Below is an excerpt from the article published in the newspaper La Región.
For more than 20 years, Robert Amsterdam has been one of the most uncomfortable lawyers for governments that cross the line between law and abuse. The name of the founder and managing partner of Amsterdam & Partners appears in legal cases around the world, always on the same side: defending those who claim that the State is using its fiscal, regulatory, or criminal powers to destroy them. To his detractors, he is an agitator; to those who hire him, he is a defender against unjust, arbitrary systems designed to crush citizens when they become inconvenient. The American lawyer will address precisely these issues next Thursday, September 10, when he visits the Foro La Región to open its new season.
His reputation began to take shape in Russia, with his defense of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the founder of Yukos. When the Kremlin launched a fiscal and criminal offensive against him that ultimately resulted in the expropriation of the oil company and his imprisonment, Amsterdam argued that this was not a tax dispute but a political operation. His strategy combined legal action with an international campaign that placed the case at the center of the global debate over the use of taxation as a weapon of repression. Years later, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ordered Russia to pay billions of dollars to Yukos shareholders, a victory that cemented Amsterdam’s reputation as a lawyer capable of taking on a State and winning.
In Turkey, his name emerged once again in a similar context. He represented businesspeople and opposition figures who claimed they had been subjected to selective tax inspections, disproportionate penalties, and parallel criminal proceedings designed to neutralize their influence. In Thailand, he defended figures linked to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a context where taxation and the justice system were being used as political tools. In both countries, his work contributed to dismantling cases built on weak evidence and political motivations, securing rulings that forced governments to reverse course or withdraw charges.
The same pattern has repeated itself in Latin America, where Amsterdam has advised companies subjected to sudden regulatory changes, aggressive inspections, or tax claims intended to force them out of the country. In several of these cases, documented before international tribunals, he succeeded in having States held accountable for violating fundamental guarantees and using tax authorities as mechanisms of political or economic pressure.
The “Dual Tax System”
His message and arguments — as he himself recalled in these pages on Sunday — rarely change: when a State wants to destroy someone, it does not always need the police or criminal courts; sometimes a tax inspection is enough. In Spain, this perspective has led him to denounce what he considers an arbitrary, opaque, two-tier tax system. In his book on what he describes as the “Dual Tax System,” he argues that Spain’s Tax Agency operates through two layers: a visible one, based on the law and established procedures; and an invisible one, where discretionary criteria, internal pressures, and decisions lacking any legal rationale come into play.
Spain’s Tax Agency was formally created in December 1990, with 1992 marking the year it became fully operational. Its purpose was to professionalize the fight against tax fraud and provide the State with a modern inspection structure. Over the years, its power has expanded: more authority, greater sanctioning powers, and more technological tools, alongside an internal culture that, according to critics such as Amsterdam, has evolved toward a model in which taxpayers are treated as suspects by default, with the administration acting with discretion and abuse.
Amsterdam has openly criticized the government of Pedro Sánchez, accusing it of reinforcing an administrative culture based on punishment. He has argued that Spain’s Tax Agency operates with excessive discretion, that the lack of external oversight enables abuses, and that fiscal pressure is used as a political tool, fostering a permanent climate of suspicion toward taxpayers and turning taxation into an area in which citizens feel defenseless.
His style is combative and defiant. He does not soften his assessments or shy away from confrontation. He repeatedly warns that a tax system perceived as unjust erodes trust in the rule of law and discourages investment. He also argues that legal certainty depends not only on the laws themselves, but on how they are applied, and that when tax authorities operate without transparency, the social damage can be profound and, in many cases, irreversible. His objective — as he himself has said on numerous occasions — is to demonstrate that a tax system can be fair, but it can also become an unjust, illegal, and damaging instrument of power.