Spanish participation exemption confirmed as full rather than partial for CFC regime

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Spanish participation exemption confirmed as full rather than partial for CFC regime

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-garrigues.png
Full moon in Spain

Nicolás Cremades and Inés Mora-Figueroa of Garrigues detail the impact of the Spanish participation exemption regime’s modification on the controlled foreign company regime, and how a Directorate General of Taxes ruling has enhanced clarity

Controlled foreign company (CFC) regimes are traditionally anti-abuse rules aimed at avoiding the deferral of taxation of income – normally of a ‘passive’ nature – in controlled foreign entities resident in territories with nil or low taxation. Accordingly, in any CFC regime, at least the following requirements should be met with respect to the corresponding foreign subsidiary:

  • Control over such company; and

  • Lower taxation of such company compared with that which would apply if it were resident for tax purposes in the territory in which its parent entity is resident.

In relation to the second requirement, Article 100.1(b) of the Spanish Corporate Income Tax Law (the CIT Law) requires a comparison between the effective taxation borne by the foreign subsidiary and the taxation that would have been borne by the same company had it been resident in Spain. If that comparison shows that the taxation of the non-resident subsidiary is 75% lower than the taxation that would be applicable in Spain in relation to the income in question, and the rest of the requirements are met, the corresponding income must be reported under the Spanish CFC regime.

For tax periods commencing on or after January 1 2021, the exemption regime provided for in Article 21 of the CIT Law was amended in the sense that the amount of dividends and positive income obtained on a transfer of shares to which the exemption of Article 21 applies should be reduced by 5% as management expenses. In practice, this income is generally taxed in Spain at 1.25% (a tax rate of 25% applied to 95% of the income).

The introduction of this legislative amendment opened up two interpretations as to the nature of the exemption in Article 21 of the CIT Law:

  • It was a rule that limited the amount of the exemption quantitatively (to 95%) (i.e., we were dealing with a ‘partial exemption’); or

  • It was a rule that restricted the deduction of certain expenses, estimated on a notional basis at 5% of income, but without affecting its full exemption status.

The aforementioned technical discussion on the nature of the exemption could have an impact on the application of the Spanish CFC regime by a Spanish parent company participating in foreign entities through an intermediate holding entity.

Spanish Directorate General of Taxes issues highly significant binding resolution

The Spanish Directorate General of Taxes (DGT) has finally shed some light on this debate and issued a binding resolution, V2138-24, of October 3, on the matter, stating that the exemption provided for in Article 21 of the CIT Law is a full exemption that must be applied to the income corresponding to the dividends received or capital gain obtained (income that is determined by deducting the corresponding management expenses).

In accordance with this interpretation, the DGT concludes that, in the case in question (a Spanish holding company holding 96% of a Chilean holding company that receives dividends from its operating subsidiaries, which are 100% exempt in Chile), it will not be understood that the dividends obtained by the Chilean holding company have been taxed at less than 75% of the taxation that would have corresponded in Spain, since in both countries such income has a full exemption. Therefore, the DGT concludes that there is no obligation to declare those dividends under the Spanish CFC regime.

Implication of the ruling

The recent DGT ruling provides clarity and legal certainty on an issue that had generated a high level of technical discussions since the introduction of the rule limiting the deduction of portfolio management expenses in the participation exemption regime under Article 21 of the CIT Law.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

E-invoicing is currently characterised by dynamism, with fragmentation acting as a key catalyst for increasing interoperability, says Aida Cavalera of the International Observatory on eInvoicing
Pillar two and the US tax system ‘could work in harmony’, Scott Levine tells ITR in an exclusive interview to mark his arrival at Baker McKenzie
Peter White, who has a tax debt of A$2 million, has been banned for five years from seeking registration with Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board (TPB)
Wopke Hoekstra’s comments followed US measures aimed against ‘unfair foreign taxes’; in other news, Grant Thornton and Holland & Knight made key tax partner hires
An Administrative Review Tribunal ruling last month in Australia v Alcoa represents a 'concerning trend' for the tax authority, one expert tells ITR
A recent decision underlines that Indian courts are more willing to look beyond just legal compliance and examine whether foreign investment structures have real business substance
Following his Liberal Party’s election victory, one source expects Mark Carney to follow the international consensus on pillar two, as experts assess the new administration
A German economics professor was reportedly ‘irritated’ by how the Finnish ministry of finance used his data
Countries that care about the fair taxation of tech multinationals and equitable global distribution of wealth should back the UN’s tax framework, writes economist Abdelmalek Riad
The cuts disproportionately affected staff in certain positions, the report also found; in other news, MHA announced the €24m acquisition of Baker Tilly South East Europe
Gift this article