A report on a session at the IBA Annual Conference 2026 in Copenhagen, held on 7 October 2026

Session Co-Chairs
Álvaro Checa Rodríguez, Kinship, Madrid
Maria Paz De Carcer, Cariola Diez Perez-Cotapos, Santiago
Álvaro Checa Rodríguez chaired the session in the absence of Maria Paz De Carcer

Panellists
Ricardo Escobar, Escobar Silva Yanine & Facuse, Santiago
Paloma Carrasco, B Cremades y Asociados, Madrid
Andres Gonzalez, Martínez Quintero Mendoza González Laguado & De La Rosa, Bogota
Jan Hansen, Hansen Advisory ApS, København K

Reporter
Aakash Mishra, Shreya Rao & Associates, Bangalore

Planning must begin during stable conditions

Álvaro Checa Rodríguez defined doomsday planning as contingency work undertaken while the home jurisdiction is still stable. The objective is to preserve the right to move without creating an obligation to do so. Residence permits can take months, nationality can take years and investment treaty protection must be established before a dispute becomes foreseeable. Moving assets can also become more expensive once a crisis has begun.

The session considered four connected subjects: (1) immigration; (2) the tax cost of changing residence; (3) the location and diversification of assets; and (4) protection for investments that remain in the home country. Each has its own timetable. The family’s plan therefore needs to address people, ownership and control together rather than treating relocation as a last minute change of address.

Lessons from Chile

Ricardo Escobar, a Chilean tax lawyer who joined the panel at short notice, described the rapid deterioration that followed public unrest in October 2019. Chile had experienced decades of stable democracy, which had encouraged families to keep much of their wealth, businesses and property in the country. The events of 2019, the constitutional process that followed, withdrawals from private pension funds and a later proposal for a wealth tax changed the assumptions on which those arrangements had been built. He also noted that the proposed constitutional change and wealth tax did not pass and that conditions later improved. Escobar noted that political conditions may later improve, so arrangements should remain workable in either situation.

Immigration came first in his account – a passport is issued by the home government and may be difficult to renew during a crisis. He advised his own family to renew their passports after the events of 2019 and obtained Portuguese residence shortly afterwards. A residence permit may be available within months, while citizenship and a second passport usually require much longer. Family circumstances also matter – children in school, a spouse who remains behind and other personal ties can prevent a move that looks simple on paper.

Chile has no exit tax of the kind found in some countries, but Escobar explained that ending Chilean tax residence can still be difficult. The authorities consider a person’s principal economic interests, including the location of assets and income and continuing roles as director, manager or chair of local companies. A person who retains control of a business may remain connected to Chile for tax purposes. The authorities also introduced a formal notification requirement for those seeking to lose residence.

Asset diversification requires time as well. Families need banking relationships in other jurisdictions and must decide where liquid assets will be held. Transferring a local business or holding company can produce capital gains tax, while land, mines, forests, power stations and other fixed assets cannot be moved. Escobar contrasted two families. One obtained residence and passport options, divided their investment portfolio and prepared a clear plan for ending residence. Another reacted during the crisis, lost time on immigration, moved assets abruptly and entered into a dispute with the tax authorities. The first family incurred ongoing costs, but retained a choice when conditions changed.

The Colombian experience

Andres Gonzalez said that Colombian families have long considered immigration and overseas assets because of earlier security concerns. Many sought second passports or held liquid assets abroad. Greater stability between 2002 and 2022 later encouraged substantial investment at home. More recent political and tax uncertainty has led some families to reconsider that asset allocation.

He described Colombia as a country with frequent tax reform and a permanent wealth tax. Colombia has no general exit tax, although citizens face a detailed residence test that considers days spent in the country, the location of assets and income, the residence of a spouse and children and whether the person has tax residence elsewhere. Some people concluded that they had left the Colombian tax system while the rules continued to treat them as residents. Gonzalez said that Colombia’s tax residence rules for citizens had led some people to renounce Colombian citizenship, a step he described as very difficult.

The choice of destination also needs tax review. Spain is a common choice for Colombian families, yet its wealth tax surprised some people who moved there to escape tax uncertainty at home. Gonzalez explained that Colombian rules may trigger tax when Colombian assets are transferred, including through transfers of foreign shares with underlying Colombian assets. The discussion also noted that changing a holding or ownership structure can be complicated where other family members are shareholders, as each shareholder’s position must be considered.

Gonzalez said that Colombian investors often invest into Colombia through a treaty jurisdiction to obtain greater legal certainty. He noted that the withholding tax on dividends had changed at least four times during the previous ten years, while changing a tax treaty is more difficult than changing domestic law. He also referred to bilateral investment treaties, although access to their protection can be difficult where Colombian investors use an overseas structure to invest in Colombia.

Protection through investment treaties

Paloma Carrasco addressed assets that must remain in the home country – such as real estate, operating businesses, shares, concessions and intellectual property. Those assets may be affected by direct expropriation, legislative change, an arbitrary court judgment or physical disruption. Local courts may not offer practical relief when proceedings are very slow or the state institutions involved in the dispute lack independence.

Investment treaties can provide procedural and substantive rights under international law. Carrasco explained that many treaties contain a standing offer by the state to arbitrate with a qualifying investor. The dispute can then be heard by a neutral tribunal rather than the local courts, and the resulting award may be enforceable internationally. Treaties can also impose standards of protection that differ from those available under domestic law.

Access depends on the wording of the treaty – advisers must identify the treaties signed by the country where the asset is located, determine who qualifies as an investor and confirm that the asset falls within the definition of an investment. Nationality, residence, incorporation and substantial activity may each be relevant. The available arbitral forum and enforcement route also need review.

Timing is decisive – Carrasco said that nationality planning or corporate restructuring can qualify for treaty protection when completed before a dispute is foreseeable. A Central American family, discussed during the session, had placed a holding company in another treaty jurisdiction before political retaliation began. The tribunal accepted jurisdiction under the wording of the relevant treaty. Phoenix v Czech Republic^[1] illustrated the opposite result – a company was placed after criminal proceedings had begun, and the tribunal treated the restructuring as an attempt to internationalise an existing dispute and an abuse of process.

Carrasco added that a favourable award may still require enforcement. She referred to the Washington Convention and New York Convention systems, as well as third-party funding and the possibility of selling an award to a fund willing to pursue recovery.

Denmark as a receiving jurisdiction

Jan Hansen described Denmark as a stable receiving jurisdiction with a broad treaty network. According to his presentation, an individual arriving in Denmark generally receives a market-value basis in existing assets. Denmark has no wealth tax, and inheritance tax between descendants is 15 per cent. Exit tax on shares, bonds and other financial assets generally requires residence for more than seven of the previous ten years. Where it applies, payment may be deferred until the taxpayer receives funds through a dividend or liquidation.

Hansen also discussed Denmark’s holding and foundation regimes. Danish foundations are used to hold and control businesses, including where a family wishes to separate control from any one individual. He said that a company can be established quickly and that Danish tax residence can begin once a person has a home and starts residing in the country, allowing a move during the tax year where the applicable treaty supports split-year treatment.

The immigration routes he outlined included schemes based on salary, occupations where workers are needed, approved start-up businesses and work by researchers or scientists. A special employment tax regime was described as producing an overall burden of about 33 per cent and remaining available for seven years. Citizenship has separate requirements, including knowledge of Danish.

Keeping the option usable

The speakers stressed that relocation is a personal decision as well as a financial one. Children may be settled in school, one spouse may remain behind and the family may wish to stay close to its business, relatives and community. These practical considerations can determine whether the proposed move is realistic.

Advance preparation gives the family more choices. Residence permits and citizenship take time, overseas banking arrangements cannot always be established quickly and moving assets may have tax consequences. Investment treaty protection must also be arranged before a dispute becomes foreseeable. The panel therefore encouraged families to consider these matters while conditions in the home country remain stable.

---

^[1] Phoenix v Czech Republic ICSID Case No ARB/06/5.