FUND NEWS

Financial Services / Regulatory and Tax / Issue 120

Developments in October 2014 Investment Fund Regulatoryand Tax developments in selected jurisdictions

Regulatory Content

European Union 3 ESMA issues draft Technical Standards on

the clearing obligation for Interest Rate OTC Derivatives

3 ESMA issues Consultation Paper (no. 3) on the clearing obligation for foreign exchange non-deliverable forwards

3 ESMA issues Consultation Paper on Guidelines on the application of definitions of commodity derivatives under MiFID I

4 ESMA updated Q&A on EMIR 5 European Commission adopts first regulatory

‘equivalence’ decision for Central Counterparties (CCPs) under EMIR

Ireland 6 EMIR – European Market Infrastructure Regulation 6 Revised UK Corporate Governance Code for ISE

Listed Companies 6 IFIA & Asset Management Association of China 7 Key Dates Reminder

International 7 FSB publishes regulatory framework for haircuts

on certain non-centrally cleared securities financing transactions”

8 IOSCO issues Consultation Report on Principles regarding the Custody of CIS Assets

8 39th Annual Conference of IOSCO: strength capital markets as driver of economic growth

Contents

Tax News

Austria 9 New Treatment of Interest Income for Austrian

Funds starting on 1 January 2015

Germany 10 ECJ decision of 9 October 2014: German lump

sum taxation of investors in non-German funds can violate the principle of free movement of capital

Ireland 10 Revenue Publishes Final FATCA Guidance Notes 10 Finance Bill 2014 for Funds

2 / Fund News / Issue 120 / Developments in October 2014

Regulatory News

The Final Report, including the final draft RTS, is available at the following web link.

http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/esma-2014-1184_final_report_clearing_obligation_irs.pdf

ESMA issues Consultation Paper (no. 3) on the clearing obligation for foreign exchange non-deliverable forwards

On 1 October 2014 ESMA issued a third Consultation Paper regarding the classes of foreign exchange non-deliverable forwards (FX NDF) OTC derivative contracts subject to the clearing obligation under EMIR (ESMA/2014/1185). ESMA proposes to either amend the RTS for Interest Rate OTC Derivatives (see article above) or submit new RTS regarding the mandatory clearing of 11 classes of FX NDF, which will affect approximately 2.7% of the daily turnover on the FX OTC market in Europe based on trade repository data. ESMA also clarifies its understanding of its counterparty categorization, i.e. counterparties that have been determined to belong to the category above the threshold of EUR 8 billion as for the IRS classes should also belong to that category for the FX NDF classes. Stakeholders are invited to reply until 6 November 2014.

The Consultation Paper (no. 3) on foreign exchange non-deliverable forwards, including the draft RTS, is available at the following web link.

http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/esma-2014-1185.pdf

ESMA issues Consultation Paper on Guidelines on the application of definitions of commodity derivatives under MiFID I

On 29 September 2014 the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) launched a consultation (ESMA/2014/1189) on draft guidelines towards its understanding of commodity derivatives under MiFID I. Different approaches across EU Member States with regards to the definition of a “commodity forward” and the definition of “physically settled” lead to an inconsistent application of the terms of “derivative” and “derivative contract”, respectively, within the EU. Since these differences have practical consequences for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR), ESMA proposes new guidelines to ensure consistency between MiFID I and EMIR.

In its Consultation Paper ESMA states that Annex I in MiFID I Section C6 has a broad application, applying to all commodity derivative contracts (including forwards) that can be physically settled and are traded on a regulated market. On the other hand, Annex I in MiFID I Section C7 forms a category that is distinct from the one in C6 and applies to commodity derivative contracts that can be physically settled and which are not traded on a regulated market or an MTF, providing that the commodity derivative contract fulfils three requirements: it includes the three criteria of Article 38 in the MiFID implementing Regulation 1287/2006/EC, it is not a spot contract as defined in Article 38(2) and it is not for the commercial purpose described in Article 38(4). ESMA further understands that the term “physically

ESMA issues draft Technical Standards on the clearing obligation for Interest Rate OTC Derivatives

On 1 October 2014 the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued its draft Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) on the clearing obligation for Interest Rate OTC Derivatives to the Commission for endorsement under EMIR (ESMA/2014/1184). Changes to the draft RTS as published in the Consultation Paper (no. 1) of July 2014 include the introduction of a EUR 8 billion threshold, which creates a new category of counterparties for mandatory clearing. The EUR 8 billion threshold, introduced under the draft RTS on risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivative contracts not cleared by a CCP under Article 11(15) of EMIR, splits financial counterparties and alternative investment funds that are non-financial counterparties into two sub-groups. While the sub-group above the threshold will only have 12 months to get ready for clearing and be subject to the frontloading requirement, the sub-group below the threshold will enjoy 18 months to implement operational changes and onboard with at least one of the four authorized CCPs by the time IRS become mandatory to central clearing in Europe. Interest rate OTC derivatives identified for mandatory clearing are basis swaps, fixed-to-float interest rate swaps, forward rate agreements and overnight index swaps. With the Commission endorsement of the RTS, the technical standards outlining the first clearing obligation will probably become effective mid-February 2015.

European Union

Fund News / Issue 120 / Developments in October 2014 / 3

settled” incorporates a broad range of delivery methods including physical delivery of the relevant goods themselves, delivery of a document giving rights of an ownership nature to the goods concerned or another method of bringing about the transfer of rights of an ownership.

The guidelines shall allow a common approach by competent authorities in the implementation of EMIR from the date they will become applicable, and until MIFID II and the relevant implementing regulation will start to apply. Stakeholders are invited to comment to ESMA by 5 January 2015.

The Consultation Paper, including the draft guidelines, is available at the following web link.

http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2014-1189.pdf

ESMA updated Q&A on EMIR

On 24 October 2014 the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued an updated Questions & Answers (Q&A) document concerning the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), with a focus on validation requirements for Trade Repository (TR) reporting. ESMA further published a data table to provide additional guidance for market participants in their OTC derivative reporting explaining the fields that must be populated. Stricter requirements on what should be reported will be effective from 1 December 2014.

The Q&A’s clarify the following points:

• Third country entities, which

previously were not subject to the reporting obligation and have since become financial counterparties in the EU (e.g. due to the authorization or registration of the AIFM under which these entities are managed), are required to backload all outstanding OTC derivative contracts that were entered into before they became subject to EMIR.

• A client code may be used (e.g. account number) as legal entity identifier (LEI) where customers are individuals. For customers other than individuals, a LEI issued by an endorsed pre-Local Operating Unit of the Global Legal Entity Identifier System shall be used as code to identify these counterparties. Since no formal Unique Product Identifier (UPI) or Unique Trade Identifier (UTI) framework has been endorsed by ESMA yet, currently no details exist on how these UPI and UTI will look like. Therefore, market participants shall follow EMIR technical standards for UPI reporting and should bilaterally assign a UTI. A UTI is generated and communicated at the earliest possible stage in the trade flow, and should counterparties disagree, then for cleared trades a CCP, execution venue or confirmation platform shall generate a UTI. For non-cleared trades the Q&A define a clear hierarchy of which entity will generate a UTI.

• All fields specified in the Annex of the Commission Delegated Regulation No 148/2013 are mandatory to report. However, ESMA explains that some fields

may be relevant and non-relevant for a specific type of contract. Non-relevant fields for a specific trade may be left blank, whereas relevant fields are mandatory and may never be left blank, and must at least be populated with Not Available (NA). TRs must reject reports which are not submitted in accordance with the validation rules.

• The „seller” of an FX forward or an FX swap where the two counterparties are exchanging currencies is the counterparty that is delivering the currency which is first when sorted alphabetically by ISO 4217 standard.

• Competent authorities have basically full access to all transaction data of derivative trades.

• Trades which are terminated before the reporting deadline shall be reported by two simultaneous reports: one with Action type NEW and one with action type CANCEL.

Block trades should be first reported by the investment firm, and then such firm shall report the allocations to individual clients. Where a fund manager exercises block trades, each individual fund has to report on its own behalf. However, any trades that are not allocated on trade date should be reported with the fund manager as counterparty.

The full text of the Q&A is available at the following web link.

http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2014-1300_qa_xi_on_emir_implementation_october_2014.pdf

Regulatory News

4 / Fund News / Issue 120 / Developments in October 2014

The validation table can be accessed via the following web link.

http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/emir_validation_table.xlsx

European Commission adopts first regulatory ‘equivalence’ decision for Central Counterparties (CCPs) under EMIR

On 30 October 2014, the European Commission took a first ‘equivalence’ decisions for the regulatory regimes of central counterparties (CCPs) in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore under the European Markets Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) Article 25. The European Commission began its assessment for equivalence after third country CCPs applied for recognition with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). Key impacts:

Regulatory News

• CCPs from Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore will now be able to obtain recognition in the EU and may subsequently be used by market participants to clear OTC derivatives in accordance with EMIR.

• Recognized CCPs will also obtain qualifying CCP (QCCP) status under Regulation No 575/2013 (Capital Requirements Regulation) across the European Union.

• Recognition of a third country CCP does not mean that identical EMIR rules are applied in the third country jurisdiction. However, the Commission determined that the outcome of the local OTC derivative regulatory framework is equivalent to the EU.

• The Commission’s decision entails that through the use of deference,

regulatory gaps, duplication, conflicts and inconsistencies, which can lead to regulatory arbitrage and market fragmentation are now further limited (see also fund news (119) article: FSB issued Report on “Jurisdictions’ ability to defer to each other’s OTC derivatives market regulatory regime”).

The implementing acts for Australia, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore, provisional versions only, are currently published on the Commission’s EMIR website and the final texts on the legally binding implementing acts under EMIR Article 25(6) will follow soon. The full press release from the Commission is available under the following web link.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1228_en.htm?locale=en

Fund News / Issue 120 / Developments in October 2014 / 5

Regulatory News

EMIR – European Market Infrastructure Regulation

The European Union (European Markets Infrastructure) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No. 443 of 2014) were issued on 10 October 2014. The Regulations govern how EMIR is going to be supervised and enforced in Ireland. The Central Bank of Ireland has been appointed as the national competent authority and it has advised how it intends to supervise compliance with EMIR. Financial counterparties will be supervised as part of the PRISM framework and non-financial counterparties will have to submit a regulatory return attesting compliance with EMIR. The Regulations provide for an exemption from the requirement to submit the regulatory return for certain non-financial counterparties, subject to meeting certain criteria, and instead these counterparties will be subject to themed inspections of EMIR.

Under the Regulations certain powers have been conferred on the Central Bank of Ireland, which include:

• the power to appoint third party assessors to objectively assess whether the EMIR regulatory return has been compiled properly;

Ireland

• the power to appoint a reviewer to prepare an objective report on matters specified by the Central Bank of Ireland;

• the power to appoint an assessor to investigate and decide on sanctions;

• the power to issue directions in writing to all counterparties; and

• the power to issue contravention notices (only to non-financial counterparties).

See the following link for further details:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/publications/legislation/statutory-instruments/si-443-2014-european-union-european-markets

Revised UK Corporate Governance Code for ISE Listed Companies

The Financial Reporting Council (“FRC”) in the UK has published a revised corporate governance code which will also apply to Irish incorporated listed companies on the Main Securities Market (“MSM”) of the

Irish Stock Exchange (“ISE”) form 1 October 2014. See the following link for further details:

https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Corporate-Governance/UK-Corporate-Governance-Code-2014.pdf

There is no change to the ISE’s ‘Irish Corporate Governance Annex’ which continues to apply to Irish incorporated companies with a primary listing on the MSM.

IFIA & Asset Management Association of China

The Irish Funds Industry Association (“IFIA”) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Asset Management Association of China (“AMAC”) representing positive moves towards closer co operation between the funds industries in China and Ireland. See the link for further information:

http://www.irishfunds.ie/media-centre/latest-news/143-irish-and-chinese-fund-management-industries-sign-memorandum-of-understanding/

6 / Fund News / Issue 120 / Developments in October 2014

Key Dates Reminder

12 December 2014

Closing of the Central Bank’s consultation (CP 86) on new measures to improve the effectiveness of fund management companies oversight of delegates, as discussed in Issue 119 of Fund News (September 2014).

15 December 2014

Effective date of the Credit Ratings Agencies Directive which will restrict Irish AIFM, UCITs investment companies and management companies from relying solely on credit ratings provided by credit rating agencies when assessing investment risks.

31 December 2014

The Amending Regulation prescribing the six new pre-controlled functions for the purpose of fitness and probity comes into effect.

1 January 2015

Fund service providers adopting the IFIA’s voluntary industry corporate governance code to disclose compliance with the code in their annual report or on their website etc.

1 January 2015

Reporting of compliance with the variable remuneration rules to the Central Bank in advance of the remuneration period commencing on 1 January 2015.

Regulatory News

FSB publishes regulatory framework for haircuts on certain non-centrally cleared securities financing transactions”

On 14 October 2014 the Financial Stability Board (FSB) issued its final regulatory framework on haircuts for non-centrally cleared securities financing transactions (SFTs), which is intended to limit the build-up of excessive leverage outside the banking system, and to help reduce pro-cyclicality of that leverage. This regulatory framework is aiming at strengthening oversight and regulation of shadow banking, and in particular consists of two complementary elements: Qualitative standards and numerical haircut floors.

First, the FSB recommends to National Competent Authorities (NCAs) to enforce standards for methodologies to calculate haircuts both on an individual asset basis and on a portfolio basis. The haircuts should be based on the market risks of the assets used as collateral and be calibrated at a high confidence level to limit potential pro-cyclical effects. In addition, haircuts should capture other risk considerations where relevant, e.g. liquidation risk, wrong-way risk, FX risk, etc.

Second, the FSB framework imposes numerical haircut floors on non-centrally cleared SFTs in which financing is provided to non-banks against collateral other than government securities. Exempted from such haircuts shall be:

• Securities financing received by banks and broker dealers subject to adequate capital and liquidity regulation on a consolidated basis;

International

• SFTs performed in any operation with central banks;

• Transactions backed by government securities;

• Cash-collateralized securities lending transactions.

However, the FSB clarifies that “Special repos (or specials)” on collateral other than government securities and “Collateral upgrade” transactions defined as borrowing securities against other securities that attract higher haircuts as collateral are not exempted from the scope of numerical haircut floors.

The level of the minimum floors range from 0.5% to 10%, depending on the residual maturity and type of collateral provided. These floors are higher than earlier consulted on by the FSB.

For bank-to-non-bank transactions, the FSB suggests the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) to incorporate this framework into Basel III by the end of 2015. In addition, the FSB believes it essential to expand the scope of application of the numerical haircut floors to include non-bank-to-non-bank transactions by 2017 and is issuing a consultative proposal in Annex IV. In any case, market participants should establish appropriate internal processes and procedures to ensure haircuts are set in accordance with the proposed framework.

The FSB report including Annex IV with the non-bank-to-non-bank transactions consultative proposal is available at the following web link.

http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_141013a.pdf

Fund News / Issue 120 / Developments in October 2014 / 7

the custodian, including due diligence procedures and documentation.

The Consultation Report including the principles is available via the following web link.

http://www.iosco.org/news/pdf/IOSCONEWS353.pdf

39th Annual Conference of IOSCO: strength capital markets as driver of economic growth

From 28 September to 2 October 2014, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) kicked off its 39th Annual Conference taking place in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil).

Some of the main topics under discussion were the enforcement of rules, corporate governance, long-term financing for economic growth, as well as investor protection and education as drivers of investor confidence.

During the 1st session in October, the Board of Directors emphasized the importance of regulated markets as source of finance and highlighted the role of regulators in developing key initiatives to help restore trust in securities markets, protect investors, address systemic risk and allow markets to play an important role in furthering growth economic. In particular, IOSCO’s Board underlined several initiatives, in line with the G20 efforts for a regulatory reform, which are currently on the discussion table, such as:

• Finalize and settle the methodologies for identifying non-

bank non-insurance systemically important financial institutions (NBNI SIFIs) in the market intermediary and asset management space;

• Put in place cross-sectorial initiatives to address cyber risks in financial markets and improve the identification of emerging risks;

• Carry out work on the voluntary termination of collective investment schemes and examine new products from Credit Rating Agency;

• Enhance Multilateral Memoranda of Understanding on cooperation and the exchange of information (MMoU) through a more effective use of technology.

The Board also issued a Research Report supporting IOSCO’s work on emerging risks: “Securities Markets Risk Outlook 2014-2015”, which focuses on identifying potential risks in the securities markets.

IOSCO’s Growth and Emerging Market Committee, with 90 members forming the largest committee within IOSCO, also stressed the importance of strengthening collective regulatory capacity, including systemic risk management and contingency planning.

Further details of the 39th IOSCO Conference in Rio 2014 are available at the following web link, and the research report is available at the following web link.

http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD453.pdf

Regulatory News

IOSCO issues Consultation Report on Principles regarding the Custody of CIS Assets

On 10 October 2014 the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published a Consultation Report to collect the views of the investment management industry stakeholders to further develop a set of “Principles regarding the Custody of Collective Investment Schemes’ (CIS) Assets”.

This report is based on IOSCO relevant documents and a survey from 27 countries on their legal, regulatory and operational framework. Aim of the Consultation Report is to update IOSCO’s guidance on custodian’s safekeeping activities, especially in the aftermath of the financial crisis and of the Madoff fraud, but also in order to cope with the increasing complexity, internationalization of investments and market practice evolutions due to the modernization of registration and tracking of ownership changes in securities. In this regard, segregation of assets and rules on delegation of safe-keeping functions have become central elements of the assets’ protection.

IOSCO suggests nine principles that should be implemented at a national level and be common to all jurisdictions despite of the differences existing between the jurisdictions’ custodian frameworks. Those principles especially target two aspects of the custodian regime:

1 the custodian’s functions for which segregation is a key element for the protection of the CIS’ assets, and

2 rules relating to the eligibility, independence and appointment of

8 / Fund News / Issue 120 / Developments in October 2014

New Treatment of Interest Income for Austrian Funds starting on 1 January 2015

As from 1 January 2015 interest income derived from Austrian bank deposits and interest bearing securities will be subject to limited taxation, if a capital gains tax deduction is made. Funds may declare that their income is subject to this tax.

Capital gains tax (§ 98 (1) Z 5 lit. b EStG (EStG = personal income tax law)):

Deadline 1: 14 November 2014

Funds registered with the Oesterreichische Kontrollbank (“OeKB”) shall declare income, if these funds are invested into more than 15% (accumulating funds) or 25% (distribution funds) in Austrian securities bearing interest subject to EU withholding tax (Asset Test).

Deadline 2: 5 December 2014

Fund of Funds with more than 20% invested in target funds have an extension to deadline 1 and have to declare that they are subject to this capital gains tax until 5 December 2014.

These new tax regulations are generally not applicable in Luxembourg to so called „foreign funds“. We recommend that the Tax Representative in Austria should send an “out-of-scope” declaration to the OeKB if the above mentioned percentage amounts in regards to interest bearing securities are not met.

Afterwards, the declaration has to be sent starting from 1 January 2015. The new tax has to be reported daily, if distributions arise, and annually.

Austria

Tax News

Fund News / Issue 120 / Developments in October 2014 / 9

ECJ decision of 9 October 2014: German lump sum taxation of investors in non-German funds can violate the principle of free movement of capital

In its decision of 9 October 2014, (C 326-12, vanCaster, vanCaster) the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decided that German investors in foreign investment funds cannot be subject to the disadvantageous lump sum rules of the German Investment Tax Act if they provide the tax office with documentation and information which shows that the real income (calculated under transparency tax rules) is lower.

Germany

Reasoning of the ECJ

In the ECJ case German resident investors invested in non-resident investment funds that failed to comply with the compliance obligations set out in Article 5 GITA. Thus, these funds were considered by the tax authorities as being not tax transparent and the lump sum taxation was applied. This position was challenged by the van Casters who declared taxable income from the non-resident investment funds on the ground of estimates being lower than the lump sum tax basis.

The ECJ held, that the German transparent taxation regime is unlikely to be complied with by investment funds which do not actively target the German market. Since such funds are generally non-resident investment funds, the ECJ noted that the lump sum taxation rules are likely to deter a German investor from acquiring holdings in a non-resident investment fund, since such a fund is likely to be subject to the lump sum taxation. Consequently, the ECJ sees a violation of the principle of free movement of capital. Further, there is no justification for this restriction in the ECJ’s view. This might be viewed different, if the investor was allowed to hand in documents to the German tax authorities to prove actual taxable revenues from holdings in a non-resident investment fund.

Possible impact

German resident investors as well as fund of funds that applied the lump sum taxation for investments in non-resident funds should analyze if they need to challenge the applied lump sum taxation and to prove the actual taxable revenues from their holdings in

Tax News

Background

In order to let German investors benefit from the advantageous transparent taxation regime, resident as well as non-resident investment funds have to comply with certain obligations set out in Article 5 of the German Investment Tax Act (“GITA”). These compliance obligations include the publication of the (annual) tax reporting figures together with a certificate issued by a tax advisor on the website of the Federal Gazette “Bundesanzeiger” within 4 months after financial year end for accumulating funds; in case a distribution resolution is taken within 4 months after financial year end the publication deadline ends 4 months after the day of the distribution resolution. Further, non-resident investment funds need to publish the accumulated deemed distributed income on each valuation day in order to qualify for the transparent taxation regime. In case a resident or non-resident investment fund fails to meet one of these compliance obligations, German investors will suffer a lump sum taxation according to Article 6 GITA.

Lump sum taxation

German investors are subject to taxation on 31 December on the higher of either 70% of the annual fund performance or 6% of the fund´s NAV on 31 December. In addition, all fund distributions are taxable. The lump sum taxation usually results in a higher tax burden for German investors compared to the transparent taxation regime with tax reporting figures calculated according to Article 5 GITA. Further, the investors are not entitled to prove or estimate the actual tax reporting figures.

10 / Fund News / Issue 120 / Developments in October 2014

non-resident investment funds. This could be an opportunity to substantially lower the tax base for investors. Whether this is possible in each case as well as further implications need to be thoughtfully analyzed. Further, if funds have paid so called overall charges (e.g. 25,000 EUR per fund) to prevent the German tax authorities from applying the lump sum rule on investor level, it should be analyzed whether a refund is possible.

As a consequence of the judgment the German investor might be subject to the favorable transparency taxation even if the compliance obligations, e.g. the 4 months deadline, is not fulfilled on the investment funds level. However, the content, form and degree of detail of documentation and information a German investor needs to present in order to take advantage of the transparent taxation regime remains unclear. Therefore, the only safe way for German investors in non-resident funds to benefit from the transparent taxation regime remains the calculation of the German tax reporting figures by the investment fund. The judgment opens only a possibility of preventing a (higher) lump sum taxation, in case one of the compliance obligations was erroneously not met.

The text of the EJC decision is available via the following link.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=158426&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=109892

Revenue Publishes Final FATCA Guidance Notes

On 2 October 2014 the Irish Revenue Commissioners published their final guidance notes on FATCA implementation in Ireland. Financial institutions (including funds) must register for their GIIN (if applicable) number by 31 December 2014. If a fund has not yet considered its FATCA status and whether it is required to register, we recommend that you contact a member of the KPMG Tax Group who can assist you. Please see the link for further details:

http://www.kpmg.com/ie/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/updated-guidance-notes-fatca.aspx

Finance Bill 2014 for Funds

The Irish Government announced Budget 2015 on 14 October 2014 and the Finance Bill was published on 23 October 2014.

While the budget saw a reduction in the marginal income tax rate from 41% to 40% the tax rate for funds remains at 41% in respect of chargeable events i.e. income distributions and disposals.

The Bill amends the tax regime for offshore funds to clarify that a non-Irish UCITS or non-Irish AIF will not be chargeable to Irish tax solely because the fund is managed by a management company or AIFM or by an Irish branch or agency of an AIFM authorised in another EEA State. See the link for further details:

http://www.kpmg.ie/budget2015/

Ireland

Tax News

Publications

Schweizerisches Recht der Kollektiven Kapitalanlagen

Swiss FinancialServices Newsletter: Special Edition Banking

Frontiers in Finance

EvolvingInvestmentManagementRegulation

KPeople 2010 | 03 01

SWISS FINANCIAL SERVICES

NEWSLETTER

Special Edition

Banking

July 2014

Frontiersin Finance

Governance strategies for managing the data lifecycle:Knowing when to fold versus hold and protect Page 12

Frontiers in FinanceFor decision-makers in financial servicesApril 2014

Cyber crime: Insurers in the firing linePage 6

Rebuilding and reinforcing risk data infrastructurePage 16

Swiss FinancialServices Newsletter: Special Edition Investment Management

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.

© 2014 KPMG Holding AG/SA, a Swiss corporation, is a member of the KPMG network of independent firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss legal entity. All rights reserved. Printed in Switzerland. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks.

Zurich

Markus SchunkPartnerT: +41 58 249 36 82 E: markusschunk@kpmg.com

Christoph GroebliPartnerT: +41 58 249 29 76 E: cgroebli@kpmg.com

Geneva

Yvan MermodPartnerT: +41 58 249 37 80 E: ymermod@kpmg.com

Lugano

Lars SchlichtingPartner, LegalT: +41 58 249 32 59 E: lschlichting@kpmg.com

Astrid KellerPartnerT: +41 58 249 28 82 E: astridkeller@kpmg.com

Dominik RüttimannPartnerT: +41 58 249 20 56 E: druettimann@kpmg.com

Pierre ZächPartnerT: +41 58 249 64 12 E: pzach@kpmg.com

Pascal SprengerDirector, LegalT: +41 58 249 42 23 E: psprenger@kpmg.com

Grégoire WincklerPartner, TaxT: +41 58 249 34 95 E: gwinckler@kpmg.com

Jean-Luc EparsPartner, LegalT: +41 58 249 37 49 E: jepars@kpmg.com

Contacts

kpmg.ch