admin

In December 2025, the Government approved a further extension of the obligation to implement the Verifactu verifiable invoicing system. (Legal News)

The new effective dates are:

• For companies subject to corporation tax: 1 January 2027.
• For all other companies and, where applicable, self-employed persons and professionals: 1 July 2027.

In practice, this means that the formal obligation to issue invoices under the Verifactu standard is postponed for an additional year.

What is Verifactu and why does it matter?

Verifactu is the electronic invoicing system designed by the Tax Agency (AEAT) whose objective is to guarantee the authenticity, integrity and traceability of invoices issued by companies and professionals.

Invoices issued under Verifactu must be generated using certified software, include a unique identifier and, where applicable, a QR code, and be securely recorded so that the AEAT can access them at any time.

The purpose of this regulation is to strengthen controls against tax fraud, improve transparency and standardise electronic invoicing in Spain.

What does the moratorium mean for your company?

The positives — more time to prepare for the transition

• Additional time to adapt systems: If you have not yet incorporated compatible software or are in the process of implementing it, you now have more time, until 2027, to do so at your leisure.
• Less rush for immediate technological investment: Avoid hasty decisions in December 2025 — you can plan ahead with greater foresight.
• Opportunity to calmly review internal processes: Opportunity to coordinate accounting, invoicing, filing and internal reporting before the requirement comes into effect.

But that doesn’t mean you can leave everything to the last minute

• The moratorium only postpones the requirement; the system is still planned. You must continue planning.
• If your company had already begun the adaptation process — changing software, internal processes, training — you should review those plans in light of the new deadline (and anticipate that suppliers will update their software).
• Regulatory uncertainty remains: the postponement reflects organisational difficulties, which underscores the importance of accompanying the transition with advice.

What our consultancy would recommend — steps to take now

As your consultancy, we propose the following actions to take advantage of the extra time and ensure an orderly transition:

1. Evaluation of the current invoicing system
2. Check whether your invoicing software meets the technical requirements of Verifactu (certification, unalterable registration, possibility of generating unique identifiers, etc.).
3. Planning for technological adaptation
4. If it is necessary to change or update software, define internal deadlines, costs, testing and staff training well in advance.
5. Design of robust internal processes
6. Prepare a standard procedure for issuing, archiving and backing up invoices in accordance with the new system; define responsibilities within the company.
7. Internal communication and training
8. Inform the entire team — finance, accounting, administration — about the importance of the new regulations and their correct use.
9. Simulation of adaptation scenarios
10. Conduct pilot tests with the new system before it becomes mandatory to detect errors or integration failures.

What this moratorium means for your company in the medium term

Although the moratorium may seem like a respite, it does not eliminate the obligation—it only postpones it. The ideal approach is not to wait until 2026 or 2027 to act, but to take advantage of this margin now to:

• Calmly implement a modern invoicing system.
• Reduce the risk of future penalties for non-compliance.
• Optimise accounting and administrative processes, improving efficiency and thus saving time and costs.
• Take advantage of the transition to implement good internal control practices and secure digital archiving.

Conclusion

The government’s decision to postpone the mandatory implementation of Verifactu until 2027 offers your company a valuable opportunity to adapt at your own pace. However, realistically speaking, the moratorium should not be interpreted as an indefinite delay: the system will become mandatory, and it is advisable to prepare as soon as possible.

Our tax advisory service is at your disposal to accompany you throughout the process: from evaluating your current system to implementing the new software, including training your team and defining internal processes. If you wish, we can organise an information session for clients, explain the regulations in detail and prepare a personalised action plan tailored to your structure.

We would like to inform you of a recent interpretative change that affects taxpayers covered by the special tax regime for expatriates, commonly known as the Beckham Law, in relation to the treatment of their primary residence in Spain.

As is well known, this regime allows certain individuals who move to Spain to be taxed as if they were non-residents: in general terms, a fixed rate is applied to certain income obtained in Spain and they are not subject to income tax on their worldwide income. However, when it comes to its application, there have always been doubts as to the extent to which the rules of Non-Resident Income Tax (IRNR) or Personal Income Tax (IRPF) should be followed.

One of the aspects that had been causing the most uncertainty was the allocation of real estate income. In particular, there was a question as to whether the impatriated taxpayer should declare a presumed income for the property they own in Spain that is at their disposal, even when that property is their habitual residence and is not rented out.

Until recently, there were criteria that were more favorable to taxpayers. In particular, some court rulings had held that, applying the logic of personal income tax by analogy, the habitual residence of the impatriate should not generate income attribution, as is the case with the habitual residence of an “ordinary” resident taxpayer in Spain.

However, in a recent ruling, the Central Economic-Administrative Court (TEAC) has modified this approach and concluded that taxpayers covered by the Beckham Law must be taxed on the property they have at their disposal in Spain, even when it is their habitual residence. In practice, this means that the impatriate is treated, for these purposes, as a non-resident owner of an urban property for their own use.

From our firm’s perspective, this ruling reinforces the idea that: 

Special regimes, such as those for impatriates, can be very attractive from a tax point of view, but they are also particularly exposed to changes in the interpretative criteria of the Administration and the courts.

This context increases the level of review and control over this profile of taxpayers and makes an individualized analysis of each specific case even more advisable.

Today we discuss an important ruling from the National High Court that affects non-resident property owners with rental properties in Spain.

Until now, the law allowed only residents of the European Union or the European Economic Area to deduct expenses related to rental income, while residents of third countries were not allowed to do so.

However, in its ruling of July 28, 2025, the National High Court has accepted that residents of third countries may benefit from this expense deduction.

The court upheld the claim of a taxpayer resident in the United States, who owns a rental property in Spain and sought the right to deduct expenses related to that rental. The TEAC had rejected the deduction, arguing that the regulation only allows such deductions for residents of the EU or EEA and that there is no European case law specifically addressing the deductibility of expenses for rental properties owned by non-EU residents.

The National High Court understands that denying this deduction violates both the free movement of capital principle under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union —which the CJEU has held to be applicable to third countries— and the non-discrimination principle set out in Articles 1 and 25 of the Spain-U.S. Double Taxation Treaty. It also notes that the evolution of Article 24.6 of the Spanish Non-Resident Income Tax Law (TRLIRNR) shows a legislative effort to align the regulation with EU law, progressively expanding the subjective and material scope of deductions, but without extending them to residents of third countries —a limitation incompatible with the requirements of the TFEU and the case law of the CJEU.

Although the ruling does not establish binding case law, it represents a major milestone in achieving equal tax treatment for non-EU non-residents compared to residents in Spain, the EU, or the EEA.

It is still too early to open the door to filing amendments for non-statute-barred years and claiming refunds for overpaid tax, but this is a significant step forward in a debate that clearly highlights discrimination against non-EU residents.