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 by notarial deed under Book 2 of the Civil Code, and its directors must register it with the KVK, an obligation they carry personally until it is discharged. As a corporate taxpayer it is subject to Dutch corporate income tax, charged at 19% on the first 200,000 euro of taxable profit and 25.8% above that. 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 holding of at least 5% 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 at source for EU and treaty-state recipients holding a participation-exemption stake, in every case subject to anti-abuse conditions that withdraw the relief where the holding serves a main purpose of avoiding tax and the arrangement is artificial, meaning not put in place for valid commercial reasons reflecting economic reality. Interest and royalties paid to low-taxed or listed jurisdictions have been exposed to a conditional withholding tax since 2021, levied at the highest corporate income tax rate and extended to dividends from 2024, with the statute reaching entitlements held directly or through depositary receipts. 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 no members and no shareholders, existing to pursue a purpose stated in its articles with assets set aside for it, and it may not make distributions to its founders or to the people who sit on its organs. It comes into being by notarial deed drawn up in Dutch, and its board must have it entered in the commercial register. 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. Nor is it automatically outside the corporate tax net: a stichting is subject to corporate income tax to the extent that it carries on an enterprise, which is a question about what it actually does rather than a status conferred by its form. 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. Do the articles of the BV attach meeting rights to the receipts, which decides whether holders may attend the general meeting and speak there, or whether they learn what happened afterwards. 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 have their ultimate beneficial owners recorded in the commercial register kept by the KVK, and a stichting is registered there like any other legal person. Public access was restricted after the Court of Justice held in November 2022 that the rule making beneficial ownership information accessible in all cases to any member of the general public is invalid, but the register itself continues to operate and institutions performing mandatory client due diligence retain access, as do the financial intelligence unit and the designated competent authorities. 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, in the absence of one, on the relevant 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, with operating activities carried on in the Netherlands for the applicant’s account and risk and enough relevant personnel to support them, and it refuses advance certainty where saving Dutch or foreign tax is the sole or decisive motive, or where the question concerns direct transactions with entities in listed low-tax and non-cooperative 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, where shares in an entity whose assets are largely real estate are themselves treated as immovable property once the acquirer reaches a one-third interest. 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 from 50 million euro of consolidated group revenue, and country-by-country reporting from 750 million. The earnings-stripping rule under ATAD limits interest deductibility to the higher of 24.5% of fiscal EBITDA and one million euro, parameters that have changed more than once, 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: published policy confirms that a company doing nothing beyond holding shares and the shareholder activities that go with it is not acting as a taxable person, so it 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.