For decades, the Dutch tax treatment of the commanditaire vennootschap and the fonds voor gemene rekening turned on a question that had no equivalent anywhere else: whether the admission or substitution of a participant required the unanimous consent of the others. That single drafting point decided whether a vehicle was opaque and liable to Dutch corporate income tax, or transparent and invisible for tax purposes. Since 1 January 2025 that criterion has gone. The classification of both vehicles now follows a framework built around international comparability rather than a domestic contractual formality, and the change operates by force of law rather than by election. For groups whose platforms were designed around the previous position, the relevant question is no longer whether the structure was well drafted at the time, but whether the assumptions it encodes still hold.
What the consent requirement actually decided
Under the previous regime a CV was open, and therefore opaque, if participations could be transferred without the unanimous consent of all partners; it was closed, and therefore transparent, if consent was required. The same test governed the FGR. In practice the outcome was almost always drafted for, not discovered: partnership deeds and fund terms were written to produce the classification the sponsor wanted, and the resulting entity was then presented to counterparties and to foreign tax authorities as either a taxable person or a mere contractual arrangement.
The difficulty was that no other system asked the same question. A vehicle that was opaque in the Netherlands could be transparent in the jurisdiction of its investors, or the reverse, and the mismatch was structural rather than accidental. Hybrid entity outcomes followed: deductions without inclusion, double relief, treaty entitlement claimed at one level and denied at another. As the anti-hybrid provisions derived from the second Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive came into force, a classification rule that had once been a planning instrument became a source of exposure.
The new framework for entity classification
The CV is now transparent as a matter of principle. The distinction between open and closed forms has been removed, and with it the practice of drafting consent clauses for classification purposes. The VOF, already transparent, is unaffected, and the comparison between partnership and corporate forms is now more predictable for anyone selecting a Dutch vehicle at the design stage.
For foreign entities, the Netherlands now applies a legal form comparison as the primary method: the foreign entity is measured against the Dutch legal forms and classified as its closest domestic analogue. Where no meaningful analogue exists, supplementary methods apply. An entity established in the Netherlands but not comparable to any Dutch form is treated as non-transparent; an entity established abroad is, in broad terms, followed in the classification given to it by its own jurisdiction. The design intent is symmetry, and the practical effect is that Dutch classification now depends on facts that sit outside Dutch documentation.
The FGR and the tradability test
The fonds voor gemene rekening has been redefined rather than merely realigned. Opacity now depends on whether the fund is an investment fund or collective investment undertaking within the meaning of Dutch financial supervision legislation and whether its units are genuinely negotiable. A fund whose participations can only be redeemed by the fund itself, or transferred within a restricted family or corporate circle, falls outside the definition and is transparent.
This is a material narrowing. Many FGRs were established not as collective investment products but as private pooling arrangements: family holding pools, joint venture co-investment vehicles, employee participation structures. Those arrangements often relied on opacity for confidentiality as much as for tax, since an opaque entity is the taxpayer and the participants are one step removed. Where the fund no longer meets the definition, it is transparent, and the participants are exposed directly to the underlying income and gains, with the registration and reporting consequences that follow, including the UBO position recorded at the KVK.
Classification is not a label attached to a vehicle. It is the point at which two tax systems either meet or fail to meet, and the cost of a failure is paid at the level of the investor, not the entity.
Structures that relied on opacity
Where a vehicle ceases to be opaque, it ceases to be a taxpayer, and the consequences are not confined to the entity itself. A CV or FGR that previously held qualifying shareholdings applied the participation exemption at its own level; once transparent, the exemption is tested where the participants sit, and a participant that does not meet the minimum holding requirement, or that fails the motive, subject-to-tax and asset tests on its own facts, obtains a different answer from the one the structure was built on. The exemption is mandatory and symmetrical, so a participant cannot choose to disapply it where the outcome is unwelcome.
Treaty access changes in the same direction. An opaque vehicle claimed treaty benefits in its own right; a transparent one cannot, and entitlement depends on the residence and characteristics of each participant, tested against the anti-abuse provisions in the relevant instrument. The withholding position on outbound flows requires the same re-examination: dividend withholding tax at the general rate, reductions and exemptions available under treaty or European law, and the conditional withholding tax on interest and royalties directed to low-taxed or listed jurisdictions, all now applied to a different payer and a different chain of recipients.
Three further points tend to be overlooked. First, the earnings-stripping limitation is computed at the level of the taxpayer, so the disappearance of a taxpayer redistributes fiscal EBITDA and the benefit of the minimum threshold across the group. Second, article 8b applies without a materiality threshold, and dealings that were previously internal to an opaque entity may now be related-party transactions requiring arm’s length pricing and documentation, with Master and Local File obligations engaged at the consolidated turnover level. Third, the transition itself is an event: the cessation of a corporate income tax liability triggers a final settlement, so the tax consequences arise at the moment of change rather than on a later disposal.
Structures that relied on transparency
The mirror case is less discussed but no less relevant. A vehicle that was transparent under the old test, or that was assumed to be transparent because a comparable foreign entity had always been treated that way, may now be classified differently, either in the Netherlands or in the counterparty state applying its own comparison. Foreign limited partnerships holding Dutch assets, non-Dutch funds with Dutch feeder arrangements, and hybrid financing chains all depend on a classification that is no longer determined by the terms of the deed alone.
Where Dutch real estate is held, the analysis extends to transfer taxation. The general rate for immovable property differs from the rate applicable to housing acquired for the purchaser’s own residence, and the acquisition of shares or participations in an entity qualifying as a real estate company can itself fall within the charge. A change in the classification of the holding vehicle, or a restructuring undertaken in response to one, can alter whether an interest is an interest in property or an interest in an entity, and the two are not taxed alike.
Why legacy structures merit a formal review
Most affected structures were built competently under the rules then in force. The exposure comes from classification having been an input to every other conclusion in the file: treaty entitlement, exemption at the level of the holding entity, withholding analysis, financing capacity, reporting obligations. When the input changes by operation of law, the conclusions do not update themselves, and the documentation continues to assert a position that is no longer accurate.
Rulings deserve particular attention. Under the policy applied since July 2019, an advance ruling requires genuine economic nexus and is not granted where the decisive motive is tax saving or where listed jurisdictions are involved. A ruling is also bound to the facts as presented. Where those facts included the opacity of a CV or FGR, the instrument may no longer describe the arrangement it was issued for. Substance is the related question: the operating footprint that supported the original position, including board composition, decision-making location and the capacity to bear risk, should be tested against current expectations rather than the standard in place when the platform was assembled.
A workable review sequence is short. Inventory every partnership and fund vehicle in the group and record how each is classified in the Netherlands and in every state where a participant or an asset sits. Identify the mismatches, and separate those that produce a hybrid outcome from those that are merely inconvenient. Re-test the participation exemption, treaty entitlement and withholding analysis at the level that now matters. Confirm whether any remedial restructuring carries a DAC6 hallmark, since the reporting obligation falls on the intermediary or, failing that, on the taxpayer. Finally, revisit the indirect tax position, since removing or inserting an entity affects whether management services are supplied for consideration and whether the financial, economic and organisational links required for a VAT group remain in place.
The position after the change
The reclassification removes an anomaly rather than a benefit. A Dutch platform continues to rest on the same components it did before: corporate income tax at the headline rate of 25.8% in the upper bracket with a reduced rate in the first, a mandatory participation exemption, an extensive treaty network subject to anti-abuse testing, and a regulated ruling practice for groups with real activity. What has gone is the ability to select opacity or transparency through a clause in a deed, and with it a category of arrangements that worked only because two systems described the same vehicle differently. Groups whose structures depended on that difference should assume the position has moved. Groups whose structures depended on genuine activity will find that very little has.
Montclare structures and operates Dutch and cross-border platforms for international groups. Our services are set out on our services page.
This article is informational and does not constitute tax, legal or investment advice. Each engagement is subject to scope and applicable regulation.