Anyone who can choose where to settle when coming to Spain, or when coming back, tends to ask the wrong question: “do I get the Beckham Law?”. The right question is territorial: in common territory the available regime is art. 93 LIRPF; in Bizkaia, article 56 bis of Norma Foral 13/2013. You do not choose between them, but their numbers should weigh on the choice of destination whenever that choice exists. We compare them with the 2026 foral scale.
The table that decides
Estimated annual tax on employment income, in euros, for a profile with no other income or personal deductions (contributions deducted with a capped maximum base; 56 bis without relocation expenses):
| Gross salary | Ordinary foral tax | 56 bis Bizkaia | State Beckham (24%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 42,000 | ~7,700 | ~4,200 | 10,080 |
| 70,000 | ~17,600 | ~9,800 | 16,800 |
| 100,000 | ~30,400 | ~17,600 | 24,000 |
| 150,000 | ~53,200 | ~32,600 | 36,000 |
| 200,000 | ~76,700 | ~48,600 | 48,000 |
Three readings:
1. At mid salaries, the flat 24% is a bad deal. Article 93 allows no contribution deductions and no allowances: at 42,000 euros it charges around 10,100, more than ordinary foral tax with no regime at all (~7,700). Up to roughly 65,000 euros of salary, the state Beckham loses even against having no regime in Bizkaia.
2. The crossover between the 56 bis and the state regime sits around 190,000 euros. Below it, foral progressivity with 30% of the salary exempt pays less than the flat 24%; above it, the flat rate wins. The 200,000 row shows the crossover already consummated, narrowly.
3. Relocation expenses push the crossover off the map. The table is the conservative scenario. With expenses documented at the 20% cap (housing rent in Bizkaia with utilities, moving costs, trips, schooling), a 200,000 euro salary drops its foral bill to around 30,400: the 56 bis would win comfortably again. With well-documented real expenses, the foral regime wins in practically every realistic bracket. You can test your own case with exact figures in our Bizkaia regime calculator.
What the table does not show
Duration. The foral regime lasts up to eleven tax years; the state one, six. A similar annual saving is worth nearly twice as much in Bizkaia through simple accumulation.
Access mechanics. The state regime bets everything on one card: Form 149 within six months of registration, with no cure. The foral election is made each year in the return itself, with the right to opt in late for the remaining years.
Foreign income. Here the state regime keeps a real advantage for large estates: during the regime, foreign-source income generally stays outside Spanish tax. The foral regime taxes worldwide income, although it exempts income from foreign assets that has already been taxed abroad. For an executive with a significant investment portfolio outside Spain, this factor can outweigh the rate on salary.
Deductions and family. The 56 bis coexists with the ordinary foral deductions (children, housing, EPSV pension schemes), generous in Bizkaia. The state regime renounces allowances and deductions: its 24% is gross and alone.
The entry filter. Both require five prior years of non-residence; the foral regime adds job-quality demands (highly qualified work, 85% dedication, contribution group 1). Technical and executive profiles meet that filter naturally; for other jobs, the state regime is more accessible. And in both regimes, proving non-residence is where files are won or lost.
Conclusion
For the bulk of real talent moving to Spain, between 40,000 and 150,000 euros of salary, Bizkaia currently offers the country’s cheapest impatriation framework, as well as the longest and the most forgiving of deadline slips. The state Beckham keeps its ground in two profiles: very high cash pay and estates with significant foreign income. The decision, where it exists, deserves arithmetic with real figures rather than tax folklore: both regimes have strict entry filters and one shared condition, the five prior years abroad, which has to be provable.