Beckham Law and relocation to Spain with requirements for directors, RETA, and DGT criteria

Key points for applying the impatriate tax regime and avoiding mistakes in cases involving directorship and social security registration

Article 93 of the Personal Income Tax Law (IRPF), commonly known as the “Beckham Law,” aims to offer more favorable tax treatment to certain taxpayers who transfer their tax residence to Spain for employment reasons and who exceed certain income thresholds.

The mechanism of this regime allows taxpayers to be taxed under the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), instead of the IRPF, during the first year in which they are considered tax residents in Spain and the five subsequent years. This implies taxation at a flat rate of 24% on employment income up to €600,000, and 47% on income exceeding that threshold.

Among other scenarios, one of the situations that allows access to this regime is the relocation of a foreign individual to Spain as a result of acquiring the status of director (administrator) of a company in Spain.

Recently, the General Directorate of Taxes (DGT) has once again ruled on this possibility in binding consultation V1209-25, dated July 3, 2025. In this ruling, the DGT establishes that, in addition to meeting the basic requirements to apply for the regime (not having been a tax resident in Spain during the previous five years and acquiring tax residence in Spain, either by staying more than 183 days or by having the main center of interests located in Spain), the following additional requirements must be met:

• Causal link between the appointment as director and the relocation to Spain, i.e., the move must take place due to the director position, and this circumstance must be provable.
• Absence of income obtained through a permanent establishment located in Spain. Therefore, if the beneficiary of the regime were to provide the company—of which they are a director—with any additional services beyond the inherent duties of the director position, and such services were carried out through a permanent establishment, the requirements to benefit from the regime would no longer be met.
• Limitation in the case of holding companies: where the entity is a holding or asset-managing company (i.e., a company engaged solely in asset management and not in an active business), the director must not hold a significant shareholding that would qualify the company as a related entity.

Nevertheless, although the general requirements to apply for the regime have been repeatedly clarified by the DGT, the issue relating to the compatibility of the special regime with registration under the Special Regime for Self-Employed Workers (RETA) has been scarcely addressed in recent years. The most relevant reference remains consultation V0321-17, dated February 7, 2017.

This consultation examined the case of a sole shareholder and director of a limited liability company established in Spain, who also performed remunerated duties for the same company as a commercial director and contributed under the Special Regime for Self-Employed Workers. The question raised was whether it was possible to apply for the special tax regime applicable to workers transferred to Spanish territory.

The DGT analyzed the requirements set out in Article 93.1.b) of the IRPF Law, which requires that the relocation occur:

• As a result of an employment contract (ordinary or special employment relationship, or statutory relationship).
• As a result of acquiring the status of director, provided that there is no related-party relationship within the meaning of Article 18 of the Corporate Income Tax Law (LIS).

The key point of the analysis revolves around the existence or absence of an employment relationship. To this end, the DGT refers to Article 1.2.c) of Law 20/2007, the Self-Employed Workers’ Statute, which excludes from an employment relationship those who perform management or executive functions when they have effective control of the same entity. According to the General Social Security Law, such control is presumed “when the shares or equity interests held by the worker represent at least half of the share capital.”

Consequently, as the individual was a sole shareholder, the consultation concluded that “there is no employment relationship between the applicant and the company of which he is the sole shareholder and director, and therefore the condition provided for in Article 93.1.b)1º of the IRPF Law is not met.” Nor is Article 93.1.b)2º fulfilled, due to the existence of a related-party relationship. Therefore, the taxpayer could not apply for the regime.

On the other hand, it is also worth mentioning consultation V1421-22, dated June 16, 2022, in which the General Directorate of Taxes (DGT) resolved the case of a taxpayer already applying the regime as a director who wished to replace their commercial relationship with a senior management employment relationship.

The DGT states that the fact of stepping down from the position of director and, therefore, the taxpayer being in a situation of unemployment or inactivity for short periods of time should not automatically result in exclusion from the regime, as this would run counter to its purpose. The objective of the regime (to attract talent and highly qualified professionals to Spain) would be incompatible with an excessively restrictive interpretation that penalizes contractual changes not attributable to the taxpayer.

Therefore, the change from a commercial relationship to an employment relationship does not automatically lead to exclusion from the regime, provided that the requirements set out in Article 93 of the IRPF Law are also met.