Regarding the execution of economic-administrative resolutions, the Supreme Court, in recent years, has been maintaining a constant jurisprudential doctrine in which it declares that the administration has the obligation to complete the execution actions in the period remaining from the moment to which the actions are taken back until the conclusion of the general period, provided for in section 1 of art 150 of Law 58/2003, of December 17, General Tax (hereinafter LGT ) or in six months, if that period is shorter.

In the different rulings, the Supreme Court points out that, although the provision of the previous article 150.5 LGT was initially intended only for cases of annulment for formal reasons that determined the retroaction of the actions, given that the legislator was silent about the period that had to be respected when the annulment was for substantive or substantive reasons, even when technically they cannot be considered cases of retroaction of actions, there are no sufficient reasons not to treat these as if they were. effects, and the time limit and consequences of article 150.5 LGT must also be applied to cases of annulment of settlements for substantive reasons.

Law 34/2015 modified the wording of art. 150.7 and 239.3 LGT .

Following this regulatory reform, the Supreme Court has modified its criteria and in a ruling of September 27, 2022 (recourse 5625/2020) establishes that the term to carry out an execution which consists of the annulment, for substantive reasons, of a settlement agreement in an inspection procedure, to dictate a new settlement in accordance with the resolution of the administrative economic body as well as the annulment of sanctioning resolutions to adapt their amount to the new basis resulting from the agreement of liquidation, is one month and that the legal consequence derived from its non-compliance is the non-requirement of late payment interest .

The Supreme Court considers, for the purposes of calculating the month, as dies a quo the date on which the resolution is entered in the AEAT registry "as it is the one that offers greater transparency and reliability to third parties" .

The doctrine established by the Supreme Court in the ninth legal basis of the ruling has the following formulation:

" Synthesizing everything discussed above, the answer to the question of cassational interest is that in a case like the one at issue, in which the economic-administrative resolution to be executed consists of the annulment, for substantive reasons, of the agreement of liquidation in an inspection procedure, to dictate a new liquidation in accordance with the resolution of the administrative economic body, as well as the annulment of respective sanctioning resolutions to adapt the amount of the sanction to the new basis determined in the liquidation agreement, the administrative body must notify the corresponding execution agreements within the period of one month provided for in article 239.3 LGT , and article 66.2 of the General Regulation on administrative review, starting from the day in which the resolution of the economic-administrative court is entered in the registry of the State Tax Administration Agency, including the registry of the Office of Relations with the Courts; and that the legal consequence derived from non-compliance with the one-month period provided for in the aforementioned provision, as it is a non-invalidating irregularity without prescriptive effects, is the non-requirement of late payment interest once the Administration fails to comply with the aforementioned period. "

You can consult the ruling at the following link: Supreme Court ruling of September 27, 2022 New window .