Frequently asked questions about Spanish tax residence (art. 9 LIRPF)

The questions that follow are the ones that come up most often in conversations about Spanish tax residence: those of the expatriate considering a move to Spain, those of the resident weighing a departure, and those of taxpayers facing a tax audit on residence. We have grouped them by topic. Each answer is deliberately brief; where a point warrants a longer treatment, we refer to the technical analysis published in the Spanish Tax Journal.

1. Basic concepts

What is tax residence and why is it the keystone of the Spanish system?

It is the connecting factor that determines whether an individual is taxed in Spain on worldwide income (unlimited tax liability) or only on Spanish-source income (limited tax liability). It also determines liability to Wealth Tax (IP) on an unlimited basis, the position under the Temporary Solidarity Tax on Large Fortunes (ITSGF), taxation under the Inheritance and Gift Tax (ISD) and which Autonomous Community is competent for the ceded taxes.

What for years was treated as an essentially doctrinal matter has, in recent years, moved into litigation. The international mobility of high net worth individuals (HNWIs), the pull of preferential tax regimes in nearby jurisdictions and the spread of international remote work have increased litigation and made tax residence one of the most sensitive areas of Spanish tax audits.

Who determines whether I am a Spanish tax resident?

The Spanish Tax Agency (AEAT). Tax residence follows directly from article 9 of Act 35/2006, of 28 November, on Personal Income Tax (LIRPF). There is no prior formal “grant” of residence: the taxpayer acquires or loses it depending on whether the statutory criteria are met in each tax year.

In practice, residence is usually reviewed in an audit, when the AEAT compares the taxpayer’s return with the material indicators of presence, spending and economic and family ties.

Is tax residence computed by calendar year or over rolling periods?

By calendar year. The 183-day criterion, the economic-centre criterion and the family presumption all refer to the full calendar year. There is no partial residence: the taxpayer is either a Spanish tax resident for the whole year, or not at all.

As a result, changes of residence during the year affect the whole year of the move and require careful analysis of which of the two States ends up being the State of tax residence for Personal Income Tax (IRPF) purposes.

Are “tax residence”, “tax domicile” and padrón registration the same?

No. They are three distinct concepts.

Tax residence determines unlimited liability to IRPF and follows from article 9 LIRPF.

Tax domicile is the place where the taxpayer is located for dealings with the Tax Administration (notifications, competent offices).

Padrón registration (municipal census) is a local administrative register with no direct tax effect. In an audit it is one indicator among others, and it is not conclusive when the material facts point the other way.

2. The three criteria of article 9 LIRPF

What criteria make an individual a Spanish tax resident?

Article 9.1 LIRPF sets out three criteria. They operate alternatively: meeting any one of them is enough for tax residence to be attributed to Spain.

(i) Stay of more than 183 days in Spanish territory during the calendar year.

(ii) Main centre or base of economic activities or interests in Spain, directly or indirectly.

(iii) Family presumption: habitual residence in Spain of the spouse who is not legally separated and of the dependent minor children. This presumption is rebuttable and, in our view, subsidiary to the two previous criteria.

Since any one of the three is enough, a taxpayer who claims not to be resident in Spain must be able to show that none of them is met.

If I am a Spanish national living abroad, does article 9 still apply to me?

Yes. Article 9 LIRPF applies to any individual, regardless of nationality. Spanish nationality does not automatically make a person resident in Spain, and foreign nationality does not exclude it.

That said, article 8.2 LIRPF contains a specific rule for Spanish nationals who move to a tax haven, which we address in its own section below.

3. The 183-day criterion

How exactly are the 183 days counted?

Article 9.1.a) LIRPF treats as resident anyone who stays in Spanish territory for more than 183 days during the calendar year. The Central Economic-Administrative Tribunal (TEAC), in its Resolutions of 28/03/2023 (RG 4045/2020) and 25/04/2023 (RG 4812/2020), builds the period of stay from three types of days:

(i) Certified-presence days: days on which presence in Spain is established by direct evidence (passport, entry stamps, card payments, appointments, medical visits). The day counts in full, with no minimum number of hours.

(ii) Presumed days: days falling between two certified presences, provided they are a reasonable number of consecutive days, unless a certified presence outside Spain is shown.

(iii) Sporadic absences: departures from Spain which, under article 9.1.a) LIRPF itself, are added to the stay in Spain unless the taxpayer proves tax residence in another country. The Supreme Court judgments of 28/11/2017 defined the concept solely by reference to the duration or intensity of the absence.

Does partial presence count as a full day?

According to the TEAC, yes. The Resolution of 28/03/2023 counts the day where there “was physical presence at some point of the day in Spanish territory”, with no minimum number of hours. The arrival day and the departure day therefore both count as days in Spain. In our view, a pure airport transit without entry into the territory could be argued separately; those resolutions do not address it.

It should be noted that the TEAC set out this criterion in a case where it was the taxpayer who claimed to be resident in Spain (rectification of non-resident income tax returns).

And sporadic absences? How is the automatic count rebutted?

Article 9.1.a) LIRPF places the burden on the taxpayer: sporadic absences count as presence in Spain unless the taxpayer proves tax residence in another country. This is primarily done with a certificate of tax residence for the purposes of the double taxation treaty (DTT), issued by the other State. Without that certificate, sporadic absences are added to the stay in Spain.

The scholarship case law (Supreme Court judgments of 28/11/2017) defined the concept solely by an objective test, the duration or intensity of the absence, disregarding any intention to return. An absence exceeding 183 days is not sporadic and is therefore not added to the Spanish stay, irrespective of any certificate. Short absences, by contrast, are added unless the taxpayer proves tax residence in another country.

Do stays for humanitarian or cultural reasons count?

No. Article 9.1.a) LIRPF expressly excludes from the count “temporary stays in Spain resulting from obligations under cultural or humanitarian cooperation agreements, on a gratuitous basis, with the Spanish public administrations”. It is a narrow exception that rarely applies, but we mention it for completeness.

4. The main centre of economic activities or interests

What is this criterion about?

Article 9.1.b) LIRPF attributes tax residence where “the main centre or base of [the taxpayer’s] economic activities or interests is located in Spain, directly or indirectly”. It is the most complex of the three criteria, because it combines quantitative elements (income flows, asset values) with qualitative ones (place of management and administration, nature of the investments).

How is the main centre of economic interests assessed?

The law sets no calculation rule. In our view, the assessment cannot be reduced to the income flows of the year or to the value of the assets; it should weigh both together with qualitative factors: the place from which the assets are managed and administered, the productive or passive nature of the assets, the source of the income and the documentary consistency of the economic activity.

The Directorate-General for Taxes (DGT), for its part, repeats in its rulings that this is a question of fact to be assessed by the AEAT’s management and audit bodies (for instance, in V-0554-24, V-1270-25, V-2197-25 and V-2558-25, cited in this text).

How is it distinguished from the “centre of vital interests” under the DTT?

The main centre of economic interests under article 9.1.b) LIRPF is a strictly economic criterion. The centre of vital interests under article 4.2.a) of the OECD Model Convention, by contrast, is a mixed concept that weighs personal and economic relations together: family and social ties, occupation, the place from which assets are managed.

In our view, the two should not be confused, because the practical consequence matters: a taxpayer whose assets are managed from Spain but whose family and personal life are abroad may be a Spanish tax resident under article 9.1.b) and, at the same time, a treaty resident of the other State under the centre-of-vital-interests rule.

Can the AEAT take into account the place from which assets are managed?

Yes, as one indicator among others. In our view, the place of management and administration of the assets is a relevant qualitative factor, which the Administration may cross-check against spending patterns, real-estate ownership and banking activity. A taxpayer who claims that his or her economic centre is outside Spain should be able to document where investment and management decisions are actually taken.

How is the economic centre assessed when income is split between Spain and the destination country?

The DGT analysed a case of this kind in V-2558-25, of 18/12/2025: a taxpayer who moved to the United Arab Emirates for work in April 2025, who would spend no more than 150 days of 2025 in Spain, and who had received EUR 50,000 of employment income in Spain and expected to receive EUR 70,000 in the Emirates. He kept an empty property in Spain, his former main home, and rented a home in Dubai.

The DGT concludes that, if he stays outside Spain for a continuous period of more than 183 days, that absence is not sporadic and the presence criterion is not met. It leaves the assessment of the economic centre to the AEAT, as a question of fact, and adds that the taxpayer provides no information on the family presumption. Any dual residence would be resolved under article 4.3 of the Spain-UAE DTT.

In our view, a higher amount of foreign income does not by itself settle the economic-centre question. Documenting the move is, in our opinion, decisive.

5. The family presumption (art. 9.1 in fine LIRPF)

What does the presumption consist of?

The last paragraph of article 9.1 LIRPF provides that “it shall be presumed, unless proven otherwise, that the taxpayer has his habitual residence in Spanish territory when, in accordance with the previous criteria, the spouse who is not legally separated and the minor children who depend on him habitually reside in Spain”.

It is a rebuttable (iuris tantum) presumption. Its function is to make the taxpayer resident in Spain where the two previous criteria (183 days and economic centre) do not, but the family does live here.

Is it a principal or a subsidiary criterion?

In our view, subsidiary. The words “in accordance with the previous criteria” support the reading that the presumption only comes into play when the criteria in articles 9.1.a) and 9.1.b) do not by themselves establish residence. If either of the first two is met, the presumption is redundant; if neither is met, the presumption is the last criterion available.

How is the family presumption rebutted?

By evidence to the contrary, under article 108.1 of the General Tax Act 58/2003, of 17 December (LGT). In practice, there are two main routes:

(i) Proving the taxpayer’s own tax residence in another country, by means of a certificate for DTT purposes issued by that State, whose weight has been reinforced by the administrative-court case law (STS 778/2023, of 12/06/2023, and STS 971/2025, of 15/07/2025).

(ii) Proving that the taxpayer’s main centre of economic interests is not in Spain, with an evidential file that rules out the place of asset management, the ownership of productive assets and the pattern of economic flows.

In practice, the two routes are combined: a foreign certificate plus a consistent economic and asset file. One situation in which the presumption may be rebutted is that of a taxpayer whose spouse and children move to Spain at a later stage (for security reasons, schooling or a change of personal plans), while the taxpayer keeps his or her working and economic life abroad.

And if only the spouse remains in Spain and the children are already adults?

The wording of article 9.1 in fine refers to the spouse who is not legally separated and the dependent minor children. The DGT has nonetheless accepted that the presumption could apply where only the spouse remains in Spain.

In V-1270-25, of 10/07/2025, a retired Brazilian national, Spanish tax resident since 2018, was about to move to Brazil, where he would spend more than half of the year, while his spouse and his 21-year-old daughter, a student, stayed in Spain. The DGT states that, since the spouse will continue to live in Spain, the presumption “could apply” to him, subject to evidence to the contrary, and leaves the assessment of the economic centre to the AEAT. The ruling says nothing about the daughter.

In our view, the point is not settled, and the presumption is in any event rebuttable.

6. Burden and assessment of evidence

Who bears the burden of proof on tax residence?

Under the general rule of article 105.1 LGT, whoever asserts a right must prove the facts on which it rests. In tax residence matters, the principle of proximity to, or availability of, evidence is also commonly applied: the burden falls on whoever is best placed to provide the evidence.

In practice, this results in a shifting burden. The Administration gathers and puts forward objective indicators (bank movements, notarial records, padrón registration, utilities, flights, card data). The taxpayer must rebut them with counter-evidence: a foreign certificate, lease agreements, children’s schooling in another State, returns filed abroad, healthcare, social ties.

What weight do the presumptions of article 108.2 LGT carry?

Article 108.2 LGT admits as evidence presumptions not established by law, provided there is a precise and direct link, according to the rules of human reasoning, between the proven fact and the fact to be inferred. In tax residence matters, these presumptions are typically built on spending patterns, the actual use of real estate and local banking activity. The assessment is overall: what matters is not an isolated indicator but a consistent set of indicators.

How far can the Administration go with indicators?

It may rely on several indicators, provided they are consistent with each other. The judgment of the High Court of Justice (TSJ) of the Canary Islands of 20/12/2024 (appeal 227/2024) upheld a finding of regional tax residence based on multiple consistent indicators. In that case, the AEAT established residence in the Canary Islands, against a padrón registration in Madrid, through, among other indicators, 253 days of card spending in the Canary Islands, visits to notaries in Las Palmas matching same-day spending, a statement by the doorman of the Madrid building and Wealth Tax returns filed late, already showing a Canary Islands address.

The judgment is relevant for two reasons. The first is substantive: material facts prevail over formal declarations (padrón registration, returns) when the economic reality is different. The second is procedural: the cross-checking of spending data could be reinforced by Form 174 (information return on all types of cards, approved by Order HAC/747/2025 of 27 June, implementing article 38 ter of the General Regulation on tax management and audit procedures), which is filed for the first time in January 2027 for tax year 2026.

7. International conflicts and DTT tie-breaker rules

What happens if two States consider me a tax resident at the same time?

This is dual residence. Where Spain and another State with which Spain has a DTT each treat the taxpayer as resident under their domestic law, the conflict is resolved under the tie-breaker rules of the relevant bilateral treaty, which normally follow article 4.2 of the OECD Model Convention.

Under the Model, the rules apply in sequence. The taxpayer is resident, for treaty purposes, in the State in which he or she has:

(i) A permanent home available. If there is one in both States, the next criterion applies.

(ii) The centre of vital interests, meaning the State with which his or her personal and economic relations are closer. If this cannot be determined, the next criterion applies.

(iii) An habitual abode. If he or she lives habitually in both States or in neither, the next criterion applies.

(iv) Nationality.

(v) If he or she is a national of both States or of neither, the competent authorities settle the question by mutual agreement.

The exact wording varies from treaty to treaty, so the text of the applicable DTT should always be checked. For example, in the Spain-Ecuador DTT the last rule refers the case to agreement between the competent authorities where residence cannot be determined under any of the previous criteria, and in the DTT with the United Arab Emirates the tie-breaker rules are in article 4.3.

What happens if a permanent home is available only in Spain?

The DGT analysed a scenario of this kind in V-0554-24, of 09/04/2024: a taxpayer who lived in Ecuador with his spouse and children, where he held a residence permit, usually stayed more than 183 days a year and earned employment income. He had a permanent home in Spain but not in Ecuador, and stated that his main investments and business assets were in Spain.

The DGT concludes that, if the absence exceeds 183 continuous days, it is not sporadic and the presence criterion is not met. However, the taxpayer could be resident under article 9.1.b), since he states that his main investments and business assets are in Spain, a question of fact that the DGT leaves to the AEAT. Any dual residence would be resolved under article 4.2 of the Spain-Ecuador DTT, which the DGT merely quotes without applying it.

In our view, if a permanent home were available to him only in Spain, the first tie-breaker rule could make him a treaty resident of Spain without any need to examine the centre of vital interests.

Is a tax residence certificate issued by another State valid?

Yes, with qualifications. STS 778/2023, of 12/06/2023 (appeal 915/2022), held that Spanish administrative bodies and courts are not competent to review the circumstances in which a tax residence certificate was issued by the authorities of a State that has a DTT with Spain, where the certificate was issued for treaty purposes. Its validity must be presumed.

STS 971/2025, of 15/07/2025 (appeal 4023/2023), confirmed that position: Spanish bodies are not competent to review the circumstances in which the foreign certificate was issued, its validity is presumed and residence conflicts are resolved under the tie-breaker rules of article 4.2 of the DTT. In that case, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the taxpayer had not shown that he had a permanent home available in the United Kingdom, which underlines the importance of documenting the tie-breaker rules.

Consequently, in administrative and administrative-court proceedings the AEAT cannot simply disregard the foreign certificate. What it can do is invoke the DTT tie-breaker rules and, where appropriate, initiate the mutual agreement procedure. Moreover, the presumption of validity of the certificate does not prevent the Administration from questioning whether the taxpayer is a resident for treaty purposes (article 4.1) where he or she is taxed under a regime that does not tax worldwide income.

And certificates issued by States with a territorial or special regime?

Here there is a qualification. The TEAC, in two resolutions of 24/06/2024 (RG 5590/2022 and RG 8325/2022, the latter with a criterion published as doctrine), held, in a case concerning withholding on pension-plan benefits, that a certificate issued to a taxpayer under the Portuguese Non-Habitual Resident (NHR) regime does not allow the Spain-Portugal DTT to be applied because, in the TEAC’s view, article 4.1 of the DTT excludes from the concept of resident a person who is not fully liable to tax on worldwide income in that State. There was also a second ground for dismissal in that case: the certificate provided referred to 2021, not 2022.

STS 1392/2024, of 22/07/2024 (appeal 7744/2022), which we have discussed in the Spanish Tax Journal, did not settle the question for the UK remittance basis. The TSJ of Catalonia had discounted the certificate because the taxpayer was not taxed in the United Kingdom on her worldwide income, but the Supreme Court did not adopt that argument: by reference to STS 1214/2024, it found that the tax authorities had not challenged the certificate and resolved the dual residence in favour of Spain under the DTT tie-breaker rules.

In our view, the reasoning could extend to other territorial or limited-liability regimes, including those that succeed the NHR. The certificate should be provided, but one must be prepared for the AEAT to question whether the taxpayer falls within the personal scope of the DTT.

What about the now-repealed UK non-dom regime?

The UK non-dom regime was repealed with effect from 06/04/2025. It has been replaced by the FIG (Foreign Income and Gains) regime, under which individuals who have not been UK resident in the previous ten years may elect not to be taxed on eligible foreign income and gains during their first four years of residence. In parallel, the TRF (Temporary Repatriation Facility) allows, for three tax years, pre-06/04/2025 foreign income and gains to be designated at a rate of 12 per cent (2025/26 and 2026/27) and 15 per cent (2027/28). The UK inheritance tax regime has also moved from a domicile-based system to one based on long-term residence.

During those four years, a taxpayer under the FIG regime is not taxed in the United Kingdom on all of his or her worldwide income either, so, in our view, the article 4.1 DTT question could still arise.

What did the Sito Pons case say about the criminal dimension of residence conflicts?

Judgment 117/2025 of the TSJ of Catalonia, of 01/04/2025 (criminal appeal 177/2023), upheld the acquittal handed down by the Provincial Court of Barcelona on 12/12/2022 in the proceedings against Sito Pons for offences against the Public Treasury in respect of IRPF and Wealth Tax. The factors weighed by the court include the UK tax residence certificate, the DTT and the in dubio pro reo principle.

However, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, in judgment 274/2026, of 09/04/2026 (appeal 4481/2023), has made clear that, in criminal proceedings, the foreign certificate is a rebuttable (iuris tantum) presumption, which gives way to sufficient evidence of physical presence in Spain. For that reason, in our view, the acquittal upheld by the TSJ of Catalonia should not be read as a general rule.

8. Special cases

I am a Spanish national moving to Andorra, the UAE or Singapore, which have a DTT with Spain. What additional rules apply to me?

Those of the general framework: article 9 LIRPF, the DTT tie-breaker rules and the foreign certificate. Andorra, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore all have a DTT with Spain, so residence conflicts are resolved under the tie-breaker rules of article 4 of each treaty (article 4.3 in the case of the UAE). The documentary planning is the usual one: a tax residence certificate from the destination State, evidence of presence and day-to-day life there, and no residual economic centre in Spain.

And a worker posted for two years to a country with a DTT, leaving family in Spain?

It is a frequent case: a doctor, executive or consultant who takes a job in another State for a long but limited period, with a spouse and, where applicable, minor children remaining in Spain. The DGT addressed it in V-2197-25, of 17/11/2025, concerning a doctor considering a two-year move to Saudi Arabia, married with three children, one of them aged 17 and living in the family home.

The DGT concludes that (i) if he stays abroad for a continuous period of more than 183 days, the absence is not sporadic, so the article 9.1.a) criterion is not met; (ii) the economic centre is a question of fact for the AEAT to assess; (iii) as regards the family presumption, the taxpayer does not provide enough information for the DGT to rule, and (iv) any dual residence would be resolved under article 4.2 of the Spain-Saudi Arabia DTT, signed in Madrid on 19/06/2007.

In our view, if the spouse and the minor child remained in Spain, the presumption could apply, and it would be advisable to document residence in the destination State: residence certificate, presence and day-to-day life there, and consistency of the material facts.

And if I move to a tax haven?

Article 8.2 LIRPF applies: a Spanish national who proves new tax residence in a country or territory regarded as a tax haven remains an IRPF taxpayer for the year of the move and the following four years. It is an anti-avoidance rule that applies irrespective of the article 9 criteria.

In addition, where the taxpayer claims residence in one of those territories, the Administration may require proof of a stay there of 183 days in the calendar year (article 9.1.a) LIRPF). Although article 8.2 still uses the term “tax haven”, the current term is “non-cooperative jurisdictions”, listed in Order HFP/115/2023, of 9 February, as amended by Order HAC/649/2026, of 21 June.

The exit tax under article 95 bis LIRPF may also apply; we deal with it in our frequently asked questions on the exit tax.

What happens if a Spanish national moves to Gibraltar?

The International Agreement on taxation and the protection of financial interests between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom in relation to Gibraltar, done on 04/03/2019 and in force since 04/03/2021 (BOE of 13/03/2021), contains specific rules that make certain persons resident in Spain.

In particular, Spanish nationals who move their residence to Gibraltar after the signature of the Agreement are, in all cases, considered tax residents of Spain only. For legal persons, the Agreement makes Gibraltar companies with significant links to Spain (assets, income, management or control) resident in Spain.

The DGT, in V-1310-22, of 09/06/2022, applied this rule of the Agreement to a Spanish national moving to Gibraltar and noted that, at that time, Gibraltar was still on the list of tax havens. Order HAC/649/2026, of 21 June (BOE of 27/06/2026), removed Gibraltar from the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for taxes whose tax period begins on or after its entry into force on 28/06/2026. For IRPF, therefore, from tax year 2027 article 8.2 LIRPF no longer applies by reason of Gibraltar, but the rule in the Agreement remains.

Spanish diplomats and official missions abroad?

Articles 10 and 9.2 LIRPF lay down specific rules that displace the general criterion. Article 10 keeps as IRPF taxpayers Spanish nationals, their spouse who is not legally separated and their minor children where they live abroad as members of Spanish diplomatic missions or consular offices, as holders of official posts in permanent delegations to international organisations, or as serving civil servants holding a non-diplomatic, non-consular official post abroad, subject to the exceptions in paragraph 2 of that article. Article 9.2, on a reciprocal basis, excludes from IRPF foreign nationals living in Spain on the same grounds, unless a treaty provides otherwise.

And digital nomads and international remote workers?

The general rule is unchanged: if they spend more than 183 days in Spain or have their economic centre here, they are resident. Act 28/2022, of 21 December, on the promotion of the start-up ecosystem, introduced the visa and the regime for international remote work, but tax residence is still determined under article 9 LIRPF. A remote worker for a foreign company may also raise related issues (permanent establishment of the non-resident employer, withholding, social security) that should be analysed together with residence.

Can a family unit file jointly if one spouse is resident in another EU or EEA State?

No. The DGT addressed this in V-0347-24, of 12/03/2024: the applicant, who works and lives in Spain, was married to a Spanish national who had been tax resident in France since 1993, a civil servant and university lecturer with a home in Limoges.

The ruling recalls that each spouse’s residence is determined under article 9 LIRPF and that joint filing is only available to IRPF taxpayers, so the spouse resident in France cannot be included in a joint return. It does, however, refer to the deduction under the forty-eighth additional provision of the LIRPF, available to family units made up of IRPF taxpayers and residents of another EU or EEA State with which there is an effective exchange of tax information, which brings the tax close to what it would have been had joint filing been possible, and to the option under article 46 of the consolidated text of the Non-Resident Income Tax Act.

9. Tax audits on residence

What information does the AEAT gather when it opens a residence audit?

A great deal, and more every year. The audit typically cross-checks entry and exit records (flights, borders), padrón data, utilities (electricity, gas, water), ownership and use of real estate, bank movements and card data, notarial records (purchases, execution of deeds), healthcare data, children’s schooling and returns filed in other States.

The Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan 2026 (Resolution of 11/03/2026 of the Director-General of the AEAT, BOE of 12/03/2026) refers to “conduct that is extremely harmful to the interests of the Public Treasury, relating to the simulation of tax residence outside Spanish territory or the improper use of double taxation treaties, especially in the case of individuals, with the main aim of obtaining lower effective taxation than is due”. Form 174 on cards, filed for the first time in January 2027 for tax year 2026, could reinforce the cross-checking of spending.

How is the day calendar built for the 183-day count?

The calendar combines the three types of days identified by the TEAC:

(i) Certified days: days on which presence in Spain is established by direct evidence (stamps, dated receipts, appointments, inbound flights).

(ii) Presumed days: days falling between two certified days, provided they are a reasonable number of consecutive days, unless a certified presence outside Spain is shown.

(iii) Sporadic absences: departures that are added to the stay unless tax residence in another State is proven.

The risk that is often overlooked lies in the presumed days: a taxpayer who documents two visits to Spain fifteen days apart may see those fifteen days counted as presumed stay, unless he or she proves being outside Spain during that period.

What evidential file should be prepared before an audit?

It is advisable to prepare a consistent evidential file before the audit begins, so that the documentation is already gathered when the procedure starts. Typical items include:

• Passports, boarding passes, entry and exit stamps.
• Tax residence certificates from the declared State.
• Tax returns filed in the other State.
• Lease agreements or title deeds for property abroad.
• Utility bills and evidence of spending in the declared State of residence.
• Children’s schooling.
• Regular healthcare abroad.
• Social ties: membership of clubs, gyms, associations.
• Bank records showing a pattern of spending outside Spain.

Consistency between the various items matters as much as each item on its own. A voluminous but contradictory file is, in our view, weaker than a lean but internally consistent one.

10. Regional tax residence

Is regional residence determined in the same way as State residence?

No, and the difference matters.

At State level (article 9.1 LIRPF), the three criteria apply alternatively: meeting one is enough.

At regional level (article 28 of Act 22/2009, of 18 December, on the financing of the common-regime Autonomous Communities, and article 72 LIRPF), the criteria apply in sequence: (i) presence, that is, the greater number of days in the territory of an Autonomous Community; (ii) main centre of interests, meaning the territory where the greater part of the IRPF tax base is obtained (employment income, real-estate income and gains, and business income), and (iii) as a residual criterion, the last residence declared for IRPF purposes.

There are special rules for individuals who are resident in Spain without spending more than 183 days in Spanish territory (they are resident in the Autonomous Community where their main centre of economic activities or interests lies) and for those resident under the family presumption (the Autonomous Community where the spouse and minor children live).

Does it matter which Autonomous Community I lived in for Wealth Tax and ISD purposes?

Very much. Wealth Tax and Inheritance and Gift Tax are ceded to the Autonomous Communities, which have their own regulatory powers. Some Communities, such as Madrid, grant 100 per cent relief on Wealth Tax, while others still levy it. The ITSGF, a State tax, only allows the Wealth Tax actually paid to be deducted, so regional Wealth Tax relief does not neutralise it. For ISD, the Autonomous Community of residence is determined by presence during the five years before the tax point. This divergence fuels litigation on moves between Communities.

There is also a presumption that the change of residence is not effective (article 28.4 of Act 22/2009). Changes of residence whose main purpose is to achieve lower effective taxation on ceded taxes have no effect. In addition, unless the new residence continues uninterrupted for at least three years, it is presumed that there has been no change, as regards the ceded yield of IRPF and Wealth Tax, where three circumstances concur: (i) the IRPF tax base in the year of the move or the following year exceeds that of the year before the move by at least 50 per cent; (ii) in that year the effective IRPF burden is lower than it would have been in the Community of origin, and (iii) in the following year or the year after, the taxpayer returns to live in the Community of origin.

What recent Supreme Court case law is there on audit competence between Autonomous Communities?

Three rulings from 2022-2024 stand out.

The Supreme Court judgment of 21/03/2022 (appeal 2221/2020) held that acts adopted by a territorially incompetent Administration are voidable but not void ab initio, and interrupt the limitation period where the domicile is corrected with retroactive effect.

The Supreme Court judgment of 15/04/2024 (appeal 9082/2022) held that the competence of an Autonomous Community to assess Wealth Tax depends on correctly identifying the connecting factor, the actual habitual residence, without a prior formal change of tax domicile being required under the procedure in articles 148 et seq. of the General Regulation on tax management and audit procedures. This is particularly relevant in disputes between Madrid and other Autonomous Communities.

The Supreme Court judgment of 20/06/2024 (appeal 645/2023), in a dispute between the Basque Country and Cantabria, held that one Administration may not unilaterally assume competence to collect ISD against the declared tax domicile without first initiating the change-of-domicile procedure under the Economic Agreement (Concierto Económico).

In addition, a Supreme Court order (auto) of 23/04/2025 (appeal 2910/2024) admitted for cassation a question similar to the one decided by the judgment of 15/04/2024. The appeal has been decided by STS 417/2026, of 08/04/2026, which, according to its official summary, identifies the Wealth Tax connecting factor with the taxpayer’s place of habitual residence and cites the judgment of 15/04/2024.

11. Acquisition and loss of tax residence

When is Spanish tax residence acquired?

When any of the three criteria of article 9.1 LIRPF is met during the year. Residence is attributed for the whole year, even if the physical move takes place mid-year. A taxpayer who moves to Spain in March and stays more than 183 days during the rest of the year will be a Spanish tax resident for the whole year of the move.

For taxpayers who move to Spain for work (employees, company directors, highly qualified professionals, entrepreneurs), the special regime for posted workers under article 93 LIRPF (Beckham Law) should be considered; it allows taxation under Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR) rules for the year of the move and the following five years. We deal with it in detail in our frequently asked questions on the Beckham Law.

When is Spanish tax residence lost?

When none of the three criteria of article 9.1 LIRPF is met during the year. Loss of residence follows the same calendar-year logic: there is no partial tax residence.

Where the taxpayer who loses residence holds a significant portfolio of shares or other equity interests, the exit tax under article 95 bis LIRPF comes into play; we analyse it in our frequently asked questions on the exit tax.

And tax residence certificates when I am the one leaving Spain?

If, despite the move, the taxpayer is still a Spanish tax resident (for instance, in the year of departure or under article 8.2 LIRPF) and needs to prove it to another State, the certificate is requested from the AEAT. It should be obtained in its “for treaty purposes” version, rather than the generic residence certificate, so that it is effective before the other Administration.

Tax residence is the most sensitive connecting factor of the system, and the most disputed. The above is a map, not an opinion. Each relocation plan and each audit requires individual analysis.