What changes for primary residences under the Beckham regime?
In its ruling 665/2025 of September 17th, 2025, rec. no. 2095/2021, the High Court of Justice of Madrid reiterates the position already established by this court in previous rulings, ruling that the habitual residence in Spain of taxpayers covered by the Beckham regime should not generate taxable property income.
This special regime establishes that individuals who move their residence to Spain and who have not been tax residents in Spain for the last five years may be taxed in accordance with the rules established in the Non-Resident Income Tax (NIT), instead of the Personal Income Tax (PIT), during the tax period in which the change of residence takes place and during the following five tax periods. This means, for example, that they benefit from paying a fixed rate of 24% on income from work up to €600,000, and from €600,000.01 onwards, the applicable rate will be 47%.
However, there is a clear difference in terms of the primary residence, depending on whether it is taxed under PIT or NIT. The Personal Income Tax Law exempts the primary residence from taxation. However, any second home that is not rented out and does not generate income must be included in the IRPF tax base through the property income allocation regime.
On the other hand, the NIT Law, assuming that the taxpayer does not live in Spain, does not mention any exemption for the primary residence and requires taxation on any property that the person owns in Spain. Specifically, the Non-Resident Income Tax Law establishes that income attributed to individual taxpayers who own urban real estate located in Spanish territory not used for economic activities is considered to have been obtained in Spanish territory and is therefore subject to IRNR, without establishing any exception for the primary residence.
The ruling originates from a request for rectification of the self-assessments of a non-resident in Spain, on the understanding that the imputation of real estate income with respect to the property that constituted his habitual residence was not applicable, as the appellant was covered by the so-called “Beckham regime.”
Both the State Tax Administration Agency and the Regional Economic-Administrative Court dismissed the claim, considering that it is not possible to refer to the personal income tax regulations in this case, as the claimant freely opted for the special regime, which means being taxed as a non-resident in Spanish territory.
However, the Chamber of the Court has departed from the criteria expressed in previous rulings, considering that the provisions of Article 85 of the Personal Income Tax Law, referred to in Article 24.5 of the Consolidated Text of the Non-Resident Income Tax Law, are applicable to the plaintiff, exempting the habitual residence from being classified as real estate income.
In accordance with the above, it concludes that, as the appellant is covered by the regime for workers posted to Spanish territory and has his habitual residence in Spain, the provisions of Article 85 of the Personal Income Tax Law regarding the attribution of real estate income are applicable to him and, therefore, also the non-attribution with respect to the property that constitutes his habitual residence.
