Entity Setup
Optimizing Entity Setup under Pillar Two and CFC Harmonisation in the EU
With new harmonisation of Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules and implementation of Pillar Two (global minimum tax), companies setting up entities in multiple EU jurisdictions must adapt their structure for compliance and tax efficiency.
By NomadicTax Research Team • 5-8 min read • August 21, 2026
## Key EU Pillar Two / CFC Updates from the Tax Simplification Package
The Direct Taxation Omnibus proposal includes specific changes to harmonise CFC regimes across Member States, particularly how they interact with the **Global Minimum Tax** rules (Pillar Two). ([taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu](https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/news/european-commission-proposes-landmark-tax-simplification-package-streamline-compliance-and-boost-2026-06-24_en?prefLang=fi&utm_source=openai))
- Overlapping requirements between CFC rules and Pillar Two will be removed.
- A harmonised model for CFC regimes will be introduced to ensure consistent application.
This affects multinational entities with subsidiaries in multiple EU Member States or in low-tax jurisdictions.
---
## Implications for Structuring New Entities or Subsidiaries
### Assessing Location for New Subsidiaries
- Prioritize Member States whose CFC rules and Pillar Two top-up mechanisms are already aligned with EU minimum standards, or where transition and implementation are further ahead.
- If establishing an entity in a low-tax non-EU jurisdiction, be wary of that entity being caught by EU Parent Entity’s Pillar Two/top-up or UTPR (Undertaxed Payment Rule) obligations.
### Capital Structure & Financing
- Interest limitation rule updates: better thresholds and exclusions may allow third-party borrowing or market based financing without hitting interest cap rules. Entities should re-structure financing to take advantage. ([taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu](https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/news/european-commission-proposes-landmark-tax-simplification-package-streamline-compliance-and-boost-2026-06-24_en?prefLang=fi&utm_source=openai))
- Leverage vs equity decisions will need to be revisited, especially if interest deductions in some jurisdictions become constrained.
### CFC Regime & Minimum Tax Interplay
- Ensure subsidiary profits aren’t exposed to an unexpectedly lower effective tax rate that triggers top-up tax to be paid by either the subsidiary location, parent jurisdiction, or via UTPR in destination jurisdictions.
- Consider tax treaty positions and where the group’s Ultimate Parent Entity (UPE) is situated, as cross-jurisdiction filings and reporting become more coherent.
---
## Case Examples
- A tech group headquartered in Netherlands with R&D in Ireland and royalty flows to Luxembourg: without withholding on royalties and interest those flows may become tax-free at source. Monitor if Luxembourg updates its CFC rules accordingly.
- A financing entity in Cyprus borrowing from third-party lenders: interest expenditure might be excluded from interest limitation under new rules if market-based or low-risk.
---
## Action Checklist for Entity Setup
1. **Map all intra-group transactions** (dividends, interest, royalties, services) and simulate withholding and Pillar Two outcomes under both old and proposed rules.
2. **Check CFC rules in jurisdictions of subsidiaries and compare to proposed harmonised model**.
3. **Design financing arrangements carefully**, to stay clear of interest limitation or negative implications under ATAD.
4. **Setup entity intercompany agreements** to reflect arms-length for CFC/Pillar Two safe-harbour or alignment.
5. **Stay flexible for change**: since the proposals are not yet enacted, entities may need to adjust once final directives are adopted.
Optimising entity architecture in light of harmonisation and Pillar Two implementation offers not just tax compliance security, but the opportunity to reduce costs and complexity in cross-border operations.