Good news for Shakira! Spain’s National Court has ruled in the artist’s favor, fully voiding the tax assessments and penalties—worth more than $60 million (over €55 million)—that the Spanish Tax Agency imposed on her for the 2011 fiscal year, finding that the authorities failed to prove she was a tax resident in Spain during that time. The decision brings to a close an eight-year dispute between the singer and the State Tax Administration Agency (AEAT), centered on whether Shakira was required to pay taxes in Spain on her worldwide income in 2011.
© Getty ImagesThe Amount at Stake
In total, Spain’s tax authorities were seeking €55,034,906.52 (about $60 million) from the artist:
- €24.7 million (about $27 million) in personal income tax (IRPF),
- A €24.9 million penalty (about $27.2 million) tied to that tax,
- €2.68 million (about $2.9 million) for wealth tax and,
- An additional €2.7 million penalty (about $3 million).
© Instagram @shakira“Under the pretext of tax obligations that the courts have now shown never existed, the tax authorities improperly withheld €60 million from Shakira for years—funds that were in fact earmarked as working capital and to cover expenses for that world tour. With this ruling, the court orders the Administration to return the full amount to the singer, along with the corresponding interest and full reimbursement of the very substantial legal costs she incurred,” her legal team said. “The case was so clearly lacking in logic or factual basis, and the withholding of those funds was such a blatant abuse, that the National Court took the exceptional step of ordering the AEAT to pay costs. This is a sanction the courts impose only when they find recklessness and a complete lack of grounds on the part of the tax authorities,” they added.
Defense Argument: No Tax Residency
From the outset of the proceedings, the singer’s defense maintained that Shakira was not a tax resident in Spain in 2011 because she did not spend more than 183 days in the country. According to her lawyers, that year the artist “was on a world tour, performing 120 concerts in 37 different countries.” They also argue that the Colombian singer “had no residence in Spain, no children, and never established her business base in the country; even so, the Tax Agency pursued her and forced her to pay taxes on all the income from that tour without taking her expenses into account, causing her significant losses and subjecting her to an unjustified and unfounded prosecution with serious consequences.”
© Europa Press via Getty Images“It’s baffling that the AEAT pursued her in this way, when all the evidence clearly showed it was physically impossible for the artist to have spent the legally required amount of time in Spain,” they add.
Legal Path to the Ruling
The singer first appealed to Spain’s Central Economic-Administrative Court (TEAC), which upheld the tax authorities’ position. She then took the case to the National Court, which has now overturned that decision.
© Europa Press via Getty ImagesWhat Spanish Law Says
In its ruling, the National Court notes that under Spanish law, a person is considered a tax resident if they spend more than 183 days in the country during the calendar year or if the main center of their economic or family interests is located there. In this case, the court concludes that the Administration failed to prove either condition.
Spain’s Tax Agency itself placed Shakira’s time in the country at 163 days, while the defense argued it was 143. The ruling states that, in any event, “that period of presence (. . .) does not reach the 183 days” required by law.
The court also finds it proven that the artist spent more than 183 days outside Spain in 2011 and rejects the tax authorities’ interpretation of so-called “sporadic absences,” holding that an absence lasting longer than that period cannot be considered sporadic.
No Family Ties Establishing Residency
The ruling also rejects the existence, in 2011, of a family nucleus that could give rise to a presumption of tax residency in Spain. The court notes that the singer was neither married nor had children residing in the country that year, and therefore a romantic relationship with someone living in Spain was not enough to establish that legal presumption.
© Getty Images for DisneyEconomic Interests Located Abroad
On the economic front, the National Court also finds that the tax authorities failed to prove that the primary center of the artist’s business activities or economic interests was in Spain. According to the ruling, most of her professional activity and the companies linked to her were based outside the country. As Shakira’s legal team emphasized, “it is also clear that the artist’s companies were legitimate and that no sham structure ever existed.”
© WireImageCourt’s Conclusions and Orders
As a result of these findings, the National Court declares the tax assessments and penalties arising from the 2011 audit proceedings to be unlawful.
The ruling orders the annulment of the personal income tax (IRPF) and wealth tax assessments, the cancellation of the penalties imposed, and the repayment of the amounts paid, along with the corresponding legal interest. In addition, the court orders the defendant Administration to cover legal costs.
The decision explicitly underscores that its analysis is limited strictly to the 2011 tax year, and that personal or tax circumstances in subsequent years are not part of the case.
Reaction from the Artist’s Inner Circle
© AFP via Getty ImagesSources close to the singer have expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, noting that the administrative litigation route was the forum where Shakira believed she could best defend her legal position against the tax authorities. In September 2024, the artist had already publicly criticized the Tax Administration’s actions in a personal letter, stating that “an institution created to serve citizens should not use all its power and resources to arbitrarily criminalize whoever it chooses.”
Statement from Her Attorney
For his part, José Luis Prada, the singer’s attorney and managing partner at Prada Tax Advisors, said after the ruling that the case had come at “an unacceptable cost” following “eight years of ordeal.” “Shakira had the strength and the resources to see this through to the end, but this modus operandi suffocates many ordinary taxpayers who don’t have the means to defend themselves,” he added.
© Backgrid/The Grosby GroupAccording to Prada, the National Court’s decision “brings immense relief and is a source of deep pride, confirming the rigor and independence of our courts.” “It’s reassuring to see that, in the face of unacceptable administrative positions, we can rely on a judicial system…”
