Online-Only Tax Returns: Modernisation or Digital Exclusion?

The announcement that, from 2026, personal income tax (IRPF) returns may only be filed online has sparked intense debate in tax and social circles. The Spanish Tax Agency justifies the measure on grounds of efficiency and the already high level of online use (more than 90% of returns in 2024 were filed online). However, the decision raises important legal, economic and social-equity questions.

1. Applicable legal framework

The requirement to file returns electronically is based on:

• Law 58/2003, General Tax Law (Article 96.2): authorises the tax administration to establish the cases and conditions in which taxpayers must interact with it electronically.
• Royal Decree 1065/2007 (General Tax Management Regulations, Article 117 et seq.): regulates the electronic filing of returns.
• Law 39/2015 on Common Administrative Procedure (Article 14.2): requires legal entities and regulated professionals to communicate electronically, but does not impose this duty on pensioners or citizens generally.
• Supreme Court case law: its judgment of 3 June 2020 (appeal 3611/2017) annulled the requirement that certain forms be filed exclusively online by groups not legally required to do so, finding that it could infringe the right of access to the administration (Articles 53 and 103 of the Spanish Constitution).

There is therefore a legal basis, but it is neither absolute nor unlimited: compulsory electronic filing must respect proportionality, equality and non-discrimination.

2. Impact on vulnerable groups

• Pensioners and older people: many lack a computer, internet access or digital skills. The digital divide can lead to the real exclusion of a basic right: complying with tax obligations.
• People on low incomes (minimum vital income, unemployment benefits): they are expected to manage electronic credentials for a complex process despite limited access to digital tools.
• Self-employed people and small businesses: although many use an accountant, those who manage their own affairs will add this digital burden to an already onerous bureaucratic framework.

Ultimately, the measure widens the gap between people who can adapt to the digital environment and those who cannot.

3. Criticism from the perspective of taxpayers’ rights

• Legal certainty (Article 9.3 of the Constitution): without a transition period or alternatives, the measure may cause uncertainty and leave people without protection.
• Equality (Article 14): requiring groups with unequal technical abilities to use the same channel may amount to indirect discrimination.
• Right to good administration: Article 13 of Law 39/2015 recognises citizens’ right to deal with the administration through non-electronic means when they are not required to use electronic channels.
• Judicial precedent: the Supreme Court has already warned that certain groups cannot be required to complete procedures exclusively online. This leaves room for administrative court challenges if the requirement is imposed indiscriminately.

4. Possible corrective measures

Although the Tax Agency intends to make the online system robust, several adjustments are possible:

• Regulatory exceptions for vulnerable groups (people over 65, people with disabilities and low-income households).
• More support through the “Le Llamamos” call-back plan and in-person assistance in rural areas, as pensioners’ organisations have requested.
• Dedicated assistance at Tax Agency offices for people who can demonstrate that they cannot access electronic tools.
• Possible court intervention if online-only filing is found to infringe basic constitutional or administrative principles.

5. Conclusion

Digitalising tax administration is irreversible and positive in terms of efficiency, but it cannot be imposed without safeguards. Requiring online-only tax returns from 2026 risks becoming a form of tax exclusion, contrary to equity and legal certainty.

The law and case law themselves show that the administration cannot pursue modernisation at the expense of taxpayers’ fundamental rights. A hybrid model would be the sensible approach: digital channels as the general rule, alongside clear exceptions and real support for people who cannot access them on equal terms.

Otherwise, the Tax Agency may not only “lose its papers” figuratively, but may lose them in court too.

Read the original article in Spanish