The questions that follow are the ones that come up most often in conversations with people considering a move of their tax residence away from Spain who hold a portfolio of shares or interests that crosses the exit tax thresholds. I have grouped them by topic. Each answer is deliberately brief; where a nuance warrants a longer treatment, I link to the technical analysis elsewhere in this Spanish Tax Journal.
1. Basic concepts
What exactly is the exit tax?
It is the regime that taxes, as a capital gain, the positive difference between the market value and the acquisition value of your shares or participations at the moment you cease to be a Spanish tax resident. The logic is direct: Spain does not want to forgo taxing the latent gain that has built up while you were a resident here.
It is regulated in article 95 bis of Law 35/2006, of 28 November, on Personal Income Tax (hereinafter, the LIRPF), introduced by Law 26/2014, of 27 November, with effect from 1 January 2015.
Why is it called exit tax and not “departure tax”?
The technical name in Spanish is régimen especial de ganancias patrimoniales por cambio de residencia. The exit tax label was imported from the European debate on departure taxes, where the figure has existed in several jurisdictions since the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in Lasteyrie du Saillant (C-9/02, 2004) that the French legislation taxing latent gains at the moment of change of residence was contrary to the freedom of establishment.
From there, the European Commission published in December 2006 a Communication on exit taxation that organised the matter and, on the corporate side, the ATAD Directive (Directive 2016/1164, on practices of tax avoidance) introduced a harmonised exit tax for legal entities. The label captures the logic well and has consolidated in professional use.
When does it accrue?
In the last tax period in which the taxpayer is a Spanish tax resident. The gain is fully imputed to that year and is integrated into the savings tax base under article 46.b) of the LIRPF, which defines the composition of savings income.
If residence is lost during the year, the imputation is made in the supplementary self-assessment for the last year of residence, with no penalty, late-payment interest or surcharge of any kind.
Is “loss of residence” the same as “exit tax”?
No. Loss of tax residence —regulated in article 9 of the LIRPF— is the prior premise: a change in the centre of vital interests, breach of the criterion of presence exceeding 183 days in Spanish territory or, where applicable, relocation of the family core abroad.
The exit tax is only one of the tax consequences that this loss can activate, and only if the subjective and objective thresholds of article 95 bis are crossed. One can lose residence and not pay exit tax because the wealth does not reach the threshold; and one can pay exit tax without the Administration questioning at all the reality of the loss of residence.
2. Does it reach me? Subjective requirements and economic thresholds
How many years of prior tax residence are required?
You must have been a Spanish tax resident for at least ten of the fifteen tax periods preceding the year of the change of residence. If you do not reach that count, the exit tax does not reach you, no matter how large the portfolio.
What are the economic thresholds?
Two alternative routes; meeting either suffices.
The first, the joint threshold: the market value of the taxpayer’s aggregate portfolio of shares or participations, calculated under paragraph 3 of article 95 bis, exceeds EUR 4,000,000 at the accrual date.
The second, the qualified-stake threshold: the participation in a specific entity exceeds 25 per cent and the market value of that participation exceeds EUR 1,000,000. In this second case the regime applies only to that specific participation, not to the rest of the portfolio.
Which assets count? Listed shares only?
The wording is “shares or participations in any type of entity”. The concept is broad: listed shares, interests in private limited companies, interests in foreign companies, units in collective investment institutions (mutual funds, SICAVs).
Out of scope, however, are real estate, bonds, deposits and —under the most recent administrative doctrine— conventional bitcoin-type cryptocurrencies.
Do cryptoassets count?
It depends on the specific asset. The Spanish Directorate-General for Taxes (DGT), in binding consultation V-0666-25, of 14 April 2025, has fixed the criterion: bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies are outside the scope of article 95 bis, since they are not shares or participations in any type of entity.
The administrative reasoning relies on the DGT’s own prior case law, which in consultations such as V-0999-18, V-1948-21 and V-0648-24 had been characterising virtual currencies as intangible assets.
That said, the DGT expressly warns that, for other cryptoassets that do grant rights over an entity —tokens representing corporate participations, for example—, the exit tax may indeed apply. Individualised analysis of the asset’s features will be required.
The distinction is one of economic substance, not nominal label. A token called share token but without effective political or economic rights may fall outside. An asset derived from a protocol fork that ends up conferring quasi-corporate rights over an entity may fall within. Planning must be done case by case.
3. How is the tax calculated?
What is the taxable base?
The positive difference between the market value of the shares or participations at the accrual date of the last declarable tax period and their acquisition value.
Note that negative differences are not computed: the regime taxes latent gains; it does not integrate latent losses.
How are non-listed participations valued?
Paragraph 3 of article 95 bis sets different rules depending on the asset.
Listed securities on a regulated market within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC —the so-called MiFID I, which harmonises European markets in financial instruments— are valued by their quotation.
Non-listed securities are valued, subject to evidence of a different market value, by the higher of: (i) the net equity in the last balance sheet closed before the accrual date; or (ii) the capitalisation at 20 per cent of the average profits of the three last closed corporate years, treating distributed dividends and allocations to reserves as profits, with the exception of regularisation or revaluation reserves.
The closing clause —“unless evidence of a different market value”— is operationally important. The family holding company whose accounting net equity undervalues its operating subsidiaries, or the founder of a startup with a recent valuation in a Series A or B round, can substantiate the actual market value with an external expert report, recent term sheets (preliminary investment agreements setting the per-share price) or documented comparables.
Units in collective investment institutions are valued at the applicable net asset value or, failing that, at the last published one.
What rate applies?
The savings-base scale of the year of accrual. For 2026, that scale is progressive, with rates ranging from 19 per cent to 30 per cent; the top rate applies to the base exceeding EUR 300,000.
4. Move to the EU, the EEA or Switzerland: the paragraph 6 deferral
What does paragraph 6 of article 95 bis provide?
When the change of residence is to another Member State of the European Union (EU) or to a State of the European Economic Area (EEA) with which an effective exchange of tax information exists, the taxpayer may elect a singular deferral regime.
The capital gain must be self-assessed only if, within the ten years following the last year filed under the LIRPF, one of the events listed below occurs. If the period elapses without any such event, the deferral consolidates and the gain does not accrue.
Unlike the paragraph 4 deferral —covered in the next section—, paragraph 6 requires no bank guarantee and no late-payment interest accrues during the deferral. It is the more favourable regime.
It originated in the need to align the Spanish exit tax with the CJEU’s case law on freedom of establishment and free movement of persons.
Is Switzerland within paragraph 6?
Yes, even though Switzerland is neither an EU Member State nor part of the EEA. The DGT confirmed this in binding consultation V-1781-22, of 27 July 2022, relying on the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999.
The reasoning is built on the Wächtler judgment (CJEU, C-581/17, 2019). That ruling found contrary to the Agreement a Member State’s legislation that taxed latent gains at the moment of the taxpayer’s relocation to Switzerland, while a resident who remained was taxed only upon realisation of the gain.
The DGT conclusion is direct: paragraph 6 applies equally to the move to Switzerland.
If Switzerland fits both paragraph 4 and paragraph 6, which one is elected?
Switzerland has a DTT with Spain (Spain-Switzerland DTT, signed on 26 April 1966 and successively amended) with an information-exchange clause, which in principle also places it within paragraph 4. But paragraph 6 is materially more favourable: a ten-year deferral (against five), no bank guarantee required, no late-payment interest, and automatic consolidation at the end of the period if no reactivating event occurs.
Save for atypical cases, the route I recommend in departure planning to Switzerland is paragraph 6. To that effect, the initial communication to the AEAT must expressly state the election of the paragraph 6 specialty under the criterion of DGT V-1781-22.
Which events reactivate taxation within the ten-year period?
Paragraph 6.a) lists three scenarios.
(i) The inter vivos transfer of shares or participations: sale, gift, contribution to a company.
(ii) The loss of residence status in an EU or EEA State with effective exchange of information. In practice: after moving to France, a subsequent move to Dubai four years later reactivates the deferral as an accrual event.
(iii) Breach of the reporting duty under paragraph 6.c): initial communication of the election, identification of the destination State and of the shares, and subsequent updates on variations.
What about mortis causa transfers during the deferral?
The mortis causa (death) transfer is not listed among the paragraph 6.a) events. The prevailing doctrine reads it as a definitive deferral on the deceased’s side, with a step-up in the heir for the purposes of Inheritance and Gift Tax (ISD): the heir’s acquisition value would be the market value at the date of death.
In my opinion, this reading is reasonable in light of the regulatory silence, although the issue remains open to a possibly more restrictive administrative interpretation. The certainty grade is medium-high: defensible, but worth backing with a specific binding consultation when the assets at stake warrant it.
What if a corporate reorganisation —spin-off, merger, share exchange— takes place during the deferral?
The DGT, in binding consultation V-0474-25, of 25 March 2025, confirmed a commercially relevant criterion. A full spin-off carried out under the special tax-neutrality regime of Chapter VII of Title VII of the Corporate Income Tax Act 27/2014 —the so-called FEAC regime— does not trigger the deferral.
The shares or participations received in the beneficiary entities are deemed, for the purposes of article 95 bis, to be subrogated to those in the original spun-off company. The practical consequence is relevant: the personal holding can be reorganised internally without losing the deferral, provided the operation qualifies under the FEAC regime and the required communication is made.
5. Move to third countries with a DTT and information exchange: the paragraph 4 deferral
If I move to a country that is not EU, EEA or Switzerland, is there a deferral?
It depends. Paragraph 4 of article 95 bis sets out a second deferral regime that applies in two scenarios.
First, where the change of residence is a temporary move for employment reasons to a country not regarded as a tax haven.
Second, where the move is for any other reason, provided the destination country has a Double Taxation Treaty (DTT) with Spain that includes an information-exchange clause.
Unlike paragraph 6, paragraph 4 does require a guarantee —typically a bank guarantee—, late-payment interest accrues, and the maximum period is five years, extendable by another five for employment-driven moves where the duration warrants it.
The logic is that of a deferral conditioned on return. If the taxpayer reacquires LIRPF taxpayer status within the period without having transferred the shares, the deferred tax debt is extinguished, together with any accrued interest.
Which countries fit within paragraph 4?
The United States, the United Kingdom (post-Brexit), Singapore, Andorra, Switzerland (which also falls within paragraph 6 via the Wächtler route), the United Arab Emirates with the caveats of its DTT, Canada, Australia, and practically every State with which Spain has a DTT containing an exchange clause.
The Spanish Tax Agency (AEAT) publishes the up-to-date list of jurisdictions with a DTT in force. The practical filter is to verify the existence of the exchange clause in the treaty text.
The DGT, in V-0474-25, applied paragraph 4 to a consultant holding 43.74 per cent of a Spanish private limited company who moved her residence to the United States in 2018. She obtained the paragraph 4 deferral against a bank guarantee, and the consultation also confirms, as noted, that a full spin-off under the FEAC regime does not break that deferral.
What if I move for non-employment reasons to a country with a DTT and exchange clause?
Paragraph 4 expressly recognises this second route: applicable “for any other reason” provided the move is to a country with a DTT containing an exchange clause.
V-0474-25 illustrates the point: the consultant was not a moved employee but a shareholder of a Spanish company who chose to change her residence to the United States. The deferral was granted by virtue of the Spain-US DTT.
Andorra, a specific case.
Andorra has a DTT with Spain signed on 8 January 2015 and in force since 26 February 2016, which includes an information-exchange clause.
A move of residence to Andorra therefore fits within paragraph 4: deferral against guarantee, five years, accrual of interest, debt extinction on return without having transferred the shares.
The V-0666-25 consultation referenced above on bitcoin mirrors precisely this scenario: the consultant permanently moves to Andorra in early 2024. The DGT does not address the deferral there, but the fit within paragraph 4 is well established.
6. Move to a tax haven: the paragraph 7 exception
What if I move to a jurisdiction classified as a tax haven?
Paragraph 7 sets out a doubly unfavourable rule.
On the one hand, no deferral is available: neither under paragraph 4, which requires a non-tax-haven country, nor under paragraph 6, restricted to the EU/EEA/Switzerland.
On the other, article 95 bis applies even if the taxpayer does not formally lose Spanish tax residence under paragraph 2 of article 8 of the LIRPF —which keeps Spanish tax residence in the year of the change and the four following tax periods when the taxpayer is a Spanish national moving to a tax haven—.
In these cases, the capital gain is imputed to the last tax period in which the taxpayer’s habitual residence is in Spanish territory. If the shares are later transferred during a period in which the taxpayer status is still maintained, the acquisition value for the new transfer is the market value used to calculate the article 95 bis gain. There is, accordingly, no double taxation; but neither is there a way out.
7. Interaction with the inbound-expatriates regime (Beckham Law): paragraph 8
If I am under the Beckham regime, does the exit tax reach me on leaving?
Paragraph 8 of article 95 bis sets a specific rule for taxpayers who have elected the special regime for workers moved to Spanish territory (article 93 LIRPF, commonly known as the Beckham Law).
The ten tax periods referenced in paragraph 1 begin to count from the first year in which the special regime no longer applies. Put differently: the years under Beckham do not count towards the ten-of-fifteen subjective threshold.
The practical consequence for departure planning of the beckhamised taxpayer is significant. A taxpayer who completes the six-year Beckham maximum and leaves in year seven does not reach the ten-year ordinary-resident count. The exit tax does not reach them subjectively, unless they remain as an ordinary resident for additional years up to ten.
The end of the Beckham regime marks a qualitatively different tax horizon if departure from Spain is being considered. On the general operation of the Beckham regime —eligibility, prior non-residence requirement, triggering events— I have written separately in the Frequently asked questions about the Beckham Law in this Spanish Tax Journal.
If I return to Spain after some years and re-elect Beckham, how does that interact with the exit tax paid or deferred?
The Beckham regime requires no Spanish tax residence in the five years preceding the move. If after the departure that period elapses and the regime is re-elected, the prior tax position may have been closed in two different ways.
If you paid exit tax at the time, you could have claimed the rectification under paragraph 5 on recovering residence. We come back to this in the next section.
If you elected the paragraph 6 deferral without having transferred the participations, the article 95 bis provisions cease to have effect on reacquiring taxpayer status (paragraph 6.d).
In any case, coordinated departure → return → Beckham planning requires impeccable documentation of the non-residence period to remove any AEAT recharacterisation angle.
8. Return rule: paragraph 5
If I leave and return to Spain without having transferred the shares, what happens to the exit tax I paid?
Paragraph 5 provides a general safety valve. If the taxpayer reacquires Spanish tax residence without having transferred the shares or participations, they may claim rectification of the self-assessment and refund of the amounts paid under article 95 bis.
The refund is governed by article 31 of the General Tax Act 58/2003, of 17 December (LGT), with one notable specificity: late-payment interest accrues from the date of the original payment through the date the refund is ordered. The claim may be filed once the filing period for the first LIRPF tax year after the return has elapsed.
Paragraph 5 has no express time limit. Unlike the five years of paragraph 4 or the ten years of paragraph 6, the only requirement here is that the shares have not been transferred. It is a wide-reaching valve for those who plan an indefinite-horizon departure and keep their portfolio intact.
What if I transferred part of the shares during the non-residence period?
Rectification is available only for the participations still held on return. The portion transferred is definitively subject to the article 95 bis regime as applied at the moment of departure, with no refund possible. It is essential to document clearly what was transferred, when, and at what value.
9. Edge cases
Stock options or unvested RSUs: do they count under article 95 bis?
Unexercised stock options and unvested restricted stock units (RSUs) are not, strictly speaking, shares or participations.
The prevailing doctrine excludes them from the subjective scope of article 95 bis until exercise or vesting. That said, distinctions matter. Where options are deeply in the money —exercisable well below current value with material margin— and exercise is virtually automatic; or where the departure coincides with a contractual acceleration event making them exercisable, the AEAT may attempt a functional recharacterisation.
In ordinary conditions, the risk is low. In profiles with sophisticated compensation packages or vesting schedules conditioned on departure, the matter deserves attention.
Interposed holding in Luxembourg, the Netherlands or Switzerland: is the look-through applied?
Article 95 bis taxes the direct ownership of shares or participations by the taxpayer. The interposition of a non-resident personal holding in jurisdictions with a DTT with Spain is a technically available, operationally widespread option.
That said, it is exposed to the general anti-avoidance machinery. Article 15 LGT —conflict in the application of the rule— and article 16 LGT —simulation— are the AEAT’s usual levers.
Interposed-holding planning requires real substance: effective direction, personnel, documented economic activity and, where the assets justify it, a prior ruling (binding interpretation agreement with the tax authority of the holding’s country).
Founder of a startup with a debatable valuation: how is the declared market value defended?
Paragraph 3.b) of article 95 bis leaves open the possibility of evidencing a market value different from the one resulting from the supplementary rules (accounting net equity or 20 per cent capitalisation).
The defence rests on documentation. Recent signed term sheets, valuations from comparable transactions in the sector, an external expert valuation report, evidence of the cap table (capitalisation table with percentages and per-share prices) and of the shareholders’ agreement.
A recent Series A or B round is typically the firmest anchor when its timing coincides with the departure.
Wealth in fiduciary structures (trusts, private-interest foundations): who is the owner for article 95 bis purposes?
The question is the perennial one for trusts in Spanish tax law. The AEAT and the courts tend to look through the structure when the trust is revocable or where the settlor retains effective powers of control.
An irrevocable trust, with a beneficiary other than the settlor and without subsequent powers of revocation or modification, may operate as a genuine transfer of title. In such case the shares under trust would not form part of the wealth computable for article 95 bis purposes.
A revocable or discretionary trust with residual powers in the settlor, by contrast, carries a very high risk of direct attribution. Planning requires individualised analysis of the trust deed (the document constituting the trust), the letters of wishes and applicable tax case law.
The general treatment of trusts in Spanish tax law is addressed in my commentaries on trusts published in this Spanish Tax Journal, including the specific analysis of the DGT criterion on tax transparency for foreign trusts.
The exit tax is one of the most sensitive LIRPF rules in departure planning for a significant portfolio. The above is a map, not an opinion. If you are weighing a move of your residence away from Spain and your portfolio of shares or participations exceeds —or approaches— the article 95 bis thresholds, get in touch before taking operational steps.
Sources
- DGT, Binding Consultation V-0666-25, of 14 April 2025 (cryptoassets and exit tax): link
- DGT, Binding Consultation V-1781-22, of 27 July 2022 (move to Switzerland, applicability of paragraph 6): link
- DGT, Binding Consultation V-0474-25, of 25 March 2025 (full spin-off under the FEAC regime during the paragraph 4 deferral): link
- CJEU, Case C-581/17, Wächtler, judgment of 26 February 2019 (exit tax and the EC-Switzerland Agreement on the free movement of persons): link
- CJEU, Case C-9/02, Lasteyrie du Saillant, judgment of 11 March 2004 (founding European case law on exit tax): link