They kidnapped Gabriel Batistuta.
Federal recapture judge ordered embargo for more than 71 million pesos to the former football player and agricultural producer Gabriele Battista, following a lawsuit by the Federal Public Revenue Administration (AFIP). The reason? They accuse him of not having complied with the extraordinary payment to great fortunes; the extraordinary tax on assets decreed by the Government in the middle of the pandemic.
The resolution was entrusted to the federal judge of Reconquista, Aldo Alurralde, who ordered the embargo on three buildings of the exgoleador of the Selection.
As reported this Sunday by the portal Recover SFthe total embargo is for $ 71,096,882.09; of which $ 46,059,135.85 correspond to capital and the remaining $ 25,037,746.24 correspond to punitive interest.
In May, the judge had rejected a precautionary measure presented by the former footballer of Boca Juniors and Fiorentina in Italy, in order not to pay homage. Therefore, the case went to the Federal Resistance Appeal Chamber.
The Court of Appeal of the capital of Chaco, made up of judges María Denogens, Rocío Alcalá and Patricia García, agreed with Alurralde on June 29, rejecting the appeal filed by Batistuta.
The same judge who decreed the millionaire kidnapping of Gabriel Omar Batistuta had already applied a similar measure against the former national team scorer already towards the end of March: at that moment he kidnapped him in almost 4 million pesos as a result of defaults in the payment of personal property taxes during the last year.
The former footballer originally presented the precautionary measure before the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction number 4 located in the Municipality of Buenos Aires, in which he declared himself incompetent and sent it to Reconquista, of which he is originally from and in whose area he owns about 126 thousand hectares of country land.
Batistuta held that the solidarity contribution promoted by the Government and approved by Congress “violates constitutional rights, principles and guarantees and above all the right to property and the guarantee of non-confiscation”, thus violating “the constitutional guarantee of equality against taxes and public charges.
But in their judgment, the judges Denogens, Alcalá and García held that “the preconditions for the origin of the precautionary measure envisaged are not configured, which is sufficient to reject the appeal invoked by the plaintiff and confirm the decision of the judge of the precedent example”.
“I didn’t want to pay a fee and they killed me,” Batistuta said in a recent interview, who noted that “a lot of people did the presentation” but only his case and that of Carlos Tevez came to light.
“I disagree with that tax, which is why I protested. It doesn’t feel right to have to pay for things that previous governments didn’t do, “complained the former scorer.
And added, “It turns out you’ve won things, you’ve been lucky in life, and now you’re a bad guy,” said Batistuta, who argued that “anyway, if you like, I’d be a non-generous guy, presumably.”