Few combinations appear as often in European group structures as the Dutch holding, the Luxembourg fund vehicle and the Spanish operating or asset company. Few are as routinely misread. They are discussed as interchangeable stops on a single route, layered one above the other because the combination has always been done that way. They are not interchangeable, and the layering logic that produced many existing structures has been dismantled over the past decade by anti-abuse rules, substance testing and beneficial ownership analysis. What survives is narrower and, properly understood, more durable: three jurisdictions that each perform a distinct economic function, combined only where those functions are genuinely present.
What the Netherlands actually contributes
The Dutch proposition is a holding and headquarters function rather than a rate advantage. Corporate income tax runs to 25.8% in the upper bracket, with a reduced rate of 19% on the first 200,000 euro of taxable profit under the rate table in article 22 of the Dutch corporate income tax act, placing the Netherlands mid-field in Western Europe. What distinguishes it is the participation exemption, which exempts dividends and capital gains on qualifying shareholdings from Dutch corporate income tax. The regime requires a minimum shareholding of 5% and, critically, that the holding is not a low-taxed portfolio investment; that question is resolved through the motive test, the reasonable subject-to-tax test or the asset test, all of which are set out in article 13 of the same act. It is not elective. It applies where the conditions are met, and it is symmetrical: where a gain would be exempt, the corresponding loss is not deductible. Groups that model only the upside, without pricing the loss of deductibility on a disposal that goes the wrong way, are modelling half of it. The mechanics are set out in our note on the Dutch participation exemption.
Around that sits an extensive treaty network, which the Ministry of Finance put at 98 countries with a treaty in force at the start of 2025, a dividend withholding tax of 15% as a general rate with treaty reductions and intra-EU exemptions subject to anti-abuse conditions, and, since 2021, a conditional withholding tax on interest and royalties paid to low-taxed or listed jurisdictions, charged under the 2021 source tax act at the highest corporate income tax rate. The last of these matters more than its yield suggests: the Dutch system now discriminates between payments by destination, and the old assumption of a frictionless conduit is obsolete. Interest deductibility is separately constrained by the ATAD earnings-stripping rule, which caps the net interest deduction at 24.5% of adjusted profit or one million euro, whichever is higher, so debt-heavy holding layers no longer shelter what they once did.
What Luxembourg actually contributes
Luxembourg’s contribution is not a rate advantage, and treating it as one is the first misreading. Article 174 of the Luxembourg income tax law, in the text in force on 1 January 2026, sets corporate income tax at 14% where taxable income does not exceed 175,000 euro, at 24,500 euro plus 30% of the income above 175,000 euro where taxable income falls between 175,000 and 200,001 euro, and at 16% where it exceeds 200,000 euro. Those figures are not the Luxembourg burden. The tax administration adds a surcharge of 7% to fund the employment fund, and municipal business tax is charged on top at a rate each commune fixes for itself. A headline rate that has to be assembled from three separate charges is not something a group can plan around, and a rate gap has never been what sustains an entity in the first place: the question an inspector asks is what the entity does, not what it is taxed at. What Luxembourg supplies is a fund and capital-formation ecosystem: decades of regulated and unregulated fund vehicles, a regulator and a service industry accustomed to institutional capital, and documentation that international limited partners recognize without renegotiation. Where money is being raised from a plural investor base, that familiarity has real value. It shortens diligence, standardizes subscription mechanics and gives investors a governance framework they can price.
The corollary is that Luxembourg is poorly suited to functions it was never designed to carry. An entity inserted between a Dutch holding and a Spanish operating company, with no investor base to serve, no capital to pool and no management function of its own, is a layer in search of a rationale. It will be examined on exactly that basis.
What Spain actually contributes
Spain is where the assets, the operations and increasingly the people are: real estate, renewable generation, hospitality, industrial and logistics platforms, and a growing base of founders and executives who want to live there. It is a jurisdiction of substance by default, because the activity is physically located there and cannot be relocated by drafting. Spain also has a participation exemption of its own, and it is not the Dutch regime written in Spanish. Article 21 of Law 27/2014 requires a holding of at least 5% held for a year, and then reduces the exempt dividend or gain by 5% for management costs, so the relief is 95% of the income and not the whole of it. Reading the three regimes as one regime with three addresses is where most of the damage in this area begins.
Two Spanish regimes recur in structuring discussions and are frequently misdescribed. The first is the Canary Islands Special Zone, a regional aid regime authorized by the European Commission, therefore inside Spain and inside the European Union, offering a reduced rate of corporate income tax conditional on investment, job creation and effective activity carried on in the islands. It is not an offshore regime and it is not available to an entity that merely registers there, because the admission conditions in Law 19/1994 require the registered office and the seat of effective management inside the zone, a director resident in the islands, a minimum investment made within the first two years and the creation of jobs there. The second is the Spanish inbound expatriate regime, commonly called the Beckham regime, under which an individual transferring tax residence to Spain may be taxed for a limited number of periods under special rules, namely the period of the change of residence and the five following ones, provided they were not resident in Spain during the five preceding tax periods and the move has a qualifying cause such as an employment relationship. Employment income is taxed at a flat 24% up to 600,000 euro and at 47% above that. The regime is personal, time limited and fact sensitive; it changes where the founder is taxed, not where the group is.
Why stacking no longer works
The structures that populate most legacy files rest on an assumption that has since failed: that interposing an entity in a favourable jurisdiction produced a treaty or directive entitlement in its own right. The principal purpose test in treaties, the general anti-abuse rule that the Parent-Subsidiary Directive obliges member states to apply, the narrower provision under which the Interest and Royalties Directive merely permits them to withdraw its benefits, and the beneficial ownership analysis developed in European case law now converge on a single question. The two directives are not drafted alike and should not be argued alike. Does the recipient have the authority to decide what happens to the income it receives, and is there a commercial reason for its presence beyond the tax result?
A layer that exists to receive and pass on income has no defence, because the only answer to the question of why it exists is the answer that disqualifies it.
Dutch ruling practice has moved in the same direction. Since July 2019 an advance ruling requires genuine economic nexus with the Netherlands. Rulings are not granted where the decisive motive is tax saving, nor in relation to entities in listed jurisdictions. That policy did more than change the ruling process; it made the state’s position explicit, and the position applies whether or not a ruling is sought.
Substance, in this context, is not a checklist to be satisfied at the margin. It is the presence of people who make decisions, decisions actually taken where the entity is established, and functions and risks that correspond to the returns the entity records. An address, a registered office service and a nominal director do not constitute a holding function, and no volume of documentation converts them into one. Our note on Dutch substance requirements deals with the point at length.
The compliance layer underneath
Transfer pricing has become the binding constraint on cross-border design. Article 8b of the Dutch corporate income tax act imposes the arm’s length principle together with a documentation obligation that applies without a size threshold; every intercompany arrangement must be substantiated, whatever the group’s turnover. Luxembourg states the same principle in article 56 of its income tax law. The documentation thresholds, however, are national and they do not line up. Master File and Local File obligations attach in the Netherlands from 50 million euro in consolidated group revenue, while the Spanish group documentation, which is the Master File equivalent, attaches from 45 million euro of net turnover, so a group sitting between the two figures is inside the Spanish group obligation and outside the Dutch one. Spanish taxpayer documentation is a separate matter, and it is the one most often misread. Article 18 of Law 27/2014 requires it of related parties whatever their turnover; below 45 million it is not waived but reduced to a simplified content, and that simplification is expressly withheld for, among them, transfers of businesses, of unlisted shares, of real estate and of intangibles. Dealings between entities inside the same Spanish tax consolidation group are, as a rule, outside the requirement. So are dealings with a single related party whose aggregate consideration does not exceed 250,000 euro at market value. Country-by-country reporting is aligned at 750 million, in the Dutch act and in the Spanish regulation alike, and the Pillar Two minimum of 15% runs from that same 750 million, which in both countries has to have been reached in at least two of the four preceding periods, under the scope provision of the Dutch minimum tax act of 2024 and under article 6 of the Spanish complementary tax of the same year. Beneficial ownership is registered with the KVK, with public access restricted and consultation now organised by access level following the Court of Justice judgment of 22 November 2022, though access by competent authorities is unaffected.
The practical consequence is that the structure and the story must match. A group reporting significant profit in an entity with two part-time directors and no operational capability faces no theoretical risk; it faces an arithmetic one, visible in its own filings.
Designing to function
The workable discipline is to identify the economic functions the group actually performs and then place each one where it belongs, rather than choosing jurisdictions first and allocating functions afterwards. Capital formation and investor relations sit where the fund infrastructure exists. Group ownership, treasury policy, decisions on acquisitions and disposals, and the management of shareholdings sit where the decision makers are, with the board capability and the treaty access to support them. Operations sit where the assets are. Individual residence follows the individual.
If a function cannot be identified for a proposed entity, the entity should not exist. That is a more demanding test than it sounds, and it is why many structures of the previous generation are shorter today than when they were built. The choice of Dutch vehicle then follows the function rather than preceding it, whether a BV, an NV, a cooperatie or a stichting, each considered in our note on selecting the right Dutch vehicle. Incorporation is before a Dutch civil-law notary, by notarial deed, with registration at the KVK.
A worked example
Consider a group holding a portfolio of Spanish operating assets, funded by a mixed base of European institutional investors and family capital, with a founder who has relocated to Madrid.
The Spanish layer holds the assets and employs the operating teams. Its substance is not in question, because the sites, the staff and the customers are in Spain. Spanish taxation of operating profit is a cost of doing business there, not a problem to be structured around.
A Dutch holding company sits above it if, and only if, the group genuinely runs its ownership function from the Netherlands: a board with the competence and the authority to decide on acquisitions, disposals, financing and distributions, meeting and deciding in the Netherlands, with the shareholdings actively managed rather than merely recorded. Where that is real, the Dutch participation exemption applies to dividends and gains on the Spanish shareholdings subject to the qualifying tests, and treaty or directive relief on Spanish distributions is available subject to the anti-abuse conditions and to the recipient being the beneficial owner in substance. Those conditions are set on the Spanish side and have to be read there: article 14 of the Spanish non-resident income tax act grants the directive exemption on a 5% holding kept for a year, and withholds it where the majority of the parent’s voting rights are held outside the European Union and the European Economic Area, unless the parent’s incorporation and operations answer to valid economic motives and substantive business reasons. Intragroup lending is priced under Article 8b and constrained by the earnings-stripping limitation, so leverage is a financing decision with a modelled after-tax cost rather than a deduction generator.
A Luxembourg fund vehicle sits above that only where third-party capital is genuinely being pooled and administered. If the investor base is a single family, the vehicle serves no function and is a liability rather than an asset. The founder’s Spanish position is dealt with separately under the inbound regime if the conditions are met; it neither supports nor undermines the group structure.
The result is not more aggressive than what it replaces. It is shorter, and each entity can answer why it exists without reference to its tax result.
Montclare structures and operates Dutch and cross-border platforms for international groups and private clients. Our services are set out on our services page.
This article is informational and does not constitute tax advice. Each engagement is subject to scope and applicable regulation.