taxes

Taking money from a family member just before their death seemed like a great idea to avoid paying taxes. It wasn’t

by

Why should an additional tax be paid for receiving money in inheritance for which the deceased already paid taxes? Many people ask that question and They decide to jump into the mountains (prosecutor) trying a thousand and one tricks to avoid payment of the Donations and Inheritance Tax. The most common trick is to empty bank accounts of the family member before he or she dies. Spoiler: it goes wrong. A solved case by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid shows that this belief can be very expensive, and that the attempt to avoid the treasury can end up exactly where one wanted to avoid arriving: paying the Treasury even more than what they would have paid in the beginning. Money, what money? A woman was listed as the owner or authorized person on several of her sister’s bank accounts. In September 2017, this died without leaving a will. When the General Directorate of Taxes of the Community of Madrid began to investigate the case, it found that the deceased’s assets were much larger than what her sister wanted to make out. As of December 31, 2016, the three bank accounts of the deceased accumulated considerable balances: one with 9,217.08 euros, another with 51,216.58 euros and a third with 132,644.53 euros, in which the sister appeared directly as joint owner. In addition to these savings, the deceased had received 45,000 euros in April 2017 for the sale of her part of a property that she shared with her sister. By December 31, 2017, all the money in the accounts was gone. The Treasury calculated that the total money and assets that should have been declared in the inheritance amounted to 122,931.67 euros, to which was added the value of 50% of a property in Hoyo de Manzanares valued at 1,812.50 euros. ​No resignation possible. The sister responded to the first requests from the Treasury by assuring that the deceased had died without assets. Some time later he provided a notarial document of renunciation of inheritance dated September 29, 2020, more than three years after death occurred. His argument was that he did not know that his sister had assets, and that the only movements he had made in the deceased’s accounts were payment procedures for the residence where he received care his sister in her last month of life. The court that reviewed the case in the first instance initially agreed with him, considering that this payment could be interpreted as timely management. However, the Community of Madrid, in charge of collecting the tax, appealed and the TSJM resolved differently. Although in theory you can renounce an inheritance at any time during the process, doing so after having acted on the deceased’s assets has tax consequences that no notarial deed can erase. What does it mean to accept an inheritance without wanting to do so?. In Spain, you do not need to sign any paper to legally become an heir. The law includes in its article 999.3 the figure of tacit acceptance, which occurs when someone acts on the assets of a deceased as if they were already theirs, even if they have never confirmed acceptance of inheritance. Withdrawing money from your accounts, selling your property or simply managing your assets are examples of actions that, in the eyes of the law, are equivalent to saying “yes, I accept”, even if no paper has been signed.​​ The problem is that many people are not aware of this rule and believe that as long as they do not sign anything before a notary, they are safe. In reality, what matters is not what is signed, but what is done. The Supreme Court takes decades establishing that any act that unequivocally reveals that someone he is behaving like an heireven if informally or even unconsciously, has the same legal and fiscal effects as an express acceptance of the inheritance.​ What the law says about disappearing money. The TSJM applied the article 11.1.a of the Inheritance and Donation Tax Lawwhich establishes that the assets that would have belonged to the deceased up to one year before his death They are considered part of the inheritanceunless proven otherwise by solid evidence. Not only did the sister not provide any explanation as to what had happened to that money, but she did not even try throughout the entire process. The court also assessed that the deceased was admitted to a nursing home and was receiving special care, which made it highly unlikely that she would have been able to manage the withdrawal of the money from her accounts on her own. Given that the sister was the owner or authorized owner of all of them, the judges concluded that moving that money was equivalent, in the eyes of the law, to having accepted the inheritance. Pay the tax, but get rid of the fine. The TSJ of Madrid confirmed that the woman had to pay 26,217.11 euros as settlement of the Inheritance Tax for her sister’s inheritance. However, the judges annulled the fine of 17,999.73 euros that the Madrid treasury demanded, because the Community of Madrid failed to prove that the woman had acted with the deliberate intention of deceiving the treasury, something that the law requires before being able to impose a financial penalty of that type. In Xataka | The “Great Transfer of Wealth” is not only a thing for the rich: demographic change will concentrate wealth among the youngest Image | Pexels (cottonbro studio)

They are not more taxes, they are updating them in the new digital economy

by

On March 12, it was published in the Official State Gazette the resolution which approves the general guidelines of the Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan of 2026. The text does not announce any new taxes, any additional fees and any direct obligations for the average citizen. What it does do is much more relevant for the fiscal control of Spaniards: the Treasury is updating the digital economy that citizens were already using. The Tax Agency has expanded the amount of information it receives on how money moves in the digital economy: mobile payments, neobank accounts and Fintech platforms or sales on second-hand platforms. The difference is not what you will pay in taxes, but how much the treasury now knows about your income and the new ways to receive it. ​New financial information. The most important novelty of Plan 2026 is not regulatory, but informative, and has raised a lot of controversy even before coming into force. Starting this year, the Tax Agency will have information every month on the ownership of bank accounts and also on the income obtained by businessmen and professionals who use any collection management system through POS cards and payments associated with mobile phone numbers. This directly includes payments through Bizum. That is, the Treasury now equates Bizum to credit cards. What has changed is which platforms are now required to report to the Treasury. Previously, this duty fell mainly on traditional banking entities. But the economy it is becoming more digital and neobanking, Fintech and digital payment systems platforms have increasingly become most common among Spaniards. Therefore, the Treasury has now extended that obligation also to companies in the new digital economy. All of them must periodically report data on certain professional profiles or important financial movements, which gives the Treasury a much more complete and updated view of money flows that were previously off its radar. Neobanks under the radar. The Plan dedicates a specific section to controlling the activity of digital financial entities, or neobanks. The BOE text recognizes that these entities, which offer services through technological platforms in many cases without physical presence in Spain, have transformed the banking landscape and pose challenges for tax control. The concrete response of the plan is that the checks will be focused on those taxpayers in which improper use of neobank accounts is detected to hide income or assets abroad. The objective declared by the Treasury is to improve the traceability of operations in a digital and cross-border environment, without implying any direct restriction or penalty for the user for the simple fact of having an account in one of these neobanks such as Revolut. or N26. Wallapop and the DAC7: selling online leaves a tax trail. Electronic commerce and sales platforms are another priority objective of the 2026 Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan. The BOE itself states that the operations carried out through these platforms sale of items between individualslike Wallapop or Vinted, have grown by double digits between 2020 and 2025, and that its trading volumes have doubled in that period. This growth is precisely what justifies the Treasury pay more attention to what happens in them. The tool that makes this control possible is the European DAC7 directivewhich forces platforms like Wallapop to communicate to the Treasury the income that their sellers obtain from selling products, providing services or renting goods through these apps. With that information, the treasury can compare the income that a person declares with what the platform has reported, and open an investigation if the numbers do not add up. ​Individual or professional: the distinction that changes everything. The new Treasury measures are aimed at controlling fraud by obtaining more information from the platforms that move money. That does not mean that the platform must send information about all its users. You should only do it from those to use them professionally or who, although they are not professionals, have a very intensive activity (hidden economy). If you use Wallapop to sell your bicycle or Vinted to get rid of clothes that you no longer wear, this measure does not affect you. However, if you have a clothing store and sell through this platform without declaring income, the Treasury will knock on your door. The same happens with payment platforms. If you use Bizum to pay your share of dinner to a friend (or have it paid for you), Treasury will not receive information about these movements between individuals. On the other hand, for self-employed professionals and companies the scenario has changed. The Tax Agency will receive the data on what they charge by card or Bizum. This allows you to compare that income with what you declare in the quarterly VAT more efficiently and quickly than before. In Xataka | Income Simulator 2025: how to use it to know if the declaration you make in 2026 will pay or return Image | Revolut

Getting married in Switzerland was equivalent to paying more taxes than a single person. And a referendum has put an end to the problem

by

In Switzerland, marriages they are news. And not because of its rise or fall, demographic issues or new trends when celebrating them. They are for strictly tax reasons. In a historic decision the Swiss have supported majority (with 54% support) a reform that will basically put an end to what is called the “marriage penalty” in the country. In other words, saying ‘I do’ in Switzerland will no longer be (in most cases) a sentence to paying more when declaring income to the Treasury. The decision has come preceded by an intense debate, which gives a clue that the issue does not only have fiscal implications. The background is social, cultural and historical. What has happened? That after years of debate Switzerland has given the ‘green light’ to a key tax change for marriages. Couples in the country who formalize their relationship will stop paying taxes jointly, through a single tax return in which the sum of their income and assets is taken into account. From now on, each spouse will be taxed individually. Just as if he hadn’t gone through the altar. The measure has received the endorsement of 54% of voters during a referendum in which they have discussed more topicsbut it does not mean that it will be activated immediately. The idea is that it be adopted gradually, over the next five years. The cantons have margin until 2032. Is it so important? Yes. In fact in Switzerland (and other countries who have paid attention to the fiscal change) there is no talk of joint or individual taxation, but of something much more forceful: the end of the “marriage penalty”. Because? Because according to its promoters, the current Swiss tax regime punishes those marriages in which both spouses work and enjoy good salaries. In these cases, with the current system, couples are forced to bear greater burdens than they would face if they remained single. That is, the same couple can find themselves in one or another tax bracket (more or less beneficial) depending only on whether they have formalized their relationship. Why’s that? Basically because the Swiss system is a few decades old and is based on a traditional family model in which each household has a single base salary. If the family receives more income (a second payroll) they are usually taxed at a higher marginal rate. “The joint model came from a time when women’s income was considered a ‘complement’ to that of their husbands,” clarify Swiss Info. With the new system, that changes. Does it influence that much? What we have seen so far may sound abstract or too theoretical, but its scope is better understood with practical examples. In January Swiss Info carried out a simulation for different profiles of households with one or another tax system and found that the ‘photo’ changes quite a bit. The summary is very simple: new tax model It mainly benefits marriages in which both spouses earn the same or similar amounts and harms (forcing them to face a greater tax burden) those in which there is a greater imbalance of income between the members of the couple. A practical example. Let’s take the case of a couple in which both members earn the same: 100,000 francs. With the joint model that has been operating in Switzerland for years, its tax burden would be about 6,700 francs. With the new individual taxation system it would drop to 2,700. Things change in couples in which there is only one salary. In these cases (with the same level of income) individual taxation will mean an increase of 32% compared to joint taxation. What is the change looking for? Its promoters assure that the new model will solve a problem that has been dragging down the Swiss economy for some time: a tax system that discourages paid work for those people who provide a second income to their homes. When changing the legal framework, remember Financial Timesthe Swiss government hopes to increase the nation’s workforce by about 60,000 people and increase the national GDP by about 1%. Advocates of the change hope it will help women gain strength in the Swiss labor market. It is estimated that only 60% of Swiss women work full time, a percentage lower than the OECD average, which is around 78%. The “marriage penalty” has also led to some curious practicessuch as couples who marry without legally registering their union or even marriages that they divorce before retiring for tax reasons. Are they all advantages? Not at all. At least that is what the sectors most critical of the measure maintain, warning of several negative effects. The main one, that the new system will result in more bureaucracyincreasing the workload (and costs) of the administration. There are cantons that also fear that the change of model will affect their coffers, punishing them with a loss of income. Beyond the practical issues there is another ideological one: part of the critical sector warns that individual supervision will generate inequalities that will harm traditional families above all. According to the Government, the new framework will more or less half of the taxpayers see their tax burden reduced. 36% would not notice changes and only the remaining 14% will have to pay more taxes. Images | Leonardo Miranda (Unsplash), Ronnie Schmutz (Unsplash) and Leo_Visions (Unsplash) In Xataka | 40,000 euros to say “yes, I want”: weddings in Spain have become events and their price is skyrocketing

subsidies, taxes and public transport

by

Were you thinking of getting gas this week? Everything indicates that it is best that you do it as soon as possible. Since last February 28, when the United States attacked Iran, the pieces began to move. Hormuz was put at risk, oil and gas rose and service stations were already beginning to charge more money for a liter of gasoline. Since then, an idea has been floating around: can the Government do something about the rise in gasoline? The facts. Only a few hours had passed since first American bombing when the most cautious began to fill the tanks of their cars. Of course, the fear of a general increase in gasoline was already floating in the air. Just a handful of days later, has been confirmed. And although the average price of gasoline has not yet reached 1.60 euros/liter, a good number of gas stations already show much higher prices. Especially in the big cities and in the big corridorswhere replacement is more common, prices have risen more strongly. A solution? At the moment, the Government has not made major statements about what measures may be applied if the price of fuel becomes too expensive. The Minister of Economy, Carlos Body, for the moment he has limited himself to saying who are considering applying “a shield for our citizens and companies.” The statements do not say much and it has not been clear if it is about trying to lower the price of fuel for final consumers, if only lowering the price for transporters or, if necessary, applying other types of alternative measures such as lowering the price of public transport. As was already done in 2022. Help with the purchase. The most obvious measure that the State can apply if necessary is a purchase subsidy. In fact, gas stations, aware that this could make them advance the money as happened four years ago, They have been warning the Government that they would be against. However, its activation in 2022 left some doubts: Aid to public transport. In parallel with aid for the purchase of fuel, the Government tried to promote the use of public transport with very substantial price reductions. The use of this means of transportation skyrocketed. Renfe even spoke of an increase in travelers of between 25 and 40% and 1.5 million requests for new free passes. Measures that, due to their application, also had their shadows: And measures that have been extended over time. One of the problems that the Government has is that aid for public transport has been extended over the years. More or less reluctantly, some autonomous communities have maintained the reductions in the price of season tickets. Aid that was also extended to bus services. By 2026, the Government announced a single pass for all of Spain. For 60 euros (30 if you are under 26 years old) you can use the entire medium-distance network, Cercanías, Rodalies and buses (in which the State provides the service). That is to say, there is little room to propose something much cheaper without putting the viability of the service at risk. Taxes? It is another possibility but it seems very complicated for this to be applied. On a liter of gasoline, there are two types of taxes that the Government can reduce to lower the price of a liter of fuel: the Special Tax on Hydrocarbons and VAT. Right now, each liter of fuel is taxed by a general and regional section (which is linear) in the Special Tax on Hydrocarbons, remaining as follows: Unleaded gasoline 98: 0.504 euros/liter. Unleaded gasoline 95: 0.473 euros/liter Diesel: 0.379 euros/liter. To the price, after applying the tax and the cost at which the company wants to sell, 21% VAT is applied. The problem is that these types of measures are considered ineffective for public coffers (lower collection) and The European Union has been demanding from Spain for some time that raises the price of diesel. A measure that would involve eliminating the current bonus that this fuel has in the tax outlined above and that has been repeatedly ignored from our country. Photo | engin arkyut In Xataka | There is a hidden war to sell us the cheapest possible gasoline. One that Ballenoil and Plenergy already dominate

After 16 years, Mexico has managed to get a millionaire to pay his taxes. And they are going to use them to help young people

by

One of the richest men in Mexico has been litigating for two decades to avoid paying what he owes to the treasury. In an unexpected turn of events, that money that was owed has ended up financing scholarships, soccer fields and cultural centers for young people at risk of falling into drug trafficking violenceat least that is what the Mexican Government has assured. President Claudia Sheinbaum has presented the social program “Young People Transforming Mexico” aimed at distancing young people from the influence of drug trafficking networks. During the explanation of the measures that includes the program, the president was very direct about the origin of the project’s financing: “Where does this resource come from? All this resource for young people, well, from the payment of a person who finally paid his taxes.” Sheinbaum was not referring to just any citizen, it was a direct reference to businessman Ricardo Salinas Pliego, owner of TV Azteca, Elektra and Banco Azteca, who at the end of January settled the largest individual tax debt in the history of Mexico. The largest payment in Mexican tax history The conflict between Salinas Pliego and the Tax Administration Service (SAT) dates back to 2009, when the Treasury concluded that the Elektra Group, owned by Mexican millionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego, with a estimated fortune at $5.8 billion, it had declared non-existent tax losses to artificially reduce its bill between 2008 and 2013. As explained in the specialized medium LexLatinFor 16 years, the businessman used a strategy of systematic delay, filing appeals in multiple judicial instances and requesting recusals of judges in order to prolong the lawsuits that demanded payment of his tax debt. In the Supreme Court alone, the seven main trials generated 100 secondary processes, the majority at the initiative of the Salinas Group. The turning point came in October 2025, when Congress approved a reform of the Amparo Lawwhich limited the possibility of challenging already final tax rulings. In November, the Supreme Court used this new law to resolve the seven trials, confirming sanctions of more than 48,000 million pesos (about 2,367 million euros), including one of more than 33,000 million pesos (about 1,627 million euros) from the 2013 fiscal year. What began in 2009 as the claim of a tax debt of about 38,000 million pesos (around 1,874 million euros) had already exceeded 74,000 million pesos (about 3,649 million euros) due to accumulated interests, surcharges and penalties. On January 29, 2026, Salinas Pliego made a first disbursement of its tax debt with a payment of 10,400 million pesos (about 513 million euros), which were deposited that same day into the Treasury. The total debt finally recognized has amounted to 32,132 million pesos (the equivalent of 1,584 million euros), with the remaining balance to be settled in 18 monthly payments. This final amount represents a discount with respect to the 51,000 million pesos (about 2,515 million euros) that the Mexican treasury had initially set, since Salinas Pliego took advantage of the benefits of the Tax Code, which in this case represented a 37% reduction of the debt through voluntary payment. As and how I collected The CountrySheinbaum He did not hide his satisfaction after knowing the sentence. “It is the largest payment that has ever been made for a case of this type. And it is really good that he decided to pay it!” The president recalled that “for many years, based on negotiations and agreements, taxes were not paid. When President Andrés Manuel López Obrador arrived, the remission of taxes was prohibited in the Constitution.” A plan against youth violence As Sheinbaum pointed out at the presentation event, the money collected from taxes owed for years by one of the largest fortunes in Mexico was going to be used to finance the program “Young People Transforming Mexico“. This project includes the construction of new educational facilities, more places in secondary and higher education, as well as the expansion of the Gertrudis Bocanegra Scholarship for one million students. In the sports field, 4,208 football fields will be rehabilitated, 100 community centers will be created in high violence areas with capacity for 1,000 young people each, offering sports, cultural workshops, mental health and addiction prevention. The objective of all these measures is to offer educational opportunities, social support and leisure to prevent young people at risk of social exclusion and without professional opportunities from falling into the networks of the Mexican drug cartels. “That young people stop any activity that has to do with criminal groups,” the president stated Mexican. In Xataka | The chances of two superyachts colliding are few, but never zero: “You won’t believe it, but our yacht was hit” Image | Wikimedia Commons (JGTorresH), Unsplash (Jesus Herrera)

Moeve has a turnover of 1.8 billion euros. The Prosecutor’s Office asks to dissolve the company because, they claim, they did not pay 7.7 million in taxes

by

Now Cepsa is Moeve. And now it is Moeve who has to fight against an accusation from the Public Prosecutor’s Office for fraud in the payment of taxes. The court case has been dragging on since 2022 but has its origins almost a decade ago. Now, the Prosecutor’s Office is asking for 28 years in prison for its board, targeting three senior officials of the Canary Islands Tax Agency and, in addition, the dissolution of the company. What has happened? In short, the Prosecutor’s Office accuses Moeve of tax fraud in the Canary Islands. According to their investigations, the company would have stopped paying 7.7 million euros to the Treasury by passing off diesel fuel as fuel oil when paying taxes between 2016 and 2021. The change is substantial because the tax rate on fuel oil (€0.56/tonne) is much lower than that on diesel (€222/1,000 liters). They stand out in Motorpassion that diesel has a tax 400 times higher than the change of units and, from there, would come the 7.7 million euros that the company would have omitted when presenting its taxes. What does the Prosecutor’s Office ask for? The Prosecutor’s request is harsh: That criminal proceedings be opened against the company The dissolution of the company Fine of 13 million euros for the company 28 years in prison and more than 25 million euros in fines for the board Two-year disqualification for three senior officials of the Canary Islands Tax Agency How did the events happen? As described in Fuerteventura Diarythe Prosecutor’s Office maintains that between January 2016 and October 2021, the then Cepsa, through its subsidiary Petróleo de Canarias (Petrocan), settled the taxes by passing off diesel fuel as fuel oil with “a clear intention of defrauding” the regional Public Treasury. According to their calculations, the company would have stopped paying the following amounts: 2016: 781,295 euros 2017: 404,134 euros 2018: 1.4 million euros 2019: 2.3 million euros 2020: 1.6 million euros 2021: 1.2 million euros In all that time, the Prosecutor’s Office accuses the Canary Islands Tax Agency of ignoring the complaints that came to it from the oil company. And the company IR Maxoinversiones, which manages various local gas stations, already reported the events in 2019, repeated it, expanding the complaint in 2020, and some time later filed a third complaint. The officials indicated by the Prosecutor’s Office, however, did not file any measures to investigate the events. What does Moeve say? Company sources point to Xataka that “the case is appealed. We reject the accusation and we hope that the actions of justice confirm the correct application of the taxation carried out by Moeve to the product called Diesel Oil, for industrial use and not linked to the activity of service stations.” They explain that Diesel Oil is a much heavier product than the diesel that we can consume for the car, so its use can only be industrial to start a machine or power a heater. That is, the usual use given to fuel oil. Thus, they point out that their taxation has always adjusted to what the Treasury has demanded at all times and that they are not trying to pass the product off as what it is not in their accounts. Disproportionate? Although the Prosecutor’s accusations are on the table and they say they can support them with data, it remains to be seen what the resolution of the case is. The claims refer to an alleged evasion of 7.7 million euros over six years, a very small figure for a company that only in the first nine months of the year 2025 (latest data published) earned 472 million euros in net profits and invoiced more than 1.8 billion euros in 2024. Therefore, beyond proving that Moeve did not pay the taxes due, it will have to be demonstrated that this omission was made with the intention of enriching himself and not because of a mistake when filing taxes, an element that seems essential for a judge to order the dissolution of the company. a company with more than 11,000 employees. Photo | moeve In Xataka | There is a hidden war to sell us the cheapest possible gasoline. One that Ballenoil and Plenergy already dominate

“Taxes for us. Taxes for the super rich”

by

Once a year, the quiet city of Davos becomes the financial and political capital of the world during the World Economic Forum in Davos. World leaders and executives from the world’s largest corporations debate for a few days the course What will the economy take? and global geopolitics. In this context, almost 400 millionaires from 24 countries have presented an open letter asking for something that, a priori, goes against their own interests: higher taxes for those who, like them, have several hundred million dollars of assets. Millionaires against their interests. The initiative of this group of millionaires it’s not new. They have been asking the economic authorities to meet in Davos on tax tightening for the richest. The difference is that this year different groups of millionaires have joined together, such as Patriotic Millionaires and Millionaires for Humanity to Oxfam to join forces and accuse the ultra-rich of capturing democracies, aggravating poverty, stopping innovations and damaging the planet with their economic control. The group denounces in its letter that this extreme wealth “has led to extreme control” for those who risk everyone’s future in exchange for obscene profits. Among the signatures on this manifesto are those of actor Mark Ruffalo, Disney heirs Abby and Tim Disney, and real estate developer Jeffrey Gural, who directly proclaim: “Taxes for us. Taxes for the super rich.” According to a poll conducted by the Patriotic Millionaires organization to G20 millionaires, 77% of those surveyed believe that the ultra-rich buy political influence, and 71% believe that this influence serves to create states of opinion in elections. More millionaires than ever. The claim coincides with a moment in which the stock market situation is generating millionaires at a frenetic pace. The report Global Wealth Report 2025 prepared by UBS revealed that 379,000 new millionaires were created in the US alone during 2024. This increase caused the world’s population of millionaires to go from 13.27 million people with more than one million dollars available to invest to more than 52 million people by the end of 2024. The concentration of wealth that has been occurring in recent years is evident. According to data According to the Federal Reserve, in the US the richest 20% of households, with an average of $4.3 million, controlled 71.1% of the total wealth in 2024. On the other hand, the poorest 50% of households, with an average of $60,000, only accounted for 2.5% of the wealth. Philanthropy falls short. Some rich people try to compensate for the imbalance in the distribution of resources with voluntary donations with initiatives such as The Giving Pledge, promoted by Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates, which has brought together more than 250 billionaires. Each of them promised to give at least half of their fortune during their lifetime or by will. However, the creators themselves recognize that these initiatives are not enough to tackle the problem. Warren Buffett confessed in his traditional letter to his shareholders that some of these philanthropic plans were frustrated by political decisions or due to the lack of consistency of donor commitment. “I have witnessed ill-conceived wealth transfers by cheap politicians, dynastic decisions and, yes, inept or peculiar philanthropists,” wrote the “oracle of Omaha in his last letter. Less taxes for millionaires. According to a study Prepared by economists from the University of California, in the US the 400 largest fortunes paid an effective tax rate of 24% between 2018 and 2020, below the 30% paid on average by the rest of taxpayers. The report concludes that this happens because capital gains on investments and certain business profits are taxed less than high salaries, allowing billionaires to reduce their real tax burden so that their income They do not depend on a salary in the companies they run or have founded, but of shares thereof. This mismatch fuels the argument of the Davos letter, which urges global and local leaders to tax large assets more. However, it is a risky request since the simple proposal of a measure that would tax California’s large fortunes at 5% has caused some of the largest fortunes to have already packed their bags for other states with more lax tax policies. In Xataka | An atoll in the South Pacific has become a magnet for millionaires. Its great attraction is not its beaches, it is its banks Image | Flickr (Fortune Live Media, Gage Skidmore)

be in favor of putting more taxes

by

In addition to being the CEO of NVIDIA (the most valuable company on the planet), Jensen Huang is in the top 10 richest people in the world according to Forbes. He has a net worth of $160.7 billion, a salary of $1.5 million a year (rose 50% last summer) with 49.9 million bonuses and 3% of his company’s shares. There it is nothing. As for properties, he owns a luxurious mansion on Billionaire’s Row in San Francisco and another, considered as your habitual residence due to its proximity to NVIDIA’s headquarters in Santa Clara, in Los Altos Hills. In the first I had David Sacks as a neighbor and in the second the founders of Google. The use of the past tense is not a mistake: they have all moved away to avoid the tax on the rich of 2026. For the CEO of NVIDIA it is not a problem: ““I’m perfectly fine.” with California’s new multibillion-dollar tax. Jensen Huang is not alone. But they are an absolute minority In an interview with Bloomberg TV last Tuesday, Huang said that “We choose to live in Silicon Valley, and whatever taxes they would like to apply, so be it” and that he had not thought about moving even once and that, despite the fact that his company has offices in several countries: “we work in Silicon Valley because that is where the talent pool is.” This new law, which would go into effect on January 1, 2026 retroactively if it passes the vote in November this year, imposes a flat 5% tax on people with a net worth greater than $1 billion to fund health programs. Considering his Jensen Huang net worth, we are talking about a fiscal bite more than 8 billion dollars. Jensen Huang’s position is rare bird insofar as it goes against the trend of many other technology magnates, who have packed their bags to avoid tax burdens. But NVIDIA CEO is not alone: There are other millionaires who are favorable to paying taxes. Of course, they are a minority. Without going any further, one of the most famous defenders is Warren Buffet, who almost 15 years ago proposed the ‘Buffet rule’ arguing that it is unfair that he pays a lower percentage of taxes than his secretary. Bill Gates has also repeated a few times that taxes are raised on the rich and the tax burden on capital gains and inheritances is increased. Incredible as it may seem, the fervent defender of capitalism Mark Cuban has advocated for paying taxes as “the most patriotic thing to do.” And speaking of patriotism, there is even an organization known as “Patriotic Millionaires” where the Disney heiress or the philanthropist George Soros ask that their taxes be raised. By the way, the current president of the board is Morris Pearl, former CEO of Blackrock. The budding law is the new “well, I’m going to Andorra” As we mentioned in the intro, Larry Page and Sergey Brin have already migrated T-Rex LLC to Delaware, according to Business Insider. After, Page has acquired a residence in Miami following in the footsteps of Jeff Bezos, who we will talk about later. The Guardian collects the intention of Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel or investor David Sacks to move to other states with a more favorable tax policy such as Texas or Florida. For the majority of these businessmen, these types of taxes discourage innovation, cause capital flight or directly, they consider that the government wastes money on these types of social welfare concepts. One of the most critical tycoons with the tax burdens is Elon Musk, who moved his residence from California to Texas due to the tax pressure. For the CEO of SpaceX and Starlink, taxes on millionaires are stupid: instead they should invest in reaching Mars, declared for the public entity PBS. Jeff Bezos is much less controversial than Musk on his social networks, but his recent move to Florida (which lacks a state income tax) after several decades in Washington has been interpreted as a measure to escape taxes. Ken Griffin, founder of the financial company Citadel, has also gone to Miami after criticize the fiscal policies and security of Chicago (Illinois), his previous residence. Reid Hoffman​, founder of LinkedIn, who is a large donor to the Democratic cause, has recently spoken out against this Californian tax alleging which is poorly designed and harmful to innovation. In Xataka | Warren Buffett sold half of his Apple shares. You will now pay taxes equivalent to Spotify’s annual income In Xataka | SpaceX is on track to have more money than NASA. He has achieved this, in part, because he does not pay taxes Cover | NVIDIA

fry them with taxes so they pay for maintenance

by

we have been counting over the last year: Japan has broken all its visitor arrival records while visibly suffering from the saturation effects tour. The nation’s response has begun in Kyoto in an emblematic way: if they cannot prevent the hordes, the government has thought that they will at least help the social, physical and management costs that their massive presence is generating. A boom that doesn’t fit. Foreign arrivals exceed 30 million in the first nine months of 2025, with a monthly record each month of the year and 3.26 million tourists in September, driving sustained pressure on fragile cities like Kyoto and iconic enclaves like mount fujiwhere “human density” produces mountain traffic jams, waste and safety risks. The demand overwhelms infrastructure and forces us to postpone usual activities (from schools that avoid tripseven the restriction of streets in neighborhoods like Gion) because tourist use is displacing basic civic uses and altering the balance between residents and visitors. The highest tax. The solution? The government has authorized Kyoto to charge from March 2026 to 10,000 yen per person per night in luxury hotels (well above the previous cap of 1,000 yen) within a tiered system that preserves low rates for budget travelers and shifts the burden to higher-income segments. The measure will double municipal income from accommodation from 5.2 to 12.6 billion yen and it is expressly presented as the obligation for tourists to “bear part of the cost of the countermeasures” instead of financing the adjustment only with local taxes. For the luxury traveler, the extra cost is marginal compared to the price of the trip, but for the city it constitutes a stable flow that turns tourist pressure into resource to govern it. From deterrence to sustainability engineering. The funds are intended for reinforce breaking points of the urban system: expanding fleets and transportation corridors to redistribute flows, fund multilingual services, etiquette and behavior control campaigns, and nurture a broader effort to preserve the cultural landscape that makes Kyoto attractive. The city, in fact, already applies disciplinary measures (street fines private Gion, selective closures, explicit signs that it is not “a theme park”) but needs to finance the long-term resilience of that coexistence. The logic is not so much to punish demand but to convert it into an investment in what should not be broken. The Asian laboratory. In reality, what is happening in Kyoto is not a local oddity but a preview of what the communities already face (or will face). global tourism capitals when the growth stop creating well-being net and begins to destroy it: congestion that degrades urban life, social resentment, residential displacementdeterioration of in situ assets and fiscal governance overwhelmed by a phenomenon whose elasticity of demand is much greater than its elasticity of burden. Japan, when encoding a explicit fiscal response (not to expel tourists but to force financial co-responsibility) is setting a regulatory precedent for other cities trapped in the same paradox: tourism cannot continue to be financed by those who suffer from it, it must be financed by those who cause it, or it will end up eroding the asset that justifies its own existence. The paradox of success. In short, the tourism boom persists (21.5 million visitors in the first half of 2025 and 56 million visitors to Kyoto in 2024) with signs that demand will not subside on its own. Hence, the tax does not seek to discourage but rather correct imbalances. A shift that recognizes a structural point: in mature destinations, tourism stops being a kind of “net gift” and becomes an activity that must pay for the maintenance of the urban ecosystem it consumes so as not to destroy it. Image | Pexels In Xataka | Japan has found the three most serious problems with the massive arrival of tourists. And none of it has to do with tourists. In Xataka | In Japan, tourism has become a problem. So they had an idea: give flights to foreigners

Spacex is on its way to having more money than NASA. He has succeeded, in part, because he does not pay taxes

by

A few weeks ago, Elon Musk made public that Spacex’s income They were on their way to exceed NASA’s annual budgeta milestone that showed the spectacular commercial success of Starlink. Now, an investigation of the New York Times has revealed the least known face of that success: Spacex has been not paying taxes for more than 20 years. The other type of engineering that Spacex makes. Although it is not obliged to present results, because it does not quote on the stock exchange, the company’s internal documents show that Spacex accumulated almost 5.4 billion dollars in tax losses Until the end of 2021. Thanks to US fiscal legislation, these losses can be used to compensate for future benefits, which in practice means that Elon Musk’s company has avoided the payment of billions of dollars in federal taxes on income. The situation is even more favorable for Spacex since 2017 for a change introduced during the first presidency of Donald Trump, which eliminated the 20 -year limit for the use of tax losses. This allows Spacex to apply almost 3,000 million dollars of its losses against future benefits indefinitely. A company that grew with public money. The paradox that is most commented on these days in the American press is that Spacex owes a good part of its growth to NASA contracts and the United States Department of Defense, among other government agencies. Some of these contracts were crucial at the beginning of Spacex. According to an analysis of Washington PostElon Musk companies have received at least 38,000 million dollars in public contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits in the last two decades. In the case of Spacex, which was founded in 2000, almost all its income came from federal contracts until the arrival of Starlink. In 2020, almost 84% of its income, a figure that in 2021 stood at 76%. The golden eggs. With Starlink, the SpaceX business is more buoyant than ever. The satellite Internet network has more than 6 million subscribers and has become the main source of income of the company, surpassing the rocket division. Thanks to Starlink, Spacex plans to enter 15.5 billion dollars in 2025, a figure that is dangerously approaching the annual NASA budget, which by 2026 is estimated at 18.8 billion. This growth has triggered the SpaceX assessment up to 350,000 million dollars, making it the largest non -quoted company in the United States. But you can still use those tax losses to be exempt from paying taxes.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.