118 CHA

One of the most complicated situations that a person can face in the workplace is the dismissal. Although in many cases this entails financial compensation, there are important aspects that must be taken into account to avoid subsequent problems, especially with Hacienda.

The Fiscal Advisor José Ramón Lópezbetter known in networks like ‘You tax blog’he has published a video in which he launches a clear warning: “ Be careful if they say goodbye. Yes or yes do this not to put it on. ” And, he explains, not following the appropriate procedure can be translated into an important disbursement after tax settlement.

López It emphasizes that, although it is not common to live a situation of dismissal, many do not know a crucial step that can avoid fiscal complications. In fact, it emphasizes that it is usual to think that the compensation for dismissal do not pay 180.000 eurosand whenever certain conditions are met.

One of the most frequent mistakes is to assume that all compensation are exempt. The advisor clarifies that ” The compensation established by virtue of agreement, pact or contract with the company ” are not exempt. In other words, if a company recognizes a dismissal as inadmissible and paid, for example, 33 days per year workedmany employees believe that with that enough. They charge compensation, request unemployment and continue with their working life.

However, López warns that this perception is wrong: “ It is not the company that dictates whether a dismissal is inadmissible or not. That is the key. ” And point out what should really be done: go to Mediation, Arbitration and Conciliation Service (SMAC) corresponding so that said agency officially validates that the dismissal is inadmissible.

If the worker does not perform this procedure, he can meet later with a requirement of the Tax Agency. Hacienda could ask you to demonstrate that compensation is not due to a private agreement with the company, but that it really responds to an inadmissible dismissal. In the absence of this official justification, the amount received may not be exempt and would have to pay tribute.

Therefore, he insists: ” Always, even if it seems like a pain, that they apply an inadmissible dismissal, even if they pay you, you are going to collect unemployment and others, you see the SMAC of your province to the competent agency really confirm and attest that this is an inadmissible dismissal. ”

The advisor also points out that, in case of objective layoffs, this step is not necessary, since this type of dismissal is governed by a different and clearer regulation at the fiscal level.

After the publication, several users shared their doubts, such as what happens in the cases of ERE, while others commented on personal experiences in which, for not performing the correct procedure, they ended up having to pay money to the Treasury despite having received compensation.