
In order to encourage investment in domestic asset management and financial services sectors, jurisdictions across the globe have been keen to implement attractive holding company regimes. Generally, these regimes aim to minimise the tax barriers which can arise on pooling investments. A common issue faced by investors – especially where an opaque structure is used – is how to prevent investors being subject to a ‘double layer’ of taxation. Once at the holding company level, and once at the level of the ultimate investor.
Often, the beneficial nature of these regimes means that specific (and sometimes complex) requirements must be met in relation to investor types, assets and regulatory oversight. Given that choosing the right structure from a tax perspective is a fundamental priority for any investor, this guide is designed to provide an overview of the key tax features of the domestic regimes in jurisdictions where CMS member firms operate. Where a jurisdiction does not have a specific tax regime for holding companies incorporated domestically, this guide covers the availability and interaction of tax treatments available more widely, but which will be of particular interest to such entities.
We are grateful to the numerous contributors to this guide, whose details can be found throughout and at the end of this guide. If you would like more information about any of the holding company regimes detailed, you are welcome to get in touch with us or – with regard to particular jurisdictions – the relevant contributor firms.
The information contained in the guide is for general purposes only and does not purport to constitute legal or professional advice from CMS or any other firm and as a consequence may not be relied upon.
This guide was produced by the CMS Funds Tax Group, and co-ordinated by Lauren Alder and Nick Burt.
Download the PDF version of the guide or view the country chapters of interest (below)
CMS expert guide to Holding Company Regimes across Europe
jurisdiction
Select a jurisdiction
Select up to two additional jurisdictions to compare with (optional)
Select up to two additional jurisdictions to compare with (optional)