The High Court of Justice of Madrid, in its ruling 681/2025 of 17 September (rec. no. 1991/2021), confirms that a tax residence certificate is not the only valid means of proving tax residence abroad. Although it is the usual and preferred means of proof, its requirement cannot be absolute when the taxpayer provides sufficient, consistent and conclusive evidence proving their residence outside Spain. This is particularly relevant in cases where there is no double taxation agreement between Spain and the other State.
The tax residence of individuals in Spain is determined in accordance with Article 9.1 of the Personal Income Tax Law (IRPF). This provision establishes that a person shall be deemed to have their habitual residence in Spain when any of the following criteria are met:
The rule does not expressly impose the obligation to prove residence in another country exclusively by means of a tax residence certificate. However, administrative practice and economic-administrative doctrine have considered such a certificate to be the main and qualified means of proof when it is issued by the competent tax authority in that State, especially in cases of conflict of residence or the application of double taxation agreements.
The case in question concerns a taxpayer who worked as a chef in Sierra Leone between 2012 and 2014, employed by a Spanish company. In the 2013 financial year, he submitted a refund application using form 210 for Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR), requesting a refund of the withholdings made by his payer for personal income tax. The Tax Agency denied the refund on the grounds that he had not proven his tax residence in Sierra Leone, as he had not provided a certificate of tax residence issued by the authorities of that country, which, moreover, has not signed a double taxation agreement with Spain.
Both the administration that issued the assessment and the TEAR in Madrid rejected his status as a tax resident in Sierra Leone, arguing that there was no evidence of personal tax liability or sufficient documentation to prove tax residence abroad. The High Court of Justice of Madrid upheld the taxpayer’s appeal and considered that tax residence in Sierra Leone had been proven on the basis of the documentation provided, which included, among other things, employment history, pay slips, passport with proof of departures and arrivals in the country, Sierra Leone immigration certificate, airline tickets, and a letter of conditions for long-term international assignment formalised between the interested party and the employing company.
The Chamber emphasised that the tax residence certificate is the usual means of proving residence, but it is not the only or exclusive means. Its absence does not, in itself, prevent the taxpayer from proving his residence in another country by other means of evidence admissible in law.
The Court maintains that, for the 2012 tax year, the Administration itself had recognised the taxpayer’s non-resident status with substantially identical evidence, without adequately justifying the change in criteria for 2013. The Court reiterates the reasoning of the Administrative Chamber of the National High Court, in its ruling of 26 May 2021, regarding the possibility of providing evidence other than the tax residence certificate, in which it was established that rigidly requiring the tax residence certificate, when the country of residence does not issue it or there are objective difficulties in obtaining it, may violate the principle of proportionality.
In the absence of a tax residence certificate, taxpayers may prove their residence in another country by means of a set of evidence and indications which, taken as a whole, reflect a real and effective residence outside Spain. Among the most relevant elements are:
However, failure to provide a tax residence certificate places the taxpayer in a more complex evidentiary position with regard to the presumption of residence in Spain, which means that the consistency and soundness of the body of evidence is decisive.
STSJ Madrid 681/2025 establishes an important criterion which, while reaffirming the special probative value of the tax residence certificate to prove residence in another country, also points out that it does not constitute absolute and sole proof. In addition, it reinforces the obligation of the Tax Administration to make a reasoned and joint assessment of other evidence and elements provided by the taxpayer for this purpose. The Court recalls that tax residence is a matter of facts and actual circumstances and cannot be made solely dependent on the existence of a formal document when there is sufficient evidence to prove effective residence abroad.
The Supreme Court, in its judgments numbers 1236/2024 and 1214/2024, has ruled on the value of the certificate in cases of dual residence conflict, qualifying its value and establishing case law along the following lines:
In short, the tax residence certificate is qualified evidence, but not exclusive. Its absence does not prevent proof of residence in another country, but it does make the taxpayer dependent on proving their residence with other documents and evidence that may be less conclusive and make it more difficult to apply the provisions of double taxation agreements.
Sources:
https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/AN/openDocument/ff786c203d38a398a0a8778d75e36f0d/20251023 https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/AN/openDocument/3946cb41076436dba0a8778d75e36f0d/20240719
https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/AN/openDocument/c57378b03fb38f45a0a8778d75e36f0d/20240719
Executive Summary The European Union has completed its most ambitious reform to the prevention of money laundering with the approval of a new legislative package,
Executive Summary The Supreme Court has recently recognised the primacy of the European Union law by not applying national tax rules which discriminate against non-Spanish
Executive Summary In recent years, the Tax Inspectorate has been conducting campaigns to review transactions involving the transfer of shares in operating companies to holding