The impatriate regime (Beckham Law) and the location of cryptocurrencies

The taxation of crypto-assets under the special regime of Article 93 LIRPF —known as the “Beckham Law”— is not resolved with a binary answer. It is not correct to say that the impatriate never pays tax in Spain on their cryptocurrencies, but nor that every crypto gain or income is automatically taxable merely because they reside here. The decisive question is one of location, and the answer changes according to whether it is self-custody or third-party custody, capital gains or investment income, and a Spanish or a foreign platform.

The starting point: the special regime is not worldwide taxation

A person who elects the special impatriate regime does not become taxable, like an ordinary resident, on all their worldwide income. They are taxed under personal income tax (IRPF) in accordance with the rules of the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR) for income obtained without a permanent establishment. For that reason, in the area of capital gains and certain financial income, the location of the asset or of the income remains critical. And for crypto-assets that question presents more friction than for traditional assets, because there is no natural physical situs of the asset.

Self-custody: the DGT’s criterion is firm

Ruling V1662-23 is particularly useful, and it deserves to be read with care, because it sets the criterion for both ends of the question. The taxpayer did not specify how their cryptocurrencies were held, so the DGT resolved the matter by distinguishing two scenarios. In self-custody —where the holder keeps their own private keys, without any third-party custodian involved—, the cryptocurrencies are located in Spanish territory, solely for the purposes of the Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR) and, by extension, of the Article 93 regime, by reference to the holder’s tax residence; the DGT equates to this scenario that of a custodian who is resident or has a permanent establishment in Spain, with the same outcome as to location. It is worth bearing in mind that the same ruling also contains the converse criterion for the case of a custodian not established in Spain, which V0376-24 would later confirm on a real set of facts. The criterion should not be extended beyond what it says, but nor should it be underrated: in cases of self-custody, the administrative doctrine offers a fairly clear guide within the special regime.

Third-party foreign custody: the value of V0376-24

Ruling V0376-24 completes the picture. Where the private-key safeguarding service is provided by a foreign platform, the DGT does not automatically maintain the location in Spain. In line with its earlier rulings V1069-19 and V1662-23, it considers that the location will depend on whether the custodian is resident in Spain or acts here through a permanent establishment.

The case resolved in that ruling is illustrative. An impatriate operated with cryptocurrencies through the platform of a company domiciled in Cyprus, which held custody of the assets and provided its services in Spain on a freedom-to-provide-services basis, without an establishment. The DGT concluded that the cryptocurrencies were not located in Spanish territory and that, therefore, the gains arising from their disposal or exchange were not deemed obtained in Spain, with no need to include them in Form 151. The distinction between a resident custodian and a custodian not established in Spain is therefore the axis of the analysis.

The practical consequence for capital gains

The consequence is direct. If the impatriate operates with self-custodied cryptocurrencies, the available doctrine points towards locating in Spain the capital gains arising from their sale or swap. If, by contrast, the cryptocurrencies are safeguarded by a foreign platform with no residence or permanent establishment in Spain, the conclusion may be the opposite. What changes is the location and, with it, the taxability; not the tax nature of the transaction, which remains a capital gain or loss.

Staking and other financial income

The analysis shifts when we are no longer dealing with a capital gain but with investment income. V0376-24, relying on V1766-22, is useful here too, because it distinguishes two modalities according to who validates. In active staking, the taxpayer acts as a validating node themselves and, if the activity does not reach the level of an economic activity, the reward is investment income from the transfer to third parties of one’s own capital, paid in kind. In passive staking, they merely lock up their crypto-assets, placing them, through the platform, at the service of a third-party validator, and the reward is likewise classified as investment income from the transfer to third parties of one’s own capital (Article 25.2 LIRPF). The decisive difference is not the characterisation of the income —identical in both— but the applicable location rule. The question then becomes who pays the income and where it is deemed located. Unlike a capital gain, its situation is governed by Article 13.1.f) 2.º TRLIRNR: it is deemed obtained in Spain when paid by a resident person or entity or by a permanent establishment in Spanish territory, or when it remunerates capital used in Spain. That question requires careful distinction between the Spanish platform, the foreign platform, the mere decentralised protocol and hybrid custody structures.

Interpretive cautions

It should not be asserted that every foreign platform always excludes Spanish taxation, nor that all self-custodied activity is necessarily taxable as a block. Nor should the reasoning of Article 93 LIRPF be transposed without more to any other tax or situation. The DGT makes clear that the criterion of location in Spain operates solely for the purposes of the IRNR, so that it cannot be carried over directly either to the wealth tax (IP) or to the reporting obligations on crypto-assets located abroad, which follow their own rules. The combination of the intermediary’s residence, the existence or otherwise of a permanent establishment, the form of custody and the specific nature of the income remains, in each case, what determines the outcome.