Isabel Pantoja and the Tax Agency have faced each other again in court. On this occasion, it was the National Court that resolved the double lawsuit over the claim that the Treasury made to the singer regarding the personal income tax (IRPF) for the years 2009 and 2010. The Spanish tax authorities argued that Pantoja was one of the celebrities (from a long list of artists, athletes, and famous people pursued by the Treasury) who used holding companies to channel their professional income and obtain tax benefits. The court has accepted this thesis and has confirmed in two recent rulings the tax debt of more than 700,000 euros, as well as the penalties imposed for these tax irregularities, the amounts of which have not been disclosed. However, the rulings are not yet final, as they can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which will have the last word on this matter.
Read more Tips to enjoy the eclipse: “Not even one of 99.99% compares to the sensations of a total one”
Isabel Pantoja’s debts with the Tax Agency date back more than a decade. After being sentenced to two years in prison and a fine of 1.15 million euros for money laundering in the Malaya case, the urban corruption scheme in Marbella for which she was forced to go to jail in 2014, the singer faces high debts with the Tax Agency, which has proceeded to seize assets such as part of the Cantora estate and family residence in Medina Sidonia (Cádiz). A property that would have already changed hands, after being sold last March for 1.2 million euros, according to several news reports.
The latest list of debtors from the Tax Agency, which includes those taxpayers who had definitive tax debts exceeding 600,000 euros as of December 31, 2025, includes Isabel Pantoja with a liability of 1.27 million euros, an amount that increased compared to the 2024 list, where she appeared with a negative balance of just over one million euros.
These amounts do not include the IRPF debts from 2009 (specifically, 438,045.20 euros) and 2010 (264,978.75 euros) that have been reviewed by the National Court, as they have not yet become final, a mandatory requirement established by the Supreme Court to appear on the list of debtors.
In two rulings issued on June 26, consulted by EL PAÍS, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National Court concluded that Isabel Pantoja invoiced her professional services, such as recording albums, performances, or interviews, through two holding companies, of which she owned almost all the capital, for an amount below market value.
Read more At least 14 dead and 27 injured in Russian attacks in the Kyiv region
Pantoja appealed the tax assessments and penalties to the National Court, alleging their prescription due to delays in the inspection and questioned the valuation of the operations, arguing that the profit obtained by the companies was not taken into account. But the court has fully dismissed the two appeals (one for each claimed year) and rejected these arguments, considering that the procedure followed by the Treasury was correct.
“Highly personal services”
The judges point out that, according to Supreme Court jurisprudence, part of the delay is attributable to Isabel Pantoja due to the request for postponement of the inspection actions and that, therefore, the maximum duration of the tax review was not exceeded. Regarding the valuation of the work channeled through her companies, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber considers it necessary to demonstrate that the company has its own means and that the invoiced work is not “highly personal services.”
According to the court, the profits must be fully attributed to Isabel Pantoja, understanding that third parties pay for her services as an artist, not for the management of the linked companies, which have not contributed any “added value” to the creative process. Thus, it rejects the market value given to the recording of an album of unreleased songs in 2009, understanding that it was higher than declared, while questioning that the singer did not include any profit for the 70,000 euros received in 2010 for her participation in a television program (which was paid directly to the company) and that she only declared 42,000 euros of the 1.27 million she earned from several concerts and an interview as work income.
Finally, one of the rulings also validates the conclusion reached by the Treasury that one of the entities linked to the artist “does not have personnel means to provide the service other than the linked natural person herself.”
Read more A -5° hangar to guard the 77 deceased left by the Ceuta avalanche
