This exact setup shows up constantly, and almost nobody explains how the three pieces actually fit together. Here's the version that isn't trying to sell you a Big Four engagement.
I own the middle piece directly — the Dutch BV's compliance and VAT, and the consolidated reporting that ties US, NL, and LatAm activity into one financial picture a board or investor can actually read. US federal/state tax filing stays outside what I do, for the same reason it does everywhere else in my practice: my professional liability coverage doesn't extend to US jurisdiction, so I don't advise on it without that protection in place. LatAm-specific tax and labor filings — the country-by-country work, not the consolidated view — get handled by local specialists I coordinate with, rather than something I'd stretch into without local registration and standing. What that leaves you with: one senior person who actually sees the whole structure, instead of three disconnected providers who each see a third of it.
Every "full-service" provider you talk to is strong in one piece of this and quiet about the other two. Here's the honest breakdown.
Where the money comes in from investors and where US federal/state tax obligations live.
Usually the messiest piece of the structure, because it's the one most US-based founders understand least.
Usually the cheapest part of the structure to run, and the easiest part to get legally wrong.
A simplified version of how this usually works: the US entity raises capital, holds IP in most cases, and may invoice US customers directly. The Dutch BV invoices EU customers, files EU VAT, and may hold the contracts with LatAm contractors depending on how the group is structured. Intercompany arrangements between the US entity and the BV need to be priced on an arm's-length basis — even at SME scale, "we just move money around" is the kind of assumption that turns into a real problem at due diligence or a first serious audit.
For the Dutch/EU side, that coordination is direct — I work with your legal counsel on BV structuring questions and keep VAT/compliance aligned with whatever they're setting up. For US tax counsel and LatAm labor/tax specialists, I stay in direct contact so the three sides of the structure don't drift out of sync, without taking on advisory responsibility in jurisdictions outside my coverage.
For the EU/Dutch piece specifically, an Interim Financial Controller or Interim CFO engagement — priced by days committed per month — covers this without a full-time hire. For the US-side CFO work (fundraising narrative, cap table, US investor reporting), that's typically a separate US-based provider; the two roles usually work well side by side rather than as one person trying to do both.
I don't file local labor or tax compliance for LatAm contractors directly. What I do: flag classification risk when I see it in the numbers — a "contractor" who looks structurally like an employee, unusually long or exclusive engagements, and so on — and coordinate with local specialists on the country-specific filings once a risk is identified. The consolidated reporting also gives you country-level visibility into contractor costs, instead of a single lump-sum line.
Often it can be — but that's a legal/structuring question, not a finance one, and worth raising with your corporate lawyer before or alongside any finance engagement. What I can tell you from the finance side: the complexity is manageable once someone actually owns the consolidated view; it becomes unmanageable when three providers each optimize their own piece in isolation.
Tell me a bit about your setup — US entity, EU presence, LatAm team — and I'll tell you honestly which pieces I can own directly and where you'll want a specialist alongside me.