of anything like the heavy-handedness depicted here. Of course, that doesn't mean that it couldn't, or hasn't, happened, but . . .
So far as Precintado is concerned (precinto = a seal, precintado = sealed), when this happened to friends they were served with the Notice and it was stuck on the boat. An unpleasant shock but done with due courtesy and formality, not undue spite. They were not allowed to leave the harbour, but they were free to continue to live aboard, with full unrestricted access to the boat. Very different to what GoahAbbadi has pictured.
If GoahAbbadi exists, then he has my deepest sympathy and I would respectfully suggest he contacts either Jaime de Castro (j.decastro 'at' decastro.es) or Alex Chumillas (alex 'at' barcelonataxlaw.es) both of whom seem to know what's what and both of whom seem professionally capable and experienced. I would not trust unknown Spanish lawyers, abogados or other sources of expense and misinformation - including internet forums.
I'd like to give the OP the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proved guilty and all that) but I suspect otherwise. Shame. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Some forumites seem to take the position that the whole IEDMT subject is a non-issue, or is just-deserts, or is somehow humorous but I'm sure it is indeed a real problem for an unlucky few; innocently ignorant and clobbered for a boat importation tax that was, up until relatively recently, relatively unheard-of even if it did, indisputably, exist.
I know people who have been the subject of the tax, but I have not heard of anything like the heavy-handedness depicted here. Of course, that doesn't mean that it couldn't, or hasn't, happened, but . . .
So far as Precintado is concerned (precinto = a seal, precintado = sealed), when this happened to friends they were served with the Notice and it was stuck on the boat. An unpleasant shock but done with due courtesy and formality, not undue spite. They were not allowed to leave the harbour, but they were free to continue to live aboard, with full unrestricted access to the boat. Very different to what GoahAbbadi has pictured.
If GoahAbbadi exists, then he has my deepest sympathy and I would respectfully suggest he contacts either Jaime de Castro (j.decastro 'at' decastro.es) or Alex Chumillas (alex 'at' barcelonataxlaw.es) both of whom seem to know what's what and both of whom seem professionally capable and experienced. I would not trust unknown Spanish lawyers, abogados or other sources of expense and misinformation - including internet forums.
I'd like to give the OP the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proved guilty and all that) but I suspect otherwise. Shame. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
A
Anonymous
Guest
Precinto means a seal or sticker. On boats, it's like nailing an embargo to the mast as was the custom in olden days. The instruction is given to the Harbour Master that the boat is embargoed and the HM informs the authorities if the boat attempts to leave.
I suspect that it would be illegal for them to seal the vessel unless a crime was committed....pending a tax assessment is not 'criminal' and until the tax has been assessed the person has not be shown to own anything. Remember that this tax is believed to depend on residency and residency is not always 100% clear cut. 183 days in a calendar year is the crude test and is good for most cases but you can be non-tax resident in Spain and be in Spain for more than 183 days (you will find a pdf download on the Aduana site defining the tax situation for foreigners, in perfect English).
In any case, nobody would seal up a boat....bilges have to be checked, and so on or it might sink. In all the years I have been sailing in the UK and Europe I have never ONCE seen a yacht with crime scene tapes on it. I know many cases of embargo stickers being applied in Spain, they are discreet and go over the wheel, for example, and often they are voluntary in cases where non EU owners want to live aboard the vessel in the winter without paying VAT. Precinto stickers are common and they don't prevent access.
Besides, what legal basis would they have for denying the Belgian OP access to his Belgian yacht? Until the tax demand arrives the tax liability isn't even proven. It sounds to me as though this is an entirely invented story by someone causing mischief who does not understand himself how the system works and mistakenly assumes that a tax enquiry is a 'crime' and that a boat is 'sealed' in the same way as a murder scene. That is probably why the OP does not want to tell us where he is. Mind you, if someone had crime scene tape all over his yacht some yachtie in one of those harbours along there would say something.
The real MO is entirely different and we have many examples. To seal a yacht pending a tax assessment is absurd; it has never happened before and is never likely to happen.
Until the OP tells us where he is (we will almost certainly know someone in that harbour who can verify) treat the OP as a troll mischief poster.
I suspect that it would be illegal for them to seal the vessel unless a crime was committed....pending a tax assessment is not 'criminal' and until the tax has been assessed the person has not be shown to own anything. Remember that this tax is believed to depend on residency and residency is not always 100% clear cut. 183 days in a calendar year is the crude test and is good for most cases but you can be non-tax resident in Spain and be in Spain for more than 183 days (you will find a pdf download on the Aduana site defining the tax situation for foreigners, in perfect English).
In any case, nobody would seal up a boat....bilges have to be checked, and so on or it might sink. In all the years I have been sailing in the UK and Europe I have never ONCE seen a yacht with crime scene tapes on it. I know many cases of embargo stickers being applied in Spain, they are discreet and go over the wheel, for example, and often they are voluntary in cases where non EU owners want to live aboard the vessel in the winter without paying VAT. Precinto stickers are common and they don't prevent access.
Besides, what legal basis would they have for denying the Belgian OP access to his Belgian yacht? Until the tax demand arrives the tax liability isn't even proven. It sounds to me as though this is an entirely invented story by someone causing mischief who does not understand himself how the system works and mistakenly assumes that a tax enquiry is a 'crime' and that a boat is 'sealed' in the same way as a murder scene. That is probably why the OP does not want to tell us where he is. Mind you, if someone had crime scene tape all over his yacht some yachtie in one of those harbours along there would say something.
The real MO is entirely different and we have many examples. To seal a yacht pending a tax assessment is absurd; it has never happened before and is never likely to happen.
Until the OP tells us where he is (we will almost certainly know someone in that harbour who can verify) treat the OP as a troll mischief poster.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
I would not trust unknown Spanish lawyers, abogados........
[/ QUOTE ]Isn't that a bit like saying 'don't trust Spanish doctors, go to a herbalist or acupuncturist'?
I would not trust unknown Spanish lawyers, abogados........
[/ QUOTE ]Isn't that a bit like saying 'don't trust Spanish doctors, go to a herbalist or acupuncturist'?
Bilgediver
Well-Known Member
It is a 'wind-up', and a particularly cruel one
********************************************
This is what they were told to read elsewhere!
Boat Tax
********************************************
This is what they were told to read elsewhere!
Boat Tax
Plomong
Well-Known Member
That document is, in many aspects, out of date. Furthermore, it does not tally with the current application of IESDMT in those cases known to me.
1: The current tax is not a Matriculation tax, it is now a pollution tax.
2: The tax is on any boat that arrives in Spain, and is due in the following 30 days. However, arrival date when it cannot be otherwise proven is taken to be that on which the owner becomes tax resident. See relevant legislation: Ley 38/1992 as modified by the Disposicion Adicional Octava of the Ley 34/2007, de Calidad del Aire y Proteccion de la Atmósfera.
3: A person becomes tax-resident after 183 days in any calendar year, or when they purchase some fixed asset (apartment, house or land, for example).
4: I would be loath to class this as a hoax or wind-up: It looks to me to be genuine. Would it that forumites helped instead of casting doubts on the authenticity of the original posters!!! It reflects badly on some posters, who seem too hasty in classifying this as a troll or hoax.
Hope this helps.
1: The current tax is not a Matriculation tax, it is now a pollution tax.
2: The tax is on any boat that arrives in Spain, and is due in the following 30 days. However, arrival date when it cannot be otherwise proven is taken to be that on which the owner becomes tax resident. See relevant legislation: Ley 38/1992 as modified by the Disposicion Adicional Octava of the Ley 34/2007, de Calidad del Aire y Proteccion de la Atmósfera.
3: A person becomes tax-resident after 183 days in any calendar year, or when they purchase some fixed asset (apartment, house or land, for example).
4: I would be loath to class this as a hoax or wind-up: It looks to me to be genuine. Would it that forumites helped instead of casting doubts on the authenticity of the original posters!!! It reflects badly on some posters, who seem too hasty in classifying this as a troll or hoax.
Hope this helps.
Bilgediver
Well-Known Member
Actually it was supposidly written by one of the better informed Spanish solicitors according to another poster on another forum...
It is on his web page....He deals in these matters. Maybe a Google will take you there /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
It is on his web page....He deals in these matters. Maybe a Google will take you there /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
A
Anonymous
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
3: A person becomes tax-resident after 183 days in any calendar year, or when they purchase some fixed asset (apartment, house or land, for example).
[/ QUOTE ]
Not so. See the rules of residency from the Spanish Tax office (in English)....
http://www.agenciatributaria.es/AEAT/Con.../irnringles.pdf
In particular, you will see that ownership of assets is not a factor.
The 30 day rule was stated to be the case by my Spanish lawyers (which is concerning as it widens the net to include non-residents) but there seems to be some doubt and I believe that further advice is needed.
Hope this helps.
3: A person becomes tax-resident after 183 days in any calendar year, or when they purchase some fixed asset (apartment, house or land, for example).
[/ QUOTE ]
Not so. See the rules of residency from the Spanish Tax office (in English)....
http://www.agenciatributaria.es/AEAT/Con.../irnringles.pdf
In particular, you will see that ownership of assets is not a factor.
The 30 day rule was stated to be the case by my Spanish lawyers (which is concerning as it widens the net to include non-residents) but there seems to be some doubt and I believe that further advice is needed.
Hope this helps.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
Actually it was supposidly written by one of the better informed Spanish solicitors according to another poster on another forum...
It is on his web page....He deals in these matters. Maybe a Google will take you there /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]I don't believe that he is a 'solicitor' or claims to be. I think he calls himself an 'expert' /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Actually it was supposidly written by one of the better informed Spanish solicitors according to another poster on another forum...
It is on his web page....He deals in these matters. Maybe a Google will take you there /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[/ QUOTE ]I don't believe that he is a 'solicitor' or claims to be. I think he calls himself an 'expert' /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
saltwater_gypsy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 1,946
- Location
- Now back in Scotland . Boat for sale
When this thread started I thought I understood the situation and having spent two winters in Mallorca I thought the situation was clear.
Can one of you learned gentlemen confirm that, for example, I can stay in Spain as follows without incurring tax.
2009 Winter in Spain October to Dec 3months ,
92 days assigned to 2009
2010 Winter in spain Jan to April 3months
90 days assigned to 2010
If I then came back to Spain in 2010 I could only then stay for a further 93days before becoming liable for tax. So it would be an October arrrival again or somewhat later if I had actually left later than April.
Whether this a Troll or not it has brought this difficult situation to the surface for open discussion.
Can one of you learned gentlemen confirm that, for example, I can stay in Spain as follows without incurring tax.
2009 Winter in Spain October to Dec 3months ,
92 days assigned to 2009
2010 Winter in spain Jan to April 3months
90 days assigned to 2010
If I then came back to Spain in 2010 I could only then stay for a further 93days before becoming liable for tax. So it would be an October arrrival again or somewhat later if I had actually left later than April.
Whether this a Troll or not it has brought this difficult situation to the surface for open discussion.
Plomong
Well-Known Member
Just read carefully the documents cited -- they'll show what I'm saying.
Plomong
Well-Known Member
The phrase used in the pdf file is:
"Their main or central place of business is directly or indirectly located in Spain."
That seems clear, especially for the case of a retired couple, for example.
"Their main or central place of business is directly or indirectly located in Spain."
That seems clear, especially for the case of a retired couple, for example.
Plomong
Well-Known Member
The IESDMT becomes due on arrival of the boat, with a 30-day pay-up period. However, arrival is difficult to prove so the law says that arrival will be assessed as when the owner becomes tax resident. In this latter case, your figures look correct. However, if Aduanas can show the boat arrived earlier (marina receipts, etc), and they want to pursue the matter, it looks like you have 30 days in which to fulfil your obligations, measured from date of arrival of the boat.
This whole business looks draconian to me, and needs passing through a European filter to see if the laws as they stand are correct. As they are, they are the laws of Spain, as yet unchallenged as far as I know, in their present form.
This whole business looks draconian to me, and needs passing through a European filter to see if the laws as they stand are correct. As they are, they are the laws of Spain, as yet unchallenged as far as I know, in their present form.
A
Anonymous
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
The phrase used in the pdf file is:
"Their main or central place of business is directly or indirectly located in Spain."
That seems clear, especially for the case of a retired couple, for example.
[/ QUOTE ]The pdf file is a legal document from the Spanish Government. It is definitive. If you or others do not understand it then you should take the appropriate legal advice from a lawyer -- I am not a lawyer and neither are most of the self-styled 'experts' who 'advise' on these matters. This document is something that can be used in discussion with the Spanish authorities because it was issued by them.
The phrase used in the pdf file is:
"Their main or central place of business is directly or indirectly located in Spain."
That seems clear, especially for the case of a retired couple, for example.
[/ QUOTE ]The pdf file is a legal document from the Spanish Government. It is definitive. If you or others do not understand it then you should take the appropriate legal advice from a lawyer -- I am not a lawyer and neither are most of the self-styled 'experts' who 'advise' on these matters. This document is something that can be used in discussion with the Spanish authorities because it was issued by them.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I think that we should take your legal advice with a large pinch of sodium chloride. Only three posts ago you stated that one becomes resident by buying a fixed asset such as a house. Having proved to you that this is untrue you now make other legal statements which might, or might not be true.
