The Tax Agency denied deductions to family caregivers: the TEAC corrects its interpretation of personal income tax

Providing daily care to a dependent family member, without receiving a salary and without pursuing another profession, may entitle the caregiver to certain tax deductions.

The Central Economic-Administrative Tribunal (TEAC) has recognised this in a decision that marks an important change in the administrative interpretation of Personal Income Tax (IRPF).

The TEAC Decision of 24 September 2026, RG 00/05409/2025, issued to unify criteria, establishes that a non-professional caregiver of a dependent family member who is covered by the relevant special agreement with the Social Security system meets the activity and registration requirement for the deductions under Article 81 bis of the Personal Income Tax Act.

The decision conflicts with the restrictive interpretation previously defended by the Tax Agency and supported by certain binding rulings of the Directorate-General for Taxation.

The issue has major practical significance. We are talking about people who devote a substantial part of their lives to caring for dependent relatives and who, precisely because of that commitment, may find it difficult to pursue conventional professional work.

The TEAC considers that this caring activity cannot be disregarded when assessing the disputed tax requirement.

1. The origin of the dispute: is caring for a relative a self-employed activity?

Article 81 bis of Act 35/2006 provides for certain Personal Income Tax deductions for taxpayers with dependent family members.

These include deductions for disabled descendants or ascendants and for large families.

As a general rule, the legislation allows these deductions, among other cases, for taxpayers who carry out an employed or self-employed activity and are registered in the relevant Social Security scheme or mutual insurance scheme.

It also covers other situations, such as receiving certain unemployment benefits or pensions.

The problem arises when a person neither works for an employer nor carries on a conventional professional activity because they devote themselves exclusively to caring for a dependent relative.

Imagine a daughter who leaves her job to care every day for her mother, who needs help with basic activities of daily living. The daughter enters into the special agreement for non-professional caregivers with the Social Security system. Can she be considered to meet the requirement of carrying on a self-employed activity?

The Tax Agency said no. The TEAC has now held that she can, in the circumstances addressed in its decision.

2. What interpretation did the Tax Agency apply?

The Directorate-General for Taxation had considered that the special agreement for non-professional caregivers did not, by itself, entail carrying on an employed or self-employed activity for the purposes of Article 81 bis of the Personal Income Tax Act.

The Administration distinguished between being treated as registered with Social Security and carrying on a work or professional activity.

On that view, a caregiver who only provided family care, without working for an employer or carrying on another economic activity, did not meet the requirement for the deductions. This interpretation appeared, among other rulings, in binding rulings DGT V1676-16 and V1688-20.

The result was particularly controversial. A person who worked for an employer and also cared for a relative could meet the activity requirement. Yet someone who devoted all their time to caring for the same relative could be excluded precisely because they had no other job.

Exclusive dedication to care thus became an obstacle to obtaining the tax benefit.

3. The TEAC decision of 24 September 2026

The dispute reached the TEAC through an extraordinary appeal for the unification of criteria brought by the Director of the AEAT Tax Management Department. The appeal challenged a decision of the Regional Economic-Administrative Tribunal of Castilla y León dated 31 January 2025, concerning a provisional assessment of 2022 Personal Income Tax.

The Regional Tribunal had recognised that a non-professional caregiver covered by the special agreement met the activity requirement. The AEAT disagreed. The TEAC dismisses the Administration’s appeal and establishes a criterion in favour of the taxpayer.

In summary, it holds that a person whose only activity is caring as a non-professional caregiver for a dependent relative, and who has entered into the relevant special agreement, meets the requirement of carrying on a self-employed activity and being registered with Social Security under Article 81 bis(1) of the Personal Income Tax Act.

This is especially relevant because the caregiver does not need to have another job. The decision specifically addresses the situation in which family care is their only activity.

4. Why does the TEAC consider this to be a self-employed activity?

The Tribunal’s reasoning starts from the legal and practical reality of non-professional care.

Act 39/2006 on the promotion of personal autonomy and care for people in situations of dependency recognises non-professional caregivers. Royal Decree 615/2007 regulates their inclusion in the Social Security system through a special agreement. Article 2 of that decree provides for their inclusion in the General Social Security Scheme, in a situation treated as registration, on the terms established by law.

The TEAC considers it inconsistent to deny this activity relevance for the tax deduction when the legal system itself recognises the caregiver’s commitment and provides a specific social-protection mechanism. It also notes that family care may require full-time dedication, often incompatible with ordinary professional work.

The Tribunal identifies a further practical contradiction. A person who pays contributions through the special agreement may accrue social-protection rights, including a pension. If they later begin receiving a pension that meets the conditions in Article 81 bis, they may qualify for the deduction on that basis. Yet, under the Tax Agency’s interpretation, they would not have met the activity requirement during the years in which they were actually providing care.

The TEAC considers that this difference lacks sufficient justification.

5. Which deductions may be affected?

Article 81 bis of the Personal Income Tax Act provides for several State deductions, including:

Deduction	General maximum annual amount
Dependent disabled descendant	€1,200
Dependent disabled ascendant	€1,200
General-category large family	€1,200
Special-category large family	€2,400

Increases and special rules apply, including to certain large families.

These amounts are not granted automatically merely because someone is a caregiver. The decision clarifies only one of the requirements for the deductions: the activity and Social Security status requirement. All other statutory conditions must also be met.

For example, to claim the deduction for a dependent disabled ascendant, the relevant conditions concerning that ascendant must be satisfied, including those applicable to the entitlement to the minimum allowance for ascendants and disability.

A finding of dependency alone is not enough. Dependency and disability are different legal concepts and must not be confused. This distinction is essential to applying the new criterion correctly.

6. Example: a daughter who cares exclusively for her mother

Suppose a woman leaves her job to care for her mother. The mother has been officially recognised as dependent and as having a 65% disability. The daughter is identified as a non-professional caregiver and has entered into the relevant special agreement with Social Security. She carries on no other employment or professional activity.

Assume also that she meets the other requirements of Article 81 bis for the deduction for a dependent disabled ascendant, that there is no issue about allocating the entitlement among several taxpayers, and that the agreement remains in force throughout the tax year.

The previous administrative interpretation

The Tax Agency could deny the deduction on the ground that the daughter did not carry on an employed or self-employed activity. Being covered by the special agreement was not considered sufficient.

Result: the deduction was denied because the activity requirement was not met.

The TEAC’s new criterion

Non-professional care, together with the special agreement, means that the requirement is met. If all the other legal conditions are also satisfied, the taxpayer could claim a deduction of up to €1,200 per year.

The financial difference may matter greatly to someone who has reduced or left professional work to care for a relative. The decision does not merely recognise the social value of care; it establishes a specific tax consequence.

7. Must the caregiver personally pay the Social Security contributions?

Under the Social Security rules for non-professional caregivers, contributions under the special agreement may be paid by the public authorities in accordance with the applicable regulations. Accordingly, a caregiver may be covered by the agreement without personally making the usual contribution payments.

The TEAC does not base its criterion on the taxpayer having paid the contributions out of pocket. What matters is the existence of the non-professional caring activity and its coverage under the special agreement.

This must nevertheless be distinguished from the calculation and limits of deductions under the Personal Income Tax rules. Recognition of the activity requirement does not disapply the legal rules that may govern the amount of each deduction.

8. What if the caregiver has not entered into the special agreement?

This is one of the decision’s most important limits. The TEAC expressly distinguishes between being a non-professional caregiver for a dependent person and being a non-professional caregiver covered by the Social Security special agreement. For the purposes of the criterion established, these are not equivalent situations.

If a person only cares for a relative, carries on no other activity, and has not entered into the special agreement, they cannot rely on this decision to assume automatically that the activity and registration requirement is met.

The special agreement is therefore a decisive element in the case addressed. A taxpayer may, of course, meet the deduction requirements through other statutory routes, such as employment or receipt of certain benefits.

9. Can deductions for previous tax years be recovered?

This is probably the most important practical consequence for many taxpayers. The TEAC decision does not create a new deduction. It interprets a deduction that already existed in the Personal Income Tax Act.

Some taxpayers may therefore have failed to claim it in earlier returns because the Tax Agency applied a restrictive interpretation. In those cases, the possibility of requesting an amendment to self-assessments for tax years that are not time-barred should be examined under the applicable procedures.

As a general rule, the right to claim a refund of undue payments is subject to a four-year limitation period, whose calculation must be assessed in each individual case. For example, in October 2026, certain 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 Personal Income Tax self-assessments may still fall within the ordinary period, provided there are no circumstances affecting the calculation.

Several situations must be distinguished.

A taxpayer filed a return without claiming the deduction. It may be possible to request an amendment through the procedure applicable to that tax year.

The Tax Agency denied the deduction and an appeal remains pending. The TEAC decision may be particularly relevant in support of the taxpayer’s position.

The taxpayer has a final administrative assessment. This is more complex. An ordinary amendment request is not enough to overturn a final assessment; it will be necessary to examine whether any statutory review procedure is available.

It cannot therefore be said that every previously denied deduction can be recovered. This will depend on the substantive requirements, limitation periods and procedural status of each case.

10. What documents should be gathered?

To assess whether the TEAC’s reasoning applies, it is advisable to have documents proving both the caregiver’s status and the requirements for the deduction. These may include:

• The administrative decision recognising dependency.

• Documents identifying the non-professional caregiver.

• The decision or documents concerning the individual care programme, where relevant.

• The special agreement entered into with Social Security.

• A Social Security employment-history report or certificate showing the person’s status.

• Recognition of the relative’s disability, where required for the deduction claimed.

• Documents concerning kinship, cohabitation, income and family allowances.

• Personal Income Tax returns for the years to be reviewed.

Not every document will be necessary in every case. The evidence should be tailored to the particular deduction claimed.

11. A decision issued to unify criteria: the Tax Agency must take it into account

The significance of this decision lies not only in its substance, but also in the procedure through which it was issued. It is an extraordinary appeal for the unification of criteria, governed by Article 242 of the General Tax Act.

The criterion established by the TEAC is binding on tax-administration bodies and economic-administrative tribunals on the terms laid down by law. This is not merely an isolated favourable interpretation: the TEAC has established a doctrine that the Tax Administration must follow in cases within its scope.

There is another significant point: the decision dismisses the appeal brought by the Director of the AEAT Tax Management Department. The interpretation defended by the Administration did not prevail.

12. The underlying issue: the tax system cannot ignore family care

Beyond its financial effect, the decision raises an important legal question. The legal system recognises non-professional caregivers, regulates their role in the dependency-care system, provides specific social-protection mechanisms, and allows them to join Social Security through a special agreement.

Yet the previous administrative interpretation denied that the same activity could meet the requirement for certain tax deductions. The TEAC corrects that inconsistency.

It does not automatically treat all family care as an economic activity for tax purposes, nor does it generally equate non-professional caregivers with business owners or self-employed workers.

It recognises that, for the specific purposes of Article 81 bis of the Personal Income Tax Act, non-professional care covered by the special agreement meets the disputed requirement. This limitation is legally essential.

Conclusion: caring for a relative may also give rise to tax rights

The TEAC Decision of 24 September 2026, RG 00/05409/2025, marks an important change for non-professional caregivers of dependent relatives.

Against the interpretation previously applied by the Tax Agency, the Tribunal recognises that exclusive dedication to care, where the relevant Social Security special agreement exists, meets the activity and registration requirement under Article 81 bis of the Personal Income Tax Act.

This may make it possible to claim deductions of up to €1,200 per year in certain cases, and even higher amounts where statutory increases apply.

The decision also has clear limits. Caring for a relative is not enough; nor is a finding of dependency alone. The specific requirements for the deduction must be met, and the circumstances addressed by the TEAC must be evidenced.

Taxpayers who did not claim these deductions in previous years should review their position and, where appropriate, consider amending returns that are not time-barred.

The legal conclusion is clear: the Tax Agency cannot deny the activity requirement to a non-professional caregiver merely because their exclusive commitment is caring for a dependent relative, where they are covered by the Social Security special agreement.

This is a significant decision for family taxation and, in particular, for people who personally take on the care of dependent persons.