Key Takeaways
- • EU fund structures predominantly utilize closed-end limited partnerships with carry and co-investment components (upstream), regulated alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs) typically domiciled in Luxembourg (side-stream), and downstream special purpose vehicles to accommodate varied investment structures, according to Jan Neugebauer's overview presented at the 14th Annual IBA Finance & Capital Markets Tax Conference on 21 January 2025.
- • AIFMs perform two core functions—risk management and portfolio management—which are frequently delegated to external investment advisors and investment managers rather than managed internally, reflecting a trend toward outsourced operational structures in European fund management.
- • The panel convened leading international tax and fund structuring experts from six jurisdictions (Luxembourg, Geneva, London, New York, Milan, and Vienna) to assess whether current EU and US fund structures warrant material reform, indicating industry-wide uncertainty about structural adequacy in the current regulatory environment.
- • Withholding tax mitigation through fund structure optimization via available tax treaty exemptions remains a material consideration in fund architecture decisions, highlighted as a key structural concern by panelists.
- • Recent trends in fund onshoring were explicitly examined by the panel, though specific onshoring data and Howard's detailed observations were not fully detailed in available materials, suggesting this represents an emerging structural pivot warranting further institutional attention.
Summary
The International Bar Association's 14th Annual Finance & Capital Markets Tax Conference in London on 21 January 2025 brought together senior fund structuring practitioners to examine whether established EU and US fund architecture models require substantive reform. The session, chaired by Sylvia Dikmans of Houthoff in Amsterdam, included leading advisors from major international law firms spanning North America and continental Europe, including Ropes & Gray, Vinson & Elkins, Schellenberg Wittmer, Arendt & Medernach, Chiomenti Studio Legale, and Wolf Theiss.
Jan Neugebauer of Arendt & Medernach provided a foundational overview of typical EU fund structures, which predominantly take the form of closed-end limited partnerships incorporating carry and co-investment components at the upstream level. The archetypal EU structure incorporates regulated alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs)—frequently domiciled in Luxembourg for tax and regulatory efficiency—at the side-stream level. These AIFMs serve dual functions in risk management and portfolio management, though both functions are routinely delegated to external investment advisors and investment managers rather than retained internally, reflecting a pronounced industry trend toward operational outsourcing. At the downstream level, fund structures commonly employ various aggregators and special purpose vehicles to accommodate different investment requirements and investor bases.
A material structural consideration examined by the panel involves withholding tax mitigation strategies embedded within fund architecture, specifically through leveraging available tax treaty exemptions. This tax optimization remains a driving factor in how fund structures are architected across jurisdictions.
The panel's explicit focus on fund onshoring trends, with Andrew Howard queried specifically on recent developments, suggests that the repatriation or relocation of fund operations to onshore jurisdictions represents an emerging structural movement that warrants close institutional monitoring, though specific onshore data points and detailed observations were not fully captured in available session materials.
Jan Neugebauer of Arendt & Medernach provided a foundational overview of typical EU fund structures, which predominantly take the form of closed-end limited partnerships incorporating carry and co-investment components at the upstream level. The archetypal EU structure incorporates regulated alternative investment fund managers (AIFMs)—frequently domiciled in Luxembourg for tax and regulatory efficiency—at the side-stream level. These AIFMs serve dual functions in risk management and portfolio management, though both functions are routinely delegated to external investment advisors and investment managers rather than retained internally, reflecting a pronounced industry trend toward operational outsourcing. At the downstream level, fund structures commonly employ various aggregators and special purpose vehicles to accommodate different investment requirements and investor bases.
A material structural consideration examined by the panel involves withholding tax mitigation strategies embedded within fund architecture, specifically through leveraging available tax treaty exemptions. This tax optimization remains a driving factor in how fund structures are architected across jurisdictions.
The panel's explicit focus on fund onshoring trends, with Andrew Howard queried specifically on recent developments, suggests that the repatriation or relocation of fund operations to onshore jurisdictions represents an emerging structural movement that warrants close institutional monitoring, though specific onshore data points and detailed observations were not fully captured in available session materials.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.