Second residence, tax residence, and citizenship-by-investment routes are becoming more expensive in several jurisdictions. The main pattern is that programs often start with low or flexible entry costs, attract demand, then governments raise thresholds, restrict eligibility, or remove options once policy goals change or abuse becomes visible.
Montenegro: property residence now has a formal minimum
Montenegro has introduced a formal minimum investment for property-based residence.
Previously, even a very small apartment could qualify for residence. The program was flexible enough that buying almost any property could create a residence pathway, although enforcement later became more focused on whether the property size was appropriate for the applicant’s family.
The new rule sets a minimum €150,000 tax value for the property. This is not necessarily the same as the market purchase price. A buyer may need to spend more than €150,000 to ensure the property’s assessed tax value meets the requirement.
Important points:
- The originally discussed threshold was reportedly €200,000, but the final minimum was set at €150,000.
- The relevant figure is the property’s tax value, not simply the price paid.
- Existing holders are expected to be grandfathered in.
- The threshold may rise again now that a formal number exists.
Montenegro has also become more restrictive toward some nationalities. Turkish and Russian citizens, among others, now face shorter visa-free stays than many other visitors. Instead of being able to stay visa-free for 90 days, they may only receive 30 days.
This matters because visa-free access and residence policy are often connected in practice. If a government becomes frustrated with investors from a particular country, that can lead to shorter stays, more scrutiny, visa requirements, or even nationality-specific restrictions.
The practical risk is that a residence route that looks easy today may become harder if demand grows too quickly, if certain nationalities dominate the program, or if geopolitical concerns increase.
Uruguay: tax residence incentive now requires a much larger investment
Uruguay’s residence itself remains relatively accessible, but the more valuable feature is its tax-residence incentive.
The country offers a tax holiday that can allow foreign-source income to be taxed at zero or close to zero for roughly 11 years, depending on the structure and circumstances. This makes Uruguay attractive for people leaving higher-tax countries such as Germany, the UK, Canada, Australia, or Argentina.
The major change is the investment required to access that tax-residence benefit. The minimum real estate investment has reportedly increased to around $2 million, after previously being in the low-to-mid six figures.
Key details:
- The change affects the tax-residence route, not basic residence alone.
- The real estate requirement has increased by roughly four times.
- Applicants seeking the tax benefit must make a much larger capital commitment.
- The program also requires spending 60 days per year in Uruguay.
- Residence in Uruguay does not automatically require living there full-time, but future citizenship would require substantial physical presence.
The increase appears linked to concerns about “fake residents” — people claiming Uruguay as their tax residence while actually living mainly elsewhere. Similar issues have appeared in nearby Paraguay, where naturalization and residence practices became stricter after abuse and weak enforcement.
The caveat is straightforward: using a country only on paper creates risk. Programs can become more expensive or more heavily enforced when governments conclude that too many people are claiming benefits without genuinely relocating.
Andorra: passive residence now costs far more
Andorra has made its passive residence program significantly more expensive.
The country, located between Spain and France, has long attracted residents because of its low-tax environment, safety, banking system, and family-friendly lifestyle. It is also small, which limits how many new residents it can realistically absorb.
The passive residence route now reportedly requires:
- €1 million investment
- €50,000 fee per person
- €12,000 per dependent
This replaces a prior structure that included a €48,000 refundable deposit.
The increase changes the program from a mid-six-figure option into a much more expensive commitment. It also reflects a wider pattern among small jurisdictions: as demand rises, governments often raise prices to reduce volume, increase revenue, and discourage people who are not genuinely relocating.
Andorra is not primarily a citizenship program. It is better understood as a residence and tax-planning jurisdiction. For people who only want a low-tax base in Europe, the higher price may still be attractive. For people trying to build several backup residence options, the new cost makes it harder to justify.
Why programs keep getting more expensive
Several forces are pushing prices up:
- High demand: More people want backup residence, tax residence, or citizenship options.
- Small-country limits: Places like Andorra cannot absorb unlimited applicants.
- Abuse and fake residence: Governments react when people claim tax residence or immigration benefits without actually living there.
- Geopolitics: Nationality-based restrictions can increase when governments become concerned about specific countries.
- Program maturity: Once a program becomes popular, governments often raise the price or tighten rules.
- Policy goals changing: Countries may introduce golden visas when they need investment, then scale them back once demand returns.
European golden visa programs show the broader trend. Some countries introduced investor residence after the financial crisis to attract capital into real estate, but later reduced or removed options after housing pressure and political criticism increased. Portugal has already removed some investment options, and similar pressure has affected other European programs.
Hong Kong is another example. Its investment-entry program returned with a much higher threshold, rising from HK$10 million previously to HK$30 million under the revived structure.
Practical takeaway
Residence and citizenship options should not be treated as permanently available at today’s prices. Programs can become more expensive, more restrictive, nationality-limited, or closed entirely.
For applicants comparing options, the decision criteria should include:
- whether the program leads to citizenship or only residence;
- whether the required investment is liquid or hard to exit;
- whether the country requires real physical presence;
- whether tax benefits depend on genuine relocation;
- whether applicants from certain nationalities may face extra scrutiny;
- whether existing applicants are likely to be grandfathered in;
- whether the program still fits into a broader Plan B, C, or D strategy.
The broader trend is clear: second residence, tax residence, and citizenship routes are becoming harder to stack because each option now requires more capital, more presence, or more compliance than before.
