Lawyers of the real winger Real Madrid Cristiano Ronaldo argue that the Portuguese paid for 265,448 euros and 80 euro cents more than required.
Cristiano Ronaldo is accused of tax evasion in the amount of almost 14 million euros. But the Portuguese himself sweeps aside any offenses. According to COPE, the protection of the Portuguese does not agree with the prosecution of 3 points.
What proportion of income from image rights was obtained in Spain?.
There is a huge difference between what Ronaldo paid to the treasury and what he would like to receive the Spanish Treasury. Protecting Cristiano, Impatriados Law, argues that the player must pay taxes only from what he has received "from Spanish sources". This case is the first in history and has not yet had precedents.
According to Nielsen Report, the Spanish market brought Ronaldo only 6.1% of the income from image rights - thanks to social networks, the television audience and local brands.
- Lawyers say that Ronaldo paid 20% of all image contracts related to Spain, using the maximum rate of the UK Treasury.
- According to the norms of the Spanish legislation, Cristiano should pay from 50 to 60% of the tax.
Why did Ronaldo pay taxes in 2014, not annually from 2009?.
- Defense Ronaldo claims that Cristiano paid in 2014, because then he received money from Tollin, the company that dealt with his image rights. At the same time, lawyers insist that Krishian paid voluntarily and never concealed his income.
In 2014, he paid 2,845,891.97 euros. At the same time, if the Portuguese paid annually, he would have to pay 2,589,443.17 euros - 265,448.8 less.
- The prosecution alleges that Tollin is just a fiction and Ronaldo had to pay annually.
Image rights - is the sale of movable capital or economic services?.
- Lawyers of the player classify image rights as movable capital, which falls under the lower taxation.
- The prosecutor's office claims that this is an economic activity and the interest rate should be higher.
Conclusions of the protection of Ronaldo "Differences in accounting for profits received from the transfer of image rights are not of a criminal nature and should be resolved in the administrative court. The taxpayer did not conceal his income and pay taxes when he received money. If he followed the requirements of the treasury, he would pay less, even if it were in his interest ".