How the Beckham Law Applies to Shareholders, Company Directors and Business Owners
Lawants Guide · Beckham Law for Founders Spain’s Beckham Law applies a flat 24% rate to qualifying employment, director, and eligible activity income up to €600,000, and keeps most foreign-source income generally outside the Spanish tax base, for six tax years. For a foreign employee posted to a Spanish subsidiary, the application is close to procedural. For a founder, a shareholder, or a director of a foreign company, it is not. It is a structural decision that depends on ownership, corporate substance, and the timing of the move, and the answers commonly published online for this profile are often outdated or partial.
Lawants advises founders and shareholders of foreign companies on the personal and corporate side of doing business in Spain, exclusively, for over twenty years, with lawyers and tax advisors under one roof. Roberto Bosco, Managing Director, reviews every first inquiry personally and replies within 24 business hours.
Beckham Law for Founders: Tax Treatment and Benefits
For a founder, the Beckham regime can offer three main benefits:
- A flat 24% rate on qualifying employment income and director remuneration up to €600,000 per year, with a 47% rate on the excess.
- Dividends, interest and capital gains classified as foreign-source income generally remain outside the Spanish tax base, subject to the rules that determine where the income originates.
- Wealth Tax and the Solidarity Tax on Large Fortunes apply only to assets and rights located in Spain. Foreign brokerage accounts, shareholdings and real estate therefore generally remain outside the scope of these wealth taxes during the regime.
These benefits do not, by themselves, establish eligibility. For a founder, access depends on the qualifying route, the actual reason for the relocation, the role performed in Spain and the structure of the companies and shareholdings involved.
The rest of this guide examines the arrangements that most often create problems, the available qualifying routes and the decisions that should be made before relocating and filing Modelo 149.
Which Beckham Law Route Fits Your Founder Profile?
A founder’s job title alone does not determine eligibility for the Beckham Law.
The relevant route depends on which company you will work for, whether you control it, what functions you will perform from Spain, and what caused the relocation.
Start with the profile closest to your situation.
Possible director route. The company’s operating or patrimonial status and the causal link between appointment and relocation must be verified.
I will keep working through my foreign company →Higher-risk profile. Genuine employment, functions performed from Spain, permanent establishment and corporate tax residence must be analysed.
I will launch an innovative business in Spain →Possible entrepreneurial activity route. Article 70 requirements, immigration documentation and any separate ENISA process must be distinguished.
I will provide highly qualified services →Possible highly qualified professional route. The qualifying company, professional relationship and applicable income threshold must be confirmed.
Already own foreign shares? Passive ownership does not automatically prevent access to the regime, but entity classification, income characterisation, and the activities performed from Spain still require a separate review.
Why Beckham Law Applications Fail for Founders and Foreign Business Owners
Founder applications rarely fail because Modelo 149 was completed incorrectly. Problems usually begin earlier, when the relocation, role or corporate structure is arranged on assumptions that do not match the actual requirements of the regime.
In our experience, three patterns appear most frequently.
Spanish S.L. Director Route: “I’ll Incorporate a Company and Pay Myself a Salary”
A founder incorporates a Spanish S.L., appoints themselves as director and receives remuneration from the new company.
This route can work even when the founder owns 100% of the company, but only if the S.L. carries on genuine economic activity and the director appointment is the actual reason for the relocation. A company used mainly to hold assets or receive dividends, or an appointment created after the decision to move, does not provide the same basis for eligibility.
The company’s activity, resources and the founder’s role must remain consistent throughout the regime, not only when the application is filed.
Foreign Employer Route: “I’ll Have My Company Employ Me in Spain”
A founder may instead keep their foreign company and receive a salary from it while working from Spain, sometimes after obtaining a Digital Nomad Visa. This creates three connected questions:
- Is there a genuine employment relationship? If the founder controls the company acting as employer, a contract and payroll may not be enough to demonstrate genuine subordinate employment.
- Does the company acquire a Spanish tax presence? Managing the business, negotiating contracts or exercising strategic control from Spain may create a permanent establishment or place the company’s effective management in Spain.
- Would a later Spanish director appointment solve the problem? Taking a role in a related Spanish company does not automatically correct an arrangement that was structured incorrectly at the time of relocation.
The Digital Nomad Visa resolves immigration status, not Beckham Law eligibility or the company’s Spanish tax position. These questions must be assessed separately before the move.
Foreign Company Shares: “My Foreign Holdings Do Not Affect the Beckham Law”
Passive ownership of a foreign company does not automatically prevent access to the regime. The position changes, however, when:
- the foreign entity is fiscally transparent and its income may be attributed directly to the founder;
- the founder provides services, negotiates contracts or carries on business for the company from Spain;
- the company’s effective management moves to Spain; or
- the founder’s activities amount to an economic activity conducted through a Spanish permanent establishment.
The shares do not necessarily need to be sold or restructured. Their classification, the founder’s actual functions and the company’s connection with Spain must first be reviewed together.
Before you move, verify whether your structure actually supports Beckham Law eligibility.
A general eligibility check often stops at the five-year non-residence test and the Modelo 149 deadline. For a founder, the answer also depends on the relocation trigger, the role assumed, ownership, company classification and the functions performed from Spain. Lawants reviews the personal and corporate position together, before appointments, contracts or relocation narrow the available options.
Structural review · Qualifying route · Issues to resolve · Realistic alternatives
Managing Director, Lawants
Response within 24 business hours
Three Ways Foreign Founders and DIrectors Can Qualify for the Beckham Law
For a founder, the relevant route depends on what they will actually do in Spain: direct a Spanish company, develop a recognised entrepreneurial project or provide highly qualified services.
Director of a Spanish Operating Company
This route is generally suitable for a founder who will establish or manage an active Spanish S.L. and perform genuine director functions from Spain.
The founder may own up to 100% of the company. If they hold 25% or more, however, the company must carry on a real economic activity rather than qualify as a patrimonial entity. The appointment must also be the actual reason for the relocation, not a role created after the decision to move.
The decisive factors are therefore the company’s activity, the founder’s functions and the timing of the appointment, not the ownership percentage considered on its own.
Beckham Law for Entrepreneurs
This route is intended for founders moving to Spain to develop an innovative entrepreneurial activity considered of particular economic interest to the country.
Eligibility depends on obtaining a favourable ENISA report for the founder’s activity, normally before relocating. The report assesses the project the individual will develop in Spain, rather than simply certifying that a company exists.
This should not be confused with ENISA’s empresa emergente certification under the Startup Law. That certification applies to the company and may unlock corporate incentives or support another Beckham Law route, but it does not by itself qualify the founder under the entrepreneurial route.
Beckham Law for Highly Qualified Professionals
This route is relevant to a narrower founder profile: a technical co-founder who personally provides highly qualified services to a Spanish startup, or a founder whose work in Spain is predominantly focused on research, development or innovation. It is not a general route for shareholders who merely manage their own company.
It covers two alternative situations:
- Providing services to a Spanish company certified as an empresa emergente. In this case, the separate 40% R&D and innovation income threshold does not apply.
- Carrying out training, research, development or innovation activities from Spain, where more than 40% of the individual’s employment, professional and business income derives from those activities. This route does not require startup certification.
For a founder, the qualifying element is the work personally performed, not the ownership interest or job title. If the founder’s main role is to direct and manage the company, the director route may be more appropriate.
These personal routes can be combined with Startup Law benefits available to the Spanish company. The correct structure depends on the founder’s actual role, the activity performed and the relationship with the company.the nature of the business and what causes the relocation, not on choosing the route that appears most advantageous after the move.
Beckham Law Examples for Foreign Founders
A founder with a Delaware C-Corp ends active involvement in the US business, incorporates an operating Spanish S.L. with real clients and relocates to serve as director. Because the appointment causes the move and the S.L. has genuine activity, the director route may apply.
A UK founder obtains an ENISA report recognising the entrepreneurial activity before relocating, then moves to Barcelona to develop the project full time. The documented timing and causal link support the Article 70 entrepreneurial route, independently of later startup certification.
A German founder incorporates a Spanish company, secures empresa emergente certification and draws a director salary while the company benefits from Startup Law incentives. Structuring the personal and corporate positions together allows both sets of benefits to operate in parallel.
An American technical co-founder provides services to a certified Spanish startup without becoming a director. This may support the highly qualified professional route without the separate 40% R&D&i income test.
These simplified scenarios illustrate the available routes and do not describe actual Lawants clients or engagements.
What This Guide Does Not Cover
The routes above are the ones structurally relevant to a foreign founder, shareholder or company director.
Article 93 LIRPF also covers other situations: the salaried employee of an unrelated foreign company relocating to Spain (generally via the International Telework Visa, with its own analysis), and the self-employed professional serving foreign clients from Spain as autónomo (generally excluded, outside the Startup Law exceptions).
Neither profile is the subject of this guide.
A founder or shareholder of a foreign company sits differently, because ownership, control, and the substance of the underlying activity all become part of the analysis in a way they are not for an unrelated employee.
Where a founder-shareholder considers presenting their situation as remote work for a foreign employer, the threshold question is whether a genuine employment relationship exists, or whether the individual is, in substance, managing their own business from Spain.
Beckham Law and the 25% Shareholding Rule
The claim that owning more than 25% of a company automatically excludes a founder from the Beckham Law is outdated. A founder can own up to 100% of an operating company and still qualify through the director route, as confirmed by DGT V1068-25.
The 25% threshold matters only when the company paying the director qualifies as a sociedad patrimonial. If the founder owns at least 25% of such a company, the director route is unavailable. For an operating company, the ownership percentage is not itself a barrier.
The table below shows which balance-sheet elements may cause a company to be classified as patrimonial.
| Balance sheet element | Effect on the test |
|---|---|
| Shares below 5% of another company, or held without a genuine management structure | Counted as securities |
| A holding of at least 5%, held for at least one year and managed with the company’s own personnel and material resources, in a non-patrimonial subsidiary | Excluded as a qualifying holding |
| Cash and receivables arising from the company’s ordinary business activity | Excluded as business assets |
| Cash or receivables arising from the disposal of business assets or qualifying holdings during the current or previous two tax periods | Excluded within the limits of Article 5.2 LIS |
| Idle cash and financial investments unrelated to the business | Counted as securities |
An entity is patrimonial when more than 50% of its assets fall within the “securities or non-business assets” category, based on the average of its quarterly balance sheets. For holding companies, the qualifying-holding exclusion can be decisive even when a shareholding is the company’s principal asset.
Turnover, the CNAE business activity code and the number of employees do not determine the answer on their own. The test examines the actual composition of the balance sheet.
A company is patrimonial when, based on the average of its quarterly balance sheets, more than half of its assets consist of securities or assets not used in an economic activity.
Idle cash, financial investments and shareholdings that do not meet the statutory conditions may count toward the threshold. Trade receivables and cash generated through the company’s ordinary operations are generally excluded.
A Holding Company Is Not Automatically Patrimonial
A holding of at least 5% in another company may be excluded from the patrimonial test when:
- it has been held for at least one year;
- it is managed using adequate personnel and material resources; and
- the subsidiary carries on a genuine economic activity and is not itself patrimonial.
A holding company can therefore remain non-patrimonial even when its principal asset is a shareholding. The classification depends on how the structure is organised and managed, not on its formal name.
Confirm whether your company supports the director route before filing Modelo 149.
Lawants reviews the company’s balance sheet, operating activity and qualifying holdings to determine whether it is patrimonial and whether the founder’s ownership affects eligibility. If the position is borderline, we identify what must be resolved before the application.
Ownership, corporate substance and balance-sheet composition assessed together.
Managing Director, Lawants
Initial response within 24 business hours
Beckham Law and Foreign Company Shares
No founder relocates to Spain with a blank slate.
There is almost always a corporate history: a US LLC used for consulting income, a Delaware C-Corp with pending liquidity events, a UK Ltd, a German GmbH, a family holding. None of it needs to be dismantled for the Beckham regime, but how each piece is treated under Spanish tax law is not always intuitive.
Passive Foreign Shareholdings Under the Beckham Law
Binding ruling DGT V1372-25 addressed a specific fact pattern: a Beckham-regime taxpayer holding a stake in a UK Limited Liability Partnership treated as fiscally transparent, where the LLP carried on its entire activity in the UK, had no clients, assets, personnel, or presence in Spain, and where the partner rendered no services to it from Spain and concluded no contracts on its behalf.
On those facts, the DGT found the income was not obtained through a Spanish permanent establishment, and the participation did not compromise the regime.
The ruling is a useful data point, not a general principle. It does not authorise the reading that any participation in any foreign entity is safe. Where the foreign entity has activity, staff, clients, or means in Spain; where the resident partner renders services from Spain; where contracts are concluded on the entity’s behalf from Spanish territory; or where effective management shifts to Spain, each element needs its own assessment.
US LLC Income and Spanish Tax Reclassification
The US LLC is the structure that most often produces unexpected outcomes under the Beckham regime.
By default, under the US check-the-box regulations, an LLC is treated as pass-through for US tax purposes, though its members can elect corporate treatment on Form 8832, so the actual US classification needs verifying case by case rather than assumed. Whatever the US position, Spanish law does not automatically follow it.
The Spanish Tax Agency assesses the entity independently and may treat it as analogous to a Spanish entity under the income attribution regime (régimen de atribución de rentas).
Where that reclassification applies, LLC income can be attributed directly to the Spanish-resident partner and taxed in their IRPF, Beckham regime notwithstanding, if the source or character of the activity supports Spanish taxation. Single-member LLCs actively managed by the resident founder are particularly exposed; multi-member LLCs with genuine operating substance abroad are less so, but the analysis is fact-specific. This is a recurring cause of retroactive revocations in US-founder cases, largely because the LLC question is rarely reviewed before the move.
Managing a Foreign Company From Spain: PE and Corporate Tax Residence
Running a foreign company from Spanish territory raises two distinct corporate exposures, often collapsed into one.
The first is permanent establishment. Where the foreign company operates through a fixed place of business or a dependent agent in Spain, the income attributable to that presence becomes taxable in Spain. Personally, obtaining income through a Spanish PE is also a ground for exclusion from the Beckham regime.
The second, distinct question is corporate tax residency through effective management. Under article 8 LIS, a foreign company can become tax resident in Spain, not merely liable on PE-attributable profits but resident for all purposes, where the effective place of management, meaning where the overall direction and control of the business genuinely takes place, is located in Spain.
This can be triggered even where the activity falls short of a classic PE, and the consequence is more severe: the company becomes subject to Spanish corporate tax on its worldwide income, not just on Spain-attributable profits.
Risk on both fronts rises where the founder:
- Operates with substantial autonomy from Spain.
- Regularly negotiates or concludes contracts from Spanish territory.
- Performs core management or business development functions for the foreign entity.
- Uses stable means in Spain to carry on the activity.
- Runs a structure that does not match its functional reality.
The AEAT has been actively scrutinising these arrangements in recent inspection cycles.
One recurring pitfall: a founder who is director of their own company also registers as autónomo societario and invoices consulting services to that same company from Spain. It looks like an ordinary compensation arrangement. The AEAT reads it as a signal of economic activity separate from the office of director, and as a possible indicator of a Spanish PE for the company. The cleaner path is to keep remuneration inside categories the law recognises, director fees, proper employment income, or post-tax dividends, with the boundary drawn deliberately from the start.
Beckham Law Eligibility Requirements and Six-Month Deadline
The requirements below apply to every application, regardless of route. They sit on top of the structural analysis above, not in place of it.
In our experience, these are the requirements you check last: they are rarely the binding constraint for a founder who has thought the structure through in advance.
- No prior Spanish tax residence in any of the five tax years before the move (reduced from ten in 2023).
- A qualifying relocation trigger under article 93 LIRPF: director appointment in an operating entity, entrepreneurial activity qualified under art. 70 Ley 14/2013, or services rendered as a highly qualified professional under the Startup Law framework.
- Modelo 149 filed within six months of the start of the qualifying activity in Spain. This generally runs from Social Security registration (TGSS alta); where foreign social security coverage is retained under intra-EU posting rules, from the relevant evidencing document; where Spanish registration is not required, from the documented start of the activity.
- No income obtained through a permanent establishment in Spain, save for the entrepreneurial-activity and qualified-professional routes.
When Is the Beckham Law Not Worth It for Founders?
The Beckham regime is a real advantage in the right cases. It is also, in a meaningful set of founder situations, the wrong instrument, and the eligibility work sometimes ends with a recommendation not to apply.
- Income overwhelmingly foreign, minimal Spanish source. If expected Spanish income is modest and the real income streams are foreign, the marginal advantage of the flat rate is small, and ordinary IRPF with treaty relief can produce a comparable or better outcome.
- Anticipated liquidity event beyond year six. Where an IPO, acquisition, or secondary is realistically scheduled for year seven or later, the Beckham window may absorb none of the gain and instead accelerate the exit into the ordinary regime at the wrong moment.
- Meaningful CFC exposure at home. The regime does not neutralise controlled foreign corporation rules in the founder’s home country. The Spanish treatment of foreign income does not translate into home-country relief, and the optimisation sometimes belongs upstream of the Spanish move.
- Long-term settlement expected. Over a ten or fifteen-year horizon, the six-year window is a temporary intervention with a hard transition at the end, and building the Spanish position around it can create work that planning under the ordinary system would have avoided.
The eligibility work we do sometimes concludes that the Beckham regime is not the most efficient route and that an alternative structure delivers better on the founder’s actual goals. That conclusion is a deliverable of the assessment, not a reason to change it.
Alternatives If the Beckham Law Does Not Apply
Not qualifying for the Beckham regime, or qualifying but deciding against it, is not a dead end. It changes the plan, not the move. Three alternatives come up most often for founders in this position:
- Ordinary IRPF residency. Progressive rates and worldwide income taxation, but also full access to personal and family deductions, and, depending on the autonomous community, regional deductions that narrow the gap with the flat rate. For lower Spanish income levels this can outperform the Beckham regime outright.
- Restructuring to qualify later. Where the current structure fails the operating-substance or causality tests, building genuine activity into a Spanish company, or securing ENISA certification, can open a qualifying route in a later tax year, provided the five-year non-residence window is still open when the application is filed.
- Startup Law benefits on the corporate side alone. Where the personal Beckham election is not available or not advantageous, the reduced corporate tax rate and other Startup Law incentives can still apply to the Spanish entity independently of the founder’s personal tax position.
None of these is automatic, and each requires the same kind of structural review as the Beckham application itself. In practice, this is where an eligibility assessment earns its value even when the answer on Beckham is no.
Beckham Law vs Spain’s Startup Law
Founders often assume the Beckham Law and the Startup Law are alternatives. They are not, strictly: the Beckham Law is a personal tax regime, the Startup Law (Ley 28/2022) is a corporate and immigration package. The two can overlap and, in the right configuration, combine.
| Dimension | Beckham (director route) | Startup Law (ENISA founder) | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership treatment | 100% permitted in operating S.L.; 25% cap only if patrimonial | Founder equity accommodated by design | Highest flexibility on ownership |
| Personal Spanish income | 24% flat up to €600,000 | Ordinary IRPF unless Beckham layered on | 24% flat via Beckham election |
| Foreign-source income | Generally outside Spanish tax base during regime | Taxed under ordinary IRPF | Generally outside Spanish tax base during Beckham window |
| Corporate tax on the entity | General rate up to 25%; reduced rates may apply depending on turnover and company status | 15% in the first tax period with a positive taxable base and the following three tax periods, provided the company retains its qualifying status | 15% under the same conditions, on the corporate side |
| Prerequisite | Operating S.L. with real activity | ENISA certification (empresa emergente) | Both |
| Best fit | Founder of non-innovative operating business | Certified startup where personal income is modest | Certified startup with significant founder salary |
The combined path often suits a founder building an ENISA-certified startup who also draws a meaningful director salary: the corporate side gets the reduced rate and other Startup Law incentives, the personal side gets the Beckham flat rate and the treatment of foreign-source income. Neither route alone captures the full advantage.
Beckham Law Extension for the Founders’ Family Members
The Beckham regime may also extend to the main applicant’s spouse and children under 25, or children of any age in the event of disability. Where there is no marriage, the other parent of those children may qualify instead, subject in each case to the statutory conditions. What most summaries omit is that the extension is not automatic: each family member files a separate election and must meet their own requirements.
A founder relocating with a spouse who freelances internationally is a common case to work out before the move, not after arrival. The two applications are technically independent but strategically inseparable.
How to Apply for the Beckham Law
The Beckham Law application itself is procedural rather than analytical. If the structural work is done properly, this stage is mechanical. If it is not, no amount of care at filing compensates.
Modelo 149 is filed with the director appointment or employment contract, evidence of the qualifying activity, and, where applicable, the ENISA certificate or favourable report.
If the filing is accepted, the applicable regulations (article 119.4 of the IRPF Regulations) provide for the AEAT to issue the document confirming the election within ten business days of submission. Requests for clarification or incomplete documentation extend this in practice, particularly on more complex founder files.
Once approved, the taxpayer files Modelo 151 annually in place of the ordinary Modelo 100.
Has your six-month filing window started? Turn the analysis into a coherent application.
A filing-only service does not verify whether the dates, role and evidence support the same qualifying route. Lawants confirms when the deadline begins, prepares the route-specific documentation, files Modelo 149 and manages any requests from the AEAT. After approval, we help align payroll, director remuneration and annual Modelo 151 compliance with the position presented.
Deadline confirmation · Tailored checklist · Filing · AEAT follow-up
Managing Director, Lawants
Response within 24 business hours
What Happens When the Beckham Law Ends?
The regime ends after the year of arrival plus five tax years. From year seven, the taxpayer moves to the ordinary IRPF: progressive rates reaching 47% or more depending on the autonomous community, worldwide income taxation, Wealth Tax on global assets, and the reactivation of Spanish informative obligations suspended during the regime, most notably Modelo 720.
For a founder with an international footprint, this transition is not marginal, and the decisions taken, or not taken, in year six shape the years that follow.
Exit Planning
The recurring mistake is not arriving at year six without a plan. It is arriving with the plan already narrowed by decisions that could have been made differently earlier. Restructuring the founder’s holding, timing a liquidity event, evaluating a change of residence, and reactivating Spanish informative filings should be reviewed from year four or five, with home-country consequences reviewed alongside a home-country advisor.
The founders we advise longest are the ones who ended their Beckham window on their own terms. That is rarely the ones who called six months before expiry. It is the ones who came back around year four, while the options were still open.
Coordinating the Beckham Law With Home-Country Tax Obligations
The Beckham regime determines how the founder is taxed in Spain. It does not automatically end tax or reporting obligations in the country of origin.
The Spanish analysis should therefore be coordinated with a local adviser who can verify:
- whether the founder may still be treated as tax resident in the home country;
- whether the transfer of residence triggers an exit tax on shares or unrealised gains;
- whether domestic rules continue to tax income from controlled foreign companies;
- how the applicable tax treaty treats director fees, dividends and capital gains; and
- which reporting obligations continue for foreign accounts, assets and company ownership.
For US founders, the position requires particular attention because US taxation and reporting generally continue after relocation. Foreign companies, investments and bank accounts may create additional obligations even when the related income receives favourable treatment in Spain. These matters should be reviewed separately by a US-qualified adviser.
Lawants handles the Spanish side of the structure and coordinates it with the founder’s home-country adviser. This keeps the two analyses aligned without confusing the responsibilities of each jurisdiction.der position is built by two advisors working in parallel.
How Lawants Advises Foreign Founders on the Beckham Law
Most founders who contact us about the Beckham Law have already done the initial research.
They know the flat rate and the six-year window, and have often spoken to an advisor who confirmed generic eligibility without the structural analysis that actually decides the case. What they need at that point is not a second confirmation. It is an honest structural review before they commit.
Lawants works exclusively with foreign companies and entrepreneurs entering Spain, with lawyers and tax advisors under one roof rather than through referrals. For a founder, that matters because the personal tax question, the corporate structure, and the home-country coordination are not independent workstreams: a decision on the S.L. shape changes the ownership analysis, which changes the eligibility route, which changes the filing timeline.
The engagement typically begins with a structured eligibility review as a paid preliminary assessment, delivered in writing. Where the regime is available, it sets out the filing strategy. Where it is not the best fit, it compares realistic alternatives. Where it is not available, it says so and identifies what to do next.
Roberto Bosco, Managing Director, reviews every first inquiry personally and replies within 24 business hours. There is no commercial funnel and no filtering layer between the founder and the partner running the case.
Your position will evolve over six years. Your adviser should know how it began.
Ownership, remuneration, roles and foreign companies may change as the founder and the business grow in Spain. With Lawants, each new decision is considered in the context of the original structure and the eventual exit from the regime. We do not close the relationship when the AEAT accepts Modelo 149: we remain the legal and tax reference point as the project evolves.
FAQ: Beckham Law for Foreign Founders and Business Owners
The questions below are the ones we most often receive from founders and shareholders of foreign companies at the first inquiry stage.
I plan to move to Spain to become director of my own company. Is that enough to qualify for the Beckham Law?
Not by itself. The appointment must be the actual reason for the relocation, and the Spanish company must carry on genuine economic activity. If you own at least 25%, the company must not be patrimonial. Owning 100% of an operating company is not automatically disqualifying.
Can a founder use an Employer of Record to qualify for the Beckham Law?
Not through the standard EOR model. When the EOR is the formal employer but the client company directs the work, the arrangement may constitute unlawful labour supply under Spanish law. A Spanish contract, payroll and Social Security registration do not create genuine employment or change the founder’s control over the business. A compliant employment or corporate route must be established before filing Modelo 149.
Does a social security agreement make an EOR arrangement compliant in Spain?
No. An international social security agreement may determine where contributions must be paid, but it does not make the underlying employment structure compliant. It also does not establish eligibility for the Beckham Law, which requires a separate assessment of the employment relationship and the reason for relocating.
Can I keep shares in my US LLC, UK Ltd or German GmbH while under the Beckham regime?
Generally, yes for genuinely passive holdings. The position requires closer review if the entity is fiscally transparent, the founder provides services or manages it from Spain, or its effective management moves to Spain. These circumstances may affect the founder’s eligibility and create a Spanish tax exposure for the company.
Do my spouse and children automatically qualify for the Beckham Law?
No. Each family member must file a separate election and meet the applicable residence, timing and income requirements. A spouse who carries on independent professional activity from Spain may require a separate eligibility review before the family extension can be confirmed.
I lived in Spain seven years ago. Can I qualify for the Beckham Law today?
Potentially, yes. You must not have been a Spanish tax resident during any of the five tax years preceding the new relocation. Your previous residence status and tax filings should be checked before the application is prepared.
Is the Beckham Law still worthwhile if my Spanish income exceeds €600,000?
It may be. Qualifying income is taxed at 24% up to €600,000 and at 47% above that threshold. The decision should therefore consider the founder’s complete position, including foreign-source income, assets and expected income throughout the six-year regime.
Related Articles
- Sociedad Limitada (S.L.) in Spain: Formation and Requirements
- What is the Registro Mercantil and How to Register a Company in Spain
- Types of Companies in Spain: the Different Business Structures
- Starting a Business in Spain: Complete Guide for Foreign Companies
- Setting Up a Company in Spain Without Travelling
- Beckham Law and Employer of Record (EOR) in Spain: Eligibility, Legal Risks and Tax Exposure
