In recent years, the courts have issued numerous and important resolutions and judgments that we review below, which have been shaping an abundant doctrine on the concepts of center of economic interests, center of vital interests or sporadic absences, or on the value of residence certificates.
In recent years, we have witnessed a notable increase in litigation in which the determination of the tax residence of an individual is disputed. An increase in conflict that, without a doubt, is due to growing mobility, being today possible and frequent the simultaneous presence of a person in several jurisdictions, which complicates the application of the traditional criteria of tax residence.
In this area there are several concepts or areas of interest: the calculation of the days spent in a given territory, sporadic absences (which are added to this calculation), the center of vital interests versus that of economic interests; or the value of tax residence certificates, all of which have been analyzed in detail by the courts, as reviewed below.
The Supreme Court already dealt with tax residence in two decisive judgments referring to the same case, of 15 December 2005 and 4 July 2006.
In a residence dispute between Spain and Switzerland, the High Court appropriately took up the technique that requires the analysis of each domestic legislation first and then, only when the previous analysis results in a possible double residence, the corresponding double taxation agreement (DTA).
In this case, the court accepted the probative value of a certificate of tax residence issued by the competent cantonal authority in Switzerland, concluding that this certificate proved tax residence for the purposes of the agreement, which required, where appropriate, to resort to the tie-breaking rules of article 4.2 of the DTC. But it also understood that this proof of residence in another State did not prevent the Spanish Administration from considering that same person to be resident in Spain by application of our domestic law, proving that that person had his center of economic interests in Spain. Specifically, in both judgments it was concluded that, since there was a home available to that person in both jurisdictions, it was necessary to resort to the center of vital interests and, in the presence of personal ties in both States, the place where the center of economic interests was located should finally prevail.
Of particular importance is the subsequent judgment of 12 June 2023, in which, in conjunction with that of 4 July 2006, the Supreme Court stated that the Tax Administration cannot ignore a certificate of tax residence issued by the competent authority of another State, in particular when there is a DTA. The existence of a certificate makes it necessary to justify, where appropriate, its irrelevance or to resort to the rules of article 4.2 of the DTC. In this specific case, following the retroaction of the proceedings ordered by the Supreme Court, the National High Court reiterated the appellant’s tax residence in Spain because his center of vital interests was located here (judgment of 9 April 2024).
We thus arrive at the judgments of July 8 and 9 , 2024, in which the Supreme Court specifies the notions of center of economic interests and center of vital interests and affirms that (i) we are dealing with two different concepts, the second being broader, which is the one mentioned in article 4.2 of the OECD Model Convention; and that (ii) the center of economic interests must be determined on a case-by-case basis, assessing the total income and assets of the taxpayer’s real estate and movable assets. This doctrine is reiterated by the court in its latest judgments of 22 July 2024 (appeals 7744/2022 and 2613/2023 ) and 15 July 2025.
Another of the concepts analyzed by the courts is that of sporadic absences. In 2017 and 2018, the Supreme Court issued numerous rulings on the tax residence of scholarship holders abroad and the concept of sporadic absence and concluded that these absences cannot include periods of time so long in time that they are longer than that provided for as legal stay, that is, 183 days.
The citation of this case law allows us to frame the latest decisions of the National High Court and the TEAC.
The National Court has issued two rulings this year with special notoriety in which this concept of sporadic absences is analyzed in detail.
The first, dated March 5, 2026, refers to a Colombian professional soccer player who in one year played in Monaco and Spain. In the absence of proof of permanence for more than 183 days in Spain, the Administration understood that the center of his economic interests was located in this territory because he had received in Spain most of his income as a result of his transfer to a Spanish club. However, the National High Court upholds his appeal in accordance with the criterion of permanence. It admits proven residence in Monaco by means other than a true certificate of residence and resorts to the qualification of sporadic absences to reject that those that occurred during the term of the contract that linked the player to Monaco can be classified as such, in favor of the residence in Spain.
In the second of these judgments, of April 15, 2026, the case of an artist whose tax residence is disputed in what would be her first year of tax residence in Spain is reviewed. The alternative residence would be the Bahamas, without any real link with that jurisdiction having been proven. However, the Chamber does consider it proven that this person was not in Spain for more than 183 days and that his center of economic interests was not in Spanish territory either. Therefore, the residence in Spain (if applicable) rested only on the consideration as sporadic absences of the periods of time corresponding to the artist’s performances and tours, absences that could be added to the proven days of stay, to reach 183 days. And it is this construction that the Chamber rejects, invoking the aforementioned doctrine of the Supreme Court on such absences. Certainly, those judgments of 2017 and 2018 rejected the idea that prolonged absences were sporadic but left unresolved the relationship between such absences and residence in another country. The law provides that these absences can only be computed if the taxpayer does not prove their tax residence in another country, but then it was up in the air whether the Spanish Administration could question that other residence and then compute true temporary absences. The National High Court, after assessing the personal ties of the taxpayer in that first year of her possible residence, limits itself to understanding that an absence of more than 183 days cannot be sporadic, considering as a whole the set of those trips or tours of the taxpayer.
Along with the two outstanding previous judgments, the National Court has issued a third judgment this year on February 10, 2026, relating to a lawyer with tax residence in the United Kingdom. The case focuses on evidence, sidestepping the question of the tax regime applicable in the United Kingdom, whose tax authority had issued a tax residence certificate. For the Chamber, the Spanish Administration has not proven the taxpayer’s residence in Spain in accordance with domestic regulations, since it has not been proven that he stayed more than 183 days in Spanish territory, it being clear that the base of his activity was in London, as head of the office of a Spanish law firm there.
This issue of the relevance of certain special regimes, such as the so-called inpatriate regime provided for in article 93 of the Personal Income Tax Law, leads us to the TEAC resolution of 20 April 2026. Although the taxpayer’s tax residence is not properly disputed, the resolution addresses a very close issue, by denying a resident in Portugal, to whom the non-habitual resident regime was applicable, the right to apply the DTA with that State. According to the TEAC, those who enjoy this regime may be resident in Portugal but are not entitled to the application of the DTA, in accordance with article 4.1, as this regime involves territorial taxation (reiterating its own doctrine in several resolutions of 2024 and 2025). In the opinion of the TEAC, this rule will also be applicable to other regimes, with express reference to the remittance basis of the United Kingdom. This criterion coincides with that of the National High Court in its judgment of 17 March 2025; and with that of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia in its judgments of 18 September and 3 November 2025, in which that regime inclines it to consider that the appellant had his tax residence in Spain.
Earlier, in its resolution of 19 February 2026, the TEAC addresses a classic conflict of residence. Citing the Supreme Court ruling of 8 July 2024, before a person who owns a valuable art collection outside Spain, the TEAC resorts to this analysis on a case-by-case basis to highlight that these works of art, although of a higher value, are of less qualitative importance than the assets located in Spain used for economic activities. And, according to the DTC, this last patrimony, together with some personal relationships, allow the TEAC to also place the center of vital interests in Spain, in the absence of any evidence on the personal or economic relations of the taxpayer in the other jurisdiction.
To conclude these lines we must point out several conclusions. First of all, it should be remembered that DTAs do not determine tax residence, which results from each domestic regulation, although they can be decisive in avoiding dual residence. In this context, the concepts of the center of economic interests and the center of vital interests condemn us to great uncertainty. Second, tax residency is a matter of proof; whoever alleges or opposes a certain tax residence must prove it if the Administration has initially been able to prove the tax residence in Spain of that person. It should not be forgotten, moreover, that, observing many of these judgments and resolutions, one might think that they are not free from a frequent intuitive approach, based on effective taxation in the other jurisdiction or the absence of economic or personal reasons for a change of residence.
