The following is a translated excerpt from a report published by El Confidencial:
The unusual ad that Amsterdam & Partners placed last December in the Financial Times, titled “WARNING, Spanish pickpockets operating in this area”, struck a nerve at the Spanish Tax Agency (Hacienda). This is evidenced by a letter sent on December 20 by Soledad Fernández Doctor, Director General of AEAT, to the law firm that labeled Spanish tax inspectors as pickpockets. In the letter, seen by El Confidencial, Fernández says that both certain statements made in the FT regarding the Beckham Law and the website the firm launched alongside the ad (at an estimated cost of €180,000), constitute “a direct attack on the institution.”
Amsterdam & Partners has launched a campaign against Hacienda across various international media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, accusing the agency of acting “inconsistent with fundamental European laws and human rights.” These statements, along with accusations about inspectors receiving bonuses, caught the attention of the Financial Office at the Spanish Embassy in the UK, which alerted AEAT.
“Tax inspectors in Spain receive a share of recovered sums, even when settlements are reached,” the firm alleged.
Hacienda’s Response
In its response, Hacienda refutes some of the firm’s most serious accusations. It explains that the updated Beckham Law (revised in 2023) allows certain relocated workers in Spain to be taxed only on their Spanish-sourced income, except for earned income, which is taxed in full in Spain. The tax rate is fixed: 24% up to €600,000 and 47% above that, AEAT states in its letter.
“The Spanish Tax Agency applies the law as approved,” and it conducts “the necessary verifications” to ensure that beneficiaries meet the requirements.
Regarding inspector compensation, Hacienda denies that inspectors receive commissions:
“Inspectors do not receive commissions or a percentage of the amounts regularized,” the letter clarifies. The so-called “composite effectiveness coefficient” has only a 1.4% impact on annual salary and is not linked to specific cases. (…)
Law Firm’s Replies
Far from backing down, the Anglo-Saxon firm responded firmly to Hacienda’s letter. In their first reply, sent on February 5, founder Robert Amsterdam reminded AEAT that
“Criticism of public bodies, including tax authorities, is a legitimate exercise of free speech.”
This letter coincided with another ad in the Wall Street Journal, titled “Time won’t be the only thing you waste when moving to Spain.” In it, the firm accused AEAT of “vagueness and lack of objectivity” in how bonuses are calculated and demanded precise data for the last five years.
“It’s striking that fairness is not explicitly included in AEAT’s Code of Ethics,” they added, also criticizing the rule that taxpayers must pay the full amount due before appealing.
In a second letter, dated March 21, the firm escalated its tone, warning that AEAT’s tax procedures serve a “punitive and coercive purpose” and amount to an “abuse of public power.” They accused the agency of violating key principles such as legal certainty, effective judicial protection, and proportionality, urging it to “immediately cease these coercive practices.”