The Spanish Central Economic-Administrative Court (TEAC), in its Resolution of 19 February 2026 (RG 1535/2024), has confirmed that the FIFO method set out in article 37.2 of the Personal Income Tax Act also applies to gratuitous transfers of homogeneous securities, despite the literal text of the provision referring only to transfers for consideration. Far from being an interpretive detail, the doctrine has a direct impact on the planning of gifts of investment portfolios and business shareholdings acquired at different points in time.
The regulatory framework
Article 37.2 of Act 35/2006, of 28 November, on Personal Income Tax (LIRPF), governs the computation of the capital gain arising from the transfer of homogeneous securities. The provision states:
“Where homogeneous securities exist, those transferred by the taxpayer shall be deemed to be those he or she acquired first.”
The article then refers to the method for quantifying the gain and to the concept of transfer value. The structure of the article —combination of an identification rule for the transferred securities and a valuation rule— has fuelled the interpretive doubt that the TEAC Resolution now clears up.
The issue has a literal root: the reference to “transfer value” in the body of the article leads the reader to think that the entire rule is predicated on transactions for a price —sales and similar—, and, by extension, that gifts —where there is no proper “transfer value” but a tax value equated to market value for inheritance and gift tax purposes (article 36 LIRPF)— would fall outside the FIFO method. That has been the reading argued by the taxpayer in this case and, until now, by a minority of doctrine.
The case
The taxpayer had gifted a parcel of shares of an entity, of which she was the holder of several blocks acquired in different transactions. The Administration applied the FIFO method to identify which shares were deemed transferred and, by extension, what acquisition value was to be taken into account in computing the capital gain accruing to the donor under article 36 LIRPF.
The taxpayer sought rectification arguing that the FIFO method, by its literal wording and systematic placement, does not apply to gratuitous transfers. The AEAT denied the claim, and the TEAC has confirmed the administrative criterion on appeal.
The TEAC’s reasoning
The TEAC holds, drawing support from the internal logic of the provision and from the doctrine already initiated in binding DGT Consultation V-3222-20, that article 37.2 LIRPF contains two functionally distinct rules:
(i) An identification rule —FIFO properly so called— that determines which specific securities are deemed transferred when the taxpayer holds homogeneous securities in his or her portfolio acquired at different times.
(ii) A valuation rule that operates on the outcome of the preceding step and quantifies the gain.
The apparent linkage of FIFO to onerous transfers —reasons the TEAC— stems exclusively from the systematic position of the precept and from the reference to “transfer value”, an element that exists only in transactions for a price. But the identification rule is autonomous: a gift of homogeneous securities requires, just like a sale, determining which specific securities are transferred in order to know their acquisition value and, on that basis, to calculate the capital gain accruing to the donor under IRPF.
Accordingly, FIFO also operates in gifts. The TEAC dismisses the taxpayer’s claim.
Editor’s view
The conclusion is technically correct and closes an interpretive discussion that lacked a sound systematic foundation. Two points worth noting, however, that the resolution glosses over and that the adviser should bear in mind.
The first is the planning of the gift. If the donor can choose the time and composition of the package gifted, the FIFO method will determine the acquisition value taken into account and, with it, the amount of the capital gain accruing to the donor under IRPF (art. 36 LIRPF). Gifting the oldest shares first —typically those with the lowest acquisition value— maximises the taxable gain. Gifting the most recent shares first maximises the donor’s saving. The legislator’s choice of FIFO does not admit, save through a carefully structured partial gift, an ex post individualised optimisation.
The second point is the interaction with the family-business regime. Where the gift benefits from the 95 per cent reduction of the Inheritance and Gift Tax (article 20.6 LISD) and, at the donor’s level, from the rule of non-recognition of the capital gain under IRPF (article 33.3.c LIRPF), FIFO operates neutrally for IRPF —because the gain is not recognised— but remains relevant for the computation of the acquisition value that the donee assumes by subrogation. The identification of which securities have been transferred conditions the gain that will be triggered on a subsequent transfer by the donee, at a time when the non-recognition rule no longer applies.
Practical consequences
For the adviser preparing a gift of a securities portfolio or business shareholding with homogeneous securities acquired at different times, the TEAC doctrine has three immediate operational implications.
First: the donor cannot purport to “choose” which specific securities to gift in order to minimise the capital gain in his or her IRPF. FIFO is imposed.
Second: if the gift benefits from the 95 per cent reduction with non-recognition of the gain at the donor’s level, the planning should focus on the donee, who receives the securities with the acquisition value of the first-acquired by the donor and with their seniority.
Third: where blocks have been acquired at different times with significant value differences —typical of founders receiving shares through successive capital increases or investors entering in different rounds—, FIFO can yield counter-intuitive results. Running the numbers before signing the deed is a basic rule.
The TEAC Resolution fits in a doctrinal line already sketched in DGT V-3222-20 and consolidated by the TEAC. It is worth bearing in mind, too, to review portfolio planning closed in prior years and to assess the position before any potential AEAT review.