# Remote work for a US company?



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

I searched and could only find a few discussions that were a few years old. I thought I’d ask again because as I understand, a few things have changed.

I am interested in working remotely for a US company while living in Spain. The two options I’ve heard mentioned are non-lucrative and autonomo visas - the first one sounding a lot easier. Financial means aren’t an issue - I have enough in the bank to cover 3 years of expenses.

More about my situation… it’s a complicated one. I am a middle aged computer programmer. I am looking to switch jobs to one that is 100% remote. My wife and I want to move to Spain. My wife is currently working to get her Italian passport straightened out so we could be EU. Unfortunately that is taking a while and it will be a while before her online business is ready anyway. Sadly, when I made this career change (was a jazz guitarist, but switched to programming) two years ago, I got an amazing “foot in the door” job opportunity in another state - so we’re already (unfortunately) living apart. When I get my remote job, it actually would be cheaper to move to Spain if I can. We’ve been saving like crazy for an apartment so what we have in the bank is more than enough to show that we can support ourself for years (even though we wouldn’t need to touch it.) So (if we can) the plan would be for me to go over and work remotely until she gets her visa sorted out and then she comes to join me and we live our dream life.

I’ve read that this has been difficult in the past. But I’ve also heard that things have loosened up a bit. I’ve also heard that it depends on the consulate where you apply (Houston in my case). I was curious:


Any recent experience with this?
Any suggestions? Resources?


----------



## Rambo1 (May 5, 2021)

You can find lots of remote working jobs on websites like Upwork. And you can remain in touch with your clients using tools like Zoom, Webex, R-HUB web video conferencing servers etc.


----------



## kalohi (May 6, 2012)

A non-lucrative visa means no working, of any kind. It doesn't matter if the work is online, or if your clients/company is based in the US. If you sit down with your computer and work while you are in located in Spain, then you are working in Spain, and therefore are not eligible for a non-lucrative visa. In the not too distant past the consulates used to allow remote work, but in the last few years they've changed their tune and now say no. It's true that some people get a non-lucrative visa without mentioning their online work. (After all, who would know, right?) But then they run into problems with the Spanish tax authorities since as residents they have to file Spanish income tax and to declare all their worldwide income. 

You could apply for an autonomo visa, but I think as you've seen yourself it's complicated and tricky, requiring an approved business plan and a place of work.

Look on the Houston consulate's website for exact information about the visas and the requirements for each one.

Your best bet is to wait for your wife to get her Italian passport. Then the both of you can come and work with no problems.


----------



## Joey Testa (Jan 5, 2021)

Non-lucrative vsa is a good option until your wife gets her Italian passport. Remote work is not a problem with this visa type.


----------



## Isobella (Oct 16, 2014)

The post is 10 months old. This poor guy has been wanting to move to Spain for about 10 years.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

Isobella said:


> The post is 10 months old. This poor guy has been wanting to move to Spain for about 10 years.


True, but my wife finally has her Italian citizenship recognized - she should be getting her passport later this year and then we're off to Spain. But yes, it has been a long process.


----------



## Joey Testa (Jan 5, 2021)

Isobella said:


> The post is 10 months old. This poor guy has been wanting to move to Spain for about 10 years.





ksjazzguitar said:


> True, but my wife finally has her Italian citizenship recognized - she should be getting her passport later this year and then we're off to Spain. But yes, it has been a long process.


lucky for you as you avoided the harsh Corona lockdowns in Spain.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

Joey Testa said:


> lucky for you as you avoided the harsh Corona lockdowns in Spain.


True, but it hasn't exactly been a picnic here either. I think I still would have preferred to be there.


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

Joey Testa said:


> Non-lucrative vsa is a good option until your wife gets her Italian passport. Remote work is not a problem with this visa type.


Not according to the London Spanish consulate. It doesn't accept remote working as an income source. 

Some have in the past, but that is becoming rarer.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

xabiaxica said:


> Some have in the past, but that is becoming rarer.


Yeah, that seems to be my perception. This seems to used to fall into the confusing category of "yeah, it breaks the letter of the law but we'll look the other way", but now it's getting stricter. One of the frustrating thing about moving into a new culture is figuring out which rules are strict and which are "nudge nudge, wink wink". Every culture has them, but they're always at least a little different.

It's largely a moot point anyway since my wife has got her EU citizenship sorted out and we're going to wait until we can move together.


----------



## Getxo64 (May 15, 2021)

ksjazzguitar said:


> Yeah, that seems to be my perception. This seems to used to fall into the confusing category of "yeah, it breaks the letter of the law but we'll look the other way", but now it's getting stricter. One of the frustrating thing about moving into a new culture is figuring out which rules are strict and which are "nudge nudge, wink wink". Every culture has them, but they're always at least a little different.
> 
> It's largely a moot point anyway since my wife has got her EU citizenship sorted out and we're going to wait until we can move together.


----------



## Getxo64 (May 15, 2021)

I moved to Spain on the non lucrative visa, only providing proof of funds in bank accounts to prove sufficient income. Between cash and 401k I had many times the minimum amount.

Now that I am here, I have the opportunity to do some consulting remotely for a USA company. I checked with 2 immigration attorneys in Spain who both informed me that it is legal for me to work remotely and I will not risk losing my visa. The law does not exclude remote work, so neither the tax authorities or immigration authorities will come after me.

When you file your Spanish taxes, you submit your USA tax returns and must report all worldwide income.

When I successfully applied for the renewal of my visa, the immigration authorities asked no questions about income, nor did they ask for copies of tax filings. I again just provided copies of bank statements.

What has happened is that consulates in the USA are not approving applications with income from remote work. They are interpreting the law in that manner, and their websites reflect that.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

> The law does not exclude remote work, so neither the tax authorities or immigration authorities will come after me.


My understanding is that it is vague on the subject and that a few years ago there was a high court ruling (or some official edict) that clarified that it _does_ exclude remote work. I can't find it at the moment, but I'll see if I can find a link.

"I asked a few people and I and some others have gotten away with it" is not the same thing as "it is explicitly 100% legal". I think you're right that the consulates are more strict about it, and highly variable. And it may be that the authorities in Spain don't pay attention much. But until there is a law that explicitly clarifies that the "work" talked about in the NLV does not include remote work, this is always going to be a risk and the bureaucratic mood may swing in the other direction without warning, leaving a lot of people in the lurch.


----------



## Getxo64 (May 15, 2021)

ksjazzguitar said:


> My understanding is that it is vague on the subject and that a few years ago there was a high court ruling (or some official edict) that clarified that it _does_ exclude remote work. I can't find it at the moment, but I'll see if I can find a link.
> 
> "I asked a few people and I and some others have gotten away with it" is not the same thing as "it is explicitly 100% legal". I think you're right that the consulates are more strict about it, and highly variable. And it may be that the authorities in Spain don't pay attention much. But until there is a law that explicitly clarifies that the "work" talked about in the NLV does not include remote work, this is always going to be a risk and the bureaucratic mood may swing in the other direction without warning, leaving a lot of people in the lurch.


My immigration attorney here in Spain has advised me that it is legal for me to work remotely. That is different than telling me that I can "get away with it" or that I should try to hide it. I will take their advice over someone on a chat forum telling me that "their understanding" is the Spanish authorities will put me in jail or deport me.

There are also established law firms in Spain that specifically advertise the nonlucrative visa for remote workers. 

Here is one example of many (though I cannot vouch for this firm): How to Work Remotely From Spain | The Definitive Guide

True, it could change at any time. So it might not be a good idea to set up a life in Spain counting on remote work as your only source of income. I have not done that and would not recommend that to anyone. Remote work can dry up, and there is no work here.

My advice - spend the $'s to hire a good lawyer. 

I went numerous places looking for information on the Convenio Especial (access to the public health system for a monthly fee once you have been a resident for 1 year). I was told multiple times by experienced expats and people that advise expats that it was not available where I live (Basque Country). I could not find any application information anywhere, so I assumed they were correct. A few months later I found a good lawyer here and asked them for help. They got me CE coverage in a week.


----------



## Isobella (Oct 16, 2014)

3 posts and a link. Well done!


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

Getxo64 said:


> My immigration attorney here in Spain has advised me that it is legal for me to work remotely. That is different than telling me that I can "get away with it" or that I should try to hide it. I will take their advice over someone on a chat forum telling me that "their understanding" is the Spanish authorities will put me in jail or deport me.
> 
> There are also established law firms in Spain that specifically advertise the nonlucrative visa for remote workers.
> 
> ...


It honestly depends upon the consulate.

In the past some have issued NLVs for remote workers, but most haven't & some which have in the psast now don't.


----------



## Getxo64 (May 15, 2021)

xabiaxica said:


> It honestly depends upon the consulate.
> 
> In the past some have issued NLVs for remote workers, but most haven't & some which have in the psast now don't.


That is correct. NLV applications at most consulates now require sufficient funds by some combination of bank accounts, investment accounts, 401k's, monthly social security/pension payments.

My post was referring to allowed activities for a person with an approved nonlucrative visa already living in Spain.


----------



## Barriej (Jul 23, 2012)

Getxo64 said:


> My immigration attorney here in Spain has advised me that it is legal for me to work remotely. That is different than telling me that I can "get away with it" or that I should try to hide it. I will take their advice over someone on a chat forum telling me that "their understanding" is the Spanish authorities will put me in jail or deport me.
> 
> There are also established law firms in Spain that specifically advertise the nonlucrative visa for remote workers.
> 
> ...


The 'proof in the pudding' as the saying goes, would be what happens to your NLV when and if your income from outside of Spain goes on your tax return.
If the tax authorities here and the immigration talk to each other, then I would imagine at the visa renewal, your working income would be flagged. Even if not taxable here it does still need to be declared.

You are correct that working income is not allowed for the NLV as the Uk forms quite clearly state that you are not allowed to work, it doesn't mention remote but then again it doesn't not.
Below is the actual term from the UK visa application.


*NON-LUCRATIVE RESIDENCE VISA
This visa can be requested by third-country nationals who wish to reside in Spain without engaging in any work or professional activity.*

That seems quite explicit to me.

I dont know if the US forms have boxes for employer details etc, (the Uk one is a one size fits all form) but I would assume that leaving these blank or marking them N/A is hiding the truth (was going to say fraud) as you then sign the form saying you have given truthful information.

As to setting up once you are here, well thats another ball game. I do occasional work and this will be placed on my tax return as income from other sources (Im retired and dont wish to pay any contributions apart from any tax due) as I have private healthcare and wont work enough years for a Spanish pension.

On another note I would assume the official at your interview would be suspicious if you were in your late 20's and said you were retiring for the NLV. Someone like me in my late 50's would be less likely to be picked up (thats profiling for you)

The whole thing is going to continue to be a grey area.
But I still would not take the word of any lawyer etc. In the end it will you or me that picks up the bill and any consequences arising from their 'advice' if it turns out they were incorrect.


----------



## timwip (Feb 27, 2017)

Getxo64 said:


> My immigration attorney here in Spain has advised me that it is legal for me to work remotely. That is different than telling me that I can "get away with it" or that I should try to hide it. I will take their advice over someone on a chat forum telling me that "their understanding" is the Spanish authorities will put me in jail or deport me.
> 
> There are also established law firms in Spain that specifically advertise the nonlucrative visa for remote workers.
> 
> ...


I whole-heartedly agree with this post. There are many people on the board that think they know the rules better than Spanish lawyers and accountants. Get professional advice! Furthermore, I believe there is some variance in the procedures for visas, work and health-care between the communities. As a result, I recommend you work with professionals within your community.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

> There are many people on the board that think they know the rules better than Spanish lawyers and accountants.


No, I just don't put faith in other people cherry picking the Spanish lawyers and accountants that tell them what they want to hear. I understand the desire - I share the desire - I just think it's dangerous to give people legal advice based on that - especially when if it is wrong, lives can be messed up.

Also, in Spain, do lawyers take precedence over actual government officials, like consular officers? And other lawyers that say the opposite? Does that work differently in Spain than it does in the US?

Yes, you can find stuff on the internet that say one thing. I could also point out that they have a vested interest - if a web site tells you what you want to hear, you are more likely to stay on it and they get to sell more advertising - basically click bait. And a lawyer (even if well intentioned) is more likely to get your business if they tell you what you want to hear. This is different than a consular officer who doesn't benefit either way.

But there are sources on the internet that say the opposite (I can also find web sites and "experts" explaining that the Earth is flat) - people just want to ignore them because they tell them what they _don't_ want to hear. That is a dangerous way to make important legal decisions.

Again, the rule: *This visa can be requested by third-country nationals who wish to reside in Spain without engaging in any work or professional activity.*

Maybe we all have different definitions of the word "any". To me that language is _very_ clear. While you are residing in Spain, you will not do *any* work. Remote work would fall under the category of "any" by my understanding of the word. Maybe you can find a lawyer or even a judge that agrees with you that the word "any" only means "inside Spain" and "outside Spain" magically (and contrary to how language works and how the rest of the world understands ) isn't covered by the word "any". Maybe you can find some people that agree. But there is a huge danger that you will run into someone with the opposite interpretation, maybe someone with the final word.

I don't know for sure how the law works in Spain. I know that in the US, the "sure I broke the letter of the law, but I found some lawyers that told me I can interpret that law in the way I want, even though it kind of contradicts what the law says - and I read stories about other people that were getting away with it" - in the US that defense doesn't work. In the US, you go to jail or get deported, that lawyer gets a reprimand or maybe not, and they get to keep the money.

I understand that Spain may have a looser understanding of the law and this sort of thing may be common. But that door swings both ways and their "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" attitude may swing back hard the other way. They could easily wake up one morning and decide that these people are tax cheats, and or illegal immigrants, subpoena some tax records from the US and the UK and suddenly some nice people are being taken away in handcuffs and getting their bank accounts seized, all while screaming, "but I found a few lawyers on the internet that said it was OK!". Maybe it's worth it to some people to pretend that that couldn't happen. I don't get it.

And again, I've looked and can't find it, but last year someone pointed out an official court ruling from some Spanish high court that clarified that this law also prohibits work outside the country. I didn't bother copying it since it made it perfectly clear that that would be a fruitless avenue and we had other options developing anyway. I feel bad about the "I have a source but I can't share it" BS - I call people out for that all the time. But I'd rather give someone the right information but lacking a source than to let people make decisions that could destroy their lives (or at least severely mess things up). But I'll keep looking.

I would also point out that most countries that welcome digital nomads, et al usually do it by creating a new law, because the old law's language won't allow it or is dangerously vague on the subject. Spain has made no such move. 

I know this is the internet and people don't like to admit they're wrong. But I will *gladly* admit I'm wrong and buy the first round of drinks. But it's going to take more than "sure, it's proven, as long as you ignore the letter of the law, ignore what the consulates say, and only listen to the lawyers that agree with me". That may be "good enough" on the internet, but I suspect it would be found wanting in a Spanish court. If people want to gamble on that, I can't stop them. But I also don't have to enable them by telling them definitively that they are making the right guess - I would consider that to be immoral.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

I have looked and looked but can't find the court case/decree I was referring to. On reflection, I may have been confused and was remembering a decree having to do with using income to meet financial requirements or something else. I apologize if I was wrong.

But my conclusion is still the same - finding a few lawyers that tell you what you want to hear and a few people that "got away with it" - that may be good enough logic to "prove" something on social media, but it won't hold up in a court of law and I find it immoral to give people definitive legal advice that may have dire consequences based on this cherry-picked support.


----------



## timwip (Feb 27, 2017)

ksjazzguitar said:


> No, I just don't put faith in other people cherry picking the Spanish lawyers and accountants that tell them what they want to hear. I understand the desire - I share the desire - I just think it's dangerous to give people legal advice based on that - especially when if it is wrong, lives can be messed up.
> 
> Also, in Spain, do lawyers take precedence over actual government officials, like consular officers? And other lawyers that say the opposite? Does that work differently in Spain than it does in the US?
> 
> ...


Spain like the United States has many grey areas in the law. I have been doing US income taxes since I was 12 years old, there have been many times when I was not 100% sure that I was doing something correctly--I just did what I thought was logical. If you are going to wait until things are 100% crystal clear regarding your move to Spain, you are never going to move. I recommend seeking advice from a trusted source like lawyer or accountant and then follow it.

There are times you just need to take a leap of faith.


----------



## Getxo64 (May 15, 2021)

timwip said:


> Spain like the United States has many grey areas in the law. I have been doing US income taxes since I was 12 years old, there have been many times when I was not 100% sure that I was doing something correctly--I just did what I thought was logical. If you are going to wait until things are 100% crystal clear regarding your move to Spain, you are never going to move. I recommend seeking advice from a trusted source like lawyer or accountant and then follow it.
> 
> There are times you just need to take a leap of faith.


Hi all - i actually found a very well written thread by someone going through the NLV renewal process:









Spanish Non-Lucrative Visa Renewal - The Frugal Vagabond


Spanish Non-Lucrative Visa Renewal can be a little daunting-- even if you're not forced to submit your packet via mail! Get renewed on the first try.




frugalvagabond.com





That is it for me. I am out.

I certainly know when i am being told to shut up an go away.


ksjazzguitar said:


> I have looked and looked but can't find the court case/decree I was referring to. On reflection, I may have been confused and was remembering a decree having to do with using income to meet financial requirements or something else. I apologize if I was wrong.
> 
> But my conclusion is still the same - finding a few lawyers that tell you what you want to hear and a few people that "got away with it" - that may be good enough logic to "prove" something on social media, but it won't hold up in a court of law and I find it immoral to give people definitive legal advice that may have dire consequences based on this cherry-picked support.


Here is a very informative, well-written thread by someone renewing their NLV. It covers just about everything, including some of the points we have been discussing.









Spanish Non-Lucrative Visa Renewal - The Frugal Vagabond


Spanish Non-Lucrative Visa Renewal can be a little daunting-- even if you're not forced to submit your packet via mail! Get renewed on the first try.




frugalvagabond.com





That's it for me. I am out.

I certainly know when someone is telling me me to shut up and go away.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

Anecdotes are not data. Anecdotes are not legal fact. Cherry picked opinions are not proof. Saying something is a gray area is no protection. Especially since I think the law is quite explicit - it is the vague application of the law that is creating the illusion of a gray area. And none of this is any protection against the government deciding one day that this has gone on too long, and cracking down, deporting people, seizing assets, assessing fines, sending people to jail, etc. Saying, "I thought the law was vague and I ignored the legal advice that told me I _couldn't_ do it and focussed on the legal advice that told me I _could_ do it and a lot of other people were getting away with it..." - maybe in Spain that would be a cogent legal defense. I don't know, I'm just pretty sure that in most countries you would be laughed at for that legal defense. Again - courts judge facts on legal logic, not social media logic.

But if people want to take that risk with their way of life, fine. But I find it very immoral to try to tell people that this is a 100% legal fact, letting them unknowingly assume this risk.

I was the OP and this is a moot point for me now, so I'll have to opt out of this thread as this is just silly now. But if nothing else, it tells me that there are people here who's advice I should take with a big grain of salt.


----------



## MataMata (Nov 30, 2008)

Spanish law on the NLV

https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2011/BOE-A-2011-7703-consolidado.pdf

A DeepL translation with my highlights, note the last item (6) is news to me!

Seems to me pretty conclusive that NO work is allowed, Art. 47 is hard to argue with.


*CHAPTER I*

Temporary residence for non-gainful purposes

*Article 46.*
Requirements.

For the granting of an initial authorisation for temporary residence *without engaging in work or labour or professional activities*, as well as the corresponding visa, the foreigner applicant shall meet the following requirements:

a) Not to be irregularly present in Spanish territory.

b) In the event that the applicant is of legal age, he/she must not have a criminal record in Spain or in any of the other countries in Spain and in the previous countries in which he/she has resided during the last five years, for offences under Spanish criminal law.

c) Not to be listed as a refusable person in the territorial space of countries with which Spain has signed an agreement in this regard. has signed an agreement to this effect.

d) Have sufficient financial means to cover their living and subsistence expenses, including, where appropriate, those of his or her family, during the period of time for which he or she wishes to reside in Spain and *without the need to carry out any work or professional activity*, in accordance with the provisions of this section.

e) Have public insurance or private health insurance taken out with an insurance company authorised to operate in Spain

f) Not to be, where applicable, within the period of the commitment not to return to Spain that the foreigner has assumed when returning voluntarily to his/her country of origin.

g) Not be suffering from any of the diseases that may have serious public health repercussions in accordance with the provisions of the public health implications in accordance with the provisions of the International Health Regulations of 2005.

h) Have paid the fee for processing the procedures.

*Article 47.*
Financial means to be accredited in order to obtain a temporary residence authorisation.

1. Foreign nationals who wish to reside in Spain *without carrying out an employment or gainful activity* shall
have sufficient financial means for the period of residence that they are applying for or accredit a source of regular income, for themselves and, where appropriate, their family, in the following amounts, which are established as minimum amounts and referred to the time of residence minimum amounts at the time of application for the visa or renewal of the authorisation:

a) For their maintenance, during their residence in Spain, an amount which represents 400% of the IPREM, or its legal equivalent in foreign currency, per month in euros.

b) For the support of each of their dependent family members, during their residence in Spain, an amount representing in euros 100% of the IPREM, or its legal equivalent in foreign currency, an amount to be credited in addition to that referred to in section a) above.

2. In both cases, the overall amount of economic means must represent the provision of the monthly amount calculated on the basis of the provisions of the previous section, in relation to the above, in relation to the period of validity of the authorisation requested.

3. *The availability of sufficient financial means shall be accredited by means of the presentation of the documentation that allows for verification of the receipt of sufficient regular income or the sufficient regular income or the possession of assets that guarantee the receipt of such income. *Proof of availability may be furnished by any legally admissible means of proof, including the production of title deeds, certified cheques or credit cards, which must be accompanied by a bank certificate attesting to the amount available as a credit on the aforementioned card.

*If the financial resources come from shares or holdings in Spanish, mixed or foreign companies based in Spain or abroad the interested party shall accredit, by means of a certification from these companies, that he/she does not carry out any work activity whatsoever in these companies, and shall submit a sworn statement to that effect.

Article 48.*
Procedure.

1. Foreign nationals who wish to reside temporarily in Spain *without carrying out any work or professional activities* shall apply, in person, for the corresponding visa, in accordance with the official form, at the Spanish diplomatic mission or consular office in the area where he/she resides. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, if there are reasons to justify it, may determine another diplomatic mission or consular post where the application should be submitted.

The application for a visa shall entail the application for a temporary non-profit-making residence permit.

2. The application shall be accompanied by

a) Valid passport or travel document, recognised as valid in Spain, valid for at least one year.

b) Certificate of criminal record, or equivalent document, in the case of an applicant of legal age, issued by the
applicant of legal age, issued by the authorities of the country of origin or of the country or countries in which he/she has resided during the last five years, certifying that he/she has fulfilled the requirement set out in article 46(b).

c) *Documents certifying compliance with the requirements set out in Article 46, paragraphs d) and e).*

d) Medical certificate attesting to the fulfilment of the requirement foreseen in paragraph g) of article 46.

3. Once the application has been submitted, it shall be saved in the visa system of the corresponding application, in such a way that the Government Delegation or Subdelegation in whose demarcation the residence is requested is aware of the application submitted, as well as of the documentation that accompanies it in relation to the requirements that it is responsible for to assess.

4. The Government Delegation or Subdelegation, within a maximum period of one month from the receipt of the application, shall receipt of the application, shall decide on the granting or refusal of the residence authorisation, following residence authorisation, following an assessment of compliance with the requirement provided for in section f) of Article 46, as well as that provided for in paragraph b) with regard to the lack of a criminal record in Spain.

For this purpose, it shall, ex officio, request a report from the competent services of the Directorate General of the Police and the Civil Guard in matters of security and public order, as well as that of the Central Register of Convicted Persons.

The Government Delegation or Subdelegation will record the resolution in the corresponding application, so that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation and the consular office or Cooperation and by the corresponding consular office or diplomatic mission. The effectiveness of the authorisation shall be subject to the issuance, where applicable, of the visa and the effective entry of the foreigner into national territory.

5. If the decision is unfavourable, and this shall be understood to be the case if it is not communicated within one month, the diplomatic mission or consular post shall notify the person concerned of the decision. Likewise, the diplomatic mission or consular post shall decide to close the visa procedure.

6. Once authorisation has been granted, where appropriate, the diplomatic mission or consular post shall decide and issue the visa, after assessing compliance with the requirements set out in points a), c), d), e), f) and g) of Article 46, as well as that provided for in paragraph b) of Article 46 with regard to the absence of (b) concerning the absence of a criminal record in the alien's previous country of residence, and of the alien and that referred to in paragraph (h) with regard to the fee for the processing of the authorisation procedure.

The visa shall be refused

(a) where it is not established that the requirements laid down in Article 46 have been fulfilled;

or

b) When, in support of the visa application, false documents have been submitted or false allegations have been made or there is bad faith.

c) When a legally stipulated ground for inadmissibility is found to exist that had not been detected at the time the application was received.

7. Once the visa has been granted, if applicable, the applicant shall be required to collect the visa in person within one month. If the applicant fails to do so, the visa shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and the procedure shall be closed.

8. Likewise, once the visa has been collected, the applicant shall enter Spanish territory, in accordance with the provisions of Title I, within the period of validity of the visa, which shall in no case exceed three months.

Once entry has been effected, the applicant must apply in person, within a period of one month, to the Oficina de Extranjería (Immigration Office) or to the Oficina de Extranjería (Immigration Office), for the Alien's Identity Card. This card will be issued for the duration of the validity of the temporary residence authorisation.

*Article 49.*
Effects of the visa and duration of the initial residence authorisation.

1. The visa issued shall incorporate the initial residence authorisation, and the validity of this authorisation shall
commence from the date of entry into Spain, which must be stated in the passport or residence permit.

This date must be entered in the passport or travel document.

2. The initial temporary residence authorisation shall be valid for one year.

*Article 50.*
Visas and extraordinary residence permits.

1. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, in order to attend to extraordinary circumstances and in order to extraordinary circumstances and in order to comply with the aims of the foreign policy of the Kingdom of Spain and other Spain and other Spanish or European Union public policies, in particular immigration policy, economic policy, national security policy, public health or Spain's international relations, he or she may order a diplomatic mission or consular post to issue a visa to a consular office to issue a residence visa.

2. The Directorate General for Consular and Migration Affairs shall inform the Secretary of State for Immigration of the the Secretariat of State for Immigration and Emigration and shall send a copy of the

documents mentioned in sections a), b) and d) of Article 48.2 of these Regulations, for the purpose of granting the interested party, subject to a report from the Secretary of State for Security, an extraordinary residence permit.

*Article 51.*
Renewal of the temporary residence authorisation for non-gainful temporary residence.

1. Foreign nationals wishing to renew their temporary residence authorisation shall be obliged to apply to the competent Aliens Office for its processing during the sixty calendar days prior to the date of the renewal. The presentation of the application within this period extends the validity of the previous authorisation until the resolution of the procedure. It shall also be extended until the end of the procedure if the application is submitted within 90 calendar days of the date on which the authorisation expired without prejudice to the initiation of the corresponding sanctioning procedure for the infringement.

2. For the renewal of a non-profit temporary residence authorisation, the applicant foreigner shall fulfil the following requirements:
1.
a) Be the holder of a non-profit temporary residence authorisation in force or be within the ninety days of the expiry of the ninety-day period.

b) *Have sufficient financial means to cover their living and subsistence expenses, including, where appropriate including, those of his or her family, during the period of time for which the renewal is due, without the need to carry out any work or professional activity, in the terms established in Article 47.*

c) To have public insurance or private health insurance with an insurance company authorised to operate in Spain.

d) Have schooling for their dependent minors of compulsory school age during their stay in Spain.

e) Have paid the fee for processing the procedure.

3. The application, on an official form, must be accompanied by the documentation accrediting that the requirements indicated in the previous section are met, among others:

a) A copy of the full passport in force or travel document, recognised as valid in Spain.
b) documents certifying financial resources or sufficient financial means to cover their living and subsistence expenses, as well as insurance cover sufficient financial means to cover their subsistence and living expenses, as well as health insurance, for the period of time for which it is intended to renew the residence in Spain *without without the need to carry out any work or professional activity.*
c) Where applicable, a report issued by the competent autonomous community authorities that accrediting the schooling of minors of compulsory school age who are in their charge.

4. If the documentation submitted with the application does not provide proof of the school attendance of minors of compulsory school age who are in the applicant's care, the Aliens Office shall inform the competent educational authorities of this and shall expressly warn the alien applicant in writing that if schooling does not take place and the corresponding report is not submitted within thirty days, the the authorisation will not be renewed.

5. For the renewal of the authorisation, the following shall be assessed, where appropriate, upon ex officio request of the corresponding reports:

a) The possibility of renewing the residence permit of foreigners who have been convicted of a crime and have served their sentence, those who have been pardoned or who have been found guilty of a crime, or pardoned or on conditional remission of sentence or suspension of the sentence.

b) Non-compliance with the foreigner's tax and social security obligations.

Social Security.

6. Likewise, *the integration effort of the foreigner will be assessed, as accredited by means of a positive report from the Autonomous Community of his/her place of residence.*


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

So, having the financial strength to support yourself without working is a must. No surprise there. 
But what is really meant by "work or professional activity" in the context of the law?

Here is an extract from a website of a law firm specialising in immigration issues where they explain the NLV:

_Una de sus características principales es que *no te permite realizar ningún tipo de actividad económica o profesional en España*. Es decir, no podrás trabajar para ninguna empresa que opere en el país.

One of its characteristics is that it does not allow you to perform any economic or professional activity in Spain. This means you cannot work for any company which operates in the country._

So, although far from binding, it is an opinion from a lawyer that the prohibition is on working for companies which operate in Spain. The inference of course is that if you work for a company which doesn't operate in Spain, you are not breaching the terms of the visa.

I don't want to advertise for the law firm, I have noting to do with them, but I guess you could find their website by pasting the original text into Google (other search engines are available)...


----------



## MataMata (Nov 30, 2008)

Overandout said:


> So, although far from binding, it is an opinion from a lawyer that the prohibition is on working for companies which operate in Spain. The inference of course is that if you work for a company which doesn't operate in Spain, you are not breaching the terms of the visa.


The text of Art. 47 infers otherwise

"*If the financial resources come from shares or holdings in Spanish, mixed or foreign companies based in Spain or abroad the interested party shall accredit, by means of a certification from these companies, that he/she does not carry out any work activity whatsoever in these companies, and shall submit a sworn statement to that effect."*

To me that means no work for anyone be it in Spain or elsewhere.

Perhaps someone with a better command of the Spanish language can properly translate the clause and see if some meaning or nuance is being lost or corrupted.

Artículo 47. 

Medios económicos a acreditar para la obtención de una autorización de residencia temporal. 

1. Los extranjeros que deseen residir en España sin realizar una actividad laboral o lucrativa deberán contar con medios económicos suficientes para el periodo de residencia que solicitan, o acreditar una fuente de percepción periódica de ingresos, para sí mismo y, en su caso, su familia, en las siguientes cuantías, que se establecen con carácter de mínimas y referidas al momento de solicitud del visado o de renovación de la autorización: 
a) Para su sostenimiento, durante su residencia en España, una cantidad que represente mensualmente en euros el 400% del IPREM, o su equivalente legal en moneda extranjera. 
b) Para el sostenimiento de cada uno de los familiares a su cargo, durante su residencia en España, una cantidad que represente mensualmente en euros el 100% del IPREM, o su equivalente legal en moneda extranjera, cantidad a acreditar de forma adicional a la referida en el apartado a) anterior. 

2. En ambos casos, la cuantía global de medios económicos habrá de suponer la disposición de la cuantía mensual calculada con base a lo establecido en el apartado anterior, en relación con el tiempo de vigencia de la autorización solicitada. 

3. La disponibilidad de medios económicos suficientes se acreditará mediante la presentación de la documentación que permita verificar la percepción de ingresos periódicos y suficientes o la tenencia de un patrimonio que garantice dicha percepción de ingresos. La disponibilidad se podrá acreditar por cualquier medio de prueba admitido en Derecho, incluyendo la aportación de títulos de propiedad, cheques certificados o tarjetas de crédito, que deberán ir acompañados de una certificación bancaria que acredite la cantidad disponible como crédito de la citada tarjeta. 

Si los medios económicos proceden de acciones o participaciones en empresas españolas, mixtas o extranjeras radicadas en España, el interesado acreditará, mediante certificación de las mismas, que no ejerce actividad laboral alguna en dichas empresas, y presentará declaración jurada en tal sentido.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Article 47 backs up the view of the law firm that the "prohibition" to work is only work for a company operative in Spain.

The sworn declaration required is to the effect that the person who obtains an income from shares of any company which is either Spanish (by ownership) mixed (partly Spanish by ownership) or foreign but which operates in Spain, does not work for that company.

If therefore for example a US Citizen shown his income from an American company operative outside Spain, they are not required to sign a declaration statingh that they don't work for that company.


----------



## MataMata (Nov 30, 2008)

Is that a human translation or just you inserting words which are not there?


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

That's me telling you what the Spanish original says and means. I wouldn't even call it an interpretation because the Spanish original is clear in its literal meaning.

When you say "To me that means no work for anyone be it in Spain or elsewhere." I understand that you are making that conclusion based on the English translation of the text, but I cannot make that same conclusion reading the original Spanish, in fact quite the opposite.

You did ask if anyone with better Spanish could provide their view on the original and that is what I've done, admittedly I have assumed that my Spanish is better than yours.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

I know I'll regret peaking back in this thread, but ...



> Here is an extract from a website of a law firm specialising in immigration issues where they explain the NLV: ... _This means you cannot work for any company which operates in the country._


Maybe I'm confused. Maybe I've been getting this all wrong. Maybe the legal system in Spain is very, very, very different than the US. In the US, the law is determined by the Constitution, the letter of the law, and judicial rulings - in that order. No where in the US legal system does something change the law because some lawyers website says something in contradiction to the letter of the law. Maybe that's different in Spain.

The other possibility is that these law firms are talking about what they perceive the de facto policy to be, so they get more clients giving them money that get away with it for a while and even if they get caught and kicked out, the law firm just doesn't care.



> I understand that you are making that conclusion based on the English translation of the text, but I cannot make that same conclusion reading the original Spanish, in fact quite the opposite.


Can you provide the actual text that you think is saying that this applies only to work in Spain? My wife is a native Spanish speaker and a professional linguist that has done some legal translation.

The text: Los extranjeros que deseen residir en España sin realizar una actividad labora...

It is clear to me that that does not explicitly work for a Spanish company. I'm not supposed to do any "actividad laboral". Working for a foreign company remotely is still doing work while I am in Spain.

I understand that if you bend over backwards and squint out of the corner of your eye, that you can make it read the way you want. My experience of the law is different. My understanding of how the law works is that if I made that argument in court, the judge would point out that the text of the law is clear - no work. Period. While in Spain on that visa, no work. "sin realizar actividades laborales o profesionales" There is no mention of different categories of work and which ones are allowed and which ones aren't. To me this clearly means no work whatsoever. I think people are just reading it with wishful thinking, that there is some loophole.

If I had a kid, and I told them, "while you are living in my house, no gambling", they don't get to say, "well I choose to interpret that as only referring to gambling that is physically in this house so online poker is fine" - that would not fly. The rule is _if you are in Spain on this visa, you will not work_. I don't see any leeway (other than wishful thinking) in the language, in English or Spanish. But again, if there is a particular passage, I will have my wife take a look at it.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

OK, first disclaimer, I have never worked in any legal environment of US law, so I cannot comment on that. In Spain however, precedents set by courts and judgements, while not changing the law as you could expect in UK common law, do influence interpretations and therefore susequent judgements and applications of laws.

All law is subject to interpretation, both civil law and common law, otherwise we would not need judges and lawyers.

In the text of the BOE it certainly does state that the NLV is for foreigners wanting to live in Spain without working and then goes on to say that in the evaluation of the application it needs to be demonstrated that the applicant doesn't need to work. However the only place where is says that the applicant must not work is in the Article 47 and that is specifically referring to when the applicant's income is from an economic activity from shares in a company. It the further specifies that in this case, the applicant must sign a declaration which I described above.

It does not expressly say that in all other cases the applicant can work for a foreign company which operates outside of Spain, this is clear. If you are looking for a legal text which expressly states that an NLV applicant can work remotely while in Spain for a foreign company, you will not find it.

My reading of Article 47 is totally in contratdiction to Matamata's simply because I don't see where it says that the declaration must state that the applicant isn't working for a foreign company operating outside of Spain, the three categories of prohibited work simply don't include this exclusion.

Matamata says about article 47: "To me that means no work for anyone be it in Spain or elsewhere. " But in no place of Article 47 does it say that.

In any case, I am only reading into this and providing my interpretation because I am interested in seeing why there is a difference of interpretation, particularly because a law firm has echoed that "alternative interpretation" in public. 
But (here comes disclaimer number 2) I am just a guy with a bit of legal training who works in contracts and legal affairs including in the Spanish jurisdiction so am used to reading Spanish law, but I am certainly not an immigration lawyer and certainly wouldn't want anyone to act on opinions I post in my spare time on an internet forum.

That said, I would love to know if the opinion of the law firm is based on the text of Article 47 or not!


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

> OK, first disclaimer, I have never worked in any legal environment of US law, so I cannot comment on that. In Spain however, precedents set by courts and judgements, while not changing the law as you could expect in UK common law, do influence interpretations and therefore susequent judgements and applications of laws.


That is true in the US as well, based on my (semi-informed) layman's understanding.



> All law is subject to interpretation, both civil law and common law, otherwise we would not need judges and lawyers.


That is true here, but the law still takes precedent. Courts can interpret laws in areas of vagueness, or where the situation has changed. In no case can the court go against the letter of the law, unless they can show that the law violates some higher law (like the Constitution).



> In the text of the BOE it certainly does state that the NLV is for foreigners wanting to live in Spain without working and then goes on to say that in the evaluation of the application it needs to be demonstrated that the applicant doesn't need to work


You are assuming that those two rules are interdependent. I see no justification of that assumption - they aren't even in the same paragraph. I see that there is a rule that you cannot get this visa if you are going to perform any work. And there is a rule about how to establish that you can support yourself. I don't see any reason why someone would (other than wishful thinking) assume that the two are interdependent.



> It does not expressly say that in all other cases the applicant can work for a foreign company which operates outside of Spain, this is clear. If you are looking for a legal text which expressly states that an NLV applicant can work remotely while in Spain for a foreign company, you will not find it.


I disagree. I read the law to say, "if you are going to be in our country, on this visa, you can engage in no work". That is the simplest and clearest interpretation of what is written. You have to stretch to come to the conclusion that, "well it didn't explicitly say that I can't work anywhere else, it just said that I couldn't work" That would be like my Mom telling me, "while you live in my house you will not drink alcohol" and I interpret that to mean that I can drink as long as I do it somewhere else. That would be a disingenuous misinterpretation of the rule.

I do agree that the law is poorly worded. Of course, when it was written, there was no concept that we would live in a world where so many people could work remotely, including jobs in other countries. That is a different argument. The argument is "does the Spanish law, as written forbid or allow foreign remote work. As written, the simplest interpretation is "no work" because that is what it explicitly says. Period.

Now, maybe, at some point in the future, a high court in Spain, ruling on a test case, may decide, "OK, but the intention of the law, when written was to prevent people from taking jobs from Spaniards, so the law can be interpreted to allow foreign remote work". *IF* the Spanish court ever ruled that way, that would become precedent and de facto law. That hasn't happened. Everyone seems to want to assume that that has happened. It hasn't. Saying, "well a bunch of people get away with it and some lawyers make money by telling people this so it must be true" - that is a different argument, and one with which I agree - that is what is often happening in practice. But talking about what is the law and what is practice are two different things. For example, here in California, it is common for people to do a rolling stop at a stop sign. It is explicitly against the law, but people do it and get away with it. If I get a ticket, "a lot of people do it and the police usually don't seem to care" is not a defense.

That ruling has not happened (afaik) and assuming that it _must_ have happened because we _want_ it to happen and because we think it _should_ happen is not a legal defense. At least not in the US. I suspect that that doesn't work that way anywhere.

But _if that did happen_, it would render this argument moot. But saying that "All law is subject to interpretation, both civil law and common law, otherwise we would not need judges and lawyers." implies that people think this has happened. Again"legal interpretation" does not happen in expat forums or on the web pages advertising the legal services of random lawyers - it happens in a court of law with two sides arguing their case in front of a judge. At least in the US - I can't speak to Spain, but I'm pretty sure that is the same everywhere that has the rule of law.



> My reading of Article 47 is totally in contratdiction to Matamata's simply because I don't see where it says that the declaration must state that the applicant isn't working for a foreign company operating outside of Spain, the three categories of prohibited work simply don't include this exclusion.


"sin realizar una actividad laboral" Really, that isn't clear? Sure, if you put it up on a cork board with yarn running from section to section to get you where you want. But in my experience, each clause is understood on its own, unless it directly references something else. Again, yes, the law doesn't explicitly mention remote work outside of Spain, but do does explicitly say no work. Remote work for a foreign company is "work". It also doesn't explicitly mention work on the weekends, but it doesn't need to because it is covered under "no work". All work is covered under the phrase "no work". It doesn't have to itemize every category of work - the absence of any qualification means that it applies to all categories.



> Matamata says about article 47: "To me that means no work for anyone be it in Spain or elsewhere. " But in no place of Article 47 does it say that.


It also doesn't say you can't do work as long as you do it with one eye closed - again, it doesn't need to: "no work". Any kind of work is covered by "no work". Working for a man named Pedro? No work! Working for a non-profit? No work! Working as a temp? No work! Working for a multinational corp? No work! Working for bitcoin? No work! Working for barter? No work! Working for a foreign company remotely? No work! What about...? No, no work!



> In any case, I am only reading into this and providing my interpretation because I am interested in seeing why there is a difference of interpretation, particularly because a law firm has echoed that "alternative interpretation" in public.


Maybe this is where I am lost. In Spain, are lawyers held in high regard as paragons of virtue? They never lie? They never take on clients they know will lose? We have the opposite opinion in the US - there are a lot of good lawyers out there, but there are also a lot that will bend the truth to try and get your money. All they're doing here is offering to file the paperwork. The legal responsibility falls on the person. They just want the money.



> I am just a guy with a bit of legal training who works in contracts and legal affairs including in the Spanish jurisdiction so am used to reading Spanish law,


Well, in all fairness, that puts you ahead of me. I'm just a guy. But I am a guy that enjoys parsing language and logic and has and interest in the law and follow various legal blogs where lawyers walk through how the law is interpreted and works.



> That said, I would love to know if the opinion of the law firm is based on the text of Article 47 or not!


I suspect that if you cornered them, if they were being honest, that they are playing with a perceived vagueness based on an assumption about what the intention of the law is. Maybe in Spain, interpreting the law is done on web pages of random lawyers advertising their services. That isn't how it works in the US.

And I would also point out that that is cherry-picked data - there are also Spanish lawyers that say the opposite. Also, I suspect that the consular officers of the Spanish government seem to accept the strict interpretation. In Spain, do web pages advertising lawyers have more weight than what the government says? That is very different than the US.

---

Understand, I'm only arguing what the law explicitly says, not what people have gotten away with or what the Spanish government may (even often) turn a blind eye to. That is a different debate. It isn't one I would debate because that seems to be true. But that is not the law - just what is allowed. Again, just because no one gets a ticket for a rolling stop at a stop sign, it doesn't mean the law has changed, just that people are not enforcing it - those are two very different things.

And I agree that it would be in the best interest of Spain to allow it - it's people spending money in Spain, bringing money into the country. But that is not the same as saying that this _is_ what the law is. The law says, "Los extranjeros que deseen residir en España sin realizar una actividad laboral". There is no qualification on "actividad laboral" so it applies to all "actividad laboral". Again, if it doesn't mean that, then there are literally an infinite number of qualifications to that rule that have just as much justification as the one proposed.

Hopefully the law will change. Hopefully they (like other countries) will come up with digital nomad visa - that would seem to be in the best interest of Spain I think. But governments work slowly. But (at least in the US) the law doesn't magically change because a bunch of people want it to.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

The only real legal argument I can imagine would be an inversion of the legal maxim, _exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. _I've heard a lawyer argue that if explicit exceptions to a rule that that "proves" the argument that other exceptions don't exist. I suppose someone could argue that the complete lack of exceptions in this law allow the inference that there might be unstated "obvious" exceptions. I think that is a questionable legal argument, because it would then require every law everywhere to explicitly state when there are no exceptions - I can't imagine any legal system allowing that kind of loose interpretation.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Your view on the provisions is certainly the safest one, and if you don't need to work I certainly would recommend that you follow your own interpretation.

I however maintain my own interpretation that the law is not expressly excluding remote work for foreign companies.

I have also found another law firm which states in their explanation of the NLV the following:

*TRABAJA DE FORMA REMOTA*
Aunque este visado no te permite realizar una actividad económica en España, podrás trabajar de forma remota en para otros países.

REMOTE WORKING
Although this visa does not allow you to have any economic activity in Spain, you can work remotely for other countries.

I believe that I am not the only person who sees this law as excluding only economic activity involving Spanish businesses.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

> is not expressly excluding remote work for foreign companies.


Yes, I agree that it is not "express". But it also doesn't expressly forbid working in purple socks. Can you explain what logic allows you to exclude purple sock work but but not remote work? I don't see how you can allow one without the other. It's the exact same logic. If you think that sub-categories not expressly prohibited must be allowed, then that would apply to both. We don't get to switch logic when it's convenient.

And again, every time someone quotes some advertising web page for a lawyer, it makes me think that they have no idea how the law works. They have absolutely not bearing on the law. You might as well be quoting bubble gum wrappers. People quote these because they tell them what they want to hear - it's called confirmation bias. They value the web sites that tell them what they want to hear and they ignore the web sites that tell them they want to hear. I guess I could quote the sites that say the opposite, but I don't see the point because they are also 100% irrelevant since we can read the law itself.

I see the pro "NLV for foreign remote work" as follows.

1. A Procrustean interpretation of the letter of the law (but only applying that looseness for this one thing, and not the infinite number of things that loose logic could also allow, and "interpretation" in the legal sense means something much different and much more formal)
2. Assuming that the talk of the means test that comes later in the law is somehow linked to the talk against work (I'm not sure why these should be assumed to be connected. Just because they deal with money? If they are talking about the same thing, why aren't they in the same clause? They aren't even next to each other. That doesn't make any sense.)
3. A lot of people get away with it (I really don't know how to respond to that - I routinely call that "logic" the "kindergartner defense")
4. Some lawyers say interpret the law this way (Even if we ignore all the lawyers and consular officials saying the opposite, when laws are interpreted in a legal sense, that refers to judges in a court hearing opposing view points, not random advertising pages for lawyers trying to make a buck.)

Items 3 and 4 are 100% irrelevant in a court of law. They have no legal weight in this discussion whatsoever, once we can look at the law itself. If there was a court ruling on this - that would have weight, but no one has found one. (Perhaps the court hasn't bothered because the law is so simply and plainly clear.) So, we're left with items 1 and 2 which rely on some really questionable logic that I think would get laughed out of court.

I guess I'm frustrated because I'm still waiting for a well formed, cogent argument, without any gaping holes or contradictions. All I seem to be hearing is "social media logic". People have started with what they assume to be true, and have worked backwards, stretching and pruning to make the evidence fit what they assume to be true.



> Your view on the provisions is certainly the safest one...


You see, that still sounds like, "OK, that may be the law, but I think you'll get away with it... The safest legal route is always following the letter of the law. Taking the "not safest one" is by definition getting away from what the law says. By saying it is the safest, you are basically saying that it is the most logical reading. Again, following the letter of the text, not making chauvinistic interpretations.

Again, if people want to do it, they're _probably_ going to be OK. But I, for one, would be mortified beyond belief if I gave someone bad legal advise and they ended up being screwed by something I said. I get antsy when people don't share that same concern.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

Well, I have made legal opinions for multinational firms which have stood up to in-house legal review and external law firm's analysis.
I have won consdierable sums of money in disputes and claims and saved outgoings and liabilities all based on what you consider to be "social media logic".
I have expressed my interpretation as best I can and have offered arguments to support the legal basis that the Spanish legislation does not prohibit working remotely ffrom Spain under an`NLV, but as you seem convinced that I am wrong and that my logic would be "laughed out of court", what more can I do? 

Good luck with your move.


----------



## jeff9 (May 19, 2021)

Hi, I just moved from USA using Miami Consulate location (processed in February) and it is not as difficult as most other Consulates in USA. They required bank statements and brokerage statements for a year to verify you are not working. I used an attorney here for TIE process and he had a couple tried in March from Miami Consulate that had work in USA and they were rejected. They don't want you working to get approval you have to show income from investments/bank accounts. I would say you should not expect approval if you are working. You might get lucky, but that is not what the Consulate appears to want done. Just thought I would put actual what has happened.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

> Well, I have made legal opinions for multinational firms which have stood up to in-house legal review and external law firm's analysis.


Fair enough. But I'm not a big fan of the appeal to authority, especially with anonymous people on the internet. But I'll assume you're genuine.



> I have won consdierable sums of money in disputes and claims and saved outgoings and liabilities all based on what you consider to be "social media logic".


I'll have to take your word that it is the same *exact* logic. 



> but as you seem convinced that I am wrong and that my logic would be "laughed out of court"


*Can you can explain why your logic that "the law doesn't explicitly say someone can't work remotely for a foreign company" is valid but "the law doesn't explicitly say someone can't work if they're wearing purple socks" is not.* It is the same exact logic. If this were being argued in court and the defense tried this defense, I feel like they would get a blank stare from the judge and prosecutor. I feel like the purple sock argument would be a mic drop moment for the prosecutor and the defense would be blushing with embarrassment. To me, it's the argument that a child would make, trying to explain why they ate the cookies. That's not to say there aren't cases where that form of argument couldn't work, but in this case, it just seems silly to me. Again, I think people are starting with the conclusion and grasping backwards for justification.

My issue is that when people disagree on social media, they tend to use different logic. They reference to inappropriate authorities, they keep changing the argument when they get cornered, they ignore arguments/evidence they don't like. The only points that I see being made are the 4 above, and they all (at least to me) are riddled with holes.

I hope that we can agree that the first two arguments are the only ones that could have any legal weight. And I feel like I've explained why they don't hold up. Wishful thinking is also not a legal defense.

But I feel now that you've just ignored my arguments (which I went to great pains to clarify and list clearly in the last post) and have switched to tone policing. This also happens a lot in social media - someone doesn't want to deal with your argument so instead they criticize the form of it. This is a rhetorical trick that very common in social media arguments.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath for someone to explain why the 4 points I listed before are not patently specious arguments.



> Good luck with your move.


Thanks. Yeah, fortunately since posting the OP for this, my situation has changed and it doesn't matter - I won't need the NLV. (Part of what drove a change in plans was a chat with someone at a law firm videoconference explaining that NLV explicitly states "no work" so wouldn't work, but I could do a self employment thing. But of course what this lawyer says holds no more weight than what other lawyers are saying. I don't want to just cherry pick whatever tells me what I want to hear - that would be epistemologically irresponsible.)

I apologize for offending you. I certainly can get "pointed" in my arguing style, with dry, playful jabs. While that served me well in grad school, and it can be fun in a bar with friends over beer, in an anonymous forum, that can definitely come off as rude. If we're lucky, maybe we can debate this sometime in the future the way it _should_ be done, over a beer.

But unless anyone has a defense of any of the 4 arguments I've listed, there is no point in my continuing. Those are the only arguments I've heard and people just seem to assume that they are valid arguments, but I think they fall apart (as legal arguments) pretty easily. There is not point in arguing if people are just going to ignore my critiques of the argument and just restate their assumptions.

I don't need people to restate the "no explicitly stated" argument again unless they can explain why that wouldn't also allow any of the infinite other no explicitly explicitly stated possible exceptions.

I don't need people to restate that there is a separate means test unless they can explain why we should assume that they are talking about the same thing even though they are in separate parts of the law, separated by other material with nothing to connect them accept that they both have something to do with money. I don't understand why people assume whether or not your working and what your means are are the same thing - if they were the same thing, they would be listed together or at least adjacently.

I don't need people to explain that people get away with it, unless they can show that that has any bearing in a Spanish court (which would be different than any legal system that I've heard of).

I don't need people to explain that they can cherry pick lawyers that tell them what they want to hear, unless they can show that that has any bearing in a Spanish court (which would be different than any legal system that I've heard of), and explain why the lawyers saying what they want to hear have more weight than the lawyers that say what they don't want to hear. And they would need to show that what a lawyer says on the internet overrides Spanish law - again, I've never heard of a legal system where things posted on the internet have legal weight. I regularly listen to legal videos (I love the youtube channel Legal Eagle). The few times I've heard it mentioned of people making an argument, it was usually someone representing themself and it was openly ridiculed for being irrelevant. But again, I don't have experience with the Spanish legal system - maybe that is a common legal strategy in Spain. In the US, it is the Constitution, the letter of the law, and interpretations made in a court of law - "statements by lawyers made on the internet" don't have force of law here.

And the fact that people rely on these arguments with the assumption that their valid but avoiding defending their validity - I'm sorry, but I've never heard a cogent argument build that way. I debate a lot of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories on the internet - I associate that behavior more with that, instead of cogent, well thought out, backed up arguments.

But I don't know - maybe you're all right. Maybe that's how the law works in Spain. I just don't see how that would be possible.

But I've done it again, I've rambled. I tend to do that - that's why I prefer discussing things in person so the flow can be more back and forth and it's easier to focus on specific points.


----------



## Overandout (Nov 10, 2012)

When you ask "*Can you can explain why your logic that "the law doesn't explicitly say someone can't work remotely for a foreign company" is valid but "the law doesn't explicitly say someone can't work if they're wearing purple socks" is not.* " Then answer is yes, I can, but when you follow your question with "It is the same exact logic." It demonstrates that you are not open to a different view to your own, but in fact the logic is not, from a legal interpretation point of view, the same at all.

A lawyer will always look to clarify uncertainties in a legal text (and of course will look to back up his own client's argument) by reading the whole text and looking for context and the intent behind the legislation. In this law, the intent is to define what a foreigner can or cannot do while in Spain under a NLV and Article 47 offers a view on what the law intended, i.e. he / she can't work for a Spanish company or a foreign company which operates in Spain. There is no intention in the legislation to restrict the colour of undergarments worn, therefore the logic is not exactly the same.

So as I said, I can explain it, but obviously not in a way that will make you understand it. 

Sorry that i'm not going to continue this discussion as interesting as the point of law might be, I cannot invest the time in trying to further explain the holes in the Spanish law and ways that a person wanting to work remotely might be able to exploit them.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

> Then answer is yes, I can, but when you follow your question with "It is the same exact logic." It demonstrates that you are not open to a different view to your own,


No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.



> but in fact the logic is not, from a legal interpretation point of view, the same at all.


Citation, please? Once again, you've avoided explaining how the logic is different. To me the logic is "because the ruled does not explicitly rule out a specific case, the case is assumed to be allowed". You seem to be avoiding explaining why one is different than the other. You think my tone is rude and you think I'm closed minded so you can just avoid discussing the point raised.

You seem to think that you are explaining why the logic is different. The form of the argument is exactly the same, "because the ruled does not explicitly rule out a specific case, the case is assumed to be allowed". You are saying that the intent was to clarify the types of work allowed but not footwear - but again, you are assuming that they are trying to clarify the types of work allowed - I don't see that at all - I see a clear and unambiguous statement. Therefore to me, the logic is the same - claiming that an undiscussed exception is allowed because it is not explicitly prohibited. If it was explicitly saying, "you can't work for a Spanish company", that would be different - you'd have some good points there. But it doesn't say that. In order for me to accept your argument, I have to accept that it explicitly discusses types of work for purposes of visa requirement. But that is exactly the opposite of the point I am trying to make - that it doesn't. So, in order to consider your argument, I have to first assume that it is true. We call that begging the question.

But if you could explain that in clear language in a way that doesn't create new problems - that would have a chance to convince me. But you've avoided that for the second time.

There is a legal adage in the states, "f you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." When you avoid discussing the facts or the law, you're pounding the table. I asked a simple and direct question. You claim that you have an obvious answer but you are keeping it a secret, instead choosing to tone police and explain that you're justified in ignoring my simple question because I won't listen. Why don't you prove me wrong instead of coming up with excuses?

It's a simple question and I'll ask it again, slightly altered. Please explain why the logic of "because the ruled does not explicitly rule out a specific case, the case is assumed to be allowed" can only be applied to the case of "foreign remote work" and not "purple socks". I would expect that that would be the first question of the opposing attorney or judge. I'm not even a lawyer, just a guy with a lifelong love of logic, rhetoric, and dialectic, but that is an incredibly obvious flaw in that logic.

I've asked a simple question, a third time. You can chose to find and excuse not to answer it for a third time if you want.



> A lawyer will always look to clarify uncertainties in a legal text (and of course will look to back up his own client's argument) by reading the whole text and looking for context and the intent behind the legislation.


This assumes that the language is vague - iI find that it is not.



> In this law, the intent is to define what a foreigner can or cannot do while in Spain under a NLV


Yes. It says that they can't work, in clear and simple language.



> and Article 47 offers a view on what the law intended, i.e. he / she can't work for a Spanish company or a foreign company which operates in Spain.


You must be reading a different Article 47 than I am.

I read the article 47 that I can see to be saying, "On this visa you can't work, so you have to show income from a source like one of these..." None of those sources of income involve work. The word "income" does not necessarily imply work. Again, you seem to be making your assumption and working backwards.

Is there a specific line that you think states or even implies that the accepted sources of income can include "actividad laboral o lucrativa". The only time it is mentioned to (once again) say that it can't be done with this visa. I can't even see where anyone thinks there is any exception.



> Los extranjeros que deseen residir en España sin realizar una actividad laboral o lucrativa deberán contar con medios económicos suficientes para el periodo de residencia que solicitan, o acreditar una fuente de percepción periódica de ingresos, para sí mismo y, en su caso, su familia, en las siguientes cuantías, que se establecen con carácter de mínimas y referidas al momento de solicitud del visado o de renovación de la autorización:


That is not explaining the logic of the law, just stating why proof of income is important.

The purpose of article 47 to me is clearly to discuss the means test. It's saying that you can't use work to prove income. This does not change that article 46 clearly and unambiguously said that no work is allowed. Article 46 dealt with the preconditions to be eligible for the visa - one of which is no work. Article 47 deals with the means test and what can be used.

The last line I suspect is the best case that you have.



> Si los medios económicos proceden de acciones o participaciones en empresas españolas, mixtas o extranjeras radicadas en España, el interesado acreditará, mediante certificación de las mismas, que no ejerce actividad laboral alguna en dichas empresas, y presentará declaración jurada en tal sentido.


But that just means that if you are part owner of a company based in Spain, then you have to prove that you don't work for them. Perhaps people want to interpret that to mean that you can work for it if it isn't based in Spain. And that's of course a ludicrous argument that that was the intention of the law because the idea that people could work for a foreign company that is not _based in Spain_ while they _live in Spain_ was a far away concept. When the law was written, the only real possibility of working for a foreign company was if it was based in Spain. They are just saying, "we don't care if it is a Spanish company. a foreign company based in Spain, or some combination - you can't work there. A "foreign company not based in Spain" is not listed, not because they wanted a secret loophole, but because that wasn't a thing back then.

They listed and explicitly prohibited every category of work that existed at the time. I don't understand the argument that they intended to allow a loophole for a type of work that didn't yet exist. Especially since the letter of the law is so clear. Listing "empresas españolas, mixtas o extranjeras radicadas en España" does not mean that they are potential work based sources of income disallowed, but to say that if your income comes from those companies (again, listing the only possibilities at the time, essentially any company) that you have to prove that you aren't working for them. The effect at the time of writing was that no work for any company was allowed. Unless you want to argue that the drafters were psychic, I don't think there is an argument that their intention was to leave an unstated loophole for future digital nomads.

Again, maybe I'm wrong, maybe the law does work that way in Spain. It doesn't work that way here. I would have thought it doesn't work that way anywhere.



> There is no intention in the legislation to restrict the colour of undergarments worn, therefore the logic is not exactly the same.


Again, in article 46, which deals with qualifying for the visa, it says no work. It talks just as much about digital nomads and foreign companies as it does about footwear - nothing. There is not discussion of nationality of the companies until it gets to the section dealing with proving means (and in that case lists every category conceivable at the time of writing.)

I also think you're being very free with your inference of intent. I understand that in law sometime you have to think about what is implicit, but not when it is explicitly saying the opposite.

Article 46 deals with requirement. That's why its title is "Requisitos". One of these requirement is no work, without any qualification. It further goes on to say that you have to prove means. And it explicitly say how you prove means, reminding you that you can't use work. That doesn't mean that that is the only reason to not allow work, just reiterating that it can't be a factor for the requirement of a means test - that's why that language is in that subsection dealing with the general idea of a means test that will be flushed out later on in article 47. They seem to be going out of their way to say "no work" every chance they get. Heck, it's the first thing mentioned - as a definition of the purpose of the visa, only for people looking for "residencia temporal sin realizar actividades laborales o profesionales". The once again left out the qualification "in Spain". Do lawyers get charged by the letter in Spain? They seem to pass up every opportunity to clarify this. My experience with legal documents is the opposite - they spare no word for clarity.

Article 47 specifically deals with the requirements so show means. That's why its title is, "Medios económicos a acreditar para la obtención de una autorización de residencia temporal." It doesn't override the unrelated statement in article 46 prohibiting work - article 47 doesn't deal with requirements, but with showing means. (I'm sorry, but the idea that article 47 is saying, "This article deals with something different but when the last section talked about basic requirements for the visa and that no work is allowed, we for got to include some clarification so we'll do it here in a section that deals with a different topic." - I'm sorry, but that is bizarre to me.) If they wanted to clarify what types of work are allowed or not allowed, they would have created a separate article for that, like they did for the means tests. People are mixing and matching language from different sections to get to the conclusion that they want.


----------



## Steve F (Dec 2, 2020)

ksjazzguitar said:


> No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought I might inject a few thoughts into this increasingly long, rambling thread


ksjazzguitar said:


> No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





ksjazzguitar said:


> No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





ksjazzguitar said:


> No, I am open. I'm expressing my opinion and judgment that they are the same logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_*When the law was written, the only real possibility of working for a foreign company was if it was based in Spain. They are just saying, "we don't care if it is a Spanish company. a foreign company based in Spain, or some combination - you can't work there. A "foreign company not based in Spain" is not listed, not because they wanted a secret loophole, but because that wasn't a thing back then.*_

Working for a foreign company not based in Spain actually WAS a thing back then - just not remotely. The NLV requires you to spend 183 days of the year in Spain (not 365) and establish yourself as a tax resident. So, the law contemplated that NLV holders could go to the UK or USA or France for a period of time, do some work, get paid, and come back. (With complete transparency with Spanish authorities about any and all worldwide income).

The issue that has arisen (maybe from Brexit and COVID) is that USA consulate staff and even some people sitting behind desks at immigration offices in Spain are misinterpreting and misapplying the law.

Here is one example from the LA Consulate's list of requirements for the NLV:

*11. Copy of most recent Tax Return.*_ Residency applicants cannot have/leave loans or mortgages in the United States when applying for residency in spain._

This is not referred to in the law. This was not part of my NLV application in 2019, nor was it part of my renewal application in Fall 2020. Consulate staff do not change the application of the law within Spain with website posts.

My wife and I have had some sleepless nights both with my NLV and her UK passport holder permanent residence. Thankfully, Spain is full of well educated, competent attorneys and accountants who can help. We found several and they have solved problems, clarified confusions, and explained to us how the laws are applied within Spain. 

The general theme on this forum seems to be that Spain is full of lawyers that will tell you whatever you want to hear, give you bad advice, then disappear. That has not been our experience.


----------



## ksjazzguitar (Dec 22, 2010)

> Working for a foreign company not based in Spain actually WAS a thing back then - just not remotely... So, the law contemplated that NLV holders could go to the UK or USA or France for a period of time, do some work


Yeah, I get your point. But I think that what I'm saying is still valid. The point of the law is not that "if you *possess* this visa, you cannot work anywhere". The point is "if you are in Spain on this visa, you will not work". I don't think any visa anywhere controls what you do in other countries. If you are in the UK, you are no longer "on" that visa. I think it is unthinkable that this (or any other visa) intends to restrict what you do in other countries, especially your home country. It doesn't discuss work physically outside of Spain because they have no jurisdiction of over what you do outside of Spain. The visa deals with what you do when _you are physically in Spain_. 

So, I don't think your criticism is valid - my comment was only about the kind of work you do while physically in Spain, and in the section on requirements it unambiguously says "no work". It only talks about other kinds of work in the unrelated section on the means test, clarifying that you have to provide proof of no work if a company is giving you income. They further clarified with a list (so there was no confusion) of every possible situation you could work _in Spain_. Nowhere does it say that list was exhaustive. Since the list is just explanatory, it does not imply that if in the future a new way to work while physically in Spain that it would be exempted. If that is what they meant, it would have taken a dozen words to clarify and they would have put it in the section that dealt with the no work rule, not in the section on the means test. As I read the law, they took every opportunity to emphasize "no work" and offered no exceptions.



> The issue that has arisen (maybe from Brexit and COVID) is that USA consulate staff and even some people sitting behind desks at immigration offices in Spain are misinterpreting and misapplying the law.


That is a fair observation. But it doesn't really make the point, except that we should take with a grain of salt how consulates choose to process the visas. But that door swings both ways. If we say that that isn't reliable evidence that some consulates sometimes require proof of no work, then we can't use the fact that some consulates don't. That has never really been the crux of my case, other than to counteract people saying, "well some consulates let you get away with it" and "some lawyer's web page says its cool" - I can easily find counter examples. People want to cherry pick the data they want. I'm calling that out. People only want to apply that logic to the "no work" argument, not to the "yes work" argument. That kind of crap pisses me off.

But the root of my point is in the unambiguous language in the law. Again, maybe in Spain it is different, but in the US, the law trumps what consular officials and a few lawyers' web pages. The constitution, the law, judicial rulings/precedents, in that order. That's how it works in most countries.

Again, I think the law should be updated to adjust to the new situation. But giving people legal advice that, "Sure, the law kind of says the opposite, but if we squint really hard and draw lines of yarn between unrelated sections, we can kind of build a case that the law says something else, so go ahead and risk having your life destroyed by doing something the law possibly/probably doesn't allow." I find that callous and insensitive.

If people were saying, "The law seems to say you can't do it, but it's an old law, it's a new world, and people seem to get away with it, so you're probably OK, so as long as you know the risks..." that would be different. I would be fine with that. No, people are saying, "It is 100% legal, just do it, ignore the consular officials and lawyers saying the opposite, ignore what the law explicitly says and listen to the shady interpretation that tells us what we want to hear."


----------



## Montana2Spain (May 20, 2016)

If the non lucrative visa allowed for remote or virtual working there would be no need to establish a Digital Nomad visa to attract remote workers. That said let's be real. The Spanish authorities are unlikely to go after an American already living in Spain over visa issues. As long as you aren't taking jobs from the Spanish citizens they love the idea of you funneling your US funds into their economy. Any lawyer there will give you "legal" ways around it if you really want it. I lived in Spain for a couple of years. I'm planning to return but also waiting on my Italian dual citizenship to process all the way through. Mainly because its just no hassle and Spanish bureaucracy is notorious for it's hassle.


----------

