ADMINISTRATIVE SOURCE · 22 MAR / 6 APR 2022 · FIVE PAGES

The AEAT diligence fixes a source and a chain; it does not turn recorded statements into proved facts.

Customs Surveillance documented a Sun Park visit, four photographs and a business-channel account concerning ownership, operation, Booking, complaints, judicial award and tourism registration. Its decisive value lies in separating official observation from third-party statements and then testing what AEAT adopted.

Complete source located · neutral public copy

Audit result. The diligence expressly names Laura Acosta Matos, but does not name the male business interlocutor. It proves that statements were recorded; it does not by itself prove their accuracy, falsity, intention or tax effect.
First page of the AEAT diligence of 6 April 2022, public copy with identifiers and contact data omitted
Public copy: later highlights, NUMA identifiers, contacts and signatures removed; substantive text retained.

Controlled reading

Four conclusions the document does support

1 · Official March 2022 observation

The officers recorded that the complex was undergoing works and closed to the public on 22 March 2022. Pages 3 and 4 retain four photographs from that visit.

Direct documentary fact, limited to that date.

2 · A divided business channel

A person at the site supplied a business telephone number. The diligence then records an account from an unnamed male interlocutor and, separately, statements attributed to Laura Acosta Matos.

The male identity remains open.

3 · Visible person/entity error

Page 1 refers to “a company called GIL MARER”. Gil Marer is a natural person; page 2 itself identifies Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. as owner of the 159 apartments. Every legal person and capacity must therefore be controlled.

Objective internal contradiction.

4 · Registration is not revenue

The diligence recites a 1991–2014 tourism history. That matters, but does not alone establish who invoiced, collected bookings, controlled accounts or received hotel income in 2017–2018.

Important formal evidence, not a complete economic conclusion.

Exact attribution

Who said what—and what is needed to test it

SourceRecorded contentWhat it provesEvidence still required
Customs Surveillance officersVisit, works, public closure, people supervising and four photographs.Direct official observation of the visible condition on 22 March 2022.Does not reconstruct 2017–2018 or itself identify operator, account or income.
Unnamed person at the siteClaimed association with the Acosta Matos channel and business contact route.Recorded statement.Name, exact company, role, authority and knowledge.
Unnamed male corporate interlocutor2017 credit purchase; award of 159 units; 49 other purchases; Booking advertising; alleged complaints, threats and blocked access.That AEAT recorded that account.Identity; deeds and unit schedule; Booking/PMS; police files; witnesses; dates and outcomes.
Laura Acosta Matos24 November 2021 Cabildo request; Gil/Monterecco/LPB relationship; challenge and alleged lack of consent to the 2014 change; claimed operation to 2018.Named source and identifiable propositions.Complete Cabildo request/certificate; capacity; documentary basis; entity-, period- and account-level comparison.
Recited, unappended Cabildo certificateSun Park S.A. 1991; Monte Lanza, S.L. 1996; Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. 2012; Owners' Community 2014.That the diligence transcribes that sequence.Native certificate, file, applications, 2015 challenge, decision and exact legal effect.
Criminal and reputational limit. Booking, fraud, assault, threats and blocked access appear as third-party statements. The diligence contains no advertisements, reservations, complaints, police reports, judgments or statements from those said to have experienced the events.

Causation control

The diligence could inform the new assessment; it did not originate the inspection or supplementary action

29 Jul 2020
inspection plan
Nov/Dec 2020
commencement
7 Oct 2021
provisional zero result
4/15 Mar 2022
supplementary action
22 Mar 2022
visit
6 Apr 2022
diligence
Temporal conclusion. The 22 March contact and 6 April diligence could not have caused the 2020 selection. The supplementary action had already been ordered and notified. They could still have influenced the later narrative or evidential assessment; that requires a statement-by-statement reliance matrix.

Pink / AEAT

The issue cannot be answered with one undifferentiated “operator” label

Entity

Pink Canary Services, S.L.U.—formerly Monterecco Sun Park, S.L.U.—LPB, CEXP, the Owners' Community, Matkator, CAM and third-party owners are distinct persons or structures.

Function and period

Tourism registration, maintenance, reception, keys, bookings, marketing, ownership, security, works and preservation are not automatically the same function and cannot be moved between years.

Income

Tax attribution requires a bank or merchant account, PMS/OTA, invoice, contract, staff, customer, booking, beneficiary and period. The diligence does not supply that economic bridge.

Strong judicial-control point. The diligence supplies propositions capable of verification, but also reveals an express person/company confusion and blends owner, operator, creditor and award recipient. Independent verification was therefore required; the document alone establishes neither nullity nor culpability.

Document room

Five pages accounted for, accessible text and integrity chain

Public source

The received copy contained 27 later editorial highlights and 27 associated popup objects. The public version removes them so they are not mistaken for AEAT markings, rasterises all five pages and retains all four photographs.

Interconnection

Read the diligence through the correct lanes

Right of correction. The original Cabildo certificate, police records, Booking data, deeds, banking records or authentic identification of the interlocutor that completes or contradicts this reading will be incorporated with equivalent visibility.