Thousands of Spanish nationals living and working abroad have long faced a practical paradox: they want to return to Spain and continue working remotely for their foreign employer, but the digital nomad visa — introduced by the Startups Law of 2022 precisely to facilitate such arrangements — is legally unavailable to them. Spanish citizens cannot obtain their own country's residence visas. Yet the underlying regime they seek to access, the Special Expatriate Tax Regime (Article 93 LIRPF), commonly known as the Beckham Law, does not require any particular visa. Now, with the binding consultation V2460-25 of 11 December 2025, the Dirección General de Tributos (DGT) has answered the question directly: a Spanish national with dual citizenship, returning to Spain after years abroad to telework for a foreign employer, can qualify for the regime even without a digital nomad visa.
This article analyses the facts and legal reasoning behind V2460-25, explains why the digital nomad visa is a sufficient but not necessary condition under Article 93 LIRPF, and sets out the conditions that do apply, including the documentation that must be provided to the AEAT under Article 119 of the RIRPF.
Key takeaways
- Spanish nationals cannot obtain the digital nomad visa (visado para teletrabajo de carácter internacional), but this does not bar them from the Beckham Law regime.
- The DGT confirms that the visa is a sufficient condition — not a necessary one — for satisfying the relocation requirement of Article 93.1.b).1º LIRPF.
- A genuine remote employment relationship with a foreign entity, performed exclusively via IT and telecoms means, satisfies the statutory condition regardless of visa status or nationality.
- The applicant must not have been fiscally resident in Spain during any of the five tax periods prior to the move, and must not obtain income attributable to a permanent establishment in Spain.
- The employer must provide a supporting document under Article 119 RIRPF confirming the employment, Social Security affiliation date, and estimated duration of work in Spain.
Background — the digital nomad limb of Article 93 LIRPF
Spain's Special Expatriate Tax Regime — popularly called the Beckham Law after the footballer who first benefited from it — has existed since 2003. It allows individuals who acquire Spanish tax residency as a result of an employment-driven relocation to be taxed on their Spanish-source income at a flat rate of 24% on earnings up to €600,000, instead of the progressive general income tax scale that can reach 47%. The original regime was designed for traditional expatriate postings: a foreign employer sends an executive to its Spanish subsidiary or affiliate.
The Ley 28/2022 de fomento del ecosistema de las empresas emergentes — the Startups Law — significantly expanded the regime with effect from 1 January 2023. Among the most notable innovations was the explicit recognition of a new qualifying category: teleworkers who relocate to Spain to work remotely for a foreign employer. Article 93.1.b).1º LIRPF now provides that the relocation condition is met when the work is performed "at distance, via exclusive use of computer, telematic and telecommunications systems and means."
The same provision adds that this condition is understood as met "in particular" in the case of employees who hold the visado para teletrabajo de carácter internacional — the digital nomad visa introduced by Ley 14/2013. This parenthetical reference to the digital nomad visa created ambiguity in practice: did the visa requirement apply only as an example (i.e., one way to prove remote work), or was it an additional mandatory condition? V2460-25 resolves this ambiguity definitively.
The consultation — facts
The consultation was filed by an individual with a highly specific profile: a Spanish national who had also acquired United States citizenship and had been living and working in the United States since 2011. In mid-2025, he reached an agreement with his US employer — for whom he had worked throughout his time in the US — to return to Spain and continue carrying out his duties exclusively via telework starting August 2025. His Social Security coverage was to remain under the US system throughout the arrangement.
Because he holds Spanish nationality, he is legally ineligible to apply for the digital nomad visa established by Ley 14/2013. That visa is a residence authorisation, and Spanish nationals already have the unrestricted right to reside in Spain — they do not require any such document. The question he put to the DGT was therefore direct and pointed: given that the digital nomad visa is unavailable to him as a matter of law, can he nonetheless satisfy the requirements of Article 93 LIRPF and access the Special Expatriate Regime?
His situation also raised a secondary issue regarding Social Security. Spanish Social Security affiliation would normally be required as part of the employment relationship, yet his arrangement preserved US Social Security coverage. The DGT's answer addressed the primary fiscal question without making Social Security affiliation a determinative factor for the regime's eligibility — the regime's conditions are tax law conditions, not Social Security law conditions.
The DGT answer — why the visa is not required
The DGT confirmed that the individual can access the Special Expatriate Regime under Article 93 LIRPF, provided the substantive conditions are met. The legal reasoning is clean and technically sound.
The starting point is the text of Article 93.1.b).1º LIRPF itself. The provision states that the regime applies when the individual has "started an employment activity in Spain" that consists of work "performed at distance, via exclusive use of computer, telematic and telecommunications systems and means." It then says that this condition is understood as met "in particular" — en particular — in the case of employees holding the digital nomad visa.
The DGT's reasoning turns on the meaning of "in particular." This is a legislative technique that identifies one specific scenario as a clear and unambiguous example of the general rule. It does not establish the scenario as the only route to satisfying the rule. The phrase signals that the digital nomad visa is a sufficient condition: if you hold it, you automatically satisfy the telework requirement. But the absence of the visa does not lead to the inverse conclusion — that the requirement cannot be satisfied.
For a Spanish national who cannot obtain the visa as a matter of law, the underlying substantive requirement is still available to be satisfied directly: if the work is genuinely performed remotely, using exclusively IT and telecoms means, from Spain, for a foreign employer, the condition of Article 93.1.b).1º is met on its own terms. The visa is not an additional requirement layered on top of the genuine remote work test — it is merely a formal shortcut to proving what the genuine remote work test already covers.
This reading is consistent with the purpose of the 2022 Startups Law reform: to attract talent to Spain by making the regime accessible to the new reality of location-independent work. Interpreting the digital nomad visa as a mandatory prerequisite would produce the absurd result of excluding the very group — Spanish nationals returning from abroad — that the regime's broader purpose most naturally encompasses.
The DGT has done something important here: it has confirmed that the Beckham Law's telework category is accessible based on the substance of what you do, not on the administrative label attached to your immigration status. For Spanish nationals returning from the US, the UK, or anywhere else after years abroad, this closes a gap that had been creating unnecessary uncertainty. — DPLL Tax & Legal · Editorial commentary, May 2026
Conditions that DO apply
The DGT's positive answer is conditional. The consultation makes clear that four substantive requirements must be satisfied for the regime to apply:
- Prior non-residence. The individual must not have been a tax resident in Spain during any of the five tax periods immediately preceding the period of first Spanish tax residence resulting from the move. This is the standard "prior non-residence" filter that applies across all categories of Article 93. In the case of the consulta, the individual had not been resident in Spain since 2011 — well beyond the required five-year gap.
- Genuine employment relationship. There must exist a genuine and pre-existing employment relationship with the foreign entity. The telework arrangement must be a continuation of a real foreign employment, not a structure created artificially to access the regime. In V2460-25, the individual had worked for the same US employer throughout his years in the US, and the agreement to telework from Spain was a documented modification of that existing relationship.
- Genuine remote performance via IT means. The work must actually be performed remotely from Spain, using exclusively computer, telematic and telecommunications systems. Physical presence at a client site in Spain, or management of operations based in Spain, would undermine this condition. The nature of the work must be genuinely location-independent.
- No permanent establishment income. The income received from the foreign employer must not be classifiable as income from a permanent establishment in Spain. If the individual's activities in Spain effectively constitute a fixed place of business through which the foreign employer carries on its trade, the regime does not apply to that income. This is the standard permanent establishment filter and applies equally to all teleworking arrangements under Article 93.
Documentation requirements under Article 119 RIRPF
Satisfying the substantive conditions is necessary but not sufficient. The procedural side of the application is governed by Article 119 of the Reglamento del IRPF (RIRPF), which sets out what must be submitted with the Modelo 149 application.
The DGT draws attention to a specific documentation requirement that applies in cases where the telework arrangement does not arise from a formal order of the employer (i.e., where the employee has agreed to work from Spain rather than being deployed there by the company). In such cases, the RIRPF requires that the employer provide a document confirming three things:
- The existence of the employment relationship between the individual and the foreign entity, including the nature of the work performed.
- The date of affiliation to the relevant Social Security system — or, where a bilateral Social Security treaty applies and Spanish affiliation is not required, the date of affiliation to the equivalent foreign system.
- The estimated duration of the work to be performed in Spain.
This employer letter is a critical piece of documentation. It is the mechanism by which the AEAT can verify that the arrangement is genuine and that the conditions of Article 93 are met in substance. Applicants should ensure that the letter is obtained from the foreign employer before or at the time of filing the Modelo 149, and that it addresses each of the three points with sufficient specificity.
In the case of a US employer with no Spanish establishment, the letter should be on company letterhead, signed by an authorised representative, and ideally accompanied by a notarised translation if the original is in English. The AEAT has discretion to request additional documentation, and a well-prepared employer letter substantially reduces the risk of requests for further information or delays in processing.
For individuals maintaining coverage under a foreign Social Security system pursuant to a bilateral treaty — as was the case in V2460-25 with the US-Spain Social Security Agreement — the documentation should reflect the foreign Social Security affiliation date rather than a Spanish affiliation date. The DGT's answer confirms that this does not disqualify the applicant from the regime.
For practitioners and individuals navigating this process, the Modelo 149 application covers all categories of the Special Expatriate Regime, including the telework category confirmed by V2460-25. DPLL Tax & Legal offers a free eligibility consultation for individuals assessing whether their situation meets the conditions set out in this ruling and in Article 93 LIRPF more broadly.