Are you a partner and/or administrator of a company and are you personally using assets that are in the company’s name? Real estate, vehicles, electronic equipment, etc. With the latest resolutions, the controversial criterion that the Tax Inspectorate must apply on how to value it in each case is clearer. This is a common issue that many companies do not pay much attention to and it is important to be clear about it.
It is clear that, to the extent that you use an asset that is owned by the company, you must pay tax for this remuneration in kind.
The Central Economic Administrative Court (TEAC) in a resolution of September 2025 has clarified how this remuneration should be valued, so that:
- When the asset in question has been acquired for the ordinary activity of the company, if the partner makes personal use of it, the transaction must be valued according to the related transactions rule (the one that would have been determined by independent parties).
For example, a company that is dedicated to renting out homes transfers, on a one-off basis, one of the properties that it usually rents to third parties, to its partner or administrator.
- However, when the company has acquired this asset strictly for the personal use of the partner, and which is therefore not used for the ordinary activity of the company, then it will be considered a return on movable capital in kind and the established valuation criteria for remuneration in kind must be applied. in the Personal Income Tax Law.
For example, if a company that carries out an industrial activity transfers a property to its partner or administrator.
Aspects to take into account:
- It is necessary to assess whether this is a case where the remuneration can be assessed based on the regulations on related-party transactions where there will be more scope to use the method you consider (comparable free price, cost increase, resale price, etc.) to justify a lower assessment that implies lower taxation on your IRPF; or, in contrast, the IRPF rule for income in kind must be applied, which is an objective rule that, in many cases, usually results in a higher valuation.
- If it is valued as a related party transaction, the valuation must be justified with the corresponding documentation.
- The fact that there is a link between the beneficiary of the use of the asset and the company does not necessarily imply that the valuation must be made according to the related party transaction rule: it must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, my recommendation is to study the case well and to value this personal use of company assets correctly from the beginning, to avoid scares with the Administration, and I am at your disposal to help you with this, if you consider it appropriate!