<\/p>\n
1\ufe0f\u20e3 New carried interest tax regime in a nutshell<\/strong><\/p>\n \ud83d\udd38 Under this regime, the “carried interest income” (i.e., the so-called disproportionate yield compared to passive investors) is taxable in the hands of fund managers as movable income at a 25% tax rate.<\/p>\n \ud83d\udd38 The carried interest income is subject to this (attractive) tax regime when it is paid by a “carried interest vehicle”, i.e. an Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) established in Belgium, in the EU or outside the EU (provided that the AIF is subject to a similar regulation).<\/p>\n 2\ufe0f\u20e3 Exclusion of holding companies, family offices, MIP<\/strong><\/p>\n \ud83d\udd38 Holding genuine holding companies, management incentive schemes and family office vehicles are not captured by the definition of AIF.<\/p>\n \ud83e\udd14 Legal uncertainty therefore remains regarding the tax treatment of the carried interest income attributed by these vehicles to Belgian fund managers.<\/p>\n 3\ufe0f\u20e3 Private equity vehicles generally in scope<\/strong><\/p>\n \u2600\ufe0f Private equity funds (where carried interest schemes are often implemented) will generally qualify as an AIF (within the meaning of the AIFM law of 19 April 2014), e.g. the Luxembourg SCSp or the French SLPS.<\/p>\n 4\ufe0f\u20e3 Pooling vehicle : eligible AIF?<\/strong><\/p>\n \u26a0\ufe0f Defining the scope of eligible AIFs is however not always straightforward, as illustrated by a recent tax ruling (27 July 2026, nr. 2026.0207) where the ruling commission did not confirm the application of the new carried interest tax regime to distributions made by a Dutch pooling vehicle (CV) that aggregates the carried interest interests of (Belgian) fund managers and that is set up and controlled by the fund or the fund manager.<\/p>\n 5\ufe0f\u20e3 Cayman tax: the exception applicable to AIF<\/strong><\/p>\n \ud83d\udd38 Similar difficulties arise when determining the scope of AIFs which fall outside the scope of the Cayman tax.<\/p>\n \ud83d\udd38In another recent ruling (2025.0048), the question whether a Delaware LP could benefit or not from the exception applicable to AIF was left unanswered… I refer in this respect to my previous post.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Denis-Emmanuel Philippe\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Taxe Ca\u00efman : application de l\u2019exception OPC \u00e0 un fonds d\u2019investissement US (LP du Delaware) ? Ruling r\u00e9cent (SDA) | Denis-Emmanuel Philippe<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 1\ufe0f\u20e3 New carried interest tax regime in a nutshell \ud83d\udd38 Under this regime, the “carried interest income” (i.e., the so-called disproportionate yield compared to passive investors) is taxable in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4219,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"iawp_total_views":8,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5383","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tax-news-en"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t