A Case Study in Hiring: Tax Structuring Counsel for a Credit Investment Manager

Tax Structuring Counsel – Recruitment Process

Firms tend to call agencies when a search becomes “hard.” Not hard in the sense of a niche title, but hard because the intersection of skills is scarce, the work is high impact, and the operating environment doesn’t allow for mis-hires.

This search was exactly that: a Tax Structuring Counsel role embedded in a credit investment platform. It required a rare blend of legal fluency, fund structuring depth, and practical execution under deal-driven timelines. There is a clear set of lessons that apply to any investment manager building out tax capability closer to the front office.

Why this role exists (and why it’s different)

Many organizations staff tax roles around compliance, reporting, or periodic planning cycles. This role sat closer to the point of decision-making. The Tax Structuring Counsel was needed to support a credit platform where tax considerations regularly intersect with:

• partnership and fund structures
• debt instruments and financing mechanics
• cross-border investors and treaty implications
• transaction execution (often on short notice)
• legal documentation and negotiated terms
• coordination across investment, legal, finance, compliance, and external advisors

The function was lean. The hiring manager carried significant responsibility directly and used outside advisors selectively. The goal was not to add “another set of hands,” but to hire someone who could own workstreams, reduce dependency on external resources, and improve throughput without sacrificing rigor.

What made the search unusually difficult

This was not a “find a tax attorney” search, and it was not a “fund tax” search. It was the intersection.

1) Credential preference that materially narrowed the market

The team strongly preferred a tax lawyer profile (often paired with advanced tax education). The reasoning was practical: they needed someone who could read, interpret, and negotiate within complex documentation—loan agreements, structuring documents, partnership agreements, side letters, and related materials—without relying on others to translate.

2) Credit fund structuring is concentrated in small pockets

A large percentage of tax professionals can speak to funds generally. A much smaller subset has meaningful exposure to credit-oriented structuring—where you’re dealing with idiosyncratic instruments, investor constraints, cross-border issues, and the realities of “tax gets pulled in late.”

3) The operating model demanded ownership, not support

The hiring manager’s biggest need was not “more technical horsepower.” It was a person who could work independently, make sound judgments, communicate clearly, and run a process end-to-end with limited oversight. That is a different bar than “excellent analyst.”

4) Time zones and transaction cycles shape the week

This platform was global. The role required someone who could flex for international stakeholders and deal timelines. The expectation was accountability and responsiveness when needed, not an artificially rigid boundary around the workday.

5) Compensation and logistics were part of the search, not an afterthought

At this level, candidates often have real considerations: relocation timing, incentive payout mechanics, and package structure tradeoffs. If those aren’t addressed early, the process can look smooth until it suddenly collapses at offer stage.

The most important lever: a true intake call

A job description cannot carry a search like this. The intake needed to be a working session that translated the role into specific, screenable realities.

We structured intake around four categories.

1) The real work mix (not the generic responsibilities)

We broke down what the person would be doing weekly and monthly:

• How much structuring versus transaction support?
• What are the recurring deliverables?
• When does tax get pulled into deals—early, midstream, or late?
• Where does treaty work show up in practice?
• What’s owned in-house versus handled by external advisors today, and what needs to migrate inside?

This clarity prevented misalignment later and made outreach far more precise.

2) Stakeholder mapping and decision dynamics

For senior tax roles in investing environments, success depends on managing across functions. We documented:

• who the Counsel interacts with daily
• who sets priorities
• who challenges conclusions
• which decisions require escalation and which require independent judgment
• where the friction points usually appear (and why)

3) “Non-negotiables” vs. “strong preferences”

In specialized hiring, everything can start sounding like a requirement. Separating must-haves from preferences creates a realistic funnel and prevents the team from unintentionally eliminating the entire market.

4) The hidden requirement: autonomous ownership in a lean team

This was the single biggest factor. The team needed someone who could operate like an internal partner, not an external advisor—and not a junior waiting for instructions.

How we sourced: market mapping and proof of fit

For roles like this, volume is a distraction. Precision is the strategy.

We built a targeted map across three primary lanes:

• In-house tax at investment platforms with meaningful credit activity
• Big 4 structuring / transaction tax profiles with heavy financial services exposure and demonstrable credit fund work
• Fund structuring law firm talent with the motivation and operating style to move in-house

Then we screened for “proof of fit” across four dimensions:

1. Can they do the work technically?
   Not in theory—through examples that show they’ve handled complex structuring decisions and tradeoffs.
2. Is their credit exposure real and transferable?
   Credit fund work varies widely. We looked for candidates who could discuss real structures, the investor implications, and how tax supported the investment process.
3. Are they fluent in cross-border/treaty realities?
   Treaty research and planning matter most when paired with practical execution: what is the position, what documentation supports it, and how does it integrate into fund/investor reporting?
4. Do they operate like an in-house owner?
   This is where many “strong” resumes don’t convert. We focused on whether a candidate could articulate:

• what they personally owned
• what deliverables they produced
• how they triaged urgent work
• how they documented and defended positions
• how they managed external advisors cost-effectively

Why structured feedback after each round was essential

Senior interview processes often skew conversational. Technical testing is light, and the decision is made on trust, judgment, and perceived fit. That increases the risk of ambiguous feedback and slow decision-making.

We built a structured feedback loop after each round to keep momentum and sharpen signal. The goal was to translate “good conversation” into decision-quality insights.

We asked interviewers to be explicit about:

• what was tested (technical depth vs stakeholder judgment vs culture fit)
• where the candidate inspired confidence (ownership, clarity, maturity, risk judgment)
• what concerns surfaced (pace tolerance, role specificity, stakeholder handling)
• what the candidate did not answer clearly (often the most important signal)

We also debriefed each candidate in detail—capturing what they understood about the role, what gave them energy, what concerned them, and where they needed more specificity. That allowed us to refine messaging, address misperceptions early, and ensure the final stages were focused on true decision criteria.

What actually decided the hire

By the time finalists emerged, multiple candidates were capable technically. The winning profile was not selected because of a marginal technical edge. The selection came down to operating fit:

• clear ownership mindset in a lean environment
• ability to work through documentation and structuring issues without excessive supervision
• stakeholder fluency with investment professionals, legal, and finance
• comfort with deal-driven timelines and global touchpoints
• process orientation—someone who would improve how work flows over time

A Tax Structuring Counsel role is a trust role. The most compelling candidates demonstrate that they can reduce risk and increase throughput simultaneously—by being rigorous, responsive, and practical.

Lessons for any firm hiring a Tax Structuring Counsel

If your firm is building tax capability closer to the deal process, these are the points that matter most:

• Start with truth. Candidates will opt in or out based on pace, autonomy, and stakeholder intensity more than the job title.
• Define the work. If you can’t articulate deliverables and decision rights, you won’t screen effectively.
• Separate must-haves from preferences. Otherwise you will eliminate the market unintentionally.
• Prioritize ownership in screening. Technical strength is necessary; operating independence is what makes the hire work.
• Treat feedback as a recruiting tool. Structured feedback accelerates hiring and raises quality.
• Address package mechanics early. Relocation and incentive timing are common; surprises are optional.

Why this is where an agency partner adds the most value

Specialized hires succeed when the process is engineered, not improvised. For roles like Tax Structuring Counsel—where the talent pool is narrow and the role touches core investment decisions—the agency’s job is to bring three things:

• a mapped, targeted view of the market
• disciplined screening for proof of fit
• process control: calibration, momentum, and clean execution through offer

That combination is what turns a hard search into a predictable outcome.

Search was led by Andrei Nikulin – Head of Recruiting at Origin Staffing