Part 6+1 of 6: The 15% is only for those who don't register. Forcing platforms to cooperate is the part Spain already solved — and Costa Rica hasn't

Continuation of the "Bill 301" series, following Part 6: "Another attempt to answer the question. Does it succeed?" (August 22, 2026)

Part 6 closed this series with a verdict: Bill 301 finally names the activity, but it doesn't close the cost gap between those who comply and those who don't, and it doesn't give anyone a real tool to force digital platforms to cooperate. Three weeks later, a second bill put an exact number on the first half of that problem. The second half — forcing, not inviting, platforms to cooperate — already has real-world examples of how it gets solved. And how it doesn't.

What we said in Part 6

The unified text of Bill 301 sets a uniform 10% ITBMS rate on tourist rentals, creates a free digital self-registration process with no physical inspection, and empowers the DGI to sign agreements with digital platforms as withholding agents — but without requiring that those agreements exist before the law takes effect, and without a single article on penalties. Around that same time we also documented an exchange of correspondence between TrustedPanamaStays and Deputy Neftalí Zamora, the bill's sponsor, in which that exact enforcement gap regarding international platforms was raised directly.

A second bill, not a renumbering: Bill 31-26

On September 14, the head of the Tourism Authority, Gloria De León, presented Bill 31-26 to the full National Assembly — a package of tax incentives for tourism investment (approved by the Cabinet Council on August 26) that replaces the expired regime under Law 80 of 2012. This is not the same bill as 301 under a different number: it is a separate initiative, from the Executive branch, with a much broader scope. But within that package there is one article — Article 30 — that amends the Fiscal Code in exactly the same place Bill 301 had already touched: it introduces a 15% ITBMS rate for short-term tourist rentals that are not registered with the ATP. Who pays that 15% — and who doesn't — is exactly what many headlines are getting wrong; we explain it below. La Prensa was precise in noting the relationship between the two: the 31-26 rate is higher than the one "currently proposed in a bill submitted by Deputy Neftalí Zamora" — two bills, two rates, both still alive in the Assembly.

Who pays the 15% — and who doesn't

Ever since the bill was presented, headlines and social-media posts have described it as a "15% tax on Airbnb-type rentals." It isn't. Article 30, in the version approved by the Cabinet Council, says explicitly:

"No se considerarán comprendidos en la tarifa del quince por ciento (15%) los contratos de arrendamiento de vivienda destinados a la residencia habitual o permanente del arrendatario, ni los servicios de hospedaje o alojamiento prestados por hoteles y demás establecimientos de alojamiento público turístico debidamente registrados o autorizados conforme a la legislación vigente, los cuales estarán sujetos a la tarifa del diez por ciento (10%) prevista en el primer párrafo de este numeral."

In English: housing leases for the tenant's habitual or permanent residence are not covered by the 15% rate, and neither are lodging services provided by hotels and other public tourist accommodation establishments that are duly registered or authorized under current law — those remain at the 10% rate.

In other words: an apartment, house or room registered with the ATP keeps paying the same 10% ITBMS it pays today, whether it is offered directly or through a digital platform. The 15% falls only on those who rent to tourists without being registered.

And those are the vast majority. Under Executive Decree 82 of 2008, every tourist lodging must register with the ATP and hold an aviso de operación, issue electronic invoices connected to the DGI that include 10% ITBMS, and file that tax every month. The ATP estimates that about 13,000 units are offered on Airbnb in Panama, yet only about 1,240 lodgings of all types — hotels included — appear in the ATP registry (October 2026). The rest operate anonymously: without an aviso de operación there is no legal business, and therefore no invoicing or filing of ITBMS either. They also save the costs the formal lodging carries — bookkeeping, a certified public accountant, payroll and other legal obligations — which can easily exceed 5% of revenue.

That is the point of the extra 5 points: not to punish those who rent through platforms, but to stop rewarding those who don't comply. Anyone who complains about having to pay more has a simple way out — register — and is back at 10%. The same article also makes clear that paying the tax does not legalize the activity: it "may not be interpreted as an authorization or license" to rent where this is prohibited or restricted, for example in buildings whose condominium rules do not allow it.

Why the 5-point difference makes sense — and who asked for it

That 15% didn't come out of nowhere. De León explained that it was incorporated "after discussions held with representatives of the hotel sector," and APATEL's president, Víctor Concepción, publicly confirmed that the association had specifically recommended that minimum rate for vacation rentals — as a way to differentiate them from regulated hotels, which bear "regulatory requirements and ongoing investments" that an informal rental does not. It's worth noting the coincidence with what this very series documented in Part 6: APATEL had spent months putting a number on the compliance cost gap between a formal and an informal lodging, and that number was also around 5%. The government didn't frame it in those exact terms, but the practical result is the same: a 5-percentage-point tax differential that begins to close, through fiscal means, the gap that APATEL — and this series — had been pointing out.

The hard road: how Spain, Italy, Portugal, and the UK did manage to force platforms to comply

A higher tax only matters if someone actually collects it. And this is where it's worth looking at what has already happened elsewhere, because this isn't a hypothetical problem — it already has proven solutions, and documented failures too.

Spain is the most visible example of the hard road. In May 2025, the Spanish government ordered Airbnb to remove nearly 66,000 listings from its platform for lacking a license, having fake license numbers, or failing to disclose whether the property was managed by a company or an individual. Madrid's High Court of Justice upheld the order despite Airbnb's appeal, and the government began demanding removals in batches until all illegal listings were eliminated. Barcelona went even further: it announced it will eliminate vacation rental licenses entirely by 2028. And in December 2024, Spain's Supreme Court confirmed that homeowners' associations can prohibit tourist rentals within their buildings with a three-fifths majority vote.

Behind that enforcement power lies the European Union's DAC7 Directive (Council Directive 2021/514), in effect since 2023 and transposed into each member state's legislation — in Portugal through Law No. 36/2023, in Italy through Legislative Decree No. 32/2023. The directive requires every digital platform to automatically report to each member state's tax authority the income of any host who exceeds €2,000 or 30 bookings per year, including name, tax ID, property address, and days rented. The platform reports just once, in the country where it has its European headquarters, and that data is automatically shared with the tax authority of every country where the property is located — without depending on Airbnb negotiating separately with Spain, Italy, or Portugal.

Italy went a step further than just sharing data: it required platforms to withhold the tax directly from the payment to the host, through the "cedolare secca" — 21% on an owner's first rented property, and 26% from the second one onward. Airbnb took that obligation to European courts, arguing it violated the freedom to provide services. The Court of Justice of the EU ruled, in December 2022 (Case C-83/21), that Italy can indeed require a foreign platform to collect data and withhold tax at the source — that part is fully compatible with EU law. The only thing the court rejected was requiring Airbnb to open a permanent tax representative office in Italy just for that purpose, deeming it disproportionate. It's a useful distinction: a platform can be required to withhold and remit taxes without needing to have a local office in the country.

And that capability already exists within Airbnb itself, in production, today — it's not a future promise. Airbnb's own help center explains that if a host with activity in the EU doesn't provide their tax identification number, "Airbnb will have to freeze your payouts" until they do. The platform applies the exact same mechanism outside Europe: in Brazil, Airbnb requires each host's CPF or CNPJ and blocks the calendar and payments of anyone who doesn't provide it by a deadline. Neither of these depends on European law — it's a feature the platform has already built and already operates. What's missing in Panama isn't the technology: it's the legal obligation to use it here too.

The soft road, and its result: Costa Rica

Costa Rica is the closest mirror to what Panama is attempting right now — and its result is a warning, not a model to follow. Costa Rica's tax authority has only managed, after years of negotiation, to reach an information-exchange agreement with Airbnb: the platform shares host data, but does not withhold or remit the tax at the time of payment. Costa Rica's own Minister of Tourism acknowledges that such withholding is still under negotiation, with no set date. The result, according to local reports: barely 578 registered hosts against an estimated nearly 14,000 active properties — a compliance rate below 5%. It is, almost article for article, the same mechanism that Article 6 of Bill 301 and the new Bill 31-26 propose for Panama: agreements the platform may or may not accept, with no legal obligation and no penalty if it doesn't cooperate.

The real difficulties facing Costa Rica and Panama

The difference between Spain and Costa Rica isn't just a matter of political will — it's a matter of market weight and institutional infrastructure. The EU negotiates as a bloc of 27 countries and nearly 450 million consumers; Airbnb already has an established legal headquarters in Ireland that DAC7 can use as the single reporting point for the entire continent. Panama and Costa Rica negotiate alone, as small markets, against platforms headquartered outside their jurisdiction with no legal obligation to open a local office. Neither country currently has a signed, operational agreement with any major platform.

But there is a second difficulty, more specific to Panama, that a recent industry analysis documents in detail: the problem isn't purely legislative. The Tourism Authority has had, since Executive Decree 82 of 2008, the legal authority to enforce compliance — but its complaints office is little known, hard to access, and in practice has told interested parties that complaints about illegal rentals are not within its jurisdiction. The ATP's own "Current Lodgings Report" exists only as a downloadable PDF, with no exact location, no owner information, no visible Operating Notice number, and no interface (API) that would let a digital platform automatically verify whether a listing corresponds to a registered lodging. While Spain spent years building its enforcement capacity before it could order Airbnb to remove 66,000 listings, Panama still doesn't have the digital infrastructure to make such an order, if it ever existed, even verifiable in practice.

What any law that truly wants to solve this would need to include

Combining what already works abroad with what Panama already has in its favor — a base legal framework dating back to 2008 — the list of what's missing is concrete, not mysterious: first, a legal obligation, not an optional agreement, that no platform may publish a listing in Panama without first verifying a valid Operating Notice number, with real financial penalties for platforms that fail to do so — the same principle already applied by France and Barcelona with their mandatory registries. Second, a modern digital registry with an API, replacing the current static PDF, allowing OTAs to automatically check whether a host is registered, instead of depending on case-by-case cooperation. Third, an automatic data exchange with the DGI modeled on DAC7, using the registration number as a unique identifier. And fourth, a digital compliance unit within the ATP, dedicated specifically to tracking listings and cross-checking them against the registry — something that doesn't exist today, even though the legal authority to enforce does.

None of these four elements appears today in either Bill 301 or Bill 31-26. Both bills make progress on the rate. Neither yet makes progress on enforcement.

The verdict, once again

Between two bills, Panama now has a registration number, a differentiated tax rate, and even the hotel industry's explicit acknowledgment that informality carries a cost that needs offsetting. What's missing is exactly what Spain and Italy have already built and Costa Rica still hasn't: a legal obligation — not an invitation — for platforms to verify, report, and, where applicable, withhold, backed by a digital registry that can actually be checked in real time. Until that exists, whatever rate gets approved will keep applying, in practice, only to those who already chose to comply.

Sources:

1. "Amid Housing Crisis, Spain Orders Airbnb to Remove 66,000 Listings" — The New York Times, May 19, 2025
2. Draft tourism incentives bill (Bill 31-26), Article 30 — Panama Tourism Authority (ATP), Sept. 2026
3. "Panama proposes 15% tax on Airbnb-style tourist rentals" — Destino Panamá, Sept. 17, 2026
4. "Airbnb and other tourist lodgings would pay a 15% tax in Panama" — Infobae, Sept. 17, 2026
5. "Government proposes raising tax on Airbnb-style tourist rentals to 15%" — La Prensa, Sept. 16, 2026
6. Council Directive (EU) 2021/514 (DAC7) — European Commission
7. CJEU Ruling, Case C-83/21, Airbnb Ireland UC and Airbnb Payments UK v. Agenzia delle Entrate (Dec. 22, 2022)
8. Airbnb — "Tax data sharing under the DAC7 Directive"
9. Airbnb — "Tax data requirements in Brazil"
10. Part 6 of this series: "Bill 301 — Another attempt to answer the question," in our directory

We will continue following this story and update it as soon as Bill 301 or Bill 31-26 advance in debate.