The state against the state. Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos once warned in his writings on good governance that “there is no worse storm for a state than leaving the helm in the hands of a cage of crickets.” The Enlightenment-era maxim has gained full relevance following the audit of fiscal year 2025: on July 27, 2026, the Las Palmas Territorial Intervention Office signed a document that sharply criticizes the financial statements of the Las Palmas Port Authority—the same statements approved by the board of directors on which Álvaro Rodríguez Dapena, a board member and former president of Puertos del Estado, sits. He either looked the other way or endorsed a flawed balance sheet, shielded by the almost secretive zeal with which the port authority’s minutes are kept.
The General Intervention Board of the State Administration (IGAE) has scrutinized the 2025 accounting statements of the Las Palmas Port Authority. The public-sector audit report, obtained by Canarymaritime on Wednesday, is riddled with qualifications and points to recurring irregularities in the valuation of assets and the treatment of the port authority’s tax credits. The IGAE’s public warning exposes structural deficiencies in the accounting of concessions and public-domain infrastructure at the main logistics hub in the Mid-Atlantic.
As with the management of concessions, the oversight body stresses that “similar circumstances had already been reported in previous years.” And that is true, as Canarymaritime reported months ago.
The opacity surrounding concession discounts
Public auditors have focused their main criticism on the treatment of investments made by private operators. The official document certifies that “five concessions have been identified in which the Las Palmas Port Authority is applying discounts because investments have been made, whether in the form of infilling in the water area, docks, pontoons, dolphins or other berthing and mooring works.”
The mechanism creates a dual economic distortion. According to the oversight body, “these discounts are applied to the surface area of land or water in which the investments have been made, resulting in a loss of revenue from the land or water area initially granted under concession in exchange for having a larger land area or improved facilities within the port’s public domain.”
The accounting distortion violates the financial regulations applicable to the public sector. The IGAE stresses that “these rights and obligations have not been recorded in the annual accounts, contrary to the provisions of the General Accounting Plan.” The reason is that “the Las Palmas Port Authority assesses fees on assets that have not been recorded on the balance sheet, despite forming part of the public domain, while at the same time these fees are reduced because the aforementioned assets were financed by the concession holder.”
A €15.5 million asset shortfall
The impact on the financial statements directly distorts the true picture of the Port Authority. The figures broken down by the state audit quantify the asset shortfall across several key balance-sheet items.
The report concludes unequivocally that “as a result, assets are understated by €15.5 million, prior-year results by €3.3 million, and the result for the year by €451,000, while the remaining €11.7 million should be recorded as liabilities and recognized in income over the concession period covered by the discount.” The audit adds an aggravating detail by recalling that “similar circumstances had already been reported in previous years,” confirming the port authority’s inaction in correcting the anomaly.
Questions over the tax credit
The second area of qualification concerns the authority’s tax transparency regarding corporate income tax. Auditors are questioning the criteria used to keep assets on the books for deductions pending offsetting.
The IGAE states that “the information contained in Note 18 of the Notes to the Financial Statements concerning the application and recognition of tax credits for deductions pending application under corporate income tax is considered insufficient.” The document emphasizes the lack of technical support, noting that “the nature of the evidence used for their recognition or, where applicable, the tax planning is not specified,” as required by the General Accounting Plan in Section III.
Qualified opinion
The accumulation of discrepancies has led the audit team to reject an unqualified opinion on the port authority’s accounts. The report confirms the safeguards applied in the process by detailing the methodology used to examine the public accounts. The IGAE document states that “we conducted our audit in accordance with the regulations governing auditing activities currently in force for the public sector in Spain.” The institution reaffirms its position by certifying that “we are independent of the entity in accordance with the ethical and independence-protection requirements applicable to our audit.” The document concludes by declaring that “we consider that the audit evidence we have obtained provides a sufficient and appropriate basis for our qualified opinion.”
The article Does Dapena Bless the Accounting Tricks at the Port of Las Palmas? Treasury Uncovers a €15.5 Million Hole was first published on canarymaritime.com.
