How the DGT's position has evolved
Current position
Capital losses occur due to variations in net worth that are not consumption expenses or lucrative transfers. In the case of companies, the loss resulting from delisting requires prior dissolution and liquidation, being accounted for in the year of liquidation. Losses derived from the judicial extinction of a company are integrated into the savings tax base. For fraud cases, the loss must be proven through evidence admitted under Law.
The DGT maintains a constant position by distinguishing between computable variations in net worth and excluded consumption expenses or lucrative transfers. The doctrine has diversified in specific scenarios such as fraud, delisting, or judicial extinction, always maintaining the need to prove the loss according to Article 33.5 of Law 35/2006. No change in criterion is observed, but rather an application of the rule to different factual scenarios.
Turning points
-
Establishes that the amount of a deception or fraud constitutes a capital loss provided it is proven through evidence admitted under Law.
-
Specifies that delisting does not generate an automatic loss, requiring the prior dissolution and liquidation of the company for its computation.
Analysis based on 43 of 45 rulings with a stated position. Updated 19 July 2026.