Law firm guidesTax

The tax office enters your business without judicial authorisation

Last updated 2026-09-01 · Reviewed by Jaime Piñeira Pardo, registered with the ICAM bar, no. 138826

The short answer

Both the entry and what it produced are attacked. Article 18.2 of the Constitution allows entry only with the holder's consent or a judicial decision, and article 113 LGT requires the request to give reasons of purpose, necessity and proportionality. The entry order is appealed, and any assessment resting on that material is challenged afterwards, within its own time limits.

On a Tuesday morning two inspectors arrive at your premises with officers. They show you a paper, ask you to sign, and within two hours they leave with copies of the hard drives, the accounting folder and the company's email. Nobody hands you the judicial decision, nobody explains which taxes and periods are being reviewed. Months later a proposed adjustment of 300,000 euros arrives, built almost entirely on what left through the door that day.

The case, in five lines

What is brought: Appeal against the order that authorised the entry, and a request, in the file and later before the court, that the material obtained cannot ground the adjustment.
Before which court: The Contencioso-Administrativo section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first instance court) authorises the entry under article 8.6 LJCA. The later assessment is disputed before the TEAR (the regional tax tribunal) and then in the contencioso-administrativo courts.
Deadline: The authorising order is appealed within the short period the LJCA lays down for orders, counted from its notification. Any assessment resting on the entry is claimed within one month under article 235.1 LGT and challenged within two months under article 46.1 LJCA.
Who can bring it: The holder of the home or premises entered, whether an individual or a company, and the taxpayer whose file is built on the material obtained.
Financial risk: If the entry is upheld, the file continues with all the evidence in it and the case goes on over the substance. In court proceedings costs may be awarded against you if the claim is dismissed.

The first question is whether that space was a constitutionally protected home

Article 113 LGT requires consent or judicial authorisation only where it is necessary to enter the constitutionally protected home of a taxpayer, or to carry out searches in it. That is why the first thing established is what was actually entered: the loading area of a warehouse, the management office, the director's private room or the adjoining dwelling are not treated alike.

Article 8.6 LJCA widens the focus, since it gives the court the authorisations for entry into homes and other places whose access requires the consent of the holder. In other words, protection does not depend only on the label attached to the building, but on whether access required consent and on whether it was sought, obtained, and from whom.

So the case is built with floor plans, photographs and contracts describing the real use of each room, and with the identification of who was at the door that day. A warehouse supervisor need not be able to consent to entry into the room where the corporate records are kept, and that difference decides many of these cases.

Without the holder's consent or a judicial decision, entry is prohibited

Article 18.2 of the Constitution states that the home is inviolable and that no entry or search may be made in it without the holder's consent or a judicial decision, except in cases of flagrant crime. There is no fourth route: neither the urgency of the review, nor the risk of data disappearing, nor the presence of officers turns an entry without title into a valid one.

Article 113 LGT states the same requirement for tax matters: the authority must obtain the taxpayer's consent or the appropriate judicial authorisation. Hence the importance of the paper signed at the door. We examine exactly what it said, whether it was explained that entry could be refused, who signed it, and whether that person had power to consent on behalf of the company.

The order must give reasons of purpose, necessity and proportionality

The second paragraph of article 113 LGT, in the wording given by Ley 11/2021, requires the request for judicial authorisation to execute the entry decision to be duly justified and to give reasons of purpose, necessity and proportionality for that entry. It is not a formula: these are three distinct judgements that must appear in the request and carry over into the order granting it.

The scrutiny is done piece by piece. Purpose is compared with the taxes and periods said to be under review. Necessity requires an explanation of why ordinary requests for information were not enough. And proportionality is measured against what was actually taken: copying ten years of a company's entire email is not proportionate to reviewing a single tax year.

It can be authorised before the file is opened, but with strict requirements

The third paragraph of article 113 LGT allows both the request and the authorisation to be made even before the formal opening of the file. It attaches conditions, however: the entry decision must contain the identification of the taxpayer and the taxes and periods to be reviewed, and both must be provided to the court.

Article 8.6 LJCA covers the same situation by giving the court the authorisations for entry decided by the tax authority within a tax action or file, even before its formal opening, where the holder objects to access or there is a risk of such objection. If any of those elements is missing, the authorisation was granted without a basis.

That is why copies of the entry decision, the request and the order are demanded at once. Comparing the taxes and periods stated in those documents with what later appears in the proposed adjustment is one of the most productive checks in the case: an inspection that takes material outside what was authorised goes beyond its own title.

What is asked is that the material cannot support the assessment

The defence runs on two fronts at once. On one side the order authorising the entry is appealed, so that a court reviews whether the consent or judicial decision required by article 18.2 of the Constitution and the reasons required by article 113 LGT were present. On the other, within the file, we ask that data obtained from an entry lacking a valid title should not be used.

Where an assessment is issued regardless, the challenge against it leads with that ground, alongside the substantive ones. Document by document, we identify which part of the adjustment comes from the disputed material and which part has independent support, because how much survives if the court finds a breach of the fundamental right depends on that separation.

How we run the case, step by step

1
Securing what happened on the same day
We collect the record drawn up, the paper signed at the door, the times of arrival and departure, the identity of whoever attended and the inventory of what was copied. The sooner this is documented, the harder it becomes to argue later about what was taken and from where.
2
Demanding the entry decision, the request and the order
Article 113 LGT requires the decision to identify the taxpayer and the taxes and periods to be reviewed, and to be provided to the court. With those three documents we check whether the order had a basis and how far the authorisation reached.
3
Appeal against the authorising order
The order issued under article 8.6 LJCA is challenged for lack of reasons on purpose, necessity or proportionality, or for the absence of the elements article 113 LGT requires. The pleading is filed within the period the LJCA lays down for appealing orders.
4
Submissions in the file to confine the material
We ask in writing that anything obtained outside the authorised taxes and periods be excluded and that copies exceeding the title be returned. That request is recorded in the file and prepares the ground that will later support the challenge to the assessment.
5
Challenging the assessment that rests on the entry
Once the assessment is notified, it is claimed within the month of article 235.1 LGT and, if needed, challenged within the two months of article 46.1 LJCA, arguing that the adjustment is built on an entry contrary to article 18.2 of the Constitution.

The evidence that decides the case

The entry decision and the order authorising it, together with the authority's request and its reasoning.
The document signed at the door, to see whether it expressed informed consent and who signed it.
The inventory of the devices copied and the trail of the copying, with times and volumes of data.
Plans, photographs and contracts evidencing the real use of the space that was entered.
The security camera recordings of the entrance and the visitor log for that morning.
The correlation, document by document, between the proposed adjustment and the material obtained in the entry.

What closes the door

Signing the paper at the door without reading it. Article 18.2 of the Constitution permits entry with the holder's consent, and a hurried signature is exactly what is sought.
Letting someone consent who cannot, such as an employee with no powers, and failing to record who authorised access and to which rooms.
Not asking for a copy of the entry decision or the order, the documents that fix the authorised taxes and periods under article 113 LGT.
Waiting until the end of the file to raise the point, instead of appealing the order and putting the objection in writing from the outset.
Voluntarily handing over copies of all the email and all the years, widening on your own account what the authorisation allowed to be taken.

The law that applies

Art. 18.2 CE. Declares the home inviolable and prohibits any entry or search in it without the holder's consent or a judicial decision, except in cases of flagrant crime. The same article guarantees honour and privacy, the secrecy of communications and statutory limits on the use of data processing. BOE-A-1978-31229
Art. 113 LGT. Requires the taxpayer's consent or judicial authorisation to enter or search a constitutionally protected home, obliges the request to be duly justified with reasons of purpose, necessity and proportionality, and allows it to be sought and granted before the file is formally opened if the decision identifies the taxpayer and the taxes and periods and is provided to the court. BOE-A-2003-23186
Art. 8.6 LJCA. Gives the first instance contencioso-administrativo court the authorisations for entry into homes and other places whose access requires the holder's consent, including those decided by the tax authority within a tax action, even before its formal opening, where the holder objects or there is a risk of objection. BOE-A-1998-16718

Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).

Frequently asked questions

I signed a paper at the door, can I no longer argue anything?

You can, and it should be reviewed at once. Article 18.2 of the Constitution allows entry with the holder's consent, so the argument moves to that consent: what the document said, whether it was made clear that refusal was possible, who signed it and whether that person could consent for the company. An employee without powers does not make entry into the management office valid.

Can they enter before an inspection has been opened against me?

Yes, but subject to conditions. Article 113 LGT allows the request and the authorisation to be made even before the formal opening of the file, provided the entry decision identifies the taxpayer and the taxes and periods to be reviewed, and both are provided to the court. Article 8.6 LJCA expressly contemplates that situation.

They took emails from years that were not under review, is that valid?

That is precisely what is argued as a lack of proportionality. Article 113 LGT requires the request to give reasons of purpose, necessity and proportionality, and the decision to state the taxes and periods. Where what was copied goes beyond that framework, its exclusion is sought and we identify, document by document, which part of the adjustment rests on material taken outside the title.

Is it worth appealing the order if they already took everything?

It is, because the order is the title legitimising the entry and everything that followed. If a court finds that the reasons required by article 113 LGT or the title required by article 18.2 of the Constitution were missing, the defence then argues that the adjustment stands on material obtained without cover. That is why the appeal against the order and the challenge to the assessment are worked on together.

Which court authorises these entries today?

Article 8.6 LJCA gives those authorisations to the first instance contencioso-administrativo court, which since Ley Orgánica 1/2025 is the Contencioso-Administrativo section of the Tribunal de Instancia. That same provision covers entries decided by the tax authority within a tax action where the holder objects to access or there is a risk of objection.

This guide explains how the action works in general. It does not replace the study of your own case: deadlines depend on when things happened and on what you have done since.