Minutes of the meeting

MINUTES OF THE PLENARY MEETING OF THE FORUM OF ASSOCIATIONS AND COLLEGES OF TAX PROFESSIONALS

HELD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2025

President of the Forum of Associations and Colleges of Tax Professionals

Director General of the State Agency for Tax Administration

Ms. Soledad Fernandez Doctor

Members representing the Tax Agency

Director of the Tax Management Department

Mrs. Rosa Maria Prieto del Rey

Director of the Collection Department

Mrs. Virginia Muñoz Fernández

Deputy Director General of Legal Order of the Department of Financial and Tax Inspection

Mr. Manuel Martínez Cabezas

Inspector Advisor and Coordinator

Mrs. María Azucena Hórreo Tuero

Deputy Director General of Management and Intervention of Special Taxes

Mr. Luis Ignacio Jiménez Part

Director of Legal Services

Mr. Diego Loma-Osorio Lerena

Director of the Planning and Institutional Relations Service

Mr. Ignacio Fraisero Aranguren

Special Delegate of the Special Delegation of Catalonia

Mr. Isidoro Garcia Millan

Director of the Tax Information Technology Department

Mr. Jose Borja Tome

Members representing Associations and Colleges

Spanish Association of Tax Advisors

Director of the Office of Studies and Research

Mr. Arturo Javier Jimenez Happy

Member for studies, research and institutional relations

Mr. Juan Manuel Herrero from Egaña Espinosa de los Monteros

Professional Association of Accounting and Tax Experts of Spain

Secretary of the Board of Directors

Mr. José Antonio Fernández García-Moreno

General Council of the Spanish Bar Association

Mr. Manuel Mata Pastor, President of the Ethics Committee

General Council of Colleges of Administrative Managers of Spain

Head of the Tax Department of the General Council

Ms. Pilar Otero Moar

General Council of Official Colleges of Social Graduates of Spain

Member of the Fiscal Affairs Committee

Mr. Jose Luis Perea Prieto

Register of Tax Advisor Economists (REAF)

Mr. Agustín Fernández, President REAF-CG

Mr. Rubén Gimeno Frechel, Technical Secretary of REAF-CGE

Spanish Federation of Professional Associations of Tax Technicians and Tax Advisors

Chairperson

Mr. Joan Torres Torres

First Vice President

Mr. Adolfo Jimenez Ramirez

Office of Administrative Managers and Tax Advisors

GESAF Coordinator

Mr. Carlos de Nicolas Ortells

Technical Secretariat of the Forum of Associations and Colleges of Tax Professionals

Deputy Director General of External Communications of the Planning and Institutional Relations Service

Mrs. Maria Dolores Carreno Beltran

On November 27, 2025, the twenty-eighth plenary meeting of the Forum of Associations and Colleges of Tax Professionals was held, attended by the persons listed and in accordance with the following

AGENDA

1. Opening of the session.
2. Approval of the minutes of the session held on July 2, 2025.
3. Information on the topics discussed in the working groups.
4. VAT exemption between Member States.
5. Next call.
6. Other considerations, requests and questions.

1. Opening of the session.

   The session is opened by Ms. Soledad Fernández Doctor, Director General of the State Tax Administration Agency and President of the Forum of Associations and Colleges of Tax Professionals, who welcomes the new representative of the General Council of Spanish Lawyers, Mr. Manuel Mata Pastor, dean of the Illustrious College of Lawyers of Castellón.

   The Director then lists the various items on the agenda and, without further delay, proceeds to the first one.

2. Approval of the minutes of the session held on July 2, 2025.

   Ms. Soledad Fernández Doctor gives the floor to Ms. Mª Dolores Carreño Beltrán, Deputy Director General of External Communication of the Planning and Institutional Relations Service and Technical Secretary of this Forum, who states that the minutes of the twenty-seventh plenary session were sent to the associations and colleges prior to this meeting.

   The Deputy Director reports that no comments have been received and since no comments were made during the meeting, the minutes of July 2, 2025 are approved.

3. Information on the topics discussed in the working groups.

   Next, the Director of the Tax Agency gives the floor to the Director of the Tax Management Department, who explains that the group discussed the main regulatory developments, including, among others, the situation of the franchise regime in the Value Added Tax.

   Firstly, it was indicated that within the working group that took place at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the requirements that a possible internal franchise regime in Spain would have to meet were analyzed.

   The technical conclusions were transferred to a document that was sent to be of use to the legislator if, in that case, it was decided at some point to implement this regime in Spain.

   However, it was noted that the adoption of the internal franchise system was not expected at the moment, without prejudice to the fact that the rule will be amended so that the franchise system can be applied in other Member States with respect to operations carried out in those States. The representative of the Directorate General of Taxes explained that this situation did not imply discrimination or unequal treatment.

   The Director of the Management Department adds that in the working group the representative of AEDAF asked when the regulations allowing the franchise system in other States would be modified, and was told that the forecast was January 1, 2026.

   It was indicated that, with regard to the processing of the transposition of the European Union Directive on the franchise regime between Member States, amendment 59 to the draft law known as DAC8 had been submitted, with the modifications necessary to implement said regime.

   It was also reported that the ministerial order approving the two necessary models, the 041 and the 350, is being processed. On the one hand, there is the application form for the franchise system and, on the other hand, the information form on the volume of operations, which determines the continuity in the system or whether its application is excluded because it exceeds the maximum volume established by the directive.

   Regarding these two models, the Director of the Department reports that the ministerial order began its public information phase on November 12 and the period for comments ended on the 21st of the same month.

   Following the transposition of the directive, the ministerial order will be officially approved and the various procedures will be implemented on the Agency's electronic website, thus enabling taxpayers who wish to do so to apply the regime in other States.

   Regarding the second point, the new features of the 2025 information campaign, the Department Director mentions that the Deputy Director General of Tax Technique explained the various new features, accompanied by a presentation.

   First, the modification of model 233 for nurseries was discussed in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling, which allows the deduction of expenses for nurseries authorized for guardianship and custody, without the need for these centers to be expressly authorized by the educational authority. Article 69 of the IRPF regulations was therefore amended so that all authorized centers could submit the information return.

   Don José Castaño commented that in Murcia the regional regulations require that the authorization come from the educational authority and asked if this authorization could be found in the tax data in order to apply the regional deduction portion. The Department Director indicates that, after studying the issue, it was concluded that there would be a possibility that these would be declared centers authorized by the educational authority.

   Next, the working group referred to the modification of form 182, which provides information on donations, to adapt it to the wording of article 19.1 of law 49/2002, which reduces to two years the period of time to consider a donation as recurring and apply the increased deduction of 40%.

   Form 184 has also been modified to introduce a technical improvement in order to be able to provide information to the Social Security Administration. In addition, technical changes have been introduced in form 193 that refer to the identification of dividends from securities traded on the official Spanish secondary market.

   Reference was also made to the modification of the annex of the order that approves model 282 to include the new investments in which the reserves for investments in the Canary Islands of the Fifteenth Additional Provision of Law 19/1994 can be materialized.

   Furthermore, a field in form 345, the informative declaration of plans, pension funds and alternative systems, was modified to identify whether or not the total income from work from the company exceeds 60,000 euros.

   Regarding form 190, certain changes have also been included, among them those affecting pension payers in order to have a greater distinction between the types of pensions and to be able to apply what is established in the second transitional provision of the Personal Income Tax Law.

   Regarding the supplementary tax, it was reported that the 3 models, 240, 241 and 242, were published in the Official State Gazette.

   Regarding financial information declarations, on July 15, the ministerial order was approved that approves the new models or the modifications of the models, which affect, in particular, models 196, 181, 170, 171 and 174.

   In most cases, the modification has consisted of expanding the subjective and objective scope, and establishing a monthly presentation (for models 196 and 170, except for the economic information of model 196 which will continue to be annual).

   Within the working group, it was reported that frequently asked questions would be published and that a seminar would be held on November 13th to address issues affecting these models.

   Finally, it was mentioned that the draft order approving the new model 780, for the tax on the margin of interest and commissions of certain financial entities, and 781, for the installment payment, include, as a new feature, the box corresponding to taxation in Navarre.

   Regarding electronic invoicing, the Director of the Department points out that it is an obligation established by the Crea y Crece Law for national B2B operations and that it has a dual purpose: a commercial purpose of reducing private late payments and a fiscal purpose of fighting fraud and improving tax assistance.

   It was indicated that the regulations implementing the law are in process and that the obligation for electronic invoicing is not foreseen before January 1, 2027, since the regulations must first be published and subsequently the ministerial order, with the different deadlines indicated depending on the group starting to count from that moment.

   Ms. Rosa Prieto also recalled the four objectives of the public electronic invoicing solution. The first of these is to be a universal repository of faithful copies of electronic invoices, the second consists of serving as an interconnection with private exchange platforms, the third is to serve to manage the payment statuses of the invoices and the fourth would be to make available a free electronic invoicing solution with the syntax and semantics regulated in the Royal Decree currently in process and which, currently, corresponds to the semantics and syntax with which work is being done in the VIDA project.

   The Department Director alluded to the intervention in the working group of Mr. Arturo Jiménez, who asked if the number of invoices for the public solution was going to be limited, with Ms. Mercedes Jordán replying that it was possible to consider establishing limits and Ms. Cristina Álvarez confirming that a limit would probably be imposed, but that it did not necessarily have to be related to the number of invoices. The representative from the Department of Information Technology added that these limits, once decided, would be published for public knowledge.

   Once the presentation by the Director of the Management Department is finished, Mr. Manuel Martínez Cabeza speaks to summarize the two topics within his area of ​​expertise discussed in the working group.

   First, the issue of creating a catalog of expenses that are difficult to justify was discussed, with the Deputy Director indicating that this proposal was not considered viable. Among the reasons he cites are the enormous and different range of cases, and that the deductibility or proof that they are elements related to the activity requires an analysis of the circumstances in each specific case and even in each economic sector.

   The Deputy Director recalls that the working group also offered professionals the opportunity to raise some specific recurring cases for analysis in the Forum.

   Regarding the second topic, two issues relating to case law were discussed, with the Deputy Director beginning with the Supreme Court ruling in the case known as Credit Suisse, dated June 26, 2024, in which the CJEU declared that the management of investment portfolios is not exempt from VAT.

   This ruling was analyzed in the working group due to the professionals' concern regarding the principle of legitimate expectation, since some clients applied the criteria of the Directorate General of Taxes (which declared these services exempt) and subsequently saw how the Administration assessed the VAT against this criterion.

   Mr. Manuel Martínez recalled that, in said ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the judgments of the CJEU, unless said Court temporarily limits the effects, have ex tunc effects and, therefore, are applied retroactively to non-prescribed tax years.

   Furthermore, the Deputy Director indicated that the ruling confirms the settlements and that the Administration is obliged to apply the new interpretation to past years, with the principle of primacy of Union law prevailing.

   The second of the Supreme Court's pronouncements relates to the doctrine of the third shot, which implies that an administrative settlement cannot be repeated for the third time until it is correct.

   The working group highlighted the existence of a resolution from the Central Economic Administrative Court, dated September 24, 2025, as some representatives of the professionals understood that said Court questioned the criteria of the Supreme Court.

   The Tax Agency clarified that it was not questioning the Supreme Court's doctrine at any time, since the TEAC was referring to a very different issue.

   The Supreme Court rulings recognize the possibility of reversing the proceedings in cases of formal defects or starting a new procedure in cases of substantive defects. The Supreme Court reached this conclusion, among others, in two previous rulings of April 3 and 5, 2024, which precisely confirm second-round settlements issued by the Inspection with the limits of no reformatio in peius, prescription and no recidivism in the error.

   However, in those cases the settlements were totally annulled for substantive reasons, whereas the TEAC refers to settlements that were partially annulled.

   The TEAC resolution analyzes the actions of the Inspection, which were of a general nature with respect to several years and whose settlement was partially annulled by the TEAR for substantive reasons.

   In execution of said resolution of the TEAR, the Inspection issued a new settlement with the adjustments confirmed and not cancelled, replacing said settlement with the cancelled one.

   Subsequently, the Inspection initiated proceedings for the same periods and facts, with the TEAC concluding that the Administration cannot issue a new settlement to replace the annulled one, as said settlement was already issued in execution of the TEAR resolution.

   TEAC argues that this third settlement would only be possible in the event of different facts or if the settlement resulting from the first procedure had been of a provisional nature.

   According to the Deputy Director, it was a very technical matter, being more a question of preclusion than of maintaining the power to liquidate since, as an example, he points out that if the first liquidation had had a partial scope, successive liquidations could have been issued on the part not verified in that initial verification.

   Mr. Manuel Martínez argued in the working group that, if the TEAC had known the TS ruling, it probably would not have used the term third settlement, since in his opinion there was the settlement issued in execution of the resolution (which is still a first settlement) and the one issued later in the procedure using the second shot, so it was not possible to speak of a third settlement.

   On behalf of the Inspection Department, Ms. Azucena Hórreo also speaks to summarize what was discussed in the group related to VERI*FACTU.

   Regarding the subjective scope of application, it was clarified that it obliges all taxpayers of Corporate Income Tax who have an electronic invoicing system (SIF), unless they are totally or partially exempt, including micro-enterprises and excluding those who apply the SII.

   The working group also asked when civil partnerships and joint ownership communities become obligated, which depends on whether they are subject to IS, in which case they are obligated from January 1, or whether they are subject to IRPF, like joint ownership communities, in which case it is applicable from July 1.

   They also asked what happens when the company and the establishment are located on the mainland and the Canary Islands, or vice versa, with Ms. Azucena Hórreo reporting that the DGT had already answered and that the two indirect taxes must be analyzed independently. As an example, a company in the territory where the tax applies, registered with the SII, which has a permanent establishment in the Canary Islands, does not apply the Canary Islands SII for those operations carried out through the establishment in the Canary Islands.

   Regarding operations within the territory where the tax applies, they would be excluded from compliance with VERI*FACTU, but for operations from the PE in the Canary Islands, the VERI*FACTU Regulation will have to be applied. However, if they voluntarily register with the Canary Islands SII system, from that moment on they would be excluded from compliance with the VERI*FACTU regulations.

   Conversely, if a Canary Islands company applies the Canary Islands SII system, but has a permanent establishment in the territory where the tax applies, the operations in the Canary Islands would be excluded from compliance with the VERI*FACTU regulations; This does not apply to operations within the territory where the tax applies, which would be subject to VERI*FACTU regulations, unless they voluntarily register with the SII.

   The Department's intention, according to Ms. Azucena Hórreo, is to publish these questions in the FAQs.

   Regarding the powers of attorney, the working group indicated that the specific procedures were already available on the Electronic Headquarters website.

   Regarding the objective scope of application, it was clarified in the working group that simplified invoices are also included, provided they are not issued entirely manually.

   The representatives of the professionals asked if the information uploaded up to December 31st had any significance, with Ms. Azucena Hórreo indicating that Mr. José Manuel Alarcón had already responded that it was a trial period until it came into effect.

   Ms. Azucena Hórreo advises that the trial period be extended and that invoices continue to be sent until it comes into effect in order to see the different situations that may arise.

   Another question raised in the working group was what happens if a company carries out two activities, one that invoices manually and another applying the SII, with Ms. Azucena Hórreo pointing out that the DGT has not yet provided an answer.

   Likewise, it was recalled that in the group Mr. Ignacio Fraisero asked about the degree of dissemination and acceptance of the regulations by the clients of the representatives, and Ms. Cristina Álvarez urged that the adaptation of the systems not be left until the last minute.

   Mr. Manuel Mata asks when it will apply to civil societies, and Ms. Azucena Hórreo answers that it will depend on whether they pay taxes as corporations or as personal income.

   Next, the same representative requests an explanation regarding pro forma invoices, since the list of frequently asked questions states that they are also subject to VERI*FACTU.

   Ms. Azucena Hórreo points out that it would be convenient to know what is happening with these pro forma invoices, even though they are not subject to the obligation, but it is advisable to be able to track these pro forma invoices, how they later become invoices. In any case, the VERI*FACTU regulation was created to prevent dual-use software that deletes or modifies invoices.

   Mr. Arturo Jiménez recalls that regarding deductible expenses, the issue was analyzed in the working group of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and before the Taxpayer Defense Council. On the other hand, regarding the issue of the Canary Islands, the representative would appreciate it if, regardless of whether it will be published as FAQs, they could receive a written response to the Association's email address.

   Mr. José Luis Perea reports that he has been testing with several programs approved by the Tax Agency and the clients say that the regulations do not allow them to generate invoices with a date prior to the current day. As an example, he points out that he cannot issue it on the 1st because it falls on a Sunday, and the office is not operational, and on the 2nd he wants to put the date of the 1st, which is the date on which he usually issues it. If the day has passed, you could no longer issue it with a back date, even if you haven't issued any invoices.

   If the entry into force occurs in January and January 31st falls on a Sunday and the invoice is issued on February 1st, it would limit the deduction of VAT on the invoice for all its customers in January.

   Ms. Azucena Hórreo indicates that the problem raised will be analyzed by the Department.

   The Director of SEPRI adds that information letters have been sent to legal entities during the month of November, that it is planned to extend these communications to natural persons during the months of January and February, and that videos have also been produced to increase understanding in some aspects. Show the live video and emphasize the importance of everyone sharing it.

   Likewise, Mr. Ignacio Fraisero reports that the intensification of all dissemination actions with those obligated, with developers, with professionals and with the self-employed continues in order to reinforce both the dissemination and knowledge of the new obligations regarding the adaptation of computer billing systems.

   The Director of the IT Department then summarized the issue concerning powers of attorney, stating that, despite the attorney's resignation, he continued to receive subsequent notifications.

   In the working group, it was conveyed that there are three types of powers of attorney, type A, type B and type C, which are the powers of attorney granted in the electronic register of powers of attorney of the Spanish Agency for Digital Administration.

   Type A powers of attorney are granted for all Administrations and, when confirmed in the register of powers of attorney of the Spanish Digital Administration Agency, are also transferred to the Tax Agency.

   It was reported that a copy of these powers of attorney was received in the Tax Agency's register of powers of attorney in order to take them into account, and a copy of the revocations, waivers and expiry of said powers of attorney was also received.

   Furthermore, it was also conveyed that, in the Tax Agency's register of powers of attorney, powers of attorney are for a procedure or a set of procedures, but not for a file, except in some specific procedures, such as the inspection procedure.

   Mr. José Borja commented that the DIT representative requested that the specific case be sent in order to analyze the situation in more detail, but they have no record of having received the case yet.

   Regarding type B powers of attorney, it was reported that until a few months ago there was a synchronization between these type B powers of attorney since the electronic register of powers of attorney communicated the powers of attorney to the Tax Agency.

   However, the revocations, cancellations and resignations of these powers of attorney had stopped being sent to the Tax Agency, therefore the Tax Agency does not know the validity of the type B powers of attorney that it has in its system.

   The decision taken by the Tax Agency is not to take these powers of attorney into consideration for reasons of information security. Otherwise, the Director emphasizes, access could be given to people representing others when the power of attorney no longer operates because it has been cancelled in another registry.

   The Director of the DIT reports that, nevertheless, they are continuing discussions with the Digital Administration Agency to try to resolve the problem.

   Regarding type C powers of attorney, which are for specific procedures, the Digital Administration Agency communicates with the Tax Agency headquarters so that the power of attorney is granted at the latter's headquarters.

   Regarding the Economic Administrative Courts and the Directorate General of Taxes, it is not yet possible to register this type of power of attorney for a specific procedure, since the new headquarters of the courts, which will be integrated into the Tax Agency, has not yet been published in the Official State Gazette (BOE).

   Ms. Pilar Otero asks what should be done when, on April 2, 2026, those powers of attorney that were initially of indefinite duration and that were extended for 5 years expire.

   The Deputy Director of External Communication at SEPRI responded to this question, informing that a working group on representation has been created, and that both grantors and agents will be informed that the possibility of renewal will expire and that they will be kept informed, as they are currently working on this issue.

   Next, Mr. Ignacio Fraisero speaks to summarize what was discussed in the working group related to updating the list of proposals from professionals, starting with proposal 14, which requests the possibility of direct debiting supplementary IRPF declarations for previous years due to the receipt of back wages.

   Initially, it was concluded that it was not feasible in the short term, although among the new developments is that the IT Department indicated that they will try to achieve it and that they are working on it. It was also reported that information on tax arrears had been included to facilitate automatic transfer to the income tax return.

   Regarding proposal 36, which seeks to know which debts have been settled with each payment, the representative of the Collection Department reported that the revenue area has other priorities derived from judicial resolutions or administrative doctrine, citing as an example the late payment interest and without having been able to make progress on this proposal.

   Regarding proposal 37, the expansion of the self-assessment filing system with the generation of the document to pay at the Bank, as occurs with VAT, to the rest of the self-assessments, it was reported that it was viable and that a joint analysis with the DIT was necessary.

   Regarding proposal 46, improving the wording of letters sent to taxpayers when discrepancies exist, it was reported that progress has been made and, as a general rule, an attempt is made to ensure that the text used is as understandable as possible, but that sometimes the issues are complex and difficult to simplify.

   Finally, regarding proposal 47, on the entrustment of management to the College of Administrative Managers, it was reported that it could be extended to other groups provided they request it, meet the requirements and assume the obligations that the entrustment entails.

   Mr. Joan Torres requests that the 49 updated proposals be forwarded to them, and there being no further interventions, we continue with the next item on the agenda.

4. VAT exemption between Member States.

   Ms. Soledad Fernández continues with the agenda and, with respect to point four, points out that it was already addressed when the different working groups were summarized, therefore, she considers the issue analyzed and moves on to the next point on the agenda.

5. Next call.

   The Director of the Tax Agency, in order to set a deadline for the next call, decides that the next call will take place in six months.

   Following this, Ms. Soledad Fernández opens a session to allow representatives of the professionals to ask any questions or make any suggestions they may have.

6. Other considerations, requests and questions

   Mr. Ignacio Fraisero begins the question period, reminding everyone that social collaboration is being reviewed, specifically the requirements for accessing social collaboration.

   One of the internal proposals being considered is to reinstate the possibility for a taxpayer to directly disable social collaboration.

   The Director of SEPRI adds that, after the disqualification, the disqualified social collaboration can also be reinstated if the obligated party so desires.

   The Director explains that this option will only be available in offices, and its start is scheduled for January.

   Mr. Joan Torres states that previously there was already the possibility of revoking the collaboration, clarifying that the disqualification implies that no collaborator can make the presentation, while the revocation affected a specific one.

   Mr. Jesús Fernández asks if collaborators can revoke their clients' consent to stop receiving notifications, the Director of the Tax Information Technology Department replies that it is already possible to request to unsubscribe in person at the office, but that the possibility of enabling a procedure that allows unsubscribing is being analyzed in terms of notifications.

   Mr. Joan Torres requests that the proposal be added to the list.

   On the other hand, Mr. Jesús Fernández asks if companies that are in VERI*FACTU will have access to the invoices received, since if they are in the SII they can see the invoices issued and also those received.

   Mr. José Borja admits that the proposal would be possible and says that it will be studied in the medium term starting in 2027, combining it with the electronic invoicing system, which will allow access to all the information.

   Next, Mr. Manuel Mata speaks to express the concern in some European Union countries regarding professional secrecy and the description of services in electronic invoices. Mr. Arturo Jiménez adds that some specific services are particularly affected, such as medical services. The Director of the Tax Agency responds that this is a very important issue and that it will be studied.

   With no further interventions, the Director thanks everyone for their participation and concludes the plenary session of the Forum.