Owner’s salary in Chile: a guide to optimising your taxes

Since 2020 the owner’s salary no longer has a cap: it is no longer limited to the amount subject to compulsory social security contributions, and it now also covers shareholders of corporations and SpAs. In exchange, the standard became a market-rate salary, and the social security side was decoupled from the tax side. That is where the mistakes are made.

Publicado el 18-02-2026 · Actualizado el 25-08-2026 · Por Claudio Cortés Ríos, Contador Auditor, Magíster en Tributación

An owner who works in their own company can award themselves a salary and deduct it as an expense. It is a long-standing arrangement, but the one that applies today is not the one most people have in mind: Law 21,210 rewrote it with effect from 2020 and changed both the limit and the range of people who can use it.

1. What it is and who it covers today
2. What changed in 2020: the cap fell away
3. The new standard: a market-rate salary
4. How it is taxed in your hands
5. Social security contributions: this is where the tangle is
6. The accident nobody plans for
7. Cónyuge, conviviente civil e hijos
8. A salary is not the same as a fee
9. Is it always worthwhile?
10. What they will ask you for as evidence
11. How we help at C&C

What it is and who it covers today

Article 31 No. 6 of the Income Tax Law governs the deduction of salaries. Under the SII instructions in Circular No. 53 of 2020, the salaries awarded to the sole trader, the holder of an EIRL, the partner in a partnership-type company, the managing partner of a partnership limited by shares and shareholders of corporations and stock companies.

That last group is new. Before the reform, an SpA shareholder had no such door. Today they do, and in practice it is the change that has most reshaped planning for small capital companies.

A piece of context: the SII’s own FAQ page on the owner’s salary —updated in April 2026— is still drafted only in terms of «entrepreneurs or partners in partnership-type companies». The source that sets the current scope is Circular 53, not that page.

What changed in 2020: the cap fell away

Until 2019 the expense was allowed up to the amount that would have been subject to compulsory social security contributions. In practice, that tied the owner’s salary to the contribution ceiling: above that figure, the salary was disallowed as an expense.

Circular 53 of 2020 says so without ambiguity: the limit under which, in those cases, only the amount that would have been subject to compulsory social security contributions could be deducted was removed.

That opens up room, but not unlimited room.

The new standard: a market-rate salary

What replaced the cap is a qualitative test. The salary must be reasonably proportionate to the size of the business, to the income declared, to the services provided and to the return on capital, and the recipient must actually work in the business.

The Circular is more explicit when it deals with the general conditions for an expense: in the case of owners, the necessity of the expense is assessed by considering whether they actually work in the business and on the basis of a market-value salary limit.

In operational terms: the owner’s salary stopped being a figure you copy from a table and became a figure you have to be able to defend. An owner who awards themselves a salary well above what they would pay a third party for the same role, in a business of that size, has an exposed expense.

How it is taxed in your hands

The same rule provides that these salaries are treated as income under article 42 No. 1 of the Income Tax Law. That is, they are taxed with the Second Category Single Tax, the same monthly progressive table that applies to any employee.

The first band is exempt up to 13.5 UTM a month —a agosto de 2026, unos MM$0,97—; sobre ese monto la tabla del artículo 43 N° 1 sube por tramos.

Social security contributions: this is where the tangle is

This is the point where most people go wrong, because the reform decoupled two things that used to go together.

The fact that the contribution ceiling has gone as a limit on the expense does not mean the obligation to contribute goes away. What happens is that the obligation no longer lives in the tax law but in the social security law, and it operates by a different route from that of an ordinary employee.

The Labour Directorate has said so consistently —Ruling ORD. No. 3743/51 of 2015, repeated in ORD. No. 2671 of 2017 and again in ORD. No. 902 of March 2021, already under the new law—: partners who receive an owner’s salary must pay their contributions as self-employed members. That same 2021 ruling classifies the owner’s salary as a concept of a tax rather than an employment nature.

And why not as an employee? Because in general they cannot be one. The Superintendency of Social Security, in its Ruling 4886 of 2022, holds that majority partners with management powers —whether sole or joint— cannot be regarded as employees of the company, and may only contribute as voluntary self-employed workers. The Labour Directorate reached the same result in ORD. No. 501 of August 2024, in a case of two partners with 50% each and joint management: there is a merging of wills between the company and the partners, and without that separation no subordination is possible.

The exception exists, but it is narrow. In ORD. No. 902 of 2021 the Labour Directorate accepted that a minority partner without general management powers may have an employment relationship, provided the subordination is evidenced in fact. It is a case-by-case assessment, and it is decided by the Labour Directorate, not the SII.

From that follows a concrete consequence: the Unemployment Insurance of Law 19,728 is compulsory only for partners who do have an employment relationship with the company. The partner on an owner’s salary, as a general rule, does not contribute to it and has no right to its benefits.

The accident nobody plans for

There is a risk that almost never comes up in the conversation and that is worth putting on the table: awarding yourself an owner’s salary does not, on its own, give you cover under Law 16,744 on workplace accidents and occupational diseases.

For partners in partnership-type companies, partners in partnerships limited by shares, sole traders and directors, the Compendium of Rules of the Superintendency of Social Security provides that they may contribute voluntarily to this insurance. Voluntarily, not automatically. And with conditions: they must join the same administering body the company is affiliated to, they cannot be included on the company payroll as if they were employees, and the additional rate is set according to the activity they themselves carry out.

That this is not theoretical is shown by Ruling 18573 of 2022 from the Superintendency itself, which refused cover for a commuting accident suffered by the owner of a business, precisely because he had not formally registered as a self-employed worker and had contribution gaps.

An owner who awards themselves a salary, pays their contributions and assumes they are covered in the event of an accident may be mistaken.

Spouse, civil partner and children: the rule changed

Another 2020 change that is still told wrongly. Previously, salaries paid to the spouse of the taxpayer or partner and to their unmarried children under 18 were disallowed outright as an expense.

Not any more. Circular 53 of 2020 allows as an expense the salaries paid to the owner’s spouse or civil partner and to their children, under the same standard: a reasonably proportionate salary and that they actually work in the business. If the family member provides real services that are necessary to produce the income, their salary is treated just like the salary of any other worker.

That said, it is precisely the kind of expense that gets looked at under a magnifying glass. The paperwork has to sustain that the work exists.

A salary is not the same as a fee

A distinction that avoids an expensive mistake: fees for personal services agreed with the partner, the shareholder, the sole trader, their spouse or civil partner or their children are not governed by No. 6 of article 31. They are subject to the general rule of the first paragraph of article 31, with everything that implies in terms of evidencing necessity and the connection with the line of business. It is not an equivalent alternative route.

Si tu caso es el inverso —recibes honorarios y te preocupa la retención— revisa cómo sube la retención de boletas de honorarios en 2026.

Is it always worthwhile?

No. El sueldo empresarial rebaja la base del Impuesto de Primera Categoría de la empresa, pero tributa en tus manos con la tabla progresiva de Segunda Categoría. El punto óptimo está donde la tasa marginal que pagas tú deja de ser conveniente frente a la carga que soportaría esa misma utilidad por la vía del retiro. Depende del nivel de utilidades, del régimen tributario y de tu situación personal completa. Y el régimen tributario es justamente lo que está por moverse: la reforma tributaria 2026 baja el impuesto de primera categoría de 27% a 23% y devuelve la integración plena del crédito, lo que cambia la comparación entre sueldo empresarial y retiro.

Para dimensionar el impuesto que te correspondería por un monto determinado, puedes usar nuestra calculadora de sueldo empresarial, que aplica la tabla progresiva vigente y declara expresamente qué no calcula.

There is also a regime consideration. Under the Pro Pyme regime of article 14 D No. 3 taxation is determined on a cash-flow basis: Circular No. 62 of 2020 defines outflows as amounts actually paid. Under a regime like that, a salary accrued but not paid within the year does not serve the same function as it does under the general regime. It is worth bearing in mind when planning the payment calendar.

What they will ask you for as evidence

Circular 53 lists the means of evidence: the payroll register where required under article 62 of the Labour Code, the corresponding payslips, the social security contribution schedules, the tax assessment where applicable, and any other lawful means of evidence.

It is worth noting the nuance: the social security schedules appear there as a means of evidence, not as a condition for the expense to be allowed. But a file without them is a weak file, and the obligation to contribute survives through the social security route in any event.

How we help at C&C

We assess whether awarding yourself an owner’s salary suits you and in what amount, taking into account your regime, your profits and your personal situation; we set a level that will stand up to the market-rate salary standard; we sort out the social security side —including the decision on voluntary cover under Law 16,744— and we put together the documentation that evidences the expense. It is part of our our consulting and tax planning service.

Keep reading: how to recover VAT with Article 27 bis.

Want to know if it makes sense for you? Talk to us and we'll review your case. You can also message us on WhatsApp.

This article is for information purposes and reflects the rules in force as of August 2026. It is not a substitute for specific advice: each case depends on the taxpayer’s particular circumstances.

Claudio Cortés is a founding partner of C&C Contadores Auditores, a Chilean accounting, audit and tax advisory firm. Chartered Accountant-Auditor and holder of a Master's in Taxation from the University of Chile. About us · LinkedIn