Agefi Luxembourg - décembre 2025

AGEFI Luxembourg 16 Décembre 2025 Consultance J ohan VAN DEN B ERG , CEO of Ancorius, discusses the stra- tegic transformation of Fidu- ciaire Jean-Marc Faber into a modern, international brand with ambitious goals. What does this rebrand reallymean for Ancorius and its clients? The name change fromFiduciaire Jean- Marc Faber to Ancorius captures both our Luxembourg heritage and our rein- vented direction. It’s not just cosmetic. This new identity clarifies who we are becoming: a forward-looking, indepen- dent firm with deep roots and a global mindset. We kept what matters most—trust, re- activity, and technical excellence—but added a sharper, clearer vision. Clients continue to receive the same services, but with enhanced clarity, digital tools, and a more user-friendly experience. The rebrand also reflects the momen- tum we’ve gained since joining AnaCap’s portfolio. We’re entering a new phase of expan- sion, and the name Ancorius embodies our ambition to establish ourselves as a leading consolidator in Luxembourg’s highly fragmented fiduciary market. After three decades of presence in Lux- embourg, our network here runs deep, and the financial ecosystem presents countless opportunities. From regula- tory expertise tomultilingual talent, our fundamentals are strong. We’ve built a team of over seventy professionals cov- ering everything from tax and account- ing to fund and family office services. That operational scale gives us the free- dom to think long-term and act fast when opportunities arise. Ancorius ex- presses both who we are and who we aim to become. Why did you decide to set up in Lux- embourg for your growth? Luxembourg has long provided fertile groundforambitiousplayersinthefinan- cial services sector.With over thirty years of history here, we already benefit from robust local connections, access to deci- sion-makers, and deep industry knowl- edge. The country’s multilingual talent pool and open business culture are unique advantages. Professionals on our team speak Luxembourgish, French, En- glish, Italian, Spanish, Dutch and several other languages—enabling us to connect easilywith international clients. The regulatory landscape is another rea- son. Luxembourg’s authorities under- stand our industry and offer pragmatic, stable frameworks. This creates the right conditions to grow with confidence. Moreover, themarket here is highly frag- mented, especially in fiduciary and cor- porateservices.Thatmeansconsolidation potential. Our plan to combine smaller, specialisedfirmsundertheAncoriusum- brella will give us an edge—the critical masswithout losing the human touch. Clients in Luxembourg also tend to be loyal and relationship-driven, which matches our long-term mindset. AnaCap’s support enables us to capi- talise on these opportunities. They pro- vide the financial muscle and strategic input needed to invest in technology, talent, andacquisitions. Our vision is not just to grow in Luxembourg, but to grow from Luxembourg—using it as our launchpad for broader European ex- pansion.Ancorius is both a continuation and a leap forward, rooted here but de- signed for scale. What is your long-term vision for Ancorius? The next five years will focus on three core goals. First, consolidate our position inLuxembourg and expand in- ternationally, always keeping client re- lationships at the centre. Second, drive digital transformation not as an af- terthought but as a strategic engine. We aim to develop tools and platforms that not onlymeet but also anticipate the needs of our clients. Third, grow intelli- gently—through organic development and strategic acquisitions that alignwith our values and service philosophy. We aim to be a partner, not just a provider. Our clients include funds, corporates, entrepreneurs, and family offices—each with specific needs, yet all seeking trusted and consistent support. Our job is to be indispensable without being intrusive, todeliver valuewithdis- cretionandprecision.Ancorius allowsus tocommunicate that balancewithclarity. As the brand grows, our goal is to re- main anchored in qualitywhile opening newdoors for innovation and scale. Source : 360Crossmedia Interview with Johan VAN DEN B ERG , CEO of Ancorius: “We aim to become the financial services provider of tomorrow” de g. à dr. : Jean-Marc Faber, Managing Partner and Johan van den Berg, CEOofAncorius ©Ancorius I n recent years, tax authorities have increased the scrutiny on intra- group transactionswithin the ban- king industry. Recently, theCourt of Justice of the EuropeanUnion (CJEU) ruled in theArcomet case (1) (Arcomet case) that intragrouppayments, which also include transfer pricing (TP) adjustments, maybe regarded as a supply of services for consideration subject to value added tax (VAT). Thisdevelopment reinforces the necessity for banks to as- sesstheirintragrouparrange- ments under both TP and VAT frameworks, which en- compassnotonlytheOrganisationforEconomicCo- operation and Development (OECD) Transfer PricingGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprisesand TaxAdministration (2) (OECDTPGuidelines) andar- ticles 132 and 135 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of valueaddedtax,assubsequentlyamended(VATDi- rective), but also local regulatory frameworks such as the Luxembourg CSSF Circular 12/552 on central administration, internal governance and risk man- agement (CSSF Circular). What canbe defined as intragroup services? Chapter VII of the OECD TP Guidelines provides guidance on what may be considered intragroup services, being servicesprovidedbyonegroupentity to another, which are not reimbursed via cost contri- bution agreements but must be charged at arm’s length if theyprovide real economic benefit to the re- cipient. Intragroup services are frequently relied on inthebankingsectorandcoveractivitiessuchastreas- ury support, cashpooling, riskmanagement, internal audit, information technology services, human re- sources functions and centralizedprocurement. AccordingtoChapterVIIoftheOECDTPGuidelines, intragroupservicesmustprovidethebeneficiarywith real economic or commercial value to enhance or maintain its business position. This can be tested by consideringifanindependentpartywouldbewilling to pay for the same services. This benefits test is re- quired todeterminewhether a service qualifies as an intragrouptransaction.Forbanks,thisisespeciallyrel- evant asmany support functions are centralized and shared across jurisdictions. Accurately identifying intragroup services under the OECD TP Guidelines is critical - not only to ensure that transactions comply with the arm’s length prin- ciplefromanincometaxperspective,butalsotoassess their VAT treatment and satisfy regulatory expecta- tions reinforcedby theCSSFCircular. Interplay betweenVATDirective, OECDTransfer PricingGuidelines andCSSFCircular Intragrouptransactionswithinbanksareincreasingly scrutinizednotonlyfromataxperspectivebutalsoby regulators assessing internal governance and risk management. Banks thereforemust ensure that they complywith the provisions of: -TheVATDirectivethatdetermineswhenintragroup services qualify as a supply of services for considera- tionwithinthescopeofVAT.Whilemostbankingac- tivities are exempt from VAT, ancillary or support services (such as IT risk management or compliance support) provided to banks often are not. This mis- alignment can result in unrecoverable VAT costs or adjustments. - TheOECDTPGuidelines that provide guidance to establishwhether an intragroup transaction has eco- nomicvalueandisremuneratedatarm’slength.Aro- bust TP analysis – covering both functional and economic assessments - underpins compliance with directtaxrulesandsupportsaccurateVATtreatment. Any inconsistencies betweenTPdocumentation and VATpositionsmay trigger inquiries by tax and regu- latory authorities. -TheCSSFCircularthatrequiresLuxembourgbanks tomaintainproper governance, economic substance, anddocumentationforanyoutsourcingorintragroup arrangements. It ensures that transactions are eco- nomically justified, controlled, and appropriately priced, reinforcing bothTP andVAT compliance. Together, these frameworks create a cohesive and in- tegrated compliance ecosystem. HowTP can support theVAT analysis Under the VATDirective, a range of banking and in- surance transactions are exempt fromVAT. These ex- emptions cover core activities such as insurance and reinsurance services and credit-related operations suchas granting andnegotiating loans. They also ex- tendtobankingtransactions,fromdeposits andcurrentaccountstopayments,trans- fers, and negotiable instruments, though debt collection remains out- side the scope. Finally, dealings in legaltender-suchascurrency,ban- knotes, and coins - are exempt. Why is TP essential forVATanalysis? A key challenge in the VAT treatmentofintragroupservic- eswithinbankinggroupsisthat the VAT Directive does not provide a sufficiently detailed definition of what constitutes a “transaction”,“relatedservices”, or “financial intermediation”. Thisambiguitycanleadtodiver- gent interpretations by tax author- ities regarding whether an intragroup service is subject to or exempt fromVAT. TP analysis and guidance are critical to address this gap.TheOECDTPGuidelinesofferacomprehensive international framework for identifying, characteriz- ing, and delineating intragroup transactions. Rather than focusing solely on form, theGuidelines empha- size substance, risk and assets – examining the com- mercial rationale behind a transaction, the functions performed, the assets employed, and the risks as- sumed. They also require determining whether a service is actually provided, assessing who benefits from it and considering whether an independent partywouldbewilling topay for such services. TPplays a crucial role inresolving theambiguity that oftenarisesunderVATrules.WhiletheVATDirective definestheexemptions,itisTPdelineationthatdeter- minesthetruenatureoftheunderlyingactivity,iden- tifies the beneficiary, and confirms whether an intragroupserviceexists.Accuratedelineationensures alignmentbetweenTPandVAToutcomes,providing adefensiblepositionintheeventofscrutinybytaxau- thorities. By applying the OECD TP Guidelines, bankscanreducetheriskofmisclassification,prevent VAT leakages, and maintain consistent treatment across jurisdictions. Challenges andmitigation strategies froma TPperspective Delineation is only part of the challenge - banks also face a range of additional risks linked to intragroup services and their VAT implications. From a TP per- spective, several key issues standout. First, scrutiny from tax authorities is intensifying worldwide,withparticularfocusonintragroupserv- ices,year-endTPadjustmentsandwhethersuchpay- ments represent taxable supplies for VAT purposes ratherthansimplecostallocations,asillustratedbythe Arcomet case. To mitigate this risk, banks should prioritize trans- parencythroughwell-draftedserviceagreementsand maintain clear evidence of the direct link between services provided and the considerationpaid. Another challenge lies in reconciling economic sub- stancewith the legal form. Shared services centers or treasury hubswithin banking groups often carry out activities that resemble internal overheads or share- holder functions.When such services are charged in- tragroup, tax authorities may challenge whether an independent enterprise would have paid for them (the TP benefits test) and whether a genuine supply exists for VAT purposes.Aligning the economic sub- stanceof theseactivitieswithbothVATandTPdocu- mentation is essential to demonstrate that charges reflectreal,value-creatingservicesandwithstandreg- ulatory scrutiny. Documentationremainsacriticalareaofrisk.TPcom- pliancerequiresfunctionalanalysis,appropriatecom- parability methods and robust documentation, as emphasized in Chapter V of the OECD TP Guide- lines. VAT rules demand that service recipients demonstrate a direct link between the services ob- tainedandtaxabletransactions.Acoordinatedgover- nance framework, where TP and VAT teams align data, documentation and narrative helps maintain consistencyandstrengthensdefensibility.Leveraging AI tools for compliancemonitoringandanomalyde- tection can further enhance this process. Finally, banks often centralize treasury, riskmanage- ment, compliance, IT and other functions, creating overlap between cost-sharing arrangements and in- tragroupservicecharges.Determiningwhetherthose functionsjustifyintragroupservicecharges-andhow they should be treated for VAT purposes - requires careful analysis. OECDGuidelines (Chapter VIII) on costcontributionarrangementsmayapply,andsome servicesmaybepartiallylinkedtoVAT-exemptbank- ing activities, creating claw-backor non-deductibility risks.Conductingadetailedservice-by-serviceassess- ment enables banks to distinguish taxable from ex- empt supplies and apply the correct VAT treatment. Looking ahead Intragroupservicearrangementslieattheintersection of TP and VAT - two distinct regimes with different objectivesbutwithoverlappingriskareas.ForTP,the challenge consists inmeeting the arm’s lengthprinci- ple, applying the benefits test and ensuring accurate costallocation.VATcomplianceinturndemandscor- rectclassificationofservices,properinvoicing,andac- curate deductionhandling. NicolasGILLET, EYLuxembourgPartner,TransferPricingLeader AlexandraCOBO, EYLuxembourgManager,InternationalTaxandTransactionServices 1)C-726/23 2)LatestversionreleasedinJanuary2022. Transfer pricing, focus on banks How to mitigate potential VAT risks in intragroup transactions