A key ruling for the audiovisual sector: allowances are not salary
The recent definitive ruling issued by the Court of First Instance in Malaga on February 16, 2026, in the proceedings initiated by FRESCO FILM (Case 442/2021), defended by Raúl Rojas, a partner at the law firm ECIJA LEGAL, marks a significant turning point for companies in the audiovisual sector in Spain. Not only does it annul a resolution of the General Treasury of the Social Security (TGSS) regarding the allowances paid in the context of an audiovisual production, but it also consolidates a legal interpretation that aligns with the operational reality of the sector: a necessarily itinerant activity based on the constant movement of human teams and technical resources across different locations.
This ruling not only recognizes the non-salary nature of paid allowances in the context of these displacements, but also expressly relies on the most recent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court to reinforce a criterion that has been the subject of litigation and interpretative differences by the administration. Its implications go far beyond the specific case: it establishes the foundations for the legal and labor management of audiovisual productions in a scenario where the TGSS has intensified its control over remuneration concepts excluded from the contribution base.
The key to this ruling: demonstrate the journey, not each specific expense
One of the key contributions of this ruling, which is final and subject to no appeal, is its alignment with the doctrine of the Supreme Court, particularly with the ruling of July 21, 2025. According to this judicial criterion, for allowances to be exempt from contributions, it is not necessary to justify each expense for maintenance and accommodation; it is sufficient to demonstrate the "reality of the worker’s displacement" and that the amounts remain within the tax limits established in the Personal Income Tax Regulation.
This doctrine is especially relevant for the audiovisual sector, where requiring each worker to present individual invoices for meals, internal displacements, consumables, or short stays would simply be unfeasible. Productions are characterized by their ability to mobilize entire teams within days, often in remote locations and under tight schedules. Demanding documentary justification for each of the micro-expenses associated with this mobility would turn administrative management into a titanic task incompatible with the dynamics of filming.
The ruling from Malaga acknowledges this reality and confirms that the decisive aspect is the existence of the journey, not the exhaustive examination of the reality of each expense arising from it. This criterion alleviates a huge administrative burden and provides legal certainty to production companies, thereby strengthening a common practice.
Recognition of the "mobile or itinerant workplace"
Another crucial aspect of the ruling is the confirmation of the nature of the mobile or itinerant workplace in the audiovisual sector. The labor inspection had argued that workers hired for a specific project or service (a modality that, as is well known, no longer exists) could not receive tax-exempt allowances because their "workplace" was precisely the specific project or production for which they had been hired.
The court, in accordance with the defense presented by ECIJA during the trial, rightly refutes this argument. A fixed project — for example, a construction project — is not the same as an audiovisual production, where filming succeeds, changes, multiplies, and, in many cases, depends on administrative permits, creative needs, weather changes, or logistical issues. To deny this obvious fact would be to distort the very essence of audiovisual production.
By formally recognizing the itinerant nature of film production with locations throughout Spain — as was the case in the trial — the ruling provides legal protection to an organizational model that has characterized the sector for decades.
Workers travel to various municipalities to shoot, and these circumstances, regardless of the "type of contract in question," fully justify the receipt of allowances, provided that these correspond to displacements to a municipality different from the worker's habitual residence, as demonstrated in the hearing. This is a decisive recognition for future inspections.
A ruling that limits the scope of the presumption of certainty of the Labor Inspection
The ruling also introduces a very important element: the possibility of refuting the presumption iuris tantum of certainty of inspection reports. The company provided recording schedules, invoices for locations, plane tickets, hotel reservations, recording photographs, payrolls, and an expert report on the reality of displacements during the filming. During the trial, the Administration ultimately acknowledged that it did not actually challenge the displacements.
This demonstrates that audiovisual companies can — and should — document their activities in an orderly manner to counteract evaluations based on assessments that occasionally do not reflect the real operations of the sector. The ruling establishes that, when the company sufficiently demonstrates the existence of journeys related to production, the TGSS cannot deny the non-salary nature of the allowances without objective reasons.
Practical implications for the audiovisual sector
a) Strengthening of legal certainty
The ruling consolidates a favorable interpretative framework for the sector, especially in a context where the Labor Inspection has intensified its reviews of remuneration concepts excluded from contributions to social security. This ruling allows production companies to operate with greater certainty regarding the correct management of allowances in the context of audiovisual production.
b) Importance of documentary traceability
Although the court relaxes the evidentiary requirement, it emphasizes that displacements must be accredited. Production companies must maintain solid traceability of documentation: work plans, filming permits, location contracts, transport receipts, and documentary evidence of staff mobility.
c) Impact on temporary hiring
The TGSS's argument regarding previous contracts for specific work or service — which can be extrapolated to the current model of temporary artistic employment contracts (according to Article 5 of Royal Decree 1435/1985) — is invalidated, protecting a contractual model that continues to be widely used by production companies to respond to the intermittent nature of projects.
Practical recommendations and conclusions
Although the ruling expressly recognizes the mobile or itinerant nature of audiovisual production, it is highly recommended that each project formally establish an operational base, even if it is temporary or administrative. It does not need to be a permanent physical location: it can be the production office, the initial filming location, or the meeting point from which the team's displacements are organized. The correct identification and documentation of this operational base facilitate demonstrating that staff displacements are made from a habitual service provision site to other locations, thereby reinforcing the exemption of allowances and avoiding future conflicts with the TGSS.
It is also advisable to maintain a minimum but constant level of documentary traceability to demonstrate displacements from this initial point: filming calendars, location permits, daily mobility lists, transport tickets, accommodation reservations, or any other supporting documentation that validates the operational reality of the project. The ruling has consolidated the idea that it is sufficient to demonstrate the displacement — without the need to justify each specific expense — but having an organized documentary structure linked to the base center provides additional legal certainty in the event of possible inspections.
In conclusion, it is important to note that the interpretation of labor regulations must be compatible with the creative and dynamic nature of the audiovisual sector, and this ruling is an important step in that direction. It confirms that per diems are not hidden salaries, but a necessary compensation to ensure the mobility of technical and artistic personnel. And it finally recognizes that traveling is not an exception, but the very essence of audiovisual production.
In summary, this is a ruling that not only resolves an individual dispute but also provides legal certainty and contributes to constructing a reasonable and balanced regulatory framework that aligns with the reality of how films, series, and shoots are produced in Spain.
Access the full article here.
