Update: substance and management-and-control

The pressure on Hong Kong holding companies to demonstrate genuine substance and credible management-and-control has intensified. Regulators, treaty partners and counterparty due-diligence teams no longer accept a registered address and a nominee director. The question is not whether your holdco is incorporated in Hong Kong. The question is whether it is genuinely managed there – and whether the documentation proves it.

A Hong Kong holdco that lacks real management-and-control in Hong Kong risks losing treaty access under applicable double-taxation agreements, failing the economic-substance conditions required by the foreign-sourced income exemption regime in force since 1 January 2023, and triggering a taxable-presence analysis in the jurisdiction where the group's actual decision-making sits.

This briefing sets out what changed, who is affected across the cross-border corridor, and what principals should address now.

What has changed – and why it matters now

Two developments have sharpened the stakes. First, Hong Kong's foreign-sourced income exemption (FSIE) regime – the rules that permit certain foreign-sourced dividends, interest, disposal gains and royalties to pass through a Hong Kong entity without profits tax – applies only where the receiving entity satisfies defined economic-substance conditions in Hong Kong. The regime has been in force since 1 January 2023. Inland Revenue Department reviews of holdco substance are no longer theoretical.

Second, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Pillar Two global minimum tax applies to multinational enterprise groups with consolidated revenue of EUR 750 million or above for fiscal years beginning on or after 1 January 2025. A Hong Kong holdco within scope that cannot demonstrate local substance may find its low-taxed income subject to a top-up tax collected by the ultimate parent jurisdiction. That calculation turns, in part, on where management-and-control genuinely sits.

Beyond these two regimes, treaty-residency claims under Hong Kong's network of double-taxation agreements require that the entity is a Hong Kong resident – a question answered, at its core, by management-and-control. A holdco directed from a Mainland Chinese office, a Singapore boardroom or a European family home is not managed in Hong Kong, whatever the certificate of incorporation says.

Who is affected across the cross-border corridor

The immediate audience is any foreign-owned group that uses a Hong Kong company as the holding or intermediate layer above Mainland Chinese operating entities, BVI or Cayman vehicles, or assets held across the Asia-Pacific region. In our cross-border practice, we regularly advise groups where the holding company was incorporated in Hong Kong for legitimate commercial reasons but has since drifted: directors who attend board meetings by video from abroad, decisions taken informally by the ultimate principal without board resolution, and bank mandates held by personnel outside Hong Kong.

The groups most exposed are those that rely on Hong Kong's double-taxation agreements for dividend flows from Mainland operating companies, those that route disposal proceeds through a Hong Kong intermediate vehicle and claim an exemption on the gain, and those within scope of Pillar Two whose Hong Kong entity may otherwise attract a top-up tax in the parent jurisdiction. A BVI or Cayman top-holdco with a Hong Kong sub-holding layer faces the same substance analysis at the Hong Kong level: treaty access and FSIE relief depend on the Hong Kong entity's own position, not the offshore parent's.

For a practical reference on restructuring legacy structures where substance has lapsed, see our guide at unwinding or simplifying a legacy offshore structure. For the specific considerations where CIS or investment-fund interests are held through a Hong Kong entity, see our analysis at Hong Kong holding companies and CIS investments.

What to address now

The centre of gravity for this exercise is not the corporate chart on paper. It is the substance, treaty access and beneficial-ownership position as it can be demonstrated to a regulator, a treaty partner or a counterparty reviewer. Three areas warrant immediate attention.

Board composition and conduct. Meetings of the board must be held and directed from Hong Kong, with a quorum of directors physically or substantively present in Hong Kong. Resolutions should reflect genuine deliberation, not rubber-stamp approval of decisions already taken elsewhere. Minutes must be prepared contemporaneously and kept in Hong Kong.

Economic-substance documentation. Under the FSIE regime, the relevant conditions include the number of qualified employees, the level of operating expenditure and the physical presence of the decision-making function in Hong Kong. Each element must be documented annually in a form that withstands a review by the Inland Revenue Department. The governing instrument here is the Inland Revenue Ordinance, as amended to introduce the FSIE conditions.

Beneficial-ownership records. A Hong Kong incorporated company is required to maintain a Significant Controllers Register (SCR) – a record of persons with significant control over the entity – a requirement in force since 1 March 2018 under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622). Treaty-residency and beneficial-ownership analysis by foreign tax authorities increasingly references this register. It must be accurate and current.

The sequence above describes the standard position. Your matter turns on the entities actually in the structure, the jurisdictions of the principals, and the transactions the holdco carries out – which is where the substance analysis is won or lost.

For a structured assessment of your holdco's substance and management-and-control position across the relevant jurisdictions, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com. Further information on our holding-structures practice is available at lockhartyip.com/practices/holding-structures.

Frequently asked questions

What is the first step in substance and management-and-control for a Hong Kong holdco?

The first step is an audit of where decisions are actually made, not where the company is incorporated. Counsel on our desk begin by mapping board composition, the location of directors at the time of each meeting, the source of management instructions, and the presence of qualified staff and expenditure in Hong Kong. That factual picture determines whether the entity meets the economic-substance conditions under the FSIE regime and the management-and-control test for treaty residency. The audit precedes any restructuring decision.

What documents are needed for substance and management-and-control for a Hong Kong holdco?

The core file includes board minutes for each accounting period showing decisions made in Hong Kong, attendance records confirming where directors were physically located, employment contracts or service agreements for qualified staff based in Hong Kong, evidence of operating expenditure incurred in Hong Kong, and an accurate and current Significant Controllers Register. For FSIE claims, the documentation must address each statutory substance condition in relation to the specific type of income being exempted. Treaty-residency claims require additional evidence that the entity's place of effective management is Hong Kong.

Which jurisdiction's law applies to substance and management-and-control for a Hong Kong holdco?

The analysis runs across at least two legal systems. Hong Kong law – primarily the Inland Revenue Ordinance and the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) – governs the domestic substance, FSIE and SCR requirements. The law of the counterpart jurisdiction governs whether Hong Kong treaty benefits are recognised and whether a permanent-establishment or taxable-presence exposure arises in that jurisdiction. For Mainland China counterparts, Mainland tax and corporate rules apply in parallel. Each layer requires separate analysis; the Hong Kong position alone is not sufficient.

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.

Update: substance and management-and-control for a Hong Kong holdco

What has changed – and why it matters now

Who is affected across the cross-border corridor

What to address now

Frequently asked questions

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

Related