Reply 1 of the State Legal Service

The State's reply is a legitimate piece: Article 551 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary and Law 52/1997 entrust it with defending the Administration. Its evidentiary value for this file lies in something else: in what it chooses to answer and in what it leaves intact.

The brief

• Filed on 10 October 2022 by the State Attorney, in ordinary proceedings 60/2022 (A.61), after the transfer ordered by Ordering Measure of 12 July 2022.
• Claim: dismissing judgment — the challenged administrative act is in accordance with the law.
• Argumentative axis, as the conclusions debate records it (A.63): the communication of the change of address is not on record, so the notifications would have been carried out correctly.

The argument, taken seriously

Let us grant the premise: if the taxpayer did not communicate the change, the Administration could notify at the address it had. The file contains the documentary reply: the 2011 personal income tax return before the Bilbao Treasury, with the Sopelana address recorded (A.65), and the economic activity registered at that same address between 2011 and 2013 (A.66). The tax Administration — the same one that alleged it could not locate him — had his address in its own archives.

What the reply does not touch

• The out-of-time nature: not a line explaining the 2014 activation against the four years of Article 66 of the General Tax Act (A.40).
• The costs expert report: no counter-report, no technical challenge to the Villajoyosa certificate (A.49).

The State's defence, with all its means, chose the only debatable flank and went around the two indefensible ones. That detour is a datum.

How to verify it

Look in the reply for the words "limitation" and "expert report" and note what treatment they receive. Then compare the address argument with A.65. What the State answers is dismantled with one document; what it does not answer dismantles itself.