Family offices rarely fail for want of tax planning. They fail because ownership, control and information were never separated properly, and the structure that worked for a founder with one operating company proves unworkable for eleven cousins, three jurisdictions and a portfolio of funds, property and a minority stake in the original business. Dutch vocabulary is useful here not because the Netherlands offers anything exotic, but because its corporate law provides two distinct instruments, the BV and the stichting, that map cleanly onto the two problems a family office has to solve: holding assets, and governing them.
The architecture in outline
The recurring pattern has three layers. At the base sit the assets: operating subsidiaries, fund commitments, listed portfolios, property. Above them sit one or more Dutch BVs acting as holding companies, aggregating participations and, where the family has several branches or asset classes, segmenting them. Above the BV sits an ownership layer with no owner at all, typically a stichting administratiekantoor, the STAK, which holds legal title to the shares and issues depositary receipts to the family.
Each layer answers a different question. The BV layer answers who holds what, and how proceeds move. The stichting layer answers who decides, and what happens when the person who used to decide is gone. Conflating the two is the most common structural error we see in inherited arrangements, usually in the form of a single holding company whose shareholders’ meeting is also, in practice, the family council.
The BV as the holding layer
The BV is a private limited company incorporated before a Dutch civil-law notary and registered with the KVK. As a corporate taxpayer it is subject to Dutch corporate income tax, with a reduced rate on the first bracket and 25.8% above it. Its relevance to a family office is not the rate but the participation exemption, which relieves dividends and capital gains on qualifying shareholdings at the holding level. The exemption is mandatory and symmetrical: gains are exempt and losses are non-deductible, which matters when a family expects to write off early-stage positions. It requires a minimum holding and, in substance, that the participation is not a low-taxed passive investment, tested through the motive, subject-to-tax and asset tests. Families with a mixed book of controlling stakes, minority co-investments and fund interests should assume the analysis differs position by position; a considered reading of how the participation exemption actually applies is a better starting point than an assumption that all portfolio income arrives untaxed.
Segmentation across several BVs is usually driven by governance and exit rather than by tax. Separate vehicles for the operating business, the property book and the liquid portfolio allow different boards, reporting cycles and disposal mechanics, and make it possible to bring a branch of the family into one silo without renegotiating the whole structure. The cost is administrative: each BV carries its own filings, its own transfer pricing exposure and its own substance question.
Distributions out of the Dutch layer meet a 15% dividend withholding tax as a starting point, reduced under treaties and relieved within the EU, in every case subject to anti-abuse conditions that look at whether the recipient entity has a genuine function. Interest and royalties paid to low-taxed or listed jurisdictions have been exposed to a conditional withholding tax since 2021. For a family office with beneficiaries resident in several countries, the withholding analysis is not a one-off at incorporation; it changes each time a family member moves.
The stichting and the STAK
A stichting is a foundation: a legal person with a purpose, a board and no members and no shareholders. Nobody owns it. That single feature is what makes it useful, and also what makes it misunderstood. It is not a device for making assets disappear from view, and it is not a trust. It is a governance instrument whose behaviour is fixed entirely by its articles and by the quality of its board.
The STAK is a stichting with a specific job. It acquires the shares in the holding BV and issues depositary receipts, certificaten, to the family. The receipts carry the economic entitlement: dividends flow through, and value accrues to the holders. Voting rights stay with the STAK board. Economics and control are thereby separated without splitting the share capital into classes and without asking anyone to sign a shareholders’ agreement that will bind grandchildren who have not been born yet.
A structure that depends on the founder being alive to work is not a structure; it is a habit with a notary’s stamp on it.
The design questions are concrete. Are the receipts transferable, and to whom. Does the STAK board have the power to decertify, and under what conditions. What happens on divorce, insolvency or departure of a receipt holder. How is the board appointed and replaced, and does a family council have a binding nomination right or only an advisory one. These are drafted, not inherited from a template, and they are where most of the value of the exercise sits. The choice between a STAK, a straightforward BV shareholding with a shareholders’ agreement, or a cooperatie deserves a deliberate comparison of the available Dutch vehicles rather than a default.
Governance: boards, reserved matters and succession
Dutch corporate law gives a family office more room than it usually uses. The holding BV has a management board, and may have a supervisory board or a one-tier board with non-executive directors. Reserved matters can be allocated to the shareholders’ meeting, meaning in practice to the STAK board, or to a supervisory body, with the articles requiring prior approval for a defined list: disposals above a threshold, new leverage, entry into a new asset class, related-party transactions, changes to the distribution policy.
The reserved-matter list is where the family’s actual philosophy gets written down. A list that is too short leaves a professional board free to reshape the portfolio; one that is too long turns every decision into a family negotiation and makes the directors unappointable. Independent members are worth the friction, particularly where the receipt holders are not unanimous, and the appointment mechanism should not permit a single branch to capture the board.
Succession planning runs on two tracks that must be consistent with each other: the transfer of receipts, governed by the family’s estate planning and by the tax rules of each holder’s country of residence, and the succession of the STAK board, governed by the articles. Families frequently address the first and forget the second, leaving an ageing board with self-perpetuating appointment rights and no retirement age.
The UBO register and transparency
Dutch entities register their ultimate beneficial owners with the KVK. Public access to the register was restricted following the Court of Justice ruling of November 2022, but the register itself continues to operate and competent authorities and obliged entities retain access. For a STAK structure the analysis needs care: beneficial ownership may be attributed by reference to the receipt holders, to the board of the stichting, or to both, depending on the facts. Depositary receipts do not remove anyone from the register.
The practical implication is that a family office should design on the assumption that its ownership chain is knowable by banks, tax administrations and counterparties. Structures presented as achieving anything else tend to fail at the first onboarding questionnaire, and correcting them later costs more than getting the disclosure right at the outset. Cross-border arrangements bearing the DAC6 hallmarks carry their own reporting obligation, resting on the intermediary or, failing that, on the taxpayer.
Substance and the operating reality
A holding company is credible to the extent that decisions are actually taken where the company is. Board composition, meeting location, local decision-making capability, premises, an own bank account and adequate operating expenditure are the components, and they describe how the entity should function rather than a checklist to be satisfied on paper. The Dutch ruling policy in force since July 2019 requires genuine economic nexus and will not confirm a structure whose decisive motive is tax saving, nor one involving listed jurisdictions. Families intending to hold Dutch property should expect additional scrutiny, including the real estate transfer tax treatment of share acquisitions in property-rich companies. A working view of what substance requires in practice should be settled before the first entity is incorporated, not after a treaty claim is questioned.
Two further obligations bear on family offices with any intra-group flows. Article 8b requires arm’s length pricing and documentation with no threshold, so management fees charged by a family office entity to the holding companies need support; Master and Local File apply above a consolidated revenue threshold, and country-by-country reporting above a higher one. The earnings-stripping rule under ATAD limits interest deductibility to a percentage of fiscal EBITDA subject to a floor, with parameters that have changed over time, so shareholder loans used to fund acquisitions should be modelled against the rule in force rather than the rule that applied when the loan was drawn. VAT deserves a separate look: a pure holding is generally outside the scope and recovers no input VAT, while an entity providing management services for consideration is a taxable person, which changes the recovery position on advisory and transaction costs.
Where the analysis usually lands
A well-built family office structure is unremarkable to look at. A stichting with a competent, partly independent board; one or more BVs with real directors and real minutes; depositary receipts held by family members who understand what they own and what they do not control; documented pricing for the services the family office actually provides; and a distribution policy that survives a change of residence by any one holder. None of this reduces a tax rate, and none of it should be built with that as its decisive motive. What it does is make the ownership of a multi-generational estate legible, governable and capable of being unwound in an orderly way.
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.