Can the tax office review your Beckham election years later?
By Daniel Bertomeu Quiles · Tax advisor (AEDAF nº 06838 · APAFCV nº 3080) · Reviewed by Juan Bertomeu · Lawyer (ICALI nº 4643, practising since 1991).
If the AEAT accepted your Modelo 149 and you have been filing Modelo 151 ever since, the worry I hear most is always the same one: can they come back in year three or four and unwind the whole thing?
Short answer: yes, they can review while the limitation period is open, and in my experience the review tends to arrive years after the election, not weeks. But there is a wall that very few people cite. If the tax office already ran a limited check (comprobación limitada) on the same tax and the same years, and closed it without adjusting anything, that earlier check can block a later review. In February 2026 the Galicia High Court used exactly that reasoning to annul an assessment and its penalty, because the later inspection should never have been opened. That ruling is not recorded as final and is open to cassation, so treat it as a strong argument rather than settled law.
Daniel walks you through the regime on video.
Yes, an accepted election can be reopened
Acceptance of the 149 is not a final blessing. Each tax year carries its own limitation period, four years as a general rule, so a 2023 return can still be examined years later. In the files I have seen, reviews tend to surface late, often out of an unrelated cross-check, which is why a regime granted in year one can be questioned in year four.
The wall: article 140.1 LGT
Article 140.1 LGT says that once a limited check ends with a resolution, the tax authority cannot make a new assessment on the same checked object, unless a later procedure discovers new facts or circumstances resulting from actions different from those already carried out and specified in that resolution.
The Supreme Court read that generously in judgment 1341/2020. Preclusion is not confined to what was expressly adjusted: if the Administration requested documents, received them, and closed without regularising, its implicit position was that what had been declared was correct. Re-examining data it already held is not a “new fact” (my translation). One honest note: that case concerned a 2009 capital gain, not the impatriate regime. The doctrine is the Supreme Court's; the application to Beckham is Galicia's.
What the Galicia court actually did
In STSJ Galicia 122/2026 (19 February 2026) the taxpayer had filed no Modelo 100 for 2016, 2017 and 2018. Three limited checks were opened asking why. He answered that he had opted into art. 93 LIRPF and filed Modelo 151, and he attached the returns. All three closed with no adjustment.
Later, the Inspectorate opened a full inspection, arguing it had found new facts: “an exhaustive investigation of his place of residence” (my translation) allegedly showing the 149 had been filed out of time, plus a recharacterisation of his professional income as employment income from his own company.
The court struck the whole thing down. The AEAT already held the 151 returns when it ran the limited checks. If it believed the election was late, it could and should have said so then. Noticing it afterwards is neither a new fact nor a different action. The assessment fell and, in the court's words, so did the penalty derived from it. The judgment records amounts of 72,933.79 and 49,342.01 euros without stating which corresponds to the assessment and which to the penalty, and separately fixes the value of the proceedings at 156,791.97 euros. No costs were imposed, given the serious doubts of law.
Where the wall ends
Three boundaries, because this shield is narrower than it looks:
1. It protects the tax, the years and the scope that were actually checked. A favourable check on a different tax or a different year does not protect the one under review, so the wording of the scope is what defines the shield.
2. The certificate granting the regime does not preclude anything. Madrid has held that the checking preceding it “cannot be exhaustive” (my translation) (STSJM 571/2024, cited in 124/2025).
3. The Administration can lean on a prior inspection that has been upheld, even if still under appeal, and deny the regime on that basis. That is what STSJM 124/2025 confirmed.
The caveat I will not skip
Beyond the finality point already flagged, the merits of the Galicia case were left unjudged. The court upheld the procedural ground and expressly declined to examine the remaining ones, so it never decided whether the 149 was late. Nothing here makes a late election valid. The six-month window of art. 116 RIRPF stays hard, and after handling more than 100 Beckham files I can say that is still where the expensive mistakes happen.
The practical lesson: every check you survive is an asset
This changes how I think about the six years of the regime. A closed check is not just relief, it could become your defence later. So keep, for each one:
The exact scope of what was checked, in the tax office's own wording.
Everything you submitted in response, with dates.
The closing resolution stating no adjustment was made.
A file with a documented history can be defended. A file without paperwork cannot argue preclusion at all, because you cannot prove what was checked.
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 |
|---|---|
| STSJ Galicia 122/2026, 19 February 2026, appeal 15496/2024, ECLI:ES:TSJGAL:2026:1164 | Three limited checks closed without adjustment triggered the preclusive effect of art. 140.1 LGT and barred the later inspection; assessment and penalty annulled; the judgment records amounts of €72,933.79 and €49,342.01 without labelling which is which, and sets the value of the proceedings at €156,791.97; merits expressly left unexamined; not recorded as final, cassation must be prepared before the same court within 30 days of notification |
| STS 1341/2020, 16 October 2020, appeal 3895/2018, ECLI:ES:TS:2020:3409 | Supreme Court doctrine applied by Galicia: preclusion is not limited to what was expressly regularised; re-examining data already held is not a “new fact” (origin case: 2009 capital gain, not the impatriate regime) |
| STSJ Madrid 124/2025, 10 March 2025, appeal 171/2023, ECLI:ES:TSJM:2025:3536 | Limit of the shield: management bodies may deny the regime relying on a prior inspection act that has been upheld, even while still under appeal, without that being a “material check” reserved to the Inspectorate |
| STSJ Madrid 571/2024, appeal 855/2022 (ECLI not verified; cited in STSJM 124/2025, FJ 5) | The checking preceding the certificate recognising the regime “cannot be exhaustive”, so the certificate can be left without effect in a later regularisation |
| Art. 140.1, Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre (LGT) | Preclusive effect of a limited check: no new assessment on the same checked object unless new facts arise from different actions |
| Arts. 66 and 67, Ley 58/2003 (LGT) | Four-year limitation period and the date from which it runs, counted per tax year |
| Art. 141.e), Ley 58/2003 (LGT) | Functions reserved to the Inspectorate: in STSJM 124/2025 the doctrine was held inapplicable because the management office had made no material check of the regime |
| Art. 93, Ley 35/2006, de 28 de noviembre (LIRPF) | The impatriate (“Beckham”) regime |
| Art. 116, RD 439/2007, de 30 de marzo (RIRPF) | Six-month window to file Modelo 149, unextendable |
Orientation only, not tax or legal advice. Your case is reviewed and signed by a registered professional before anything reaches the AEAT.