The First Chamber of the Supreme Court recently issued Judgment 1485/2025, of October 24, which resolves a matter whose significance goes far beyond its specific object: the controversial inclusion of enforcement surcharges as claims against the estate when the corresponding tax credit is generated during the bankruptcy proceedings. The resolution brings clarity, coherence and a unified criterion to a matter that in recent years had experienced divergent interpretations in courts and provincial courts.

The issue arose when the Tax Agency demanded the recognition and payment of a claim against the estate, including principal, late payment interest and surcharges. The bankruptcy administration partially accepted the debt, but rejected the surcharge, citing the doctrine that prohibits initiating administrative enforcement proceedings after the opening of the liquidation. The lower and appellate courts shared this view and understood that, if the enforcement procedure cannot be initiated, the surcharge associated with it cannot be recognized either.

However, this reading —seemingly logical— turned out to be conceptually wrong. The confusion between the procedural level (the impossibility of execution) and the substantive level (the legal regime of claims against the estate) generated a blurring that the Supreme Court corrects with precision.

A doctrine that needed to be nuanced.

To understand the Court's decision, it is helpful to briefly recall the previous line of jurisprudence. Supreme Court rulings 711/2014 and 227/2017 had made it clear that, once the liquidation process is open, it is not appropriate to initiate or continue enforcement proceedings with respect to assets included in the asset pool. Insolvency proceedings are universal and absorb any attempt at separate enforcement, except in very specific cases.

This criterion —not disputed— had been interpreted by some courts as an absolute impediment to the accrual of surcharges on claims against the estate. It was understood that, if coercion is prohibited, everything that accompanies it is also suspended. However, this conclusion lacked real regulatory support. The administrative and tax doctrine of the AEAT, as well as various internal resolutions, had already warned that the surcharge is not an act of execution, but a legal consequence associated with the non-payment of a tax credit within the deadline, regardless of how its collection is subsequently structured.

Furthermore, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber itself had already recognized, in STS 237/2013, that credits subsequent to the declaration of bankruptcy —including interest and surcharges— are fully enforceable within the bankruptcy proceedings and are considered credits against the estate. This doctrine, reiterated also in recent pronouncements, made it clear that the bankruptcy does not deactivate the legal regime of public credit that arose subsequently.

The Supreme Court connects the pieces. One thing does not exclude the other.

The 2025 ruling carries out a particularly valuable doctrinal harmonization operation. It acknowledges, yes, that the enforcement procedure cannot be initiated once the liquidation has been opened —a doctrine already established by the First Chamber—; But he then clarifies that this prohibition does not interfere at all with the birth and accrual of the surcharge, because the surcharge accrues by operation of law, does not require the existence of a writ of execution or its processing and forms part of the credit against the estate itself when it arises during the bankruptcy proceedings.

By clearly separating both planes, the Court brings order where there was previously confusion. The prohibition of enforcement has a strictly protective purpose for the asset pool, but it does not intend—nor could it intend—to alter the legal status of the tax credit, which continues to be governed by the general rules of the General Tax Law.

In fact, the Court emphasizes an essential element; The AEAT acted in accordance with the bankruptcy regime, without executing or imposing seizures, but going to the bankruptcy court to request recognition of the credit. The conduct was, therefore, irreproachable from the perspective of the principle of universality. The surcharge, not being an act of execution, is fully enforceable.

The core of the ratio decidendi It can be summarized in the following categorical statement from the ruling:

“The prohibition against initiating administrative enforcement proceedings to claim a tax credit against the estate, from the opening of the insolvency proceedings (except for approval of an agreement and during the compliance phase), does not prevent tax credits against the estate generated after the declaration of insolvency from generating late payment interest and surcharges, which are also considered credits against the estate.”

With this doctrine, the First Chamber restores the internal coherence of the system.

Effect of this Judgment and practical relevance: full recognition of the credit.

The natural consequence of this reasoning is the acceptance of the appeal in cassation and, with it, the appeal on points of law: The Supreme Court declares the recognition of the surcharge within the credit against the estate to be appropriate and orders its payment. It is a clean resolution, without stridency and with an evident vocation for doctrinal unification.

The implications of the ruling are immediate and profound for all operators of the system.

For the AEAT, this represents a decisive reinforcement of legal certainty. In a context of increasing insolvency activity —especially after the entry into force of Law 16/2022 and the explosion of insolvency proceedings of individuals reflected in our internal statistics— it is essential that the public credit regime does not depend on isolated or restrictive interpretations of specific courts. With this ruling, a uniform framework is consolidated. All tax credits generated during the bankruptcy proceedings accrue interest and surcharges, and both are credits against the estate.

For insolvency administrators, the ruling requires a review of internal criteria that had led, in some cases, to the rejection of surcharges based exclusively on the doctrine of the prohibition of enforcement. The Supreme Court clarifies that this interpretation was incorrect and that surcharges should be incorporated into the list of claims against the estate naturally, just like late payment interest.

And for the defendants —both individuals and legal entities— the ruling has a clear educational value. Public debt arising after the declaration of bankruptcy maintains its legal structure intact, and compliance with deadlines is enforceable under the same consequences as in a normal situation. The bankruptcy proceedings are not a parenthesis where the legal effects of non-payment are neutralized.

In short, this is a ruling that brings serenity to the system. The decision of the First Chamber ultimately carries out an elegant and necessary exercise in legal technique. At a time of increasing complexity in the insolvency system, with a rising volume of insolvency proceedings and a growing diversity of operators, it was essential to reaffirm a uniform criterion that would guarantee predictability and security for all participants.

The ruling does not create a new rule. Simply remember, clearly, what the correct legal structure has always been. And it does so with the serenity that comes from decisions that are meant to last.