Frequently asked questions about the Spanish exit tax (art. 95 bis LIRPF)

The questions that follow are the ones that come up most often when someone is considering moving their tax residence away from Spain and holds shares or other equity interests above the exit tax thresholds. We have grouped them by topic. Each answer is deliberately brief; where a point deserves a longer treatment, we refer to the corresponding technical analysis in the 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 the taxpayer’s shares or equity interests when the taxpayer ceases to be subject to Spanish Personal Income Tax (IRPF) because of a change of residence. The rationale is to prevent the latent gain accrued during the period of residence from escaping Spanish tax.

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 comes from the European debate on exit taxation, which several States already applied before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in Lasteyrie du Saillant (C-9/02, 11/03/2004), held that the French taxation of latent gains on a change of residence was contrary to the freedom of establishment.

The European Commission then published Communication COM(2006) 825, of 19/12/2006, on exit taxation and, for companies, Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 (the ATAD, art. 5) introduced a harmonised exit tax for legal entities. The label has become settled in professional usage.

When does it accrue?

The gain is allocated to the last tax period that must be declared for IRPF purposes and is included in the savings tax base, under article 46.b) LIRPF.

If the return for that period has already been filed, a supplementary self-assessment is filed, without penalties, late-payment interest or surcharges (art. 95 bis.2 LIRPF).

Is “loss of residence” the same as “exit tax”?

No. Loss of tax residence is the prerequisite: ceasing to meet every criterion of article 9.1 LIRPF (presence in Spain for more than 183 days; main centre or base of business activities or economic interests in Spain) and rebutting the family presumption, normally by proving residence in another State.

The exit tax is only one of the tax consequences that this loss may trigger, and only if the thresholds of article 95 bis are exceeded. A taxpayer may lose residence and pay no exit tax because the portfolio is below the threshold; and a taxpayer may pay exit tax without the tax authorities questioning the loss of residence at all.

2. Scope: personal requirements and economic thresholds

How many years of prior tax residence are required?

The taxpayer must have been subject to IRPF for at least ten of the fifteen tax periods preceding the last period that must be declared for IRPF purposes. If that count is not met, the exit tax does not apply, whatever the size of the portfolio.

What are the economic thresholds?

There are two alternative tests; meeting either is enough.

The first is the aggregate threshold: the market value of all the taxpayer’s shares or equity interests, calculated under paragraph 3 of article 95 bis, exceeds EUR 4,000,000.

The second is the qualifying-holding threshold: on the accrual date of the last period that must be declared, the holding in a given entity exceeds 25 per cent and the market value of that holding exceeds EUR 1,000,000. In this case the regime applies only to that holding, not to the rest of the portfolio.

Which assets count? Only listed shares?

The rule covers “shares or equity interests in any type of entity”. The concept is broad: listed shares, interests in limited companies, interests in foreign companies and units or shares in collective investment undertakings (investment funds, SICAVs).

Real estate, bonds, deposits and, according to the most recent administrative doctrine, cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin fall outside.

Do cryptocurrencies count?

It depends on the asset. The Directorate-General for Taxes (DGT), in binding ruling V-0666-25, of 14/04/2025, concluded that bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies fall outside article 95 bis, as they are not shares or equity interests in any type of entity.

The reasoning relies on the DGT’s own earlier doctrine, which in rulings such as V-0999-18, V-1948-21 and V-0648-24 had characterised virtual currencies as intangible assets.

The DGT warns, however, that other cryptoassets that do confer rights over an entity (for example, tokens representing equity interests) could fall within the exit tax. Each asset must be analysed on its features. In our opinion, what matters is the content of the rights the asset confers, not its name.

3. How is the tax calculated?

What is the tax base?

The positive difference between the market value of the shares or equity interests on the accrual date of the last tax period that must be declared and their acquisition value.

Negative differences are disregarded: the regime taxes latent gains and does not take latent losses into account.

How are unlisted holdings valued?

Paragraph 3 of article 95 bis sets different rules depending on the type of asset.

Securities admitted to trading on regulated markets as defined in Directive 2004/39/EC (known as MiFID I, which harmonises European markets in financial instruments) are valued at their market price.

Unlisted securities are valued, unless a different market value is proven, at the higher of: (i) the net equity attributable to them according to the balance sheet for the last financial year closed before the accrual date; or (ii) the result of capitalising at 20 per cent the average profits of the three financial years closed before that date, counting as profits the dividends distributed and the allocations to reserves other than revaluation or restatement reserves.

The clause “unless a different market value is proven” matters in practice. A family holding company whose book equity understates its operating subsidiaries, or a startup founder with a recent valuation in a funding round, may prove the real market value with an external report, recent term sheets (preliminary investment agreements setting the price per share) or documented comparables.

Units in collective investment undertakings are valued at the net asset value applicable on the accrual date or, failing that, at the last published value.

At what rate is it taxed?

At the savings scale rates for the year of accrual. For 2026 the scale is progressive, from 19 per cent to 30 per cent; the top rate applies to the base exceeding EUR 300,000.

4. Relocation to the EU, the EEA or Switzerland: the paragraph 6 regime

What special rule does paragraph 6 of article 95 bis lay down?

Where 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 there is an effective exchange of tax information, the taxpayer may opt for a special regime.

The gain must be self-assessed only if, within the ten years following the last year that must be declared for IRPF purposes, one of the circumstances listed below occurs. If the period elapses without any of them, the gain no longer has to be self-assessed.

Unlike the paragraph 4 deferral, discussed in the next section, no guarantee is required and no late-payment interest accrues. It is the most favourable regime.

It was originally designed to bring Spanish exit taxation into line with CJEU case law on freedom of establishment and free movement.

Does Switzerland fall within paragraph 6?

Yes, even though Switzerland is neither an EU nor an EEA Member State. The DGT confirmed this in binding ruling V-1781-22, of 27/07/2022, 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 21/06/1999.

The reasoning builds on the Wächtler judgment (CJEU, C-581/17, 26/02/2019), which held contrary to the Agreement the legislation of a Member State taxing latent gains when the taxpayer moves to Switzerland, whereas a taxpayer who stays is taxed only when the gain is realised.

The DGT concludes that paragraph 6 applies equally to a move to Switzerland. In V-1781-22 the taxpayer was a Swiss national; in our opinion, the extension covers anyone within the personal scope of the Agreement (EU and Swiss nationals). The DGT reiterated the criterion in ruling V-1648-26, of 18/06/2026, adding that a gift of the holdings to the spouse during the period requires the gain on the gifted holdings to be self-assessed. We have commented on it in Exit tax and relocation to Switzerland (V1648-26).

If Switzerland fits both paragraph 4 and paragraph 6, which should be chosen?

Switzerland has a double taxation treaty (DTT) with Spain, signed on 26/04/1966 and subsequently amended, with an exchange-of-information clause; a temporary relocation to Switzerland could therefore also qualify under paragraph 4. But paragraph 6 is more favourable: ten years (instead of five), no guarantee, no late-payment interest and no requirement that the move be temporary.

Save in unusual cases, the option we recommend for a move to Switzerland is paragraph 6. The communication to the Spanish Tax Agency (AEAT) should expressly state the election for the paragraph 6 regime, relying on rulings V-1781-22 and V-1648-26.

Which circumstances require the gain to be self-assessed within the ten-year period?

Paragraph 6.a) lists three.

(i) An inter vivos transfer of the shares or equity interests: sale, gift or contribution to a company. If the shares are sold within the period for less than their market value on departure, the gain is reduced by that difference (paragraph 6.b).

(ii) Ceasing to be resident in an EU or EEA State: if, after settling in France, the taxpayer moves to Dubai four years later, the gain must be self-assessed.

(iii) Failure to comply with the reporting obligation of paragraph 6.c), which covers the election for the regime, the gain arising, the State to which residence is moved with the address and any later changes, and continued ownership of the shares or equity interests.

What about a transfer on death during the period?

A transfer on death is not among the circumstances in paragraph 6.a). In our opinion, it does not require the deferred gain to be self-assessed. If the heir is an IRPF taxpayer, the heir’s acquisition value will be the one resulting from the Inheritance and Gift Tax (ISD) rules (art. 36 LIRPF).

We are not aware of any express administrative ruling, so the degree of certainty is medium. Where the amounts justify it, a binding ruling request is advisable.

5. Relocation to third countries: the paragraph 4 deferral

If the move is to a country outside the EU and the EEA, other than Switzerland, is deferral available?

It depends. Paragraph 4 of article 95 bis provides a second deferral regime, which in all cases requires the change of residence to result from a temporary relocation and applies in two situations.

The first is a temporary relocation for work reasons to a country or territory that is not a tax haven.

The second is a temporary relocation for any other reason, provided the destination country has a DTT with Spain containing an exchange-of-information clause.

Unlike paragraph 6, paragraph 4 requires an application and a guarantee, which may be constituted wholly or partly over the securities themselves, and late-payment interest accrues under Law 58/2003, of 17 December, General Tax Law (LGT). The period is five years; only for work-related relocations may an extension of up to five additional years be requested where the circumstances justify a longer temporary relocation.

Its logic is that of a deferral conditional on return, hence the temporality requirement. If the taxpayer becomes subject to IRPF again within the period without having transferred the shares, the deferred tax debt is extinguished, together with the interest accrued.

Which countries fit paragraph 4?

In the work-related case, any country or territory that is not a tax haven. In the “any other reason” case, States with a DTT containing an exchange-of-information clause: among them, the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Andorra, Switzerland (which also falls within paragraph 6), the United Arab Emirates, Canada or Australia. In both cases, the relocation must be temporary.

The Ministry of Finance publishes the list of treaties in force. The practical filter is to check that the treaty text contains the exchange-of-information clause.

DGT ruling V-0474-25, of 25/03/2025, concerns a taxpayer holding 43.74 per cent of a Spanish limited company who moved her residence to the United States in 2018 and obtained the paragraph 4 deferral with a bank guarantee, later extended. The ruling does not state the reason for the relocation.

What if the move to a treaty country with exchange of information is not work-related?

Paragraph 4 allows this second route: it applies “for any other reason” provided the temporary relocation is to a country with a DTT containing an exchange-of-information clause. Temporality is a requirement here too; in our opinion, a move intended to be permanent falls outside the wording of the provision.

What happens with a corporate reorganisation (demerger, merger, share exchange) during the deferral?

In the same ruling V-0474-25, the DGT concludes that a total demerger under the tax-neutrality regime of Chapter VII of Title VII of Law 27/2014 on Corporate Income Tax (the FEAC regime) does not cause the paragraph 4 deferral to lapse.

The interests received in the beneficiary companies are treated, for article 95 bis purposes, as subrogated to those of the demerged company, and the deferral continues on the terms granted. The taxpayer proposed to notify the AEAT of the transaction and identify the resulting interests for the purposes of the guarantee.

The ruling concerns the paragraph 4 deferral. We consider it reasonable to extend the subrogation criterion to the paragraph 6 regime, although the DGT has not addressed the point.

Andorra, a specific case.

Andorra has a DTT with Spain, signed on 08/01/2015 and in force since 26/02/2016, with an exchange-of-information clause.

Paragraph 4 nevertheless requires the move to be a temporary relocation; in our view a move intended to be permanent falls outside its wording. Andorra is not an EU or EEA State, so paragraph 6 does not apply either. On this reading, a permanent move to Andorra requires the exit tax to be paid in the self-assessment for the last period of residence, without prejudice to the paragraph 5 refund if residence is recovered without the shares having been transferred.

In ruling V-0666-25, discussed above in relation to bitcoin, the move to Andorra was permanent and the DGT did not address deferral.

6. Relocation to a tax haven: paragraph 7

What happens if the move is to a jurisdiction classified as a tax haven?

There is no deferral: a Spanish national who moves to a tax haven remains an IRPF taxpayer in the year of the move and the four following years (art. 8.2 LIRPF), and paragraph 7 requires immediate allocation. Paragraph 6 does not apply either, as it is limited to the EU and the EEA (and, according to the DGT, Switzerland).

Paragraph 7 applies article 95 bis even though the taxpayer does not lose that status under article 8.2 LIRPF. The gain is allocated to the last tax period in which the taxpayer had habitual residence in Spain. If the shares are later transferred in a period in which the taxpayer is still subject to IRPF, the acquisition value is the market value used to compute the article 95 bis gain, which avoids double taxation.

The list of non-cooperative jurisdictions is the one in Order HFP/115/2023, of 9 February, as amended by Order HAC/649/2026, of 21 June. The latter removes Barbados, Dominica, Gibraltar, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago and Samoa’s offshore regime from the list, with effect for tax periods beginning on or after 28/06/2026 (for IRPF, from 2027), and adds Russia’s international holding companies regime, with effect for periods beginning on or after 28/12/2026.

7. Interaction with the inbound workers’ regime (Beckham Law): paragraph 8

If the taxpayer opted for the Beckham regime, does the exit tax apply on departure?

Paragraph 8 of article 95 bis lays down a specific rule for taxpayers who opted for the special regime for workers posted to Spain (article 93 LIRPF, known as the Beckham regime).

The ten-period count in paragraph 1 starts from the first period in which the special regime no longer applies. The years under the regime therefore do not count towards the ten out of fifteen.

The practical consequence is clear: a taxpayer who uses the full six years of the regime and leaves in the seventh does not reach ten periods as a resident under the general rules. The exit tax does not apply on this ground, unless the taxpayer remains a resident under the general rules long enough to complete the ten.

On the general operation of the regime (eligibility, prior non-residence requirement, grounds for exclusion), we refer to our Frequently asked questions about the Beckham Law in this Spanish Tax Journal.

If the taxpayer returns to Spain after some years abroad and opts again for the Beckham regime, what happens to the exit tax paid or deferred?

The Beckham regime requires the taxpayer not to have been resident in Spain in the five preceding tax periods. If that period elapses after departure and the taxpayer opts again for the regime, the exit tax position may have been closed in one of two ways.

If the taxpayer paid the exit tax, a rectification may be requested under paragraph 5 on becoming an IRPF taxpayer again, as explained in the next section.

If the taxpayer opted for the paragraph 6 regime and none of the circumstances in paragraph 6.a) has occurred, the provisions of article 95 bis cease to have effect when the taxpayer becomes subject to IRPF again (paragraph 6.d).

In any event, a sequence of departure, return and renewed election for the regime requires the period of non-residence to be carefully documented.

8. Return rule: paragraph 5

If the taxpayer leaves and returns to Spain without having transferred the shares, what happens to the exit tax paid?

If the taxpayer becomes subject to IRPF again without having transferred ownership of the shares or equity interests, a rectification of the self-assessment may be requested in order to obtain a refund of the amounts paid under article 95 bis.

The refund is governed by article 31 LGT, with one special feature: late-payment interest accrues from the date of payment until the date on which the refund is ordered. The request may be filed once the filing period for the first tax period that must be declared for IRPF purposes after the return has ended.

Paragraph 5 sets no deadline for the return: unlike the five years of paragraph 4 or the ten years of paragraph 6, it only requires that the shares not have been transferred. However, from the moment the request can be filed, the four-year limitation period for the right to obtain the refund begins to run (arts. 66.c and 67.1 LGT).

What if part of the shares was transferred during the period of non-residence?

In our opinion, the rectification is available for the holdings retained on return; the part transferred remains definitively taxed on the terms in which the regime was applied on departure. It is advisable to document clearly what was transferred, when and for what value.

9. Edge cases

Unvested stock options or RSUs: do they count for article 95 bis?

Unexercised options (stock options) and restricted stock units (RSUs) pending vesting are not, strictly speaking, shares or equity interests.

In our opinion, they do not count until exercise or vesting, as they are not shares or equity interests (the objective scope of art. 95 bis). A distinction should nevertheless be drawn: if the options are deep in the money and exercise is practically automatic, or if departure coincides with a contractual acceleration clause that makes them exercisable, the AEAT might attempt a recharacterisation.

In ordinary conditions the risk is low. In complex remuneration packages or with vesting schedules linked to departure, the point should be analysed in detail.

Interposed holding company in Luxembourg, the Netherlands or Switzerland: does it take the assets out of the regime?

No. The taxpayer’s interests in a holding company, resident or not, are themselves shares or equity interests in an entity and count for article 95 bis purposes at their market value. In ruling V-1648-26, the DGT includes in the computation the taxpayer’s shares in a Swiss company wholly owned by him.

Interposing the holding company before departure does not take the assets out of the regime either: contributing the holdings to the holding company is a transfer, and only a share exchange under the FEAC regime with a valid economic reason defers the gain, without excluding the new interests from the computation. Outside that route, articles 15 (conflict in the application of tax rules) and 16 (sham transactions) LGT apply.

Startup founder with a debatable valuation: how is the declared market value defended?

Paragraph 3.b) of article 95 bis allows a market value different from the one resulting from the default rules (net equity or capitalisation at 20 per cent) to be proven.

The defence rests on documentation: recent signed term sheets, valuations of comparable transactions, a valuation report by an independent expert, the capitalisation table (cap table, with percentages and prices per share) and the shareholders’ agreements.

A recent funding round is usually the strongest reference when it coincides in time with departure.

Assets held in fiduciary structures (trusts, private-interest foundations): who is the owner for article 95 bis purposes?

For the DGT, the trust is not recognised in Spanish law: contributions to a trust, whether revocable or irrevocable, have no effect and the settlor remains the owner of the contributed assets (V-1991-08, of 30/10/2008; V-0022-25, of 09/01/2025, which specifically concerns irrevocable trusts). The contributed shares are therefore, in principle, counted in the settlor’s assets for article 95 bis purposes.

The DGT allows one exception: where, under the trust arrangements and the facts, the beneficiary’s powers of disposal amount to ownership, the transfer is deemed to take place on contribution. That assessment is for the tax authorities and requires review of the trust deed, the letters of wishes and the rest of the documentation.

On the treatment of trusts in Spanish taxation, we refer to our commentaries on trusts in this Spanish Tax Journal, including the analysis of the DGT criterion on the tax transparency of foreign trusts.

The exit tax is one of the most sensitive IRPF provisions when planning the departure of a significant estate. The above is a general map, not an opinion: each case requires a review of the facts and the documentation before any decision is taken.