Defenders of the Spanish tax agency argue that the institution operates under strict legal frameworks that prioritize technical accuracy over political considerations. From this perspective, the promotion of any individual within the agency is based on merit, tenure, and professional performance rather than the specific files they happen to be handling at a given time. To suggest that a promotion is a reward for inaction is to misunderstand the bureaucratic nature of the civil service.
Proponents of this view emphasize that tax inspectors are bound by professional codes of conduct that mandate impartiality. They argue that the complexity of tax law often leads to long, drawn-out investigations that may appear to the public as delays or lack of action. However, these processes are necessary to ensure that any potential legal action is built on a solid foundation of evidence that can withstand scrutiny in a court of law.
Furthermore, supporters point out that the tax agency has a long track record of investigating high-profile individuals without regard to their political past. They maintain that the current scrutiny is a natural part of the democratic process where the public holds institutions accountable. By focusing on the legal merits of the case rather than the political narrative, the agency can ensure that the tax system remains fair and equitable for all citizens.
Ultimately, those who support the agency's current handling of the matter believe that the focus should remain on the evidence. They argue that the system is functioning as intended, with checks and balances in place to correct any errors. As the investigation moves forward, they expect that the final findings will demonstrate that the agency acted in accordance with the law, thereby reinforcing public trust in the institution.