Why the reduced investment amount may still be in force, even though no one has confirmed it yet
On July 14, 2026, the five-year term of the benefits granted under Law 9996, the “Law for the Attraction of Investors, Rentiers and Pensioners,” came to an end. That expiration raises a question that, surprisingly, no official body has answered expressly: does the reduced amount of US$150,000 to qualify for residency as an investor remain in force, or does the requirement automatically revert to the previous US$200,000?
My thesis is that there are solid arguments to maintain that the US$150,000 amount should stand — or at least that the doubt must be resolved in favor of the applicant. It is not a certainty: there is no case law confirming it, and the contrary interpretation is defensible. But it is a legally reasonable position that deserves to be on the table before anyone assumes, without more, that US$200,000 is now required.
What the law actually says
Article 8 of Law 9996 set the investment amount at “no less than one hundred fifty thousand United States dollars (US$150,000.00),” but it did so “for the term established by this law.” The law does not define that term in the same article: it refers the reader elsewhere.
That term appears in Article 12 (Entry into force), which provides that investors, rentiers or pensioners “who opt for the benefits granted in Article 5 of this law may do so only during the first five years following its entry into force.”
The key that almost everyone overlooks
Here is the central point. Article 12 — the only provision that sets an expiration term — speaks, literally and exclusively, of the benefits of Article 5: the duty-free import of household goods, the import of vehicles, the income tax exemption on declared amounts, the 20% reduction in the property transfer tax, and the exemption for professional instruments. In other words, the tax package.
The investment amount of Article 8 is not mentioned in Article 12. The five-year sunset clause is drafted for the tax incentives, not for the migratory capital requirement. When Article 8 refers to “the term established by this law,” the cross-reference is imperfect: the law sets a term for the Article 5 benefits, but it does not expressly set a term for the amount established in Article 8 itself.
The regulations do not close the door either
The Regulations to Law 9996 (Executive Decree No. 43926) reinforce this reading. When they develop the investor subcategory, they reproduce the US$150,000 requirement as a condition of the subcategory, without subjecting it to any sunset clause. The regulations do expressly use the formula “within the term of validity of this law” — but they reserve it for the tax benefits (for example, the transfer tax reduction), not for the investment amount. Anyone who reads the regulations looking for the date on which the amount “reverts” to US$200,000 will not find it, because it does not exist.
In dubio pro administrado
We are, then, facing a genuine legal gap: the provision that limits duration points to Article 5, and neither the law nor the regulations clearly establish that the reduced amount of Article 8 expires. In administrative law, when a rule that imposes a burden or requirement on the individual is obscure or incomplete, the principle in dubio pro administrado governs: doubt is interpreted in favor of the person and against the more burdensome reading imposed by the Administration.
Requiring US$200,000 as of July 15, 2026 is precisely the more burdensome reading. And it rests on an inference — that once the term expired, the amount of the ordinary regime “revives” — which the law itself does not expressly order with respect to Article 8. Under this principle, as long as no rule or resolution clearly states that the amount returns to US$200,000, the proper course would be to continue applying US$150,000.
It is also important to bear in mind that the US$200,000.00 figure was established in the Regulations to the General Law of Migration and Alien Affairs and, under the principle of hierarchy of legal sources, a statute outranks a regulation. Nor was the US$200,000.00 amount fixed in a definitive or absolute manner: Article 64 of those Regulations clearly provides that “the National Migration Council may vary these amounts when it deems it convenient,” and it establishes exceptions with amounts as low as US$50,000.00 in sectors declared priority sectors by the Executive Branch.
It is clear, then, that since the new amount was established by statute, and since neither the National Migration Council nor the Executive Branch has modified it, it is reasonable to consider that the US$150,000.00 amount remains in force.
Intellectual honesty: the other reading exists
It would be dishonest to present this as a settled truth. There is no current case law resolving the point, and the contrary interpretation is perfectly sustainable: the US$200,000 amount was never repealed — it derived from the Alien Affairs Regulations (Executive Decree No. 37112-GOB); Law 9996 merely suspended it temporarily, so that once the term ran out, the base rule would revive. It could also be argued that Article 8’s reference to “the term established by the law” incorporates the five-year period of Article 12 even though that article mentions only Article 5.
Both readings are reasonable. The difference is that the one favoring US$150,000 rests on the express text of Articles 8 and 12 and on a consolidated interpretive principle, while the one requiring US$200,000 rests on an inference about the prior regime. Neither has been confirmed by any authority.
Conclusion
The only indisputable fact is that the tax benefits of Article 5 expired on July 14, 2026. As for the investment amount of Article 8, there is a gap that admits a good-faith defense in favor of US$150,000, without that yet being a legal certainty. For that reason, anyone planning to file an investor residency application after that date should — before committing capital — submit a formal written inquiry to the General Directorate of Migration and Alien Affairs (DGME) to learn which amount they are actually applying. In a scenario of genuine doubt, documenting the inquiry and the response is the best way to turn a legal argument into a safe decision.
Article written by Lic. Ramón María Yglesias Piza, Bar No. 6165, Costa Rica Bar Association, with AI assistance. All content was personally reviewed, edited, and supervised by the author.
This article is for informational purposes and legal opinion; it does not constitute formal legal advice nor does it replace consultation with a professional or the competent authority. For consultations, contact us.
