Spain: Participation exemption in ‘pure holding companies’

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

Spain: Participation exemption in ‘pure holding companies’

gallardo.jpg

Gonzalo Gallardo

The Spanish Corporate Income Tax Law (CIT Law) contains a tax exemption for income obtained by Spanish entities from the transfer of ownership interests in companies – whether resident or non-resident – provided that:

  • A the time of the transfer, the ownership interest held, directly and indirectly, is 5% or more, or the value of the shareholding is over €20 million ($22.1 million) and it has been held for at least one year; and

  • In the case of non-resident companies, that they have been subject to a foreign tax similar to the Spanish tax at a rate of at least 10% (the CIT Law presumes this requirement is met, assuming the entity is resident in a country with which Spain has signed a double tax treaty that includes an exchange of information clause, which would apply to this entity).

When a group of companies is being transferred, these requirements must be met by all the group companies. In addition, there are certain rules – the application of which is often quite complex – used to determine whether these requirements are met. If all the companies do not meet the requirements, these rules are applied to calculate the part of the income obtained that is exempt.

However, meeting all the requirements doesn't automatically result in a corporate income tax exemption. In certain cases, either the exemption may not be applicable or is only partially applicable.

These exceptions include related companies – whether resident in Spain or not – which are defined in the CIT Law as "pure holding companies" (entidades patrimoniales). This refers to companies in which more than half of the assets, according to the balance sheet, are made up of securities or are not linked to any economic activity. The rule specifies the parameters for these purposes.

Of the specific provisions contained in the CIT Law in respect of these new "pure holding companies", the tax treatment of income obtained by an entity's shareholders from the transfer of their shares should be noted. This income does not qualify for the exemption because the exemption would only apply to undistributed profits generated from its acquisition. This rule is also applicable when the "pure holding company" forms part of a group of companies that is being transferred, in which case the exempt part of the gain obtained must be calculated by applying certain complex rules set out in the said law.

However, no specific treatment is stated for dividends distributed by these companies to their shareholders, nor for the income obtained by these companies from the transfer of other entities which are not "pure holding companies". This can, in certain cases, give rise to double taxation, which the rules fail to rectify (since the income from the transfer of the "pure holding company" and any profit subsequently generated by such entity are both taxed), although in some situations it is possible to avoid this.

Of the various conclusions to be drawn from this brief outline:

  • Particular care should be taken when analysing the taxation in Spain of transfers of shareholdings in companies or groups of companies; and

  • It is advisable to review the tax structure of corporate groups in the light of this new parameter introduced by the CIT Law.

Gonzalo Gallardo (gonzalo.gallardo@garrigues.com)

Garrigues Madrid

Tel: +34 915145200

Website: www.garrigues.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Recent guidance from the Indian tax authorities should provide confidence for investors, says Sanjay Sanghvi of Khaitan & Co
Grant Wardell-Johnson also suggests there could be solutions to the friction between the US and the OECD when it comes to pillar two.
The president had so far avoided announcing tariffs on the US’s neighbours despite previous threats
The firm brought in three managing directors from EY and Deloitte in Europe; in other news, KPMG’s bid to practise law in US was delayed
One expert argues the ERS would be unlikely to improve taxpayers’ experience unless it comes with additional funding to hire more agents and staff
From pillar two and amount B to Apple’s headline EU Commission dispute, Martin Bonner and Yiwen Ping of Kreston Global argue that 2024’s key TP developments will inform 2025
Holland & Knight, Nelson Mullins and McCarter & English made the joint-most tax partner hires in the US last year, according to annual ITR Talent Tracker data
Despite a three-year-high in tax revenues generated from settling TP cases, HMRC reported a sharp fall in resolved MAP disputes
Inflexion’s proposed minority stake in Baker Tilly Netherlands could propel the firm in the Dutch market, CEO Ronald Hoeksel tells ITR
While the US’s dramatic exit from the OECD’s global tax deal naturally grabbed headlines, Trump’s premeditated move shouldn’t detract from pillar two’s lofty ambitions
Gift this article