Real penalties and infractions for non-compliance with DAC7

IMPORTANT: This article was drafted in accordance with the European and Spanish regulatory framework in effect at the time of its publication, specifically Directive (EU) 2021/514 —DAC7—, Law 58/2003, the General Tax Law, and its implementation in Spain through Royal Decree 117/2024, dated January 30. Given that the reporting obligations of digital platforms, the criteria of the Tax Agency, and the penalty regime may be subject to regulatory or administrative updates, each specific case must be reviewed in accordance with current regulations and the actual situation of the operator, platform, or seller concerned.

The DAC7 Directive has ceased to be a regulatory forecast and has become a fully enforceable tax obligation. Since January 2023, all digital platforms operating in the European Union are required to report detailed information to tax authorities about sellers and service providers using their services.

In Spain, this obligation has been in force following the transposition of the directive through Royal Decree 117/2024.

The current problem is not lack of awareness of DAC7, but underestimating the real consequences of non-compliance. Many platforms, intermediaries, and professionals continue to believe that this is a minor obligation, merely formal in nature. This perception is erroneous and dangerous.

In this article we comprehensively analyze:

• The penalty regime applicable to DAC7
• The most common tax infractions
• The economic fines provided for
• And the real risks that go beyond a simple penalty

Is there a specific penalty regime for non-compliance with DAC7?

Yes, and it is particularly severe.

Although DAC7 is a European directive, its application in Spain is fully integrated within the national tax system. This means that breaches related to the information obligation of digital platforms are classified as tax infractions, regulated by Law 58/2003, of December 17, General Tax Law (LGT).

The Spanish transposition of DAC7 expressly establishes that digital platforms and other obligated parties are subject to the duty to provide tax information. This duty is not ornamental: its breach activates the penalty regime provided for in articles 191 to 206 of the LGT, with fines that can reach significant amounts.

The Tax Agency has been unequivocally warning that DAC7 is part of its tax control strategy and that non-compliance will be subject to verification, requirement, and, where appropriate, penalty.

Most frequent types of infractions related to DAC7

Tax infractions arising from non-compliance with DAC7 are not all the same. The following details the most frequent conducts that may give rise to penalty proceedings:

1. Failure to file the information return as an obligated party

This is the most serious infraction and, unfortunately, also the most frequent. It occurs when a digital platform that meets the criteria for being subject to DAC7 completely omits filing the annual information return on sellers and service providers.

According to article 198 of the LGT, failure to file information returns constitutes a serious tax infraction.

Applicable penalty: FINE

• 200 euros for each data item or set of data referring to the same person or entity
• A minimum of 400 euros and a maximum that can reach 20,000 euros per unfiled return.

The calculation is not trivial: if a platform was required to report information on 500 sellers and filed no return whatsoever, the penalty can be devastating.

2. Incomplete, incorrect filing or with inaccurate data

It is not enough to “file something”. The regulations require reporting, among other data:

• Complete identification of the seller
• Amounts received
• Number of transactions
• Commissions and fees charged
• Taxes withheld, if any

Filing incomplete, incorrect, or false data also constitutes a tax infraction.

Applicable penalty: FINE

• 150 euros for each incomplete, inaccurate, or false data item or set of data
• A minimum of 300 euros and a maximum of 20,000 euros.

This penalty is particularly relevant for platforms that file “minimum” returns, believing they are formally complying, but without the quality of information required by the regulations.

3. Filing outside the deadline

DAC7 establishes a strict calendar: information must be filed before January 31 of the year following the reporting period. Any subsequent filing constitutes non-compliance with the legal deadline.

Late filing, without prior requirement from the Administration, is penalized with a fine of 200 euros per data item or set of data, with a minimum of 400 euros and a maximum of 20,000 euros. If filing occurs after a requirement from the Tax Agency, the penalty may be higher.

4. Failure to retain documentation

Digital platforms must not only file information: they must also retain documentation that justifies the data reported during the statute of limitations period (four years, extendable in case of open proceedings).

• May generate specific penalties
• Creates an unfavorable presumption in case of inspection

If the Tax Agency cannot verify the data because the platform did not retain documentation, the burden of proof falls on the taxpayer.

5. Resistance, obstruction, or refusal to comply with Tax Agency requirements

When the Tax Agency requires additional information, clarifications, or supplementary documentation within the framework of a verification related to DAC7, the obligated party must actively cooperate.

Applicable penalty (art. 203 LGT):

• Fixed fine of 150,000 euros

Resistance, refusal, or failure to appear constitutes a very serious infraction.

This is one of the highest penalties in the Spanish tax system.

Economic penalties: amounts and graduation criteria

The fines provided for breaches related to DAC7 are not symbolic. In addition to the amounts already mentioned, it is essential to understand that there are graduation criteria that can significantly increase the initial penalty.

Most common aggravating factors

• Recidivism: If the platform or obligated party was previously penalized for similar infractions, the new penalty may be increased by up to 25%.
• Concealment of information: When intentionality is evident in the breach or concealment of relevant data, the penalty may reach its maximum degree.
• Economic volume: Although penalties for non-compliance with information obligations have legal caps, the Tax Agency may consider the economic dimension of the platform’s activity when assessing the concurrence of other liabilities.
• Economic harm to the Public Treasury: If non-compliance with DAC7 has hindered the detection of undeclared transactions by sellers, there may be additional liabilities.

Joint and several liability of administrators

In the case of digital platforms constituted as companies, administrators may be considered subsidiarily or jointly liable for tax penalties if certain circumstances occur, such as gross negligence in complying with the entity’s tax obligations or willful misconduct.

Real risks beyond the fine

The greatest danger of non-compliance with DAC7 is not the fine itself.

The collateral effects can be much more serious and lasting.

➔ Initiation of general tax inspections

Non-compliance with the information obligation under DAC7 is, in practice, a warning signal for the Tax Agency. A platform that does not report adequately is, in the eyes of the tax authorities, a platform with a high probability of having other tax irregularities.

It is not uncommon for a penalty proceeding for non-compliance with DAC7 to lead to a general tax inspection on Corporate Income Tax, VAT, withholdings, and other taxes of the platform. And, in those cases, the temporal scope may extend up to four years.

➔ Retroactive regularizations

If the Tax Agency detects that the platform did not report information on certain sellers or service providers, it can cross-reference data with its own databases and proceed to regularize the tax situation of those sellers. But in addition, it may require the platform to provide retroactive information, with corresponding penalties for each undeclared period.

➔ Derivation of tax liability

In certain cases, especially when the platform acts as an intermediary in transactions subject to withholding or payment on account, non-compliance with information obligations may result in a derivation of tax liability. That is, the platform may be held liable for payment of the tax debts of sellers who operated through it.

➔ Reputational and commercial impact

Beyond strictly tax matters, non-compliance with DAC7 can have consequences for the platform’s corporate reputation. In an environment where tax transparency and regulatory compliance are increasingly valued by investors, clients, and business partners, a public tax penalty can seriously damage brand image and market confidence.

Most frequent risk profiles in DAC7 proceedings

From our experience in tax defense and advisory on European regulatory compliance, we have identified recurring risk profiles that generate conflicts with the Tax Agency. Although each situation is unique and requires individualized analysis, there are common patterns worth knowing to avoid falling into them.

◆ Profile 1: Platforms that underestimate their status as obligated parties

Description of the problem: Niche or medium-sized platforms operating in sectors such as vacation rentals, freelance professional services, sale of artisanal or second-hand products, which erroneously believe that DAC7 only applies to “large platforms” like Airbnb or Amazon.

Interpretation error: Considering that there is a minimum threshold of turnover or number of users to be subject to DAC7, when in reality the subjection criteria are objective and do not depend on the size of the platform.

Common consequences: Complete omission of the return for one or several fiscal years. When the Tax Agency cross-references data with other sources (banks, other platforms that did report, VAT returns), it detects the discrepancy and proceeds to penalize retroactively. The economic volume at stake is usually between 500,000 and 5 million euros, with hundreds of unreported sellers.

Additional aggravating factor: These platforms usually lack adequate registration and documentation systems, which makes subsequent regularization extremely difficult and aggravates penalties for failure to retain information.

◆ Profile 2: Professionals who become intermediaries without knowing it

Description of the problem: Self-employed individuals or small businesses that began by providing services directly (consulting, design, training, etc.) and that, over time, created a website or platform where other professionals also offer their services in exchange for a commission or fee.

Interpretation error: Failing to identify the moment when their activity ceased to be purely professional to become intermediation of third-party services, thus crossing the DAC7 application threshold.

Expected penalty impact: They usually file late returns after receiving the first requirement from the Tax Agency. The base penalty is lower (being voluntary although late filing), but the cost of regularizing the entire operational structure, implementing compliance systems, and, occasionally, modifying the legal form of the activity is added.

Additional complexity: These professionals often mix their own income with third-party commissions in the same bank account and invoicing system, which complicates the historical reconstruction of data to comply with DAC7.

◆ Profile 3: Foreign platforms with commercial presence in Spain

Description of the context: Digital platforms incorporated in other EU countries (especially Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg) or outside the EU, operating in Spain facilitating services or sales of sellers resident in Spanish territory.

Misunderstanding about the obligation: Believing that by not having a permanent establishment in Spain nor being fiscally registered here, they have no obligation to report information to the Spanish Tax Agency about sellers resident in Spain.

Detection mechanisms: The Spanish Tax Agency receives automatic information through DAC7 information exchange mechanisms. If a foreign platform does not report correctly, the AEAT can request it directly through mutual administrative assistance. In addition, it cross-references this information with VAT and income tax returns of Spanish sellers.

Cross-border complexity: Determining the competent authority to receive DAC7 information depends on specific criteria (platform residence, place of incorporation, presence of permanent establishment). Error in this determination does not exempt from liability and may result in multiple penalties if several Member States claim the information.

Additional risk: These platforms may face simultaneous penalty proceedings in several countries, with multiplication of legal and compliance costs.

◆ Profile 4: Platforms that believe they comply but do so defectively

Description of the risk: Platforms that do file a DAC7 return, but with incomplete information, incorrect activity codes, aggregated amounts instead of itemized, or incorrect tax identifications of sellers.

Origin of the problem: Deficiencies in IT systems for data capture, lack of validation of information provided by sellers, or attempts to “minimize” reported information for fear of harming platform users.

Detection by the AEAT: When the Tax Agency cross-references data received from the platform with individual seller returns, it detects discrepancies: amounts that do not match, sellers not correctly identified, misclassified activities.

Practical consequence: Although the platform filed a return (avoiding the most serious penalty), it receives penalties for inaccurate or incomplete data. In addition, a verification proceeding is opened that generates multiple requirements, obligation to file supplementary returns and, in many cases, leads to general inspection.

Aggravating factor: If the Tax Agency considers that the inaccuracy was intentional (to protect sellers who do not declare), it may apply the maximum degree of penalty and assess the concurrence of resistance or obstruction.

When is specialized legal advice essential?

Compliance with DAC7 is not merely an accounting or administrative matter. It is a first-level tax obligation, with complex legal implications and potentially serious consequences.

The assistance of a tax lawyer specialized in international tax law and penalty proceedings is essential at the following times:

Before receiving any requirement

The best defense is prevention. A DAC7 compliance audit, conducted by a specialized professional, allows identifying risks, correcting past breaches through supplementary returns, and designing robust internal protocols.

After receiving a requirement from the Tax Agency

If the Tax Agency has sent a requirement requesting information, clarifications, or documentation related to DAC7, the response must be technical, complete, and legally grounded. A deficient reply can aggravate the situation or give rise to additional penalties for resistance or obstruction.

Upon detecting past breaches

If a platform identifies that it has not properly complied with DAC7 in previous fiscal years, the correct strategy is not to “wait and see what happens.” There is the possibility of filing supplementary or late returns, which can significantly reduce penalties and even avoid them if filed before the Administration initiates verification actions.

During a penalty proceeding or an inspection

If a penalty proceeding or tax inspection related to DAC7 has already been initiated, technical defense is absolutely essential. It is necessary to analyze the appropriateness of penalties, the correct application of graduation criteria, the existence of grounds excluding liability and, where appropriate, file appeals or request penalty reductions.

How does IN DIEM help you with DAC7?

The importance of specialized legal advice

Prevention is always more efficient—and less costly—than cure

The new regulatory framework derived from DAC7 has brought about a radical change in tax control of the digital economy. The information that the AEAT now receives is massive, automated, and cross-border, leaving very little room for improvisation or lack of knowledge.

In this context, IN DIEM supports companies, digital platforms, and professionals in adopting a proactive legal strategy, designed to minimize risks, ensure regulatory compliance, and protect the taxpayer’s position before administrative actions are initiated.

We can help you with:

• Immediate analysis of your situation regarding DAC7, determining if you are subject to reporting obligations and what your real level of exposure to the AEAT is.
• Review of DAC7 reports made since 2023, detecting errors, omissions, or inconsistencies that may lead to verification or penalty procedures.
• Evaluation of tax obligations from previous years, quantifying risks and assessing voluntary regularizations before inspection actions.
• Implementation and review of DAC7 tax compliance systems, especially for digital platforms, including due diligence protocols, identity verification, and annual reporting procedures.
• Legal defense in tax verification and inspection procedures initiated based on DAC7 information, with the design of specific defensive strategies and protection of your rights as a taxpayer.
• Tax planning compatible with DAC7, reviewing business structures, invoicing models, and income flows to operate with legal certainty and tax efficiency.

We have specific experience in digital taxation, online platforms, and complex tax procedures, which allows us to act with legal judgment, practical knowledge of the AEAT’s operations, and a strategic vision oriented towards prevention.

If your company, platform, or professional activity may be affected by DAC7, it is essential to analyze the situation as soon as possible.
Early action allows for reducing risks, avoiding unnecessary penalties, and facing the new environment of tax transparency with legal certainty.

IN DIEM: legal certainty in an environment of total transparency

The technical complexity of DAC7, its interaction with European and national regulations, and the significant economic and legal consequences of non-compliance mean that specialised legal advice is not an expense, but a strategic investment in legal certainty, business continuity, and business sustainability.

In a scenario where the Tax Agency already has the data, the real competitive advantage is to anticipate.

That’s where IN DIEM makes the difference.

Contact us. We are here to help you.

We accompany you through each phase of the process.

Anything else about IN DIEM Lawyers? Here’s a short presentation video…

To acknowledge some of you, here’s this link.

You can find us in Seville, Madrid, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Málaga, Tomares, Coria del Río, Dos Hermanas, Mairena del Alcor, Estepona, Marbella, and Mairena del Aljarafe. We look forward to serving you.