That the Treasury continues to claim a taxpayer for a liquidation that, at least on two previous occasions, courts have proved him right. He Supreme Court a sentence has just issued Sets doctrine about the known in the legal community as ‘double shot’ and has established that the Tax Administration It cannot dictate a third or successive liquidations after two previous ones have been annulled.
The sentence, issued on September 29, 2025 by the Second Section of the Third Chamber, resolves a appeal promoted by three Galician brothers in relation to the Inheritance Tax, and annuls an earlier resolution of the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia.
The fixed doctrine ruling around the so -called ‘double shot’, a figure recognized by the jurisprudence that allows the administration to replace an act canceled by a new one, but which, according to the high court, cannot be extended to a third attempt.
The Supreme warns that it is not admissible to grant the administration a indefinite opportunity to repeat administrative acts of tax “Until, finally, it is right, to the detriment of citizens.”
As reported in the sentence, first settlements of the Inheritance Tax to the three Galician brothers were practiced, within a verification of securities carried out in 2014. Against them, those affected formulate claims before the competent body.
The origin of the sentence
The Regional Economic-Administrative Court (TAAR) of Galicia annulled those liquidations due to lack of motivation, ordering the retraction of the actions to issue a new motivated decision. The Galician Tax Agency (Atriga), in execution of the TAAR agreement, issued new liquidations (the latter).
However, the Atriga herself agreed the expiration of the procedure followed for the liquidations indicated in the previous point and initiated a new one, of limited verification, with a valuation and liquidation proposal (the third).
The sentence now appealed, by partially estimating the appeal that examines, partially cancels the settlements and orders to turn new liquidations (the rooms), so that they are based on other values other than those proven and the domestic trousseau is fixed in another amount.
The Supreme Court considers that such proceed from the Administration-the dictation of third or successive settlements-is not correct and disregard repeated jurisprudencewhile violating several general legal principles such as those in good faith, security, efficacy and prohibition of abuse of law, among others.
For the high court, under “no circumstances and in no circumstances” is lawful that the administration can dictate a third party and, even less, other subsequent administrative acts, although the second act suffered from any vice, formal or material, with violation of the legal system.
“The general principles of good administration and that of Good faith, among others, oppose such a possibility, absolutely. It is not permissible to grant the administration an indefinite opportunity to repeat administrative acts of tax until, finally, it is rightly prejudice to citizens, “concludes the sentence.
