How Is Carried Interest Taxed

Understanding Carried Interest: Definition and Context

Carried interest represents a financial arrangement predominantly utilized in the private equity and hedge fund sectors. At its core, carried interest is a share of profits that fund managers receive as compensation for their investment management services, typically amounting to 20% of the profits generated by the fund beyond a specified hurdle rate. This compensation structure fundamentally differs from management fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management regardless of performance outcomes. The taxation of carried interest has remained a contentious topic within financial and political circles for decades, with significant implications for high-net-worth fund managers, investment partnerships, and revenue authorities. The classification of carried interest for tax purposes directly impacts the effective tax rate applied to these substantial income streams, making its understanding crucial for tax planning strategies and compliance with relevant tax codes across different jurisdictions.

The Historical Tax Treatment of Carried Interest

The taxation of carried interest has evolved substantially over the years, though it has historically benefited from preferential treatment. Prior to recent legislative changes, carried interest was predominantly taxed at the long-term capital gains rate rather than as ordinary income. This classification stemmed from the perspective that fund managers’ profits constituted investment returns rather than compensation for services rendered. In the United States, this resulted in taxation at rates approximately half those of ordinary income, with the top federal rate on long-term capital gains standing at 20% compared to 37% for ordinary income. This favorable tax treatment originated from interpretations of partnership tax law dating back several decades, which determined that partners receiving a share of partnership profits should be taxed according to the character of the income at the partnership level. The historical justification centered on encouraging risk-taking, capital formation, and long-term investment strategies that drive economic growth and innovation.

Legal Framework: Partnership Tax Law and Carried Interest

The legal foundation for carried interest taxation resides within partnership tax law, particularly Section 702 of the Internal Revenue Code in the United States and comparable provisions in other jurisdictions. Under this framework, partnerships themselves are not taxed entities; instead, income "flows through" to the individual partners while retaining its character. Consequently, when a partnership realizes capital gains from selling investments held for more than one year, these gains retain their character as they flow through to the partners, including the general partner receiving carried interest. The partnership agreement typically structures carried interest as a profits interest granted to the general partner, which represents the right to receive a percentage of future profits without contributing proportional capital. This legal classification as a profits interest, rather than as fee-based compensation, forms the basis for the preferential tax treatment that has historically applied to carried interest arrangements in numerous tax jurisdictions worldwide.

Recent Legislative Changes: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Impact

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 introduced significant modifications to the taxation of carried interest in the United States, representing the most substantial legislative change in this area in decades. The TCJA extended the holding period requirement from one year to three years for carried interest to qualify for long-term capital gains treatment. This adjustment, codified in Section 1061 of the Internal Revenue Code, aimed to address criticisms that fund managers were effectively converting what should be ordinary income into preferentially taxed capital gains. Investments held for less than three years now generate short-term capital gains taxed at ordinary income rates for carried interest recipients. The implementation of this extended holding period requirement has prompted significant adjustments in fund investment strategies, with many private equity firms structuring investments to meet the three-year threshold to preserve the tax advantages associated with long-term capital gains treatment for their carried interest compensation.

International Perspectives: Global Approaches to Carried Interest Taxation

The taxation of carried interest varies substantially across international jurisdictions, reflecting different philosophies regarding capital formation, financial sector regulation, and income classification. The United Kingdom implemented changes through its Disguised Investment Management Fee rules and the Income-Based Carried Interest regime, which apply ordinary income tax rates to carried interest that derives from short-term investments. Similarly, Germany has increasingly scrutinized carried interest arrangements, with partial taxation at ordinary rates. Conversely, some jurisdictions like Singapore and certain European countries maintain more favorable treatment to attract investment fund activity. These international variations create complex considerations for global investment funds operating across multiple tax jurisdictions, necessitating sophisticated international tax planning and compliance strategies. Fund managers and investors increasingly incorporate international tax considerations when structuring funds, establishing management entities, and designing carried interest arrangements to navigate this complex global tax landscape. Learn more about UK company taxation to understand the broader context in which carried interest taxation operates within the United Kingdom.

Calculating the Tax Liability on Carried Interest

Determining the precise tax liability on carried interest involves a complex calculation process that depends on several variables. The primary determinants include the holding period of the underlying investments, the applicable tax rates in the relevant jurisdiction, and the specific structure of the carried interest arrangement. In the United States, for instance, the calculation begins with determining whether the investments have been held for more than three years to qualify for the preferential long-term capital gains rate, currently capped at 20% for high-income individuals. For investments held less than three years, the carried interest is taxed at ordinary income rates, potentially reaching 37% at the federal level. Additionally, carried interest may be subject to the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) of 3.8% for high-income taxpayers. Fund managers must meticulously track holding periods for each investment and allocate carried interest accordingly, creating significant administrative complexity in tax compliance. The calculation becomes further complicated when considering state and local taxes, which vary widely across different jurisdictions and can substantially impact the effective tax rate on carried interest income.

Controversies and Criticisms: The Fairness Debate

The taxation of carried interest has sparked persistent debate regarding fundamental questions of tax fairness and economic policy. Critics argue that carried interest fundamentally represents compensation for services rendered by fund managers and should therefore be taxed entirely as ordinary income, similar to wages earned by other professionals. This perspective views the preferential treatment as an unjustifiable tax loophole benefiting already wealthy individuals. Conversely, defenders of the current tax treatment contend that carried interest represents a return on investment risk undertaken by fund managers who align their compensation with fund performance. They argue that treating carried interest as capital gains appropriately reflects its economic substance and encourages entrepreneurial risk-taking and capital formation. Various economic studies have analyzed these competing claims, with differing conclusions regarding the efficiency and equity impacts of carried interest taxation. The debate extends beyond purely technical tax considerations into broader questions about wealth inequality, the appropriate taxation of different forms of income, and the role of tax policy in promoting economic growth and investment.

Industry Impact: How Tax Treatment Affects Investment Structures

The tax treatment of carried interest significantly influences fund structure, investment strategy, and compensation arrangements throughout the private equity and venture capital industries. Fund managers frequently structure partnerships and investment holding companies to optimize the tax efficiency of carried interest arrangements, potentially utilizing tiered partnership structures or offshore entities where appropriate. The extended holding period requirements introduced by recent legislation have prompted adjustments to investment time horizons, with some funds adopting longer-term investment strategies to ensure carried interest qualifies for preferential tax rates. Additionally, the tax treatment impacts negotiations between fund managers and investors regarding carried interest arrangements, including hurdle rates, catch-up provisions, and clawback mechanisms. Some funds have introduced innovative carried interest structures that blend elements of traditional carried interest with management fees to achieve optimal tax outcomes while meeting investor expectations. The ongoing evolution of carried interest taxation continues to drive adaptive responses throughout the investment management industry, highlighting the dynamic interplay between tax policy and financial innovation. For entrepreneurs considering setting up a limited company in the UK, understanding these investment structures can provide valuable insights for attracting private equity investments.

Alternative Investment Vehicles and Their Tax Implications

Different investment vehicle structures carry distinct tax implications for carried interest arrangements. Private equity funds typically structure carried interest through limited partnerships, allowing the carried interest to retain its character as capital gain when distributed to the general partner. Hedge funds, which often engage in shorter-term trading strategies, may find it more challenging to benefit from preferential tax treatment given the extended holding period requirements for long-term capital gains treatment. Real estate funds may benefit from additional provisions related to real property investments, including potential advantages under Section 1231 of the Internal Revenue Code. Venture capital funds, which often hold investments for extended periods, may be better positioned to meet the three-year holding requirement for preferential tax treatment. The selection of investment vehicle structure—whether organized as partnerships, limited liability companies, or other entities—carries significant implications for the tax treatment of carried interest. Fund managers increasingly utilize sophisticated modeling to compare tax outcomes across different entity structures and investment holding strategies before finalizing fund formation decisions. The interaction between carried interest taxation and other tax considerations, including the tax status of potential investors, further complicates these structural decisions.

Compliance Requirements for Fund Managers

Fund managers face substantial compliance obligations regarding the reporting and payment of taxes on carried interest. These requirements include detailed record-keeping to track investment holding periods, accurately allocating carried interest among partners, and properly characterizing income for tax purposes. In the United States, partnerships must issue Schedule K-1 forms to carried interest recipients, detailing the character and amount of income allocated to them. Fund managers must also navigate complex basis calculation rules that affect the tax treatment of subsequent distributions and partnership interest dispositions. The increased scrutiny of carried interest arrangements by tax authorities has elevated the importance of maintaining comprehensive documentation supporting the economic substance and legal structure of carried interest arrangements. This documentation may include partnership agreements, investment management contracts, and evidence of the general partner’s capital contributions and risk exposure. Additionally, international funds must address reporting requirements across multiple jurisdictions, potentially triggering foreign reporting obligations such as FATCA or CRS compliance. The compliance burden has increased as tax authorities worldwide have implemented more sophisticated enforcement mechanisms targeting perceived abuses in carried interest arrangements. For those involved in complex fund structures, consulting with experts in corporate secretarial services can help ensure proper compliance.

Strategies for Tax-Efficient Carried Interest Management

Fund managers employ various strategies to optimize the tax efficiency of carried interest arrangements while maintaining compliance with applicable tax laws. One common approach involves timing investment exits to ensure holdings meet the required three-year threshold for long-term capital gains treatment. Strategic use of installment sales can also spread income recognition over multiple tax years, potentially reducing the impact of progressive tax rates. Some fund managers implement carried interest waiver mechanisms, which allow them to selectively waive carried interest from investments that would generate short-term capital gains in exchange for increased carried interest from investments producing long-term capital gains. Additionally, family limited partnerships and other estate planning vehicles may be utilized to transfer future carried interest rights to family members in tax-advantaged ways. Fund managers with international operations may consider establishing management entities in jurisdictions with favorable tax treaties or regimes specifically designed for investment management activities. The structuring of carried interest arrangements may also incorporate provisions addressing potential future tax law changes, providing flexibility to adapt as the regulatory landscape evolves. While these strategies aim to optimize tax outcomes, they must be implemented with careful attention to economic substance requirements and anti-abuse provisions to withstand potential scrutiny from tax authorities.

Carried Interest in Different Fund Types: Variations in Tax Treatment

The tax treatment of carried interest varies significantly across different fund types, reflecting their distinct investment strategies and underlying assets. Buyout funds, with their typically longer investment horizons, often hold portfolio companies for periods exceeding the three-year threshold required for long-term capital gains treatment in the United States. In contrast, hedge funds engaged in active trading strategies frequently generate short-term gains taxed at higher ordinary income rates. Venture capital funds investing in early-stage companies may hold investments for extended periods, potentially qualifying for preferential tax treatment, but must navigate complex rules regarding qualified small business stock and other specialized provisions. Credit funds primarily generating interest income rather than capital gains face different considerations, as interest income retains its character as ordinary income when allocated to carried interest recipients. Real estate funds benefit from specialized tax provisions, including potential depreciation deductions and Section 1231 treatment, which can influence the character of income flowing to carried interest recipients. Infrastructure funds with long-term investment horizons may be well-positioned to benefit from preferential tax rates but must address specific tax considerations related to public-private partnerships and regulated assets. Each fund type’s distinct asset profile and investment strategy necessitates tailored approaches to carried interest structuring to optimize tax outcomes. Those interested in fund structures might want to explore fund accounting services for specialized support.

The Role of Hurdle Rates in Carried Interest Taxation

Hurdle rates play a crucial role in both the economic structure and tax implications of carried interest arrangements. These threshold return levels, typically expressed as an annual percentage, must be achieved before fund managers can begin receiving carried interest allocations. From a tax perspective, the interaction between hurdle rates and carried interest can significantly influence timing and character of income recognition. Most private equity funds employ a preferred return mechanism coupled with a catch-up provision, whereby once the hurdle rate is exceeded, the general partner receives a disproportionate allocation of subsequent profits until reaching their agreed-upon carried interest percentage (typically 20%). This catch-up provision may generate income with different tax characteristics than the underlying investments, potentially affecting the overall tax efficiency of the arrangement. Additionally, the structure of hurdle rate calculations—whether based on a compounded annual return, a simple annual return, or an aggregate return—can influence when carried interest becomes taxable. Fund managers and investors negotiate these provisions with attention to both economic and tax considerations, seeking structures that align incentives while optimizing tax outcomes. The documentation of these arrangements must be precise to support the intended tax treatment and withstand potential challenges from tax authorities.

Clawback Provisions and Tax Complications

Clawback provisions in carried interest arrangements create unique tax complications for fund managers. These provisions typically require general partners to return excess carried interest received early in a fund’s life if subsequent losses result in overall returns falling below the agreed-upon threshold for carried interest distribution. This can create significant tax timing mismatches, as managers may pay taxes on carried interest in earlier years only to face clawback obligations in later years. When a clawback occurs, managers must navigate complex rules regarding the tax treatment of the repayment, potentially claiming a deduction or loss that may be subject to limitations. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act further complicated this landscape by limiting miscellaneous itemized deductions, potentially affecting the deductibility of clawback payments. Fund managers increasingly implement tax distribution provisions and escrow arrangements to mitigate these risks, withholding a portion of carried interest distributions until final fund liquidation to cover potential clawback obligations. The accounting treatment of carried interest subject to clawback risk also presents challenges, requiring careful consideration of when income should be recognized for both financial reporting and tax purposes. These complications highlight the importance of sophisticated tax planning and modeling when structuring carried interest arrangements with clawback provisions. For funds using complex structures, understanding private equity administration can be valuable in managing these tax complications.

State and Local Tax Considerations for Carried Interest

Beyond federal taxation, state and local tax implications create an additional layer of complexity for carried interest recipients. Tax treatment varies significantly across different states, with some following federal characterization of carried interest while others implement distinct approaches. High-tax states like New York, California, and Massachusetts have considered or implemented "carried interest fairness" legislation attempting to recapture the tax benefit received at the federal level by imposing additional taxes on carried interest income. Fund managers must carefully analyze their potential exposure to state taxation based on various factors, including the location of the management company, the residence of the fund managers, and the states where the fund conducts investment activities. Sourcing rules for investment income differ across states, creating potential for multiple taxation of the same carried interest income. Additionally, an increasing number of states have implemented economic nexus standards that may create tax filing obligations even without physical presence. Fund managers often implement domicile planning strategies, potentially establishing residence in states without income taxation while carefully managing their activities in high-tax jurisdictions. The substantial variation in state tax approaches necessitates comprehensive multi-state tax planning for carried interest recipients, particularly those managing funds with nationwide investment portfolios. For international considerations, UK tax resources provide valuable insights on how these principles apply in the United Kingdom context.

Retirement Planning and Estate Considerations for Carried Interest

Carried interest presents unique opportunities and challenges for retirement planning and wealth transfer strategies. Fund managers receiving substantial carried interest may utilize various retirement vehicles, including qualified retirement plans, self-directed IRAs, or defined benefit plans to defer taxation on a portion of their income. However, they must navigate complex rules regarding the characterization of carried interest for retirement plan purposes. From an estate planning perspective, carried interest rights offer potential wealth transfer opportunities. Fund managers may transfer future carried interest rights to family members or trusts when the value is relatively low, allowing future appreciation to occur outside their taxable estate. These transfers require careful valuation and structuring to comply with gift tax requirements and avoid potential challenges from tax authorities. The carried interest transfer must be substantive and properly documented to withstand scrutiny. Additionally, fund managers must address potential conflicts between estate planning objectives and fund documentation, which may restrict transferability of carried interest rights. The multi-year nature of carried interest income streams also necessitates comprehensive estate planning addressing potential scenarios where carried interest continues to flow to a manager’s estate after death. These considerations highlight the importance of integrating carried interest planning within a comprehensive wealth management strategy addressing both retirement security and intergenerational wealth transfer objectives.

Documentation Requirements for Carried Interest Arrangements

Proper documentation forms the foundation for defensible tax positions regarding carried interest. The core documentation typically includes the limited partnership agreement or operating agreement establishing the economic and legal terms of the carried interest arrangement. This agreement should clearly delineate the carried interest allocation methodology, including hurdle rates, catch-up provisions, and clawback mechanisms. Additional documentation may include investment management agreements, subscription agreements with investors, and side letters addressing specific investor concerns. From a tax perspective, the documentation should establish the genuine economic risk undertaken by the general partner receiving carried interest, potentially including evidence of the general partner’s capital contribution and potential exposure to fund losses. The timing of the carried interest grant should be clearly documented, particularly for newly formed funds where the initial value of the carried interest may be minimal. Additionally, valuation documentation may be required to support the tax treatment of carried interest transfers or for financial reporting purposes. Tax authorities increasingly scrutinize carried interest arrangements for economic substance, making comprehensive contemporaneous documentation essential for defending the intended tax treatment. Fund managers should review and update documentation regularly to ensure alignment with evolving tax laws and administrative practices. For those dealing with international investments, understanding transfer pricing can be crucial for proper documentation of related-party transactions involving carried interest.

Professional Advisors: The Key to Navigating Carried Interest Taxation

The complexity of carried interest taxation necessitates engagement with specialized professional advisors who understand the intricate interplay between tax law, financial structuring, and business objectives. Tax attorneys with expertise in partnership taxation and investment management structures provide crucial guidance on the legal framework governing carried interest taxation and help design compliant yet efficient arrangements. Certified Public Accountants specializing in investment partnerships implement appropriate accounting methodologies and prepare related tax filings, ensuring technical compliance with increasingly complex reporting requirements. Valuation professionals offer essential input for establishing the initial value of carried interest grants, supporting carried interest transfers, and addressing potential audit challenges. Investment fund formation attorneys integrate tax considerations within the broader legal structure of investment funds, ensuring alignment between tax objectives and regulatory compliance. The most effective advisory teams collaborate across disciplines, recognizing that carried interest optimization requires coordinated expertise in multiple domains. Fund managers should engage advisors with specific experience in their investment sector, as the nuances of carried interest taxation vary considerably across private equity, venture capital, real estate, and hedge fund contexts. Early involvement of appropriate advisors during fund formation and structuring can prevent costly tax inefficiencies that may be difficult to rectify once a fund is operational. For comprehensive support, exploring business service provider options can help identify the right professional advisors for your specific carried interest taxation needs.

Future Outlook: Potential Changes in Carried Interest Taxation

The taxation of carried interest continues to be a subject of potential legislative reform, with proposals regularly emerging to modify its preferential treatment. Recent legislative proposals have included provisions to tax all carried interest as ordinary income regardless of holding period, potentially eliminating the longstanding tax advantage entirely. Other proposals suggest a middle-ground approach, such as maintaining capital gains treatment but imposing an additional surtax on carried interest income. The political dynamics surrounding carried interest taxation remain complex, with strong advocacy from the investment management industry contending with public perception concerns about tax fairness. Economic pressures, including government revenue needs following pandemic-related expenditures, may increase the likelihood of carried interest tax changes as lawmakers seek additional revenue sources. Fund managers and investors increasingly incorporate tax change risk assessments in their long-term planning, potentially including contractual provisions addressing how tax increases would be shared between managers and investors. Industry adaptation to potential changes may include greater emphasis on other compensation mechanisms less vulnerable to tax increases, such as management fees with performance-based components. The international dimensions add further complexity, as changes in one jurisdiction may prompt capital migration to more favorable tax regimes, potentially triggering competitive responses among countries seeking to attract investment activity. Fund managers must remain attentive to evolving proposals and prepared to adapt their structures as the regulatory landscape evolves.

Key Differences: Carried Interest vs. Management Fees Taxation

Understanding the distinct tax treatment of carried interest versus management fees is critical for fund managers structuring their compensation arrangements. Management fees, typically calculated as 1-2% of assets under management, are consistently taxed as ordinary income subject to the highest marginal tax rates and potentially self-employment taxes in the United States. This contrasts with carried interest, which may qualify for preferential long-term capital gains rates if the underlying investments meet applicable holding period requirements. This fundamental difference creates a tax rate differential that can substantially impact after-tax returns for fund managers. Additionally, management fees generate predictable taxable income regardless of fund performance, while carried interest taxation is contingent upon generating profits above the hurdle rate. Some fund managers implement management fee offset arrangements, reducing management fees in exchange for increased carried interest to optimize tax efficiency. However, these arrangements face increasing scrutiny from tax authorities and must demonstrate genuine economic substance. The documentation and substantiation requirements also differ, with management fees typically requiring more straightforward reporting as service income while carried interest necessitates more complex tracking of investment holding periods and character. Fund managers must carefully balance the tax advantages of carried interest against the predictable cash flow of management fees when designing their overall compensation structure. For comprehensive tax planning, exploring UK company taxation resources can provide valuable context for understanding these differences in a British context.

Carried Interest Reform: Proposals and Their Potential Impact

Numerous reform proposals targeting carried interest taxation have emerged from policymakers, economists, and tax experts, each with distinct approaches and potential industry impacts. One prominent proposal advocates for a deemed compensation approach, which would characterize a specified portion of carried interest (often 50-75%) as ordinary income regardless of the underlying investment’s holding period, while permitting the remainder to maintain potential capital gains treatment. Another approach suggests maintaining capital gains treatment but extending the required holding period further, potentially to five or seven years, to ensure carried interest genuinely represents long-term investment activity. Some proposals focus on imposing a special carried interest surtax, creating a hybrid rate between ordinary income and traditional capital gains rates. The implementation of any reform would likely trigger significant adjustments throughout the investment management industry, potentially including restructured compensation arrangements, modified investment time horizons, and reconsideration of certain investment strategies. The economic impact assessments of these proposals vary significantly, with industry advocates warning about potential reductions in investment activity and capital formation, while reform proponents emphasize revenue benefits and tax fairness considerations. Transitional provisions in any legislation would be critical, determining whether existing carried interest arrangements would be grandfathered or immediately subject to new rules. Fund managers and investors must monitor these evolving proposals to anticipate potential changes and develop adaptive strategies addressing various reform scenarios.

Navigating Audits and Controversies Related to Carried Interest

Given the high-value and potentially contentious nature of carried interest taxation, fund managers must be prepared for potential audits and tax controversies in this area. Tax authorities increasingly focus on carried interest arrangements, examining whether the economic substance aligns with the claimed tax treatment. Common audit triggers include disproportionate allocations between carried interest and capital contributions, accelerated distributions of carried interest, or arrangements that appear designed primarily to convert ordinary income into capital gains. During an audit, tax authorities typically request comprehensive documentation supporting the partnership structure, carried interest arrangements, and investment holding periods. Fund managers should maintain contemporaneous records demonstrating the economic reality of risk-bearing carried interest, including evidence of the general partner’s capital contributions and potential exposure to losses. If controversies arise, engagement with experienced tax controversy counsel familiar with carried interest issues is essential. The resolution process may involve administrative appeals, potential settlement negotiations, or litigation if necessary. The outcomes of carried interest controversies can establish important precedents affecting the broader investment management industry, making thorough preparation and defense of audit positions particularly important. Proactive risk assessment and documentation practices substantially improve the likelihood of favorable outcomes when carried interest arrangements face regulatory scrutiny. For international considerations, understanding HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) approaches to carried interest can be valuable for funds operating in the UK.

Expert Guidance: Navigating the Complexities of Carried Interest Taxation

The intricate and evolving nature of carried interest taxation demands specialized expertise to navigate effectively. Fund managers should engage tax advisors with deep experience in partnership taxation and investment fund structures to develop compliant yet efficient carried interest arrangements. These advisors can help implement appropriate record-keeping systems tracking investment holding periods, allocate carried interest correctly among partners, and prepare accurate tax filings reflecting the diverse tax treatment of different income streams. Regular review of carried interest arrangements by knowledgeable professionals helps identify potential optimization opportunities as tax laws evolve and investment strategies adapt. Beyond compliance considerations, sophisticated tax planning regarding carried interest can substantially impact after-tax returns over a fund’s lifecycle, making high-quality advice a valuable investment. The most effective advisory relationships involve ongoing collaboration rather than episodic engagement, enabling proactive planning as tax laws and fund circumstances change. Given the substantial tax differentials at stake, fund managers should consider obtaining multiple perspectives on complex carried interest questions, potentially including formal tax opinions for significant or innovative structures. The investment in appropriate expertise typically generates substantial returns through optimized tax outcomes and reduced compliance risks in this high-stakes area of tax planning.

Expert Tax Guidance for Your Investment Structure

Navigating the complexities of carried interest taxation requires specialized knowledge and strategic planning. At LTD24, our international tax consultants provide comprehensive guidance on optimizing the tax treatment of carried interest arrangements while ensuring full compliance with relevant regulations across multiple jurisdictions.

We understand that each investment fund has unique characteristics that demand tailored tax approaches. Our team combines deep technical expertise in partnership taxation with practical experience in investment fund structures to deliver solutions that maximize after-tax returns while minimizing compliance risks.

If you’re establishing a new fund, restructuring existing arrangements, or seeking to optimize your current carried interest tax position, we invite you to book a personalized consultation with our team. Our international tax consulting services can help you navigate this complex area with confidence.

We are a boutique international tax consulting firm with advanced expertise in corporate law, tax risk management, asset protection, and international audits. We offer tailored solutions for entrepreneurs, professionals, and corporate groups operating globally.

Schedule a session with one of our experts now for $199 USD/hour and get concrete answers to your tax and corporate inquiries: https://ltd24.co.uk/consulting.