The way in which the Spanish Tax Agency (Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria, “AEAT”) decides whom to audit has changed profoundly. The selection of taxpayers no longer rests on manual or isolated criteria but on the mass processing of information, the systematic cross-checking of sources and, increasingly, on artificial intelligence tools that detect inconsistencies and build risk profiles. For individuals and families with substantial wealth and international connections, understanding this logic is no longer a second-order technical matter; it has become a central element of managing tax risk.
The operating framework for this model is set out in the general guidelines of the 2026 Annual Tax and Customs Control Plan, approved by Resolution of 11 March 2026 of the Director General of the AEAT (published in the Official State Gazette of 12 March 2026, BOE-A-2026-5843), in line with the AEAT’s 2024-2027 Strategic Plan. This is not a mere statement of intent but the document that guides the actual audit and investigation activity carried out during the year.
From manual selection to predictive control
The decisive feature of the current model is not the availability of any single piece of data but the authorities’ ability to cross-check and integrate information from multiple sources and to contrast what the taxpayer has declared against what third parties report. The AEAT now has access to the taxpayer’s own self-assessments and annual summaries, to third-party information returns (forms 347, 190, 180 and 349, among others), to the Immediate Supply of Information for VAT purposes, to the traceability of means of payment and, of particular relevance to international clients, to the flows of the automatic exchange of tax information.
On that basis, the authorities do not automatically open an audit, but they do prioritise cases by reference to objective deviations: differences between declared income and detected financial flows, mismatches between periodic returns and annual summaries, behaviour atypical of sector parameters, intensive use of deductions or refunds, and inconsistencies between what is declared and what third parties report. Human intervention does not disappear, but it concentrates on validating the cases the system has pre-selected. The result is a control model that is more predictive than reactive, in which the overall coherence of a taxpayer’s information matters more than any isolated transaction.
What the 2026 Plan signals for large wealth
The 2026 guidelines devote a specific line of action to the control of large wealth, and its content deserves close reading because it describes, almost point by point, the profile of the international client settled in Spain. In particular, the Plan announces the monitoring of:
- External signs of wealth and a standard of living inconsistent with the income and assets declared.
- The use of instrumental companies to avoid or minimise personal taxation, especially those used to channel expenses of a personal nature.
- False non-residents, that is, those who declare residence outside Spain while in fact retaining their tax residence here.
- The use of the impatriate regime under article 93 LIRPF (the Personal Income Tax Act, Ley 35/2006), commonly known as the “Beckham regime”, where its conditions of access or continuance are not met.
- Changes of fiscal domicile by individuals whose corporate environment remains in the territory of origin, a concern that applies both to the international dimension and to movements between Spanish autonomous communities.
The common thread is inconsistency. A property portfolio, a corporate set-up or a level of spending that do not fit the income declared are, in a data-driven model, precisely the kind of deviation the system is designed to detect.
Tax residence: the first front
For the British, American or Latin American expatriate, tax residence is where most is at stake. Article 9 LIRPF determines residence by reference to physical presence in Spain of more than 183 days in the calendar year, to the location in Spain of the main centre or base of the individual’s economic activities or interests, and to a presumption linked to the residence of the non-separated spouse and dependent minor children. The authorities no longer simply count days: they integrate indicators of presence and of connection drawn from a wide range of sources, from financial information to property ownership and patterns of expenditure.
In this context, a poorly documented relocation is fragile. Defending residence outside Spain, or applying the “tie-breaker” rule of a double tax treaty, requires a solid evidential case built contemporaneously with the facts, not reconstructed once an audit has begun.
The impatriate regime under scrutiny
The regime under article 93 LIRPF is a legitimate and frequently optimal tool for those relocating to Spain for employment or entrepreneurial reasons. Its very attractiveness, however, also makes it a target for review. The issues that tend to concentrate the risk are compliance with the requirement of not having been resident in Spain during the periods required before the move, the correct identification of the qualifying basis for access, the scope of the regime as regards family members, and the consistency between the situation declared and the taxpayer’s actual circumstances. Planning the entry into, and in due course the exit from, the regime must anticipate these points of friction.
Instrumental companies and personal expenditure
The interposition of companies to channel personal expenses or to reduce income tax artificially features, once again, among the control priorities. The line between a corporate structure with genuine commercial logic and an instrumental company without substance is examined by the same parameters that govern the rest of the system: real functions, human and material resources, the effective assumption of risk and the correspondence between form and reality. Where that correspondence fails, the authorities have recourse to the general anti-abuse provisions of Ley 58/2003, the General Tax Act, in particular the conflict in the application of the rule (article 15) and the simulation provision (article 16), together with related-party adjustments.
The information ecosystem behind the model
The effectiveness of data-driven control rests on an unprecedented flow of information. At the international level, the relevant mechanisms are the Common Reporting Standard (“CRS”), implemented within the European Union through Directive 2014/107/EU (“DAC2”), the exchange of information on digital platforms under Directive (EU) 2021/514 (“DAC7”) and, for crypto-assets, Directive (EU) 2023/2226 (“DAC8”), aligned with the OECD framework. For taxpayers with US connections, FATCA adds a further channel of information.
To this is added, from 2026, the AEAT’s receipt of financial information on a monthly basis covering account holders, card receipts through points of sale and payments associated with certain means, as well as data from payment service providers on cross-border transactions. Domestically, the Single Shared Census (Censo Único Compartido) and enhanced cooperation with the autonomous communities and with the regional administrations of the Basque Country and Navarre complete a map in which information moves fluidly between administrations. It is also worth recalling the reporting obligations borne by the taxpayer, notably the return of assets and rights held abroad (form 720) and the information return on virtual currencies held abroad (form 721).
New tools at the collection stage
The 2026 Plan is not confined to detection. At the collection stage, it promotes enforcement procedures adapted to the digital economy, among them the attachment of crypto-assets and tokenised assets, the electronic attachment of receivables arising from payments through points of sale, and action against balances held with payment service providers. The authorities’ capacity to locate and attach assets has expanded in step with their capacity to obtain information.
Implications for the internationally connected client
The practical consequence is clear: in a model that rewards coherence, compliance is no longer demonstrated solely by correct returns but by the consistency between economic reality, third-party information and what has been declared. For the international client, this translates into several concrete requirements. Tax residence must be capable of being evidenced with a solid case preserved over time. Corporate structures must reflect genuine substance and be properly documented. Access to regimes such as the impatriate regime must rest on rigorous compliance with their conditions. And the wealth position declared must be consistent with the observable standard of living and with the information the authorities already hold.
The difference between an audit that closes without incident and a material exposure rarely lies in the complexity of the structure. It lies in the strength of the prior analysis and in the quality of the documentation that supports it. In an environment where the authorities anticipate risk through data, the sensible response from the taxpayer is, equally, to anticipate.
This publication is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. The AEAT’s lines of action apply by reference to the circumstances of each taxpayer and to the legislation in force at the relevant time.
