Beckham Law for Founders: Set Up Your Company First
By Daniel Bertomeu Quiles · Tax advisor (AEDAF nº 06838 · APAFCV nº 3080) · Reviewed by Juan Bertomeu · Lawyer (ICALI nº 4643, practising since 1991).
If you're a founder planning a move to Spain, someone has probably told you this: “You can't get the Beckham Law if you own the company. It only works for employees.” I hear it constantly: from founders, from forums, even from some advisors. And after handling more than 100 Beckham files, I can tell you the picture is more interesting than that.
*The short answer: owning your own Spanish company (even 100% of it) does not, by itself, close the door to the Beckham regime. Spain's Directorate-General for Taxes (DGT), the body that issues binding tax rulings, has now said so repeatedly, most recently in a binding ruling from May 2026. The route is the director route, not the employee route, and the sequence of your dates tends to decide everything: company first, move second, because of the role.*
Daniel walks you through the regime on video.
The May 2026 ruling that founders should read
In ruling V1313-26 (28 May 2026), the DGT looked at what I'd call the textbook founder case: a Swedish tax resident incorporated a Spanish SL in July 2025 as its sole shareholder, while still living in Sweden. He then planned to relocate to Spain in 2026 because of his appointment as director of that company.
The DGT's answer: he may opt for the special regime if he becomes Spanish tax resident as a consequence of his relocation due to his appointment as director, provided the company is not a “patrimonial” (asset-holding) entity and the other statutory conditions are met (my translation, paraphrased).
This wasn't a one-off. Ten months earlier, ruling V1439-25 (29 July 2025) reached the same conclusion for a returning expat appointed director of two Spanish companies he owned: one at 100%, one at 51%.
So the sequence the DGT has validated looks like this: incorporate the company before you move, and move for the role. And as a matter of prudent practice (because of how a file reads when it is reviewed later), get the appointment documented before you land too.
The three conditions that get reviewed with a magnifying glass
The rulings are favourable, but conditional. Their own wording makes clear that files in this profile get looked at closely on three fronts:
1. The company cannot be a patrimonial entity. If your SL mostly holds assets rather than running a real economic activity, the analysis changes, and a shareholding cap kicks in, defined by reference to the related-party rules of art. 18 of the Corporate Income Tax Law. For a genuine operating business, the DGT has accepted 51% and 100% shareholdings.
2. The causal link must be real, and documented. The law requires that your move happens “as a consequence of” the appointment. This is treated as a question of fact, assessed later by the tax administration, not settled in advance by the DGT. The dates tell the story: an appointment dated before your relocation, coherent with your entry and Social Security registration, tends to read well. Arriving first and incorporating afterwards tends to read badly. Recent administrative decisions have denied the regime on precisely that order of dates: arrival first, company and appointment afterwards.
3. No permanent establishment (PE) in Spain. This is the subtle one for founders. If, beyond your directorship, you personally carry out the operating work of the business, part of your income could be reclassified as economic activity through a Spanish PE, which is incompatible with the regime. The director who is also the entire workforce is the profile that needs the most careful structuring.
The trap: “I'll just employ myself”
Here's where many founders go wrong. They know the employee route exists, so they sign an employment contract with their own SL, set up payroll, and assume that's their ticket.
It isn't. Back in 2017, ruling V0321-17 examined a sole shareholder-director who had a signed employment contract as commercial director, with a monthly salary. The DGT's conclusion: no employment relationship exists between a person and a company they control. Under the effective-control rules of Social Security law, with half the capital or more, effective control exists “in any case”, and where there is effective control, there is no employment relationship. A separate contract, a payslip, even an unpaid directorship: none of it changes the analysis.
That ruling predates the 2023 reform, so it says nothing about today's director route, but its core point still stands. With half the capital or more, the employee door is closed. For founders, it's the director route or nothing.
The founder sequence checklist
Based on the doctrine above, this is the order of operations I'd want to see:
1. While still non-resident: incorporate the Spanish company (or acquire your stake) and formalise your appointment as director, in a dated deed.
2. Check the company is a real operating business, not an asset-holding vehicle.
3. Then relocate, with entry and Social Security registration dates coherent with the appointment.
4. Keep your role clean: directorship duties, with care around personally performing the company's operating work.
5. File Modelo 149 within 6 months of your Social Security registration. The window is strict and non-extendable.
None of this guarantees an outcome: the causal link is always assessed on the facts of each file. But the doctrine is now clearly on the founder's side when the sequence is right.
Wondering if your own case fits? Run it through our free [Beckham Law eligibility checker](/tools/eligibility-checker): it takes two minutes.
Cited with date: check us
| Source | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| DGT binding ruling V1313-26 (28 May 2026) official record → | A sole shareholder who incorporates a Spanish SL before relocating and moves due to his appointment as director may opt for the art. 93 regime, provided the company is not a patrimonial entity and arts. 93.1.a) and c) are met. |
| DGT binding ruling V1439-25 (29 July 2025) official record → | A director of two self-owned Spanish companies (100% and 51%) may opt; the causal link between relocation and appointment is a question of fact; the shareholding cap applies only to patrimonial entities (by reference to art. 18 LIS); warning on PE if services beyond the directorship are provided. |
| DGT binding ruling V0321-17 (7 February 2017) official record → | No employment relationship exists between a sole shareholder-director and his own company, even with a signed contract and payroll: effective control makes the relationship commercial; with half the capital or more, control exists “in any case”. |
| Art. 93, Ley 35/2006, de 28 de noviembre (LIRPF, as amended by Ley 28/2022) | The impatriate regime; the director route (93.1.b).2º); the incompatibility with income from economic activities through a Spanish PE (93.1.c). |
| Arts. 5.2 and 18, Ley 27/2014, de 27 de noviembre (LIS) | Definition of patrimonial entity and the related-party threshold that caps shareholding when the entity is patrimonial. |
| Arts. 17.1 and 27.1, Ley 35/2006 (LIRPF) | Classification of a shareholder's services beyond the directorship: the legal basis of the PE risk. |
| Art. 116, RD 439/2007, de 30 de marzo (RIRPF) & Modelo 149 (Orden HFP/1338/2023) | The 6-month, non-extendable window to opt into the regime, counted from Social Security registration. |
Orientation only, not tax or legal advice. Your case is reviewed and signed by a registered professional before anything reaches the AEAT.