The Supreme Court, on March 15, 2022, upheld the appeal filed by the State Attorney (recourse 3723/2020) against a ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community regarding an assumption of liability under article 42.2. a) of Law 58/2003, of December 17, General Tax (hereinafter LGT).

In the analyzed case that is being challenged, the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community, through the ruling dated March 4, 2020, considered that the sanctions derived by virtue of the provisions of the aforementioned article 42.2 of the LGT must be subject to automatic suspension of its execution in the event of filing an appeal or claim against the declaration of responsibility agreement.

When clarifying the issue, the Supreme Court refers to the analysis made by the same Chamber and Section in the ruling of the Supreme Court of June 3, 2019, appeal 84/2018, on the occasion of the challenge of the modification made by Royal Decree 1073/2017, of December 29, in the general regulation for the development of the LGT, regarding administrative review, particularly in its articles 25.1 and 39.3.

In this way, it establishes that, if at that time the regulatory modification that expressly indicated the non-existence of automatic suspension of responsibilities for the payment of tax penalties derived based on article 42.2 of the LGT for the filing of of appeal or claim against the declaration of responsibility agreement, the same interpretation must have in the specific case that is being tried now, pointing out in this regard:

“Consequently, if our ruling, addressing the legal conformity of a regulatory norm in itself, that is, abstractly, as a direct object of a challenge, has declared that the regulation (arts. 25 and 39.3 RGRVA) does not violate or contradict the law (art. 212.3 LGT) and this same legal norm can be interpreted in the indicated sense that it includes, in the scope of responsibilities, debts that have their origin in sanctions , there is no other answer than the one already indicated, since the opposite would be like admitting that it is procedurally rejectable, that something different can be said in an indirect appeal against the acts of application than what was already affirmed at the time, as a basis of the ruling, in a contentious-administrative appeal against the regulations (sic) itself.”

And the ruling concludes with the following jurisprudential doctrine:

1. "The automatic suspension of the enforceability of sanctions, established in article 212.1 LGT is not applicable to sanctions subject to a derivation of responsibility ex art. 42.2 LGT.

2. This is without prejudice to requesting and requesting the suspension of the joint liability declaration agreement, in the case of article 42.2 LGT, in accordance with the general rules that govern such suspension."