The Shakira Case and Tax Residence: Key Points of the Judgment Challenging the Tax Authority’s Strategy

Shakira sang “Try Everything” in the soundtrack of the animated film Zootopia. I can think of no more accurate expression to describe the strategy typically followed by the Spanish Tax Agency when it audits the tax residence of taxpayers domiciled abroad: “try everything” so that such residence ultimately ends up being considered in Spain.

And that seems to have been the case with Shakira, as follows from the recent judgment of the National Court (Audiencia Nacional, AN) of April 15, 2026.

To set the context, the Personal Income Tax Law (IRPF) establishes that a taxpayer’s tax residence is deemed to be in Spain if any of the following three criteria are met: (i) physical presence (staying in Spanish territory for more than 183 days in a calendar year); (ii) economic ties (the main center or base of economic activities or interests is located in Spain, directly or indirectly); and (iii) family ties (a rebuttable presumption—iuris tantum—of residence of the non-legally separated spouse and dependent minor children). In the event of a conflict with another State, the matter is resolved in accordance with the applicable Double Taxation Agreement.

In the artist’s case, since she proved residence in a country without a tax treaty with Spain, the analysis was limited to Spanish domestic law. Moreover, the decision ultimately hinged solely on the presence criterion: the Tax Agency referred to the beginning of a romantic relationship in Spain, but it was established that in 2011 there were no family ties (no spouse or children) and no economic ties—an issue that is often subject to debate—since the artist’s corporate structure and the development of her activity were clearly located outside Spain.

Thus, it became a matter of counting days and ensuring that at least 183 were spent in Spanish territory. For this purpose, the classification of days established by the Central Economic-Administrative Court (TEAC) in its resolutions of March and April 2023—expressly referred to by the AN—was key:

• (i) days of certified presence (reliably evidenced)
• (ii) presumed days (reasonably interpolated between two certified presences)
• (iii) sporadic absences (an additional ancillary element).

For the artist’s 2011 tax year, the Administration substantiated 163 days of presence by combining certified and presumed days. It disregarded the effectiveness of the residence certificate provided by the taxpayer abroad and added sporadic absences in order to exceed the 183-day threshold and consider her a tax resident in Spain, with the resulting implications for Personal Income Tax and Wealth Tax.

It is precisely this calculation of sporadic absences that the AN rejects. Quite logically, the Court reasons that something “sporadic” occurs only occasionally, in isolation, and for short periods; an absence of more than 183 days meets none of these requirements and, if accepted, would empty the very concept of presence of its meaning. Nor can intentional criteria—such as the intention to live in Spain—be invoked to classify an absence as sporadic.

This criterion is not new: it appears clearly in previous TEAC decisions, in the case law of the Supreme Court (judgments of November 2017 and January 2018), and in responses to tax rulings by the General Directorate of Taxes. This judgment reinforces it and, it may be expected, should guide the actions of the Tax Administration in similar cases going forward.

As for the artist’s 2011 tax year, it remains to be seen whether the case can be considered closed or whether the Administration will file a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court—a path that does not seem straightforward for the State Attorney. For now, however, as the song says, Shakira did not give up (“I won’t give up, I won’t give in”), and the National Court has ruled in her favor.