International remote work from Spain opens the Beckham regime to the foreign executive, but leaves unresolved the risk of permanent establishment of the employer

The Directorate-General for Taxes (DGT), in its binding ruling V0476-26 of 2 March 2026, consolidates —with the recent precedent of V1115-25 of 26 June 2025— the criterion applicable to a foreign executive who moves to Spain to continue working remotely, exclusively through telematic means, for a non-resident employer. Both rulings reach the same conclusion, favourable to the taxpayer: international remote work satisfies, by itself, the triggering circumstance in article 93.1.b).1º of the Personal Income Tax Act (LIRPF), without the need for an employment contract with a Spanish employer or for the prior grant of the international remote-work visa regulated in Law 14/2013 of 27 September on support for entrepreneurs and their internationalisation. However, the DGT expressly excludes from its ruling the existence of the employment relationship, as a matter outside its competence, and does not address whether the remote worker’s activity may give rise to a permanent establishment of the employer in Spain, a question that was not put to it. In our view, these are the two most relevant risk areas where the worker resides in Spain and the employer is foreign.

It is helpful to begin with the legal framework, because international remote work entered the article 93 LIRPF regime through an amendment whose reach is not always fully appreciated.

Article 93.1.b).1º 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 Spain 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, ordinary or special other than the one indicated above, or a statutory one, begins with an employer in Spain”, and also where the move is ordered by the employer and there is a secondment letter. The novelty that matters here is the third route, which the provision adds in the same paragraph: the condition is likewise deemed met “where, without being ordered by the employer, the work is performed remotely, through the exclusive use of computer, telematic and telecommunication means and systems”. The provision then adds a specific clause: “In particular, this circumstance shall be deemed met in the case of employees who hold the international remote-work visa provided for in Law 14/2013 of 27 September”.

The structure matters because the Law 14/2013 clause operates “in particular”: it is a specific instance covered by the rule, not a constitutive requirement of remote work. The general triggering condition is remote performance of the work exclusively through telematic means. The visa makes compliance easier to prove, but does not determine it.

The facts of V0476-26 are representative. The taxpayer, a Swedish national and tax resident, is a computer engineer and Chief Technology Officer of a Swedish company that develops and markets tools for the programmatic purchase of advertising impressions. He agrees with his employer to move to Spain at the end of 2025 and to continue performing the same work —now from his own home in Spain— exclusively through telematic means. He is not a member of the company’s board and holds no powers to bind it; his shareholding is below 25%; and the Swedish company carries on no economic activity in Spain, nor are business decisions taken in or from Spain.

The recent precedent, V1115-25, presents a similar profile with an additional feature. A British national who moved to Spain in April 2024 with an international remote-work visa under Law 14/2013 is Chief Technology Officer of a United Kingdom entity providing home care for the elderly, which operates only in its home jurisdiction. He holds 20% of the employer’s capital; his spouse, 60%; and an unrelated third party, the remaining 20%. He holds no statutory management office and has no 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 move described allows the taxpayer to opt for the special regime in article 93 LIRPF.

The DGT’s answer rests on three points, which we take in turn.

The first is the reach of international remote work as a triggering circumstance. The DGT confirms that the condition in article 93.1.b).1º LIRPF is met by the mere remote performance of the work exclusively through telematic means, whether or not the worker holds the Law 14/2013 visa. V0476-26 puts it plainly: “to the extent that such an employment relationship with the entity exists (a matter outside the competence of this Directorate) and the work can be performed remotely, through the exclusive use of computer, telematic and telecommunication means and systems, the taxpayer may opt for the special regime provided for in article 93 of the LIRPF”. V1115-25 uses practically the same wording. Where the visa exists, it strengthens the evidence; where it does not, it is no obstacle.

The second is the interplay with the regime’s other requirements. Access to article 93 LIRPF requires all three conditions of paragraph 1 to be met: (i) the taxpayer must not have been resident in Spain during the five tax periods preceding the move (letter a); (ii) the move must result from one of the circumstances listed in article 93.1.b), which —in this case— include remote work (letter b); and (iii) the taxpayer must not obtain income that would be treated as obtained through a permanent establishment in Spain (letter c). The DGT makes the option conditional on letters a) and c) being met as well. In our view, it follows that remote work resolves letter b) but does not dispense with proof of the other two: prior non-residence in Spain over the preceding five years must be documented, and the absence of income attributable to a permanent establishment of the worker himself in Spain must be asserted and, if necessary, defended.

The third is the scope of the answer. The DGT makes its conclusion conditional on the employment relationship existing, “a matter outside the competence of this Directorate”; the ruling is given on the facts described by the taxpayer, without assessing whether a subordinate employment relationship survives when the worker provides services remotely from Spain for a foreign employer. Nor does the ruling address whether a permanent establishment of the employer may arise, a question that was not raised.

In our view, the doctrine set out in these two rulings is consistent with the stated purpose of Law 28/2022 and with the logic of article 93 LIRPF after the reform. The regime was designed to attract talent, and in the post-pandemic labour market international remote work is the dominant form of mobility for qualified executives. A literal reading confining the triggering circumstance to a contract with a Spanish employer or to the Law 14/2013 visa would have narrowed the regime’s personal scope against its purpose. The DGT is right, in our view, to recognise that remote work applies generally.

That said, we consider three caveats worth noting, which the DGT does not formulate.

The first concerns the characterisation of the employment relationship. The DGT leaves the question outside its ruling, but the tax inspectorate and the labour courts may examine it. The worker’s presence in Spain, his functional integration into a foreign organisation and the actual conditions of work —means, working hours, dependence, pay— may lead to recharacterisation as a commercial or professional-services relationship, especially where there are signs of organisational autonomy close to that of an independent professional. Recharacterisation would have a severe effect on the Beckham regime: article 93.1.b).1º LIRPF requires an employment contract or equivalent relationship, so the provision of professional services does not fit this route and, unless another listed circumstance applies —such as article 93.1.b).4º, for highly qualified professionals providing services to start-ups—, would entail loss of the regime.

The second concerns the foreign employer’s permanent establishment. This is the most relevant risk area in cases such as V0476-26 and V1115-25. The worker’s activity from a home in Spain may give rise to a permanent establishment of the non-resident employer under article 5 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and the applicable tax treaty. The Commentary on article 5 of the OECD Model looks, among other factors, at how regularly the home is used, whether the employer makes an alternative office available and whether the activity carried on there goes beyond the merely preparatory or auxiliary. The Commentary is not binding, and its weight will depend on the applicable treaty and its date. The issue is particularly sensitive for senior profiles —such as the Chief Technology Officer in both rulings— whose functions involve decision-making at the core of the employer’s business. If the Spanish tax authorities treated the remote worker’s presence as a permanent establishment of the employer, the taxpayer’s own Beckham regime would not automatically be affected —the article 93.1.c) LIRPF test looks at the taxpayer’s permanent establishment, not the employer’s—, but the foreign employer would be taxed in Spain as a non-resident on the income attributable to that permanent establishment, with all the related formal and substantive obligations. In our view, therefore, the employer’s permanent-establishment risk should be analysed, documented and, where appropriate, mitigated before the move.

The third concerns shareholdings. Since Law 28/2022, an employee who moves under article 93.1.b).1º is not subject to any shareholding limit in his employer. The limit that article 93.1.b).2º links to asset-holding entities (article 5.2 of Law 27/2014 on Corporate Income Tax, LIS) —not holding an interest that makes the entity a related party under article 18 LIS— only applies where the move results from becoming a director. In V1115-25 the taxpayer, who holds 20% of the capital (his spouse holds a further 60%), holds no directorship, so the issue does not arise. It would be worth revisiting if the person moving to Spain also took on a directorship in an asset-holding entity.

All of this translates into three guidelines for planning the move.

The first is to document, contemporaneously, the existence and employment nature of the relationship with the foreign employer. A written employment contract, retention of the home social security legislation through an A1 certificate or the equivalent third-country document, monthly payslips showing contributions, the employer’s instructions, set working hours and integration into the organisation are the evidence that will support the position against recharacterisation as professional services.

The second is to analyse the employer’s permanent-establishment risk in advance. The analysis should start from the applicable tax treaty and the Commentary on the OECD Model, look at the functional design of the role, how regularly the work is done from Spain and whether alternative workspaces are available and, where appropriate, put in place mitigating measures —functional redesign, limits on presence in Spain, appointment of local representatives with formal autonomy— that reduce exposure.

The third is to identify precisely the route into the regime. If the person moving will also hold a directorship, and particularly if the entity could qualify as an asset-holding entity under article 5.2 LIS, it should be checked that his shareholding does not make the entity a related party under article 18 LIS, since in that case article 93.1.b).2º would close that route.

These two rulings confirm that international remote work is a route into the Beckham regime with both statutory and doctrinal support. The DGT confirms that remote performance exclusively through telematic means is, by itself, enough to satisfy the triggering circumstance in article 93.1.b).1º LIRPF, without a contract with a Spanish employer or a Law 14/2013 visa. Left outside its answer, however, are the two risk areas we regard as most relevant: the employment characterisation of the relationship with the foreign employer and the possible permanent establishment of the employer arising from the worker’s activity in Spain. Planning should address both as priorities, not as residual matters, because the taxpayer’s Beckham regime may apply in full and yet the employer’s Spanish tax cost may neutralise —or reverse— the overall economics of the move.