The legal saga of Tivoli Puerto Rico SL, based in southern Gran Canaria, has become a prime example of the administrative labyrinth in which taxpayers can become trapped. What began as a dispute over the 2008 corporate tax return has transformed into an ordeal spanning more than 18 years, marked by the LexNET security breach in 2017 and a procedural rigidity that has left the company on the verge of legal defenselessness.
The journey of the company, represented by attorney Ivo Baeza Stanicic and assisted by lawyer Enrique Saavedra Martínez, has gone through several stages. Following the tax assessment carried out by the Tax Inspectorate, the company filed a claim with the Regional Economic-Administrative Court (TEAR) of the Canary Islands in 2014. The rejection of its claims led to an appeal to the Central Economic-Administrative Court (TEAC) in July 2017, the inadmissibility of which due to being filed after the deadline—arguing that it was submitted one day after the deadline—initiated the current dispute regarding the Administration's technical errors.
The company maintains that on July 26, 2017, the deadline for filing, it was impossible to access the electronic portal due to computer failures affecting multiple state platforms, a well-known fact that the Central Economic-Administrative Court (TEAC) and, subsequently, the National Court, failed to accept as proven. The ruling by the Second Section of the National Court, issued in January 2025, dismissed the appeal, finding that the company had not conclusively proven the technical impossibility, despite the fact that the company itself had requested clarifications and certificates from the Administration, which never received a satisfactory response.
The Supreme Court's acceptance of the appeal has now changed the course of this ordeal. The Court has identified a valid legal basis for appeal, raising a legal question that extends beyond Tivoli Puerto Rico SL: can an individual be required to bear an impossible burden of proof regarding the failures of a system whose management and control fall exclusively under the State's jurisdiction? The Court will determine whether, in the face of a notorious event such as the LexNET security breach, the Administration's inaction in failing to respond to the technical issues constitutes a violation of the right to good administration.
This ruling will not only decide the future of the litigation regarding the 2008 Corporate Income Tax, but will also establish a crucial precedent on liability in digital dealings with the tax authorities. Meanwhile, the case continues its course toward the Second Section of the Third Chamber, where it will be determined whether this entity's procedural efforts have been a legitimate exercise of defense or a fruitless journey against a bureaucratic wall that often seems immune to its own technological shortcomings.
