Report on a panel session at the IBA’s 31st Annual International Private Client Conference, held on 3 March 2026

Session Co-chairs

Gretel Ciniglio de Perez, Fabrega Molino, Panama City

Eric Dorsch, Kozusko Harris Duncan, New York

Panellists

Ramona Cassar, WH Partners, Malta

David Chee, WongPartnership, Singapore

Natasha Kapp, Carey Olsen, Guernsey

Anna Turska-Tomczykowska, Tomczykowski Tomczykowska, Warsaw

Reporter

Stella Kim, Al Tamimi & Company, Dubai

The private wealth landscape is increasingly shaped by multi-jurisdictional planning, as families seek to combine the advantages offered by different legal systems. The ‘$100,000 jurisdictional challenge’ session brought together practitioners from Guernsey, Malta, Singapore and Poland, with additional commentary on Panama, to compare the structuring tools, tax environments and practical realities in each jurisdiction. Chaired by Gretel Ciniglio de Perez and Eric Dorsch, the session was presented using an innovative game-show format that interspersed discussions with rounds of historical and cultural trivia, offering an engaging and informative overview of the choices confronting advisers and their clients. The session’s central premise, that no single jurisdiction can meet all of a globally mobile family’s needs, sparked a wide-ranging discussion on complementary planning strategies.

Trust and foundation frameworks

The jurisdictions discussed reflect markedly different approaches to wealth structuring vehicles. Singapore, having inherited its legal system from the British, has deliberately refrained from adopting newer structures, such as foundations or non-charitable purpose trusts. The trust law reform adopted in 2003 was intentionally conservative, designed to preserve Singapore’s position as a traditional and reliable jurisdiction when it comes to trusts. For example, in the absence of foundations in Singapore, companies limited by guarantee can serve as functional equivalents.

Malta has taken a more expansive path. Having recognised foreign trusts since 1988, it enacted its own trust legislation in 2008 and, subsequently, introduced foundations as a civil law alternative. As Ramona Cassar noted, Maltese foundations can incorporate segregated cells from inception, enabling the creation of separate patrimonies within a single legal entity, a feature that is of particular value for clients with complex family structures, such as children from different marriages.

Guernsey offers what appears to be the most comprehensive toolkit, encompassing trusts, foundations, protected cell companies (available since 1997) and private investment funds, as well as non-charitable purpose trusts. As Natasha Kapp observed, the role of the Guernsey practitioner often resembles that of 'a conductor of an orchestra', with Guernsey structures frequently sitting at the apex of large multi-jurisdictional arrangements involving, for eg, United States trusts, limited liability companies (LLCs), Cayman funds, Luxembourg vehicles, Scottish partnerships, Monaco companies and United Kingdom holding companies. 

Poland’s entry into this space is more recent. Private foundations were introduced in May 2023, originally conceived as a succession planning tool for first-generation entrepreneurs transitioning businesses that were established after the fall of communism in 1989. Anna Turska-Tomczykowska explained that the uptake has been significant: over 3,000 foundations have been registered, with a further 3,000 awaiting registration in the last three years alone.

Comparative tax environments

Tax considerations remain central to jurisdictional selection, although it was emphasised that 'tax is important […] but tax is not everything' – with global mobility, diversification and access to expertise being equally significant drivers.

Guernsey’s tax regime is among the most favourable: a zero per cent corporate tax rate (with a ten per cent rate for financial services), a 20 per cent individual income tax rate subject to a cap of £320,000 and no inheritance, gift or wealth taxes. Malta’s system, while more complex, offers substantial advantages through its refund mechanism, which can reduce the headline 35 per cent corporate tax rate to an effective rate of five per cent. Malta imposes no withholding taxes on dividends, provides a participation exemption without automatic time limits and offers a 15 per cent flat tax rate for relocated individuals. A collective investment scheme exemption applies where at least 85 per cent of the relevant assets are held outside Malta.

Singapore operates a territorial tax system, with individual income tax rates of up to 24 per cent and a flat 17 per cent corporate tax rate. Its key advantage in regard to wealth structuring lies in the treatment of foreign trusts, those with entirely non-resident settlors and beneficiaries, which are fully exempt from tax on financial assets. The single-family office regime also provides a tax exemption for qualifying fund income. Singapore imposes no inheritance, gift or wealth taxes and proposals to reintroduce estate duty have been rejected. However, the additional buyer’s stamp duty of 60 per cent for foreign buyers (65 per cent for entities) and property tax rates of up to 32 per cent represent significant barriers to real estate investment.

Poland’s regime features a lump-sum tax on foreign income of approximately €50,000 annually, available to a taxpayer’s spouse and adult children. Income from permitted business activities conducted through a private foundation is tax exempt at the foundation level, with a 15 per cent tax levied on distributions to beneficiaries. Additional incentives include a five per cent corporate income tax rate on intellectual property income, the ability to count research and development expenses at double their value against the tax base and a nine per cent corporate tax rate for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (including startups) with turnover below €2m.

Practical planning considerations

The panel discussion highlighted that effective private wealth planning increasingly demands the use of a multi-jurisdictional approach. As the panel noted, advisers across different jurisdictions 'need each other to provide structure for our families'. Several practical themes emerged from the discussion, as follows:

• Malta is actively positioning itself as Europe’s family office hub. Professional investment funds can be established within ten days, and the ‘highly qualified persons’ rules offer a 15 per cent tax rate for family office professionals. Malta’s established expertise in aircraft and super yacht registration adds further breadth to its service offering.
• Singapore’s single-family office regime originated as a fund incentive rather than a dedicated wealth planning tool, but families have increasingly co-opted it as an immigration pathway. However, the regulatory environment has tightened significantly following a recent major money laundering case: processing times have been extended from four months to eight and 12 months and intensified due diligence has contributed to 'an outflow of families to more welcoming jurisdictions'.
• cross-border structuring involving Poland can present challenges. Controlled foreign corporation rules and a 19 per cent exit tax on non-cash wealth (introduced in 2015) complicate outbound planning, prompting some families to employ multiple foundations across jurisdictions, for eg, combining Polish, Liechtenstein and US structures. However, the difficulty of cross-border classification was illustrated by the uncertainty of the Dutch tax authorities in determining how to treat Polish foundations for withholding tax purposes.
• the session also touched on emerging asset classes. Trustees across jurisdictions remain cautious about holding cryptocurrency directly, with standalone entities generally preferred as the vehicle for digital asset holdings. This caution reflects both regulatory uncertainty and the operational complexities of custody regarding digital assets within traditional fiduciary structures.

Conclusion

The panel session underscored both the richness of the current jurisdictional landscape and its inherent complexity. While each jurisdiction offers distinctive advantages – Singapore’s conservative stability, Malta’s structural flexibility, Guernsey’s comprehensive toolkit and Poland’s emerging foundation regime – effective planning demands the adoption of a collaborative, multi-jurisdictional approach.

The recurring theme was one of complementarity rather than competition: advisers must work across borders, combining jurisdictional strengths to serve increasingly mobile and sophisticated client families. As the panel summarised, the question is not which jurisdiction is best, but rather which combination of jurisdictions best serves the family’s particular needs.