Doctrine by topic · DGT Observatory

Judicial Claim: DGT doctrinal evolution

How the DGT's position on this topic has evolved, and the rulings it rests on.

← DGT Observatory

How the DGT's position has evolved

Settled doctrine High confidence 10 rulings · 2014–2020

Current position

To reduce the taxable base due to bad debts, it is mandatory to have sought collection through a judicial claim or a notary requirement. One year must have elapsed since the accrual (or six months if the volume of operations is less than 6,010,121.04 euros). The circumstance must be recorded in the accounting books and the recipient must be an entrepreneur or the base must exceed 300 euros.

The DGT's position remains constant regarding the requirement of a judicial claim or notary requirement as essential conditions. Throughout the rulings, it has been specified which actions do not meet this requirement, such as mediation, the request for necessary insolvency proceedings, or banking management. The criterion has been consolidated through the reiteration of temporal and formal requirements.

Turning points

  1. V0275-16

    Clarifies that civil-commercial mediation does not meet the precautions of judicial claim or notary requirement required by the IVA (Value Added Tax) Law.

  2. V1119-16

    Establishes that if a judicial sentence determines that the invoice is not owed, it does not count as a collection claim.

  3. V1870-16

    Determines that the request for a declaration of necessary insolvency proceedings does not constitute a judicial claim to seek the collection of the credit.

Analysis based on 10 of 10 rulings with a stated position. Updated 28 September 2026.

Rulings on this topic

10

Apply this to your case

VAT advisoryTalk to the team applying this doctrine daily.
Talk to the tax teamWe check whether this criterion affects you and what it means in your situation.
Email
Contact