Ramón Echeverría, a pensioner living in Torrevieja, sold a flat in Elche in 2024 for 185,000 €. In his income tax return he worked out the gain by deducting the purchase price, 120,000 €, and 28,000 € for a full refurbishment he carried out in 2019. In May 2026 he receives a formal request: the Agencia Tributaria, the Spanish tax agency, asks him for the purchase deed, the refurbishment invoices and proof of payment. Ramón kept the deed, but the invoices were held by his brother-in-law, who ran the works, and the two are no longer on speaking terms. He decides not to reply: "if I don't have the papers, what's the point?" It is an understandable decision and almost always the wrong one.
The procedure goes ahead without you
Not replying stops nothing. A limited verification procedure has a maximum length of six months (article 104.1 of the Ley General Tributaria, Spain's General Tax Law, in the absence of a specific period), and the authorities have an interest in finishing it. If the taxpayer does not provide what is asked for, the office draws up the proposal with what it has: the details of the sale deed that the notary reported to it, the purchase deed if it appears in its databases, and nothing more.
The key lies in article 105.1 of the same law: "whoever asserts a right must prove the facts on which it rests". The 28,000 € of refurbishment increases the acquisition value and reduces the gain. It is Ramón who relies on it, so it is Ramón who has to prove it. If he does not, the authorities are under no obligation to look for the evidence on his behalf.
What changes in Ramón's figures
Let us suppose, as an example, that the gain declared was 30,200 € after deducting the costs of the sale, and that the additional tax resulting from removing the refurbishment is 5,880 €:
- Transfer value net of costs: 178,200 €.
- Acquisition value declared: 120,000 + 28,000 = 148,000 €.
- Gain declared: 30,200 €.
- Acquisition value Hacienda, as the Spanish tax office is commonly called, accepts without invoices: 120,000 €.
- Gain as verified: 58,200 €. Difference: 28,000 €.
- Assumed additional tax: 5,880 €, plus late-payment interest from the day after the end of the filing period for the return.
That tax is almost always followed by penalty proceedings.
Two different penalties that can be added together
| Item | What triggers it | Article | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tax regularised | The difference between what was declared and what was verified | 136 to 140 LGT | 5,880 € in the example |
| Late-payment interest | The time that has passed without paying | 26 LGT | At the legal rate for each year |
| Penalty for failing to pay | The tax not paid on time | 191 LGT | 50 % if minor; 50 to 100 % if serious |
| Penalty for ignoring the request | The failure to reply on time | 203 LGT | A fixed fine, which rises if successive requests are ignored |
The article 191 penalty depends on how the return was filed, not on the failure to reply. The offence is minor when the base is 3,000 € or less or, if it is higher, there is no concealment; in Ramón's example, with 5,880 €, the classification will depend on whether the authorities find concealment. As a minor offence, it would be 2,940 € before reductions.
The article 203 penalty is separate and punishes precisely the silence. Paragraph 4 provides for 150 € for the first request ignored, 300 € for the second and 600 € for the third. When what is not provided is documents or receipts, or information under articles 93 and 94, paragraph 5 raises the amounts: 300 € for the first and 1,500 € for the second, with proportional amounts from the third onwards. Which paragraph applies depends on the content of the request.
To avoid the article 191 penalty, one of the defences is to show that you acted with due diligence or relying on a reasonable interpretation of the rule (article 179.2.d). That defence is built with explanations and documents. Whoever does not reply gives up building it at the moment when it is easiest to do so.
The moment that is lost
Ramón thinks he has nothing to provide, but he does have things to say. He has the purchase deed. He may have bank statements from 2019 showing the payments to his brother-in-law. He may have the building licence from the town hall, dated photographs, the certificate of completion of works, quotes sent by email or written statements from the neighbours. None of that is an invoice, but all of it helps to prove that the refurbishment existed and how much it cost. How that evidence will be weighed is not guaranteed, but without providing it the answer is already known.
Replying also makes it possible to pin the problem down. If Ramón explains that the invoices exist but are held by a third party, identifies the contractor and provides the payments, the authorities can ask that third party for the information (article 136.2.d of the General Tax Law). It is not certain they will do so, but it stops being an item with no trace.
There is another, less visible effect: after the arguments stage, article 96.4 of the Regulations on tax management and inspection closes the door to new documents, unless it is shown that it was impossible to provide them earlier. What is not submitted on time is much harder to rely on later, in an appeal, and it does not always succeed.
If you have an unanswered request, even if the deadline has passed, you can send it through the letter-from-Hacienda form with the documents you still have, including the ones that seem useless to you.
If you did not reply and the assessment has arrived
Not everything is lost, but the ground is worse. Once the provisional assessment has been notified, there is one month to lodge an appeal for reconsideration or a claim before the economic-administrative tribunal (articles 223 and 235). The choice is explained in appeal for reconsideration or economic-administrative claim.
If the assessment is not paid within the voluntary payment period, which article 62.2 sets according to the day of the month on which it is notified, the enforcement period begins, with its surcharges: 5 % if you pay before the enforcement order, 10 % if you pay within the period that order opens, and 20 % in all other cases (article 28). If the problem is cash, asking for deferral within the voluntary period avoids those surcharges; the guide to deferring a debt arising from a regularisation explains how.
And the limitation period does not help. Article 68.1.a) establishes that any action by the authorities notified to the taxpayer and aimed at regularisation interrupts the four-year period. The request Ramón ignored has already interrupted it.
The usual reasons for not replying, and why they do not work
- "I don't have the papers." You reply by explaining what is missing, why, and what other evidence exists.
- "If I reply, they'll look for more." The scope of the procedure is fixed in the communication that starts it; answering what is asked does not widen that scope. What is worth avoiding is providing too much, as explained in which documents I have to provide.
- "It never reached me." If the notification was electronic and you did not open it, it is probably treated as made. This is explained in I was notified electronically and did not notice.
- "I'll sort it out when the fine arrives." By then the tax has been fixed, the penalty proceedings have started and the reductions depend on not appealing.
Preparing the reply to a formal request, including rebuilding the evidence when documents are missing, is described on the Salama Tax page on letters from Hacienda.