Beckham Law: Do You Pay Tax on the Home You Live In?
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 moved to Spain under the Beckham regime and bought the home you live in, there is a genuinely open legal fight over whether you owe income tax on that home: not on rent, not on a sale, but simply on owning and living in it. After handling more than 100 Beckham files, I can tell you it is one of the few areas of the regime where the administration and the courts are, right now, saying opposite things.
Short answer: Spain's central tax tribunal (TEAC) says yes, you must declare a notional “imputed income” on your own home. Madrid's high court has said no: twice, most recently ordering a refund with interest. The Supreme Court has not ruled on this question, and the European Commission has an open infringement file against Spain over the same imputation mechanism. In my experience, the prudent path is usually to pay the (typically modest) imputed income and then file a rectification request to keep your refund rights alive, remembering that the right to rectify expires after four years.
Daniel walks you through the regime on video.
What “imputed income” actually is
Spanish income tax law deems a notional income on urban properties you own that are neither rented out nor covered by the ordinary-regime main-home exclusion, calculated as a small percentage of the property's cadastral value. For Beckham taxpayers filing Modelo 151, the question is whether that deemed income applies to the home they actually live in. The amounts involved tend to be small, which is precisely what makes this dispute so unusual.
The tax tribunal's position: yes, you pay
On 17 July 2025, the TEAC issued resolution RG 3697/2025, concluding that taxpayers under the impatriate regime of article 93 LIRPF must include imputed income on their own home. That resolution is binding on the tax administration, so as things stand, AEAT can be expected to apply it in assessments and reviews. If you file without imputing, you could be inviting a discrepancy letter.
Madrid's high court says no, twice
The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has taken the opposite view. In judgment 316/2024 it held that the imputation does not apply to Beckham taxpayers, in a case fought over exactly 203.64 euros. Nobody litigates over 203.64 euros for the money; that was a case about principle, and the taxpayer won it.
The same court then confirmed its position in judgment 665/2025 of 17 September 2025, which went further and ordered the administration to refund the tax paid, with late-payment interest. Two judgments in the same direction from the same court is not yet settled national doctrine, but it is a serious, consistent judicial line against the TEAC's criterion.
What the Supreme Court and Brussels are doing
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the home-imputation question. It has admitted a separate Beckham cassation appeal (on whether rental-property expenses are deductible under the regime, a different battle that should not be confused with this one), which at least shows that the regime's friction points are reaching the top court. On imputation itself, there is no Supreme Court doctrine either way.
Meanwhile, the European Commission has an open infringement procedure against Spain, INFR(2025)4007, with a reasoned opinion issued on 29 April 2026 invoking article 63 TFEU on the free movement of capital. Strictly speaking it targets how Spain applies imputed income to homes of non-residents in general (not the Beckham regime as such), but it is an attack on the very same imputation mechanism, and it adds a European dimension to the pressure on the current framework.
My approach: the safe route, with the door held open
Given a binding TEAC resolution on one side and favourable but non-final court rulings on the other, my working approach in most files tends to be:
1. Impute and pay. The tax at stake is usually small, and filing in line with the binding administrative criterion greatly reduces the room for assessments, surcharges and friction with AEAT.
2. Then file a rectification request asking for the imputed amount back, relying on the Madrid case law. This preserves your position: your claim is on record, and the Madrid court has ordered precisely that kind of refund, with interest, in the 665/2025 case.
3. Mind the clock. The right to request rectification is subject to the four-year limitation period, as the Audiencia Nacional recalled in its judgment of 5 May 2025. Years you let expire without rectifying could be lost even if the doctrine later turns in your favour.
Whether this route fits your case depends on your numbers and your risk tolerance. With a high cadastral value, the imputation stops being trivial, and that is when the analysis deserves a proper look.
Where do you stand?
If you are weighing up the Beckham regime, or already in it and unsure how issues like this affect you, start with our free eligibility checker: it takes a few minutes and flags the points worth reviewing.
Cited with date: check us
| Source | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| Art. 93 Ley 35/2006 (LIRPF) | The special impatriate (“Beckham”) regime under which affected taxpayers file Modelo 151 |
| Art. 85 Ley 35/2006 (LIRPF) | Imputed real-estate income: a notional income calculated as a percentage of cadastral value on non-rented urban properties |
| TEAC resolution RG 3697/2025, 17 July 2025 (binding) | Under the impatriate regime, imputed income on the taxpayer's own home must be declared; binding criterion for the tax administration |
| STSJ Madrid 316/2024, 6 May 2024, ECLI:ES:TSJM:2024:5575 | Imputed income on the own home does not apply to Beckham taxpayers; assessment of €203.64 annulled |
| STSJ Madrid 665/2025, 17 September 2025, ECLI:ES:TSJM:2025:10842 | Confirms the no-imputation line and orders refund of the tax paid with late-payment interest |
| ATS 12 November 2025, appeal 7666/2024, ECLI:ES:TS:2025:10357A | The Supreme Court has admitted a Beckham cassation on deduction of rental-property expenses, a separate question from home imputation, on which the Supreme Court has not ruled |
| European Commission infringement INFR(2025)4007, reasoned opinion 29 April 2026 | Open EU infringement procedure against Spain on imputed income applied to non-residents' homes, invoking art. 63 TFEU (free movement of capital) |
| SAN (Audiencia Nacional) 5 May 2025, appeal 596/2021 | Rectification requests for self-assessments are subject to the four-year limitation period |
Orientation only, not tax or legal advice. Your case is reviewed and signed by a registered professional before anything reaches the AEAT.