Spanish tax entity must return about 3.4 million dollars to Dani Alves

The court determined that the Brazilian correctly declared his image rights to the treasury when he played for FC Barcelona.

sambafoot_admin

2023-11-17 12:47:26

Image Credits: © (@FcBarcelona_es on Twitter)

The Spanish justice system ordered the country’s tax body to return some 3.4 million dollars to Dani Alves, considering that he correctly declared his image rights to the treasury when he played for FC Barcelona. This resolution was made through two sentences that are added to another recent one in which he urged the Treasury to also pay him a little more than 2 million dollars.

The Brazilian had transferred his image rights to the company Cedro Esports of which he was the largest owner, a company through which he also received part of his salary from the Barça club. The Spanish tax agency claimed that the profits obtained by the Brazilian should be taxed as capital gains.

+ + Corinthians is negotiating the sale of up to 49% of Neo Química Arena in the stock market

+ + Justice sends Dani Alves to trial accused of sexual assault

However, the court ruled in favor of the player’s defense, which argued that his salary complied with the law, distributing 85% through an employment contract with the club and the remaining 15% for image rights billed by Cedro Esports, reported the local media La Vanguardia.

Alves remains prosecuted for a sexual assault case

This administrative ruling is known in the same week that the full-back received a severe setback in criminal justice: the Barcelona Court decided to send him to trial in the case in which he is prosecuted for allegedly raping a young woman in a nightclub on December 30 from last year. It is because of this case that his preventive detention was ordered considering that there was a risk of flight.

Alves’s defense sought to annul the legal process by stating that the presumption of innocence had been “violated” by the leaks of the file and accused the investigating judge of bias. All this was rejected by the superior court, which must set a date for the start of the trial.