The income from the exploitation of his image rights
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2024 4:10 am
On 24 May 2017, the Supreme Court issued a ruling confirming the 21-month prison sentence imposed on player Lionel Messi as the author of three crimes against the Public Treasury committed in his personal income tax returns for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009, in which he defrauded 4.1 million euros of the income obtained from the exploitation of his image rights.
The strategy used consisted of creating the appearance of transferring the player's image rights to companies based in countries whose legislation allowed opacity. In addition, these were formalized through licensing, agency or service provision contracts between these companies and others based in countries that have signed double taxation agreements. In this way, the income obtained by the player was transferred from companies based in countries with permissive tax legislation to countries with tax havens, without being subject to the Spanish Tax Administration.
In other words, was concealed by means of the appearance of transferring the sri lanka phone number example rights to companies. The image rights were transferred to a company owned by his mother, who had transferred them for a ridiculous price to another company owned by the footballer, in this way the income reverts to the same owner and free of charge.
On 7 July 2017, the Barcelona Court issued an order enforcing the sentence that condemned Messi to 21 months in prison for crimes against the Public Treasury. The Court replaced the three prison sentences with a fine of 252,000 euros.
Ronaldo case
The player Cristiano Ronaldo has been the subject of a complaint for allegedly defrauding almost 15 million euros. This is a case very similar to Messi's fraud, which is why the Prosecutor's Office has relied on the Argentine player's sentence to argue the complaint it filed against the footballer.
These are almost identical situations in terms of the way they acted: concealing the amounts received for image rights in their personal income tax returns. Ronaldo pretended to transfer his image rights to a company domiciled in a tax haven, and he was the only partner. This company transferred the exploitation of the image rights to another company located in Ireland and thus concealed from the tax authorities the income generated in Spain by those image rights.
The strategy used consisted of creating the appearance of transferring the player's image rights to companies based in countries whose legislation allowed opacity. In addition, these were formalized through licensing, agency or service provision contracts between these companies and others based in countries that have signed double taxation agreements. In this way, the income obtained by the player was transferred from companies based in countries with permissive tax legislation to countries with tax havens, without being subject to the Spanish Tax Administration.
In other words, was concealed by means of the appearance of transferring the sri lanka phone number example rights to companies. The image rights were transferred to a company owned by his mother, who had transferred them for a ridiculous price to another company owned by the footballer, in this way the income reverts to the same owner and free of charge.
On 7 July 2017, the Barcelona Court issued an order enforcing the sentence that condemned Messi to 21 months in prison for crimes against the Public Treasury. The Court replaced the three prison sentences with a fine of 252,000 euros.
Ronaldo case
The player Cristiano Ronaldo has been the subject of a complaint for allegedly defrauding almost 15 million euros. This is a case very similar to Messi's fraud, which is why the Prosecutor's Office has relied on the Argentine player's sentence to argue the complaint it filed against the footballer.
These are almost identical situations in terms of the way they acted: concealing the amounts received for image rights in their personal income tax returns. Ronaldo pretended to transfer his image rights to a company domiciled in a tax haven, and he was the only partner. This company transferred the exploitation of the image rights to another company located in Ireland and thus concealed from the tax authorities the income generated in Spain by those image rights.