At a recent closed-door network event in Amsterdam, dialogue centered on the operational realities of sophisticated cross-border structuring. The consensus among tax counsel, trust officers, and multi-family office executives is clear: the era of “form over substance” is finished. Legal frameworks in both countries continue to evolve, with guidance from organizations such as European Banking Authority (EBA) and LAFV Liechtensteinischer Anlagefondsverband shaping best practices for cross-border wealth management, Multi-layered frameworks combining Liechtenstein and the Netherlands now set the standard for both tax efficiency and regulatory defensibility.
Liechtenstein remains a jurisdiction of choice for private foundations (Stiftung), Treuhänderschaften, and hybrid family holding vehicles. These entities are optimized for asset ring-fencing, bespoke voting rights, and “orphaning” of control in accordance with Article 552ff PGR. The jurisdiction’s approach to segregating legal and beneficial ownership still provides significant advantages under FATF, CRS, and OECD Model Tax Convention tests, particularly when combined with robust anti-fragmentation policies and proper function allocation across group entities.
However, recent regulatory convergence is forcing a decisive shift. ATAD 3 and the local application of “shell entity” tests demand demonstrable economic substance and penalize passive holding companies lacking real activity. DAC6 expands mandatory disclosure of cross-border arrangements, capturing transactions under hallmarks such as C1, E3, and D1. The advent of Pillar Two brings OECD minimum taxation and GloBE compliance directly into play, while the evolution of the UBO registry under EU 5AMLD/6AMLD further constrains anonymity. Banking compliance teams are now applying look-through analysis and real activity requirements at the onboarding stage, making standalone Liechtenstein structures increasingly insufficient.
Within this context, the Dutch BV or CV serves as a compliance anchor for group structures. The Dutch participation exemption regime (Article 13 CITA 1969), robust anti-abuse provisions (including GAAR application), and seamless integration with the EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive allow for dividends and capital gains to be distributed across the EU at effective rates as low as 0–5 percent.
This fiscal optimization is only available where the BV demonstrates substantial people functions, genuine management and control, and locally incurred operational costs, all of which are now subject to enhanced scrutiny by both regulators and commercial banks. With access to more than ninety-five double tax treaties and mandatory Country-by-Country Reporting, the Netherlands offers the transparency, substance and auditability that modern international structures require.
A representative model now favored by sophisticated family offices begins with a Dutch BV at the apex, holding equity in EEA operational subsidiaries, intellectual property, or portfolio assets, and maintaining full substance through office space, payroll, qualified directors, and direct strategic oversight. A Liechtenstein Stiftung or Anstalt sits mid-layer, holding passive investments, private equity, or real estate and applying arm’s length transfer pricing for management services.
Downstream, specialized SPVs handle operational risk, philanthropy or sector-specific holdings, ensuring each layer is fully compliant with local substance and anti-hybrid mismatch rules. Effective group tax rates in such setups are routinely compressed by twenty-five to thirty-five percent versus legacy single-country chains, while passing all applicable anti-abuse and economic substance requirements, including the Dutch substance-over-form doctrine, Luxembourg’s anti-hybrid rules, and Liechtenstein’s PGR-based substance definitions.
Operationally, Amsterdam’s ecosystem supports multi-currency cash pooling, central treasury management, and full IFRS reporting, offering the infrastructure needed for scale and regulatory alignment across the EEA. Liechtenstein, for its part, provides access to private banking, fiduciary management, and succession structures that incorporate protector or committee models for next-generation governance, which remain out of reach in most EU member states.
As BEPS 2.0, global CFC regimes, and anti-treaty shopping provisions continue to tighten, only structures that can demonstrate real activity, coherent transfer pricing, and documentary evidence of independent control at each layer will withstand ongoing scrutiny. Platforms are engineered to combine the Dutch and Liechtenstein legal environments with detailed operational policies, mapped reporting lines, and proactive compliance documentation, enabling clients to meet both regulator and banking expectations while securing the fiscal and legal advantages that only genuine multi-jurisdictional substance delivers.
Special thanks to Juan Miguel Puigserver for his contribution to this article.
Montclare Advisory Board Willem Fenengastraat 16E, 1096 BN Amsterdam, the Netherlands contact@montclarecapital.com
