For investment managers operating across multiple jurisdictions, FATCA and CRS reporting is rarely as straightforward as simply delegating the work to a fund administrator. Behind the annual filing lies a tangle of fragmented workflows, duplicated effort and mounting cost, and a new case study from Label puts this operational reality under the spotlight.
Label recently discussed the study as well as FATCA and CRS reporting and how investment managers can reduce cost and manual effort.
The study examines how a multi-jurisdiction investment manager, running funds across the Cayman Islands, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Luxembourg, replaced a patchwork of fund administrator-led processes with a single, controlled managed service. The findings reveal a problem that is widespread yet rarely discussed openly: even when fund administrators take on FATCA and CRS execution, investment managers often remain shouldering a significant share of the burden.
Internal teams continue to coordinate across providers, chase and validate investor documentation, identify and resolve data inconsistencies, monitor changes in investor circumstance and ultimately ensure the final reporting position is defensible. The result is a costly combination of high fees paid to external providers, heavy internal resource use and limited visibility over the overall process.
A key structural issue highlighted in the case study is what happens when different funds are handled by different administrators, using different systems and separate workflows. In this environment, there is rarely a single authoritative source of truth. Investor tax data can exist simultaneously in administrator files, email threads, spreadsheets and prior-year working papers. Tax forms may be checked multiple times. Exceptions may be logged informally. And reporting readiness may only crystallise in the weeks immediately before a filing deadline, precisely when pressure is highest.
The deeper issue, the case study argues, is not whether the annual filing gets completed. It is whether the investment manager has a process that is genuinely controlled, visible and auditable throughout the year.
One of the more operationally significant themes is what Label describes as the “single investor” problem. The same investor may appear across several funds, sometimes serviced by different administrators and recorded in different systems. One record might carry updated tax documentation. Another might show an outdated address. A third might have a different validation status or flag a remediation requirement. Without a consolidated investor-level view, teams can find themselves reviewing the same investor multiple times and reconciling conflicting data, a process that consumes time without adding value.
Jurisdictional complexity adds another layer. Each of the four territories covered in the case study carries its own operational requirements. Cayman Islands funds may require additional local compliance steps, including the compliance form and principal point of contact process. Luxembourg reporting has historically relied on manual submission workflows, creating both inefficiency and scalability constraints. For UK and Ireland funds, the focus tends to be on maintaining data consistency and repeatable readiness across the wider structure.
The investment manager’s challenge was not simply to produce reports in four different jurisdictions. It was to operate as though those funds were part of a single, coherent compliance model.
Label’s managed service is designed to address this directly. Rather than relying on annual data repair, where teams review records during reporting season and fix issues close to the deadline, the model keeps investor tax data current throughout the year. Documentation statuses, validation outcomes, exceptions and changes in investor circumstance are tracked as part of an ongoing process, meaning teams do not face the same issues repeatedly each reporting cycle.
For Luxembourg, Label offers access to a more direct local submission channel, reducing dependence on manual processing. For Cayman funds, the service covers local compliance requirements alongside the core FATCA and CRS workflow. The overall aim is to shift investment managers away from reactive, spreadsheet-driven remediation and towards a controlled, evidence-based operating model.
The full case study from Label is due to be published shortly and is expected to provide a detailed account of how the transition was managed and the operational improvements delivered.
Read the full Label post here.
Copyright © 2026 RegTech Analyst
Copyright © 2018 RegTech Analyst
