The file usually arrives with one headline: "the draft says I owe tax and I don't understand why". When we go into detail, we see the Article 20 LIRPF reduction applied with overstated net employment income. Trade-union dues are missing, mandatory professional college fees are not deducted, and a SEPE benefit acting as a second payer has not been correctly factored in. Each of those items reduces net employment income. By reducing it, the taxpayer can move from the tapered bracket to the maximum reduction. The liability flips sign.

Statutory basis

The reduction is governed by Article 20 of Law 35/2006 (LIRPF) and is applied to the general taxable base before computing the personal and family minimum. The structure for tax year 2025 follows this pattern:

The decisive figure is net, not gross

Queries reach us assuming the €14,852 threshold is crossed against the gross salary. That is a recurrent mistake. The threshold is measured against net employment income, calculated after applying the deductible expenses of Article 19 LIRPF. Those expenses are cumulative and worth listing, since each euro reduced increases the chance of staying in the maximum-reduction tier:

A taxpayer with €38,000 gross salary who provides certificates for €200 of trade-union dues, €500 in mandatory college fees, the general €2,000 reduction and around €2,400 of Social Security contributions, ends up with net employment income near €32,900. Still above the increased-reduction tier, yes — but the calculation shows that each Article 19 element can move €50–€200 of effective tax liability, and that in the €14,000–€18,000 net-income range the difference between brackets can be decisive.

The cross-cutting threshold: non-employment income

The condition that voids most files is the cross-cutting one: total non-employment gross income plus capital gains may not exceed €6,500 per year. A taxpayer with a €700/month rental income has already crossed it on its own. A taxpayer rotating an investment portfolio with two fund disposals producing aggregate gains of €7,000 has too. The Article 20 reduction is then withdrawn in full — no taper, no proportionality. Either you are in or you are out.

When the draft falls short

The draft applies the reduction correctly in the standard scenario: a taxpayer with a single employer, no other income, no unreported expenses. The automatic calculation is sound. We see four recurring situations in which the draft underdelivers:

It is therefore worth, before submitting the draft, reviewing the section Employment income — Reduction and comparing the figure applied with the manual calculation on the actual net income for the year.

Tax-liability impact

The impact on liability depends on the marginal rate. For a taxpayer with a 19% marginal rate, a €7,302 reduction translates into roughly €1,387 less tax. For a 24% marginal rate (typical State + regional combined rate at mid-level incomes), the figure rises to about €1,752. The difference between sitting in the top tier rather than the tapered tier — if the actual net income turns out to be €16,000 instead of €14,500 — can range between €400 and €600 of effective tax. It is therefore worthwhile, before submitting, to verify that the net income calculated by the AEAT matches the aggregate produced from real payslips, certificates and contributions.

Our position

We treat the Article 20 reduction as a control verification in any file with net employment income below €22,000. The routine is always the same: reconstruct net income from sources external to the draft (payslips, contribution certificates, evidence of union and college fees, SEPE certification where applicable), compare against the figure carried over by Renta WEB and quantify the divergence. In three out of ten files, we find scope for adjustment that warrants correction before submission. Where the return has already been filed, the route is the rectification of the self-assessment within the four-year limitation period.