How the DGT's position has evolved
Current position
Contributions made after the establishment of protected assets require a public deed or a judicial resolution, without registration being necessary. The expenditure of money or consumption of fungible goods for the vital needs of the beneficiary does not constitute a disposal of assets. To avoid regularization, the taxpayer must prove the existence of the assets and the vital need through means of evidence. The substitution of assets for others of a real estate or financial nature does not trigger regularization if the administration regime is maintained.
The DGT's position remains stable in the interpretation of formality requirements and the nature of subsistence expenses. There is a consolidation in the doctrine that excludes the disposal of assets when the expenditure meets vital needs. The most recent rulings specify the burden of proof and the management of asset substitution to avoid regularization.
Turning points
-
Clarifies that registration in the Property Registry is not a necessary requirement for the constitution or contribution.
-
Establishes the need to prove the effective existence of the assets and the specification of vital needs through means of evidence admitted under Law.
Analysis based on 45 of 45 rulings with a stated position. Updated 23 September 2026.