Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 4:39:06 GMT
The Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court has decided to archive the investigation proceedings in relation to certain activities of the King Emeritus. But what are the gaps in the archive of these investigations Firstly, the Prosecutor's Office accepts the report on the identification and quantification of tax contingencies carried out by the ONIF of the complementary personal income tax from to that the king emeritus presented on February and , for . euros in fee plus euros in late payment interest and surcharges. However, it is not indicated what consideration there was on the part of the king emeritus to the foundation to consider it income and not donations, which would have meant that tax crimes corresponding to some of them could occur, which would exceed the 120,000 euro fee. However, an expense is revealed that corresponds to the purchase of weapons that had not been included in the regularization, but this, in contradiction to the above, is considered by the Prosecutor's Office to be a donation, so that It does not invalidate the income regularization, and due to the amount of the defrauded fee, it would not constitute a tax crime.
How much should Juan Carlos I have paid to the Treasury for the alleged donation? The Prosecutor's Office says it has not found evidence linking The JRM 2004 Trust with D. Juan Carlos between and , even though said funds come from others of which, according to the Prosecutor's Office itself, the king emeritus was a beneficiary. Likewise, he Guatemala Mobile Number List states that there is no evidence that he has received any amount from his accounts and that, in any case, from the date of the abdication the provisions of the JRM 2004 Trust have been in amounts that in no case would reach the quota corresponding to a crime against the Public Treasury even when such funds had been delivered to a Spanish taxpayer. However, it is obvious that if that taxpayer were Mr. Juan Carlos, even if the provisions had been minimal, they would invalidate the corresponding regularizations.
But we have a main question, and that is that, in its September letter addressed to the Central Court of Instruction 6 of the National Court, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office stated that “the potential tax contingencies that the conversations indirectly reveal may deserve the attention of the tax authorities and, where appropriate, could lead in the future to the corresponding complaints for tax crime ," quoting Gestha's statement of July . year in which we stated that the published conversations "are sufficiently important for the AEAT to pay maximum attention to them and verify them." Thus, at Gestha we wonder why the AEAT has not opened and notified its investigations before the king emeritus presented the tax regularizations of February and . And, in any case, why did it not open them between said dates and on February when, it has now been known, he presented a new complementary one, rectifying two of those presented. Carlos Cruzado, president of the Treasury Technicians.
How much should Juan Carlos I have paid to the Treasury for the alleged donation? The Prosecutor's Office says it has not found evidence linking The JRM 2004 Trust with D. Juan Carlos between and , even though said funds come from others of which, according to the Prosecutor's Office itself, the king emeritus was a beneficiary. Likewise, he Guatemala Mobile Number List states that there is no evidence that he has received any amount from his accounts and that, in any case, from the date of the abdication the provisions of the JRM 2004 Trust have been in amounts that in no case would reach the quota corresponding to a crime against the Public Treasury even when such funds had been delivered to a Spanish taxpayer. However, it is obvious that if that taxpayer were Mr. Juan Carlos, even if the provisions had been minimal, they would invalidate the corresponding regularizations.
But we have a main question, and that is that, in its September letter addressed to the Central Court of Instruction 6 of the National Court, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office stated that “the potential tax contingencies that the conversations indirectly reveal may deserve the attention of the tax authorities and, where appropriate, could lead in the future to the corresponding complaints for tax crime ," quoting Gestha's statement of July . year in which we stated that the published conversations "are sufficiently important for the AEAT to pay maximum attention to them and verify them." Thus, at Gestha we wonder why the AEAT has not opened and notified its investigations before the king emeritus presented the tax regularizations of February and . And, in any case, why did it not open them between said dates and on February when, it has now been known, he presented a new complementary one, rectifying two of those presented. Carlos Cruzado, president of the Treasury Technicians.