Multijurisdiction: Fund tax bites (Podcast)

Investment funds and asset management Tax Newsletter

In brief

On 19 December 2022 the second episode of Funds Tax Talks was recorded by Rubén Lago, Charles Baudoin and Annie Elfassi of Baker McKenzie. This edition of the Fund Tax Bites summarises the key topics that were discussed during the podcast.

The podcast can be accessed here Funds Tax Talks | Podcast on Spotify

Remote working and key risk areas 

Luxembourg is the jurisdiction with most fund activity within Europe and most fund manager companies are based there as well. However, many employees of the fund manager companies often work remotely from other countries. This can pose certain risks for the fund manager companies from employment and tax law perspectives. 

Tax risks in France 

There is a risk that the fund manager company is considered to have a permanent establishment (PE) in France and therefore becomes subject to tax in France. 

According to OECD guidelines, the fund manager may be deemed to have a permanent establishment if it meets one of the two tests: the fixed place of business test or the dependant agent test. Between the two, remote working among the employees of the fund managers poses a greater risk of creating a permanent establishment through the dependant agent route, although a case by case analysis will have to be performed in either case. For example, a mere office space in the personal home of the employee (in France) may qualify as a fixed place of business. However, the key question would be whether this place of business is at the disposal of the fund manager company and this will take into account factors such as the responsibility for bills and rent. 

With respect to the dependant agent test, there is a risk that this will be met where the fund manager employee makes strategic decisions and enters into arrangements that are binding on the company from their home office in France. It must be noted that where the decisions and arrangements entered into are of auxiliary or preparatory nature, then the test will not be triggered (e.g., back office work).

Tax risks in Spain

Spain has traditionally been very aggressive in its regulation of PEs, using a mixture of the OECD guidelines and domestic legislation. However, following a binding ruling passed earlier in the year specifically in relation to the fixed place of business test, the authorities have shifted towards a more flexible approach in such cases.

In particular, the authorities concluded that if the following three conditions are met, then there would be no PE under the fixed place of business test. 

  1. The decision to work from Spain was a personal choice of the employee.
  2. The employer has an office in its country of operation (i.e., Luxembourg) from which the employee may work. 
  3. There is no additional cost assumed by the employer and no additional remuneration paid to the employee as a result of their remote work in Spain.  

While there are no similar rulings in relation to the dependant agent test, our recommendation would be for the fund manager company to hold all meetings relating to investment decisions and other key business decisions in Luxembourg to avoid the risk of a PE arising through the dependant agent test. 

Key risks in Luxembourg

Apart from tax implications, fund managers who work remotely outside of Luxembourg at least 10% of their time will be regarded as cross-border employees and this will trigger certain employment law considerations. For example, cross-border workers are subject to the convention of remote working passed in October 2020

However, the rules around the tax and social security implications of remote working have not evolved fully to meet the needs of remote working and this poses a challenge to a Luxembourg fund that is looking to implement a more flexible working policy. As a starting point, where an employee works more than 25% of their working time in a member state, it is with this state's social security authorities that they ought to be registered. 

Some key questions that arise in this context are: the identity of party who is responsible for withholding payments; whether there is a need to comply with the regulations of the jurisdiction from where the cross-border employees are working and the applicable law that frames the employment relationship. 

As such, there is a degree of uncertainty that arises as a result of remote working and international mobility. 

Minimum substance 

Given the impending ATAD 3 directive, having "minimum substance" in a jurisdiction is another key area to consider when looking at the international mobility of fund managers. 

There are three indicators of minimum tax substance: 

  1. Directors who are tax resident locally
  2. Local premises
  3. Local bank account

The text of ATAD 3 is yet to be agreed and there are ongoing discussions to include an exemption for subsidiaries of funds but we will need to wait and observe how this takes effect. 

Copyright © 2023 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.