The Tax Agency may send notifications to an address different from the one provided by the citizen

The criteria regarding the validity of tax notifications has once again sparked debate in Spain following a recent decision issued on 25 March by the Central Economic-Administrative Court (TEAC). The body has clarified in which cases the Spanish Tax Agency may send communications to an address different from that indicated by the taxpayer without rendering the administrative act invalid.

This issue is significant, as it directly affects the effectiveness of notifications and, ultimately, the exercise of taxpayers’ rights of defence within the Spanish legal framework.

Until now, practice distinguished depending on who initiated the procedure. Where the taxpayer initiated the proceedings, the Administration was required to use the address designated by the taxpayer. Conversely, in procedures initiated by the tax authorities, there was no explicit obligation to use that address, and notifications could be made to any of the legally provided addresses.

However, the Spanish Supreme Court, in its judgment of 1 July 2025, stated that the tax authorities must serve notifications at the address expressly designated by the taxpayer or their legal representative, particularly where the right of defence is at stake.

The TEAC’s decision of 25 March analyses the scope of that Supreme Court ruling. According to the economic-administrative body, it cannot be inferred from that judgment that any notification made outside the designated address is automatically invalid.

The criterion established focuses on effective knowledge. In other words, what matters is that it can be demonstrated that the taxpayer had access to the notification and was able to react in due time. The manner in which the notification was made is not decisive if such knowledge can be inferred.

This approach is also based on Supreme Court doctrine set out in its judgment of 25 March 2021, according to which formal compliance with legal requirements is insufficient if the taxpayer does not become aware of the notification, while, conversely, failure to comply with those requirements does not prevent validity if such knowledge is proven.

The TEAC expressly acknowledges that taxpayers have the right to designate an address for notification purposes or appoint a representative. However, it considers that the Administration’s failure to respect such designation constitutes a “formal defect”.

That said, this defect does not in itself render the notification ineffective. Its validity depends on an assessment of the diligence exercised by the Administration and, in particular, whether the administrative act has fulfilled its purpose, namely reaching the effective knowledge of the taxpayer.

Based on the above, the TEAC concludes that sending a notification to an address different from the one designated — whether a physical address or that of a legal representative — constitutes a “mere irregularity”.

Accordingly, the notification may be considered valid provided it is established that the taxpayer had knowledge of its content.

Furthermore, in prior decisions dated 19 February, the TEAC stated that in procedures initiated by taxpayers, notifications remain valid even if sent to an electronic address, provided that the taxpayer accesses them.

Despite this criterion, the TEAC also stresses that the Administration must exhaust all available means to deliver the notification to the taxpayer before resorting to publication by edict in the Official State Gazette (BOE).

This introduces an important element into administrative practice, requiring prior diligence on the part of the tax authorities.

The TEAC’s position confirms that, in matters of tax notifications, what is decisive is not only formal compliance, but whether the taxpayer has had effective knowledge of the communication.

In practice, this requires a case-by-case analysis, particularly to assess whether any defect in the notification may be relevant from a defence perspective.

At ILIA ETL GLOBAL, we regularly assist clients in these situations, both in reviewing notifications and in defending tax procedures, helping to assess the validity of administrative actions and determine the most appropriate strategy in each case.