The Directorate-General for Taxes, in its binding consultation V0476-26 of 2 March 2026, consolidates —with the immediate precedent of V1115-25 of 26 June 2025— the criterion applicable to the foreign executive who moves to Spain to continue performing his or her work activity remotely, by the exclusive use of telematic means, for a non-resident employer. The conclusion of both consultations coincides and is favourable to the contributor: the international remote-work modality fulfils, by itself, the triggering circumstance provided for in article 93.1.b).1 of the Personal Income Tax Act (LIRPF), without the need for an employment contract with a Spanish employer or for the prior obtaining of the international remote-work visa governed by Law 14/2013 of 27 September on support for entrepreneurs and their internationalisation. However, the DGT itself expressly excludes from its pronouncement the two most relevant risk zones from the adviser’s perspective: the characterisation of the employment relationship where the worker resides in Spain and the employer is foreign, and the generation of a permanent establishment of the employer itself in Spanish territory as a consequence of the activity carried out by the remote worker.

It is helpful to begin with the legislative framework, because international remote work is introduced into the article 93 of the LIRPF regime through an amendment whose scope is not always appreciated in its proper measure.

Article 93.1.b).1 of the LIRPF, as worded by the third final provision, paragraph five, of Law 28/2022 of 21 December on the promotion of the start-up ecosystem —in force since 1 January 2023— requires the move to Spanish territory to take place “as a consequence of an employment contract, with the exception of the special employment relationship of professional sportspeople”. The condition is deemed met where “an employment relationship begins, ordinary or special other than the one indicated above, or statutory with an employer in Spain”. The relevant novelty for the case before us is the following, which the provision adds in the same paragraph: the condition shall equally be deemed met “where, without it being ordered by the employer, the work activity is performed remotely, through the exclusive use of computer, telematic and telecommunication means and systems”. The provision adds, in fine, a specific subsumption clause: “In particular, this circumstance shall be deemed met in the case of employees holding the international remote-work visa provided for in Law 14/2013 of 27 September”.

The legislative articulation is relevant because the clause of Law 14/2013 operates “in particular”: it is a specific subsumption case, not a constitutive requirement of the remote-work modality. The general triggering condition is the performance of the work activity remotely through exclusive telematic means. The Law 14/2013 visa simplifies the evidence of compliance with the condition, but does not determine it.

The case under review in V0476-26 is paradigmatic. The consulting party, a Swedish national and tax resident, a computer engineer holding the position of Chief Technology Officer of a Swedish company engaged in the development and marketing of programmatic advertising-impression buying tools, agrees with his employer to move to Spain at the end of 2025 to continue performing the same work activity —now from a private residence in Spanish territory— through the exclusive use of telematic means. The consulting party is not a member of the board of directors of the entity nor does he hold powers to bind it; his participation in the share capital does not reach 25%; and the Swedish company carries on no economic activity in Spain, nor is business decision-making taken in or from our country.

The recent precedent, V1115-25, presents an analogous profile with an additional nuance. A British national, moved to Spain in April 2024 with an international remote-work visa under Law 14/2013, holds the position of Chief Technology Officer in a United Kingdom entity engaged in providing home care for the elderly, operating exclusively in its country of origin. The consulting party holds 20% of the employer’s capital; his spouse, 60%, and a third party outside the family unit, the remaining 20%. He does not hold a statutory management or executive office and lacks decision-making power on the board or in day-to-day management.

The question put to the DGT is the same in both cases: whether the described move allows the contributor to opt for the special regime of article 93 of the LIRPF.

The DGT’s response is articulated on three pillars that warrant separate treatment, because each provides an operative key.

First, the scope of the international remote-work modality as a triggering circumstance. The DGT confirms that the condition of article 93.1.b).1 of the LIRPF is met by the mere performance of the work activity remotely through exclusive telematic means, regardless of whether the worker holds or not the Law 14/2013 visa. V0476-26 puts it without circumlocutions: “to the extent that such an employment relationship exists with the entity (a matter outside the scope of competence of this directive centre) and that the work activity can be performed remotely, through the exclusive use of computer, telematic and telecommunication means and systems, the consulting party may opt for the special regime provided for in article 93 of the LIRPF”. V1115-25 reproduces practically literally the same formula. The Law 14/2013 visa, where it concurs, reinforces the evidence; where it does not concur, it is no obstacle.

Second, the articulation with the other requirements of the regime. Access to article 93 of the LIRPF requires the cumulative fulfilment of the three conditions of its first paragraph: (i) that the contributor has not been a Spanish tax resident during the five tax periods preceding the move (subparagraph a); (ii) that the move takes place under one of the circumstances of the catalogue of article 93.1.b), which includes —in the case before us— remote work (subparagraph b); and (iii) that the contributor does not obtain income that would qualify as obtained through a permanent establishment located in Spanish territory (subparagraph c). The DGT underlines that the remote-work modality fulfils circumstance b), but does not relieve the contributor from separately evidencing subparagraphs a) and c). In particular, the evidence of prior non-residence in Spain during the previous five-year period must be documentarily supported, and the absence of income qualifiable as the worker’s own permanent establishment in Spanish territory must be asserted and, where the case arises, defended.

Third, the scope of the response. The DGT expressly delimits its pronouncement on two grounds. The first, ratione materiae: the existence and characterisation of the employment relationship between worker and employer falls outside its competence; the consultation is issued on the factual situation described by the consulting party, without assessing whether the subordinate employment relationship is preserved where the worker provides services remotely from Spain for a foreign employer. The second, ratione personae: the DGT answers on the obligations of the consulting party itself, not on those of the employer. In particular, the question whether the remote worker’s presence in Spain may generate a permanent establishment of the non-resident employer falls outside the scope of the pronouncement.

In our view, the doctrine laid down by these two consultations is coherent with the declared purpose of Law 28/2022 and with the logic of article 93 of the LIRPF after the reform. The special regime was conceived as a tool to attract talent and human capital, and international remote work is, in the practice of the post-pandemic labour market, the dominant modality of mobility of the qualified executive. A literal interpretation of the provision that circumscribed the triggering circumstance to a contract with a Spanish employer or to a Law 14/2013 visa would have reduced the subjective scope of the regime away from its purpose. The DGT is right to recognise the general operativeness of the remote-work modality.

Subject to the foregoing, the doctrine signals three operative caveats that warrant separate retention.

The first, on the characterisation of the employment relationship. The DGT excludes the question from its pronouncement, but the Inspection and the social-jurisdiction courts do not exclude it from theirs. The worker’s presence in Spain, his or her functional integration into a foreign business organisation and the specific modality of performance —means, working hours, dependence, remuneration— may be subject to re-characterisation as a commercial or professional-services relationship, particularly where indicia of quasi-organisational autonomy concur. The re-characterisation has a severe effect on the Beckham regime: article 93.1.b).1 of the LIRPF requires an employment contract or assimilated; the provision of professional services does not fit the modality and entails the loss of the regime.

The second, on the foreign employer’s permanent establishment. It is the most relevant risk zone in the typical case of V0476-26 and V1115-25. The worker’s activity from a residence in Spain may generate, on the side of the non-resident employer, a permanent establishment under article 5 of the OECD Model Convention and the text of the applicable tax treaty. The Commentary to the OECD Model is explicit: the worker’s residence may qualify as the employer’s home office where factors of habituality, functional dependence, absence of an alternative office concur and where the activity carried out there is not merely preparatory or auxiliary. The question is particularly sensitive in executive profiles —such as that of Chief Technology Officer in both consultations— in which the functions performed have decision-making and core content for the employer’s business. If the Spanish Inspection were to characterise the remote worker’s presence as a permanent establishment of the employer, the contributor’s own Beckham regime would not be automatically affected —the filter of article 93.1.c) of the LIRPF is the contributor’s own permanent establishment, not the employer’s—, but the foreign employer would be subject to non-resident taxation in Spain on the income attributable to the permanent establishment, with all the associated formal and substantive obligations. The practical consequence for planning is direct: the risk of permanent establishment of the employer must be analysed, documented and, where appropriate, mitigated before the move.

The third, on the shareholding composition and the asset-holding filter. In the case of V1115-25, the consulting party holds 20% of the employer’s capital and the close family group —spouse— holds an additional 60%. The computation of article 18 of the Corporate Income Tax Act (LIS), applicable only where the investee entity qualifies as asset-holding under article 5.2 of the LIS, aggregates the participations of spouse, ascendants and descendants in direct line. In the case, the consulting party would be subject to an aggregated family participation of 80%, well above the 25% threshold. The DGT does not enter into the analysis because the employing entity is British and the participation is channelled outside Spanish territory; the question was not raised in terms of asset-holding. However, in the analogous case of a remote worker moving to Spain with a significant participation in a Spanish company, the filter of article 93.1.b).2 of the LIRPF —which reactivates the 25% threshold where the investee entity qualifies as asset-holding— would operate in full.

The practical consequence is highly relevant for planning the move.

It is advisable, first, to document contemporaneously the subsistence and labour characterisation of the relationship with the foreign employer. The written employment contract, the preservation of the social security legislation of origin through the A1 certificate or the equivalent document of the third country, the monthly payslip with contributions, the employer’s instructions, subjection to working hours and integration into the business organisation constitute the defensive evidential material against an eventual re-characterisation as a provision of professional services.

It is advisable, second, to address in anticipation the analysis of the permanent-establishment risk on the employer’s side. The analysis must start from the applicable tax treaty and from the Commentary to the OECD Model, examine the functional configuration of the position, the habituality of the activity from Spain, the availability of alternative working spaces and, eventually, articulate the mitigation measures —functional redesign, limitation of presence in Spain, designation of local representatives with formal autonomy— that allow the exposure profile to be reduced.

It is advisable, third, to calibrate the relevance of the asset-holding filter where the employing entity is Spanish or where planning contemplates the interposition of a Spanish vehicle. Qualification as an asset-holding entity under article 5.2 of the LIS reactivates the 25% participation threshold —aggregated with spouse, ascendants and descendants— as the limit for access to the regime. The planning of the vehicle and of the shareholding composition must incorporate this filter from the design stage.

In conclusion, what these two binding consultations of the Directorate-General for Taxes make clear is that the path of international remote work as a route to the Beckham regime is open on the legislative plane and validated on the doctrinal plane. The DGT confirms that performance at a distance through exclusive telematic means is, by itself, sufficient to fulfil the triggering circumstance of article 93.1.b).1 of the LIRPF, without need for a contract with a Spanish employer or for a Law 14/2013 visa. However, the doctrine itself leaves uncovered the two most relevant risk zones from the adviser’s perspective: the labour characterisation of the relationship with the foreign employer and the possible generation of a permanent establishment of the employer itself due to the activity carried out by the worker from Spain. The planning of the move must address both as a priority, not as residual matters, because the contributor’s Beckham regime may be fully applicable and yet the employer’s Spanish tax cost may neutralise —or invert— the aggregated economics of the move.

Sources

  • Directorate-General for Taxes, binding consultation V0476-26 of 2 March 2026, Sub-Directorate-General for Personal Income Taxes: petete.tributos.hacienda.gob.es.
  • Directorate-General for Taxes, binding consultation V1115-25 of 26 June 2025, Sub-Directorate-General for Personal Income Taxes: petete.tributos.hacienda.gob.es.