Beckham Law Ownership Thresholds: Can You Qualify as an Employee of a Company You Own?

How Effective Control and a Spanish or Foreign Employer Affect Beckham Law Eligibility

Lawants Guide · Beckham Law Ownership Thresholds

The Beckham Law can look straightforward until the company paying your salary is also a company you own. For a founder, operating shareholder or senior executive, a contract and payroll do not settle the question: ownership, voting rights and management powers may indicate that you control the employer rather than work under its direction.

Whether the payer is a Spanish S.L. you founded or an existing LLC, C-Corp, Ltd, S.r.l. or GmbH, the same uncertainty follows you to Spain: can you genuinely qualify as an employee, or does another Beckham Law route fit the facts better? The answer becomes more delicate when you manage the business, hold special voting rights or share control with family members. A straightforward employee with a small, passive stake in an unrelated company falls outside the problem examined here.

We start where generic guidance usually stops: with the company behind the salary, the control you actually exercise and the alternatives available if the employment route is not defensible. The assessment belongs before the move, because filing Modelo 149 cannot turn a non-qualifying structure into a qualifying one. Roberto Bosco, Managing Director of Lawants, reviews every first inquiry and replies within 24 business hours.

Lawants · Best Law Firms Spain · Barcelona and Madrid · Over twenty years advising exclusively foreign companies and founders · Lawyers and accountants under one roof

Assess your Beckham Law route

Can a Shareholder Qualify for the Beckham Law as an Employee of Their Own Company?

Many founders and shareholder-executives planning a move to Spain face the same uncertainty.

Some expect to receive a salary from a Spanish S.L. they own; others intend to remain on the payroll of an existing LLC, C-Corp, Ltd, S.r.l. or GmbH. They may already have a Digital Nomad Visa, an employment contract or a proposed payroll arrangement, yet still not know whether their ownership prevents them from qualifying, whether their position belongs to the employee or director route, or which ownership threshold applies to their case.

The confusion is understandable. Most online explanations discuss the 25% and 50% thresholds without making clear that they belong to different legal tests. They also frequently treat a Spanish company and a foreign employer as if the same analysis applied automatically to both.

The short answer is: potentially, yes.

Owning shares does not automatically exclude the applicant, but an employment contract and payroll are not sufficient. The employment route requires a genuine subordinate relationship with the company paying the salary.

For Spanish capital companies, personal ownership of 50% or more establishes effective control; ownership of at least one third, 25% combined with management functions, or family holdings reaching 50% create rebuttable presumptions. These rules are different from the 25% test that may apply to directors of patrimonial entities. Where the employer is foreign, its Spanish classification and the applicable Social Security regime must be established before the thresholds are applied.

Beckham Law Ownership Rules: Start With Your Role, Not Your Percentage

The percentages discussed in relation to the Beckham Law are not different levels of a single ownership rule. They answer different legal questions.

Before looking at whether you own 25%, one third or 50% of the company, you must first establish the role that causes your relocation to Spain: are you applying through a genuine employment relationship, or because you have been appointed as a director?

The second question is which company will pay you. If it is a Spanish capital company, the statutory effective-control thresholds can apply directly. If it is a foreign company you own or control, Spain must first classify the entity, the employment relationship and the applicable Social Security position. Your ownership percentage is therefore not the first question. It is the third.

The navigation below follows this sequence and takes you directly to the part of the guide that corresponds to your role and corporate structure.

Beckham Law: Employment Route vs Director Route

Article 93 LIRPF provides several routes into the Beckham regime. An ownership percentage therefore cannot be interpreted correctly until the legal basis for the relocation has been identified.

For a founder who owns 60% of the company that will pay them, that percentage does not produce one universal answer. It must be assessed differently depending on whether the relocation is based on a genuine employment relationship or an appointment as director.

The commonly cited 25% related-party threshold under article 18 LIS becomes relevant under the director route when the company is patrimonial under article 5.2 LIS. This route is covered in full in our guide to the Beckham Law for foreign founders and directors.

The employment route asks a different question: whether a genuine employment relationship exists and whether the shareholder’s effective control is compatible with subordination. For Spanish capital companies, the relevant statutory thresholds are 50%, 33.33%, and 25% combined with management functions.

These tests arise under article 305.2.b LGSS, not article 18 LIS. Where the employer is foreign, its Spanish classification must be established before these percentages are applied.

What Online Guides Commonly Get Wrong

• The 25% and 50% rules are not different versions of the same test. They come from different statutes and answer different legal questions.
• Owning less than 50% does not create an automatic safe harbour. Rebuttable presumptions can still arise at 33.33% and at 25% when the shareholder also exercises management functions.
• Failing the employment route does not necessarily exclude the shareholder from the Beckham Law. The director, entrepreneurial or highly qualified professional route may still be available.

The ownership percentage only becomes meaningful after the applicant’s role, the qualifying route and the paying company have been correctly identified.

When a Shareholder Can Qualify as an Employee

Owning shares does not automatically prevent someone from being an employee. The problem arises when ownership and governance leave no independent body above the founder capable of directing, supervising or controlling the work.

Article 93.1.b).1º LIRPF requires that the relocation result from an employment contract. What that contract needs to reflect, in substance, is defined by ordinary Spanish labour law, not by the wording of the document itself. Four elements matter:

• Direction. Someone other than the worker sets objectives, methods, and conditions, and the worker follows instructions rather than their own direction.
• Organisational integration. The work is integrated into a structure the worker does not control, as part of the company’s organisation rather than alongside it.
• Economic dependency. The business risk of the activity sits with the company, not with the worker personally.
• Separation between shareholder and employee roles. What the person does as an employee is distinct from what they are entitled to as an owner.

Where the founder sits on both sides of every one of these elements, giving instructions and receiving them, bearing the risk and being the person meant to be protected from it, the relationship does not meet the legal definition of employment, regardless of what the contract is titled.

Shareholder-Employee of a Spanish Company: Effective-Control Thresholds

Once the employment route has been identified, the central question is whether the shareholder exercises effective control over the company. Spanish law uses several ownership thresholds to establish or presume that control, but the thresholds do not all produce the same legal effect.

Article 1.2.c) of the Self-Employed Workers’ Statute (Ley 20/2007) covers shareholders who perform management or administrative functions, or who otherwise provide services to a capital company on a habitual, personal, and direct basis, while exercising effective control over it.

It reaches the shareholder who insists they hold no director title at all, which is precisely the profile most founders assume protects them.

The quantitative thresholds behind “effective control” sit separately, in article 305.2.b) of the General Social Security Law (LGSS). For a Spanish capital company, and whenever article 305.2.b) LGSS applies directly, personal ownership of at least 50% of the share capital establishes effective control automatically.

50% Ownership: Automatic Effective Control

For a Spanish capital company, personal ownership of at least half the share capital establishes effective control en todo caso: automatically, not as a rebuttable presumption.

There is no opportunity to argue the facts around it. The shareholder falls outside the employment relationship, and the employment route cannot be built on payroll and job functions alone.

DGT ruling V0321-17 (7 February 2017) illustrates this: a sole shareholder and director who also carried out commercial director duties, registered under RETA, was found to have no employment relationship at all.

That ruling predates the 2023 reform of the director route, so the same sole shareholder might today have a viable path through the director route if the company is genuinely operating and non-patrimonial, even though the employment route would still fail. The two routes are assessed independently.

Family Holdings Reaching 50%

Where the individual’s personal stake is under 50%, control can still be presumed, subject to rebuttal, when at least half the capital is distributed among partners who live with the applicant and are connected by marriage, or by blood, affinity, or adoption up to the second degree.

Splitting shares between spouses living together does not, by itself, avoid the presumption; it can trigger it. Rebutting it requires evidence, not just a lower number on paper.

33.33% Ownership: Rebuttable Presumption

A personal stake equal to or greater than one third of the capital triggers a rebuttable presumption of effective control on its own, with no requirement that the shareholder also hold management functions.

Founders who structure ownership to land just under 50% while landing at or above a third are still inside a presumption, just a rebuttable one rather than an automatic one.

25% Ownership with Management Functions

The presumption also applies where the shareholder holds at least 25% of the capital and exercises management or direction functions.

Ownership alone at this level does not trigger it; the combination does. This threshold is easy to confuse with the 25% related-party test under article 18 LIS that governs the director route, discussed in our guide to foreign founders and directors.

They are not the same rule.

Below 25%: Control Can Still Be Proven

Falling under every statutory presumption does not settle the matter. The law expressly allows the administration to prove effective control through any means of evidence:

• Voting rights beyond the bare shareholding percentage.
• Shareholders’ agreements that concentrate decision-making.
• Veto powers or powers of attorney.
• The composition of the board and signing authority over accounts and contracts.
• Economic control over the business, independent of formal shareholding, and how the company actually functions day to day.

A minority shareholder with disproportionate voting rights or de facto control of daily operations can still fail the employment route at 10% or 5% ownership. The statutory percentages describe where presumptions kick in automatically. They do not describe the outer limit of what counts as control.

Ownership and effective control

A minority stake can still amount to effective control.

Lawants reconstructs direct, indirect and family ownership, then examines voting rights, shareholders’ agreements, veto powers, signing authority and actual governance. This reveals whether the proposed employment relationship can withstand the effective-control test or whether a different Beckham Law route should be assessed before the move.

Ownership percentage, actual control and employment substance assessed together before filing.

Assess your ownership position

Roberto Bosco
Managing Director, Lawants
Response within 24 business hours

Shareholder-Employee of a Foreign Company: Additional Eligibility Tests

A foreign employer does not remove the effective-control problem covered above. It adds a second, separate layer: the Beckham application concerns the founder personally, but the move can also create Spanish obligations for the company itself.

How Spain Classifies the Foreign Company

A Delaware C-Corp, a US LLC, an S-Corp, a UK Ltd, an LLP, an Italian S.r.l., and a German GmbH do not necessarily receive the same treatment under Spanish law.

Spain assesses each on its own terms rather than importing the label used in the entity’s home jurisdiction. A flow called salary, dividend, or pass-through income abroad does not oblige Spain to adopt the same characterisation.

An LLC treated as pass-through for US purposes, for instance, can be reclassified by the Spanish tax authority under its own attribution-of-income rules, independently of how the US treats it.

Social Security and RETA

Where the paying entity is foreign, the Social Security position needs its own verification:

• Whether the founder’s existing foreign Social Security coverage remains valid once resident in Spain, or lapses on relocation.
• Whether the foreign company must register as an employer in Spain to run local payroll.
• Whether the founder should instead be registered under RETA, given their ownership and role.
• Whether an applicable Social Security agreement between Spain and the company’s home jurisdiction changes the analysis.

A mismatch between the declared employment relationship and the actual Social Security classification is itself a signal the AEAT reads as evidence the relationship is not what it is presented to be.

Genuine Employment and Effective Control

For a foreign employer, the effective-control thresholds described above for Spanish companies should not be applied mechanically before the entity’s Spanish classification and the applicable Social Security regime have been established. Effective control remains the central question, but the mechanics are not identical to those of a Spanish S.L.

Remote work for a genuinely unrelated foreign employer is a legitimate route into the Beckham regime.

That route exists precisely because not every inbound worker is employed by a Spanish company. It is not available simply because the paying company sits outside Spain.

A founder who owns and runs the foreign company faces exactly the same effective-control question as a founder who owns a Spanish one. The company’s jurisdiction changes the applicable legal, tax, and Social Security analysis; it does not eliminate the underlying question of who controls the company and whether the founder is genuinely subordinate to it.

Permanent Establishment and Corporate Tax Residence

Running a foreign company from Spanish soil, even part time, raises two separate corporate exposures. A permanent establishment can arise through a fixed place of business, through the habitual exercise of authority to conclude contracts on the company’s behalf, or through core business activity carried out from Spanish territory.

Separately, the company’s corporate tax residence can shift to Spain entirely where the effective place of management is genuinely located there. This is a more severe outcome: the company becomes liable to Spanish corporate tax on its worldwide income, not just the income attributable to a fixed establishment. Approval of the founder’s Beckham application would not prevent either outcome; the two questions are decided independently.

Foreign Salary and Dividends

Under article 93.2.b) LIRPF, all employment income obtained while the Beckham regime applies is deemed Spanish-source in full, regardless of which foreign company issues the salary. This is entirely separate from the treatment of dividends, interest, and capital gains, which follow their own source rules and generally remain outside the Spanish base. A founder cannot treat salary as foreign-exempt simply because it is paid by a US, UK, or other non-Spanish company.

Dividends follow a genuinely separate analysis, and the bank account used to receive them is irrelevant to it. What matters is the source of the underlying income and the activity that generated it. A dividend does not necessarily stay passive, foreign-source income if the paying entity is reclassified under Spanish attribution rules, or if the underlying income is found to derive from the founder’s own personal activity rather than the company’s independent economic operations. LLCs, S-Corps, and other transparent entities require this separate analysis before any dividend can be assumed exempt.

What Does Not Establish Beckham Law Eligibility

The pattern we see most often at the first-inquiry stage is consistent: an existing foreign company, a founder holding 50% to 100% of it, a Digital Nomad Visa already filed or approved, a contract and payroll running through the same company, and a modest declared salary.

Three elements inside that pattern are routinely mistaken for evidence of eligibility.

None of them are.

Digital Nomad Visa: Immigration Approval Is Not Tax Eligibility

The DNV and the Beckham election are reviewed by different authorities, on different questions. Immigration confirms residence and work authorisation. The Beckham application is reviewed separately by the tax administration, on the substance of the employment relationship and the applicant’s control over the paying entity.

A DNV file can be approved even where the applicant is majority owner of the employer, because immigration is not testing effective control under Spanish labour and Social Security law. That test comes later, often months or years after the visa, at filing or at inspection.

Can a Founder Use an Employer of Record in Spain for the Beckham Law?

The standard Employer of Record model is not a compliant employment route in Spain.

The EOR appears as the formal employer, but the client company continues to assign tasks, supervise performance and direct the individual’s work. This separation can constitute illegal labour leasing under article 43 of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores, regardless of whether the EOR has a Spanish entity, issues local payslips or describes the arrangement as outsourcing. Both the EOR and the client company may face sanctions and joint liability for employment and Social Security obligations.

For Beckham Law purposes, a Spanish contract, payroll and Social Security registration do not prove that a genuine subordinate relationship exists. This is particularly important for founders: an EOR does not change their ownership, voting rights, management powers or effective control over the client company. It changes who administers the salary, not who controls the business, and therefore cannot manufacture a qualifying employment relationship.

A Social Security agreement may determine where contributions must be paid, but it does not legalise the EOR structure or establish Beckham Law eligibility.

A compliant alternative to an EOR

A founder’s relocation needs a compliant structure, not merely a formal employer.

Lawants assesses the relationship between the founder and the company and identifies the appropriate route: registering the foreign company as an employer in Spain, incorporating a Spanish company or applying through a director appointment. We then coordinate the contract, payroll, Social Security and Beckham Law application.

One assessment covering both the founder’s position and the company’s obligations in Spain.

Request a Structure Assessment

Roberto Bosco
Managing Director, Lawants
Initial response within 24 business hours

Why a Token Salary Does Not Strengthen the Employment Route

There is no mandatory ratio between salary and dividends under article 93.

However, a substantial mismatch between the founder’s declared salary and their actual economic role may attract closer scrutiny and make it harder to demonstrate that the salary derives from a genuine subordinate employment relationship rather than from an ownership-driven arrangement.

Assessing Genuine Subordination in a Shareholder-Employee Relationship

Not every shareholder-employee is excluded from the employment route. Where control has not been established automatically, the position may still be defensible if the company’s governance and the founder’s daily work demonstrate genuine subordination.

These elements matter only where effective control has not already been established automatically. They cannot override personal ownership of 50% or more where the statutory rule applies. Where the case sits inside a rebuttable presumption, or below the statutory thresholds, the following make a position genuinely defensible:

• A real reporting line to another decision-making body, not a structure where the founder ultimately reports to themselves.
• Effective supervision, with working hours, instructions, and day-to-day oversight genuinely exercised by someone other than the founder.
• Limited signing and veto powers, without exclusive authority that would let the founder override every other decision-maker.
• Remuneration consistent with the role, not a token salary alongside a much larger economic return.
• Contemporaneous evidence of subordination, board minutes, correspondence, decisions on file, assembled as it happened, not retrospectively once a filing or inspection makes it necessary.

Alternatives to the Beckham Law Employment Route

If effective control makes the employment route unavailable, this does not necessarily exclude the founder from the Beckham Law. The next step is to determine whether the relocation can instead be linked to a director appointment, a qualifying entrepreneurial activity, or highly qualified professional services.

Director Route for Founders and Controlling Shareholders

Where the employment route is not defensible given the ownership position, the director route is often the right question to ask instead, governed by article 18 LIS and the patrimonial-entity test under article 5.2 LIS rather than by effective control.

Our guide to the Beckham Law for foreign founders and shareholders covers that route in full, including the 25% shareholding rule, the treatment of foreign company shares, and the permanent establishment and corporate residency risks that arise when a founder manages a foreign company from Spain.

Changing from Director to Employee Under the Beckham Law

DGT ruling V1421-22 (16 June 2022) confirmed that a taxpayer already under the Beckham regime as a director could move to a senior management (alta dirección) employment relationship without automatically losing the regime, and that stepping down as director, or a short gap between roles, does not itself cause exclusion. This is a genuine point of flexibility, but it does not fix an underlying effective-control problem.

A founder who personally holds 50% or more does not become eligible for the employment route simply by relabelling the relationship; the new relationship still has to independently satisfy article 93 on its own facts.

The entrepreneurial route (article 70 Ley 14/2013) and the highly qualified professional route are also worth reviewing depending on the founder’s activity, and are covered in the same guide.

Pre-Move Checklist for Founders Paid by Their Own Company

How Lawants Assesses Beckham Law Eligibility for Founders and Shareholder-Employees

Most founders who reach out to us about this question have already been told something reassuring by someone: an immigration lawyer who confirmed the DNV, a provider who confirmed the payroll mechanics, a gestoría that confirmed the Modelo 149 could be filed.

Each confirmation is usually correct on its own narrow question. None of them, on its own, answers whether the Beckham election will survive scrutiny, because visa status, employment substance, effective control, corporate exposure, and tax treatment are five separate legal questions, assessed under five different sets of rules.

Lawants coordinates all five into a single structured eligibility review before the application is filed.

Where the employment route holds up, it sets out the filing strategy. Where it does not, it identifies whether the director or entrepreneurial route is a better fit, and what would need to change to make it defensible. Lawants also works directly with foreign companies and international groups relocating shareholder-executives to Spain, coordinating the individual’s Beckham Law position with the employer’s payroll, Social Security and Spanish corporate exposure.

Our work begins with a structured eligibility review, not with the standalone filing of Modelo 149.

Roberto Bosco, Managing Director, reviews every first inquiry personally and replies within 24 business hours.

Integrated Beckham Law support

Your Beckham Law position and your company’s Spanish exposure are part of the same decision.

We coordinate ownership, employment status, Social Security, payroll and corporate tax exposure before the application, then remain involved as the founder’s role, remuneration and compliance obligations evolve. We also advise foreign companies relocating shareholder-executives to Spain through a single legal and tax team.

Your first inquiry is reviewed directly by the Managing Director

Roberto Bosco reviews every first contact personally and replies within 24 business hours. No call centre or sales filter: your inquiry reaches someone able to identify the relevant legal and tax questions from the outset.

Discuss your Beckham Law structure

FAQ: Beckham Law and Company Ownership

The questions below are the ones we hear most often from founders and shareholders weighing the employment route against the alternatives.

Related Articles

• Beckham Law for Foreign Founders and Shareholders: Eligibility, Benefits and Application
• Permanent Establishment in Spain: What Foreign Companies Need to Know
• Sociedad Limitada (S.L.) in Spain: Formation and Requirements
• Starting a Business in Spain: Complete Guide for Foreign Companies
• Setting Up a Company in Spain Without Travelling