taxes

Ukraine has been left without thousands of drones. An error classified them as electric cars, and the Treasury has fried them with taxes

by

During World War II, the United States Army created entire systems classification and emergency purchases because normal bureaucracy was too slow to keep up with the pace of war. Eight decades later, Ukraine has discovered the same problem from the opposite side. Drone warfare crashes into bureaucracy. Ukraine has been transforming the front into a war laboratory automated where ground drones have become essential to transport ammunition, evacuate wounded or attack Russian positions without exposing soldiers. The problem is that, while kyiv was trying to accelerate this military revolution, the bureaucracy has ended up mistakenly classifying these unmanned vehicles within the same tax category than electric cars. When an old exemption for EVs expired on January 1, drones began paying a 20% VAT. The result has been devastating: according to the industry, the army could have bought some 5,000 additional drones only in the first half of 2026 if that tax had not come into force. Thousands of drones lost at the worst moment. They counted on Insider that the impact has been especially serious because it has arrived at a critical phase of the war. Ukraine is increasingly relying on autonomous systems to compensate for human and material attrition against Russia, to the point that Zelensky claimed that his forces carried out more than 22,000 missions with ground drones in just three months. kyiv wanted to acquire 50,000 units this year, but the new VAT skyrocketed costs, froze public contracts and left manufacturers whole for months. no state orders. Some companies drastically reduced production to survive, while others tried to reclassify their robots as armored vehicles to avoid the tax burden. A trapped military industry. The chaos also reflects how the military technological revolution is advancing faster than the laws themselves. Ground drones were so new within European and Ukrainian commercial standards that they did not even there was a category clear to classify them. When a former tax exemption for electric vehicles expired, the system automatically absorbed these military robots into the same regulations. The Ministry of Defense suddenly found itself with insufficient budgets and paralyzed purchasing processes because, technically, essential weapons for the front had no longer been considered. exempt military equipment tax. Manufacturers like Tencorecreator of the popular TermIT dronethey spent up to five months without public contracts and had to survive thanks to volunteer organizations that directly supply military units. In a war economy where many companies literally live from order to order, three months without state purchases is equivalent to little less than a heart attack industrial. The big problem is not just making weapons. The episode reveals something deeper about the evolution of modern warfare. For years, drones, artificial intelligence and automation have been talked about as the future of combat, but Ukraine is discovering that the bottleneck is not always in the technology. Sometimes it is in the administrationin legislation or in bureaucratic systems designed for peacetime. Russia and Ukraine are immersed in a race of constant adaptation where every month counts and where losing half a year due to tax procedures can have direct effects on the front. The sector itself calculates that the tax exemption would save about 200 million dollarsa gigantic figure for an industry that still depends on precarious financing and accelerated production. The problem is that even if Parliament now corrects the law, the damage has already been done: delayed contracts, lost capacity and thousands of drones that never made it to the battlefield when they were needed most. The paradox of the war of the future. The story perfectly summarizes one of the great contradictions of this war. Ukraine has become the country that has integrated autonomous systems the fastest in real combat and has built an ecosystem with more than 280 companies and 550 models different from ground drones. However, that same ecosystem remains dependent on sluggish state structures, legacy regulations, and legal frameworks unable to keep pace with military innovation. While the front is filled with robots that transport ammunition, evacuate wounded or attack Russian trenches without a human driver, the State continued to administratively treat them as if they were simple electric cars. The irony could not be more brutal: one of the most technologically advanced wars of the century lost thousands of combat machines not due to lack of industrial capacity or due to Russian attacks, but because the Treasury decided to apply the same tax treatment than to a civil electric vehicle. Image | x In Xataka | A Ukrainian stork has managed to outwit a Russian drone in flight. The video is the best clue about who will win the war In Xataka | Ukraine has been terrorizing Russian soldiers with its heavy drones for years. Now they are literally giving it back.

the x-ray of taxes and tolls in Spain

by

Although it sounds like science fiction that the Spanish electricity market has come to pay for consuming energy, marking a historical record of -10 euros per megawatt hour (MWh) On a Sunday at three in the afternoon, the reality that reaches the mailboxes is very different. Spain today boasts of having the cheapest wholesale electricity in Europe, surpassing powers such as Germany or France, but, paradoxically, households end up assuming a bill that is above the European Union average. The great paradox that frustrates citizens is evident: how is it possible to generate almost free electricity and end up paying for it at European luxury prices? The silent revolution. To understand the miracle of the wholesale market, you have to look at the data in depth. As analyst Jan Rosenow details in his recent reportSpain has not just added solar panels and windmills on a fossil fuel base, but has replaced them. The turning point was the year 2022, when the sum of wind and solar energy generated more electricity than all fossil sources combined. The secret of this price collapse lies in how the European electricity market works, where the latest technology that enters to cover demand (normally the most expensive) is the one that sets the price for all the others. During the last decade, that role was played by gas. However, renewables have pushed gas out of the equation: in 2022, gas marked the price 55% of the hours, while in the first four months of 2026, that figure has plummeted to a mere 9%. The result is devastating: at the start of 2026, the average wholesale price in Spain was just €44/MWh. In that same period, Italy paid €127, Germany €96 and the United Kingdom €103. The big question: Why don’t we notice it more? The short answer is that the price of energy is just one ingredient in the cake. According to Rosenow,the wholesale cost of energy represents only 41% of a typical Spanish domestic bill. The rest is a sum of network tolls (23%), VAT (17%), system charges (10%), electricity taxes and commercial margins. Cheaper wholesale energy is a necessary condition for lower bills, but it is not sufficient. Added to this tax cocktail is a consumer behavior problem. According to expert Joaquín Coronado In a recent publication in LinkedInnational demand is practically “inelastic.” Analyzing a time period where electricity cost a paltry €0.51/MWh, Coronado observed that there was no additional Spanish demand willing to take advantage of that bargain. Consumers are price-takers passives. And here comes the twist: since we do not consume that excess of cheap energy, French and Portuguese agents end up buying it to export it, which paradoxically drags our market upwards through European coupling. The unequal impact. This market dynamic does not affect everyone equally, leaving a transition to the next idea much clearer: there are obvious winners and households in tension. On the one hand, the great Spanish electro-intensive industry is experiencing a sweet moment. According to data from the AEGE associationby paying for electricity at €66.50/MWh compared to almost €68/MWh for the powerful German industry, they have achieved a surprise vital competitive. For families, the Government maintains an active “fiscal shield” (with VAT reduced to 10% and the electricity tax to 0.5%) that covers up the impact of tolls. But there are regulatory clouds. The European Commission has targeted the Spanish regulated tariff (the PVPC)to which almost 30% of households are covered. Brussels demands that it be progressively dismantled to push consumers into the free market, arguing that the intervened rates discourage savings and competition. The Spanish Government, for its part, resists eliminating it, defending that it is an indispensable security cushion and the main requirement to access the social bonus that protects the most vulnerable. The mirage of summer. Experts agree that we should not trust ourselves. The current spring bargain has an expiration date. When summer arrives, high temperatures will reduce the efficiency of solar panels, air conditioners will increase demand and, in all likelihood, expensive gas will have to be turned back on to avoid blackouts, driving prices up again. Furthermore, the green revolution has a “shadow bill.” Rosenow emphasizes that, Although energy is cheaper, keeping the system stable now costs more. Spain has to pay more for balancing services, voltage support and new transmission infrastructure to take solar and wind energy from where it is generated to where it is consumed. And those costs, inevitably, end up being passed on to the consumer through system charges. The solution to this bottleneck Joaquín Coronado himself points it out: The system cries out for new loads designed to arbitrage price. We are talking about batteries, industrial thermal storage and new hydraulic pumps. That is, each megawatt that we manage to store when electricity is at zero euros will be a renewable megawatt that we will not throw away, thus stabilizing the price for everyone. Incomplete success. Spain has achieved an indisputable structural feat. We have become a European pioneer, largely decoupling our prices from international gas volatility and gaining invaluable energy independence now measured in euros per megawatt hour. However, it must be taken into account that the energy transition does not end with solar panels. As long as the structure of tolls, networks and taxes continues to weigh almost 60% on families’ final bills, the European dream of zero-cost electricity will continue to be, for the average consumer, a spectacular figure that only exists on the screens of the financial markets. We generate almost free, but the labyrinth to the plug still costs us at European prices. Image | Unsplash Xataka | While Europe panics about the price of electricity, in Spain the opposite is happening

“In five years, robots and AI will have to pay taxes for the middle and lower class”

by

They say that the devil knows more because he is old than because he is a devil. Therefore, when it comes to have a vision of the future In the technological field, few voices have the weight of Bill Gates. After all, he was one of the avant-garde protagonists of the revolution that brought about the arrival of the personal computer into our lives. The co-founder of Microsoft gave an interview to the middle Australian Financial Review in which he presented his vision on the impact of AI on employment and warns of something that is already being debated in some political and technological circles: whether AI and robotics are going to reduce the need for laborHow will the subsistence of those who lose their jobs be guaranteed? Taxation of the future: robots that pay taxes. The millionaire exposes a concern that other technological billionaires like elon musk or Sam Altman have already expressed on numerous occasions. As Gates explained in his interview, the arrival of AI and robotics to industrial production will have a direct impact on millions of middle and lower class workers who you may lose your job without the option to return to one of the newly created jobs that are expected to replace current jobs. As Gates explained, “We have not yet reached the point where it is necessary to completely change tax structures, but we may do so within five years.” The businessman suggests that the solution could be to “shift the tax burden from labor, at least from medium or low-income workers, to capital, or specifically to the taxation of robots or artificial intelligence.” The millionaire’s proposal is that, if a robot or an algorithm occupies the position of a personthat machine should contribute financially, also replacing the employee in his tax obligations. Gates does not ask that innovation be stopped, but rather that the benefits of automation not remain solely in the hands of those who own the technology, but that the benefit of this advance be distributed to society as a whole. The debate, he insists, must occur now, before the displacement of workers is irreversible. On the verge of an inevitable transformation. The Microsoft founder acknowledges that the current focus is on the productivity offered by AI and robots, but points out that his real concern is how governments are going to manage the displacement of human workers from their jobs. It is not a question of if it will happen (something the millionaire takes for granted), but of when and with what speed. The International Monetary Fund has already warned that up to 40% of global jobs have some degree of exposure to AI, with a special impact on middle-class workers and administrative positions, much more susceptible to automation with AI. Gates argues that governments must begin to design fiscal policies adapted to an economy where a growing percentage of the work will not be done by a contributing employee, but will fall to automated systems. Most AI companies will fail. In his speech, the technology millionaire also left room to analyze the current scenario of technology companies participating in the AI ​​race, and he does so with a serious warning: “If you chose the right company, like Microsoft, Google or Apple, you will have done very well. But most AI companies will fail. It is difficult for a non-technical investor to distinguish which ones will prosper.” The businessman advises not to get carried away inflated valuations and bet on established names. The notice comes at a time of massive investment in AI projects, with prices that skyrocket the capitalization of these companies even before having demonstrated that their products They are really competitive. As in the Internet boom of the late 1990s with the dotcomwhen the dust settles only a few actors will still be standing. Global competition and monopoly risk. Beyond the impact on AI employment, Gates warned about geopolitical competition in the development of this technology in this kind of space race that we are living. “What we are seeing now is fierce competition.” China, for example, offers AI models for free, which puts pressure on other companies to set very low prices. “China offers free models and the rest of the companies offer very, very low prices. We would not want a single country or a single company to be the only one good at AI. But I do not see things going that way, at least for now,” said the millionaire in the face of the technological race for AI that the US and China are starring. In Xataka | While technology companies dispense with juniors to replace them with AI, IBM is doing the opposite: catching bargains Image | Flickr, amazon

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)

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.