Withholding taxes on net income – complying with EU and Spanish law

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Withholding taxes on net income – complying with EU and Spanish law

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-garrigues.png
international-2681322.jpg

Abigail Blanco of Garrigues Madrid analyses recent Spanish case law based on EU edicts, assessing the impact of withholding taxes on gross versus net income in Spain.

According to the Spanish non-resident income tax law (NRIT Law), the tax base for non-residents who obtain income in Spain without a permanent establishment is, in general, the gross amount of such income.

In the case of taxpayers who are resident in the EU (without a permanent establishment), however, a special rule was introduced in 2010. According to this rule, when determining the tax base, expenses can be deducted, if there is a direct relation between the expenses and the income obtained in Spain and a direct and inseparable economic link to the activity performed in this territory (a special rule introduced into the NRIT Law to bring it into line with EU law).

However, the rules on withholding taxes on income paid to non-residents expressly forbids the deduction of such expenses when calculating the withholding tax base.

This difference in treatment between the final amount of non-resident income tax and the tax withheld often results in taxpayers paying an amount of tax which exceeds the sum ultimately due. Also, it should be remembered that non-residents are not obligated to file a tax return if tax has been withheld, which is consistent with the fact that withholding and taxation rates are equivalent. This should simplify the formal obligations for non-residents, yet, due either to the non-resident's lack of awareness of their rights as an EU resident, or to the inconvenience of having to file a self-assessment for taxes refundable, it may lead to the excess tax withheld becoming a definitive cost.

The National Appellate Court (NAC) has analysed this issue and has recently handed down three judgments (the most recent dated February 13, 2023). It concludes, clearly and categorically, that the fact that expenses cannot be deducted when calculating the withholding tax base is out of step with EU law.

In these judgments, the court analysed the tax treatment of payments for the licensing of software. After concluding that these payments are royalties and not business profits, the court considered whether the withholding rate on such royalties should be applied to the gross amount of the royalties or applied following the deduction of expenses directly related to the activity. The court ruled in favour of the latter option.

The NAC’s reasoning is of considerable interest, among other reasons, because it deviates from the position adopted by the Supreme Court in the past: namely in its judgment of February 9 2016. The NAC took into account later rulings of the CJEU, such as its judgment of July 13 2016 in the Brisal case, stating that: “unfavourable tax treatment contrary to a fundamental freedom cannot be regarded as compatible with EU law because of the potential existence of other advantages”.

Furthermore, the NAC highlights that the European Commission, in its package of infringement decisions of October 2021, included its decision to initiate infringement proceedings against Spain. In the proceedings, the Commission asked that Spain adapt its rules on withholding taxes at source on royalties received by non-residents. And on this basis, the NAC concludes that, given the primacy and direct application of EU law, when calculating the tax base for withholdings and prepayments on royalties paid to non-residents (resident in the EU), expenses directly linked to their activity should be deductible.

This is undoubtedly good news and, although it will more than likely lead to much debate on which expenses should be admissible for these purposes, it paves the way for claims seeking refunds in this respect.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article