Beckham Law Rental Expenses: The Supreme Court Will Decide
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 are under the Beckham regime and you rent out property in Spain, you have probably asked yourself the same question at filing time: can I deduct my expenses (community fees, repairs, mortgage interest) or do I pay 24% on every gross euro? On 12 November 2025, Spain's Supreme Court agreed to answer that question once and for all.
Short answer: nobody knows yet, and that is the whole point. The Supreme Court has admitted three appeals on exactly this issue. The last ruling on the merits, from the Madrid High Court, was favourable to the taxpayer, but an admission order means the outcome is genuinely open. Until the Court rules, the prudent default in my experience is to declare rental income gross, preserve your right to claim the expenses back through a rectification request (which is subject to a four-year limitation period), and decide each case on its numbers.
Daniel walks you through the regime on video.
The exact question the Court will answer
Beckham taxpayers (art. 93 LIRPF) are taxed under non-resident rules. For rental income, two of those rules collide. Art. 24.1 TRLIRNR taxes income on its gross amount, no deductions. Art. 24.6 lets residents of another EU Member State deduct expenses directly linked to their Spanish income.
The question the Court has fixed (my translation of the admission order): whether, under the special regime for workers posted to Spanish territory of art. 93 LIRPF, the rule of art. 24.6 TRLIRNR applies — allowing deduction of certain expenses directly linked to income obtained in Spain — or whether the taxable base must instead be determined under art. 24.1, that is, “on its gross amount without deduction of any expense.”
Notably, the State's own lawyers, when seeking admission, acknowledged that the doctrine at stake “affects a great number of situations”: potentially every taxpayer who opts into the regime (again, my translation).
How we got here
The lead case involves an impatriate with several rented properties in Spain and a 2017 Modelo 151. A limited-scope tax check ended in 2020 with an assessment denying the deductions, plus a penalty. The regional tribunal (TEAR Madrid) sided with the tax office. Then the Madrid High Court, in judgment 413/2024 of 10 June 2024, ruled for the taxpayer: since Beckham taxpayers keep their status as IRPF taxpayers while taxed under non-resident rules, there is “identity of reason” with ordinary residents where the expenses are directly and inseparably linked to the Spanish income. It annulled both the assessment and the penalty, and expressly departed from the tax authority's long-standing binding criterion (DGT ruling V2589-10).
The State appealed, and on 12 November 2025 the Supreme Court admitted that appeal together with two twin cases.
One thing I want to be careful about: an admission order is not a ruling. It does not mean Hacienda has “won” anything on the merits: the last word on the merits, for now, remains favourable to the taxpayer. What it does confirm is that the question is genuinely unsettled.
The two positions, in brief
The State runs four arguments: art. 93.2 LIRPF remits to the gross-amount rule of art. 24.1; there is no legal gap, so applying art. 24.6 by analogy breaches art. 4.1 of the Civil Code; art. 24.6 literally covers only residents of another EU Member State, and Beckham taxpayers reside in Spain; and art. 24.6 exists to align Spanish law with EU free-movement rules, a purpose foreign to someone who voluntarily opted into the regime.
The Madrid court's answer rests on the regime's hybrid nature and on that identity of reason. Both readings are defensible, which tends to be exactly why the Supreme Court takes a case.
What I would do while the Court decides
In my experience (after handling more than 100 Beckham files), the sensible approach could look like this:
1. Declare prudently. File Modelo 151 on the gross amount under art. 24.1. Deducting now invites an assessment and possibly a penalty, even though a live controversy of this kind could later weigh against any finding of culpability.
2. Keep the year alive. A prudent return forfeits nothing: if the Court rules for taxpayers, you could claim the expenses back through a rectification request (art. 120.3 LGT), available within the four-year limitation period of art. 66 LGT. Recent filings generally remain within that window.
3. Build your evidence today. If the taxpayer wins, art. 24.6 requires proof that expenses are “directly related” to the Spanish income, with a “direct and inseparable economic link.” Keep invoices, contracts and per-property breakdowns now, not later.
4. Run the numbers case by case. In the admitted case, the disputed amounts were around 19,500 euros each on some 74,500 euros of rental income. At that scale, tailored advice pays for itself; at modest expense levels, prudence may simply be the cheaper option.
Does this affect you?
Only if you are (or plan to be) under the Beckham regime and you own rented property in Spain. Employment income is untouched by this appeal.
If you are still weighing whether the regime fits your move, start with our free eligibility checker: it takes about two minutes.
Cited with date: check us
| Source | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| ATS (Supreme Court admission order) 12 November 2025, appeal 7666/2024, ECLI:ES:TS:2025:10357A | Admits the State's cassation appeal and fixes the question: art. 24.6 TRLIRNR deduction vs art. 24.1 gross taxation for art. 93 LIRPF taxpayers; records the State's four arguments and the case figures (approx. €19,508.79 per claim on €74,510.55 of rental income) |
| ATS 12 November 2025, appeal 8947/2024, ECLI:ES:TS:2025:10358A; and ATS 10370/2025, appeal 7688/2024 | Twin admission orders on the same cassation question |
| STSJ Madrid 413/2024, 10 June 2024, appeal 766/2022, ECLI:ES:TSJM:2024:7298 | Merits ruling favourable to the taxpayer: deduction allowed on “identity of reason”; annulled both assessment and penalty; expressly departed from DGT V2589-10 |
| DGT binding ruling V2589-10, 30 November 2010 official record → | Administrative criterion denying art. 24.6 to impatriates; binding on AEAT bodies (art. 89.1 LGT) |
| Art. 93, Ley 35/2006 (LIRPF) | The impatriate (“Beckham”) regime and its remission to non-resident taxation rules |
| Art. 24.1 and art. 24.6.1ª.a), RDLeg 5/2004 (TRLIRNR); art. 24.6 introduced by Ley 2/2010 | Gross-amount rule vs EU-resident expense deduction; evidentiary standard (“directly related”, “direct and inseparable economic link”) |
| Arts. 120.3 and 66, Ley 58/2003 (LGT) | Right to request rectification of a self-assessment; four-year limitation period |
| Art. 4.1, Código Civil | Rule on analogy invoked by the State against extending art. 24.6 |
Orientation only, not tax or legal advice. Your case is reviewed and signed by a registered professional before anything reaches the AEAT.