All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

A closer look at investor tax reporting for Luxembourg AIFs

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
The VAT succession leads to a full liability of the transferee for all VAT risks and opportunities.

Christian Bednarczyk and Jonathan Streicher of Deloitte Luxembourg analyse the considerations that cross-border investors should take into account when dealing with the alternative investment funds (AIFs) in Luxembourg.

A successful cross-border distribution of Luxembourg-based funds requires a thorough understanding of multiple tax compliance requirements across various countries and jurisdictions. In some of these countries, investors must comply with investor tax reporting rules to fulfill their tax obligations. 

The so-called DACH region (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) is a well-known target market of AIFs wishing to reach new investors in Europe and the US for American investors. This article provides an overview of some of the investor tax reporting requirements for Luxembourg AIFs. 



While there are often exemptions with tax laws, in general, the kind of reports a Luxembourg AIF is required to prepare depends on the investor jurisdiction.



A Luxembourg AIF can be treated as tax transparent (i.e. as a partnership) or non-transparent (i.e. as a corporation) under Luxembourg’s domestic and legal regulations. However, the same Luxembourg fund may be classified differently in some investor jurisdictions. If the investor jurisdiction classifies the Luxembourg AIF as a partnership, the Luxembourg AIF may be required to file a partnership return in that jurisdiction. If the Luxembourg AIF has multiple investors from different jurisdictions, it may need to file separate partnership returns in some/all of these jurisdictions. 



In addition, most jurisdictions require that Luxembourg AIFs prepare statements for each investor under the tax principles of the investor jurisdiction (for example the so-called separate and uniform tax declarations or K-1 statements). Some of these countries legally require a tax representative to file these statements. 



Contrary to the transparent status, the Luxembourg AIF may be classified as a corporation under Luxembourg domestic and legal regulations. That classification of the fund may require a different type of reporting in the investor jurisdiction. 



In some instances, the investor jurisdiction may also require additional reports and returns — for example a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) tax return or a passive foreign investment company (PFIC) tax return, which is uniquely for U.S. investors. These must be determined and analysed on an individual basis depending on the overall structure of the Luxembourg AIF and its investments. 



For completeness, the Luxembourg AIF may be considered a hybrid entity if the classification of the fund is different between Luxembourg, the investor jurisdiction and/or the investment jurisdiction. This difference may have additional implications for either the Luxembourg AIF and/or the investors. 



High complexity in nearly all jurisdictions requires intensive tax knowledge



In the past, some AIFs used tax reports that were prepared for one jurisdiction (for example under US federal income tax purposes) for other jurisdictions (for example Germany). Although this may have been common practice, the information in these reports are prepared under different rules and, therefore, are not relevant or reliable in other jurisdictions. 



With the requirements of investors to disclose all tax information in their home countries increasing, cross-border investment tax reporting for AIF funds is more important than ever. It is expected that local tax jurisdictions will take a closer look at the tax information reported to ensure that the investors fulfill their domestic compliance obligations and that the right amount of taxable income is included in investors’ tax returns.



The AIF’s legal representative is required to provide the relevant tax information accurately and according to the different tax rules. Therefore, the legal representative is also accountable and liable if the wrong figures are provided. Consulting a tax advisor equipped with an in-depth knowledge of different tax regimes allows for a successful navigation concerning the complexity of the rules, the work to be performed, and the risk of liability.



Christian Bednarczyk

T: +352 451 454 467

E: cbednarczyk@deloitte.lu



Jonathan Streicher

T: +352 45145 3810

E: jstreicher@deloitte.lu

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Italian government published plans to levy capital gains tax on cryptocurrency transactions, while Brazil and the UK signed a new tax treaty.
Multinational companies fear the scrutiny of aggressive tax audits may be overstepping the mark on transfer pricing methodology.
Standardisation and outsourcing are two possible solutions amid increasing regulations and scrutiny on transfer pricing, say sources.
Inaugural awards announces winners
The UN’s decision to seek a leadership role in global tax policy could be a crucial turning point but won’t be the end of the OECD, say tax experts.
The UN may be set to assume a global role in tax policy that would rival the OECD, while automakers lobby the US to change its tax rules on Chinese materials.
Companies including Valentino and EveryMatrix say the early adoption of EU public CbCR rules could boost transparency of local and foreign MNEs, despite the short notice.
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2023 ITR Tax Awards in Asia-Pacific, Europe Middle East & Africa, and the Americas.
Tax authorities and customs are failing multinationals by creating uncertainty with contradictory assessment and guidance, say in-house tax directors.
The CJEU said the General Court erred in law when it ruled that both companies benefitted from Italian state aid.