After a legal battle lasting more than eight years, Shakira has received the news she has been waiting for. The Spanish National Court has ruled decisively in favor of the artist in her ongoing battle with the Spanish Tax Agency (Hacienda), a process that her legal team has always maintained should never have gone so far. The resolution marks a definitive end for the Colombian singer, who maintained from the very beginning that she had committed no fraud.
"After more than eight years of enduring brutal public exposure, orchestrated campaigns to destroy my reputation, and sleepless nights that ultimately affected my health and the well-being of my family, the National Court has finally set the record straight," the "Dai Dai" singer shared in her first statements after learning of her definitive legal victory. "There was never any fraud, and the Administration itself was never able to prove otherwise, simply because it wasn’t true."
© Chris Cornejo"However, for nearly a decade, I was treated as guilty," the artist concluded. "Every step of the process was leaked, distorted, and amplified, using my name and public image to send a threatening message to the rest of the taxpayers. Today, that narrative collapses, and it does so with the full force of a judicial ruling. My greatest wish is that this resolution sets a precedent for the Tax Authority and serves the thousands of ordinary citizens who are abused and crushed every day by a system that presumes their guilt and forces them to prove their innocence at the cost of emotional and financial ruin. This victory is dedicated to them."
The court's decision comes after a long journey marked by public exposure, media pressure, and a personal toll that Shakira herself has not attempted to hide. In her first words after learning of the resolution, the artist appeared relieved but also deeply forceful. The "Las mujeres ya no lloran" singer was clear in defending what she and her lawyers have maintained since day one: that fraud never existed.
The Spanish National Court’s ruling dismantles one of the Tax Authority's central arguments: Shakira's alleged tax residency in Spain. According to the court, the Administration itself could not sustain the claim that the singer had stayed in the country for 183 days, the legal threshold that determines tax residency. In fact, the ruling states that "said stay, as the Administration itself determines, does not reach 183 days" and concludes that the imposed penalties are "contrary to law."
© Backgrid/The Grosby GroupThe case dates back to 2011, an especially intense year in Shakira's international career. At the time, the singer was immersed in a world tour featuring 120 concerts across 37 countries. She did not own a home in Spain, had not yet started a family in the country, and had not established her business center there. Despite this, the Tax Agency demanded that she pay taxes in Spain for the income generated during that period, an interpretation that has now been discredited by the National Court.
The ruling also rejects the theory of so-called "sporadic absences," a concept used by the Tax Authority to try to count certain periods when the artist was outside the country as time spent in Spain. For the court, that argument is insufficient to support the accusation. Similarly, the Court concluded that it was not proven that the main core of her activities or economic interests was located in Spain.
Another key point of the resolution affects Shakira's corporate structure. According to the court, it was not proven that a sham structure existed or that her companies had been used fraudulently. On the contrary, the ruling points out that the majority of her economic activity and business structure were located outside of Spanish territory.
© Getty ImagesThe legal victory also carries significant financial consequences. According to the resolution, the Tax Authority must return 60 million euros to Shakira that had been withheld for years, in addition to the corresponding interest and the reimbursement of the legal costs incurred by the artist. Her defense stated that this amount corresponded to funds linked to working capital and the expenses of that international tour.
The Court also adopted an especially significant measure by ordering the Tax Agency to pay the legal costs. This is an unusual decision in this type of proceeding and, according to the singer's legal team, reflects the lack of merit in the administrative action. For Shakira, this ruling represents not only personal vindication but also a precedent for other taxpayers facing similar situations.
Her lawyer, José Luis Prada, expressed immense satisfaction with the resolution. "This resolution comes after an eight-year ordeal that has carried an unacceptable cost and reflects a deeply flawed administrative practice," he stated. The attorney also highlighted the importance of the artist's decision to see the proceedings through to the end: "Shakira had the strength and the resources to take this all the way, but this modus operandi suffocates many ordinary taxpayers who do not have the means to defend themselves." For him, the National Court's ruling confirms the importance of trusting the judicial process.
© Getty Images"It brings immense relief and a reason for great pride to see the rigor and independence of our courts. It is comforting to see that, when faced with unacceptable administrative positions, we can trust in a judicial system that truly works and guarantees the rule of law," he concluded.
This resolution definitively closes one of the most difficult legal chapters for Shakira, who has rebuilt her life far from Spain in recent years. The artist left at the beginning of 2023 and settled in Miami with her children, Milan and Sasha, starting a new personal and professional chapter defined by music, her international tour, and a rebirth that she herself has turned into an artistic narrative. Now, with this judicial victory, the Colombian singer puts an end to a chapter that has weighed on her life for nearly a decade. It was a battle that, in her own words, affected her health, her peace of mind, and the well-being of her family, but it concluded with a ruling that fully backs the position she defended from the start: that there was never any fraud.
