Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 24 June 2026
(OR. en)
11060/26
ADD 1
Interinstitutional File:
2026/0168 (CNS)
FISC 235
ECOFIN 895
COVER NOTE
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Ms Martine
DEPREZ, Director
date of receipt: 24 June 2026
To: Ms Thérèse BLANCHET, Secretary-General of the Council of the
European Union
No. Cion doc.: COM(2026) 308 annex
Subject: ANNEXES to the Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on
administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast)
11060/26 ADD 1
ECOFIN.2.B EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 24.6.2026
COM(2026) 308 final
ANNEXES 1 to 9
ANNEXES
to the
Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation
(recast)
{SEC(2026) 186 final} - {SWD(2026) 164 final} - {SWD(2026) 165 final} -
{SWD(2026) 166 final}
EN EN
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
ANNEX I
REPORTING AND DUE DILIGENCE RULES FOR FINANCIAL ACCOUNT
INFORMATION
This Annex lays down the reporting and due diligence rules that have to be applied by
Reporting Financial Institutions in order to enable the Member States to communicate, by
automatic exchange, the information referred to in Article 5 8(3a) of this Directive.
This Annex also describes the rules and administrative procedures that Member States shall
have in place to ensure effective implementation of, and compliance with, the reporting and
due diligence procedures set out below.
SECTION I
GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.1(a)
A. Subject to paragraphs C to F, each Reporting Financial Institution shall report
to the competent authority of its Member State with respect to each Reportable
Account of such Reporting Financial Institution:
1. the following information:
(a) the name, address, Member State(s) of residence, TIN(s) and
date and place of birth (in the case of an individual) of each Reportable
Person that is an Account Holder of the account and whether the Account
Holder has provided a valid self-certification;
(b) in the case of any Entity that is an Account Holder and that,
after application of the due diligence procedures consistent with Sections
V, VI and VII, is identified as having one or more Controlling Persons
that is a Reportable Person, the name, address, Member State(s) and (if
any) other jurisdiction(s) of residence and TIN(s) of the Entity and the
name, address, Member State(s) of residence, TIN(s) and date and place
of birth of each Reportable Person, as well as the role(s) by virtue of
which each Reportable Person is a Controlling Person of the Entity and
whether a valid self-certification has been provided for each Reportable
Person;
(c) whether the account is a joint account, including the number of
joint Account Holders;
2. the account number (or functional equivalent in the absence of an
account number), the type of account and whether the account is a Pre-existing
Account or a New Account;
EN 1 EN
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex
3. the name and identifying number (if any) of the Reporting Financial
Institution;
4. the account balance or value (including, in the case of a Cash Value
Insurance Contract or Annuity Contract, the Cash Value or surrender value) as
of the end of the relevant calendar year or other appropriate reporting period or,
if the account was closed during such year or period, the closure of the
account;
5. in the case of any Custodial Account:
(a) the total gross amount of interest, the total gross amount of
dividends, and the total gross amount of other income generated with
respect to the assets held in the account, in each case paid or credited to
the account (or with respect to the account) during the calendar year or
other appropriate reporting period; and
(b) the total gross proceeds from the sale or redemption of
Financial Assets paid or credited to the account during the calendar year
or other appropriate reporting period with respect to which the Reporting
Financial Institution acted as a custodian, broker, nominee, or otherwise
as an agent for the Account Holder;
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.1(a)
6. in the case of any Depository Account, the total gross amount of
interest paid or credited to the account during the calendar year or other
appropriate reporting period;
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.1(a)
76a. in the case of any Equity Interest held in an Investment Entity that is a
legal arrangement, the role(s) by virtue of which the Reportable Person is an
Equity Interest holder; and
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex
87. in the case of any account not described in subparagraph A(5) or (6),
the total gross amount paid or credited to the Account Holder with respect to
the account during the calendar year or other appropriate reporting period with
respect to which the Reporting Financial Institution is the obligor or debtor,
including the aggregate amount of any redemption payments made to the
Account Holder during the calendar year or other appropriate reporting period.
B. The information reported must identify the currency in which each amount is
denominated.
EN 2 EN
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.1(b)
C. Notwithstanding subparagraph A(1), with respect to each Reportable Account
that is a Pre-existing Account, the TIN(s) or date of birth is not required to be
reported if such TIN(s) or date of birth is not in the records of the Reporting
Financial Institution and is not otherwise required to be collected by such Reporting
Financial Institution under domestic law or any Union legal instrument. However, a
Reporting Financial Institution is required to use reasonable efforts to obtain the
TIN(s) and date of birth with respect to Pre-existing Accounts by the end of the
second calendar year following the year in which Pre-existing Accounts were
identified as Reportable Accounts and whenever it is required to update the
information relating to the Pre-existing Account pursuant to domestic anti-money
laundering legislation and “know-your-customer” (AML/KYC) Procedures.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex
D. Notwithstanding subparagraph A(1), the TIN is not required to be reported if a
TIN is not issued by the relevant Member State or other jurisdiction of residence.
E. Notwithstanding subparagraph A(1), the place of birth is not required to be
reported unless:
(1) the Reporting Financial Institution is otherwise required to obtain and
report it under domestic law or the Reporting Financial Institution is or has
been otherwise required to obtain and report it under any Union legal
instrument in effect or that was in effect on 5 January 2015; and
(2) it is available in the electronically searchable data maintained by the
Reporting Financial Institution.
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.1(c) (adapted)
F. Notwithstanding subparagraph A(5), point (b), and unless the Reporting
Financial Institution elects otherwise with respect to any clearly identified group of
accounts, the gross proceeds from the sale or redemption of a Financial Asset are not
required to be reported to the extent such gross proceeds from the sale or redemption
of such Financial Asset are reported by the Reporting Financial Institution in
accordance with Article 12 8ad.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
SECTION II
GENERAL DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENTS
A. An account is treated as a Reportable Account beginning as of the date it is
identified as such pursuant to the due diligence procedures in Sections II tothrough
EN 3 EN
VII and, unless otherwise provided, information with respect to a Reportable
Account must be reported annually in the calendar year following the year to which
the information relates.
B. The balance or value of an account is determined as of the last day of the
calendar year or other appropriate reporting period.
C. Where a balance or value threshold is to be determined as of the last day of a
calendar year, the relevant balance or value must be determined as of the last day of
the reporting period that ends with or within that calendar year.
D. Each Member State may allow Reporting Financial Institutions to use service
providers to fulfil the reporting and due diligence obligations imposed on such
Reporting Financial Institutions, as contemplated in domestic law, but these
obligations shall remain the responsibility of the Reporting Financial Institutions.
E. Each Member State may allow Reporting Financial Institutions to apply the
due diligence procedures for New Accounts to Pre-existing Accounts, and the due
diligence procedures for High Value Accounts to Lower Value Accounts. Where a
Member State allows New Account due diligence procedures to be used for Pre-
existing Accounts, the rules otherwise applicable to Pre-existing Accounts continue
to apply.
SECTION III
DUE DILIGENCE FOR PRE-EXISTING INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS
A. Introduction. The following procedures apply for purposes of identifying
Reportable Accounts among Pre-existing Individual Accounts.
B. Lower Value Accounts. The following procedures apply with respect to Lower
Value Accounts.
1. Residence Address. If the Reporting Financial Institution has in its
records a current residence address for the individual Account Holder based on
Documentary Evidence, the Reporting Financial Institution may treat the
individual Account Holder as being a resident for tax purposes of the Member
State or other jurisdiction in which the address is located for purposes of
determining whether such individual Account Holder is a Reportable Person.
2. Electronic Record Search. If the Reporting Financial Institution does
not rely on a current residence address for the individual Account Holder based
on Documentary Evidence as set forth in subparagraph B(1), the Reporting
Financial Institution must review electronically searchable data maintained by
the Reporting Financial Institution for any of the following indicia and apply
subparagraphs B(3) to (6):
(a) identification of the Account Holder as a resident of a Member
State;
(b) current mailing or residence address (including a post office
box) in a Member State;
(c) one or more telephone numbers in a Member State and no
telephone number in the Member State of the Reporting Financial
Institution;
EN 4 EN
(d) standing instructions (other than with respect to a Depository
Account) to transfer funds to an account maintained in a Member State;
(e) currently effective power of attorney or signatory authority
granted to a person with an address in a Member State; or
(f) a ‘hold mail’ instruction or ‘in-care-of’ address in a Member
State if the Reporting Financial Institution does not have any other
address on file for the Account Holder.
3. If none of the indicia listed in subparagraph B(2) are discovered in the
electronic search, then no further action is required until there is a change in
circumstances that results in one or more indicia being associated with the
account, or the account becomes a High Value Account.
4. If any of the indicia listed in subparagraph B(2)(a) tothrough (e) are
discovered in the electronic search, or if there is a change in circumstances that
results in one or more indicia being associated with the account, then the
Reporting Financial Institution must treat the Account Holder as a resident for
tax purposes of each Member State for which an indicium is identified, unless
it elects to apply subparagraph B(6) and one of the exceptions in that
subparagraph applies with respect to that account.
5. If a ‘hold mail’ instruction or ‘in-care-of’ address is discovered in the
electronic search and no other address and none of the other indicia listed in
subparagraph B(2)(a) tothrough (e) are identified for the Account Holder, the
Reporting Financial Institution must, in the order most appropriate to the
circumstances, apply the paper record search described in subparagraph C(2),
or seek to obtain from the Account Holder a self-certification or Documentary
Evidence to establish the residence(s) for tax purposes of such Account Holder.
If the paper search fails to establish an indicium and the attempt to obtain the
self-certification or Documentary Evidence is not successful, the Reporting
Financial Institution must report the account to the competent authority of its
Member State as an undocumented account.
6. Notwithstanding a finding of indicia under subparagraph B(2), a
Reporting Financial Institution is not required to treat an Account Holder as a
resident of a Member State if:
(a) the Account Holder information contains a current mailing or
residence address in that Member State, one or more telephone numbers
in that Member State (and no telephone number in the Member State of
the Reporting Financial Institution) or standing instructions (with respect
to Financial Accounts other than Depository Accounts) to transfer funds
to an account maintained in a Member State, and the Reporting Financial
Institution obtains, or has previously reviewed and maintains, a record of:
(i) a self-certification from the Account Holder of the Member
State(s) or other jurisdiction(s) of residence of such Account
Holder that does not include that Member State; and
(ii) Documentary Evidence establishing the Account Holder's non-
reportable status;
(b) the Account Holder information contains a currently effective
power of attorney or signatory authority granted to a person with an
EN 5 EN
address in that Member State, and the Reporting Financial Institution
obtains, or has previously reviewed and maintains, a record of:
(i) a self-certification from the Account Holder of the Member
State(s) or other jurisdiction(s) of residence of such Account
Holder that does not include that Member State; or
(ii) Documentary Evidence establishing the Account Holder's non-
reportable status.
C. Enhanced Review Procedures for High Value Accounts. The following
enhanced review procedures apply with respect to High Value Accounts.
1. Electronic Record search. With respect to High Value Accounts, the
Reporting Financial Institution must review electronically searchable data
maintained by the Reporting Financial Institution for any of the indicia
described in subparagraph B(2).
2. Paper Record Search. If the Reporting Financial Institution's
electronically searchable databases include fields for, and capture all of the
information described in subparagraph C(3), then a further paper record search
is not required. If the electronic databases do not capture all of this
information, then with respect to a High Value Account, the Reporting
Financial Institution must also review the current customer master file and, to
the extent not contained in the current customer master file, the following
documents associated with the account and obtained by the Reporting Financial
Institution within the last five years for any of the indicia described in
subparagraph B(2):
(a) the most recent Documentary Evidence collected with respect to
the account;
(b) the most recent account opening contract or documentation;
(c) the most recent documentation obtained by the Reporting
Financial Institution pursuant to AML/KYC Procedures or for other
regulatory purposes;
(d) any power of attorney or signature authority forms currently in
effect; and
(e) any standing instructions (other than with respect to a
Depository Account) to transfer funds currently in effect.
3. Exception To The Extent Databases Contain Sufficient Information. A
Reporting Financial Institution is not required to perform the paper record
search described in subparagraph C(2) to the extent the Reporting Financial
Institution's electronically searchable information includes the following:
(a) the Account Holder's residence status;
(b) the Account Holder's residence address and mailing address
currently on file with the Reporting Financial Institution;
(c) the Account Holder's telephone number(s) currently on file, if
any, with the Reporting Financial Institution;
(d) in the case of Financial Accounts other than Depository
Accounts, whether there are standing instructions to transfer funds in the
EN 6 EN
account to another account (including an account at another branch of the
Reporting Financial Institution or another Financial Institution);
(e) whether there is a current ‘in-care-of’ address or ‘hold mail’
instruction for the Account Holder; and
(f) whether there is any power of attorney or signatory authority for
the account.
4. Relationship Manager Inquiry for Actual Knowledge. In addition to the
electronic and paper record searches described in subparagraphs C(1) and (2),
the Reporting Financial Institution must treat as a Reportable Account any
High Value Account assigned to a relationship manager (including any
Financial Accounts aggregated with that High Value Account) if the
relationship manager has actual knowledge that the Account Holder is a
Reportable Person.
5. Effect of Finding Indicia.
(a) If none of the indicia listed in subparagraph B(2) are discovered
in the enhanced review of High Value Accounts described in paragraph
C, and the account is not identified as held by a Reportable Person in
subparagraph C(4), then further action is not required until there is a
change in circumstances that results in one or more indicia being
associated with the account.
(b) If any of the indicia listed in subparagraphs B(2)(a) tothrough
(e) are discovered in the enhanced review of High Value Accounts
described in paragraph C, or if there is a subsequent change in
circumstances that results in one or more indicia being associated with
the account, then the Reporting Financial Institution must treat the
account as a Reportable Account with respect to each Member State for
which an indicium is identified unless it elects to apply subparagraph
B(6) and one of the exceptions in that subparagraph applies with respect
to that account.
(c) If a ‘hold mail’ instruction or ‘in-care-of’ address is discovered
in the enhanced review of High Value Accounts described in paragraph
C, and no other address and none of the other indicia listed in
subparagraphs B(2)(a) tothrough (e) are identified for the Account
Holder, the Reporting Financial Institution must obtain from such
Account Holder a self-certification or Documentary Evidence to establish
the residence(s) for tax purposes of the Account Holder. If the Reporting
Financial Institution cannot obtain such self-certification or Documentary
Evidence, it must report the account to the competent authority of its
Member State as an undocumented account.
6. If a Pre-existing Individual Account is not a High Value Account as of
31 December 2015, but becomes a High Value Account as of the last day of a
subsequent calendar year, the Reporting Financial Institution must complete
the enhanced review procedures described in paragraph C with respect to such
account within the calendar year following the year in which the account
becomes a High Value Account. If based on this review such account is
identified as a Reportable Account, the Reporting Financial Institution must
report the required information about such account with respect to the year in
EN 7 EN
which it is identified as a Reportable Account and subsequent years on an
annual basis, unless the Account Holder ceases to be a Reportable Person.
7. Once a Reporting Financial Institution applies the enhanced review
procedures described in paragraph C to a High Value Account, the Reporting
Financial Institution is not required to reapply such procedures, other than the
relationship manager inquiry described in subparagraph C(4), to the same High
Value Account in any subsequent year unless the account is undocumented
where the Reporting Financial Institution should reapply them annually until
such account ceases to be undocumented.
8. If there is a change of circumstances with respect to a High Value
Account that results in one or more indicia described in subparagraph B(2)
being associated with the account, then the Reporting Financial Institution
must treat the account as a Reportable Account with respect to each Member
State for which an indicium is identified unless it elects to apply subparagraph
B(6) and one of the exceptions in that subparagraph applies with respect to that
account.
9. A Reporting Financial Institution must implement procedures to ensure
that a relationship manager identifies any change in circumstances of an
account. For example, if a relationship manager is notified that the Account
Holder has a new mailing address in a Member State, the Reporting Financial
Institution is required to treat the new address as a change in circumstances
and, if it elects to apply subparagraph B(6), is required to obtain the
appropriate documentation from the Account Holder.
D. Review of Pre-existing High Value Individual Accounts must be completed by
31 December 2016. Review of Pre-existing Lower Value Individual Accounts must
be completed by 31 December 2017.
DE. Any Pre-existing Individual Account that has been identified as a Reportable
Account under this Section must be treated as a Reportable Account in all subsequent
years, unless the Account Holder ceases to be a Reportable Person.
SECTION IV
DUE DILIGENCE FOR NEW INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS
The following procedures apply for purposes of identifying Reportable Accounts among New
Individual Accounts.
A. With respect to New Individual Accounts, upon account opening, the
Reporting Financial Institution must obtain a self-certification, which may be part of
the account opening documentation, that allows the Reporting Financial Institution to
determine the Account Holder's residence(s) for tax purposes and confirm the
reasonableness of such self-certification based on the information obtained by the
Reporting Financial Institution in connection with the opening of the account,
including any documentation collected pursuant to AML/KYC Procedures.
B. If the self-certification establishes that the Account Holder is resident for tax
purposes in a Member State, the Reporting Financial Institution must treat the
account as a Reportable Account and the self-certification must also include the
Account Holder's TIN with respect to such Member State (subject to Section
I, paragraph D of Section I) and date of birth.
EN 8 EN
C. If there is a change of circumstances with respect to a New Individual Account
that causes the Reporting Financial Institution to know, or have reason to know, that
the original self-certification is incorrect or unreliable, the Reporting Financial
Institution cannot rely on the original self-certification and must obtain a valid self-
certification that establishes the residence(s) for tax purposes of the Account Holder.
SECTION V
DUE DILIGENCE FOR PRE-EXISTING ENTITY ACCOUNTS
The following procedures apply for purposes of identifying Reportable Accounts among Pre-
existing Entity Accounts.
A. Entity Accounts Not Required to Be Reviewed, Identified or Reported. Unless
the Reporting Financial Institution elects otherwise, either with respect to all Pre-
existing Entity Accounts or, separately, with respect to any clearly identified group
of such accounts, a Pre-existing Entity Account with an aggregate account balance or
value that does not exceed, as of 31 December 2015, an amount denominated in the
domestic currency of each Member State that corresponds to USD 250000, is not
required to be reviewed, identified, or reported as a Reportable Account until the
aggregate account balance or value exceeds that amount as of the last day of any
subsequent calendar year.
B. Entity Accounts Subject to Review. A Pre-existing Entity Account that has an
aggregate account balance or value that exceeds, as of 31 December 2015, an amount
denominated in the domestic currency of each Member State that corresponds to
USD 250000, and a Pre-existing Entity Account that does not exceed, as of 31
December 2015, that amount but the aggregate account balance or value of which
exceeds such amount as of the last day of any subsequent calendar year, must be
reviewed in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph D.
C. Entity Accounts With Respect to Which Reporting Is Required. With respect
to Pre-existing Entity Accounts described in paragraph B, only accounts that are held
by one or more Entities that are Reportable Persons, or by Passive non-financial
entities (NFEs) with one or more Controlling Persons who are Reportable Persons,
shall be treated as Reportable Accounts.
D. Review Procedures for Identifying Entity Accounts With Respect to Which
Reporting Is Required. For Pre-existing Entity Accounts described in paragraph B, a
Reporting Financial Institution must apply the following review procedures to
determine whether the account is held by one or more Reportable Persons, or by
Passive NFEs with one or more Controlling Persons who are Reportable Persons:
1. Determine Whether the Entity Is a Reportable Person.
(a) Review information maintained for regulatory or customer
relationship purposes (including information collected pursuant to
AML/KYC Procedures) to determine whether the information indicates
that the Account Holder is resident in a Member State. For this purpose,
information indicating that the Account Holder is resident in a Member
State includes a place of incorporation or organisation, or an address in a
Member State.
(b) If the information indicates that the Account Holder is resident
in a Member State, the Reporting Financial Institution must treat the
EN 9 EN
account as a Reportable Account unless it obtains a self-certification
from the Account Holder, or reasonably determines based on information
in its possession or that is publicly available, that the Account Holder is
not a Reportable Person.
2. Determine Whether the Entity is a Passive NFE with One or More
Controlling Persons who are Reportable Persons. With respect to an Account
Holder of a Pre-existing Entity Account (including an Entity that is a
Reportable Person), the Reporting Financial Institution must determine
whether the Account Holder is a Passive NFE with one or more Controlling
Persons who are Reportable Persons. If any of the Controlling Persons of a
Passive NFE is a Reportable Person, then the account must be treated as a
Reportable Account. In making these determinations the Reporting Financial
Institution must follow the guidance in subparagraphs D(2)(a) , (b) and
through (c) in the order most appropriate under the circumstances.
(a) Determining whether the Account Holder is a Passive NFE. For
purposes of determining whether the Account Holder is a Passive NFE,
the Reporting Financial Institution must obtain a self-certification from
the Account Holder to establish its status, unless it has information in its
possession or that is publicly available, based on which it can reasonably
determine that the Account Holder is an Active NFE or a Financial
Institution other than an Investment Entity described in subparagraph
A(6)(b) of Section VIII , subparagraph A(6)(b) that is not a
Participating Jurisdiction Financial Institution.
(b) Determining the Controlling Persons of an Account Holder. For
the purposes of determining the Controlling Persons of an Account
Holder, a Reporting Financial Institution may rely on information
collected and maintained pursuant to AML/KYC Procedures.
(c) Determining whether a Controlling Person of a Passive NFE is
a Reportable Person. For the purposes of determining whether a
Controlling Person of a Passive NFE is a Reportable Person, a Reporting
Financial Institution may rely on:
(i) information collected and maintained pursuant to AML/KYC
Procedures in the case of a Pre-existing Entity Account held by one
or more NFEs with an aggregate account balance or value that does
not exceed an amount denominated in the domestic currency of
each Member State that corresponds to USD 1000000; or
(ii) a self-certification from the Account Holder or such Controlling
Person of the Member State(s) or other jurisdiction(s) in which the
controlling person is resident for tax purposes.
E. Timing of Review and Additional Procedures Applicable to Pre-existing Entity
Accounts
1. Review of Pre-existing Entity Accounts with an aggregate account
balance or value that exceeds, as of 31 December 2015, an amount
denominated in the domestic currency of each Member State that corresponds
to USD 250000, must be completed by 31 December 2017.
2. Review of Pre-existing Entity Accounts with an aggregate account
balance or value that does not exceed, as of 31 December 2015, an amount
EN 10 EN
denominated in the domestic currency of each Member State that corresponds
to USD 250000 but exceeds that amount as of 31 December of a subsequent
year, must be completed within the calendar year following the year in which
the aggregate account balance or value exceeds such amount.
3. If there is a change of circumstances with respect to a Pre-existing
Entity Account that causes the Reporting Financial Institution to know, or have
reason to know, that the self-certification or other documentation associated
with an account is incorrect or unreliable, the Reporting Financial Institution
must re-determine the status of the account in accordance with the procedures
set forth in paragraph D.
SECTION VI
DUE DILIGENCE FOR NEW ENTITY ACCOUNTS
The following procedures apply for purposes of identifying Reportable Accounts among New
Entity Accounts.
Review Procedures for Identifying Entity Accounts With Respect to Which Reporting Is
Required. For New Entity Accounts, a Reporting Financial Institution must apply the
following review procedures to determine whether the account is held by one or more
Reportable Persons, or by Passive NFEs with one or more Controlling Persons who are
Reportable Persons:
1. Determine Whether the Entity Is a Reportable Person.
(a) Obtain a self-certification, which may be part of the account opening
documentation, that allows the Reporting Financial Institution to determine the
Account Holder's residence(s) for tax purposes and confirm the reasonableness
of such self-certification based on the information obtained by the Reporting
Financial Institution in connection with the opening of the account, including
any documentation collected pursuant to AML/KYC Procedures. If the Entity
certifies that it has no residence for tax purposes, the Reporting Financial
Institution may rely on the address of the principal office of the Entity to
determine the residence of the Account Holder.
(b) If the self-certification indicates that the Account Holder is resident in a
Member State, the Reporting Financial Institution must treat the account as a
Reportable Account, unless it reasonably determines based on information in
its possession or that is publicly available that the Account Holder is not a
Reportable Person with respect to such Member State.
2. Determine Whether the Entity is a Passive NFE with One or More Controlling
Persons Who Are Reportable Persons. With respect to an Account Holder of a New
Entity Account (including an Entity that is a Reportable Person), the Reporting
Financial Institution must determine whether the Account Holder is a Passive NFE
with one or more Controlling Persons who are Reportable Persons. If any of the
Controlling Persons of a Passive NFE is a Reportable Person, then the account must
be treated as a Reportable Account. In making these determinations the Reporting
Financial Institution must follow the guidance in subparagraphs A(2)(a) , (b)
and through (c) in the order most appropriate under the circumstances.
(a) Determining whether the Account Holder is a Passive NFE. For
purposes of determining whether the Account Holder is a Passive NFE, the
EN 11 EN
Reporting Financial Institution must rely on a self-certification from the
Account Holder to establish its status, unless it has information in its
possession or that is publicly available, based on which it can reasonably
determine that the Account Holder is an Active NFE or a Financial Institution
other than an Investment Entity described in subparagraph A(6)(b) of Section
VIII , subparagraph A(6)(b) that is not a Participating Jurisdiction
Financial Institution.
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.2 (adapted)
(b) Determining the Controlling Persons of an Account Holder. For the
purpose of determining the Controlling Persons of an Account Holder, a
Reporting Financial Institution may rely on information collected and
maintained pursuant to AML/KYC Procedures, provided that such procedures
are consistent with the Directive (EU) Regulation (EU) 2024/1624
2015/849. If the Reporting Financial Institution is not legally required to
apply AML/KYC Procedures that are consistent with the Directive
(EU) Regulation (EU)2024/1624 2015/849, it shall apply substantially
similar procedures for the purpose of determining the Controlling Persons.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex
(c) Determining whether a Controlling Person of a Passive NFE is a
Reportable Person. For purposes of determining whether a controlling person
of a Passive NFE is a Reportable Person, a Reporting Financial Institution may
rely on a self-certification from the Account Holder or such Controlling
Person.
SECTION VII
SPECIAL DUE DILIGENCE RULES
The following additional rules apply in implementing the due diligence procedures described
above:
A. Reliance on Self-Certifications and Documentary Evidence. A Reporting
Financial Institution may not rely on a self-certification or Documentary Evidence if
the Reporting Financial Institution knows or has reason to know that the self-
certification or Documentary Evidence is incorrect or unreliable.
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.3
BAa. Temporary lack of self-certification. In exceptional circumstances where a
self-certification cannot be obtained by a Reporting Financial Institution in respect of
a New Account in time to meet its due diligence and reporting obligations with
respect to the reporting period during which the account was opened, the Reporting
Financial Institution shall apply the due diligence procedures for Pre-existing
Accounts, until such self-certification is obtained and validated.
EN 12 EN
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
CB. Alternative Procedures for Financial Accounts held by Individual Beneficiaries
of a Cash Value Insurance Contract or an Annuity Contract and for a Group Cash
Value Insurance Contract or Group Annuity Contract. A Reporting Financial
Institution may presume that an individual beneficiary (other than the owner) of a
Cash Value Insurance Contract or an Annuity Contract receiving a death benefit is
not a Reportable Person and may treat such Financial Account as other than a
Reportable Account unless the Reporting Financial Institution has actual knowledge,
or reason to know, that the beneficiary is a Reportable Person. A Reporting Financial
Institution has reason to know that a beneficiary of a Cash Value Insurance Contract
or an Annuity Contract is a Reportable Person if the information collected by the
Reporting Financial Institution and associated with the beneficiary contains indicia
as described in paragraph B of Section III , paragraph B . If a Reporting
Financial Institution has actual knowledge, or reason to know, that the beneficiary is
a Reportable Person, the Reporting Financial Institution must follow the procedures
in paragraph B of Section III , paragraph B .
A Reporting Financial Institution may treat a Financial Account that is a member's
interest in a Group Cash Value Insurance Contract or Group Annuity Contract as a
Financial Account that is not a Reportable Account until the date on which an
amount is payable to the employee/certificate holder or beneficiary, if the Financial
Account that is a member's interest in a Group Cash Value Insurance Contract or
Group Annuity Contract meets the following requirements:
(i) the Group Cash Value Insurance Contract or Group Annuity Contract is
issued to an employer and covers 25 or more employees/certificate holders;
(ii) the employee/certificate holders are entitled to receive any contract
value related to their interests and to name beneficiaries for the benefit payable
upon the employee's death; and
(iii) the aggregate amount payable to any employee/certificate holder or
beneficiary does not exceed an amount denominated in the domestic currency
of each Member State that corresponds to USD 1000000.
The term ‘Group Cash Value Insurance Contract’ means a Cash Value Insurance
Contract that (i) provides coverage on individuals who are affiliated through an
employer, trade association, labour union, or other association or group; and (ii)
charges a premium for each member of the group (or member of a class within the
group) that is determined without regard to the individual health characteristics other
than age, gender, and smoking habits of the member (or class of members) of the
group.
The term ‘Group Annuity Contract’ means an Annuity Contract under which the
obligees are individuals who are affiliated through an employer, trade association,
labour union, or other association or group.
DC. Account Balance Aggregation and Currency Rules
1. Aggregation of Individual Accounts. For purposes of determining the
aggregate balance or value of Financial Accounts held by an individual, a
Reporting Financial Institution is required to aggregate all Financial Accounts
EN 13 EN
maintained by the Reporting Financial Institution, or by a Related Entity, but
only to the extent that the Reporting Financial Institution's computerised
systems link the Financial Accounts by reference to a data element such as
client number or TIN, and allow account balances or values to be aggregated.
Each holder of a jointly held Financial Account shall be attributed the entire
balance or value of the jointly held Financial Account for purposes of applying
the aggregation requirements described in this subparagraph.
2. Aggregation of Entity Accounts. For purposes of determining the
aggregate balance or value of Financial Accounts held by an Entity, a
Reporting Financial Institution is required to take into account all Financial
Accounts that are maintained by the Reporting Financial Institution, or by a
Related Entity, but only to the extent that the Reporting Financial Institution's
computerised systems link the Financial Accounts by reference to a data
element such as client number or TIN, and allow account balances or values to
be aggregated. Each holder of a jointly held Financial Account shall be
attributed the entire balance or value of the jointly held Financial Account for
purposes of applying the aggregation requirements described in this
subparagraph.
3. Special Aggregation Rule Applicable to Relationship Managers. For
purposes of determining the aggregate balance or value of Financial Accounts
held by a person to determine whether a financial account is a High Value
Account, a Reporting Financial Institution is also required, in the case of any
Financial Accounts that a relationship manager knows, or has reason to know,
are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or established (other than in a
fiduciary capacity) by the same person, to aggregate all such accounts.
4. Amounts Read to Include Equivalent in Other Currencies. All amounts
denominated in the domestic currency of each Member State shall be read to
include equivalent amounts in other currencies, as determined by domestic law.
SECTION VIII
DEFINED TERMS
The following terms have the meanings set forth below:
A. Reporting Financial Institution
1. The term ‘Reporting Financial Institution’ means any Member State Financial
Institution that is not a Non-Reporting Financial Institution. The term ‘Member State
Financial Institution’ means: (i) any Financial Institution that is resident in a Member
State, but excludes any branch of that Financial Institution that is located outside that
Member State; and (ii) any branch of a Financial Institution that is not resident in a
Member State, if that branch is located in that Member State.
2. The term ‘Participating Jurisdiction Financial Institution’ means (i) any
Financial Institution that is resident in a Participating Jurisdiction, but excludes any
branch of that Financial Institution that is located outside such Participating
Jurisdiction; and (ii) any branch of a Financial Institution that is not resident in a
Participating Jurisdiction, if that branch is located in such Participating Jurisdiction.
3. The term ‘Financial Institution’ means a Custodial Institution, a Depository
Institution, an Investment Entity, or a Specified Insurance Company.
EN 14 EN
4. The term ‘Custodial Institution’ means any Entity that holds, as a substantial
portion of its business, Financial Assets for the account of others. An Entity holds
Financial Assets for the account of others as a substantial portion of its business if
the Entity's gross income attributable to the holding of Financial Assets and related
financial services equals or exceeds 20 % of the Entity's gross income during the
shorter of: (i) the three-year period that ends on 31 December (or the final day of a
non-calendar year accounting period) prior to the year in which the determination is
being made; or (ii) the period during which the Entity has been in existence.
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.4(a) (adapted)
5. The term ‘Depository Institution’ means any Entity that:
(a) accepts deposits in the ordinary course of a banking or similar business;
or
(b) holds E-money or Central Bank Digital Currencies for the benefit of
customers.
6. The term ‘Investment Entity’ means any Entity:
(a) which primarily conducts as a business one or more of the following
activities or operations for or on behalf of a customer:
(i) trading in money market instruments (cheques, bills, certificates
of deposit, derivatives, etc.); foreign exchange; exchange, interest rate
and index instruments; transferable securities; or commodity futures
trading;
(ii) individual and collective portfolio management; or
(iii) otherwise investing, administering, or managing Financial
Assets, money, or Reportable Crypto-Assets on behalf of other persons;
or
(b) the gross income of which is primarily attributable to investing,
reinvesting, or trading in Financial Assets or Reportable Crypto-Assets, if the
Entity is managed by another Entity that is a Depository Institution, a Custodial
Institution, a Specified Insurance Company, or an Investment Entity described
in subparagraph A(6), point (a).
An Entity is treated as primarily conducting as a business one or more of the
activities described in subparagraph A(6), point (a), or an Entity’s gross income is
primarily attributable to investing, reinvesting, or trading in Financial Assets or
Reportable Crypto-Assets for the purposes of subparagraph A(6), point (b), if the
Entity’s gross income attributable to the relevant activities equals or exceeds 50 % of
the Entity’s gross income during the shorter of: (i) the three-year period ending on 31
December of the year preceding the year in which the determination is made; or (ii)
the period during which the Entity has been in existence. For the purposes of
subparagraph A(6), point (a)(iii), the term ‘otherwise investing, administering, or
managing Financial Assets, money, or Reportable Crypto-Assets on behalf of other
persons’ does not include the provision of services effectuating Exchange
Transactions for or on behalf of customers. The term ‘Investment Entity’ does not
EN 15 EN
include an Entity that is an Active NFE because that Entity meets any of the criteria
in subparagraph D(8), points (d) to (g).
This subparagraph shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the similar
language set out in the definition of ‘financial institution’ in Directive
(EU) Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 2015/849.
7. The term ‘Financial Asset’ includes a security (for example, a share of stock in
a corporation; partnership or beneficial ownership interest in a widely held or
publicly traded partnership or trust; note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of
indebtedness), partnership interest, commodity, swap (for example, interest rate
swaps, currency swaps, basis swaps, interest rate caps, interest rate floors,
commodity swaps, equity swaps, equity index swaps, and similar agreements),
Insurance Contract or Annuity Contract, or any interest (including a futures or
forward contract or option) in a security, Reportable Crypto-Asset, partnership
interest, commodity, swap, Insurance Contract, or Annuity Contract. The term
‘Financial Asset’ does not include a non-debt, direct interest in real property.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex
8. The term ‘Specified Insurance Company’ means any Entity that is an insurance
company (or the holding company of an insurance company) which issues, or is
obligated to make payments with respect to, a Cash Value Insurance Contract or an
Annuity Contract.
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.4(b)
9. For the purposes of this Annex, the term ‘Electronic Money’ or ‘E-money’
means any product that is:
(a) a digital representation of a single Fiat Currency;
(b) issued on the receipt of funds for the purpose of making payment
transactions;
(c) represented by a claim on the issuer denominated in the same Fiat
Currency;
(d) accepted in payment by a natural or legal person other than the issuer;
and
(e) by virtue of regulatory requirements to which the issuer is subject,
redeemable at any time and at par value for the same Fiat Currency upon
request of the holder of the product.
The term ‘Electronic Money’ or ‘E-money’ does not include a product created for the
sole purpose of facilitating the transfer of funds from a customer to another person
pursuant to instructions of the customer. A product is not created for the sole purpose
of facilitating the transfer of funds if, in the ordinary course of business of the
transferring Entity, either the funds connected with such product are held longer than
60 days after receipt of instructions to facilitate the transfer, or, if no instructions are
received, the funds connected with such product are held longer than 60 days after
receipt of the funds.
EN 16 EN
10. The term ‘Fiat Currency’ means the official currency of a jurisdiction, issued
by a jurisdiction or by a jurisdiction’s designated Central Bank or monetary
authority, as represented by physical banknotes or coins or by money in different
digital forms, including bank reserves and Central Bank Digital Currencies. The term
also includes commercial bank money and electronic money products (Electronic
Money).
11. The term ‘Central Bank Digital Currency’ means any digital Fiat Currency
issued by a Central Bank or other monetary authority.
12. The term ‘Crypto-Asset’ means crypto-asset as defined in Article 3(1), point
(5), of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.
13. The term ‘Reportable Crypto-Asset’ means any Crypto-Asset other than a
Central Bank Digital Currency, Electronic Money, or any Crypto-Asset for which the
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider has adequately determined that it cannot be
used for payment or investment purposes.
14. The term ‘Exchange Transaction’ means any:
(a) exchange between Reportable Crypto-Assets and Fiat Currencies; and
(b) exchange between one or more forms of Reportable Crypto-Assets.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex
B. Non-Reporting Financial Institution
1. The term ‘Non-Reporting Financial Institution’ means any Financial Institution
which is:
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.4(c)
(a) a Governmental Entity, International Organisation or Central Bank,
other than:
(i) with respect to a payment that is derived from an obligation
held in connection with a commercial financial activity of a type engaged
in by a Specified Insurance Company, Custodial Institution, or
Depository Institution; or
(ii) with respect to the activity of maintaining Central Bank Digital
Currencies for Account Holders which are not Financial Institutions,
Governmental Entities, International Organisations or Central Banks;
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
new
(b) a Broad Participation Retirement Fund; a Narrow Participation
Retirement Fund; a Pension Fund of a Governmental Entity, International
Organisation or Central Bank; or a Qualified Credit Card Issuer;
EN 17 EN
(c) any other Entity that presents a low risk of being used to evade tax, has
substantially similar characteristics to any of the Entities described in
subparagraphs B(1) points (a) and (b) of this subparagraph , and
is included in the list of Non-Reporting Financial Institutions referred to in
Article 5 8(7a) of this Directive, provided that the status of such Entity
as a Non-Reporting Financial Institution does not frustrate the purposes of this
Directive;
(d) an Exempt Collective Investment Vehicle; or
(e) a trust to the extent that the trustee of the trust is a Reporting Financial
Institution and reports all information required to be reported pursuant to
Section I with respect to all Reportable Accounts of the trust.
2. The term ‘Governmental Entity’ means the government of a Member State or
other jurisdiction, any political subdivision of a Member State or other jurisdiction
(which, for the avoidance of doubt, includes a state, province, county, or
municipality), or any wholly owned agency or instrumentality of a Member State or
other jurisdiction or of any one or more of the foregoing (each, a ‘Governmental
Entity’). This category is comprised of the integral parts, controlled entities, and
political subdivisions of a Member State or other jurisdiction.
(a) An ‘integral part’ of a Member State or other jurisdiction means any
person, organisation, agency, bureau, fund, instrumentality, or other body,
however designated, that constitutes a governing authority of a Member State
or other jurisdiction. The net earnings of the governing authority must be
credited to its own account or to other accounts of the Member State or other
jurisdiction, with no portion inuring to the benefit of any private person. An
integral part does not include any individual who is a sovereign, official, or
administrator acting in a private or personal capacity.
(b) A ‘controlled entity’ means an Entity which is separate in form from
the Member State or other jurisdiction or which otherwise constitutes a
separate juridical entity, provided that:
(i) the Entity is wholly owned and controlled by one or more
Governmental Entities directly or through one or more controlled
entities;
(ii) the Entity's net earnings are credited to its own account or to the
accounts of one or more Governmental Entities, with no portion of its
income inuring to the benefit of any private person; and
(iii) the Entity's assets vest in one or more Governmental Entities
upon dissolution.
(c) Income does not inure to the benefit of private persons if such persons
are the intended beneficiaries of a governmental programme, and the
programme activities are performed for the general public with respect to the
common welfare or relate to the administration of some phase of government.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, income is considered to inure to the
benefit of private persons if the income is derived from the use of a
Governmental Entity to conduct a commercial business, such as a commercial
banking business, that provides financial services to private persons.
EN 18 EN
3. The term ‘International Organisation’ means any international organisation or
wholly owned agency or instrumentality thereof. This category includes any
intergovernmental organisation (including a supranational organisation) (i) that is
comprised primarily of governments; (ii) that has in effect a headquarters or
substantially similar agreement with the Member State or other jurisdiction ;
and (iii) the income of which does not inure to the benefit of private persons.
4. The term ‘Central Bank’ means an institution that is by law or government
sanction the principal authority, other than the government of the Member State or
other jurisdiction itself, issuing instruments intended to circulate as currency. Such
an institution may include an instrumentality that is separate from the government of
the Member State or other jurisdiction , whether or not owned in whole or in
part by the Member State or other jurisdiction .
5. The term ‘Broad Participation Retirement Fund’ means a fund established to
provide retirement, disability, or death benefits, or any combination thereof, to
beneficiaries who are current or former employees (or persons designated by such
employees) of one or more employers in consideration for services rendered,
provided that the fund:
(a) does not have a single beneficiary with a right to more than 5 % of the
fund's assets;
(b) is subject to government regulation and provides information reporting
to the tax authorities; and
(c) satisfies at least one of the following requirements:
(i) the fund is generally exempt from tax on investment income, or
taxation of such income is deferred or taxed at a reduced rate, due to its
status as a retirement or pension plan;
(ii) the fund receives at least 50 % of its total contributions (other
than transfers of assets from other plans described in subparagraphs B
(5), (6) and through (7) or from retirement and pension accounts
described in subparagraph C(17) , point (a) from the sponsoring
employers;
(iii) distributions or withdrawals from the fund are allowed only
upon the occurrence of specified events related to retirement, disability,
or death (except rollover distributions to other retirement funds described
in subparagraphs B(5) through (7) or retirement and pension accounts
described in subparagraph C(17)(a)), or penalties apply to distributions or
withdrawals made before such specified events; or
(iv) contributions (other than certain permitted make-up
contributions) by employees to the fund are limited by reference to
earned income of the employee or may not exceed, annually, an amount
denominated in the domestic currency of each Member State that
corresponds to USD 50000, applying the rules set forth in paragraph C of
Section VII , subparagraph C for account aggregation and
currency translation.
6. The term ‘Narrow Participation Retirement Fund’ means a fund established to
provide retirement, disability, or death benefits to beneficiaries who are current or
EN 19 EN
former employees (or persons designated by such employees) of one or more
employers in consideration for services rendered, provided that:
(a) the fund has fewer than 50 participants;
(b) the fund is sponsored by one or more employers that are not Investment
Entities or Passive NFEs;
(c) the employee and employer contributions to the fund (other than
transfers of assets from retirement and pension accounts described in
subparagraph C(17) , point (a)) are limited by reference to earned
income and compensation of the employee, respectively;
(d) participants that are not residents of the Member State in which the
fund is established are not entitled to more than 20 % of the fund's assets; and
(e) the fund is subject to government regulation and provides information
reporting to the tax authorities.
7. The term ‘Pension Fund of a Governmental Entity, International Organisation
or Central Bank’ means a fund established by a Governmental Entity, International
Organisation or Central Bank to provide retirement, disability, or death benefits to
beneficiaries or participants who are current or former employees (or persons
designated by such employees), or who are not current or former employees, if the
benefits provided to such beneficiaries or participants are in consideration of
personal services performed for the Governmental Entity, International Organisation
or Central Bank.
8. The term ‘Qualified Credit Card Issuer’ means a Financial Institution
satisfying the following requirements:
(a) the Financial Institution is a Financial Institution solely because it is an
issuer of credit cards that accepts deposits only when a customer makes a
payment in excess of a balance due with respect to the card and the
overpayment is not immediately returned to the customer; and
(b) beginning on or before 1 January 2016, the Financial Institution
implements policies and procedures either to prevent a customer from making
an overpayment in excess of an amount denominated in the domestic currency
of each Member State that corresponds to USD 50000, or to ensure that any
customer overpayment in excess of that amount is refunded to the customer
within 60 days, in each case applying the rules set forth in paragraph C of
Section VII for account aggregation and currency translation. For this purpose,
a customer overpayment does not refer to credit balances to the extent of
disputed charges but does include credit balances resulting from merchandise
returns.
9. The term ‘Exempt Collective Investment Vehicle’ means an Investment Entity
that is regulated as a collective investment vehicle, provided that all of the interests
in the collective investment vehicle are held by or through individuals or Entities that
are not Reportable Persons, except a Passive NFE with Controlling Persons who are
Reportable Persons.
An Investment Entity that is regulated as a collective investment vehicle does not fail
to qualify under subparagraph B(9) as an Exempt Collective Investment Vehicle,
solely because the collective investment vehicle has issued physical shares in bearer
form, provided that:
EN 20 EN
(a) the collective investment vehicle has not issued, and does not issue, any
physical shares in bearer form after 31 December 2015;
(b) the collective investment vehicle retires all such shares upon surrender;
(c) the collective investment vehicle performs the due diligence procedures
set forth in Sections II tothrough VII and reports any information required to be
reported with respect to any such shares when such shares are presented for
redemption or other payment; and
(d) the collective investment vehicle has in place policies and procedures
to ensure that such shares are redeemed or immobilised as soon as possible,
and in any event prior to 1 January 2018.
C. Financial Account
1. The term ‘Financial Account’ means an account maintained by a Financial
Institution, and includes a Depository Account, a Custodial Account and:
(a) in the case of an Investment Entity, any equity or debt interest in the
Financial Institution. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term ‘Financial
Account’ does not include any equity or debt interest in an Entity that is an
Investment Entity solely because it (i) renders investment advice to, and acts
on behalf of; or (ii) manages portfolios for, and acts on behalf of, a customer
for the purpose of investing, managing, or administering Financial Assets
deposited in the name of the customer with a Financial Institution other than
such Entity;
(b) in the case of a Financial Institution not described in point
subparagraph C(1)(a), any equity or debt interest in the Financial Institution, if
the class of interests was established with the purpose of avoiding reporting in
accordance with Section I; and
(c) any Cash Value Insurance Contract and any Annuity Contract issued or
maintained by a Financial Institution, other than a non-investment-linked, non-
transferable immediate life annuity that is issued to an individual and
monetises a pension or disability benefit provided under an account that is an
Excluded Account.
The term ‘Financial Account’ does not include any account that is an Excluded
Account.
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.4(d)
2. The term ‘Depository Account’ includes any commercial, checking, savings,
time, or thrift account, or an account that is evidenced by a certificate of deposit,
thrift certificate, investment certificate, certificate of indebtedness, or other similar
instrument maintained by a Depository Institution. A Depository Account also
includes:
(a) an amount held by an insurance company pursuant to a guaranteed
investment contract or similar agreement to pay or credit interest therein;
(b) an account or notional account that represents all E-money held for the
benefit of a customer; and
EN 21 EN
(c) an account that holds one or more Central Bank Digital Currencies for
the benefit of a customer.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
3. The term ‘Custodial Account’ means an account (other than an Insurance
Contract or Annuity Contract) which holds one or more Financial Assets for the
benefit of another person.
4. The term ‘Equity Interest’ means, in the case of a partnership that is a
Financial Institution, either a capital or profits interest in the partnership. In the case
of a trust that is a Financial Institution, an Equity Interest is considered to be held by
any person treated as a settlor or beneficiary of all or a portion of the trust, or any
other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust. A Reportable
Person will be treated as being a beneficiary of a trust if such Reportable Person has
the right to receive directly or indirectly (for example, through a nominee) a
mandatory distribution or may receive, directly or indirectly, a discretionary
distribution from the trust.
5. The term ‘Insurance Contract’ means a contract (other than an Annuity
Contract) under which the issuer agrees to pay an amount upon the occurrence of a
specified contingency involving mortality, morbidity, accident, liability, or property
risk.
6. The term ‘Annuity Contract’ means a contract under which the issuer agrees to
make payments for a period of time determined in whole or in part by reference to
the life expectancy of one or more individuals. The term also includes a contract that
is considered to be an Annuity Contract in accordance with the law, regulation, or
practice of the Member State or other jurisdiction in which the contract was issued,
and under which the issuer agrees to make payments for a term of years.
7. The term ‘Cash Value Insurance Contract’ means an Insurance Contract (other
than an indemnity reinsurance contract between two insurance companies) that has a
Cash Value.
8. The term ‘Cash Value’ means the greater of (i) the amount that the
policyholder is entitled to receive upon surrender or termination of the contract
(determined without reduction for any surrender charge or policy loan); and (ii) the
amount the policyholder can borrow under or with regard to the contract.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term ‘Cash Value’ does not include an amount
payable under an Insurance Contract:
(a) solely by reason of the death of an individual insured under a life
insurance contract;
(b) as a personal injury or sickness benefit or other benefit providing
indemnification of an economic loss incurred upon the occurrence of the event
insured against;
(c) as a refund of a previously paid premium (less cost of insurance
charges whether or not actually imposed) under an Insurance Contract (other
than an investment-linked life insurance or annuity contract) due to
cancellation or termination of the contract, decrease in risk exposure during the
EN 22 EN
effective period of the contract, or arising from the correction of a posting or
similar error with regard to the premium for the contract;
(d) as a policyholder dividend (other than a termination dividend) provided
that the dividend relates to an Insurance Contract under which the only benefits
payable are described in point subparagraph C(8)(b); or
(e) as a return of an advance premium or premium deposit for an Insurance
Contract for which the premium is payable at least annually if the amount of
the advance premium or premium deposit does not exceed the next annual
premium that will be payable under the contract.
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.4(e) (adapted)
9. The term ‘Pre-existing Account’ means:
(a) a Financial Account maintained by a Reporting Financial Institution as
of 31 December 2015 or, if the account is treated as a Financial Account solely
by virtue of the amendments to this Directive made by Council Directive
(EU) 2023/22261, as of 31 December 2025;
(b) any Financial Account of an Account Holder, regardless of the date
such Financial Account was opened, if:
(i) the Account Holder also holds with the Reporting Financial
Institution (or with a Related Entity within the same Member State as the
Reporting Financial Institution) a Financial Account that is a Pre-existing
Account under subparagraph C(9), point (a);
(ii) the Reporting Financial Institution (and, as applicable, the
Related Entity within the same Member State as the Reporting Financial
Institution) treats both of the aforementioned Financial Accounts, and
any other Financial Accounts of the Account Holder that are treated as
Pre-existing Accounts under subparagraph C(9), point (b) of this
subparagraph , as a single Financial Account for the purpose of
satisfying the standards of knowledge requirements set out in Section
VII, paragraph A, and for the purpose of determining the balance or
value of any of the Financial Accounts when applying any of the account
thresholds;
(iii) with respect to a Financial Account that is subject
to AML/KYC Procedures, the Reporting Financial Institution is
permitted to satisfy such AML/KYC Procedures for the Financial
Account by relying upon the AML/KYC Procedures performed for the
Pre-existing Account described in subparagraph C(9), point (a); and
(iv) the opening of the Financial Account does not require the
provision of new, additional or amended customer information by the
Account Holder other than for the purposes of this Directive.
1
Council Directive (EU) 2023/2226 of 17 October 2023 amending Directive 2011/16/EU on
administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (OJ L, 2023/2226, 24.10.2023, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/2226/oj).
EN 23 EN
10. The term ‘New Account’ means a Financial Account maintained by a
Reporting Financial Institution opened on or after 1 January 2016 or, if the account is
treated as a Financial Account solely by virtue of the amendments to this Directive
made by Directive (EU) 2023/2226, on or after 1 January 2026.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
11. The term ‘Pre-existing Individual Account’ means a Pre-existing Account held
by one or more individuals.
12. The term ‘New Individual Account’ means a New Account held by one or
more individuals.
13. The term ‘Pre-existing Entity Account’ means a Pre-existing Account held by
one or more Entities.
14. The term ‘Lower Value Account’ means a Pre-existing Individual Account
with an aggregate balance or value as of 31 December 2015 that does not exceed an
amount denominated in the domestic currency of each Member State that
corresponds to USD 1000000.
15. The term ‘High Value Account’ means a Pre-existing Individual Account with
an aggregate balance or value that exceeds, as of 31 December 2015, or 31
December of any subsequent year, an amount denominated in the domestic currency
of each Member State that corresponds to USD 1000000.
16. The term ‘New Entity Account’ means a New Account held by one or more
Entities.
17. The term ‘Excluded Account’ means any of the following accounts:
(a) a retirement or pension account that satisfies the following
requirements:
(i) the account is subject to regulation as a personal retirement
account or is part of a registered or regulated retirement or pension plan
for the provision of retirement or pension benefits (including disability or
death benefits);
(ii) the account is tax-favoured (i.e., contributions to the account
that would otherwise be subject to tax are deductible or excluded from
the gross income of the Account Holder or taxed at a reduced rate, or
taxation of investment income from the account is deferred or taxed at a
reduced rate);
(iii) information reporting is required to the tax authorities with
respect to the account;
(iv) withdrawals are conditioned on reaching a specified retirement
age, disability, or death, or penalties apply to withdrawals made before
such specified events; and
(v) either (i) annual contributions are limited to an amount
denominated in the domestic currency of each Member State that
corresponds to USD 50000 or less; or (ii) there is a maximum lifetime
contribution limit to the account of an amount denominated in the
EN 24 EN
domestic currency of each Member State that corresponds to USD
1000000 or less, in each case applying the rules set forth in paragraph C
of Section VII , paragraph C or account aggregation and currency
translation.
A Financial Account that otherwise satisfies the requirement of subparagraph
C(17) , point (a)(v) will not fail to satisfy such requirement solely
because such Financial Account may receive assets or funds transferred from
one or more Financial Accounts that meet the requirements of subparagraph
C(17) , point (a) or (b) or from one or more retirement or pension funds
that meet the requirements of any of subparagraphs B(5) tothrough (7);
(b) an account that satisfies the following requirements:
(i) the account is subject to regulation as an investment vehicle for
purposes other than for retirement and is regularly traded on an
established securities market, or the account is subject to regulation as a
savings vehicle for purposes other than for retirement;
(ii) the account is tax-favoured (i.e., contributions to the account
that would otherwise be subject to tax are deductible or excluded from
the gross income of the Account Holder or taxed at a reduced rate, or
taxation of investment income from the account is deferred or taxed at a
reduced rate);
(iii) withdrawals are conditioned on meeting specific criteria related
to the purpose of the investment or savings account (for example, the
provision of educational or medical benefits), or penalties apply to
withdrawals made before such criteria are met; and
(iv) annual contributions are limited to an amount denominated in
the domestic currency of each Member State that corresponds to USD
50000 or less, applying the rules set forth in paragraph C of Section VII,
paragraph C for account aggregation and currency translation.
A Financial Account that otherwise satisfies the requirement of subparagraph
C(17) , point (b)(iv) will not fail to satisfy such requirement solely
because such Financial Account may receive assets or funds transferred from
one or more Financial Accounts that meet the requirements of subparagraph
C(17) , point (a) or (b) or from one or more retirement or pension funds
that meet the requirements of any of subparagraphs B(5) tothrough (7);
(c) a life insurance contract with a coverage period that will end before the
insured individual attains age 90, provided that the contract satisfies the
following requirements:
(i) periodic premiums, which do not decrease over time, are
payable at least annually during the period the contract is in existence or
until the insured attains age 90, whichever is shorter;
(ii) the contract has no contract value that any person can access
(by withdrawal, loan, or otherwise) without terminating the contract;
(iii) the amount (other than a death benefit) payable upon
cancellation or termination of the contract cannot exceed the aggregate
premiums paid for the contract, less the sum of mortality, morbidity, and
expense charges (whether or not actually imposed) for the period or
EN 25 EN
periods of the contract's existence and any amounts paid prior to the
cancellation or termination of the contract; and
(iv) the contract is not held by a transferee for value;
(d) an account that is held solely by an estate if the documentation for such
account includes a copy of the deceased's will or death certificate;
(e) an account established in connection with any of the following:
(i) a court order or judgment.
(ii) a sale, exchange, or lease of real or personal property, provided
that the account satisfies the following requirements:
– the account is funded solely with a down payment, earnest money,
deposit in an amount appropriate to secure an obligation directly
related to the transaction, or a similar payment, or is funded with a
Financial Asset that is deposited in the account in connection with
the sale, exchange, or lease of the property,
– the account is established and used solely to secure the obligation
of the purchaser to pay the purchase price for the property, the
seller to pay any contingent liability, or the lessor or lessee to pay
for any damages relating to the leased property as agreed under the
lease,
– the assets of the account, including the income earned thereon, will
be paid or otherwise distributed for the benefit of the purchaser,
seller, lessor, or lessee (including to satisfy such person's
obligation) when the property is sold, exchanged, or surrendered,
or the lease terminates,
– the account is not a margin or similar account established in
connection with a sale or exchange of a Financial Asset, and
– the account is not associated with an account described in
subparagraph C(17) , point (f);
(iii) an obligation of a Financial Institution servicing a loan secured
by real property to set aside a portion of a payment solely to facilitate the
payment of taxes or insurance related to the real property at a later time;
(iv) an obligation of a Financial Institution solely to facilitate the
payment of taxes at a later time;
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.4(f)
(v) a foundation or capital increase of a company provided that the
account satisfies the following requirements:
– the account is used exclusively to deposit capital that is to be used
for the purposes of the foundation or capital increase of a company,
as prescribed by law;
EN 26 EN
– any amounts held in the account are blocked until the Reporting
Financial Institution obtains an independent confirmation regarding
the foundation or capital increase;
– the account is closed or transformed into an account in the name of
the company after the foundation or capital increase;
– any repayments resulting from a failed foundation or capital
increase, net of service provider and similar fees, are made solely
to the persons who contributed the amounts; and
– the account has not been established more than 12 months ago;
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.4(f)
(fea) a Depository Account that represents all Electronic Money held for the
benefit of a customer, if the rolling average 90 days end-of-day aggregate
account balance or value during any period of 90 consecutive days did not
exceed USD 10000 at any day during the calendar year or other appropriate
reporting period;
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
(gf) a Depository Account that satisfies the following requirements:
(i) the account exists solely because a customer makes a payment
in excess of a balance due with respect to a credit card or other revolving
credit facility and the overpayment is not immediately returned to the
customer; and
(ii) beginning on or before 1 January 2016, the Financial Institution
implements policies and procedures either to prevent a customer from
making an overpayment in excess of an amount denominated in the
domestic currency of each Member State that corresponds to USD 50000,
or to ensure that any customer overpayment in excess of that amount is
refunded to the customer within 60 days, in each case applying the rules
set forth in paragraph C of Section VII , paragraph C for currency
translation. For this purpose, a customer overpayment does not refer to
credit balances to the extent of disputed charges but does include credit
balances resulting from merchandise returns;
(hg) any other account that presents a low risk of being used to evade tax,
has substantially similar characteristics to any of the accounts described in
subparagraphs C(17) , points (a) tothrough (f), and is included in the list
of Excluded Accounts referred to in Article 5 8(7a) of this Directive,
provided that the status of such account as an Excluded Account does not
frustrate the purposes of this Directive.
D. Reportable Account
1. The term ‘Reportable Account’ means a Financial Account that is maintained
by a Member State Reporting Financial Institution and is held by one or more
Reportable Persons or by a Passive NFE with one or more Controlling Persons that is
EN 27 EN
a Reportable Person, provided it has been identified as such pursuant to the due
diligence procedures described in Sections II tothrough VII.
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.4(g)
2. The term ‘Reportable Person’ means a Member State Person other than:
(a) an Entity the stock of which is regularly traded on one or more
established securities markets;
(b) any Entity that is a Related Entity of an Entity described in point (a);
(c) a Governmental Entity;
(d) an International Organisation;
(e) a Central Bank; or
(f) a Financial Institution.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
3. The term ‘Member State Person’ with regard to each Member State means an
individual or Entity that is resident in any other Member State under the tax laws of
that other Member State, or an estate of a decedent that was a resident of any other
Member State. For this purpose, an Entity such as a partnership, limited liability
partnership or similar legal arrangement, which has no residence for tax purposes
shall be treated as resident in the jurisdiction in which its place of effective
management is situated.
4. The term ‘Participating Jurisdiction’ with regard to each Member State means:
(a) any other Member State;
(b) any other jurisdiction (i) with which the Member State concerned has
an agreement in place pursuant to which that jurisdiction will provide the
information specified in Section I; and (ii) which is identified in a list
published by that Member State and notified to the European Commission;
(c) any other jurisdiction (i) with which the Union has an agreement in
place pursuant to which that jurisdiction will provide the information specified
in Section I; and (ii) which is identified in a list published by the European
Commission.
5. The term ‘Controlling Persons’ means the natural persons who exercise control
over an Entity. In the case of a trust, that term means the settlor(s), the trustee(s), the
protector(s) (if any), the beneficiary(ies) or class(es) of beneficiaries, and any other
natural person(s) exercising ultimate effective control over the trust, and in the case
of a legal arrangement other than a trust, such term means persons in equivalent or
similar positions. The term ‘Controlling Persons’ must be interpreted in a manner
consistent with the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations.
6. The term ‘NFE’ means any Entity that is not a Financial Institution.
EN 28 EN
7. The term ‘Passive NFE’ means any: (i) NFE that is not an Active NFE; or (ii)
an Investment Entity described in subparagraph A(6) , point (b) that is not a
Participating Jurisdiction Financial Institution.
8. The term ‘Active NFE’ means any NFE that meets any of the following
criteria:
(a) less than 50 % of the NFE's gross income for the preceding calendar
year or other appropriate reporting period is passive income and less than 50 %
of the assets held by the NFE during the preceding calendar year or other
appropriate reporting period are assets that produce or are held for the
production of passive income;
(b) the stock of the NFE is regularly traded on an established securities
market or the NFE is a Related Entity of an Entity the stock of which is
regularly traded on an established securities market;
(c) the NFE is a Governmental Entity, an International Organisation, a
Central Bank, or an Entity wholly owned by one or more of the foregoing;
(d) substantially all of the activities of the NFE consist of holding (in
whole or in part) the outstanding stock of, or providing financing and services
to, one or more subsidiaries that engage in trades or businesses other than the
business of a Financial Institution, except that an Entity does not qualify for
this status if the Entity functions (or holds itself out) as an investment fund,
such as a private equity fund, venture capital fund, leveraged buyout fund, or
any investment vehicle whose purpose is to acquire or fund companies and
then hold interests in those companies as capital assets for investment
purposes;
(e) the NFE is not yet operating a business and has no prior operating
history, but is investing capital into assets with the intent to operate a business
other than that of a Financial Institution, provided that the NFE does not
qualify for this exception after the date that is 24 months after the date of the
initial organisation of the NFE;
(f) the NFE was not a Financial Institution in the past five years, and is in
the process of liquidating its assets or is reorganising with the intent to
continue or recommence operations in a business other than that of a Financial
Institution;
(g) the NFE primarily engages in financing and hedging transactions with,
or for, Related Entities that are not Financial Institutions, and does not provide
financing or hedging services to any Entity that is not a Related Entity,
provided that the group of any such Related Entities is primarily engaged in a
business other than that of a Financial Institution; or
(h) the NFE meets all of the following requirements:
(i) it is established and operated in its Member State or other
jurisdiction of residence exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific,
artistic, cultural, athletic, or educational purposes; or it is established and
operated in its Member State or other jurisdiction of residence and it is a
professional organisation, business league, chamber of commerce, labour
organisation, agricultural or horticultural organisation, civic league or an
organisation operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare;
EN 29 EN
(ii) it is exempt from income tax in its Member State or other
jurisdiction of residence;
(iii) it has no shareholders or members who have a proprietary or
beneficial interest in its income or assets;
(iv) the applicable laws of the NFE's Member State or other
jurisdiction of residence or the NFE's formation documents do not permit
any income or assets of the NFE to be distributed to, or applied for the
benefit of, a private person or non-charitable Entity other than pursuant
to the conduct of the NFE's charitable activities, or as payment of
reasonable compensation for services rendered, or as payment
representing the fair market value of property which the NFE has
purchased; and
(v) the applicable laws of the NFE's Member State or other
jurisdiction of residence or the NFE's formation documents require that,
upon the NFE's liquidation or dissolution, all of its assets be distributed
to a Governmental Entity or other non-profit organisation, or escheat to
the government of the NFE's Member State or other jurisdiction of
residence or any political subdivision thereof.
E. Miscellaneous
1. The term ‘Account Holder’ means the person listed or identified as the holder
of a Financial Account by the Financial Institution that maintains the account. A
person, other than a Financial Institution, holding a Financial Account for the benefit
or account of another person as agent, custodian, nominee, signatory, investment
advisor, or intermediary, is not treated as holding the account for purposes of this
Directive, and such other person is treated as holding the account. In the case of a
Cash Value Insurance Contract or an Annuity Contract, the Account Holder is any
person entitled to access the Cash Value or change the beneficiary of the contract. If
no person can access the Cash Value or change the beneficiary, the Account Holder
is any person named as the owner in the contract and any person with a vested
entitlement to payment under the terms of the contract. Upon the maturity of a Cash
Value Insurance Contract or an Annuity Contract, each person entitled to receive a
payment under the contract is treated as an Account Holder.
2. The term ‘AML/KYC Procedures’ means the customer due diligence
procedures of a Reporting Financial Institution pursuant to the anti-money
laundering or similar requirements to which such Reporting Financial Institution is
subject.
3. The term ‘Entity’ means a legal person or a legal arrangement, such as a
corporation, partnership, trust, or foundation.
4. An Entity is a ‘Related Entity’ of another Entity if (i) either Entity controls the
other Entity; (ii) the two Entities are under common control; or (iii) the two Entities
are Investment Entities described in subparagraph A(6) , point (b), are under
common management, and such management fulfils the due diligence obligations of
such Investment Entities. For this purpose control includes direct or indirect
ownership of more than 50 % of the vote and value in an Entity.
5. The term ‘TIN’ means Taxpayer Identification Number (or functional
equivalent in the absence of a Taxpayer Identification Number).
EN 30 EN
6. The term ‘Documentary Evidence’ includes any of the following:
(a) a certificate of residence issued by an authorised government body (for
example, a government or agency thereof, or a municipality) of the Member
State or other jurisdiction in which the payee claims to be a resident;
(b) with respect to an individual, any valid identification issued by an
authorised government body (for example, a government or agency thereof, or
a municipality), that includes the individual's name and is typically used for
identification purposes;
(c) with respect to an Entity, any official documentation issued by an
authorised government body (for example, a government or agency thereof, or
a municipality) that includes the name of the Entity and either the address of its
principal office in the Member State or other jurisdiction in which it claims to
be a resident or the Member State or other jurisdiction in which the Entity was
incorporated or organised;
(d) any audited financial statement, third-party credit report, bankruptcy
filing, or securities regulator's report.
With respect to a Pre-existing Entity Account, Reporting Financial Institutions may
use as Documentary Evidence any classification in the Reporting Financial
Institution's records with respect to the Account Holder that was determined based on
a standardised industry coding system, that was recorded by the Reporting Financial
Institution consistent with its normal business practices for purposes of AML/KYC
Procedures or another regulatory purposes (other than for tax purposes) and that was
implemented by the Reporting Financial Institution prior to the date used to classify
the Financial Account as a Pre-existing Account, provided that the Reporting
Financial Institution does not know or does not have reason to know that such
classification is incorrect or unreliable. The term ‘standardised industry coding
system’ means a coding system used to classify establishments by business type for
purposes other than tax purposes.
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.4(h)
7. The term ‘Identification Service’ means an electronic process made available
free of charge by a Member State or the Union to a Reporting Financial Institution
for the purpose of ascertaining the identity and tax residence of an Account Holder or
Controlling Person.
EN 31 EN
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
SECTION IXX
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION DATES AS REGARDS REPORTING
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LOCATED IN AUSTRIA
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex
Pursuant to Article 5 of this Directive, Member States must have rules and administrative
procedures in place to ensure effective implementation of, and compliance with, the reporting
and due diligence procedures set out above including:
(1) rules to prevent any Financial Institutions, persons or intermediaries from
adopting practices intended to circumvent the reporting and due diligence
procedures;
(2) rules requiring Reporting Financial Institutions to keep records of the steps
undertaken and any evidence relied upon for the performance of the above
procedures and adequate measures to obtain those records;
(3) administrative procedures to verify Reporting Financial Institutions'
compliance with the reporting and due diligence procedures; administrative
procedures to follow up with a Reporting Financial Institution when undocumented
accounts are reported;
(4) administrative procedures to ensure that the Entities and accounts defined in
domestic law as Non-Reporting Financial Institutions and Excluded Accounts
continue to have a low risk of being used to evade tax; and
(5) effective enforcement provisions to address non-compliance.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
In the case of Reporting Financial Institutions located in Austria, all references to ‘2016’ and
‘2017’ in this Annex should be read as references to ‘2017’ and ‘2018’ respectively.
In the case of Pre-existing Accounts held by Reporting Financial Institutions located in
Austria, all references to ‘31 December 2015’ in this Annex should be read as references to
‘31 December 2016’.
2023/2226 Art. 1.17 and Annex
I.5
SECTION XI
TRANSITIONAL MEASURES
Notwithstanding Section I, subparagraph A(1), point (b), and subparagraph A(6a), with
respect to each Reportable Account that is maintained by a Reporting Financial Institution as
EN 32 EN
of 31 December 2025 and for reporting periods ending by the second calendar year following
such date, information with respect to the role(s) by virtue of which each Reportable Person is
a Controlling Person or Equity Interest holder of the Entity is only required to be reported if
such information is available in the electronically searchable data maintained by the
Reporting Financial Institution.
EN 33 EN
2014/107/EU Art. 1.6 and
Annex (adapted)
ANNEX II
COMPLEMENTARY REPORTING AND DUE DILIGENCE RULES FOR
FINANCIAL ACCOUNT INFORMATION
1. CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES
A ‘change in circumstances’ includes any change that results in the addition of information
relevant to a person's status or otherwise conflicts with such person's status. In addition, a
change in circumstances includes any change or addition of information to the Account
Holder's account (including the addition, substitution, or other change of an Account Holder)
or any change or addition of information to any account associated with such account
(applying the account aggregation rules described in subparagraphs C(1) through (3) of
Section VI , subparagraphs C(1), (2) and (3) I of Annex I) if such change or addition
of information affects the status of the Account Holder.
If a Reporting Financial Institution has relied on the residence address test described in
subparagraph B(1) of Section III , subparagraph B(1) of Annex I and there is a change
in circumstances that causes the Reporting Financial Institution to know or have reason to
know that the original Documentary Evidence (or other equivalent documentation) is
incorrect or unreliable, the Reporting Financial Institution must, by the later of the last day of
the relevant calendar year or other appropriate reporting period, or 90 calendar days following
the notice or discovery of such change in circumstances, obtain a self-certification and new
Documentary Evidence to establish the residence(s) for tax purposes of the Account Holder.
If the Reporting Financial Institution cannot obtain the self-certification and new
Documentary Evidence by such date, the Reporting Financial Institution must apply the
electronic record search procedure described in subparagraphs B(2) through (6) of Section III
, subparagraphs B(2) to (6) of Annex I.
2. SELF-CERTIFICATION FOR NEW ENTITY ACCOUNTS
With respect to New Entity Accounts, for the purposes of determining whether a Controlling
Person of a Passive NFE is a Reportable Person, a Reporting Financial Institution may only
rely on a self-certification from either the Account Holder or the Controlling Person.
3. RESIDENCE OF A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
A Financial Institution is ‘resident’ in a Member State if it is subject to the jurisdiction of
such Member State (i.e., the Member State is able to enforce reporting by the Financial
Institution). In general, where a Financial Institution is resident for tax purposes in a Member
State, it is subject to the jurisdiction of such Member State and it is, thus, a Member State
Financial Institution. In the case of a trust that is a Financial Institution (irrespective of
whether it is resident for tax purposes in a Member State), the trust is considered to be subject
to the jurisdiction of a Member State if one or more of its trustees are resident in such
Member State except if the trust reports all the information required to be reported pursuant to
this Directive with respect to Reportable Accounts maintained by the trust to another Member
State because it is resident for tax purposes in such other Member State. However, where a
Financial Institution (other than a trust) does not have a residence for tax purposes (e.g.,
because it is treated as fiscally transparent, or it is located in a jurisdiction that does not have
EN 1 EN
an income tax), it is considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State and it is,
thus, a Member State Financial Institution if:
(a) it is incorporated under the laws of the Member State;
(b) it has its place of management (including effective management) in the
Member State; or
(c) it is subject to financial supervision in the Member State.
Where a Financial Institution (other than a trust) is resident in two or more Member States,
such Financial Institution will be subject to the reporting and due diligence obligations of the
Member State in which it maintains the Financial Account(s).
4. ACCOUNT MAINTAINED
In general, an account would be considered to be maintained by a Financial Institution as
follows:
(a) in the case of a Custodial Account, by the Financial Institution that holds
custody over the assets in the account (including a Financial Institution that holds
assets in street name for an Account Holder in such institution);
(b) in the case of a Depository Account, by the Financial Institution that is
obligated to make payments with respect to the account (excluding an agent of a
Financial Institution regardless of whether such agent is a Financial Institution);
(c) in the case of any equity or debt interest in a Financial Institution that
constitutes a Financial Account, by such Financial Institution;
(d) in the case of a Cash Value Insurance Contract or an Annuity Contract, by the
Financial Institution that is obligated to make payments with respect to the contract.
5. TRUSTS THAT ARE PASSIVE NFES
An Entity such as a partnership, limited liability partnership or similar legal arrangement that
has no residence for tax purposes, according to subparagraph D(3) of Section VIII ,
subparagraph D(3) of Annex I, shall be treated as resident in the jurisdiction in which its
place of effective management is situated. For these purposes, a legal person or a legal
arrangement is considered ‘similar’ to a partnership and a limited liability partnership where it
is not treated as a taxable unit in a Member State under the tax laws of such Member State.
However, in order to avoid duplicate reporting (given the wide scope of the term ‘Controlling
Persons’ in the case of trusts), a trust that is a Passive NFE may not be considered a similar
legal arrangement.
6. ADDRESS OF ENTITY'S PRINCIPAL OFFICE
One of the requirements described in subparagraph E(6)(c) of Section VIII , subparagraph
E(6), point (c) of Annex I is that, with respect to an Entity, the official documentation
includes either the address of the Entity's principal office in the Member State or other
jurisdiction in which it claims to be a resident or the Member State or other jurisdiction in
which the Entity was incorporated or organised. The address of the Entity's principal office is
generally the place in which its place of effective management is situated. The address of a
Financial Institution with which the Entity maintains an account, a post office box, or an
address used solely for mailing purposes is not the address of the Entity's principal office
unless such address is the only address used by the Entity and appears as the Entity's
EN 2 EN
registered address in the Entity's organisational documents. Further, an address that is
provided subject to instructions to hold all mail to that address is not the address of the
Entity's principal office.
EN 3 EN
2016/881 Art. 1.9 and Annex
(adapted)
ANNEX III
FILING RULES FOR GROUPS OF MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES
SECTION I
DEFINED TERMS
1. The term ‘Group’ means a collection of enterprises related through ownership
or control such that it is either required to prepare Consolidated Financial Statements
for financial reporting purposes under applicable accounting principles or would be
so required if equity interests in any of the enterprises were traded on a public
securities exchange.
2. The term ‘Enterprise’ means any form of conducting business by any person
referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) of Article 3, point 1211 (b), (c) and (d) .
3. The term ‘MNE Group’ means any Group that includes two or more
enterprises the tax residence for which is in different jurisdictions, or includes an
enterprise that is resident for tax purposes in one jurisdiction and is subject to tax
with respect to the business carried out through a permanent establishment in another
jurisdiction, and is not an Excluded MNE Group.
4. The term ‘Excluded MNE Group’ means, with respect to any Fiscal Year of
the Group, a Group having total consolidated group revenue of less than EUR
750000000 or an amount in local currency approximately equivalent to EUR
750000000 as of January 2015 during the Fiscal Year immediately preceding the
Reporting Fiscal Year as reflected in its Consolidated Financial Statements for such
preceding Fiscal Year.
5. The term ‘Constituent Entity’ means any of the following:
(a) any separate business unit of an MNE Group that is included in the
Consolidated Financial Statements of the MNE Group for financial reporting
purposes, or would be so included if equity interests in such business unit of an
MNE Group were traded on a public securities exchange;
(b) any such business unit that is excluded from the MNE Group's
Consolidated Financial Statements solely on size or materiality grounds;
(c) any permanent establishment of any separate business unit of the MNE
Group included in (a) or (b) provided the business unit prepares a separate
financial statement for such permanent establishment for financial reporting,
regulatory, tax reporting, or internal management control purposes.
6. The term ‘Reporting Entity’ means the Constituent Entity that is required to
file a country-by-country report conforming to the requirements in Article 78aa(3) in
its jurisdiction of tax residence on behalf of the MNE Group. The Reporting Entity
may be the Ultimate Parent Entity, the Surrogate Parent Entity, or any entity
described in point 1 of Section II , paragraph 1 .
7. The term ‘Ultimate Parent Entity’ means a Constituent Entity of an MNE
Group that meets the following criteria:
EN 1 EN
(a) it owns directly or indirectly a sufficient interest in one or more other
Constituent Entities of such MNE Group such that it is required to prepare
Consolidated Financial Statements under accounting principles generally
applied in its jurisdiction of tax residence, or would be so required if its equity
interests were traded on a public securities exchange in its jurisdiction of tax
residence;
(b) there is no other Constituent Entity of such MNE Group that owns
directly or indirectly an interest described in point (a) in the first mentioned
Constituent Entity.
8. The term ‘Surrogate Parent Entity’ means one Constituent Entity of the MNE
Group that has been appointed by such MNE Group, as a sole substitute for the
Ultimate Parent Entity, to file the country-by-country report in that Constituent
Entity's jurisdiction of tax residence, on behalf of such MNE Group, when one or
more of the conditions set out in point (b) of the first paragraph of point 1 of Section
II , paragraph 1, point b apply.
9. The term ‘Fiscal Year’ means an annual accounting period with respect to
which the Ultimate Parent Entity of the MNE Group prepares its financial
statements.
10. The term ‘Reporting Fiscal Year’ means that Fiscal Year the financial and
operational results of which are reflected in the country-by-country report referred to
in Article 78aa(3).
11. The term ‘Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement’ means an agreement
that is between authorised representatives of an EU Member State and a non-Union
jurisdiction that are parties to an International Agreement and that requires the
automatic exchange of country-by-country reports between the party jurisdictions.
12. The term ‘International Agreement’ means the Multilateral Convention on
Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, any bilateral or multilateral tax
convention, or any tax information exchange agreement to which the Member State
is a party, and that by its terms provides legal authority for the exchange of tax
information between jurisdictions, including automatic exchange of such
information.
13. The term ‘Consolidated Financial Statements’ means the financial statements
of an MNE Group in which the assets, liabilities, income, expenses and cash flows of
the Ultimate Parent Entity and the Constituent Entities are presented as those of a
single economic entity.
14. The term ‘Systemic Failure’ with respect to a jurisdiction means either that a
jurisdiction has a Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement in effect with a
Member State but has suspended automatic exchange (for reasons other than those
that are in accordance with the terms of that Agreement), or that a jurisdiction
otherwise persistently failed to automatically provide to a Member State country-by-
country reports in its possession of MNE Groups that have Constituent Entities in
that Member State.
SECTION II
GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. A Constituent Entity resident in a Member State which is not the Ultimate Parent
Entity of an MNE Group shall file a country-by-country report with respect to the Reporting
EN 2 EN
Fiscal Year of an MNE Group of which it is a Constituent Entity, if the following criteria are
satisfied:
(a) the entity is resident for tax purposes in a Member State;
(b) one of the following conditions applies:
(i) the Ultimate Parent Entity of the MNE Group is not obligated to file a
country-by-country report in its jurisdiction of tax residence;
(ii) the jurisdiction in which the Ultimate Parent Entity is resident for tax
purposes has a current International Agreement to which the Member State is a
party but does not have a Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement in effect
to which the Member State is a party by the time specified in Article 78aa(1)
for filing the country-by-country report for the Reporting Fiscal Year;
(iii) there has been a Systemic Failure of the jurisdiction of tax residence of
the Ultimate Parent Entity that has been notified by the Member State to the
Constituent Entity resident for tax purposes in the Member State.
Without prejudice to the obligation of the Ultimate Parent Entity referred to in
Article 8aa(1) or its Surrogate Parent Entity to file the first country-by-country report
for the Fiscal Year of the MNE Group commencing on or after 1 January 2016,
Member States may decide that the obligation for Constituent Entities set out in point
1 of this Section shall apply for country-by-country reports with respect to the
Reporting Fiscal Years commencing on or after 1 January 2017 onwards.
A Constituent Entity resident in a Member State as defined in the first paragraph of
this point shall request its Ultimate Parent Entity to provide it with all information
required to enable it to meet its obligations to file a country-by-country report, in
accordance with Article 7 8aa(3). If despite that, that Constituent Entity has not
obtained or acquired all the required information to report for the MNE Group, this
Constituent Entity shall file a country-by-country report containing all information in
its possession, obtained or acquired, and notify the Member State of its residence that
the Ultimate Parent Entity has refused to make the necessary information available.
This shall be without prejudice to the right of the Member State concerned to apply
penalties provided for in its national legislation and this Member State shall inform
all Member States of this refusal.
Where there are more than one Constituent Entities of the same MNE Group that are
resident for tax purposes in within the Union and one or more of the
conditions set out in point (b) of this the first paragraph apply, the MNE
Group may designate one of such Constituent Entities to file the country-by-country
report conforming to the requirements of Article 7 8aa (3) with respect to any
Reporting Fiscal Year within the deadline specified in Article 7 8aa (1) and to notify
the Member State that the filing is intended to satisfy the filing requirement of all the
Constituent Entities of such MNE Group that are resident for tax purposes in
within the Union. That Member State shall, pursuant to Article 7 8aa (2),
communicate the country-by-country report received to any other Member State in
which, on the basis of the information in the country-by-country report, one or more
Constituent Entities of the MNE Group of the Reporting Entity are either resident for
tax purposes or are subject to tax with respect to the business carried out through a
permanent establishment.
Where a Constituent Entity cannot obtain or acquire all the information required to
file a country-by-country report, in line with Article 7 8aa (3), then such Constituent
EN 3 EN
Entity shall not be eligible to be designated to be the Reporting Entity for the MNE
Group in accordance with the fourth paragraph of this point. This rule shall be
without prejudice to the obligation of the Constituent Entity to notify the Member
State of its residence that the Ultimate Parent Entity has refused to make the
necessary information available.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph point 1, when one or more of the
conditions set out in point (b) of the first paragraph 1, point (b) of point 1 apply, an
entity described in paragraph point 1 shall not be required to file a country-by-country
report with respect to any Reporting Fiscal Year if the MNE Group of which it is a
Constituent Entity has made available a country-by-country report in accordance with Article
7 8aa (3) with respect to such Fiscal Year through a Surrogate Parent Entity that files that
country-by-country report with the tax authority of its jurisdiction of tax residence on or
before the date specified in Article 7 8aa (1) and that, in case the Surrogate Parent Entity is
tax resident in a jurisdiction outside the Union, satisfies the following conditions:
(a) the jurisdiction of tax residence of the Surrogate Parent Entity requires filing of
country-by-country reports conforming to the requirements of Article 7 8aa (3);
(b) the jurisdiction of tax residence of the Surrogate Parent Entity has a Qualifying
Competent Authority Agreement in effect to which the Member State is a party by
the time specified in Article 7 8aa (1) for filing the country-by-country report for the
Reporting Fiscal Year;
(c) the jurisdiction of tax residence of the Surrogate Parent Entity has not notified
the Member State of a Systemic Failure;
(d) the jurisdiction of tax residence of the Surrogate Parent Entity has been
notified no later than the last day of the Reporting Fiscal Year of such MNE Group
by the Constituent Entity resident for tax purposes in its jurisdiction that it is the
Surrogate Parent Entity;
(e) a notification has been provided to the Member State in accordance with
paragraph point 4.
3. Member States shall request that any Constituent Entity of an MNE Group that is
resident for tax purposes in that Member State notifies the Member State whether it is the
Ultimate Parent Entity or the Surrogate Parent Entity or the Constituent Entity designated
under paragraph point 1, no later than the last day of the Reporting Fiscal Year of such
MNE Group. Member States may extend that deadline to the last day for filing of a tax return
of that Constituent Entity for the preceding fiscal year.
4. Member States shall request that where a Constituent Entity of an MNE Group, that is
resident for tax purposes in that Member State, is not the Ultimate Parent Entity nor the
Surrogate Parent Entity nor the Constituent Entity designated under paragraph point 1,
it shall notify the Member State of the identity and tax residence of the Reporting Entity, no
later than the last day of the Reporting Fiscal Year of such MNE Group. Member States may
extend that deadline to the last day for filing of a tax return of that Constituent Entity for the
preceding fiscal year.
5. The country-by-country report shall specify the currency of the amounts referred to in
that report.
EN 4 EN
SECTION IIICOUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY REPORT
Α. Template for the country-by-country report
Table 1. Overview of allocation of income, taxes and business activities by tax
jurisdiction
Name of the MNE Group:
Fiscal Year concerned:
TIN
Currency used:
Tax Revenues Profit Incom Incom Stated Accu Numb Tangi
jurisdi (loss) e tax e tax capita mulat er of ble
ction Unrel Relate Total before paid accru l ed emplo assets
ated d incom (on ed — earnin yees other
party party e tax cash curren gs than
basis) t year cash
and
cash
equiv
alents
Table 2 List of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE Group included in each
aggregation per tax jurisdiction
Name of the MNE Group:
Fiscal Year concerned:
Ta Co Tax Main Business Activity(ies)
x nst Juri
Jur itu sdic Re Ho Pu Ma Sal Ad Pr Inte Re Ins Ho Dor Ot
isd ent tion sea ldi rch nufa es, mi ovi rnal gul ura ldi man her
2
icti Ent of rch ng asi ctur Ma nis sio Gro ate nce ng t
2
Please specify the nature of the activity of the Constituent Entity in the ‘Additional information’
EN 5 EN
on itie Org an or ng ing rke tra n up d Sh
s anis d Ma or or tin tiv of Fin Fin are
Re atio De na Pr Pro g e, Ser anc an s
sid n or vel gin oc duct or Ma vic e cia or
ent Inco op g ure ion Dis na es l Ot
in rpor me Int me tri ge to Ser her
the atio nt ell nt but me Un vic Eq
Ta n if ect ion nt rel es uit
x Diff ual or ate y
Jur eren Pr Su d ins
isd t op pp Pa tru
icti fro ert ort rtie me
on m y Ser s nts
Tax vic
Juri es
sdic
tion
of
Resi
den
ce
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Table 3: Additional information
Name of the MNE Group:
Fiscal Year concerned:
Please include any further brief information or explanation you consider necessary or that
would facilitate the understanding of the compulsory information provided in the country-by-
country report
B. General instructions for filling in the country-by-country report
1. Purpose
The template shall be used for reporting a multinational enterprise's (MNE) Group allocation
of income, taxes and business activities on a tax jurisdiction-by-tax jurisdiction basis.
2. Treatment of branches and permanent establishments
EN 6 EN
The permanent establishment data shall be reported by reference to the tax jurisdiction in
which it is situated and not by reference to the tax jurisdiction of residence of the business
unit of which the permanent establishment is a part. Residence tax jurisdiction reporting for
the business unit of which the permanent establishment is a part shall exclude financial data
related to the permanent establishment.
3. Period covered by the annual template
The template shall cover the Fiscal Year of the reporting MNE. For Constituent Entities, at
the discretion of the reporting MNE, the template shall reflect on a consistent basis either of
the following information:
(a) information for the Fiscal Year of the relevant Constituent Entities ending on
the same date as the Fiscal Year of the reporting MNE, or ending within the 12 month period
preceding such date;
(b) information for all the relevant Constituent Entities reported for the Fiscal
Year of the reporting MNE.
4. Source of data
The reporting MNE shall consistently use the same sources of data from year to year in
completing the template. The reporting MNE may choose to use data from its consolidation
reporting packages, from separate entity statutory financial statements, regulatory financial
statements, or internal management accounts. It is not necessary to reconcile the revenue,
profit and tax reporting in the template to the Consolidated Financial Statements. If statutory
financial statements are used as the basis for reporting, all amounts shall be translated to the
stated functional currency of the reporting MNE at the average exchange rate for the year
stated in the ‘Additional information’ section of the template. Adjustments need not be made,
however, for differences in accounting principles applied from tax jurisdiction to tax
jurisdiction.
The reporting MNE shall provide a brief description of the sources of data used in preparing
the template in the ‘Additional information’ section of the template. If a change is made in the
source of data used from year to year, the reporting MNE shall explain the reasons for the
change and its consequences in the ‘Additional information’ section of the template.
C. Specific instructions for filling in the country-by-country report
1. Overview of allocation of income, taxes and business activities by tax jurisdiction
(Table 1)
1.1. Tax jurisdiction
In the first column of the template, the reporting MNE shall list all of the tax jurisdictions in
which Constituent Entities of the MNE Group are resident for tax purposes. A tax jurisdiction
is defined as a State as well as a non-State jurisdiction which has fiscal autonomy. A separate
line shall be included for all Constituent Entities in the MNE Group deemed by the reporting
MNE not to be resident in any tax jurisdiction for tax purposes. Where a Constituent Entity is
resident in more than one tax jurisdiction, the applicable tax treaty tie breaker shall be applied
to determine the tax jurisdiction of residence. Where no applicable tax treaty exists, the
Constituent Entity shall be reported in the tax jurisdiction of the Constituent Entity's place of
effective management. The place of effective management shall be determined with
internationally agreed standards.
1.2. Revenues
EN 7 EN
In the three columns of the template under the heading ‘Revenues’, the reporting MNE shall
report the following information:
(a) the sum of revenues of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE Group in the
relevant tax jurisdiction generated from transactions with associated enterprises;
(b) the sum of revenues of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE Group in the
relevant tax jurisdiction generated from transactions with independent parties;
(c) the total of the sums referred to in points (a) and (b).
Revenues shall include revenues from sales of inventory and properties, services, royalties,
interest, premiums and any other amounts. Revenues shall exclude payments received from
other Constituent Entities that are treated as dividends in the payer's tax jurisdiction.
1.3. Profit (loss) before income tax
In the fifth column of the template, the reporting MNE shall report the sum of the profit (loss)
before income tax for all the Constituent Entities resident for tax purposes in the relevant tax
jurisdiction. The profit (loss) before income tax shall include all extraordinary income and
expense items.
1.4. Income tax paid (on cash basis)
In the sixth column of the template, the reporting MNE shall report the total amount of
income tax actually paid during the relevant Fiscal Year by all the Constituent Entities
resident for tax purposes in the relevant tax jurisdiction. Taxes paid shall include cash taxes
paid by the Constituent Entity to the residence tax jurisdiction and to all other tax
jurisdictions. Taxes paid shall include withholding taxes paid by other entities (associated
enterprises and independent enterprises) with respect to payments to the Constituent Entity.
Thus, if company A resident in tax jurisdiction A earns interest in tax jurisdiction B, the tax
withheld in tax jurisdiction B shall be reported by company A.
1.5. Income tax accrued (current year)
In the seventh column of the template, the reporting MNE shall report the sum of the accrued
current tax expense recorded on taxable profits or losses of the year of reporting of all the
Constituent Entities resident for tax purposes in the relevant tax jurisdiction. The current tax
expense shall reflect only operations in the current year and shall not include deferred taxes or
provisions for uncertain tax liabilities.
1.6. Stated capital
In the eighth column of the template, the reporting MNE shall report the sum of the stated
capital of all the Constituent Entities resident for tax purposes in the relevant tax jurisdiction.
With regard to permanent establishments, the stated capital shall be reported by the legal
entity of which it is a permanent establishment unless there is a defined capital requirement in
the permanent establishment tax jurisdiction for regulatory purposes.
1.7. Accumulated earnings
In the ninth column of the template, the reporting MNE shall report the sum of the total
accumulated earnings of all the Constituent Entities resident for tax purposes in the relevant
tax jurisdiction as of the end of the year. With regard to permanent establishments,
accumulated earnings shall be reported by the legal entity of which it is a permanent
establishment.
1.8. Number of employees
EN 8 EN
In the tenth column of the template, the reporting MNE shall report the total number of
employees on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis of all the Constituent Entities resident for tax
purposes in the relevant tax jurisdiction. The number of employees may be reported as of the
year-end, on the basis of average employment levels for the year, or on any other basis
consistently applied across tax jurisdictions and from year to year. For this purpose,
independent contractors participating in the ordinary operating activities of the Constituent
Entity may be reported as employees. Reasonable rounding or approximation of the number
of employees is permissible, providing that such rounding or approximation does not
materially distort the relative distribution of employees across the various tax jurisdictions.
Consistent approaches shall be applied from year to year and across entities.
1.9. Tangible assets other than cash and cash equivalents
In the eleventh column of the template, the reporting MNE shall report the sum of the net
book values of tangible assets of all the Constituent Entities resident for tax purposes in the
relevant tax jurisdiction. With regard to permanent establishments, assets shall be reported by
reference to the tax jurisdiction in which the permanent establishment is situated. Tangible
assets for this purpose do not include cash or cash equivalents, intangibles, or financial assets.
2. List of all the Constituent Entities of the MNE Group included in each aggregation per
tax jurisdiction (Table 2)
2.1. Constituent Entities resident in the tax jurisdiction
The reporting MNE shall list, on a tax jurisdiction-by-tax jurisdiction basis and by legal entity
name, all the Constituent Entities of the MNE Group which are resident for tax purposes in
the relevant tax jurisdiction. As stated in point 2 of the general instructions with regard to
permanent establishments, however, the permanent establishment shall be listed by reference
to the tax jurisdiction in which it is situated. The legal entity of which it is a permanent
establishment shall be noted.
2.2. Tax jurisdiction of organisation or incorporation if different from tax jurisdiction of
residence
The reporting MNE shall report the name of the tax jurisdiction under whose laws the
Constituent Entity of the MNE Group is organised or incorporated if it is different from the
tax jurisdiction of residence.
2.3. Main business activity(ies)
The reporting MNE shall determine the nature of the main business activity(ies) carried out
by the Constituent Entity in the relevant tax jurisdiction, by ticking one or more of the
appropriate boxes.
EN 9 EN
2018/822 Art. 1.8 and Annex
(adapted)
new
ANNEX IV
HALLMARKS
Part I. Main benefit test
Hallmarks Generic hallmarks under category A and specific hallmarks under Part
II, category B and under points (b)(i), (c) and (d) of paragraph 1 of Part II,
category C , paragraph 1, points (b)(i), (c) and (d) may only be taken into account where
they fulfil the ‘main benefit test’.
That test will be satisfied if it can be established that the main benefit or one of the main
benefits which, having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances, a person may reasonably
expect to derive from an arrangement is the obtaining of a tax advantage.
In the context of hallmark under paragraph 1 of Part II, category C, paragraph
1, the presence of conditions set out in points (b)(i), (c) or (d) of paragraph 1 of Part
II, category C , paragraph 1, points (b)(i), (c) or (d), cannot alone be a reason for
concluding that an arrangement satisfies the main benefit test.
Part II. Categories of hallmarks
A. (deleted) Generic hallmarks linked to the main benefit test
1. An arrangement where the relevant taxpayer or a participant in the arrangement
undertakes to comply with a condition of confidentiality which may require them not to
disclose how the arrangement could secure a tax advantage vis-à-vis other intermediaries or
the tax authorities.
2. An arrangement where the intermediary is entitled to receive a fee (or interest,
remuneration for finance costs and other charges) for the arrangement and that fee is fixed by
reference to:
(a) the amount of the tax advantage derived from the arrangement; or
(b) whether or not a tax advantage is actually derived from the arrangement. This
would include an obligation on the intermediary to partially or fully refund the fees
where the intended tax advantage derived from the arrangement was not partially or
fully achieved.
3. An arrangement that has substantially standardised documentation and/or structure and
is available to more than one relevant taxpayer without a need to be substantially customised
for implementation.
B. Hallmarks Specific hallmarks linked to the main benefit test
1. An arrangement whereby a participant in the arrangement takes contrived steps which
consist in acquiring a loss-making company, discontinuing the main activity of such company
and using its losses in order to reduce its tax liability, including through a transfer of those
losses to another jurisdiction or by the acceleration of the use of those losses.
2. An arrangement that has the effect of converting income into capital, gifts or other
categories of revenue which are taxed at a lower level or exempt from tax.
EN 1 EN
3. An arrangement which includes circular transactions resulting in the round-tripping of
funds, namely through involving interposed entities without other primary commercial
function or transactions that offset or cancel each other or that have other similar features.
C. Hallmarks Specific hallmarks related to cross-border transactions
1. An arrangement that involves deductible cross-border payments made between two or
more associated enterprises where at least one of the following conditions occurs:
(a) the recipient is not resident for tax purposes in any tax jurisdiction;
(b) although the recipient is resident for tax purposes in a jurisdiction, that
jurisdiction either:
(i) does not impose any corporate tax or imposes corporate tax at the rate
of zero or almost zero; or
(ii) is included in Annex I to a list of third-country jurisdictions which
have been assessed by Member States collectively or within the Council
conclusions on framework of the revised EU list of OECD as being
non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes ;
(c) the payment benefits from a full exemption from tax in the jurisdiction where
the recipient is resident for tax purposes;
(d) the payment benefits from a preferential tax regime in the jurisdiction where
the recipient is resident for tax purposes;
2. Deductions for the same depreciation on the asset are claimed in more than one
jurisdiction.
3. Relief from double taxation in respect of the same item of income or capital is claimed
in more than one jurisdiction.
4. There is an arrangement that includes transfers of assets and where there is a material
difference in the amount being treated as payable in consideration for the assets in those
jurisdictions involved.
D. Specific hallmarks concerning automatic exchange of information and beneficial
ownership
1. An arrangement which may have the effect of undermining the reporting obligation
under the laws implementing Union legislation or any equivalent agreements on the automatic
exchange of Financial Account information, including agreements with third countries, or
which takes advantage of the absence of such legislation or agreements. Such arrangements
include at least the following:
(a) the use of an account, product or investment that is not, or purports not to be, a
Financial Account, but has features that are substantially similar to those of a
Financial Account;
(b) the transfer of Financial Accounts or assets to, or the use of jurisdictions that are not
bound by the automatic exchange of Financial Account information with the State of
residence of the relevant taxpayer;
(c) the reclassification of income and capital into products or payments that are not
subject to the automatic exchange of Financial Account information;
EN 2 EN
(d) the transfer or conversion of a Financial Institution or a Financial Account or the
assets therein into a Financial Institution or a Financial Account or assets not subject
to reporting under the automatic exchange of Financial Account information;
(e) the use of legal entities, arrangements or structures that eliminate or purport to
eliminate reporting of one or more Account Holders or Controlling Persons under the
automatic exchange of Financial Account information;
(f) arrangements that undermine, or exploit weaknesses in, the due diligence procedures
used by Financial Institutions to comply with their obligations to report Financial
Account information, including the use of jurisdictions with inadequate or weak
regimes of enforcement of anti-money-laundering legislation or with weak
transparency requirements for legal persons or legal arrangements.
2. An arrangement involving a non-transparent legal or beneficial ownership chain with the
use of persons, legal arrangements or structures:
(a) that do not carry on a substantive economic activity supported by adequate staff,
equipment, assets and premises; and
(b) that are incorporated, managed, resident, controlled or established in any
jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction of residence of one or more of the beneficial
owners of the assets held by such persons, legal arrangements or structures; and
(c) where the beneficial owners of such persons, legal arrangements or structures, as
defined in Directive (EU) Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 2015/849, are made
unidentifiable.
E. Hallmarks Specific hallmarks concerning transfer pricing
1. An arrangement which involves the use of unilateral safe harbour rules.
2. An arrangement involving the transfer of hard-to-value intangibles. The term ‘hard-to-
value intangibles’ covers intangibles or rights in intangibles for which, at the time of their
transfer between associated enterprises:
(a) no reliable comparables exist; and
(b) at the time the transaction was entered into, the projections of future cash flows
or income expected to be derived from the transferred intangible, or the assumptions
used in valuing the intangible are highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the
level of ultimate success of the intangible at the time of the transfer.
3. An arrangement involving an intragroup cross-border transfer of functions and/or risks
and/or assets, if the projected annual earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), during the
three-year period after the transfer, of the transferor or transferors, are less than 50 % of the
projected annual EBIT of such transferor or transferors if the transfer had not been made.
EN 3 EN
2021/514 Art. 1.20 and Annex
(adapted)
new
ANNEX V
DUE DILIGENCE PROCEDURES, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER
RULES FOR PLATFORM OPERATORS
This Annex lays down the due diligence procedures, reporting requirements and other rules
that shall be applied by the Reporting Platform Operators in order to enable Member States to
communicate, by automatic exchange, the information referred to in Article 9 8ac of
this Directive.
This Annex also lays down the rules and administrative procedures that Member States shall
have in place to ensure effective implementation of, and compliance with, the due diligence
procedures and reporting requirements set out in it.
SECTION I
DEFINED TERMS
The following terms have the meaning set forth below:
A. Reporting Platform Operators
1. ‘Platform’ means any software, including one or more a websites
or a part thereof and applications, including mobile applications, accessible by
users and allowing Sellers to be connected to other users for the purpose of
carrying out a Relevant Activity, directly or indirectly, to such users. It also
includes any arrangement for the collection and payment of a Consideration in
respect of Relevant Activity.
The term ‘Platform’ does not include software that without any further
intervention in carrying out a Relevant Activity exclusively allows any of the
following:
(a) processing of payments in relation to Relevant Activity;
(b) users to list or advertise a Relevant Activity;
(c) redirecting or transferring of users to a Platform.
new
2. ‘Platform Operator’ means:
(a) an Entity that operates the software of the Platform or part thereof and
contracts with Sellers to make available all or part of a Platform to such
Sellers, by:
(i) enabling such Sellers to be connected to other users for the provision
of Relevant Activities, including by providing Sellers with direct access to the
Platform or by listing, offering or otherwise making available Relevant
Activities on the Platform on behalf of Sellers; or
(ii) collecting Consideration from users;
EN 1 EN
(b) an Entity that is registered on a Platform as a Seller, or in a functionally
equivalent capacity, and that, pursuant to contractual arrangements with one or
more of its Sellers, makes available the Platform to such Sellers.
The term Platform Operator does not include an Entity whose activities are
limited to the processing of payments, including the handling or transfer of
funds, and that does not have independent knowledge of the underlying
contractual arrangements, the Relevant Activities, or the Consideration.
2021/514 Art. 1.20 and Annex
(adapted)
new
3. ‘Excluded Platform Operator’ means a Platform Operator which:
(a) has demonstrated upfront and on an annual basis to the
satisfaction of the competent authority of the Member State to which, in
accordance with the rules laid down in subparagraphs A(1) to A(3) of Section
III, subparagraphs A(1), (2) and to A(3) of the Platform Operator
otherwise would have had to report that Platform’s entire business model is
such that it does not have Reportable Sellers;
(b) facilitates the provision of Relevant Activities for which the aggregate
Consideration at the level of the Platform over the previous calendar year is
less than EUR 50 000 and that notifies the tax administration of the Member
State of election that it opts to be treated as such .
4. ‘Reporting Platform Operator’ means any Platform Operator, other than
an Excluded Platform Operator, who is in any of the following situations:
(a) it is resident for tax purposes in a Member State or, where such
Platform Operator does not have a residence for tax purposes in a
Member State, it fulfils any of the following conditions:
(i) it is incorporated under the laws of a Member State;
(ii) it has its place of management (including effective
management) in a Member State;
(iii) it has a permanent establishment in a Member State and
is not a Qualified Non-Union Platform Operator;
(b) it is neither resident for tax purposes, nor incorporated or
managed in a Member State, nor has a permanent establishment in a
Member State, but facilitates the carrying out of a Relevant Activity by
Reportable Sellers or a Relevant Activity involving the rental of
immovable property located in a Member State and is not a Qualified
Non-Union Platform Operator.
5. ‘Qualified Non-Union Platform Operator’ means a Platform Operator
for which all Relevant Activities that it facilitates are also Qualified Relevant
Activities and that is resident for tax purposes in a Qualified Non-Union
Jurisdiction or, where such Platform Operator does not have a residence for tax
purposes in a Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction, it fulfils any of the following
conditions:
EN 2 EN
(a) it is incorporated under the laws of a Qualified Non-Union
Jurisdiction; or
(b) it has its place of management (including effective
management) in a Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction.
6. ‘Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction’ means a non-Union jurisdiction that
has in effect an Effective Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement with the
competent authorities of all Member States which are identified as reportable
jurisdictions in a list published by the non-Union jurisdiction.
7. ‘Effective Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement’ means an
agreement between the competent authorities of a Member State and a non-
Union jurisdiction that requires the automatic exchange of information
equivalent to that specified in paragraph B of Section III , paragraph B
of this Annex as confirmed by an implementing act in accordance with Article
118ac(7).
8. ‘Relevant Activity’ means an activity carried out for Consideration and
being any of the following:
(a) the rental of immovable property, including both residential and
commercial property, as well as any other immovable property and
parking spaces;
(b) a Personal Service;
(c) the sale of Goods;
(d) the rental of any mode of transport.
The term ‘Relevant Activity’ does not include an activity carried out by a
Seller acting as an employee of the Platform Operator or a related Entity of the
Platform Operator.
9. ‘Qualified Relevant Activities’ means any Relevant Activity covered
by the automatic exchange pursuant to an Effective Qualifying Competent
Authority Agreement.
10. ‘Consideration’ means compensation in any form, net of any fees,
commissions or taxes withheld or charged by the Reporting Platform Operator,
that is paid or credited to a Seller in connection with the Relevant Activity, the
amount of which is known or reasonably knowable by the Platform Operator.
11. ‘Personal Service’ means a service involving time- or task-based work
performed by one or more individuals, acting either independently or on behalf
of an Entity, and which is carried out at the request of a user, either online or
physically offline after having been facilitated via a Platform.
B. Reportable Sellers
1. ‘Seller’ means a Platform user, either an individual or an Entity, that is
registered at any moment during the Reportable Period on the Platform and
carries out a Relevant Activity.
EN 3 EN
new
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, “registered” shall be interpreted broadly
and includes instances where a user has created a profile or account on the Platform as
well as entered into a contractual relationship with the Platform Operator of the
Platform.
The term “Seller” also means an entity that qualifies as a Platform Operator registered
on a Platform as a Seller, or in a functionally equivalent capacity, and that, pursuant to
contractual arrangements with one or more of its Sellers, makes available all or part of
the Platform to such Sellers.
2021/514 Art. 1.20 and Annex
(adapted)
new
2. ‘Active Seller’ means any Seller that either provides a Relevant
Activity during the Reportable Period or is paid or credited Consideration in
connection with a Relevant Activity during the Reportable Period.
3. ‘Reportable Seller’ means any Active Seller, other than an Excluded
Seller, that is resident in a Member State or that rented out immovable property
located in a Member State.
4. ‘Excluded Seller’ means any Seller
(a) that is a Governmental Entity;
(b) that is an Entity the stock of which is regularly traded on an
established securities market or a related Entity of an Entity the stock of
which is regularly traded on an established securities market;
(c) that is an Entity for which the Platform Operator facilitated
more than 2000 Relevant Activities by means of the rental of immovable
property in respect of a Property Listing during the Reporting Period; or
(d) for which the Platform Operator facilitated less than 30
Relevant Activities by means of the sale of Goods andfor which the total
amount of Consideration paid or credited did not exceed EUR 2000
3000 during the Reporting Period , or
(e) that is a Related Entity of the Reporting Platform Operator.
C. Other definitions
1. ‘Entity’ means a legal person or a legal arrangement, such as a
corporation, partnership, trust or foundation or a sole trader . An Entity is
a related Entity of another Entity if either Entity controls the other Entity, or
the two Entities are under common control. For this purpose control includes
direct or indirect ownership of more than 50 % of the vote and value in an
Entity. In indirect participation, the fulfilment of the requirement for the
holding of more than 50 % of the right of ownership in the capital of the other
Entity shall be determined by multiplying the rates of holding through the
successive tiers. A person holding more than 50 % of the voting rights shall be
deemed to hold 100 %.
EN 4 EN
2. ‘Governmental Entity’ means the government of a Member State or
other jurisdiction, any political subdivision of a Member State or other
jurisdiction (which includes a state, province, county, or municipality), or any
wholly owned agency or instrumentality of a Member State or other
jurisdiction or of any one or more of the foregoing (each, a ‘Governmental
Entity’).
3. ‘TIN’ means a Taxpayer Identification Number, issued by a Member
State, or functional equivalent in the absence of a Taxpayer Identification
Number.
4. ‘VAT identification number’ means the unique number that identifies a
taxable person or a non-taxable legal entity that is registered for value added
tax purposes.
5. ‘Primary Address’ means the address that is the primary residence of a
Seller who is an individual, as well as the address that is the registered office of
a Seller that is an Entity.
6. ‘Reportable Period’ means the calendar year in respect of which
reporting is being completed pursuant to Section III.
7. ‘Property Listing’ means all immovable property units located at the
same street address, owned by the same owner and offered for rent on a
Platform by the same Seller.
8. ‘Financial Account Identifier’ means the unique identifying number or
reference available to the Platform Operator of the bank account or other
similar payment services account to which the Consideration is paid or
credited.
9. ‘Goods’ means any tangible property.
2023/2226 Art. 1.18 and Annex
II.1
10. ‘Identification Service’ means an electronic process made available
free of charge by a Member State or the Union to a Reporting Platform
Operator for the purpose of ascertaining the identity and tax residence of a
Seller.
2021/514 Art. 1.20 and Annex
(adapted)
new
SECTION II
DUE DILIGENCE PROCEDURES
The following procedures shall apply for the purpose of identifying Reportable Sellers.
A. Sellers not subject to review and Sellers that are Reporting Platform
Operators:
EN 5 EN
For the purpose of determining whether a Seller that is an Entity qualifies as an
Excluded Seller described in points (a) and (b) of subparagraph B(4) of Section I
, subparagraph B(4), points (a) and (b) , a Reporting Platform Operator may
rely on publicly available information or a confirmation from the Seller that is an
Entity.
For the purpose of determining whether a Seller qualifies as an Excluded Seller
described in points (c) and (d) of subparagraph B(4) of Section I , subparagraph
B(4), points (c) and (d) , a Reporting Platform Operator may rely on its available
records.
new
For the purpose of determining whether an Entity Seller is a Reporting Platform
Operator or a reporting platform operator in another Member State or a non-Union
jurisdiction being not a Qualified non-Union jurisdiction as defined in Section I,
subparagraph A(6), a Reporting Platform Operator shall obtain a written confirmation
from the Entity Seller.
2021/514 Art. 1.20 and Annex
B. Collection of Seller information
1. The Reporting Platform Operator shall collect all of the following
information for each Seller who is an individual and not an Excluded Seller:
(a) the first and last name;
(b) the Primary Address;
(c) any TIN issued to that Seller, including each Member State of
issuance, and in the absence of a TIN, the place of birth of that Seller;
(d) the VAT identification number of that Seller, where available;
(e) the date of birth.
2. The Reporting Platform Operator shall collect all of the following
information for each Seller that is an Entity and not an Excluded Seller:
(a) the legal name;
(b) the Primary Address;
(c) any TIN issued to that Seller, including each Member State of
issuance;
(d) the VAT identification number of that Seller, where available;
(e) the business registration number;
(f) the existence of any permanent establishment through which
Relevant Activities are carried out in the Union, where available,
indicating each respective Member State, where such a permanent
establishment is located.
EN 6 EN
2021/514 Art. 1.20 and Annex
(adapted)
34. Notwithstanding point (c) of subparagraph B(1) , point (c) and
points (c) and (e) of subparagraph B(2) , points (c) and (e) , the
Reporting Platform Operator shall not be required to collect the TIN or the
business registration number, as the case may be, in any of the following
situations:
(a) the Member State of residence of the Seller does not issue a
TIN or business registration number to the Seller;
(b) the Member State of residence of the Seller does not require the
collection of the TIN issued to the Seller.
C. Verification of Seller information
1. The Reporting Platform Operator shall determine whether the
information collected pursuant to paragraph A, subparagraph B(1), points (a) to
(e) of subparagraph B(2) , points (a) to (e) and paragraph E is reliable,
using all information and documents available to the Reporting Platform
Operator in its records, as well as any electronic interface made available by a
Member State or the Union free of charge to ascertain the validity of the TIN
and/or VAT identification number.
2. Notwithstanding subparagraph C(1), for the completion of the due
diligence procedures pursuant to subparagraph F(2), the Reporting Platform
Operator may determine whether the information collected pursuant to
paragraph A, subparagraph B(1), points (a) to (e) of subparagraph B(2) ,
points (a) to (e) and paragraph E is reliable, using information and
documents available to the Reporting Platform Operator in its electronically
searchable records.
3. In application of point (b) of subparagraph F(3) , point (b) and
notwithstanding subparagraphs C(1) and C(2), in instances where the
Reporting Platform Operator has reason to know that any of the information
items described in paragraph B or E may be inaccurate by virtue of information
provided by the competent authority of a Member State in a request concerning
a specific Seller, it shall request the Seller to correct information items that
were found to be incorrect and to provide supporting documents, data or
information, which is reliable and of independent source, such as:
(a) valid government-issued identification document,
(b) recent tax residency certificate.
D. Determination of Member State(s) of residence of Seller for the purposes of
this Directive
1. A Reporting Platform Operator shall consider a Seller resident in the
Member State of the Seller’s Primary Address. Where different from the
Member State of the Seller’s Primary Address, a Reporting Platform Operator
shall consider Seller resident also in the Member State of issuance of TIN.
Where the Seller has provided information with respect to the existence of a
permanent establishment pursuant to point (f) of subparagraph B(2) , point
EN 7 EN
(f) , a Reporting Platform Operator shall consider a Seller resident also in
the respective Member State as specified by the Seller.
2. Notwithstanding subparagraph D(1), a Reporting Platform Operator
shall consider a Seller resident in each Member State confirmed by an
electronic identification service made available by a Member State or the
Union pursuant to subparagraph B(3).
E. Collection of information on rented immovable property
Where a Seller is engaged in Relevant Activity involving the rental of immovable
property, the Reporting Platform Operator shall collect the address of each Property
Listing and, where issued, respective land registration number or its equivalent under
the national law of the Member State where it is located. Where a Reporting Platform
Operator facilitated more than 2000 Relevant Activities by means of the rental of a
Property Listing for the same Seller that is an Entity, the Reporting Platform
Operator shall collect supporting documents, data or information that the Property
Listing is owned by the same owner.
F. Timing and validity of due diligence procedures
1. A Reporting Platform Operator shall complete the due diligence
procedures set out in paragraphs A to E by 31 December of the Reportable
Period.
2. Notwithstanding subparagraph F(1), for Sellers that were already
registered on the Platform as of 1 January 2023 or as of the date on which an
Entity becomes a Reporting Platform Operator, the due diligence procedures
set out in paragraphs A to E are required to be completed by 31 December of
the second Reportable Period for the Reporting Platform Operator.
3. Notwithstanding subparagraph F(1), a Reporting Platform Operator
may rely on the due diligence procedures conducted in respect of previous
Reportable Periods, provided that:
(a) the Seller information required in subparagraphs B(1) and B(2)
has been either collected and verified or confirmed within the last 36
months; and
(b) the Reporting Platform Operator does not have reason to know
that information collected pursuant to paragraphs A, B and E is or has
become unreliable or incorrect.
G. Application of the due diligence procedures to Active Sellers only
A Reporting Platform Operator may elect to complete the due diligence procedures
pursuant to paragraphs A to F in respect of Active Sellers only.
H. Completion of the due diligence procedures by third parties
1. A Reporting Platform Operator may rely on a third party service
provider to fulfil the due diligence obligations laid down in this Section, but
such obligations shall remain the responsibility of the Reporting Platform
Operator.
2. Where a Platform Operator fulfils the due diligence obligations for a
Reporting Platform Operator with respect to the same Platform pursuant to
subparagraph H(1), such Platform Operator shall carry out the due diligence
EN 8 EN
procedures pursuant to the rules laid down in this Section. The due diligence
obligations shall remain the responsibility of the Reporting Platform Operator.
SECTION III
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Time and manner of reporting
1. A Reporting Platform Operator within the meaning of point (a) of
subparagraph A(4) of Section I , subparagraph A(4), point (a), shall
report to the competent authority of the Member State determined in
accordance with point (a) of subparagraph A(4) of Section I , subparagraph
A(4), point (a) the information set out in paragraph B of this Section with
respect to the Reportable Period no later than 31 January of the year following
the calendar year in which the Seller is identified as a Reportable Seller. Where
there is more than one Reporting Platform Operator, any of those Reporting
Platform Operators shall be exempt from reporting the information if it has
proof, in accordance with national law, that the same information has been
reported by another Reporting Platform Operator.
2. If a Reporting Platform Operator within the meaning of point (a) of
subparagraph A(4) of Section I , subparagraph A(4), point (a) fulfils
any of the conditions listed therein in more than one Member State, it shall
elect one of those Member States in which it will fulfil the reporting
requirements set out in this Section. Such Reporting Platform Operator shall
report the information listed in paragraph B of this Section with respect to the
Reportable Period to the competent authority of the Member State of election,
as this is determined in accordance with paragraph E of Section IV ,
paragraph E , no later than 31 January of the year following the calendar
year in which the Seller is identified as a Reportable Seller. Where there is
more than one Reporting Platform Operator, any of those Reporting Platform
Operators shall be exempt from reporting the information if it has proof, in
accordance with national law, that the same information has been reported by
another Reporting Platform Operator in another Member State.
3. A Reporting Platform Operator within the meaning of point (b) of
subparagraph A(4) of Section I , subparagraph A(4), point (b) shall
report the information set out in paragraph B of this Section with respect to the
Reportable Period to the competent authority of the Member State of
registration, as this is determined in accordance with subparagraph F(1) of
Section IV , subparagraph F(1) , no later than 31 January of the year
following the calendar year in which the Seller is identified as a Reportable
Seller.
4. Notwithstanding subparagraph A(3) of this Section, a Reporting
Platform Operator within the meaning of point (b) of subparagraph A(4) of
Section I , subparagraph A(4), point (b) shall not be required to provide
the information set out in paragraph B of this Section with respect to Qualified
Relevant Activities, covered by an Effective Qualifying Competent Authority
Agreement, which already provides for the automatic exchange of equivalent
information with a Member State on Reportable Sellers resident in that
Member State.
EN 9 EN
5. A Reporting Platform Operator shall also provide the information set
out in subparagraphs B(2) and B(3) to the Reportable Seller to which it relates,
no later than 31 January of the year following the calendar year in which the
Seller is identified as a Reportable Seller.
6. The information with respect to the Consideration paid or credited in a
fiat currency shall be reported in the currency in which it was paid or credited.
In case the Consideration was paid or credited in a form other than fiat
currency, it shall be reported in the local currency, converted or valued in a
manner that is consistently determined by the Reporting Platform Operator.
7. The information about the Consideration and other amounts shall be
reported in respect of the quarter of the Reportable Period in which the
Consideration was paid or credited.
B. Information to be reported
Each Reporting Platform Operator shall report the following information:
1. The name, registered office address, TIN and, where relevant,
individual identification number allocated pursuant to subparagraph F(4) of
Section IV , subparagraph F(4) of the Reporting Platform Operator, as
well as the business name(s) of the Platform(s) in respect of which the
Reporting Platform Operator is reporting.
2. With respect to each Reportable Seller that carried out Relevant
Activity, other than immovable property rental:
(a) the information items required to be collected pursuant to
paragraph B of Section II , paragraph B ;
(b) the Financial Account Identifier, insofar as it is available to the
Reporting Platform Operator and the competent authority of the Member
State where the Reportable Seller is resident in the meaning of paragraph
D of Section II , paragraph D has not published that it does not
intend to use the Financial Account Identifier for this purpose;
(c) where different from the name of the Reportable Seller, in
addition to the Financial Account Identifier, the name of the holder of the
financial account to which the Consideration is paid or credited, to the
extent available to the Reporting Platform Operator, as well as any other
financial identification information available to the Reporting Platform
Operator with respect to that account holder;
(d) each Member State in which the Reportable Seller is resident
for the purposes of this Directive as determined pursuant to paragraph D
of Section II , paragraph D ;
(e) the total Consideration paid or credited during each quarter of
the Reportable Period and the number of Relevant Activities in respect of
which it was paid or credited;
(f) any fees, commissions or taxes withheld or charged by the
Reporting Platform Operator during each quarter of the Reportable
Period.
3. With respect to each Reportable Seller that carried out Relevant
Activity involving immovable property rental:
EN 10 EN
(a) the information items required to be collected pursuant to
paragraph B of Section II , paragraph B ;
(b) the Financial Account Identifier, insofar as it is available to the
Reporting Platform Operator and the competent authority of the Member
State where the Reportable Seller is resident in the meaning of paragraph
D of Section II , paragraph D has not published that it does not
intend to use the Financial Account Identifier for this purpose;
(c) where different from the name of the Reportable Seller, in
addition to the Financial Account Identifier, the name of the holder of the
financial account to which the Consideration is paid or credited, to the
extent available to the Reporting Platform Operator, as well as any other
financial identification information available to the Reporting Platform
Operator with respect to the account holder;
(d) each Member State in which the Reportable Seller is resident
for the purposes of this Directive as determined pursuant to subparagraph
D of Section II , subparagraph D ;
(e) the address of each Property Listing, determined on the basis of
the procedures set out in paragraph E of Section II , paragraph E ,
and respective land registration number or its equivalent under the
national law of the Member State where it is located, where available;
(f) the total Consideration paid or credited during each quarter of
the Reportable Period and the number of Relevant Activities provided
with respect to each Property Listing;
(g) any fees, commissions or taxes withheld or charged by the
Reporting Platform Operator during each quarter of the Reportable
Period;
(h) where available, the number of days each Property Listing was
rented during the Reportable Period and the type of each Property
Listing.
2023/2226 Art. 1.18 and Annex
II.3
4. Notwithstanding subparagraph B(2), point (a), and subparagraph B(3),
point (a), the Reporting Platform Operator shall not be required to report the
information items required to be collected pursuant to Section II, paragraph B,
where it reports to a competent authority that uses an Identification Service and
relies on direct confirmation of the identity and residence of the Seller through
an Identification Service made available by a Member State or the Union to
ascertain the identity and all tax residencies of the Seller. In case the Reporting
Platform Operator relied on an Identification Service to ascertain the identity
and all tax residencies of a Reportable Seller, the name, Identification Service
identifier(s) and the Member State(s) of issuance shall be reported.
EN 11 EN
new
5. Notwithstanding subparagraphs B(2) and (3), the Reporting Platform
Operator is not required to report information pursuant to subparagraphs B(2),
points (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) and B(3), points (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h) and (i)
with respect to a Reportable Seller that is a Reporting Platform Operator or a
reporting platform operator in another Member State or a non-Union
jurisdiction being not a Qualified non-Union jurisdiction as defined in Section
I, paragraph A(6)
2021/514 Art. 1.20 and Annex
(adapted)
SECTION IV
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
Pursuant to Article 9 8ac, Member States shall have rules and administrative
procedures in place to ensure effective implementation of, and compliance with, the due
diligence procedures and reporting requirements set out in Sections II and III of this Annex.
A. Rules to enforce the collection and verification requirements laid down in
Section II
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to require Reporting
Platform Operators to enforce the collection and verification requirements
under Section II in relation to their Sellers.
2. Where a Seller does not provide the information required under Section
II after two reminders following the initial request by the Reporting Platform
Operator, but not prior to the expiration of 60 days, the Reporting Platform
Operator shall close the account of the Seller and prevent the Seller from re-
registering on the Platform or withhold the payment of the Consideration to the
Seller as long as the Seller does not provide the information requested.
B. Rules requiring Reporting Platform Operators to keep records of the steps
undertaken and any information relied upon for the performance of the due diligence
procedures and reporting requirements and adequate measures to obtain those
records
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to require Reporting
Platform Operators to keep records of the steps undertaken and any
information relied upon for the performance of the due diligence procedures
and reporting requirements set out in Sections II and III. Such records shall
remain available for a sufficiently long period of time and in any event for a
period of not less than five5 years but not more than 10 years following the end
of the Reportable Period to which they relate.
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures, including the
possibility of addressing an order for reporting to Reporting Platform
Operators, in order to ensure that all necessary information is reported to the
competent authority so that the latter can comply with the obligation to
communicate information in accordance with Article 98ac(2).
EN 12 EN
C. Administrative procedures to verify compliance of Reporting Platform
Operators with the due diligence procedures and reporting requirements
Member States shall lay down administrative procedures to verify the compliance of
Reporting Platform Operators with the due diligence procedures and reporting
requirements set out in Sections II and III.
D. Administrative procedures to follow up with a Reporting Platform Operator
where incomplete or inaccurate information is reported
Member States shall lay down procedures for following up with Reporting Platform
Operators where the reported information is incomplete or inaccurate.
E. Administrative procedure for the election of a single Member State in which to
report
If a Reporting Platform Operator within the meaning of point (a) of subparagraph
A(4) of Section I , subparagraph A(4), point (a) fulfils any of the conditions
listed therein in more than one Member State, it shall elect one of those Member
States, to fulfil its reporting requirements pursuant to Section III. The Reporting
Platform Operator shall notify all the competent authorities of those Member States
of its election.
F. Administrative procedure for single registration of a Reporting Platform
Operator
1. A Reporting Platform Operator within the meaning of point (b) of
subparagraph A(4) of Section I , subparagraph A(4), point (b) of this
Annex shall register with the competent authority of any Member State
pursuant to Article 10 8ac(4) when it commences its activity as a
Platform Operator.
2. The Reporting Platform Operator shall communicate to the Member
State of its single registration the following information:
(a) name;
(b) postal address;
(c) electronic addresses, including websites;
(d) any TIN issued to the Reporting Platform Operator;
(e) a statement with information about identification of that
Reporting Platform Operator for VAT purposes within the Union,
pursuant to Title XII, Chapter 6, Sections 2 and 3 of Council Directive
2006/112/EC 3 ;
(f) Member States in which Reportable Sellers are residents within
the meaning of paragraph D of Section II , paragraph D .
3. The Reporting Platform Operator shall notify the Member State of
single registration of any changes in the information provided under
subparagraph F(2).
3
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax
(OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/112/oj)
EN 13 EN
4. The Member State of single registration shall allocate an individual
identification number to the Reporting Platform Operator and shall notify it to
the competent authorities of all Member States by electronic means.
2023/2226 Art. 1.18 and Annex
II.4
5. The Member State of single registration shall remove a Reporting
Platform Operator from the central register in the following cases:
2021/514 Art. 1.20 and Annex
(adapted)
new
(a) the Platform Operator notifies that Member State that it no
longer carries out any activity as a Platform Operator;
(b) in the absence of a notification pursuant to point (a), there are
grounds to assume that the activity of a Platform Operator has ceased;
(c) the Platform Operator no longer meets the conditions laid down
in point (b) of subparagraph A(4) of Section I , subparagraph A(4),
point (b) ;
(d) the Member State revoked the registration with its competent
authority pursuant to subparagraph F(7).
6. Each Member State shall forthwith notify the Commission of any
Platform Operator within the meaning of point (b) of subparagraph A(4) of
Section I , subparagraph A(4), point (b) that commences its activity as a
Platform Operator while failing to register itself pursuant to this paragraph.
Where a Reporting Platform Operator does not comply with the obligation to
register or where its registration has been revoked in accordance with
subparagraph F(7) of this Section, Member States shall, without prejudice to
Article 3425a, take effective, proportionate and dissuasive measures to enforce
compliance within their jurisdiction. The choice of such measures shall remain
within the discretion of Member States. Member States shall also endeavour to
coordinate their actions aimed at enforcing compliance, including the
prevention of the Reporting Platform Operator from being able to operate
within the Union as a last resort.
7. Where a Reporting Platform Operator does not comply with the
obligation to report in accordance with subparagraph A(3) of Section III ,
subparagraph A(3) of this Annex after two reminders by the Member State
of single registration, that the Member State shall, in accordance
with without prejudice to Article 3425a, take the necessary measures to
ensure that penalties provided are implemented in case of infringements, and
to revoke the registration of the Reporting Platform Operator made pursuant
to Article 10 8ac(4). The registration shall be revoked not later than
after the expiration of 90 days but not prior to the expiration of 30 days after
the second reminder.
EN 14 EN
new
8. Member States’ competent authorities shall endeavour to notify the following
information, of which they are aware and which may be useful to the
competent authorities of the other Member States for enforcement purposes, [
in relation to cases of non-compliance] referred to in subparagraphs 6 and 7 :
(a) any identification information of the Reporting Platform Operator,
including the information listed in Section IV, subparagraph F(2), points (a) to
(e);
(b) the type of Relevant Activity within the meaning of Section I,
subparagraph A(8) facilitated by the Platform Operator and, where available,
the Member State(s) in which such Relevant Activities are carried out;
(c) a summary of the case of non-compliance, including a description of
the nature of the infringement, the reportable period to which it relates and any
other information that could assist Member States’ competent authorities
concerned in assessing the case;
(d) any compliance or enforcement action taken towards the Platform
Operator by one or more Member States, and their results if they are known.
EN 15 EN
2023/2226 Art. 1.19 and Annex
III (adapted)
new
ANNEX VI
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, DUE DILIGENCE PROCEDURES AND OTHER
RULES APPLICABLE TO REPORTING CRYPTO-ASSET SERVICE PROVIDERS
This Annex lays down the reporting requirements, due diligence procedures and other rules to
be applied by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers in order to enable Member States
to communicate, by automatic exchange, the information referred to in Article 12 8ad.
This Annex also lays down the rules and administrative procedures that Member States are to
have in place in order to ensure the effective implementation of, and compliance with, the
reporting requirements and the due diligence procedures set out herein.
SECTION I
OBLIGATIONS OF REPORTING CRYPTO-ASSET SERVICE PROVIDERS
A. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider as defined in Section IV,
subparagraph B(3), is subject to the reporting and due diligence requirements set out
in Sections II and III, respectively, in a Member State, if it is:
1. an Entity authorised by a Member State in accordance with Article 63
of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 or allowed to provide Crypto-Asset Services
following a notification to a Member State in accordance with Article 60 of
that Regulation (EU) 2023/1114; or
2. not an Entity authorised by a Member State in accordance with
Article 63 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 or allowed to provide Crypto-Asset
Services following a notification to a Member State in accordance with
Article 60 of that Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, and it is:
(a) an Entity or individual resident for tax purposes in a Member
State;
(b) an Entity that (i) is incorporated or organised under the laws of
a Member State and (ii) either has legal personality in a Member State or
has an obligation to file tax returns or tax information returns to the tax
authorities in a Member State with respect to the income of the Entity;
(c) an Entity managed from a Member State; or
(d) an Entity or individual that has a regular place of business in a
Member State.
B. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider is subject to the reporting and due
diligence requirements set out in Sections II and III, respectively, in a Member State
with respect to Reportable Transactions effectuated through a Branch based in a
Member State.
C. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider that is an Entity is not required to
complete the reporting and due diligence requirements set out in Sections II and III,
respectively, in a Member State it is subject to pursuant to subparagraph A(2), point
(b), (c) or (d), if those requirements are completed by such Reporting Crypto-Asset
EN 1 EN
Service Provider in any other Member State or in a Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction
by virtue of it being resident for tax purposes in such Member State or Qualified
Non-Union Jurisdiction.
D. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider that is an Entity is not required to
complete the reporting and due diligence requirements set out in Sections II and III,
respectively, in a Member State it is subject to pursuant to subparagraph A(2), point
(c) or (d), if those requirements are completed by such Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Provider in any other Member State or in a Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction
by virtue of it being an Entity that (a) is incorporated or organised under the laws of
such Member State or Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction and (b) either has legal
personality in the other Member State or Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction or has an
obligation to file tax returns or tax information returns to the tax authorities in the
other Member State or Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction with respect to the income
of the Entity.
E. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider that is an Entity is not required to
complete the reporting and due diligence requirements set out in Sections II and III,
respectively, in a Member State it is subject to pursuant to subparagraph A(2), point
(d), if those requirements are completed by such Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
Provider in any other Member State or in a Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction by
virtue of it being managed from such Member State or Qualified Non-Union
Jurisdiction.
F. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider that is an individual is not required
to complete the reporting and due diligence requirements set out in Sections II and
III, respectively, in a Member State it is subject to pursuant to subparagraph A(2),
point (d), if those requirements are completed by such Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Provider in any other Member State or in a Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction
by virtue of it being resident for tax purposes in such Member State or Qualified
Non-Union Jurisdiction.
G. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider is not required to complete the
reporting and due diligence requirements set out in Sections II and III, respectively,
in a Member State it is subject to pursuant to subparagraph A(2), point (a), (b), (c) or
(d), if it has lodged a notification with a Member State in a format specified by such
Member State confirming that those requirements are completed by such Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Provider under the rules of any other Member State or
Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction pursuant to criteria that are substantially similar to
subparagraph A(2), point (a), (b), (c) or (d), respectively.
H. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider is not required to complete the
reporting and due diligence requirements set out in Sections II and III, respectively,
in a Member State with respect to Reportable Transactions it effectuates through a
Branch in any other Member State or Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction, if those
requirements are completed by that Branch in such other Member State or Qualified
Non-Union Jurisdiction.
SECTION II
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider within the meaning of Section I,
paragraphs A and B, shall report the information set out in paragraph B of this
EN 2 EN
Section to the competent authority of the Member State where it is subject to
reporting requirements in accordance with Section I.
B. For each relevant calendar year or other appropriate reporting period, and
subject to the obligations of Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers set out in
Section I and the due diligence procedures set out in Section III, a Reporting Crypto-
Asset Service Provider shall report the following information with respect to its
Crypto-Asset Users that are Reportable Users or that have Controlling Persons that
are Reportable Persons:
1. the name, address, Member State(s) of residence, TIN(s) and, in the
case of an individual, date and place of birth of each Reportable User and, in
the case of any Entity that, after application of the due diligence procedures
laid down in Section III, is identified as having one or more Controlling
Persons that is a Reportable Person, the name, address, Member State(s) of
residence and TIN(s) of the Entity and the name, address, Member State(s) of
residence, TIN(s) and date and place of birth of each Controlling Person of the
Entity that is a Reportable Person, as well as the role(s) by virtue of which each
such Reportable Person is a Controlling Person of the Entity;
notwithstanding subparagraph B(1), first subparagraph, where the Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Provider reports to a competent authority that uses an
Identification Service and relies on direct confirmation of the identity and
residence of the Reportable Person through an Identification Service made
available by a Member State or the Union to ascertain the identity and all tax
residencies of the Reportable Person, the information to be reported regarding
the Reportable Person is the name, the Identification Service identifier(s) and
the Member State(s) of issuance, as well as the role(s) by virtue of which each
Reportable Person is a Controlling Person of the Entity;
2. the name, address, TIN and, if available, the individual identification
number referred to in Article 13 8ad(7) and the global legal entity
identifier of the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider;
3. for each type of Reportable Crypto-Asset with respect to which the
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider has effectuated Reportable
Transactions during the relevant calendar year or other appropriate reporting
period, where relevant:
(a) the full name of the type of Reportable Crypto-Asset;
(b) the aggregate gross amount paid, the aggregate number of units
and the number of Reportable Transactions in respect of acquisitions
against Fiat Currency;
(c) the aggregate gross amount received, the aggregate number of
units and the number of Reportable Transactions in respect of disposals
against Fiat Currency;
(d) the aggregate fair market value, the aggregate number of units
and the number of Reportable Transactions in respect of acquisitions
against other Reportable Crypto-Assets;
(e) the aggregate fair market value, the aggregate number of units
and the number of Reportable Transactions in respect of disposals against
other Reportable Crypto-Assets;
EN 3 EN
(f) the aggregate fair market value, the aggregate number of units
and the number of Reportable Retail Payment Transactions;
(g) the aggregate fair market value, the aggregate number of units
and the number of Reportable Transactions, and subdivided by transfer
type where known by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider, in
respect of Transfers to the Reportable User not covered by points (b) and
(d);
(h) the aggregate fair market value, the aggregate number of units
and the number of Reportable Transactions, and subdivided by transfer
type where known by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider, in
respect of Transfers by the Reportable User not covered by points (c), (e)
and (f); and
(i) the aggregate fair market value, as well as the aggregate number
of units of Transfers effectuated by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
Provider to distributed ledger addresses referred to in Regulation
(EU) 2023/1114 not known to be associated with a virtual asset service
provider or financial institution.
For the purposes of subparagraph B(3), points (b) and (c), the amount paid or
received shall be reported in the Fiat Currency in which it was paid or received.
In case the amounts were paid or received in multiple Fiat Currencies, the
amounts shall be reported in a single currency, converted at the time of each
Reportable Transaction in a manner that is consistently applied by the
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider.
For the purposes of subparagraph B(3), points (d) to (i), the fair market value
shall be determined and reported in a single currency, valued at the time of
each Reportable Transaction in a manner that is consistently applied by the
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider.
The information reported shall identify the Fiat Currency in which each
amount is reported.
C. Notwithstanding subparagraph B(1), the place of birth is not required to be
reported unless the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider is otherwise required to
obtain and report it under domestic law.
D. The information listed in paragraph B shall be reported annually in the
calendar year following the year to which the information relates. The first
information shall be reported for the relevant calendar year or other appropriate
reporting period as from 1 January 2026.
E. Notwithstanding paragraphs A and D of this Section, a Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Provider within the meaning of Section I, subparagraph A(2), point (a), (b),
(c) or (d), shall not be required to provide the information set out in paragraph B of
this Section with respect to a Reportable User or Controlling Person for which the
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider completes the reporting of such
information in a non-Union jurisdiction that is covered by an Effective Qualifying
Competent Authority Agreement with the Member State of residence of such
Reportable User or such Controlling Person.
EN 4 EN
SECTION III
DUE DILIGENCE PROCEDURES
A Crypto-Asset User is treated as a Reportable User beginning as of the date when it is
identified as such pursuant to the due diligence procedures described in this Section.
A. Due diligence procedures for Individual Crypto-Asset Users
The following procedures apply for the purpose of determining whether the
Individual Crypto-Asset User is a Reportable User.
1. When establishing the relationship with the Individual Crypto-Asset
User, or with respect to Pre-existing Individual Crypto-Asset Users by
1 January 2027, the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider shall obtain a
self-certification that allows the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider to
determine the Individual Crypto-Asset User’s residence(s) for tax purposes and
confirm the reasonableness of such self-certification based on the information
obtained by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider, including any
documentation collected pursuant to Customer Due Diligence Procedures.
2. If at any point there is a change of circumstances with respect to an
Individual Crypto-Asset User that causes the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
Provider to know, or have reason to know, that the original self-certification is
incorrect or unreliable, the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider cannot
rely on the original self-certification and shall obtain a valid self-certification,
or a reasonable explanation and, where appropriate, documentation supporting
the validity of the original self-certification.
B. Due diligence procedures for Entity Crypto-Asset Users
The following procedures apply for the purpose of determining whether the Entity
Crypto-Asset User is a Reportable User or an Entity, other than an Excluded Person
or an Active Entity, with one or more Controlling Persons who are Reportable
Persons.
1. Determine whether the Entity Crypto-Asset User is a Reportable
Person.
(a) When establishing the relationship with the Entity Crypto-Asset
User, or with respect to Pre-existing Entity Crypto-Assets Users by
1 January 2027, the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider shall obtain
a self-certification that allows the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
Provider to determine the Entity Crypto-Asset User’s residence(s) for tax
purposes and confirm the reasonableness of such self-certification based
on the information obtained by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
Provider, including any documentation collected pursuant to Customer
Due Diligence Procedures. If the Entity Crypto-Asset User certifies that
it has no residence for tax purposes, the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
Provider may rely on the place of effective management or the address of
the principal office to determine the residence of the Entity Crypto-Asset
User.
(b) If the self-certification indicates that the Entity Crypto-Asset
User is resident in a Member State, the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
Provider shall treat the Entity Crypto-Asset User as a Reportable User,
unless it reasonably determines based on the self-certification or on
EN 5 EN
information in its possession or that is publicly available, that the Entity
Crypto-Asset User is an Excluded Person.
2. Determine whether the Entity has one or more Controlling Persons who
are Reportable Persons. With respect to an Entity Crypto-Asset User, other
than an Excluded Person, the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider shall
determine whether it has one or more Controlling Persons who are Reportable
Persons, unless it determines that the Entity Crypto-Asset User is an Active
Entity, based on a self-certification from the Entity Crypto-Asset User.
(a) Determining the Controlling Persons of the Entity Crypto-Asset
User. For the purpose of determining the Controlling Persons of the
Entity Crypto-Asset User, a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider
may rely on information collected and maintained pursuant to Customer
Due Diligence Procedures, provided that such procedures are consistent
with Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 Directive (EU) 2015/849. If the
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider is not legally required to apply
Customer Due Diligence Procedures that are consistent with Regulation
(EU) 2024/1624 Directive (EU) 2015/849, it shall apply substantially
similar procedures for the purpose of determining the Controlling
Persons.
(b) Determining whether a Controlling Person of an Entity Crypto-
Asset User is a Reportable Person. For the purpose of determining
whether a Controlling Person is a Reportable Person, a Reporting Crypto-
Asset Service Provider shall rely on a self-certification from the Entity
Crypto-Asset User or such Controlling Person that allows the Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Provider to determine the Controlling Person’s
residence(s) for tax purposes and confirm the reasonableness of such
self-certification based on the information obtained by the Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Provider, including any documentation collected
pursuant to Customer Due Diligence Procedures.
3. If at any point there is a change of circumstances with respect to an
Entity Crypto-Asset User or its Controlling Persons that causes the Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Provider to know, or have reason to know, that the
original self-certification is incorrect or unreliable, the Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Provider cannot rely on the original self-certification and shall obtain a
valid self-certification, or a reasonable explanation and, where appropriate,
documentation supporting the validity of the original self-certification.
C. Requirements for validity of self-certifications
1. A self-certification provided by an Individual Crypto-Asset User or
Controlling Person is valid only if it is signed or otherwise positively affirmed
by the Individual Crypto-Asset User or Controlling Person, it is dated at the
latest at the date of receipt and it contains the following information with
respect to the Individual Crypto-Asset User or Controlling Person:
(a) first and last name;
(b) residence address;
(c) Member State(s) or other jurisdiction(s) of residence for
tax purposes;
EN 6 EN
(d) with respect to each Reportable Person, the TIN with respect to
each Member State or other jurisdiction ;
(e) date of birth.
2. A self-certification provided by an Entity Crypto-Asset User is valid
only if it is signed or otherwise positively affirmed by the Entity Crypto-Asset
User, it is dated at the latest at the date of receipt and it contains the following
information with respect to the Entity Crypto-Asset User:
(a) legal name;
(b) address;
(c) Member State(s) or other jurisdiction(s) of residence for
tax purposes;
(d) with respect to each Reportable Person, the TIN with respect to
each Member State or other jurisdiction ;
(e) in the case of an Entity Crypto-Asset User other than an Active
Entity or an Excluded Person, the information described in subparagraph
C(1) with respect to each Controlling Person of the Entity Crypto-Asset
User, unless such Controlling Person has provided a self-certification
pursuant to subparagraph C(1), as well as the role(s) by virtue of which
each Reportable Person is a Controlling Person of the Entity, if not
already determined on the basis of Customer Due Diligence Procedures;
(f) if applicable, information as to the criteria it meets to be treated
as an Active Entity or Excluded Person.
D. General due diligence requirements
1. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider that is also a Financial
Institution for the purposes of this Directive may rely on the due diligence
procedures completed pursuant to Sections IV and VI of Annex I for the
purposes of the due diligence procedures pursuant to this Section. A Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Provider may also rely on a self-certification already
collected for other tax purposes, provided such self-certification meets the
requirements of paragraph C of this Section.
2. A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider may rely on a third party to
fulfil the due diligence obligations set out in this Section, but such obligations
remain the responsibility of the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider.
SECTION IV
DEFINED TERMS
The following terms have the meaning set out below:
A. Reportable Crypto-Asset
1. ‘Crypto-Asset’ means crypto-asset as defined in Article 3(1), point (5),
of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.
2. ‘Central Bank Digital Currency’ means any digital Fiat Currency issued
by a Central Bank or other monetary authority.
EN 7 EN
3. ‘Central Bank’ means an institution that is by law or government
sanction the principal authority, other than the government of the jurisdiction
itself, issuing instruments intended to circulate as currency. Such an institution
may include an instrumentality that is separate from the government of the
jurisdiction, whether or not owned in whole or in part by the jurisdiction.
4. ‘Reportable Crypto-Asset’ means any Crypto-Asset other than a
Central Bank Digital Currency, Electronic Money, or any Crypto-Asset for
which the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider has adequately determined
that it cannot be used for payment or investment purposes.
5. For the purposes of this Annex, ‘Electronic Money’ or ‘E-money’
means any Crypto-Asset that is:
(a) a digital representation of a single Fiat Currency;
(b) issued on the receipt of funds for the purpose of making
payment transactions;
(c) represented by a claim on the issuer denominated in the same
Fiat Currency;
(d) accepted in payment by a natural or legal person other than the
issuer; and
(e) by virtue of regulatory requirements to which the issuer is
subject, redeemable at any time and at par value for the same Fiat
Currency upon request of the holder of the product.
The term ‘Electronic money’ or ‘E-money’ does not include a product created
for the sole purpose of facilitating the transfer of funds from a customer to
another person pursuant to instructions of the customer. A product is not
created for the sole purpose of facilitating the transfer of funds if, in the
ordinary course of business of the transferring Entity, either the funds
connected with such product are held longer than 60 days after receipt of
instructions to facilitate the transfer, or, if no instructions are received, the
funds connected with such product are held longer than 60 days after receipt of
the funds.
B. Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider
1. ‘Crypto-Asset Service Provider’ means crypto-asset service provider as
defined in Article 3(1), point (15), of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.
2. ‘Crypto-Asset Operator’ means a provider of Crypto-Asset Services
other than a Crypto-Asset Service Provider.
3. ‘Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider’ means any Crypto-Asset
Service Provider and any Crypto-Asset Operator that conducts one or more
Crypto-Asset Services effectuating Exchange Transactions for or on behalf of a
Reportable User.
4. ‘Crypto-Asset Service’ means crypto-asset service as defined in
Article 3(1), point (16), of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, including staking and
lending.
C. Reportable Transaction
1. ‘Reportable Transaction’ means any:
EN 8 EN
(a) Exchange Transaction; and
(b) Transfer of Reportable Crypto-Assets.
2. ‘Exchange Transaction’ means any:
(a) exchange between Reportable Crypto-Assets and Fiat
Currencies; and
(b) exchange between one or more forms of Reportable Crypto-
Assets.
3. ‘Reportable Retail Payment Transaction’ means a Transfer of
Reportable Crypto-Assets in consideration of goods or services for a value
exceeding USD 50000 (or the equivalent amount in any other currency).
4. ‘Transfer’ means a transaction that moves a Reportable Crypto-Asset
from or to the Crypto-Asset address or account of one Crypto-Asset User, other
than one maintained by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider on behalf
of the same Crypto-Asset User, where, based on the knowledge available to the
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider at the time of transaction, the
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider cannot determine that the transaction
is an Exchange Transaction.
5. ‘Fiat Currency’ means the official currency of a jurisdiction, issued by
a jurisdiction or by a jurisdiction’s designated Central Bank or monetary
authority, as represented by physical banknotes or coins or by money in
different digital forms, including bank reserves and Central Bank Digital
Currencies. The term also includes commercial bank money and electronic
money products (Electronic Money).
D. Reportable User
1. ‘Reportable User’ means a Crypto-Asset User that is a Reportable
Person resident in a Member State.
2. ‘Crypto-Asset User’ means an individual or Entity that is a customer of
a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider for the purpose of carrying out
Reportable Transactions. An individual or Entity, other than a Financial
Institution or a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider, acting as a Crypto-
Asset User for the benefit or account of another individual or Entity as agent,
custodian, nominee, signatory, investment advisor, or intermediary, is not
treated as a Crypto-Asset User, and such other individual or Entity is treated as
the Crypto-Asset User. Where a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider
provides a service effectuating Reportable Retail Payment Transactions for or
on behalf of a merchant, the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider shall
also treat the customer that is the counterparty to the merchant for such
Reportable Retail Payment Transactions as the Crypto-Asset User with respect
to such Reportable Retail Payment Transaction, provided that the Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Provider is required to verify the identity of such
customer by virtue of the Reportable Retail Payment Transaction pursuant to
domestic anti-money laundering rules.
3. ‘Individual Crypto-Asset User’ means a Crypto-Asset User that is an
individual.
EN 9 EN
4. ‘Pre-existing Individual Crypto-Asset User’ means an Individual
Crypto-Asset User that has established a relationship with the Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Provider as of 31 December 2025.
5. ‘Entity Crypto-Asset User’ means a Crypto-Asset User that is an
Entity.
6. ‘Pre-existing Entity Crypto-Asset User’ means an Entity Crypto-Asset
User that has established a relationship with the Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Provider as of 31 December 2025.
7. ‘Reportable Person’ means a Member State Person other than an
Excluded Person.
8. ‘Member State Person’ with regard to each Member State means an
Entity or individual that is resident in any Member State under the tax laws of
that Member State, or an estate of a decedent that was a resident of any
Member State. For that purpose, an Entity such as a partnership, limited
liability partnership or similar legal arrangement that has no residence for tax
purposes shall be treated as resident in the jurisdiction in which its place of
effective management is situated.
9. ‘Controlling Persons’ means the natural persons who exercise control
over an Entity. In the case of a trust, such term means the settlor(s), the
trustee(s), the protector(s) (if any), the beneficiary(ies) or class(es) of
beneficiaries, and any other natural person(s) exercising ultimate effective
control over the trust, and in the case of a legal arrangement other than a trust,
such term means persons in equivalent or similar positions. The term
‘Controlling Persons’ shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the term
of ‘beneficial owner’ as defined in Article 2(1), point 28 of Regulation (EU)
2024/1624 Article 3, point (6), of Directive (EU) 2015/849, as far as Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Providers are concerned.
10. ‘Active Entity’ means any Entity that meets any of the following
criteria:
(a) less than 50 % of the Entity’s gross income for the preceding
calendar year or other appropriate reporting period is passive income and
less than 50 % of the assets held by the Entity during the preceding
calendar year or other appropriate reporting period are assets that
produce or are held for the production of passive income;
(b) substantially all of the activities of the Entity consist of holding
(in whole or in part) the outstanding stock of, or providing financing and
services to, one or more subsidiaries that engage in trades or businesses
other than the business of a Financial Institution, except that an Entity
does not qualify for this status if the Entity functions (or holds itself out)
as an investment fund, such as a private equity fund, venture capital fund,
leveraged buyout fund, or any investment vehicle whose purpose is to
acquire or fund companies and then hold interests in those companies as
capital assets for investment purposes;
(c) the Entity is not yet operating a business and has no prior
operating history, but is investing capital into assets with the intent to
operate a business other than that of a Financial Institution, provided that
EN 10 EN
the Entity does not qualify for this exception after the date that is 24
months after the date of the initial organisation of the Entity;
(d) the Entity was not a Financial Institution in the past five years,
and is in the process of liquidating its assets or is reorganising with the
intent to continue or recommence operations in a business other than that
of a Financial Institution;
(e) the Entity primarily engages in financing and hedging
transactions with, or for, Related Entities that are not Financial
Institutions, and does not provide financing or hedging services to any
Entity that is not a Related Entity, provided that the group of any such
Related Entities is primarily engaged in a business other than that of a
Financial Institution; or
(f) the Entity meets all of the following requirements:
(i) it is established and operated in its jurisdiction of residence
exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, artistic, cultural,
athletic, or educational purposes; or it is established and operated in
its jurisdiction of residence, and it is a professional organisation,
business league, chamber of commerce, labour organisation,
agricultural or horticultural organisation, civic league or an
organisation operated exclusively for the promotion of social
welfare;
(ii) it is exempt from income tax in its jurisdiction of residence;
(iii) it has no shareholders or members who have a
proprietary or beneficial interest in its income or assets;
(iv) the applicable laws of the Entity’s jurisdiction of
residence or the Entity’s formation documents do not permit any
income or assets of the Entity to be distributed to, or applied for the
benefit of, a private person or non-charitable Entity other than
pursuant to the conduct of the Entity’s charitable activities, or as
payment of reasonable compensation for services rendered, or as
payment representing the fair market value of property which the
Entity has purchased; and
(v) the applicable laws of the Entity’s jurisdiction of residence or
the Entity’s formation documents require that, upon the Entity’s
liquidation or dissolution, all of its assets be distributed to a
Governmental Entity or other non-profit organisation, or escheat to
the government of the Entity’s jurisdiction of residence or any
political subdivision thereof.
E. Excluded Person
1. ‘Excluded Person’ means:
(a) an Entity the stock of which is regularly traded on one or more
established securities markets;
(b) any Entity that is a Related Entity of an Entity described in
point (a);
(c) a Governmental Entity;
EN 11 EN
(d) an International Organisation;
(e) a Central Bank; or
(f) a Financial Institution other than an Investment Entity described
in subparagraph E(5), point (b).
2. ‘Financial Institution’ means a Custodial Institution, a Depository
Institution, an Investment Entity, or a Specified Insurance Company.
3. ‘Custodial Institution’ means any Entity that holds, as a substantial
portion of its business, Financial Assets for the account of others. An Entity
holds Financial Assets for the account of others as a substantial portion of its
business if the Entity’s gross income attributable to the holding of Financial
Assets and related financial services equals to or exceeds 20 % of the Entity’s
gross income during the shorter of: (i) the three-year period that ends on 31
December (or the final day of a non-calendar year accounting period) prior to
the year in which the determination is being made; or (ii) the period during
which the Entity has been in existence.
4. ‘Depository Institution’ means any Entity that:
(a) accepts deposits in the ordinary course of a banking or similar
business; or
(b) holds Electronic Money or Central Bank Digital Currencies for
the benefit of customers.
5. ‘Investment Entity’ means any Entity:
(a) that primarily conducts as a business one or more of the
following activities or operations for or on behalf of a customer:
(i) trading in money market instruments (cheques, bills, certificates
of deposit, derivatives, etc.); foreign exchange; exchange, interest
rate and index instruments; transferable securities; or commodity
futures trading;
(ii) individual and collective portfolio management; or
(iii) otherwise investing, administering, or managing
Financial Assets, money, or Reportable Crypto-Assets on behalf of
other persons; or
(b) the gross income of which is primarily attributable to investing,
reinvesting, or trading in Financial Assets or Reportable Crypto-Assets, if
the Entity is managed by another Entity that is a Depository Institution, a
Custodial Institution, a Specified Insurance Company, or an Investment
Entity described in subparagraph E(5), point (a).
An Entity is treated as primarily conducting as a business one or more of the
activities described in subparagraph E(5), point (a), or an Entity’s gross income
is primarily attributable to investing, reinvesting, or trading in Financial Assets
or Reportable Crypto-Assets for the purposes of subparagraph E(5), point (b),
if the Entity’s gross income attributable to the relevant activities equals to or
exceeds 50 % of the Entity’s gross income during the shorter of: (i) the three-
year period ending on 31 December of the year preceding the year in which the
EN 12 EN
determination is made; or (ii) the period during which the Entity has been in
existence.
For the purposes of subparagraph E(5), point (a)(iii), the term ‘otherwise
investing, administering, or managing Financial Assets, money, or Reportable
Crypto-Assets on behalf of other persons’ does not include the provision of
services effectuating Exchange Transactions for or on behalf of customers. The
term ‘Investment Entity’ does not include an Entity that is an Active Entity
because it meets any of the criteria in subparagraph D(10), points (b) to (e).
This subparagraph shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the similar
language set out in the definition of ‘financial institution’ in Article 2(1),
point 6 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 Article 3, point (2), of Directive
(EU) 2015/849.
6. ‘Specified Insurance Company’ means any Entity that is an insurance
company (or the holding company of an insurance company) that issues, or is
obligated to make payments with respect to, a Cash Value Insurance Contract
or an Annuity Contract.
7. ‘Governmental Entity’ means the government of a jurisdiction, any
political subdivision of a jurisdiction (which, for the avoidance of doubt,
includes a state, province, county, or municipality), or any wholly owned
agency or instrumentality of a jurisdiction or of any one or more of the
foregoing. This category is comprised of the integral parts, controlled entities,
and political subdivisions of a jurisdiction.
(a) An ‘integral part’ of a jurisdiction means any person,
organisation, agency, bureau, fund, instrumentality, or other body,
however designated, that constitutes a governing authority of a
jurisdiction. The net earnings of the governing authority shall be credited
to its own account or to other accounts of the jurisdiction, with no portion
inuring to the benefit of any private person. An integral part does not
include any individual who is a sovereign, official, or administrator
acting in a private or personal capacity.
(b) A ‘controlled entity’ means an Entity that is separate in form
from the jurisdiction or that otherwise constitutes a separate juridical
entity, provided that:
(i) the Entity is wholly owned and controlled by one or more
Governmental Entities directly or through one or more controlled
entities;
(ii) the Entity’s net earnings are credited to its own account or to
the accounts of one or more Governmental Entities, with no portion
of its income inuring to the benefit of any private person; and
(iii) the Entity’s assets vest in one or more Governmental
Entities upon dissolution.
(c) Income does not inure to the benefit of private persons if such
persons are the intended beneficiaries of a governmental programme, and
the programme activities are performed for the general public with
respect to the common welfare or relate to the administration of some
phase of government. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, income is
EN 13 EN
considered to inure to the benefit of private persons if the income is
derived from the use of a governmental entity to conduct a commercial
business, such as a commercial banking business, that provides financial
services to private persons.
8. ‘International Organisation’ means any international organisation or
wholly owned agency or instrumentality thereof. This category includes any
intergovernmental organisation (including a supranational organisation):
(a) that is comprised primarily of governments;
(b) that has in effect a headquarters or substantially similar
agreement with the jurisdiction; and
(c) the income of which does not inure to the benefit of private
persons.
9. ‘Financial Asset’ includes a security (for example, a share of stock in a
corporation; partnership or beneficial ownership interest in a widely held or
publicly traded partnership or trust; note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of
indebtedness), partnership interest, commodity, swap (for example, interest rate
swaps, currency swaps, basis swaps, interest rate caps, interest rate floors,
commodity swaps, equity swaps, equity index swaps, and similar agreements),
Insurance Contract or Annuity Contract, or any interest (including a futures or
forward contract or option) in a security, Reportable Crypto-Asset, partnership
interest, commodity, swap, Insurance Contract, or Annuity Contract. The term
‘Financial Asset’ does not include a non-debt, direct interest in real property.
10. ‘Equity Interest’ means, in the case of a partnership that is a Financial
Institution, either a capital or profits interest in the partnership. In the case of a
trust that is a Financial Institution, an Equity Interest is considered to be held
by any person treated as a settlor or beneficiary of all or a portion of the trust,
or any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust.
A Reportable Person will be treated as being a beneficiary of a trust if such
Reportable Person has the right to receive directly or indirectly (for example,
through a nominee) a mandatory distribution or may receive, directly or
indirectly, a discretionary distribution from the trust.
11. ‘Insurance Contract’ means a contract (other than an Annuity Contract)
under which the issuer agrees to pay an amount upon the occurrence of a
specified contingency involving mortality, morbidity, accident, liability, or
property risk.
12. ‘Annuity Contract’ means a contract under which the issuer agrees to
make payments for a period of time determined in whole or in part by reference
to the life expectancy of one or more individuals. The term also includes a
contract that is considered to be an Annuity Contract in accordance with the
law, regulation, or practice of the Member State or other jurisdiction in which
the contract was issued, and under which the issuer agrees to make payments
for a term of years.
13. ‘Cash Value Insurance Contract’ means an Insurance Contract (other
than an indemnity reinsurance contract between two insurance companies) that
has a Cash Value.
EN 14 EN
14. ‘Cash Value’ means the greater of (i) the amount that the policyholder
is entitled to receive upon surrender or termination of the contract (determined
without reduction for any surrender charge or policy loan) and (ii) the amount
the policyholder can borrow under or with regard to the contract.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term ‘Cash Value’ does not include an
amount payable under an Insurance Contract:
(a) solely by reason of the death of an individual insured under a
life insurance contract;
(b) as a personal injury or sickness benefit or other benefit
providing indemnification of an economic loss incurred upon the
occurrence of the event insured against;
(c) as a refund of a previously paid premium (less cost of insurance
charges whether or not actually imposed) under an Insurance Contract
(other than an investment-linked life insurance or annuity contract) due
to cancellation or termination of the contract, decrease in risk exposure
during the effective period of the contract, or arising from the correction
of a posting or similar error with regard to the premium for the contract;
(d) as a policyholder dividend (other than a termination dividend)
provided that the dividend relates to an Insurance Contract under which
the only benefits payable are described in point (b); or
(e) as a return of an advance premium or premium deposit for an
Insurance Contract for which the premium is payable at least annually if
the amount of the advance premium or premium deposit does not exceed
the next annual premium that will be payable under the contract.
F. Miscellaneous
1. ‘Customer Due Diligence Procedures’ means the customer due
diligence procedures of a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider pursuant to
Regulation (EU) 2024/1624Directive (EU) 2015/849 or similar requirements to
which such Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider is subject.
2. ‘Entity’ means a legal person or a legal arrangement, such as a
corporation, partnership, trust, or foundation.
3. An Entity is a ‘Related Entity’ of another Entity if either Entity controls
the other Entity, or the two Entities are under common control. For this
purpose, control includes direct or indirect ownership of more than 50 % of the
vote and value in an Entity.
4. ‘Branch’ means a unit, business or office of a Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Provider that is treated as a branch under the regulatory regime of a
jurisdiction or that is otherwise regulated under the laws of a jurisdiction as
separate from other offices, units, or branches of the Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Provider. All units, businesses, or offices of a Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Provider in a single jurisdiction shall be treated as a single branch.
5. ‘Effective Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement’ means an
agreement between the competent authorities of a Member State and a non-
Union jurisdiction that requires the automatic exchange of information
corresponding to that specified in Section II, paragraph B, of this Annex, as
EN 15 EN
determined by an implementing act in accordance with Article 14.
8ad(11).
6. ‘Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction’ means a non-Union jurisdiction that
has in effect an Effective Qualifying Competent Authority Agreement with the
competent authorities of all Member States which are identified as reportable
jurisdictions in a list published by the non-Union jurisdiction.
7. ‘TIN’ means Taxpayer Identification Number (or functional equivalent
in the absence of a Taxpayer Identification Number). The TIN is any number
or code that a competent authority uses to identify a taxpayer.
8. ‘Identification Service’ means an electronic process made available
free of charge by a Member State or the Union to a Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Provider for the purpose of ascertaining the identity and tax residence
of a Crypto-Asset User.
SECTION V
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
A. Rules to enforce the collection and verification requirements laid down in
Section III
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to require Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Providers to enforce the collection and verification
requirements under Section III in relation to their Crypto-Asset Users.
2. Where a Crypto-Asset User does not provide the information required
under Section III after two reminders following the initial request by the
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider, but not prior to the expiration of 60
days, the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider shall prevent the Crypto-
Asset User from performing Reportable Transactions.
B. Rules requiring Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers to keep records of
the steps undertaken and any information relied upon for the performance of the
reporting requirements and due diligence procedures and adequate measures to
obtain those records
1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to require Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Providers to keep records of the steps undertaken and
any information relied upon for the performance of the reporting requirements
and due diligence procedures set out in Sections II and III, respectively. Such
records shall remain available for a sufficiently long period of time and in any
event for a period of not less than five years but not more than 10 years
following the end of the period within which the Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Provider is required to report the information if the information is
reportable pursuant to Section II.
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures, including the
possibility of addressing an order for reporting to Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Providers, in order to ensure that all necessary information is reported
to the competent authority so that the latter can comply with the obligation to
communicate information in accordance with Article 128ad(3).
EN 16 EN
C. Administrative procedures to verify compliance of Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Providers with the reporting requirements and due diligence procedures
Member States shall lay down administrative procedures to verify the compliance of
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers with the reporting requirements and due
diligence procedures set out in Sections II and III, respectively.
D. Administrative procedures to follow up with Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
Providers where incomplete or inaccurate information is reported
Member States shall lay down procedures for following up with Reporting Crypto-
Asset Service Providers where the reported information is incomplete or inaccurate.
E. Administrative procedure for authorisation of a Crypto-Asset Service Provider
The competent authority of a Member State providing authorisation to Crypto-Asset
Service Providers in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 shall communicate
on a regular basis and at the latest before 31 December of the relevant calendar year
or other appropriate reporting period to the competent authority under this Directive,
if that is a different authority, a list of all authorised Crypto-Asset Service Providers.
F. Administrative procedure for single registration of a Crypto-Asset Operator
1. A Crypto-Asset Operator that is a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
Provider as defined in Section IV, subparagraph B(3), shall register, pursuant
to Article 13 8ad(7), with the competent authority of the Member State,
determined in accordance with Section I, subparagraph A(2), point (a), (b), (c)
or (d), or paragraph B, before the end of the period within which such Crypto-
Asset Operator must report the information set out in Section II, paragraph B.
If such Crypto-Asset Operator fulfils the conditions in Section I, subparagraph
A(2), point (a), (b), (c) or (d), or paragraph B, respectively, in more than one
Member State, it shall register, pursuant to Article 13 8ad(7),with the
competent authority of one of those Member States, before the end of the
period within which the Crypto-Asset Operator must report the information set
out in Section II, paragraph B.
Notwithstanding subparagraph F(1), first subparagraph, a Crypto-Asset
Operator that is a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider as defined in
Section IV, subparagraph B(3), shall not register with the competent authority
of a Member State in which such Crypto-Asset Operator is not required to
complete the reporting and due diligence requirements set out in Sections II
and III, respectively, pursuant to Section I, paragraph C, D, E, F, G or H, by
virtue of such requirements being completed by such Crypto-Asset Operator in
any other Member State or in a Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction .
2. Upon registration, the Crypto-Asset Operator shall communicate to the
Member State of its single registration, determined in accordance with
subparagraph F(1), the following information:
(a) name;
(b) postal address;
(c) electronic addresses, including websites;
(d) any TIN issued to the Crypto-Asset Operator;
EN 17 EN
(e) Member States in which Reportable Users are residents within
the meaning of Section III, paragraphs A and B;
(f) any Qualified Non-Union Jurisdiction as referred to in Section
I, paragraph C, D, E, F or H.
3. The Crypto-Asset Operator shall notify the Member State of single
registration of any changes in the information provided under subparagraph
F(2).
4. The Member State of single registration shall allocate an individual
identification number to the Crypto-Asset Operator and shall notify it to the
competent authorities of all Member States by electronic means.
5. The Member State of single registration shall be able to remove a
Crypto-Asset Operator from the Crypto-Asset Operator register in the
following cases:
(a) the Crypto-Asset Operator notifies that Member State that it no
longer has Reportable Users in the Union;
(b) in the absence of a notification pursuant to point (a), there are
grounds to assume that the activity of a Crypto-Asset Operator has
ceased;
(c) the Crypto-Asset Operator no longer meets the conditions laid
down in Section IV, subparagraph B(2);
(d) the Member State revoked the registration with its competent
authority pursuant to subparagraph F(7).
6. Each Member State shall forthwith notify the Commission of any
Crypto-Asset Operator within the meaning of Section IV, subparagraph B(2),
that has Reportable Users resident in the Union while failing to register itself
pursuant to this paragraph. Where a Crypto-Asset Operator does not comply
with the obligation to register or where its registration has been revoked in
accordance with subparagraph F(7) of this Section, Member States shall,
without prejudice to Article 3425a, take effective, proportionate and dissuasive
measures to enforce compliance within their jurisdiction. The choice of such
measures shall remain within the discretion of Member States. Member States
shall also endeavour to coordinate their actions aimed at enforcing compliance,
including the prevention of the Crypto-Asset Operator from being able to
operate within the Union as a last resort.
7. Where a Crypto-Asset Operator does not comply with the obligation to
report in accordance with Section II, paragraph B, of this Annex after two
reminders by the Member State of single registration, the Member State of
single registration shall, without prejudice to Article 3425a, take the necessary
measures to revoke the registration of the Crypto-Asset Operator made
pursuant to Article 13 8ad(7).The registration shall be revoked not later
than after the expiration of 90 days but not prior to the expiration of 30 days
after the second reminder.
EN 18 EN
2025/872 Art. 1.11 and Annex
(adapted)
ANNEX VII
Filing rules and standard template for Top-up tax information return
SECTION I
DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Annex, the following definitions apply:
(1) ‘Implementing Member State’ means a Member State that has implemented
either a qualified income inclusion rule (IIR) or a qualified undertaxed profit rule
(UTPR), as defined in Article 3, points (18) and (43), respectively, of Directive (EU)
2022/2523, or both, for the given Reporting fiscal year;
(2) ‘Qualified domestic top-up tax (QDTT)-only Member State’ means a Member
State that has only implemented a qualified domestic top-up tax, as defined in
Article 3, point (28), of Directive (EU) 2022/2523 for the given Reporting fiscal
year;
(3) ‘Top-up tax information return’ means the information return filed by an
ultimate parent entity, designated filing entity, designated local entity or constituent
entity for which a standard template is set Article 15 of this Directive out in
Section IV of this Annex;
(4) ‘General section’ means the section of the Top-up tax information return that
contains general information on the MNE group as a whole, including its corporate
structure and a high-level summary of the application of Directive (EU) 2022/2523,
such section being consistent with Section 1 of the standard template for the Top-up
tax information return;
(5) ‘Jurisdictional sections’ means the sections of the Top-up tax information
return that contain information on the detailed application of the qualified IIR,
qualified UTPR and qualified domestic top-up tax in respect of each jurisdiction
where the MNE group is operating, such sections being consistent with Sections 2
and 3 of the standard template for the Top-up tax information return;
(6) ‘Reporting fiscal year’ means the fiscal year to which the Top-up tax
information return relates.
SECTION II
FILING REQUIREMENTS
The constituent entity filing the Top-up tax information return shall identify the relevant
sections and the relevant Member States that the information shall be distributed to pursuant
to the dissemination approach set out in Article 158ae.
EN 1 EN
SECTION III
FILING FORMAT AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION FOR LARGE-SCALE
DOMESTIC GROUPS WITH JOINT VENTURES
When a parent entity of a large-scale domestic group holds a direct or indirect ownership
interest in a joint venture or joint venture affiliate that is subject to a qualified domestic top-up
tax in a Member State other than the Member State where the large-scale domestic group is
located, such large-scale domestic group shall use the standard form template for the
Top-up tax information return as defined set out in Article 15 Section IV of
this Annex.
In cases covered by the first subparagraph, Member States shall take the necessary measures
to ensure that Article 158ae (2) and Article 229a apply.
SECTION IV
DATA POINTS
1. MNE group information
1.1. Identification of the filing constituent entity
1. UPE 2. 3. 4. 5. Jurisdiction 6. Recipient
is the filing Nam T where the filing Jurisdictions for
constituent e of the ax Role constituent entity is Exchange of
entity filing identific located Information (if
constituent ation relevant)
entity number
Yes/No
1.2. MNE group general information
1.2.1. MNE group and Reporting fiscal year
1. Name of the 2. Start date of the 3. End date of the 4.
MNE group Reporting fiscal year Reporting fiscal year Amende
d return
Yes/No
1.2.2. MNE general accounting information
1. Consolidated 2. Financial accounting 3. Presentation currency used
financial statements of standard used for the for the consolidated financial
the UPE (type) consolidated financial statements of the UPE (ISO code)
statements of the UPE
EN 2 EN
1.3. Corporate structure
1.3.1. Ultimate parent entity
1. UPE Jurisdiction
2. Applicable rules?
3. Name of the UPE
4. TIN of the UPE
5. TIN of the UPE in the filing jurisdiction (if different, and if any)
6. Status for purposes of the rules
7. If the UPE is an excluded entity – Type
8. The jurisdiction in which a dual resident parent entity is deemed to be subject to
qualified IIR (if based on the rules that parent entity is deemed to be located in another
jurisdiction where it is in not subject to qualified IIR) (if any)
1.3.2. Group entities (other than the UPE) and members of joint venture groups
1.3.2.1. Constituent entities and members of joint venture groups
Changes 1. Changes from previous Reporting fiscal Yes/No
year?
Jurisdiction 2. Jurisdiction
3. Applicable rules?
Identification of the 4. Name of constituent entity, joint venture or
constituent entity, joint joint venture affiliate
venture or joint venture
affiliate 5. TIN
6 TIN for filing jurisdiction (if any)
7. Status for purposes of the rules
Ownership structure of the For each entity holding ownership interests in the
constituent entity, joint constituent entity, joint venture or joint venture
venture or joint venture affiliate:
affiliate 8. Type
9. TIN (for constituent entities or
members of joint venture groups)
10. Ownership interest held
(percentage)
EN 3 EN
If the constituent entity is 11. Parent entity status
a partially owned parent
entity or an intermediate 12. If the intermediate parent entity shall not
parent entity, is the entity apply IIR, because the UPE is subject to qualified
required to apply a qualified IIR or there is another intermediate parent entity
IIR? that owns a controlling interest in it and is subject
to qualified IIR, identify the UPE or the other
intermediate parent entity (TIN)
13. If the partially owned parent entity shall not
apply IIR, because another partially owned parent
entity that is subject to qualified IIR holds 100 %
of its ownership interests, identify the other
partially owned parent entity required to apply
a qualified IIR (TIN)
Is UTPR applicable in 14. Initial phase of international activity Yes/No
respect of the entity? applicable?
15. Aggregate ownership interests (respectively
allocable share of top-up taxes) of parent entities
required to apply a qualified IIR in respect of the
constituent entity (respectively member of joint
venture group) (in percentage)
16. Are the UPE's ownership interests in the Yes/No
constituent entity (respectively UPE’s allocable
share of top-up tax for the member of joint venture
group) greater than the aggregate ownership
interests (respectively allocable share) of parent
entities required to apply a qualified IIR in that
constituent entity (respectively member of joint
venture group)?
1.3.2.2. Excluded entities
1. Changes from previous Reporting fiscal Yes/No
year?
2. Name of the excluded entity
3. Type of the excluded entity
1.3.3. Changes in the corporate structure that occurred during the Reporting fiscal year
Were changes in the corporate structure that occurred during the Reporting fiscal Yes/No
year not reported because they neither affected the effective tax rate computation or
the computation or allocation of top-up tax?
EN 4 EN
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Ownership
S interests held in
Name TIN Effectiv Status tatus Entities Owners that constituent
of the e date before after the holding hip entity (or other
constitu of the the change owners interests entity) or member
ent change change hip held in of joint venture
entity interests that group after the
(or in that constitu change
other constitu ent (Percentage)
entity ent entity
of the entity (or
MNE (or other
group) other entity)
or entity) or
member or member
of joint member of joint
venture of joint venture
group venture group
group before
before the
or after change
the (Percent
change age)
1.4. High-level summary of information
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
I S
Name Type of dentific Name(s afe Effectiv Has Top-up Top-up
of the subgrou ation of ) of harbour e tax applicat tax tax
jurisdict p (if subgrou jurisdict or rate ion of payable payable
ion any) p (if ion(s) exclusio range substan (qualifi (qualifi
any) with n ce- ed ed IIR/
taxing applied? based domesti qualifie
rights income c top-up d
exclusio tax) – UTPR)
n range – range
resulted
in no
top- up
tax
arising?
[Insert [Insert Yes/No [Insert [Insert
relevant relevant relevant relevant
option] option] option] option]
EN 5 EN
2. Jurisdictional safe harbours and exclusions
2.1. Characteristics of the jurisdiction
1. Name of the jurisdiction
2. Type of subgroup (if any)
3. Identification of subgroup (if any)
4. Jurisdiction with taxing rights
5. Existence of reportable differences
(Yes/No)
2.2. Jurisdictional exceptions applicable in respect of this jurisdiction (top-up tax reduced
to zero)
2.2.1. Safe harbour jurisdiction election
2.2.1.1. Safe harbour election
1. Safe Harbour [insert the relevant option]
elected
2.2.1.2. Permanent safe harbours
Simplified calculation for non-material constituent entities
1. Total revenue of all 2. Aggregate simplified tax of
non-material constituent all non-material constituent entities
entities in the jurisdiction in the jurisdiction
a. Reporting fiscal
year
b. 1st preceding n.a.
fiscal year (if
applicable)
c. 2nd preceding n.a.
fiscal year (if
applicable)
d. Average of the n.a.
three fiscal years (if
applicable)
EN 6 EN
2.2.1.3. Transitional safe harbours
(a) Transitional Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) safe harbour
1. Total revenue
2. Profit (loss) before
income tax
3. Simplified covered taxes
(b) Transitional UTPR safe harbour
1. Corporate income
tax rate
2.2.2. Election for de minimis exclusion
Election to apply the de minimis exclusion for the Reporting fiscal year
Simplified calculations for non-material constituent entities – constituent entities that
are not non-material constituent entities
1. 2. 3. Financial 4.
Revenu Qualifyi accounting net Qualifyin
e (financial ng revenue income or loss g income or loss
accounts)
a. Reporting
fiscal year
b. 1st
preceding fiscal
year (if applicable)
c. 2nd
preceding fiscal
year (if applicable)
d. Average of
the three fiscal
years
2.3. MNE group in the initial phase of international activity (if applicable)
1. First day of the first fiscal year in which the
MNE group originally falls within the scope of the rules
2. Reference jurisdiction
EN 7 EN
3. Net book value of tangible assets in reference
jurisdiction for the fiscal year in which the MNE group
originally falls within the scope of the rules
4. Number of jurisdictions where the MNE group
has constituent entities for the fiscal year in which the
MNE group originally falls within the scope of the rules
5. Tangible assets of constituent entities located a. Jurisdiction
outside the reference jurisdiction for the fiscal year in
which the MNE group originally falls within the scope b. Net book values of tangible
of the rules assets of all constituent entities
located in each jurisdiction
6. Number of jurisdictions where the MNE group
has constituent entities during the Reporting fiscal year
7. Sum of the net book values of tangible assets of
all constituent entities located in other jurisdictions than
the reference jurisdiction during the Reporting fiscal
year
3. Computations
3.1. Characteristics of the jurisdiction
1. Name of the jurisdiction
2. Type of subgroup (if any)
3. Identification of subgroup (if any) for the effective tax rate and top-up tax
computation
4. Jurisdiction with taxing rights
5. Effective tax rate
6. Adjusted covered taxes
7. Net qualifying income or loss
8. Substance-based income exclusion
9. Additional current top-up tax
10. Top-up tax amount under domestic legislation
11. Elections
12. Aggregate current tax expense with respect to covered taxes after allocations of
covered taxes incurred by certain types of constituent entities
EN 8 EN
13. Qualified refundable tax credits or marketable transferable tax credits (tax expense)
14. Other tax credits (tax expense)
15. Deferred tax expense amount
16. Qualified refundable tax credits or marketable transferable tax credits (income)
17. Excess negative tax expense carry-forward
18. Transition rules
3.2. Effective tax rate computation
3.2.1. Effective tax rate
a. Financial b. Net c. Income d. Adjusted e.
accounting net income qualifying tax expense covered taxes Effecti
or loss income or loss ve tax rate
[A] [B] [C]=[B]/[A]
3.2.1.1. Computation of the qualifying income or loss
1. Aggregate financial accounting net income or loss amount after
allocations (All constituent entities in the jurisdiction)
2. Adjustments Net amount
(a) Net taxes expense
(b) Excluded dividends
(c) Excluded equity gain or loss
(d) Included revaluation method gain or loss
(e) Gain or loss from disposition of assets and liabilities excluded due to
reorganisation
(f) Asymmetric foreign currency gains or losses
(g) Policy disallowed expenses
(h) Prior period errors
(i) Changes in accounting principles
(j) Accrued pension expense
EN 9 EN
(k) Debt releases
(l) Stock-based compensation
(m) Arm’s length adjustments
(n) Qualified refundable tax credit or marketable transferable tax credit
(o) Election for gains and losses using realisation principle
(p) Election for adjusted asset gain
(q) Intragroup financing arrangement expense
(r) Election for intragroup transactions in same jurisdiction
(s) Insurance company taxes charged to policyholders
(t) Increase/decrease to equity attributed to additional tier one and
restricted tier one capital distributions paid/payable or received/receivable
(u) Constituent entities joining and leaving an MNE group
(v) Reduction of qualifying income of the UPE that is a flow-through
entity
(w) Reduction of qualifying income of the UPE that is subject to
a deductible dividend regime
(x) Taxable distribution method election
(y) International shipping income
(z) Transactions between constituent entities
3. Net qualifying income or loss of the jurisdiction
3.2.1.2. Computation of adjusted covered taxes
(a) Total amount of adjusted covered taxes
1. Aggregate current tax expense with respect to covered taxes after
allocations (All constituent entities in the jurisdiction)
2. Adjustments Net amount
(a) Covered tax accrued as an expense in the profit before taxation in the
financial accounts
(b) Qualifying loss deferred tax asset established or used
EN 10 EN
(c) Covered taxes for uncertain tax position recorded as a reduction to
covered taxes in prior year
(d) Qualified refundable tax credit or marketable transferable tax credits
recorded as a reduction to current tax expense
(e) Qualified flow-through tax benefits of qualified ownership interests
(f) Current tax expense on income excluded from qualifying income or
loss
(g) Non-qualified refundable tax credit, non-marketable transferable tax
credit or other tax credits not recorded as a reduction to current tax expense
(h) Covered taxes refunded or credited (except for any qualified
refundable tax credit, or marketable transferable tax credits) not treated as an
adjustment to current tax expense
(i) Current tax expense related to uncertain tax position
(j) Current tax expense not expected to be paid within three years
(k) Post-filing adjustments
(l) Covered taxes relating to net asset gain or net asset loss
(m) Reduction of covered taxes of the UPE that is a flow-through entity
(n) Covered taxes for qualifying income of the UPE that is reduced under
a deductible dividend regime
(o) Deemed distribution tax
(p) Taxable distribution method election
(q) Total deferred tax adjustment amount
(r) Increase or decrease in covered taxes recorded in equity or other
comprehensive income relating to amounts included in qualifying income or
loss that will be subject to tax under local tax rules
(s) Excess negative tax expense carry-forward generated
(t) Decrease in covered taxes (but not below zero) by the remaining
balance of the excess negative tax expense carry-forward
3. Adjusted covered taxes
EN 11 EN
(b) Excess negative tax expense carry-forward
1. Balance from prior years [A]
2. Excess negative tax expense carry-forward generated in the [B]
Reporting fiscal year
3. Excess negative tax expense carry-forward utilised for the [C]
Reporting fiscal year
4. Excess negative tax expense carry-forward remaining for [D]=[A]+[B]-
subsequent years [C]
(c) Transitional blended controlled foreign company (CFC) regime calculation (if any)
1. CFC 2. 3. Aggregated taxes allocated to that subgroup under
jurisdictions Subg a blended CFC tax regime
roup
Total
3.2.2. Jurisdictional computations relating to deferred tax accounting
3.2.2.1. Deferred tax adjustments
(a) High-level summary
1. Deferred tax (a) Deferred tax expense in the financial [A]
expense for purposes of the accounts
rules before recasting and
adjustments (b) Deferred tax expense in relation to [B]
assets or liabilities for which the carrying
value based on the rules is different to the
accounting carrying value
(c) Deferred tax expense based on the [C]
carrying value of assets or liabilities as
determined based on the rules
(d) Deferred tax expense for purposes of [D]=[A]-
the rules before recasting and adjustments [B]+[C]
2. Total amount of the adjustments [E]
3. Recasting the (e) Deferred tax expense for purposes of [F]=[D]+[E]
deferred tax expense to the the rules before recasting
minimum tax rate
(f) Difference between deferred tax [G]
EN 12 EN
expense recorded at a lower tax rate than the
minimum tax rate and recast at the minimum
tax rate
(g) Difference between deferred tax [H]
expense recorded at a higher tax rate than
the minimum tax rate and recast at the
minimum tax rate
4. Total deferred tax adjustment amount [I]=[F]+[G]-[H]
(b) Breakdown of the adjustments
1. Adjustments to deferred tax expense Net amount
(a) Deferred tax expense related to items excluded from qualifying
income or loss
(b) Deferred tax expense related to disallowed accruals
(c) Deferred tax expense related to unclaimed accruals
(d) Valuation adjustment or accounting recognition adjustment related to
a deferred tax asset
(e) Deferred tax expense arising from a re-measurement related to
changes in the tax rate
(f) Deferred tax expense related to the generation and use of tax credits
(g) Substitute loss carry-forward deferred tax asset or deemed substitute
loss carry-forward deferred tax asset
(h) Disallowed accruals or unclaimed accruals paid during the fiscal year
(i) Recapture deferred tax liability paid during the fiscal year
(j) Recognition of a loss deferred tax asset not included in the financials
(k) Deferred tax expense adjustment resulting from a reduction to a tax
rate
(l) Deferred tax expense adjustment resulting from an increase to a tax
rate
(m) Constituent entities joining and leaving an MNE group
(n) Deferred tax expense of the UPE that is a flow-through entity
(o) Deferred tax expense of the UPE that is subject to deductible dividend
regime
EN 13 EN
(p) Deferred tax adjustment resulting from transactions between
constituent entities
2. Total amount of the adjustments [E]
(c) Loss carry-backs
1. Deemed deferred tax 2. Covered tax refund
assets attributable to loss carry relating to loss carry backs
backs
a. Amount attributed
to prior fiscal year X
b. Amount attributed
to prior fiscal year Y, etc.
c. Total
3.2.2.2. Recapture mechanism
(a) Annual amount of deferred tax liabilities subject to recapture rule
1. Amount of deferred tax liabilities subject to recapture rule claimed in the fifth fiscal
year preceding the Reporting fiscal year
2. Amount of recaptured deferred tax liability determined in the Reporting fiscal year in
relation to the fifth fiscal year preceding the Reporting fiscal year
3. Amount of deferred tax liabilities subject to recapture rule claimed for the Reporting
fiscal year
(b) Aggregate deferred tax liability recapture accounts
1. Reporting 2. Prior
fiscal year fiscal year
a. Amount of pre-transition year deferred
tax liabilities
b. Amount of outstanding balance
c. Amount of unjustified balance
EN 14 EN
3.2.2.3. Transition rules
1. Transition
year
(a) Deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities at the beginning of the transition year
Deferred tax liabilities
1. Deferred tax liabilities at the beginning of the 2. Deferred tax liabilities
transition year recast at the minimum tax rate (if
applicable)
Deferred tax assets
3. Deferred tax 4. Deferred tax 5. Deferred tax 6. Deferred tax
assets at the assets recast at the assets arising from assets taken into
beginning of the minimum tax rate (if excluded items account for purposes
transition year applicable) of the rules
[A] [B] [C] [D] = [[A] or [B], if
applicable] - [C]
(b) Transfer of assets after 30 November 2021 and before the commencement of
a transition year
1. 2. 3. Net 4. Carrying 5. Net deferred
Jurisdict Ta deferred tax asset value of the tax asset or liability
ion of the x paid in or liability transferred assets is determined with
disposing respect of reflected in the for purposes of respect to the
entities the financial the rules transferred assets for
transaction accounts of the purposes of the rules
(s) disposing for acquiring
constituent constituent entity(ies)
entity(ies)
3.2.3. Jurisdictional elections (if any)
3.2.3.1. Jurisdictional elections
(a) Elections
1. Annual elections
a. Aggregate asset gain election
EN 15 EN
b. Immaterial decrease in covered taxes election
c. Election not to apply the substance-based income exclusion
d. Negative tax expense carry-forward
2. Five-year elections 3. Election year 4.
Revocatio
n year
e. Equity investment inclusion
election
f. Stock-based compensation election
g. Realisation-principle election
h. Intra-group transactions election
i. Election not to allocate cross-
border deferred tax
5. Other 6. Election year 7. Revocation year
elections
j. Qualifying
loss election
(b) Information requirements related to jurisdictional elections
1. Inclusion of equity gain or loss with respect to an equity
investment inclusion election
2. Balance of the owner’s investment in a qualified ownership interest [A]
from prior years
3. Additions to the owner’s investment in a qualified ownership [B]
interest
4. Reductions to the owner’s investment in a qualified ownership [C]
interest
5. Outstanding balance of the owner’s investment in a qualified [D]=[A]+[B]-
ownership interest [C]
3.2.3.2. Deemed distribution tax election
1. Deemed distribution tax
election
EN 16 EN
(a) Recapture mechanism
1. 2. 3. Deemed distribution tax paid or 4. Outstanding
Fisca Amo used balance of
l year unt of a deemed
deemed 3rd 2nd 1st Reporting distribution tax
distribution precedi precedi precedi fiscal year recapture account
tax ng ng ng
fiscal fiscal fiscal
year year year
4th
preceding
fiscal year
3rd Not
preceding applica
fiscal year ble
2nd Not Not
preceding applica applica
fiscal year ble ble
1st Not Not Not
preceding applica applica applica
fiscal year ble ble ble
Reporting Not Not Not Not Not applicable
fiscal year applica applica applica applicable
ble ble ble
(b) Recalculation of effective tax rate and top-up tax
1. Reduction to the adjusted covered 2. Incremental 3. Disposition
taxes for a prior fiscal year top-up tax recapture ratio
[A] [B] [C]
3.2.4. Constituent entity computations
(a) Election for the transitional simplified jurisdictional reporting framework
1. Does the MNE group elect to apply the transitional simplified Yes/No
jurisdictional reporting framework?
EN 17 EN
(b) Aggregated reporting for tax consolidated groups
1. Tax consolidated group 2. Consolidated entities
(TIN) (TIN)
3.2.4.1. Qualifying income or loss
(a) Adjustments to the financial accounting net income or loss
1. Constituent entity or member of joint venture group
(TIN)
2. Financial accounting net income or loss amount after
allocations
3. Adjustments Additions Reductions
(a) Net taxes expense
(b) Excluded dividends
(c) Excluded equity gain or loss
(d) Included revaluation method gain or loss
(e) Gain or loss from disposition of assets and liabilities
excluded due to reorganisation
(f) Asymmetric foreign currency gains or losses
(g) Policy disallowed expenses
(h) Prior period errors
(i) Changes in accounting principles
(j) Accrued pension expense
(k) Debt releases
(l) Stock-based compensation
(m) Arm’s length adjustments
(n) Qualified refundable tax credit or marketable transferable
tax credits
(o) Election for gains and losses using realisation principle
(p) Election for adjusted asset gain
EN 18 EN
(q) Intragroup financing arrangement expense
(r) Election for intragroup transactions in same jurisdiction
(s) Insurance company taxes charged to policyholders
(t) Increase/decrease to equity attributed to additional tier
one and restricted tier one capital distributions paid/payable or
received/receivable
(u) Constituent entities joining and leaving an MNE group
(v) Reduction of qualifying income of the UPE that is
a flow-through entity
(w) Reduction of qualifying income of the UPE that is
subject to a deductible dividend regime
(x) Taxable distribution method election
(y) International shipping income
(z) Transactions between constituent entities
4. Qualifying income or loss of the constituent entity or
member of joint venture group
(b) Cross-border allocation of income or loss between a main entity and a permanent
establishment and of a flow-through entity
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
C F Ba O Ju A Re F
onstituent inancial sis for the ther risdiction dditions ductions inancial
entity or accounti adjustmen constitue of other to this to this accounti
members ng net t nt entity constituen constitue constituen ng net
of joint income or t entity or nt entity t entity income
venture or loss member member or loss
groups before of joint of joint after the
located in the venture venture adjustme
this adjustme group group nt
jurisdictio nt (TIN) (ISO)
n or
stateless
constituen
t entity
(TIN)
EN 19 EN
(c) Cross-border adjustments
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Constitu B Oth Jurisdict Additi Reduct
ent entity or asis for er ion of other ons to this ions to this
member of joint the constituent constituent constituent constituent
venture group adjustme entity or entity (ISO) entity entity
(TIN) nt member of
joint
venture
group
(TIN)
(d) Adjustments to the qualifying income of the UPE that is a flow-through entity or is
subject to a deductible dividend regime
1. Constituent 2. 3. Identification 4. 5.
entity (or member of B of holders of Ownersh Reducti
joint venture group) asis for ownership interests ip interest ons for this
located in this reductio or dividend recipients directly held (in constituent
jurisdiction (TIN) n percentage) entity
3.2.4.2. Adjusted covered taxes
(a) Adjustments to the current tax expense in the financial accounts
1. Constituent entity or member of joint venture group
(TIN)
2. Current tax expense with respect to covered taxes after
allocations
3. Adjustments Additions Reductions
(a) Covered tax accrued as an expense in the profit before
taxation in the financial accounts
(b) Covered taxes for uncertain tax position recorded as
a reduction to covered taxes in prior year
(c) Qualified refundable tax credit or marketable transferable
tax credits recorded as a reduction to current tax expense
(d) Qualified flow-through tax benefits of qualified
ownership interests
(e) Current tax expense on income excluded from qualifying
EN 20 EN
income or loss
(f) Non-qualified refundable tax credit, non-marketable
transferable tax credits or other tax credits not recorded as
a reduction to current tax expense
(g) Covered taxes refunded or credited (except for any
qualified refundable tax credit, or marketable transferable tax
credits) not treated as an adjustment to current tax expense
(h) Current tax expense related to uncertain tax position
(i) Current tax expense not expected to be paid within three
years
(j) Post-filing adjustments
(k) Covered taxes relating to net asset gain or net asset loss
(l) Reduction of covered taxes of the UPE that is a flow-
through entity
(m) Covered taxes for qualifying income of the UPE that is
reduced under a deductible dividend regime
(n) Deemed distribution tax
(o) Taxable distribution method election
(p) Total deferred tax adjustment amount
(q) Increase or decrease in covered taxes recorded in equity
or other comprehensive income relating to amounts included in
qualifying income or loss that will be subject to tax under local
tax rules
4. Adjusted covered taxes
(b) Cross allocation of taxes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
C C Ba O Ju A Re C
onstituent overed sis for the ther risdiction dditions ductions overed
entity taxes of adjustmen constitue of other to this to this taxes of
located in the t nt entity constituen constitue constituen the
this constitue (or t entity nt entity t entity constitue
jurisdictio nt entity member (or nt entity
n or (or of joint member (or
stateless member venture of joint member
constituen of joint group) venture of joint
t entity venture group) venture
EN 21 EN
(or group) (TIN) (ISO) group)
member before after the
of joint the adjustme
venture adjustme nt
group) nt
(TIN)
(c) Deferred tax expense
1. Constituent entity or member of joint venture group
(TIN)
2. Deferred tax expense amount for purposes of the rules
3. Adjustments to deferred tax expense Additions Reductions
(a) Deferred tax expense related to items excluded from
qualifying income or loss
(b) Deferred tax expense related to disallowed accruals
(c) Deferred tax expense related to unclaimed accruals
(d) Valuation adjustment or accounting recognition
adjustment related to a deferred tax asset
(e) Deferred tax expense arising from a re-measurement
related to changes in the tax rate
(f) Deferred tax expense related to the generation and use of
tax credits
(g) Substitute loss carry forward DTA or deemed substitute
loss carry forward DTA
(h) Disallowed accruals or unclaimed accruals paid during
the fiscal year
(i) Recapture deferred tax liability paid during the fiscal year
(j) Recognition of a loss deferred tax asset not included in
the financials
(k) Deferred tax expense adjustment resulting from
a reduction to a tax rate
(l) Deferred tax expense adjustment resulting from an
increase to a tax rate
(m) Constituent entities joining and leaving an MNE group
EN 22 EN
(n) Deferred tax expense of the UPE that is a flow-through
entity
(o) Deferred tax expense of the UPE that is subject to
deductible dividend regime
(p) Deferred tax adjustment resulting from transactions
between constituent entities
4. Difference between deferred tax expense recorded at
a lower tax rate than the minimum tax rate and recast at
minimum tax rate
5. Difference between deferred tax expense recorded at
a higher tax rate than the minimum tax rate and recast at
minimum tax rate
6. Total deferred tax adjustment amount
3.2.4.3. Constituent entity elections (or elections that apply to a joint venture group)
1. Constituent entities (or member of joint venture
group) for which an election is made (TIN)
2. Annual a. Election to apply the simplified
elections calculations for non-material constituent
entities (simplified calculations safe
harbour)
b. Debt release election
c. Unclaimed accrual election
3. Five- 4. 5.
year elections Elec Revoca
tion year tion year
d. Not treating an entity as an excluded
entity election
e. Inclusion of all dividends with
respect to portfolio shareholdings
f. Treating foreign exchange gains or
losses attributable to hedging as an
excluded equity gain or loss
g. Investment entity tax transparency
election
EN 23 EN
h. Taxable distribution method
election
i. Unclaimed accrual five-year
election
6. Other j. Qualifying loss election
elections
k. Fair value election
1. Constituent entities (or members 2. Fiscal 3. Inclusion in the fiscal
of joint venture groups) for which the year of the year of the triggering event or
election is made (TIN) triggering event five-year inclusion
3.2.4.4. International shipping income exclusion
(a) International shipping income exclusion
1. Constituent entity or member of joint venture group located in this
jurisdiction (TIN)
International shipping 2. Category
income
3. Revenue [A]
4. Costs [B]
5. International shipping income [C]=[A]-[B]
Qualified ancillary 6. Category
international shipping
income 7. Revenue [D]
8. Costs [E]
9. Qualified ancillary international shipping [F]=[D]-[E]
income
Effect on substance- 10. Payroll costs attributable to the excluded
based income international shipping income or qualified ancillary
exclusion international shipping income
11. Carrying value of tangible assets used in the
generation of the excluded international shipping
income or qualified ancillary international shipping
income
Covered taxes 12. Covered taxes attributable to the excluded
EN 24 EN
international shipping income or qualified ancillary
international shipping income
(b) Jurisdictional cap for the qualified ancillary international shipping income exclusion
1. Total international shipping income for all constituent entities (or [A]
members of joint venture group)
2. 50 % cap 50 %x[A]
3. Total qualified ancillary international shipping income for all [B]
constituent entities (or members of joint venture group)
4. Excess of the cap if B exceeds 50 % of A [B]-50 %x[A]
3.2.4.5. Information for purposes of election to apply taxable distribution method (if
applicable)
Taxable distribution method election
1. Constituent 2. 3. Actual 4. 5. Constituent
entity-owner (or Investme and deemed Lo entity-owner’s
member of joint nt entity for distributions of cal proportionate share
venture group) for which the the investment creditable of the investment
which an election election is made entity’s tax gross- entity’s
is made (TIN) (TIN) qualifying up undistributed net
income received incurred qualifying income
by the by the
constituent investment
entity-owner entity
3.2.4.6. Other accounting standard
1. Constituent entity (or member of joint venture group) 2. Acceptable or
with financial accounting net income or loss based on authorised financial
a different accounting standard (TIN) accounting standard
3.3. Top-up tax computation
3.3.1. Top-up tax
a. b. Substance- c. d. e. f. Top-up
To based income Ex Addit Pay tax
p-up tax exclusion cess ional top-up able
percentage profit tax domestic
EN 25 EN
top-up tax
[A]=15 % [B] [C] = net [D] [E] =[A]x[C]+[D]-
- effective qualifying [E]
tax rate income or
loss -[B]
3.3.2. Computation of substance-based income exclusion (if applicable)
3.3.2.1. Total amount of the substance-based income exclusion
Payroll carve-out Tangible assets carve-out Total
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Substance-
Releva Applicat Carryin Applicati based income
nt eligible ion of relevant g value of on of relevant exclusion
payroll costs mark-up relevant mark-up
of eligible percentage for eligible percentage for
employees the Reporting tangible assets the Reporting
performing fiscal year located in the fiscal year
activities in jurisdiction
the jurisdiction
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]=[A]x[B]+[C]x[D
]
3.3.2.2. Allocation of eligible payroll costs and carrying value of eligible tangible assets to
permanent establishments for purposes of the substance-based income exclusion
1. 2. 3. 4. Relevant 5. Carrying
Rele Carryin Jurisdictio eligible payroll value of relevant
vant eligible g value of n of permanent costs allocated to eligible tangible
payroll costs relevant establishments permanent assets allocated to
eligible establishments permanent
tangible assets establishments
3.3.2.3. Allocation of eligible payroll costs and carrying value of eligible tangible assets of
a flow-through entity for purposes of the substance-based income exclusion
1. 2. 3. Jurisdiction 4. Relevant 5. Carrying
Rele Carryin of constituent entity eligible payroll value of relevant
vant eligible g value of owners (or costs allocated eligible tangible
payroll costs relevant members of joint to constituent assets allocated to
eligible venture group) entity owner (or constituent entity
tangible assets excluded) owner (or
excluded)
EN 26 EN
3.3.3. Additional current top-up tax
3.3.3.1. Additional top-up tax other than in case of a net qualifying loss in the Reporting
fiscal year
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Releva Releva As Net Adjust Effecti Excess Top-up Top-up Additi
nt nt year previo qualify ed ve tax profit tax tax onal
Article usly ing covere rate percent top-up
s reporte income d taxes age tax
d or /loss
recalcu
lated
Prior a.
fiscal
year X Previo
usly
reporte
d
b.
Recalc
ulated
3.3.3.2. Additional top-up tax in case of a net qualifying loss for the Reporting fiscal year
1. Adjusted covered taxes for the jurisdiction (if [A]
negative)
2. Qualifying loss for the jurisdiction [B]
3. Expected adjusted covered taxes [C]=[B]×15
%
4. Additional top-up tax [D]=[C]-[A]
3.3.4. Qualified domestic top-up tax
1. Financial accounting standard
2. Qualified domestic top-up tax amount
payable
EN 27 EN
3. Qualified domestic top-up tax minimum
tax rate (if higher than 15 %)
4. Basis for the blending of income and
taxes (if different from the IIR rules)
5. Currency used (if different from
consolidated financial statement presentation
currency)
6. Five-year election to use the consolidated Currency Election Revocation
financial statement currency or the local currency year year
7 Substance-based income exclusion Yes/No
available?
8. De-minimis available? Yes/No
3.4. Top-up tax allocation and attribution (if any)
3.4.1. Application of the IIR in respect of this jurisdiction
1. Group entity a. Low-taxed constituent entity or
allocated top-up tax member of joint venture group (TIN)
b. Qualifying income of the low [A]
taxed constituent entity or member of
joint venture group
c. Top-up tax of the low-taxed [C] = [T] x
constituent entity or the member of the [A]/[A+B+etc.]
joint venture group
2. Parent entities a. Parent entity (TIN) [Parent entity 1]
required to apply
a qualified IIR b. Parent entity jurisdiction Jurisdiction B
c. The amount of qualifying income [D]
attributable to ownership interests held
by other owners
d. Parent entity’s inclusion ratio [F]=([A]-
[D])/[A]
3. IIR top-up tax a. Parent entity’s allocable share of [G]=[C]×[F]
the top-up tax
b. IIR offset [H]
c. Top-up tax payable by parent [I]=[G]-[H]
entity
EN 28 EN
3.4.2. Total UTPR top-up tax amount in respect of this jurisdiction
1. Low taxed constituent entity (or member of joint venture group) for which the
reduction of UTPR to zero does not apply (TIN)
2. Top-up tax taken into account for calculating the total UTPR top-up tax for each low-
taxed constituent entity
3. Total UTPR top-up tax amount in respect of this jurisdiction
3.4.3. Attribution of top-up tax under the UTPR
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
U U Nu U U Additi U
TPR TPR top- mber of Net TPR TPR top- onal cash tax TPR top-
jurisdicti up tax employees book percenta up tax expense up tax
ons carry- value ge amount incurred by left to be
forward of attribute constituent carried
tangib d for the entities in forward
le Reportin UTPR
assets g fiscal jurisdiction
year
Total
EN 29 EN
ANNEX VIII
Part A
Repealed Directive with list of the successive amendments thereto
(referred to in Article 57)
Council Directive 2011/16/EU
(OJ L 64, 11.3.2011, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/16/oj)
Council Directive 2014/107/EU
OJ L 359, 16.12.2014, pp. 1–29, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/107/oj
Council Directive (EU) 2015/2376
OJ L 332, 18.12.2015, pp. 1–10, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2015/2376/oj
Council Directive (EU) 2016/881
OJ L 146, 3.6.2016, pp. 8–21, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/881/oj
Council Directive (EU) 2016/2258
OJ L 342, 16.12.2016, pp. 1–3, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/2258/oj
Council Directive (EU) 2018/822
OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, pp. 1–13, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/822/oj
Council Directive (EU) 2020/876
OJ L 204, 26.6.2020, pp. 46–48, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2020/876/oj
Council Directive (EU) 2021/514
OJ L 104, 25.3.2021, pp. 1–26, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2021/514/oj
Council Directive (EU) 2023/2226
OJ L, 2023/2226, 24.10.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/2226/oj
Council Directive (EU) 2025/872
OJ L, 2025/872, 6.5.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2025/872/oj
Part B
Time-limits for transposition into national law and dates of application
EN 1 EN
(referred to in Article 57)
Directive Time-limit for Date of application
transposition
1 January 2013
Council Directive 2011/16/EU (1 January 2015 as
regards Article 8)
31 December 2015 1 January 2016
Council Directive 2014/107/EU (1 January 2017 as
far as Austria is
concerned)
Council Directive (EU) 2015/2376 31 December 2016 1 January 2017
Council Directive (EU) 2016/881 4 June 2017 5 June 2017
Council Directive (EU) 2016/2258 31 December 2017 1 January 2018
Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 31 December 2019 1 July 2020
27 June 2020
Council Directive (EU) 2020/876
31 December 2022 1 January 2023.
[31 December 2023 as [1 January 2024 as
regards Article 1, regards Article 1,
Council Directive (EU) 2021/514 point (1)(d), insofar as point (1)(d), insofar
it concerns Article 3, as it concerns Article
point (26), of 3, point (26), of
Directive 2011/16/EU, Directive
and Article 1, point 2011/16/EU, and
(12)] Article 1, point (12)]
31 December 2025 1 January 2026
[31 December 2027 as [1 January 2028 as
Council Directive (EU) 2023/2226 regards Article 1, regards Article 1,
point (11), and Article point (11), and
1, point (16), insofar Article 1, point (16),
as it concerns Article insofar as it concerns
27c, points (3) and (4), Article 27c, points (3)
of Directive and (4), of Directive
EN 2 EN
2011/16/EU] 2011/16/EU]
[31 December 2029 as [1 January 2030 as
regards Article 1, regards Article 1,
point (16), insofar as it point (16), insofar as
concerns Article 27c, it concerns Article
point (2), of Directive 27c, point (2), of
2011/16/EU] Directive
2011/16/EU]
31 December 2025 1 January 2026.
[31 December 2027 as [1 January 2028 as
regards Article 1, regards Article 1,
point (8)] point (8)]
[Pillar Two linkage: [Pillar Two
Council Directive (EU) 2025/872 transposition applies dependency clause:
upon national application of
implementation of the relevant coordination
Pillar Two Directive, provisions takes
where relevant effect from the date
coordination Member States
provisions depend on implement the Pillar
it (Article 2(4)] Two Directive in
national law (Article
2(4)]
_____________
EN 3 EN
ANNEX IX
CORRELATION TABLE
Directive 2011/16/EU This Directive
Article 1 Article 1
Article 2 Article 2
Article 3 Article 3
Article 4 Article 29
Article 5 Article 17
Article 5a Article 18
Article 6 Article 19
Article 7 Article 20
Article 8 Article 4
Article 8(3) Article 5
Article 8a Article 6
Article 8aa Article 7
Article 8ab Article 8
Article 8ac (1), (2), (3) Article 9
Article 8ac (4), (5), (6) Article 10
Article 8ac (7) Article 11
Article 8ad (1), (2), (3), (5) Article 12
Article 8ad (7), (8), (9), (10) Article 13
Article 8ad (11), (12) Article 14
Article 8ae Article 15
--- Article 16
Article 8b Article 46
Article 9 Article 21
Article 9a Article 22
EN 1 EN
Article 10 Article 23
Article 11 Article 24
Article 12 Article 25
Article 12a Article 26
Article 13 Article 27
Article 14 Article 28
Article 15 Article 45
Article 16 Article 30
Article 17 Article 31
Article 18 Article 32
Article 19 Article 33
Article 20 (1) – (4) Article 42
Article 20 (4) Article 43
Article 21(1) – (3) Article 44
Article 21 (7) Article 47
Article 22 Article 37
--- Article 38
--- Article 39
Article 23 Article 48
Article 23a Article 49
Article 24 Article 50
Article 25 (1) – (5) Article 40
Article 25 (6), (7), (8) Article 41
Article 25a Article 34
Article 26 Article 51
--- Article 52
Article 27 Article 53
EN 2 EN
Article 27a ---
Article 27b ---
Article 27c Article 35
--- Article 36
Article 27d Article 54
Article 28 Article 57
Article 29 Article 55
Article 2 Directive 2025/872/EU Article 56
Article 30 Article 58
Article 31 Article 59
Annex I Annex I
Annex II Annex II
Annex III Annex III
Annex IV Annex IV
Annex V Annex V
Annex VI Annex VI
Annex VII Annex VII
_____________
EN 3 EN
Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 24 June 2026
(OR. en)
11060/26
Interinstitutional File:
2026/0168 (CNS)
FISC 235
ECOFIN 895
IA 182
PROPOSAL
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Ms Martine
DEPREZ, Director
date of receipt: 24 June 2026
To: Ms Thérèse BLANCHET, Secretary-General of the Council of the
European Union
No. Cion doc.: COM(2026) 308 final
Subject: Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on administrative cooperation in
the field of taxation (recast)
Delegations will find attached document COM(2026) 308 final.
Encl.: COM(2026) 308 final
11060/26
ECOFIN.2.B EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 24.6.2026
COM(2026) 308 final
2026/0168 (CNS)
Proposal for a
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast)
{SEC(2026) 186 final} - {SWD(2026) 164 final} - {SWD(2026) 165 final} -
{SWD(2026) 166 final}
EN EN
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The Political Guidelines of the European Commission1 have set the objective of making
business easier and faster in Europe by reducing administrative burdens and simplifying
implementation, while upholding high standards, with a view to strengthening European
competitiveness.
The Competitiveness Compass2 highlighted the need to simplify the regulatory environment
and reduce administrative burdens in order to strengthen competitiveness across all sectors.
Subsequently, in its Communication on implementation and simplification3, the Commission
reiterated the need for a bold approach to enhance EU competitiveness and introduced new
targets to reduce administrative burdens. Under the new approach, the burden-reduction
targets of at least 25% for all companies and at least 35% for small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) will be applied to a baseline covering the full range of administrative
costs.
To achieve these objectives, the Commission committed to prioritise proposals that simplify,
consolidate and codify legislation in order to eliminate overlaps, information of low value and
inconsistencies while ensuring that the EU’s priorities continue to be met. A number of
omnibus packages and simplification initiatives in different policy areas have already been
adopted and several others are expected to come. As regards specifically the field of direct
taxation, the Commission Work Programme 20264 announced an Omnibus on taxation which
will simplify, streamline and clarify the EU direct tax acquis 5 with a view to reducing
administrative burdens for businesses and ensuring a level playing field across Member
States. The proposal to recast the Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of direct
taxation (DAC)6 will complement the Commission’s simplification efforts in the field of
1
European Commission, Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission 2024–2029: Europe’s
Choice, July 2024, https://commission.europa.eu/priorities-2024-2029_en
2
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions: A Competitiveness Compass for the EU, COM(2025) 30 final, 29 January 2025,
https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/10017eb1-4722-4333-add2-e0ed18105a34_en
3
European Commission, Competitiveness Compass, COM(2025) 30 final.
4
European Commission, Communication from the Commission: Commission Work Programme 2026 –
Europe’s Independence Moment, 21 October 2025, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-
policy/strategy-documents/commission-work-programme/commission-work-programme-2026_en
5
Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest
and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States, OJ L 157;
Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to
mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies
of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office of an SE or SCE between Member
States, OJ L 310; Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of
taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (recast),
OJ L 345; Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance
practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market, OJ L 193; Council Directive (EU)
2017/1852 of 10 October 2017 on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union, OJ L 265;
Council Directive (EU) 2025/50 of 10 December 2024 on faster and safer relief of excess withholding
taxes, OJ L 50.
6
Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of
taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, OJ L 64.
EN 1 EN
direct taxation by clarifying, simplifying and improving the functioning of the EU framework
for administrative cooperation in direct taxation, without lowering the existing level of
protection against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance.
The DAC is the main piece of EU legislation governing administrative cooperation in direct
taxation. It provides harmonised tools (notably automatic exchange of information - AEOI)
that enable Member States’ tax authorities to cooperate efficiently in combating tax fraud,
evasion and avoidance. The scope of AEOI under the DAC has been expanded several times
over recent years, to respond to emerging challenges and evolving economic realities. While
the initial framework covered AEOI on five categories of income and capital (DAC1), the
framework was subsequently expanded to provide for third-party reporting on financial
accounts (DAC2), cross-border tax rulings (DAC3), country-by country reporting (CbCR) on
the activities of multinational enterprise (MNE) groups (DAC4), reportable cross-border
arrangements (DAC6), income earned through digital platforms (DAC7), crypto-asset
transactions (DAC8) and information related to the global minimum tax for MNE groups
(DAC9). In addition, DAC5 provides access for tax authorities to beneficial ownership
information collected pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) legislation.
While a recent evaluation of the DAC7 concluded that it provides a robust legal framework
and has enabled the exchange of substantial volumes of information, it also identified a
number of areas where improvements could be made. In particular, the evaluation concluded
that frequent amendments to the DAC since 2011 and the absence of a codified legal text have
made the framework more complex and less user-friendly. The evaluation also highlighted the
need to simplify reporting obligations under DAC6, to eliminate inefficient reporting
practices and reduce administrative burdens for stakeholders. In addition, the evaluation
found that, despite progress made, challenges remain with respect to the identification of
taxpayers and the automatic matching of information to national tax databases, which
increases the burden on tax administrations to manually cross check the information received.
The outcome of the extensive consultation activities carried out to support the preparation of
this initiative confirmed and reinforced the need to simplify and clarify DAC6, by removing
reporting requirements with limited added value for tax administrations and considering the
relevance of DAC6 in light of Pillar 2 implementation. Stakeholders also identified further
areas for simplification, notably overlapping notification obligations for the purposes of
DAC4 and DAC9, and the thresholds for reporting for the sale of goods under DAC7.
Stakeholders have consistently signalled that such obligations lead to disproportionately high
volumes of notifications and reporting that are either redundant or do not identify a risk of tax
fraud, evasion or avoidance.
Finally, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) addressed DAC into two Special Reports. The
first report, adopted in 2021, identified limitations in the current DAC1 legislative framework
which affect the completeness of the automatic exchange of information between Member
States. This creates level playing field issues and constrains the ability of tax administrations
to maximise the benefits of the DAC. A second report, adopted in 2024, focussed on DAC6
and found that the Directive is complex and inconsistently applied across Member States.
7
Enhancing tax compliance in the European Union - Taxation and Customs Union.
EN 2 EN
This proposal responds to the call for simplification of the DAC legal framework and reflects
the need to ensure that the framework remains proportionate and effective. Member States
support simplification in the field of taxation as demonstarated by the adoption, on 11 March
20258, of Council Conclusions setting a tax decluttering and simplification agenda to enhance
EU competitiveness.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
This proposal codifies the DAC, and its eight amendments, into one single legal act, thereby
increasing coherence, strengthening legal certainty and improving interpretation and usability
for all stakeholders across the Union. In addition, it includes several amendments which are
aimed at simplifying and improving the functioning of the DAC cooperation framework.
The DAC recast proposal is fully consistent with and must be seen in conjunction with the
Omnibus on direct taxation, which simplifies the other pieces of legislation comprising the
EU framework in the field of direct taxation. Taken together, the two proposals put in place a
set of coordinated and comprehensive actions and ensure that both substantive tax rules and
rules on administrative cooperation are simplified, proportionate and therefore fit for purpose.
The proposal is also fully consistent with and reflect the impact on DAC of the adoption of
the Pillar 2 Directive, which ensures that MNE groups in scope pay a minimum effective tax
rate of 15% on profits in each jurisdiction that they operate. While DAC6 and the Pillar 2
Directive address distinct aspects of tax risk, the introduction of the global minimum taxation
framework, by reducing tax rate differentials across jurisdictions, fundamentally alters for in-
scope MNE groups the underlying incentives for the potentially aggressive arrangements
targeted by DAC6.
Finally, the proposal is consistent with Council Directive (EU) 2025/50 (FASTER Directive)
which simplifies procedures for claiming relief of excess withholding taxes while, at the same
time, providing for reporting obligations to increase transparency.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The proposal interacts with the General Data Protection Regulation9 (GDPR) in several
instances where personal data becomes relevant. At the same time, the proposal includes
specific provisions and safeguards on data protection and provides for procedures in the event
of data breach. The relevant IT and procedural measures ensure that personal data is protected
in line with the GDPR. The exchange of data will pass through a secured electronic system
that encrypts and decrypts the data and, in every tax administration, only authorised national
officials should have access to this information. As joint data controllers, Member States will
have to ensure the data storage according to the security measures and time limits required by
the GDPR.
The proposal ensures that the DAC continues to be in line with the EU Anti-Money
Laundering (AML) framework. Council Directive (EU) 2016/2258 of 6 December 2016
amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards access to anti-money-laundering information by
tax authorities10 (DAC5) granted and required tax authorities the access to the registers and
8
Council Conclusions on a tax decluttering and simplification agenda which contributes to the EU's
competitiveness, 11 March 2025, pdf.
9
Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions,
bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No
45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39–98).
10
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/2258/oj.
EN 3 EN
due diligence documentation pursuant to the EU AML framework that was in place at that
time. In 2024, the new and overhauled Directive (EU) 2024/1640 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the mechanisms to be put in place by Member States
for the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or
terrorist financing11 was adopted. To ensure continued alignment with the new EU AML
framework, this proposal includes references to the updated registers as well as the newly
developed and expanded provisions on customer due diligence and record keeping12.
The proposal is also in line with the provisions on the European Unique Identifier (EUID)
pursuant to Article 16 of the Codified Company Law Directive13 which stipulates that the
EUID is the means to uniquely identify companies cross-border. An EUID is also attributed to
all entities (including trusts and other arrangements) registered in the Beneficial Ownership
Registers Interconnection Systems (BRIS), to which tax authorities will have access pursuant
to this proposal. The optional use of the EUID as a verified means of identification also for
taxation purposes, enables tax authorities to verify, in a reliable way, the identity of the
taxpayers concerned.
The DAC, once recast, will continue to be coherent with the EU Accounting Directive14.
While both DAC4 and the EU Accounting Directive provide for Country-by-Country
reporting, the two instruments are not to be seen as duplicate reporting as the content and the
purpose of each reporting requirements not identical. The reporting included in this proposal
is intended to provide a high-level overview of the MNE group to facilitate risk management
for taxation purposes, while the reporting included in the EU Accounting Directive intends to
promote the transparency of the MNE group toward the public. The inclusion of the enhanced
reporting of Country-by-Country data for statistical purposes in this proposal should however
facilitate the evaluation of the functioning of both Country-by Country reporting and Public
Country-by-Country reporting in the future.
This proposal is coherent with the recent proposal for a regulation on the 28th Regime
Corporate Legal Framework – EU Inc.15, which includes the “once-only” principle for the
submission of information. According to this principle, the information submitted by a
company to the business register (including the EUID), must be shared with other relevant
authorities, including those responsible for issuing the taxpayer identification number (TIN)
and the VAT identification number, without founders and companies having to resubmit the
information to those authorities. In addition, the EU Inc. should obtain the TIN and the VAT
identification number through this digital exchange without needing to submit a separate
11
Directive (EU) 2024/1640 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the
mechanisms to be put in place by Member States for the prevention of the use of the financial system
for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Directive(EU) 2019/1937, and
amending and repealing Directive (EU) 2015/849; OJ L, 2024/1640, 19.6.2024, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1640/oj.
12
Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the
prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist
financing; http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1624/oj.
13
Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 relating to
certain aspects of company law (codification); http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2017/1132/oj.
14
Directive (EU) 2021/2101 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2021
amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of income tax information by certain
undertakings and branches; OJ L 429, 1.12.2021, pp. 1–14, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2021/2101/oj.
15
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 28 th regime corporate
legal framework - 'EU INC.'; EUR-Lex - 52026PC0321 - EN - EUR-Lex.
EN 4 EN
application. The “once-only” principle is followed in the current proposal in relation to the
proposed changes to the concept of “availability” of information under DAC1.
Finally, the DAC coexists with, and is fully consistent with, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of
the European Parliament and of the Council (DSA), which harmonises the rules governing the
liability and accountability of providers of intermediary services, including online platforms,
and establishes due diligence obligations applicable throughout the Union. The DSA provides
for conditional exemptions from liability for intermediary service providers and prohibits the
imposition of general monitoring obligations. At the same time, it requires online platforms
allowing traders to conclude distant contracts with consumers to ensure the traceability of
traders using their services to offer products or services. The DAC is without prejudice to, and
complements, the obligations established under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The legal basis of DAC relies on Articles 113 and 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU). Article 113 of the TFEU provides a legal basis for the
harmonisation of indirect tax systems of Member States, as far as is needed to ensure the
functioning of the Internal Market and to avoid distortion of competition. Article 115 of the
TFEU provides for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions
of the Member States, which directly affect the establishment or functioning of the Internal
Market and make the approximation of laws necessary. The key objective of the DAC is to
ensure that there is a robust legal instrument based on uniform conditions and harmonised
practices to facilitate administrative cooperation and exchange of information in the field of
direct taxation. This is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the Internal Market and
reduce the negative effects of tax fraud, evasion and avoidance in the EU. As the proposed
initiative codifies and amends the DAC, the legal basis remains the same.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The proposal fully observes the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5(3) of the Treaty
on European Union (TEU). The political objectives of simplification necessitate proposals to
codify, simplify and clarify the existing framework to eliminate any overlaps, cut unnecessary
and low-value reporting and ensure consistent implementation, while not undermining the
policy objectives of the legislation. Given the need to act and the nature and extent of the
problem, an EU approach is the only option to ensure that there is a comprehensive and
uniform solution that conforms with EU law, does not distort competition and maintains the
level playing field. Individual actions taken by Member States could not achieve these
objectives. At the same time, the current inefficiencies in the effective functioning of the
DAC acquis are linked to several existing reporting and exchange obligations contained in the
DAC, which can only be comprehensively and uniformly addressed by an EU legislative
initiative.
• Proportionality
The proposal codifies, simplifies and improves existing provisions of the DAC. The changes
are very targeted and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the desired objective. In
particular, the changes fully preserve the current safeguards offered by the DAC and do not
lower the existing level of protection against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance.
EN 5 EN
The added value of EU action is that it ensures that there is a coherent, uniform and complete
solution at EU level, which achieves the targeted reductions in reporting burdens and
associated administrative costs for EU businesses.
At the same time, EU action will comprehensively address the current identified inefficiencies
in the functioning of the DAC with targeted improvements to the existing acquis ensuring that
tax administrations, reporting entities and taxpayers benefit from a more efficient and
effective functioning of the DAC.
• Choice of the instrument
The proposal is for a Directive, which is the only instrument available under the legal basis of
Article 115 TFEU. Furthermore, this Directive represents the recast of the existing DAC, as
subsequently amended.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
This proposal and the accompanying staff working document have been informed by the
results of the DAC evaluation, which was published on 19 November 202516. The evaluation
covers the period from 2018 to 2023 and all amendments up to and including DAC6. The
evaluation report is supported by an accompanying staff working document, which is based
inter alia on the findings of an externally contracted study.
The evaluation concluded that the DAC provides a robust legal framework which has
facilitated the exchange of substantial volumes of information that is increasingly being
matched and used by tax authorities (both for risk assessment and for control purposes) and
has fostered voluntary taxpayer compliance. The DAC works effectively and efficiently, and
the costs associated with it are commensurate with the benefits generated. The DAC is
broadly coherent, it has added value compared with national and international alternatives,
and it remains very relevant to achieving its objectives.
At the same time, the evaluation identified several areas where further work should be done in
the short term to further enhance the DAC’s functioning, while reducing the administrative
burden on business. The evaluation pointed, in particular, to the need to: (i) introduce well-
designed simplification, without undermining the DAC’s objectives; (ii) ensure the consistent
application of the DAC across the EU; (iii) facilitate the automatic reconciliation of DAC data
with national data; and (iv) design a system that would enable a robust and automatic
identification of taxpayers.
In the long term, the evaluation emphasised the need to explore how to rationalise IT systems
and better exploit the digital transformation to improve risk analysis while also ensuring cost-
savings for Member States and reducing the administrative burden on business.
• Stakeholder consultations
The stakeholder consultation strategy for this initiative consisted of targeted consultations of
Member States and business stakeholders as well as a call for evidence and a public
16
1_EN_ACT_part1_v3.docx.
EN 6 EN
consultation. All contributions received were considered in the impact assessment report
accompanying this proposal. It includes a synopsis report of the stakeholder consultation in
Annex 2.
The targeted consultations of business stakeholders took the form of interviews and meetings
with different private stakeholders, including businesses of different sizes operating in
different sectors, business associations, associations of tax consultants and academia. From
these consultations emerged a strong call for simplifying the DAC legal framework, notably
in relation to notification requirements for the purposes of DAC4 and DAC9, DAC6 and
DAC7.
As regards Member States, the Commission services organised Working Party IV meetings
which focused on potential topics for simplification/improvement and possible solutions
related to DAC1, DAC4/DAC9, DAC6 and DAC7. Member States were also kept regularly
informed at meetings of the Council High Level Working Party (HLWP).
In addition, on 16 December 2025, the Commission launched a call for evidence and, in
parallel, a public consultation to collect stakeholders’ views on the main policy options for
simplification and their possible impact, including potential cost savings associated with the
simplification of reporting requirements. The consultation remained open until 10 February
and received a total of 60 written responses. Respondents were mainly individual business,
business associations and tax advisors.
Overall, a strong consensus emerged from the business sector on the need for codifying the
DAC by bringing together DAC1 and all its eight amendments (DAC2 to DAC9) into a single
legal act which would replace the current fragmented legal framework. There was also broad
agreement that the existing framework needs to be simplified as it creates disproportionate
administrative and compliance burdens for reporting entities in some areas.
Business stakeholders strongly supported a single notification (for DAC4 and DAC9
purposes), based on a common template and a harmonised timeline, to avoid duplications and
address the current fragmentation between the Member States. They also advocated in favour
of “central filing”, i.e. enabling one entity of the group which is located in the EU to file the
notification on behalf of the entire group, thereby avoiding multiple notifications.
DAC6 generated substantial interest and feedback from business stakeholders, with many of
them seeking clear and harmonised EU-level guidance to ensure the consistent interpretation
and application of DAC6 across Member States, particularly in relation to very complex
concepts like the Main-Benefit Test (MBT). In addition, business respondents consistently
argued that the scope of DAC6 reporting should be more narrowly targeted to arrangements
presenting genuine tax risks. In the light of this, several business stakeholders argued in
favour of carving out from DAC6 reporting all companies that are within the scope of the
Pillar 2 Directive. Moreover, business stakeholders were aligned on the need to remove the
category A hallmarks (generic hallmarks).
As regards DAC7, comments focussed on the current threshold for the online sale of goods
which was considered disproportionately low and insufficiently targeted to cases with a
material likelihood of tax liability. Stakeholders suggested removing the activity threshold (30
transactions) and keeping only the monetary threshold but increasing it to EUR 5,000, or at
least EUR 3,000.
Finally, several stakeholders (associations, business and online platforms) requested the
development of a centralised verification tool for TIN.
EN 7 EN
• Impact assessment
The impact assessment for this proposal was examined by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board
(RSB) on 29 April 2026. A positive opinion with reservations was delivered on 4 May 202617
and all comments were duly addressed in the final version of the impact assessment. In this
regard, the impact assessment report has been enhanced across several areas. Firstly, the
report further clarifies the information that is required to be collected under measure 5 and
that this information shall be collected by public authorities at the national level. This is
complemented with additional information on the proposed legal basis and technical
safeguards that shall be applied in accordance with the GDPR. Chapter 6 of the report has
been improved with additional information and explanations on the expected administrative
costs for tax administrations. As regards, measure 4, the report contains further information
on the data protection and cybersecurity safeguards that will apply, to support the assessment
that the measure is compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Additional
explanations have been included in the report, which further justify the preferred policy
options of PO1b and PO2b. Finally, Chapter’s 7 and 9 of the report have been supplemented
with additional information, which firstly demonstrates the coherence of the measures with
measures outside of the tax area and secondly includes additional monitoring targets related to
decreases in reporting volumes, increases in tax revenues and reductions in compliance costs
for EU businesses.
The impact assessment considered a baseline scenario (no policy change) and the following
targeted legislative measures, including different policy options to address the identified
shortcomings in the DAC framework:
• Measure 1 – Ensuring that DAC6 reporting obligations (cross-border arrangements) remain
proportionate and effective while promoting a more harmonised application of the Main
Benefit Test (MBT).
• Measure 2 – Amending the reporting threshold for activities involving the sale of goods
under DAC7 (income earned through digital platforms). ·
• Measure 3 – Streamlining notification obligations for multinational enterprise groups for
the purposes DAC4 (country-by-country reporting) and DAC9 (central filing of the top-up
tax return).
• Measure 4 – Improving the accuracy of reported TINs. ·
• Measure 5 – Improving the completeness of information exchanged under DAC1 (certain
categories of income and capital).
The preferred option is a combined package of targeted legislative measures accompanied by
guidance for certain provisions. It includes the following options under each measure:
• Excluding all companies within the scope of Pillar 2 Directive from reporting under
DAC6; refining DAC6 reporting by removing hallmarks with limited added value
(category A); issuing guidance on the application of the MBT to the remaining hallmarks
subject to the test (measure 1).
• Adjusting DAC7 thresholds for the reporting of online sale of goods by removing the
activity threshold and increasing the monetary threshold to EUR 3,000 (measure 2).
17
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-04/rsb_op_dac_en.pdf.
EN 8 EN
• Introducing a single notification obligation covering both DAC4 and DAC9, including a
harmonised filing deadline, a common notification template and central filing (measure 3).
• Introducing a centralised TIN verification system, accessible to both Member States tax
administrations and reporting entities (measure 4).
• Removing from DAC1 the life insurance products category and requiring Member States
to automatically exchange information available to relevant state level public authorities on
all remaining six categories of income and capital (measure 5).
The preferred policy package delivers significant simplification benefits through a set of
targeted measures, reducing compliance costs and administrative burdens for both businesses
and tax administrations. It removes low-value reporting under DAC6 and DAC7, where
current obligations generate substantial costs for business, with DAC6 compliance costs
estimated at up to around EUR 340 million annually and DAC7 costs at around EUR 452
million per year. It also streamlines duplicative notification obligations under DAC4 and
DAC9, reducing compliance costs that could otherwise reach up to EUR 270 million
annually. In parallel, measures to improve TIN verification, enhance data quality and increase
automatic matching rates, enabling more efficient and automated use of exchanged
information, have been identified. SMEs and micro-enterprises are expected to benefit in
particular from the simplification of reporting requirements under DAC6 and DAC7, where
compliance costs are proportionally higher than for large enterprises, while measures related
to DAC4 and the DAC9 mainly affect larger multinational groups.
Limited adjustment costs are expected for businesses and administrations, mainly related to
adapting reporting systems and procedures. The centralised TIN verification system will
entail adjustment costs at EU level (approximately EUR 1.0 to 1.8 million for on-off costs and
EUR 1.8 to 2.4 million per year for recurrent costs) and national level (approximately EUR 15
to 25 million for on-off costs and EUR 4.5 to 12 million per year for recurrent costs). Given
the voluntary nature of the measure for the reporting entities, while upfront costs are
expected, the measure is expected to deliver net administrative savings over time through
improved data quality, and use of information and reduced correction and validation efforts,
although the precise magnitude of these effects cannot be quantified at this stage. While the
introduction of a TIN validation tool entails upfront and operational costs for all stakeholders,
it will also generate significant overall savings by reducing the need for resource-intensive ex
post correction procedures, that can be quantified to up to approximately EUR 70 million per
year.
Overall, the preferred policy package improves the efficiency, effectiveness and
proportionality of the DAC framework, while supporting a more favourable business
environment and enhancing EU competitiveness through the reduction of administrative
burdens and related costs.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
The Proposal contributes to the simplification objectives of the Union and supports the REFIT
programme by reducing unnecessary administrative burdens while improving the
effectiveness of the administrative cooperation framework. The Proposal directly simplifies
existing reporting obligations and removes duplicative notifications. In particular, the deletion
of certain DAC6 hallmarks and the exclusion of MNE groups subject to the Pillar 2 Directive
remove reporting requirements that generate limited operational value for tax administrations.
Similarly, the simplification of DAC7 reporting thresholds reduces the volume of reports
associated with low-value transactions, while the introduction of centralised notifications for
EN 9 EN
the purposes of DAC4 and the DAC9 eliminates the current duplicative notification
obligations for MNE groups. Simultaneously the introduction of a new verification system for
TINs combined with improvements in the completeness of the DAC1 framework improve the
efficiency of the DAC. Together, these measures simplify compliance procedures for EU
businesses and SME’s and improve the quality, completeness and use of exchanged
information by tax administrations.
• Fundamental rights
This proposed directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in
particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The set of data
elements to be transmitted to tax administrations are defined in a way to capture only the
minimum data necessary to detect non-compliant underreporting or non-reporting, in line with
the GDPR obligations, in particular the data minimisation principle.
To ensure full alignment with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to respect the right to
defence enshrined therein, the proposal is aligned with the developments in the jurisprudence
of the Court of Justice Taking into account the judgment of 8 December 2022 in Case C-
694/20, Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others Others18 and in the judgement of 29 July 2024
in case C-623/22, Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers and Others19, the term legal
professional privilege should be understood to apply only to lawyers and other professionals
who, like lawyers, are legally authorised to ensure legal representation.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The estimated impact on expenditure and staffing for 2028 and beyond is added for
illustrative purposes and does not pre-judge the next Multiannual Financial Framework. The
source of financing and scope of Union financial commitment in the post-2027 period remain
subject to the outcome of interinstitutional negotiations on the MFF 2028-2034 and thereafter
shall be determined through the annual budgetary procedure. All appropriations and staffing
allocations as of 2028 are indicative.
The cost for implementing this proposal is estimated to 14.3 million EUR for the period 2028-
2034. For further details, see the legislative financial and digital statement.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
Article 53 of the proposal stipulates that the Commission shall submit a report on the
application of the Directive to the European Parliament and the Council every five years.
To that end, Member States should communicate to the Commission any relevant information
necessary for the evaluation of the effectiveness of administrative cooperation in accordance
with the Directive. Each Member State shall also monitor and assess, in relation to itself, the
effectiveness of administrative cooperation, including in combating tax evasion and
avoidance, and should communicate the results of its assessment, including instruments
measuring the outcome of administrative cooperation to the Commission once a year. The
18
Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others.
19
Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers and Others.
EN 10 EN
conditions and form for this yearly assessment shall be adopted by the Commission by means
of implementing acts.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
The majority of provisions of the proposal remain unchanged in substance, as compared to the
provisions currently in force. As a consequence of the recast exercise, as compared to the
provisions in force, the Articles have been rearranged and renumbered in the proposal in order
to provide clarity to the user and to highlight the importance of automatic exchange of
information. Furthermore, all provisions on one-off exchanges and the references to
implementation in each Article regulating the exchange of information have been removed
and the latter has been replaced by a general provision to empower the Commission to adopt
implementing acts to facilitate technical implementation (Article 44 of the proposal). All
already adopted implementing acts remain in force and the technical arrangements for
exchanges already in place are not modified. The main changes are described below.
(a) Reporting on potentially aggressive cross-border arrangements
To ensure the proportionality of the reporting framework, while promoting a more consistent
application of the Directive across Member States, several amendments have been introduced.
First, in Article 3 of the proposal, a carve-out from the reporting requirements has been
included for entities subject to the Pillar 2 Directive since (a) the 15% minimum taxation is
expected to neutralise aggressive tax planning and (b) MNEs group in scope of the Pillar 2
Directive already face close scrutiny from dedicated audit teams within tax authorities. The
carve-out is narrow and targeted and applies only when there are no benefits given to any
member of the MNE group that the entity belongs to, that would allow to lower taxation
below 15%. Secondly, in line with the judgment20 of the Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJEU), the definition of reportable cross border arrangements has been streamlined
and now only includes arrangements that are implementable. The definition of relevant
taxpayer has also been streamlined to include only the taxpayer who is starting to implement
the reportable cross-border arrangement. Finally, following the changes made to the Annex
IV, the definitions of “marketable arrangement” and “bespoke arrangement” have been
deleted.
In Article 8 of the proposal, the reporting period has been amended in two ways. First, the
calculation of the reporting period now starts when the first step in the implementation has
been made. This is to be understood as concrete measures that are taken in the implementation
of the arrangement, an initial verifiable act, which is the materialisation of the intent to
implement the arrangement, that makes the arrangement’s execution irreversible or legally
binding, such as signing of contracts that enable implementation. The second amendment
concerns the extension of the deadline for reporting by intermediaries from 30 to 90 days in
order to ensure better quality and completeness of information.
In line with recent CJEU judgments, the notion of legal professional privilege in Article 8 has
also been updated. The term legal professional privilege should be understood to apply only
to lawyers and other professionals who, like lawyers, are legally authorised to ensure legal
representation. Therefore, Member States should provide the waiver from filing information
on a reportable cross-border arrangement where the reporting obligation would breach the
legal professional privilege only in respect of professionals who, like lawyers, are authorised
20
Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers and Others.
EN 11 EN
under national law to ensure legal representation. Furthermore, lawyers pursuing their
professional activities under one of the professional titles referred to in Article 1(2)(a) of
Directive 98/5, acting as intermediaries, where they are exempt from the reporting obligation
on account of the legal professional privilege by which they are bound, are also not obliged to
notify any other intermediary that is not their client of that intermediary’s reporting
obligations. However, any intermediaries that are exempt from the reporting obligation
because of the legal professional privilege by which they are bound should remain required to
notify without delay their client of that client’s reporting obligations. In contrast, other
professionals who may also be authorised to ensure legal representation, but do not pursue
their professional activities under one of the professional titles referred to in Article 1(2)(a) of
Directive 98/5, are not granted the legal professional privilege and the existence of the
consultation link between the notifying intermediary and his or her client should be brought to
the attention of the notified intermediary (if any) and, ultimately, the authorities of the
Member State.
The proposal also makes it clear in Article 8 that systematic reporting of the information that
a third country jurisdiction is involved in the reportable arrangement remains necessary.
In Annex IV, in line with the objective to reduce burden by removing reporting obligations
which have low value for tax administrations, Hallmark category A have been deleted. In
addition, in Hallmark C1, the reference to the OECD work on non-cooperative jurisdictions
has been replaced with a reference to the work of the Code of Conduct Group whereby
Member States jointly assess third country jurisdictions against set criteria to deem them
cooperative for tax purposes or not.
In order to ensure legal clarity and consistent application, the substance critera in Hallmark
D2 should be further developed in a Council implementing act, which has been included in
the proposal.
(b) Reporting on sales on digital platforms
In line with the goal of streamlining reporting obligations and reducing administrative burden,
thresholds for sales of goods on digital platforms have been adjusted. In Anex V, Section I,
point B.4, the activity threshold for sales of goods has been removed and the monetary
threshold has been raised from 2.000 to 3.000 EUR.
(c) Streamlining notification obligations for Country-by-Country reporting and
central filing of the top-up tax information return
Currently, every entity that is part of an MNE that is subject to Country-by-Country reporting
(DAC4) and reporting under DAC9 is obliged to notify their tax authority, under both sets of
rules, which group they are a part of and who and by when is filing the report on their behalf.
Furthermore, both sets of notifications work under different timelines. While the deadline for
Country-by-Country reporting is set for the last day of the fiscal year of the MNE group, there
is no such deadline laid down for the purposes of DAC9. Member States have, therefore,
implemented various different notification obligations. Article 16 of the proposal streamlines
these obligations and gives the MNE group the option to file one notification per group, both
for Country-by-Country reporting purposes and for the purposes of central filing of the top-up
tax information return. The notification timeline is based on the timeline of Country-by-
Country reporting and is envisaged to take place on the last day of the fiscal year of the MNE
group. Furthermore, the notification should be done on a single common template to be
adopted by the Commission by way of an implementing act. The notification that is filed with
EN 12 EN
one tax authority is subsequently exchanged with all relevant tax authorities within 3 months
of filing deadline.
(d) Improving the accuracy of the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)
Article 36 of the proposal envisaged a new tool to be developed by the Commission that
would allow for a digital and automated verification of the correctness of TIN. The tool will
confirm whether a reported TIN corresponds to the reported taxpayer on the basis of the
identifying information provided or indicate that no match could be established. The technical
parameters of this tool will be adopted via a Commission implementing act. The use of the
tool will be compulsory for tax administrations and optional for reporting entities. It will
allow the reporting entities that decides to use the tool to verify the TIN number of taxpayers
before they report the information to the relevant tax authority. When the TIN number is
verified using the verification tool, the collection and reporting of additional identifying
information will no longer be necessary and reporting entities would only need to report the
name and the TIN of the taxpayer. This will reduce compliance burdens while maintaining a
high level of data quality. Government verification services of Member States or equivalent
EU services or assignment of EUID in accordance with Directive 2017/1132 allow for unique
and verified identification of the taxpayer. They can therefore be used instead of the TIN by
the reporting entities. When this is the case, reporting entities only need to report the name
and the verified identifier, such as EUID, of the concerned taxpayer.
(e) Improving the completeness of information exchanged
Articles 3 and 4 of the proposal includes several changes which are aimed to ensure
information completeness. First, the definition of “available information” in Article 3 has
been updated to include not only the information available in the registers of tax authorities,
but also information that is available in all registers and databases of Member States
authorities at the national government level.
In parallel, and in line with the “once-only” principle, to facilitate the fulfilment of the
obligations under Article 4, the proposal provides the legal basis for tax authorities to access
relevant information held by other public authorities at national level. In particular, building
on the progress made in the EU AML framework, the proposal enhances access by tax
authorities to registers established under AML legislation, notably the new interconnected
register on real estate. Access to this single access point for real estate will enable tax
authorities to obtain full information on beneficial ownership of real estate and to exchange
this information with other Member States, pursuant to Article 4. Moreover, Article 39
provides the legal basis for tax authorities the access to registers on pensions that are held on
the national level.
In Article 4, the income and asset category of life insurance products (LIP) has been deleted,
since only a limited number of Member States exchange information under that category, and
since furthermore, there is a significant degree of duplication of reporting with the reporting
under the mandatory exchange of financial information.
Exchange of information on beneficial ownership has been included for real estate, in line
with the latest developments at the OECD level.
With the removal of the category LIP, six categories of income and assets remain, and all six
categories should be mandatorily exchanged, provided that the information is available under
the revised concept.
EN 13 EN
(f) Further improvements and updates to the legal text
The proposal also includes some further changes and clarifications. The reporting template for
Country-by-country report in Annex III and the top-up tax information return in Annex VII
have been deleted from the Directive and replaced with a reference to a template adopted via
implementing acts. These implementing acts have, in fact, already been adopted 21 and are not
expected to change unless there is a change agreed at the OECD level which would require
adaptations to maintain the alignment and ensure a single global reporting standard.
The proposal offers enhanced possibilities for tax authorities to tackle the issue of non-
compliant third country digital platforms. Annex V, Section IV, point F7 clarifies the
situations where tax authorities should apply sanctions towards non-compliant third country
digital platforms, while point F8 enhances cooperation between tax authorities on cases of
non-compliance by third country digital platforms. Furthermore, Article 25 gives tax
authorities the possibility of carrying out simultaneous controls of non-compliant third
country platform operators.
Several changes have been made on the information use and processing. First, Member States
are obliged to share statistics on the volume of automatic exchanges, on an annual basis, with
their national statistical institutes as to allow official computations at national and European
level (Article 46). In addition, Member States shall provide their respective national statistical
authority, on annual basis, all information received on Country-by-Country reporting. In
Article 28, a clarification has been inserted that Member States may provide feedback on the
received information more than once a year if needed. Article 48 requires Member States to
report also on instruments measuring the outcomes of administrative cooperation (key
performance indicators) in the process of monitoring and assessment of the functioning of the
Directive. This will ensure that the Commission will have better quality of data available to
perform the evaluation of the Directive. Lastly, in Article 49, a possibility has been added for
the Commission to publish reports on the use of the information exchanged, as well as
anonymised annual summaries of statistical data provided by the Member States.
21
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/99 of 22 January 2018 amending Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2015/2378 as regards the form and conditions of communication for the yearly
assessment of the effectiveness of the automatic exchange of information and the list of statistical data
to be provided by Member States for the purposes of evaluating of Council Directive 2011/16/EU; OJ L
17, 23.1.2018, pp. 29–33 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/99/oj and Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1325 of 7 July 2025 amending Implementing Regulation (EU)
2015/2378 as regards the standard forms and computerised formats to be used for the mandatory
automatic exchange of information under Council Directive 2011/16/EU as amended by Council
Directive (EU) 2025/872; OJ L, 2025/1325, 17.7.2025, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1325/oj
EN 14 EN
2011/16/EU
2026/0168 (CNS)
Proposal for a
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular
Articles 113 and 115 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament22,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee23,
Acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure,
Whereas:
new
(1) Council Directive 2011/16/EU24 has been substantially amended several times. Since
further amendments are to be made, that Directive should be recast in the interests of
clarity.
2011/16/EU recital 7 (adapted)
new
(2) This Directive builds on the achievements of Directive 77/799/EEC but provides for
clearer and more precise rules governing administrative cooperation between Member
States where necessary, to support them in fighting against tax fraud, evasion and
avoidance .
(3) in order to establish, especially as regards the exchange of information, a wider scope
of administrative cooperation between Member States. Clearer rules should also make
it possible in particular to cover This Directive should apply to direct taxes and
indirect taxes that are not yet covered by other Union legislation and should cover
all legal and natural persons in the Union, taking into account the ever-increasing
22
OJ C […], […], p. […].
23
OJ C […], […], p. […].
24
Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of
taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ L 64, 11.3.2011, p. 1, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/16/oj).
EN 1 EN
range of legal arrangements, including not only traditional arrangements such as trusts,
foundations and investment funds, but any new instrument which may be set up by
taxpayers in the Member States.
new
(4) To preserve the proportionality of burden on reporting entities, Member States should
not introduce or maintain disproportional additional reporting obligations in the area
covered by the Directive, by reason of their nature, scope or cumulative burden, that
may affect and seriously compromise the balance between the overriding requirement
in the public interest and the intrusion into private life set out by this Directive.
(5) Member States should not be exempted from automatically exchanging the
information on income and capital as required by Article 4, solely because the
information is held by another administrative authority at the government level in that
Member State other than the tax administration. In order to establish a level playing
field and ensure that information is of high quality and can be effectively used, the
information exchanged should also include information that is held in registers and
databases by another governmental authority acting on behalf of the State, provided
that it is included in the list of mandatory categories for exchange of information on
income and capital. Furthermore, to ensure effective access to that information, the
access should be granted via electronic means to information in digital format, which
should be, where possible, machine readable and retrievable in accordance with the
procedures for gathering and processing information in that Member State.
(6) The cooperation between Member States under this Directive relies on digital means
of communication. It is essential that these means are secured and in line with
technological advances. Additionally, the development of practical solutions by the
Commission in cooperation with Member States should be allowed.
(7) Union rules implementing agreements reached in the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) should take into account the framework
developed by the OECD in order to increase the effectiveness of the exchange of
information and to reduce administrative burden. As a general principle, Member
States should use commentaries and guidance agreed in the OECD as a source of
illustration or interpretation and in order to ensure consistency in application across
Member States to the extent that those documents are compatible with Union law.
(8) Based on the experience with exchanges under this Directive and international
developments in the area of automatic exchange of information, the list of mandatory
categories for the exchange of information on income and ownership should be
revisited. Income from life-insurance products is not exchanged widely and is to a
significant extent already reported and automatically exchanged as financial account
information and it is therefore no longer necessary to exchange this category of
income and capital. Furthermore, it has been agreed at the OECD25 that exchange of
information on ownership and income from immovable property should include
25
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Framework for the Automatic Exchange of
Readily Available Information on Immovable Property for Tax Purposes: OECD Report to G20
Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (OECD Publishing October 2025)
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-issues/tax-transparency-and-international-co-
operation/framework-for-the-automatic-exchange-of-readily-available-information-on-immovable-
property-for-tax-purposes.pdf.
EN 2 EN
information on beneficial ownership. It is therefore appropriate to enhance the
information already exchanged under this category of income and capital.
2014/107/EU recital 9
(9) Member States should require their Financial Institutions to implement reporting and
due diligence rules included in this Directive, which are fully consistent with those set
out in the Common Reporting Standard developed by the OECD26.
2014/107/EU recital 10
(10) The categories of Reporting Financial Institutions and Reportable Accounts covered
by this Directive are designed to limit the opportunities for taxpayers to avoid being
reported by shifting assets to Financial Institutions or investing in financial products
that are outside the scope of this Directive. However, certain Financial Institutions and
accounts that present a low risk of being used to evade tax should be excluded from
the scope of this Directive. Thresholds should not be generally included in this
Directive as they could be easily circumvented by splitting accounts into different
Financial Institutions. The financial information which is required to be reported and
exchanged should concern not only all relevant income (interests, dividends and
similar types of income) but also account balances and sale proceeds from Financial
Assets, in order to address situations where a taxpayer seeks to hide capital that in
itself represents income or assets with regard to which tax has been evaded. Therefore,
the processing of information under this Directive is necessary and proportionate for
the purpose of enabling Member States' tax administrations to correctly and
unequivocally identify the taxpayers concerned, to administer and enforce their tax
laws in cross-border situations, to assess the likelihood of tax evasion being
perpetrated, and to avoid unnecessary further investigations.
(EU) 2015/2376 recital 1
(adapted)
(11) The challenge posed by cross-border tax avoidance, aggressive tax planning and
harmful tax competition has increased considerably and has become a major focus of
concern within the Union and at global level. Tax base erosion is considerably
reducing national tax revenues, which hinders Member States in applying growth-
friendly tax policies. The issuance of advance tax rulings, which facilitate the
consistent and transparent application of the law, is common practice, including in the
Union. By providing certainty for business, clarification of tax law for taxpayers can
encourage investment and compliance with the law and can therefore be conducive to
the objective of further developing the single market in the Union on the basis of the
principles and freedoms underlying the Treaties. However, rulings concerning tax-
driven structures have, in certain cases, led to a low level of taxation of artificially
high amounts of income in the country issuing, amending or renewing the advance
ruling and left artificially low amounts of income to be taxed in any other countries
26
OECD (2025), Consolidated text of the Common Reporting Standard (2025): Standard for Automatic
Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/055664b1-en.
EN 3 EN
involved. A high level of An increase in transparency is therefore
required . urgently required. The tools and mechanisms established by Council
Directive 2011/16/EU need to be enhanced in order to achieve this.
(EU) 2015/2376 recital 10
(12) In order to reap the benefits of the mandatory automatic exchange of advance cross-
border rulings and advance pricing arrangements, the information should be
communicated promptly after they are issued, amended or renewed, and regular
intervals for the communication of the information should therefore be established.
For the same reasons, it is also appropriate to provide for the mandatory automatic
exchange of advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements that were
issued, amended or renewed within a period beginning five years before the date of
application of this Directive and which are still valid on 1 January 2014. However,
particular persons or groups of persons with a group wide annual net turnover of less
than EUR 40 000 000 could be excluded, under certain conditions, from such
mandatory automatic exchange.
(EU) 2015/2376 recital 11
(13) For reasons of legal certainty, it is appropriate, under a set of very strict conditions, to
exclude from the mandatory automatic exchange bilateral or multilateral advance
pricing arrangements with third countries following the framework of existing
international treaties with those countries, where the provisions of those treaties do not
permit disclosure of the information received under that treaty to a third party country.
In these cases, however, the information identified in paragraph 5 of Article 9 6
relating to the requests that lead to issuance of such bilateral or multilateral advance
pricing arrangements should be exchanged instead. Therefore, in such cases, the
information to be communicated should include the indicator that it is provided on the
basis of such a request.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 33
new
(14) Advance cross-border rulings that determine whether a person is or is not a resident
for tax purposes in the Member State issuing the ruling should also be exchanged
automatically. However, in the interest of proportionality, and in order to reduce
administrative burden, some common forms of advance cross-border rulings which
can include an element of determination of whether a natural person is or is not
resident for tax purposes in a Member State should not, solely on that ground, be
subject to the exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings this should
not be the sole reason for the exchange . Advance cross-border rulings on taxation at
source with regard to non-residents’ income from employment, director’s fees and
pensions should not be exchanged, unless the amount of the transaction or series of
transactions of the advance cross-border ruling exceeds the threshold.
(EU) 2015/2376 recital 14
(15) Member States should exchange basic information, and a limited set of basic
information should also be communicated to the Commission. This should enable the
EN 4 EN
Commission to monitor and evaluate the effective application of the mandatory
automatic exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings and advance
pricing arrangements at any time. The information received by the Commission should
not, however, be used for any other purposes. Such communication would moreover
not discharge a Member State from its obligations to notify any State aid to the
Commission.
(EU) 2015/2376 recital 16
(adapted)
(16) Where necessary, following the stage of mandatory automatic exchange of
information under this Directive, a Member State should be able to rely on Article 5
17 of this Directive 2011/16/EU as regards the exchange of information on
request to obtain additional information, including the full text of advance cross-
border rulings or advance pricing arrangements, from the Member State having issued
such rulings or arrangements.
(EU) 2016/881 recital 3
(17) Member States' tax authorities need comprehensive and relevant information on
multinational enterprise (MNE) gGroups regarding their structure, transfer-pricing
policy and internal transactions in and outside the Union. That information will enable
the tax authorities to react to harmful tax practices by making changes in legislation or
by undertaking adequate risk assessments and tax audits, and to identify whether
companies have engaged in practices that have the effect of artificially shifting
substantial amounts of income into tax-advantaged environments.
(EU) 2016/881 recital 4
(adapted)
new
(18) Increased transparency towards tax authorities could have the effect of giving MNE
gGroups an incentive to abandon certain practices and pay their fair share of tax in the
country where profits are made. Enhancing transparency for MNE gGroups is
therefore an essential part of tackling base erosion and profit shifting. However, in
order to enhance the efficient use of public resources and reduce the administrative
burden for MNE gGroups, the reporting obligation should only apply to MNE
gGroups with annual consolidated group revenue exceeding a certain amount in
line with the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Report, Action 1327 .
(EU) 2016/881 recital 7
new
(19) In order to enhance the efficient use of public resources and reduce the administrative
burden for MNE gGroups, the reporting obligation should only apply to MNE
27
OECD (2015), Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting, Action 13 - 2015
Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264241480-en.
EN 5 EN
gGroups with annual consolidated group revenue exceeding a certain amount. This
Directive should ensure that the same information is collected and made available to
tax administrations in a timely manner throughout the Union .
(EU) 2016/881 recital 12
(20) The mandatory automatic exchange of country-by-country reports between Member
States should in each case include the communication of a defined set of basic
information that would be accessible to those Member States in which, on the basis of
the information in the country-by-country report, one or more entities of the MNE
gGroup are either resident for tax purposes or subject to tax with respect to the
business carried out through a permanent establishment of an MNE Group.
(EU) 2018/822 recital 3
(21) Considering that most of the potentially aggressive tax-planning arrangements span
across more than one jurisdiction, the disclosure of information about those
arrangements would bring additional positive results where that information was also
exchanged amongst Member States. In particular, the automatic exchange of
information between tax authorities is crucial in order to provide those authorities with
the necessary information to enable them to take action where they observe aggressive
tax practices.
(EU) 2018/822 recital 6
(adapted)
(22) The reporting of potentially aggressive cross-border tax-planning arrangements can
contribute effectively to the efforts for creating an environment of fair taxation in the
internal market. In this light, an obligation for intermediaries should be
required to inform tax authorities of certain cross-border arrangements that could
potentially be used for aggressive tax planning. would constitute a step in the right
direction. Furthermore, in order to develop a more comprehensive policy, it
would also be necessary that as a second step, following the reporting, the tax
authorities should share information with their peers in other Member States.
Such arrangements should also enhance the effectiveness of the CRS. In addition, it
would be crucial to grant the Commission access to a sufficient amount of information
so that it can monitor the proper functioning of this Directive. Such access to
information by the Commission does not discharge a Member State from its
obligations to notify any State aid to the Commission.
(EU) 2018/822 recital 8
(23) To ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and to prevent loopholes in the
proposed framework of rules, the reporting obligation should be placed upon all actors
that are usually involved in designing, marketing, organising or managing the
implementation of a reportable cross-border transaction or a series of such
transactions, as well as those who provide assistance or advice. It should not be
ignored either that, in certain cases, the reporting obligation would not be enforceable
upon an intermediary due to a legal professional privilege or where there is no
intermediary because, for instance, the taxpayer designs and implements a scheme in-
EN 6 EN
house. It would thus be crucial that, in such circumstances, tax authorities do not lose
the opportunity to receive information about tax-related arrangements that are
potentially linked to aggressive tax planning. It would therefore be necessary to shift
the reporting obligation to the taxpayer who benefits from the arrangement in such
cases.
(EU) 2018/822 recital 9
new
(24) Aggressive tax-planning arrangements have evolved over the years to become
increasingly more complex and are always subject to constant modifications and
adjustments as a reaction to defensive countermeasures by the tax authorities. Taking
this into consideration, it would be Rather than defining specific tax planning
arrangements, it is more effective to endeavour to capture potentially aggressive
tax-planning arrangements through the compiling of a list of the features and elements
of transactions that present a strong indication of tax avoidance or abuse rather than to
define the concept of aggressive tax planning. Those indications are referred to as
‘hallmarks’.
(EU) 2018/822 recital 10
new
(25) Given that the primary objective of this Directive concerning the reporting of
potentially aggressive cross-border tax-planning arrangements should focus on
ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market, it is critical not to regulate at
the level of the Union beyond what is necessary to achieve the envisaged aims. This is
why it would be necessary to limit any common rules on reporting to cross-border
situations, namely those involving either more than one Member State or a Member
State and a third country since such arrangements have a potential impact on the
functioning of the internal market . In such circumstances, due to the potential
impact on the functioning of the internal market, one can justify the need for enacting
a common set of rules, rather than leaving the matter to be dealt with at the national
level. A Member State could take further national reporting measures of a similar
nature, but any information collected in addition to what is reportable in accordance
with this Directive should not be communicated automatically to the competent
authorities of the other Member States. That information could be exchanged on
request or spontaneously according to applicable rules.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 44
(adapted)
new
(26) Taking into account the judgment evolution of the jurisprudence of the Court of
Justice in the judgment of 8 December 2022 in Case C-694/20, Orde van
Vlaamse Balies and Others Others 28 and in the judgement of 29 July 2024 in case
28
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 December 2022, Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others, C-649/20,
ECLI Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others.
EN 7 EN
C-623/22, Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers and Others29, the term legal
professional privilege should be understood to apply only to lawyers and other
professionals who, like lawyers, are legally authorised to ensure legal representation.
Therefore, Member States should provide the waiver from filing information on a
reportable cross-border arrangement where the reporting obligation would breach the
legal professional privilege only in respect of professionals who, like lawyers, are
authorised under national law to ensure legal representation. Furthermore, this
Directive should , Directive 2011/16/EU should be amended in such a manner that
its provisions do not have the effect of requiring lawyers , pursuing their
professional activities under one of the professional titles referred to in Article 1(2),
point (a), of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council30,
acting as intermediaries, where they are exempt from the reporting obligation on
account of the legal professional privilege by which they are bound, to notify any
other intermediary that is not their client of that intermediary’s reporting obligations.
However, any intermediaries that are exempt from the reporting obligation because of
the legal professional privilege by which they are bound should remain required to
notify without delay their client of that client’s reporting obligations. In contrast, as
regards the other professionals who, although authorised, as the case may be, by the
Member States to ensure legal representation, do not pursue their professional
activities under one of the professional titles referred to in Article 1(2), point (a) of
Directive 98/5/EC, the existence of the consultation link between the notifying
intermediary and his or her client should be brought to the attention of the notified
intermediary (if any) and, ultimately, the authorities of the Member State.
new
(27) Given the experience with exchanges of information regarding potentially aggressive
cross-border arrangements and with the objective of reducing administrative burden
for companies while preserving the information that is necessary for combatting tax
fraud, evasion and avoidance, it is necessary to revise the reporting requirements for
potentially aggressive cross-border arrangements.
(28) The implementation of the Global Minimum Tax via Council Directive (EU)
2022/252331 ensures that all companies in scope are subject to an effective tax rate of
at least 15%.
(29) Therefore, a targeted and proportionate simplification that recognises the compliance
burden of these entities is needed. Such a carve-out for such MNE groups should be
limited only where the qualified domestic top-up tax applies and be conditional on the
fact that no related benefits are granted to the MNE group by that jurisdiction. This
way, it is ensured that the minimum taxation is always achieved. Reporting remains in
effect when the MNE group is headquartered in a jurisdiction with a side-by-side
regime and has Union entities that implement reportable-cross-border arrangements
29
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 July 2024, Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers and Others, C-
623/22, ECLI Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers and Others.
30
Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate
practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the
qualification was obtained; OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1998/5/oj.
31
Council Directive (EU) 2022/2523 of 14 December 2022 on ensuring a global minimum level of
taxation for multinational enterprise groups and large-scale domestic groups in the Union; OJ L 328,
22.12.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2523/oj
EN 8 EN
with a jurisdiction that does not have a qualified domestic top-up tax in effect for the
tax period or in case related benefits are received.
(30) To further simplify reporting only information that is effectively used by tax
authorities should be reported. Furthermore, to ensure better quality of information
reported and sufficient time for intermediaries to coordinate, the time frame for
reporting should be increased to 90 days after the first step of implementation of the
arrangement has been taken. That gives a stable starting point to calculate the filing
deadline, since the first step of implementation is a concrete measure that is taken in
the implementation of the arrangement, as an initial verifiable act which is the
materialisation of the intent to implement the arrangement, that makes the
arrangement’s execution irreversible or legally binding, including the signing of
contracts that enable implementation.
(31) The generic nature of hallmarks of category A under Directive (EU) 2018/822 has
been proven to have little value for tax administrations in fighting tax fraud, evasion
and avoidance, consequentially they generate disproportionate levels of reporting. It is
therefore no longer necessary to lay down such generic hallmarks. In addition, and
building on the work of the EU Code of Conduct for business taxation both in the area
of harmful tax regimes and in establishing a list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions, it
is appropriate to align the scope of Hallmark C1 with the decisions taken by Member
States collectively in those areas.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 16
(adapted)
(32) In view of the fact that tax authorities worldwide are confronted with the challenges
linked to the ever growing digital platform economy, the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) has developed Model Rules for Reporting by
Platform Operators with respect to Sellers in the Sharing and Gig Economy (‘Model
Rules’) 32 . Given the prevalence of cross-border activities that are carried out
by digital platforms as well as the sellers active on them, it can reasonably be expected
that non-Union jurisdictions will have sufficient incentives to follow the leading
example of the Union and implement the collection and mutual automatic exchange of
information on reportable sellers according to the Model Rules. Although not identical
to the scope of this Directive in terms of the sellers on which information must be
reported and the digital platforms by which information must be reported, t The Model
Rules expected to provide providing for the reporting of equivalent information in
relation to relevant activities that are in scope of both this Directive and the Model
Rules, which may be expanded further to cover additional relevant activities.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 17
new
(33) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive,
implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should
be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European
32
OECD (2020), Model Rules for Reporting by Platform Operators with respect to Sellers in the Sharing
and Gig Economy, OECD, Paris; www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/model-rules-for-
reporting-by-platform-operators-with-respect-tosellers-in-the-sharing-and-gig-economy.htm.
EN 9 EN
Parliament and of the Council. More specifically, As the implementation of the
Model Rules by jurisdictions is not subject to any assessment such as a peer review,
the Commission should, by means of implementing acts, determine whether
information required to be exchanged pursuant to an agreement between the
competent authorities of a Member State and a non-Union jurisdiction is equivalent to
that specified in this Directive. Given that the conclusion of agreements with non-
Union jurisdictions on administrative cooperation in the area of taxation remains
within the competence of Member States, the Commission’s action could also be
triggered by a request from a Member State. This administrative procedure should,
without altering the scope and conditions of this Directive, provide for legal certainty
as regards the correlation of the obligations stemming from this Directive and any
exchange of information agreements Member States may have with non-Union
jurisdictions. For this purpose, it is necessary that, following the request of a Member
State, the determination of equivalence could also be made in advance of an envisaged
conclusion of such an agreement. Where the exchange of such information is based on
a multilateral instrument, the decision on equivalence should be taken in relation to the
whole of the relevant framework covered by such an instrument. Nevertheless, it
should still remain possible to take the decision on equivalence, where appropriate,
concerning a bilateral instrument or the exchange relationship with an individual non-
Union jurisdiction In order to give full effect to this mechanism, it is essential that
Member States take appropriate measures to activate in a timely manner exchange
relationships under the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on automatic
exchange of information on income derived through digital platforms (‘DPI-MCAA’)
or any other bilateral instrument or exchange relationship with non-Union jurisdictions
whose domestic legislation has been determined as equivalent.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 20
(adapted)
(34) The objective of preventing tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance should
could be ensured by requiring platform operators to report income earned through
digital platforms at an early stage, before the tax authorities of Member States carry
out their yearly tax assessments. To facilitate the work of tax authorities of Member
States, the reported information should be exchanged within one month following the
reporting. In order to facilitate the automatic exchange of information and enhance the
efficient use of resources, exchanges of information should be carried out
electronically through the existing common communication network (CCN) developed
by the Union.
new
(35) In order to continue to adhere to the principle of proportionality, to minimise the
reporting of information that is of limited value for taxation purposes and to continue
to support the circular economy in the sale of second-hand goods it is appropriate to
remove the activity criteria for the sale of goods under Directive (EU)2021/514 and
increase the monetary threshold under Directive (EU) 2021/514 from EUR 2.000 to
EUR 3.000 per year.
(36) In light of the continually evolving landscape of the digital economy, it is necessary to
further clarify the provisions of this Directive with respect to intermediary sellers.
These clarifications will provide legal certainty for platform operators and improve the
EN 10 EN
quality of information reported to tax authorities. In order to limit compliance costs for
platform operators that are small and medium-sized enterprises, the reporting
obligations should not apply where the annual aggregate amount of Consideration
remains below a specified threshold. Furthermore, certain intermediary sellers that
meet the definition of Reporting Platform Operators should be subject to simplified
reporting and due diligence obligations, while transactions between related entities of
a Platform Operator, which pose limited risk to tax transparency, should be exempted
from the scope of the reporting obligations. To ensure alignment with international
standards and prevent regulatory fragmentation worldwide, this new set of rules
should be closely aligned with those simultaneously developed by the OECD in the
context of the Model Rules for Digital Platforms.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 21
new
(37) Where foreign platform operators report equivalent information on reportable sellers
to the respective tax authorities of non-Union jurisdictions, the effective
implementation of due diligence procedures and reporting requirements is expected to
be assured by the tax authorities of those jurisdictions. However, in instances where
this is not the case, foreign platform operators should be obliged to register and report
in the Union, and Member States should enforce the registration, due diligence and
reporting obligations of such foreign platform operators. Therefore, Member States
should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national provisions
adopted pursuant to this Directive and should take all measures necessary to ensure
that they are implemented. While the choice of penalties remains within the discretion
of Member States, the penalties provided for should be effective, proportionate and
dissuasive. Given that digital platforms often have a wide geographical reach, it is
appropriate that Member States endeavour to act in a coordinated manner when aiming
at enforcement of compliance with the registration and reporting requirements
applicable to digital platforms operating from non-Union jurisdictions, including the
prevention of digital platforms from being able to operate within the Union as a last
resort. Within the limits of its competence, the Commission should facilitate the
coordination of such Member States’ actions, thereby taking into account any future
common measures towards digital platforms as well as differences in the potential
measures available to Member States. Such measures should focus on facilitating
the coordination of Member States’ actions and the introduction of provisions that
allow for effective compliance measures to be undertaken. To that end, Member States
should continue to use the central register to share information with other competent
authorities, to support timely and consistent actions in identifying and tackling, non-
compliance with registration or reporting requirements by a Platform Operator
established outside of the Union.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 6
(38) Member States have put in place rules and guidance, which differ from Member State
to Member State, to tax income derived from crypto-asset transactions. However, tThe
decentralised nature of crypto-assets makes it difficult for Member States’ tax
administrations to ensure tax compliance.
EN 11 EN
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 7
(39) Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council33 has
expanded the Union regulatory framework to issues of crypto-assets that had so far not
been regulated by Union financial services acts as well as to providers of services in
relation to such crypto-assets (‘crypto-asset service providers’). Regulation (EU)
2023/1114 sets out definitions that are used for the purposes of this Directive. This
Directive also takes into account the authorisation requirement for crypto-asset service
providers under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 in order to minimise administrative
burden for the crypto-asset service providers. The inherent cross-border nature of
crypto-assets requires strong international administrative cooperation to ensure
effective regulation.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 8
(40) The Union’s anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism
framework (AML/CFT) extends the scope of obliged entities subject to AML/CFT
rules to crypto-asset service providers regulated by Regulation (EU) 2023/1114. In
addition, Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 of the European Parliament and of the Council34
extends the obligation of payment service providers to accompany transfers of funds
with information on the payer and the payee to crypto-asset service providers in order
to ensure the traceability of transfers of crypto-assets for the purpose of fighting
against money laundering and financing of terrorism.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 9
(adapted)
(41) At international level, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework , set out in Part I of the document
‘Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework and Amendments to the Common Reporting
Standard’ approved by the OECD on 26 August 2022 (the ‘OECD Crypto-Asset
Reporting Framework’)35, is aimed at introducing greater tax transparency with regard
to crypto-assets and their reporting. Union rules should take into account the
framework developed by the OECD in order to increase the effectiveness of the
exchange of information and to reduce administrative burden. In implementing this
Directive, Member States should use the Commentaries on the Model Competent
Authority Agreement, set out in the document ‘International Standards for Automatic
Exchange of Information in Tax Matters: Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework and
2023 update to the Common Reporting Standard’, released by the OECD on 8 June
33
Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets
in crypto-assets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives
2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937; OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 40; ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj.
34
Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on
information accompanying transfers of funds and certain crypto-assets and amending Directive (EU)
2015/849; OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 1; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1113/oj.
35
OECD (2023), International Standards for Automatic Exchange of Information in Tax Matters: Crypto-
Asset Reporting Framework and 2023 update to the Common Reporting Standard, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/896d79d1-en.
EN 12 EN
2023 (the ‘Commentaries on the Model Competent Authority Agreement’), and the
OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework as sources of illustration or interpretation
and in order to ensure consistency in application across Member States.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 13
(42) The automatic exchange of information between tax authorities is crucial to provide
them with the necessary information to enable them to correctly assess the amounts of
income taxes due. The reporting obligation should cover both cross-border and
domestic transactions in order to ensure the effectiveness of the reporting rules, the
proper functioning of the internal market, a level playing field and respect of the
principle of non-discrimination.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 14
(43) This Directive applies to crypto-asset service providers regulated by and authorised
under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 and to crypto-asset operators that are not. Both are
referred to as reporting crypto-asset service providers, as they are required to report
under this Directive. The general understanding of what constitutes crypto-assets is
very broad and includes crypto-assets that have been issued in a decentralised manner,
as well as stablecoins, including e-money tokens as defined in Regulation (EU)
2023/1114 and certain non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Crypto-assets that can be used for
payment or investment purposes are reportable under this Directive. Therefore,
reporting crypto-asset service providers should consider on a case-by-case basis
whether crypto-assets can be used for payment and investment purposes, taking into
account the exemptions provided for in Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, in particular in
relation to a limited network and certain utility tokens.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 17
(44) Crypto-asset service providers covered by Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 may exercise
their activity in the Union through passporting once they have received their
authorisation in a Member State. For those purposes, the European Securities and
Markets Authority (ESMA) holds a register with authorised crypto-asset service
providers. Additionally, ESMA also maintains a blacklist of operators exercising
crypto-asset services that require an authorisation under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 18
(45) Crypto-asset operators that do not fall under the scope of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114
but are obliged to report information on the crypto-asset users resident in the Union
pursuant to this Directive should be required to register in one single Member State for
the purpose of complying with their reporting obligations.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 19
(46) In order to foster administrative cooperation with non-Union jurisdictions, crypto-asset
operators that meet certain conditions should be allowed to solely report information
on crypto-asset users resident in the Union to the tax authorities of a non-Union
jurisdiction insofar as the reported information corresponds to the information set out
EN 13 EN
in this Directive and insofar as there is an effective qualifying competent authority
agreement in place with such non-Union jurisdiction. The qualified non-Union
jurisdiction would in turn communicate such information to the tax administrations of
the Member States where the crypto-asset users are resident. Where appropriate, that
mechanism should be enabled to prevent corresponding information from being
reported and transmitted more than once.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 20
(adapted)
new
(47) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive,
implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to determine whether
information required to be exchanged pursuant to an agreement between the
competent authorities of a Member State and a non-Union jurisdiction corresponds to
that specified in this Directive. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. Given that the conclusion of agreements with non-
Union jurisdictions on administrative cooperation in the area of direct taxation remains
within the competence of Member States, the Commission’s action could also be
triggered by a request from a Member State. For that the purpose of
ensuring legal certainty , it is necessary that, following the request of a Member
State, the Commission also be able to determine the correspondence in advance of an
envisaged conclusion of such an agreement. Where the exchange of such information
is based on a multilateral competent authority agreement, the Commission should take
the decision on correspondence in relation to the whole of the relevant framework
covered by such a competent authority agreement. Nevertheless, it should still remain
possible for the Commission to take the decision on correspondence, where
appropriate, concerning a bilateral competent authority agreement.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 21
(48) Insofar as the international standard on the reporting and automatic exchange of
information on crypto-assets, namely the OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework,
is a minimum standard or equivalent, which establishes a minimum scope and content
of jurisdictions’ implementation thereof, the determination of correspondence of this
Directive and the OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework by the Commission, by
means of an implementing act, should not be required provided that there is an
effective qualifying competent authority agreement in place between the non-Union
jurisdictions and all Member States.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 23
(49) This Directive does not substitute any wider obligations arising from Regulation (EU)
2023/1114.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 24
(50) In order to foster convergence and to promote consistent supervision of this Directive
and Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, competent authorities are to cooperate with other
national authorities or institutions and share relevant information.
EN 14 EN
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 25
(51) The exemption from the reporting obligations provided for in this Directive, which is
dependent upon the determination of corresponding reporting and exchange
mechanisms in relation to non-Union jurisdictions and Member States, should apply
only in the area of taxation, and in particular for the purposes of this Directive, and
should not be considered as a basis for recognising correspondence in other areas of
Union law.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 3
(adapted)
new
(52) It is therefore appropriate to amend Council Directive 2011/16/EU to establish new
rRules on the automatic exchange of information to facilitate the exchange of
information with respect to the Top-up tax information return and thereby establish the
framework for the operational implementation of the filing obligations laid down in
Directive (EU) 2022/2523, in line with the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework
(IF) Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement on the Exchange of GloBE
Information and its commentary and the GloBE Information Return (‘GIR’)36 to the
extent that such new rules are consistent with the filing obligations laid down in
Directive (EU) 2022/2523 and with Union law.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 15
(adapted)
(53) Directive 2011/16/EU This Directive , including Annex VII thereto, as
amended by this Directive, should be read together with Directive (EU) 2022/2523.
The terms set out for the purposes of exchange of information with respect to the Top-
up tax information return under this Directive (EU) 2025/872 should have the
same meaning as those in Directive (EU) 2022/2523. Furthermore, this Directive
contains additional definitions that are necessary to reflect international developments
made in the context of the exchange of information in the field of taxation.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 4
(54) While the general rule is that a constituent entity files a Top-up tax information return
with its tax administration (‘local filing’), Directive (EU) 2022/2523 provides a
derogation pursuant to which a constituent entity is not obliged to file a Top-up tax
information return with its tax administration if a Top-up tax information return has
been filed by the ultimate parent entity or by a designated filing entity located in a
jurisdiction that has, for the Reporting fiscal year, a qualifying competent authority
agreement in effect with the Member State in which the constituent entity is located
(‘central filing’). This Directive constitutes such a qualifying competent authority
agreement between Member States.
36
OECD (2025), Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy – GloBE Information
Return (January 2025): Inclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting
Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a05ec99a-en .
EN 15 EN
(EU) 2025/872 recital 5
(adapted)
(55) The new rules on automatic exchange of information should enable the central filing
of the Top-up tax information return in accordance with Directive (EU) 2022/2523,
and may also serve for filing purposes in each jurisdiction that is implementing the
OECD Model Rules (‘implementing jurisdiction’). so that the Ttax
administrations of each relevant Member State should receive the necessary
information under the standardised information return.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 6
(adapted)
(56) Member States should take the necessary measures to require the filing constituent
entities of MNE groups to use the standard template form established set out in
accordance with this Directive 2011/16/EU to fulfil their filing obligations
under Directive (EU) 2022/2523. The Member States have discretion regarding which
template is to be used by large-scale domestic groups to fulfil their filing obligations
laid down in Directive (EU) 2022/2523, except in the limited situations when there is a
need for exchange of information.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 7
(adapted)
(57) When a Member State receives a Top-up tax information return from the ultimate
parent entity or the designated filing entity of an MNE group under central filing in
accordance with Directive (EU) 2022/2523, that Member State should communicate to
other Implementing Member States or qualified domestic top-up tax (QDTT)-
only Member States, no later than three 3 months after the filing deadline, or –
in the case of receipt of a Top-up tax information return after the filing deadline – no
later than three 3 months after such receipt, the relevant specific parts of the
Top-up tax information return in accordance with the dissemination approach
approved by the OECD/G20 IF. As regards the first Reporting fiscal year, the deadline
for communication of those relevant specific parts of the Top-up tax information
return should be prolonged to six 6 months after the filing deadline.
Additionally, in order to accommodate any delays in the new system of exchange, in
any case (i.e. for the first and next Reporting fiscal years) the first exchange will take
place no earlier than 1 December 2026.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 8
(58) The Member State of the ultimate parent entity of the MNE group should receive the
full Top-up tax information return. The Implementing Member State should be
provided with the General section of the Top-up tax information return, provided that
there is a constituent entity of the MNE group located in its territory. The QDTT-only
Member State, where constituent entities of the MNE group are located, should be
provided with the relevant parts of the General section of the Top-up tax information
return, although QDTT-only Member States should not send any information in
respect of the Top-up tax information return by automatic exchange of information.
EN 16 EN
(EU) 2025/872 recital 9
(59) Jurisdictional sections should be provided to the Member State with taxing rights
under Directive (EU) 2022/2523, including the QDTT, in accordance with the
dissemination approach.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 17
(adapted)
(60) The standard form template for the Top-up tax information return set out in
established in accordance with this Directive ensures that the information and
tax calculations that an MNE group is required to file under the Top-up tax
information return are sufficiently comprehensive to allow tax administrations to
perform an appropriate risk assessment and to evaluate the correctness of a constituent
entity’s tax liability under Directive (EU) 2022/2523. At the same time, it is sought to
avoid imposing unnecessary information collection, computation and reporting
requirements on MNE groups and to avoid exposing taxpayers to multiple,
uncoordinated requests for further information in each implementing jurisdiction. A
standardised Top-up tax information return does not affect the ability of a tax
administration to require a routine domestic tax return or to collect information for the
purposes of the preparation of the domestic top-up tax return, therefore Member
States, in some cases, should be able to require additional data points to be reported
beyond the Top-up tax information return for purposes of the preparation of the tax
return (for example, to convert the top-up tax liability into the domestic currency).
However, the Member States should generally refrain from requiring the reporting of
additional data points beyond the Top-up tax information return as part of their routine
domestic tax return and payment requirements and any such information should relate,
for example, to liability, timing and method of payment or identification of the
taxpayer and contact details, rather than the calculation of a constituent entity’s top-up
tax liability. This Directive does not apply to domestic tax audit procedures and does
not preclude tax administrations from requesting necessary supporting information in
follow-up requests to verify compliance with provisions transposing Directive (EU)
2022/2523 under their national law.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 18
(61) To ensure the exchange of information regarding joint ventures and equal treatment, in
rare cases where a parent entity of a large-scale domestic group holds a direct or
indirect ownership interest in a joint venture or joint venture affiliate and that joint
venture or joint venture affiliate is subject to a QDTT in another Member State,
Member States should require that such a large-scale domestic group use the same
standard template as an MNE group, i.e. standard template for the Top-up tax
information return set out in this Directive, when filing their Top-up tax information
return. Consequently, Member States should ensure that the provisions on exchange of
information are applied in such cases.
EN 17 EN
new
(62) Entities that are in scope of Country-by-country reporting and in scope of Directive
(EU) 2022/2523 are required to file notifications to inform their tax authority about
which entity will file the country-by-country report and which will file the Top-up tax
information return for them. Since both notifications require the same information, in
order to streamline the processes, alleviate the administrative burden and reduce the
associated costs, such entities should be allowed to file those notifications centrally in
one Member State. The Member States should then ensure that provisions on
exchange information contained in the notifications are applied and, consequently,
only one notification would be filed per MNE group.
2011/16/EU recital 9
(63) Member States should exchange information concerning particular cases where
requested by another Member State and should make the necessary enquiries to obtain
such information. The standard of ‘foreseeable relevance’ is intended to provide for
exchange of information in tax matters to the widest possible extent and, at the same
time, to clarify that Member States are not at liberty to engage in ‘fishing expeditions’
or to request information that is unlikely to be relevant to the tax affairs of a given
taxpayer. While Article 20 42 of this Directive contains procedural requirements,
those provisions need to be interpreted liberally in order not to frustrate the effective
exchange of information.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 3
(adapted)
(64) When replying to a request for information Pursuant to Article 5 of Directive
2011/16/EU, the requested authority is to communicate to the requesting authority any
information it has in its possession, or that it obtains as a result of administrative
enquiries, which is foreseeably relevant to the administration and enforcement of the
domestic laws of Member States concerning the taxes falling within the scope of that
Directive. To ensure the effectiveness of the exchanges of information and to prevent
unjustified refusals of requests, as well as to provide legal certainty for both tax
administrations and taxpayers, the internationally agreed standard of foreseeable
relevance should be clearly delineated and codified.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 4
(65) There is sometimes a need for addressing requests for information that concern groups
of taxpayers who cannot be identified individually and the foreseeable relevance of the
requested information can rather only be described on the basis of a common set of
characteristics. Considering this, tax administrations should continue using group
requests for information under a clear legal framework.
2011/16/EU recital 11 (adapted)
(66) The spontaneous exchange of information between Member States should also be
strengthened and encouraged.
EN 18 EN
(EU) 2025/872 recital 12
(67) The receiving competent authority should notify the sending competent authority
when there is reason to believe that the information included in a Top-up tax
information return, being subject of the exchange, requires correction. Since such
notification normally takes place before a more thorough risk assessment or tax
examination, the sending competent authority should be notified only of manifest
errors identified. The corrected information should be exchanged without undue delay
with all competent authorities for which that information is subject to exchange in
accordance with this Directive. This procedure does not preclude tax administrations
from requesting necessary corrections in follow-up requests to verify compliance with
Directive (EU) 2022/2523 under their national law.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 13
(adapted)
(68) If a competent authority does not receive an exchange that was expected pursuant to a
notification from an MNE group, it should notify the competent authority that was
expected to send the information of the missing exchange. The competent authority
that was expected to send the information should without undue delay determine the
reason for not exchanging the relevant information and inform the competent authority
that notified the missing exchange of that reason within one 1 month,
indicating, where relevant, the expected new date for the exchange. In order to ensure
the effective operation of this Directive 2011/16/EU, it is understood that the
exchange should take place as soon as possible to avoid causing additional delays for
Member States. The expected exchange date should be set for a date no later than
three 3 months from the date of the receipt of notification of the missing
exchange.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 14
(69) If the Top-up tax information return has not been filed centrally by the ultimate parent
entity or the designated filing entity of an MNE group and the information is not
received by the new expected date for exchange, it is understood that the competent
authority that notified the missing exchange may require local filing since the
conditions for central filing under Directive (EU) 2022/2523 have not been fulfilled.
2011/16/EU recital 12 (adapted)
(70) Time limits for the provision of information under this Directive should be laid
down in order to ensure that the information exchange is timely and thus effective.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 22
(adapted)
(71) It is necessary to strengthen the provisions of Directive 2011/16/EU regarding the
presence of officials of one Member State in the territory of another Member State and
the carrying out of simultaneous controls by two or more Member States in order to
ensure the effective application of those provisions. Therefore, tThe responses to
EN 19 EN
requests for the presence of officials of another Member State should be provided by
the competent authority of the requested Member State within a specified timeframe.
Where officials of one Member State are present in the territory of another Member
State during an administrative enquiry, or participate in an administrative enquiry
through the use of electronic means of communication, they should be subject to the
procedural arrangements laid down by the requested Member State to directly
interview individuals and examine records.
2011/16/EU recital 13
(72) It is important that officials of the tax administration of one Member State are allowed
to be present in the territory of another Member State.
2011/16/EU recital 14
new
(73) Since the tax situation of one or more persons liable to tax established in several
Member States is often of common or complementary interest, it should be made
possible for simultaneous controls to be carried out on such persons by two or more
Member States, by mutual agreement and on a voluntary basis. It should also be
possible to carry out simultaneous controls in respect of Reporting Platform Operators
having no economic presence within the Union but facilitating the provision of
relevant activities within the Union as defined in Section I, subparagraph A.8, of
Annex V.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 23
(74) A Member State that intends to carry out a simultaneous control should be required to
communicate its intention to the other Member States concerned. For reasons of
efficiency and legal certainty, it is appropriate to provide that the competent authority
of each Member State concerned is obliged to respond within a specified timeframe.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 24
(adapted)
(75) Multilateral controls carried out with the support of the Fiscalis 2020 programme
for cooperation established by Regulation (EU) No 1286/2013 (EU)
2021/847 of the European Parliament and of the Council37 have demonstrated the
benefit of coordinated controls of one or more taxpayers that are of common or
complementary interest to the competent authorities of two or more Member States.
Such joint actions are currently conducted only on the basis of the combined
application of the existing provisions regarding the presence of officials of one
Member State in the territory of another Member State and simultaneous controls.
However, in many cases that practice has shown that further improvements are needed
to ensure legal certainty.
37
Regulation (EU) 2021/847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing
the ‘Fiscalis’ programme for cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Regulation (EU) No
1286/2013; OJ L 188, 28.5.2021, p. 1; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/847/oj.
EN 20 EN
(EU) 2021/514 recital 25
(adapted)
(76) It is therefore appropriate that Directive 2011/16/EU is supplemented with a number
of provisions that further clarify the framework and the main principles that should
apply when the competent authorities of Member States choose to resort to the means
of a joint audit. Joint audits should be an additional tool available for administrative
cooperation among Member States in the area of taxation, which would should
supplement the existing framework that provides for the possibilities for the presence
of officials of another Member State in administrative offices, participation in
administrative enquiries as well as simultaneous controls. Joint audits would
should take the form of administrative enquiries conducted jointly by the
competent authorities of two or more Member States and be linked to one or more
persons of common or complementary interest to the competent authorities of those
Member States. Joint audits can play an important role in contributing to the better
functioning of the internal market. Joint audits should be structured to offer legal
certainty to taxpayers through clear procedural rules, including measures to mitigate
the risk of double taxation.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 26
(adapted)
(77) For the purpose of ensuring legal certainty, the provisions of this Directive
2011/16/EU as regards joint audits should also contain the main aspects of further
details of that tool, such as the specified timeframe for response to a request for a joint
audit, the scope of rights and obligations of the officials participating in a joint audit
and the process leading to establishment of a final report of a joint audit. Those
provisions on joint audits should not be interpreted as prejudging any processes that
would take place in a Member State in accordance with its national law as a
consequence or a follow-up to the joint audit, such as charging or assessing tax by a
decision of tax authorities of Member States, process of appeal or settlement relating
thereto or remedies available to taxpayers arising from those processes. In order to
ensure legal certainty, the final report of a joint audit should reflect the findings on
which the competent authorities concerned agreed. Moreover, the competent
authorities concerned could also agree that the final report of a joint audit includes any
issues where an agreement could not be reached. The mutually agreed findings of the
final report of a joint audit should be taken into account in the relevant instruments
issued by the competent authorities of the participating Member States following that
joint audit.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 27
(78) In order to ensure legal certainty, it is appropriate to provide that joint audits should be
conducted in a pre-agreed and coordinated manner, and in accordance with the laws
and procedural requirements of the Member State where the activities of a joint audit
take place. Such requirements may also include an obligation to ensure that officials of
a Member State who took part in the joint audit in another Member State, also take
part, if required, in any process of complaint, review or appeal in that Member State.
EN 21 EN
(EU) 2021/514 recital 29
(79) While the objective of the provisions on joint audits is to provide a useful tool for
administrative cooperation in the field of taxation, nothing in this Directive should be
construed as being contrary to the established rules on cooperation of Member States
in judicial matters.
(EU) 2015/2376 recital 15
new
(80) Feedback by the receiving Member State to the Member State sending the information
is a necessary element of the operation of an effective system of automatic information
exchange. It is therefore appropriate to underline that Member States' competent
authorities should send, at least once a year, feedback on the automatic exchange
of information to the other Member States concerned. In practice, this mandatory
feedback should be done by arrangements agreed upon bilaterally and with the
technical support of the Commission .
2011/16/EU recital 8 (adapted)
(81) There should be more direct contact between Member States’ local or national offices
in charge of administrative cooperation, with communication between central liaison
offices being the rule. The lack of direct contacts leads to inefficiency, under-use of
the arrangements for administrative cooperation and delays in communication.
Provision should therefore be made to bring about more Ddirect contacts should
take place between services with a view to making cooperation more efficient and
faster. The assignment of competences to the liaison departments should be deferred to
the national provisions of each Member State.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 30
(adapted)
new
(82) It is important that, as a matter of principle, the information communicated under
this Directive 2011/16/EU is used for the assessment, administration and
enforcement of taxes which are covered by the material scope of that this
Directive. While this was not precluded so far, uncertainties regarding the use of
information have arisen due to unclear framework. Therefore, and considering the
significance that VAT has for the functioning of the internal market, it is appropriate
to clarify that information communicated between Member States may also be used
, as well as for the assessment, administration and enforcement of Value
Added Tax VAT and other indirect taxes and customs duties . Given
the link between tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance, and money
laundering, information communicated between Member States may also be
used for the assessment, administration and enforcement of customs duties and
for the national law of Member States concerning anti-money laundering and
combating the financing of terrorism.
EN 22 EN
2011/16/EU recital 18
(83) It is important for the efficiency of administrative cooperation that information and
documents obtained under this Directive could, subject to the restrictions laid down in
this Directive, be used by the Member State that received them also for other purposes.
It is also important that Member States could transmit that information to a third
country, under certain conditions.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 36
(adapted)
(84) Considering the amount and the nature of the information collected and exchanged on
the basis of this Directive 2011/16/EU, that information can be useful in
certain further areas. While the use of that information in other areas should as a
general rule be restricted to areas approved by the Member State communicating the
information in accordance with this Directive, there is a need to allow for a broader
use of the information in situations presenting particular and serious characteristics
and where it has been agreed at Union level to take action. Such situations would in
particular be those where decisions have been taken pursuant to Article 215 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding restrictive measures.
Information exchanged under this Directive 2011/16/EU can be very relevant
for the detection of violation or circumvention of restrictive measures. In return, any
potential breaches of restrictive measures will be relevant for tax purposes, since
avoidance of restrictive measures will in most cases also amount to tax avoidance in
relation to the assets concerned. Given the likely synergies and close link between the
detection of avoidance of restrictive measures and the detection of tax avoidance, the
authorisation of a further use of the information is therefore appropriate.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 37
(adapted)
(85) It is essential that the information communicated under this Directive
2011/16/EU is used by the competent authority of each Member State which receives
that information. Therefore, it is appropriate to require the competent authority of each
Member State to put in place an effective mechanism to ensure the use of information
acquired through the reporting or the exchange of information under this
Directive 2011/16/EU. Such use of information can include, for instance, voluntary
compliance programs, notifications to generate disclosure, awareness campaigns,
prefilling tax returns, risk assessments, limited audits, general audits, tax coding, tax
estimation, assimilation into domestic systems and other tax-related measures.
2011/16/EU recital 19
(86) The situations in which a requested Member State may refuse to provide information
should be clearly defined and limited, taking into account certain private interests
which should be protected as well as the public interest.
EN 23 EN
(EU) 2016/881 recital 22
(87) The information exchanged under this Directive does not lead to the disclosure of a
commercial, industrial or professional secret, a commercial process or information the
disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy.
2011/16/EU recital 21
(88) This Directive contains minimum rules and should therefore not affect Member States’
right to enter into wider cooperation with other Member States under their national
legislation or in the framework of bilateral or multilateral agreements concluded with
other Member States.
2011/16/EU recital 22 (adapted)
(89) It should also be made clear that wWhere a Member State provides a wider
cooperation to a third country than is provided for under this Directive, it should not
refuse to provide such wider cooperation to other Member States wishing to enter into
such mutual wider cooperation.
(EU) 2016/881 recital 9
(90) Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of
national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and ensure that those penalties
are implemented. While the choice of penalties remains within the discretion of the
Member States, the penalties provided for should be effective, proportionate and
dissuasive.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 29
(adapted)
(91) The taxpayer identification number (TIN) is essential for Member States to match
information received with data present in national databases. It increases Member
States’ capability of identifying the relevant taxpayers and correctly assessing the
related taxes. Therefore, it is important that Member States include the TIN of
reported individuals and entities in the reporting and communication of information in
the context of all automatic exchanges under this Directive related to
categories of income and capital subject to the mandatory automatic exchange of
information, financial accounts, advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing
agreements, country-by-country reports, reportable cross-border arrangements,
information on sellers on digital platforms and crypto-assets.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 30
(adapted)
new
(92) In order to make increase availability of the TIN available to the
competent authorities of Member States, each Member State should take the necessary
measures to require that the TIN of individuals and entities issued by the Member
EN 24 EN
State of residence be reported with respect to every exchange under this
Directive income from employment, director’s fees and pensions and with respect
to advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements, country-by-country
reports and reportable crossborder arrangements. Such measures can involve
comprise, but are not limited to, the introduction, by the transposition deadline set out
in Article 55 of this Directive, of domestic legal requirements to report the
TIN. Moreover, following the entry into force of Council Directive (EU) 2022/2523
and, in the light of the rules on safe harbours set out in that Directive, it is important to
ensure proper matching, in the context of the mandatory automatic exchange of
information on country-by-country reports pursuant to Directive 2011/16/EU.
However, it is also recognised by the Member States that there can be rare situations
where it is simply not possible for the reporting entity or the reporting individual to
collect and report the TIN, including where, despite best efforts, the reporting entity or
the reporting individual has not been able to collect the TIN or where a TIN has not
been issued to the taxpayer.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 39
(adapted)
new
(93) The exchange of information should be made through standardised forms and
channels of communication, which should be adopted by the Commission in
accordance with Regulation (EU) No with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the
European Parliament and of the Council 38 In Furthermore, in order to
ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing
powers should be conferred on the Commission to provide Member States with
develop a tool allowing an digitalelectronic and automated verification of the
validitycorrectness of the TIN that has been provided by the taxpayer or the reporting
entity or reporting individual. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. The IT tool to be provided to Member States is
intended to help increase the matching rates for tax administrations and improve the
quality of the exchanged information in general. It should provide an interim
solution until Union services enabling verified identification of taxpayers are
sufficiently developed and widely used.
new
(94) Since no additional matching needs to be carried out once the TIN has been verified, it
is appropriate, by way of derogation from the general reporting obligations laid down
in this Directive, to provide that, in such cases only the name and the verified TIN of
the taxpayer should be reported. The same simplified reporting should be available
where the taxpayer has been identified through a government verification service or an
equivalent Union service.
38
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States
of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/182/oj).
EN 25 EN
(95) Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council39 lays
down the conditions under which Member States are to recognise natural and legal
persons’ electronic identification means falling under a notified electronic
identification scheme of another Member State and provide and recognise European
Digital Identity Wallets, in order to enable and facilitate the exercise by natural and
legal persons of the right to participate in digital society safely and to access online
public and private services throughout the Union. Limited liability companies and
commercial partnerships, which account for the vast majority of companies subject to
reporting requirements, are identified within the Union by an EUID automatically
assigned by the business register with which they are registered. This EUID enables
verified, up-to-date identification that is valid throughout the Union via the Business
Registers Interconnexion System (BRIS). This Directive ensures that EUID can also
be used to identify the taxpayer in the same manner as TIN.
(EU) 2016/2258 recital 3
(adapted)
new
(96) To ensure effective monitoring of the application by Financial Institutions of the due
diligence procedures set out in this Directive 2011/16/EU, the tax authorities
need access to anti-money-laundering (‘ AML’) information obtained
pursuant to Directive (EU) 2024/1640 of the European Parliament and of the
Council40 for the identification of the beneficial owners . In the absence of such
access, those authorities would not be able to monitor, confirm and audit that the
Financial Institutions are applying this Directive 2011/16/EU properly by
correctly identifying and reporting on the beneficial owners of intermediary structures
. For the purposes of the exchange of information on the ownership and income
from real estate, it is also important to grant tax authorities access to the Single Access
Point (SAP) on real estate, established under Directive (EU) 2024/1640.
(EU) 2016/2258 recital 5
(adapted)
new
(97) It is therefore necessary to ensure that tax authorities are able to access the AML
information, procedures, documents and mechanisms for the performance of their
duties in monitoring the proper application of this Directive 2011/16/EU and
for the functioning of all forms of administrative cooperation provided for in that
this Directive. In order for the access to be effective and efficient it should
be immediate and direct and in a digital format.
39
Consolidated text: Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market
and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/910/2024-10-18.
40
Directive (EU) 2024/1640 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the
mechanisms to be put in place by Member States for the prevention of the use of the financial system
for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937, and
amending and repealing Directive (EU) 2015/849; OJ L, 2024/1640, 19.6.2024; ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1640/oj.
EN 26 EN
new
(98) Furthermore, to ensure that information held, at national level, by administrative
authorities in a Member State that is needed for tax purposes in other Member State is
available to be exchanged, tax authorities should be granted access to administrative
registers and databases on pensions of other public authorities at the government level
in their own Member States.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 40
(adapted)
(99) The minimum retention period of records of information obtained through the
exchange of information between Member States pursuant to this
Directive2011/16/EU should not be longer than necessary but, in any event, not
shorter than five years. Member States should not retain information longer than
necessary to achieve the purposes of this Directive.
2011/16/EU recital 27 (adapted)
new
(100) All exchange of information Any processing of personal data referred to in this
Directive is subject to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and
of the Council41 and Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament
and of the Council42 the provisions implementing Directive 95/46/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
such data and to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the
processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free
movement of such data. However, it is appropriate to consider limitations of certain
rights and obligations laid down by Directive 95/46/EC in order to safeguard the
interests referred to in Article 13(1)(e) of that Directive. Such limitations are necessary
and proportionate in view of the potential loss of revenue for Member States and the
crucial importance of information covered by this Directive for the effectiveness of the
fight against fraud. Where for the purposes of this Directive it is necessary to
process personal data, this should be carried out in accordance with Union law on the
protection of personal data, in particular its rules on data subject rights and security
obligations. Any processing of personal data under this Regulation is subject to
Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
41
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation); OJ L 119, 4.5.2016,
p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj.
42
Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions,
bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No
45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC, OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, pp. 39–98,
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj.
EN 27 EN
2014/107/EU recital 12
(101) Reporting Financial Institutions, sending Member States and receiving Member States,
in their capacity as data controllers, should retain information processed in accordance
with this Directive for no longer than necessary to achieve the purposes thereof. Given
the differences in Member States' legislation, the maximum retention period should be
set by reference to the statute of limitations provided by each data controller's
domestic tax legislation.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 33
(adapted)
new
(102) In order to prevent data breaches and limit potential damage, it is of utmost
importance to improve the security of all data, exchanged between the competent
authorities of Member States in the framework of this Directive 2011/16/EU.
Therefore, it is appropriate to supplement that this Directive with should
contain rules on the procedure to be followed by Member States and the
Commission in the event of a data breach in a Member State as well as in the cases
when the breach occurs to the Secure Digital Information Exchange (SDIE)
CCN. Given the sensitive nature of the data that could be subject to a data breach, it
would be appropriate to provide for measures such as requesting the suspension of the
exchange of information with the Member State(s) where the data breach occurred, or
suspending access to the SDIE CCN to one or more Member States until the data
breach is remedied. Given the technical nature of the processes related to data
exchange, Member States, assisted by the Commission, should agree on the practical
arrangements necessary for the implementation of the procedures to be followed in
case of a data breach and measures to be taken to prevent future data breaches.
(EU) 2023/2226 recital 41
(103) Reporting financial institutions, intermediaries, reporting platform operators, reporting
crypto-asset service providers or competent authorities of Member States are data
controllers within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Where two or more of
those controllers jointly determine the purposes and means of processing of personal
data, they are considered to be joint controllers. For example, competent authorities of
Member States are considered to be joint controllers of the central directory, having
jointly agreed on the personal data to be processed and the manner of processing.
(EU) 2021/514 recital 32
(adapted)
new
(104) In order to assist tax administrations participating in exchange of information under
this Directive, practical arrangements, including where appropriate a joint data
controller agreement, a data processor – data controller agreement or models thereof,
should be drafted by Member States, assisted by the Commission. Only persons duly
accredited by the Security Accreditation Authority of the Commission may have
access to the information communicated pursuant to this Directive 2011/16/EU
EN 28 EN
and provided by electronic means using the SDIE CCN, and only in so far as it is
necessary for the care, maintenance and development of the SDIE central
directory on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and of the CCN. The
Commission is also responsible for ensuring the security of the SDIE central
directory on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and of the CCN.
new
(105) In order to create more certainty for taxpayers and ensure a level playing field across
the EU, the possibility to establish further common rules on the criteria included in
some of the specific hallmarks is provided in this Directive. Those implementing acts
should provide taxpayers and tax administrations with detailed and clear rules on the
criteria for the requirements set out in Part II, points D.2(a) and (b) of Annex IV, with
the aim to ensure uniform application of the Directive, reduce the compliance burden
and level the playing filed. Such measures are expected to have an impact on Member
States’ executive and enforcement powers in the field of direct taxation, as well as on
Member States’ tax bases. For that reason, it is appropriate to confer powers on the
Council, based on a proposal from the Commission, to adopt implementing acts.
2011/16/EU recital 17
(106) Collaboration between the Member States and the Commission is necessary for the
permanent study of cooperation procedures and the sharing of experience and best
practices in the fields considered.
new
(107) The effectiveness of administrative cooperation should be regularly evaluated, on the
basis of statistics to be provided by Member States to the Commission. Member States
should also share statistics with their national statistical institutes, as well as country-
by-country reports with their respective national statistical authority to enable them to
provide EUROSTAT with reliable and up-to date information in line with Regulation
(EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council43. To increase
transparency and monitor the use of data received under automatic exchange of
information and the related outcomes, Member States should publish some key
performance indicators. The Commission should also be able to publish certain
information on the basis of data provided by Member States.
(EU) 2025/872 recital 10
(108) Directive (EU) 2022/2523 allows Member States in which no more than twelve
ultimate parent entities of groups within the scope of that Directive are located, to
43
Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on
European statistics and repealing Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1101/2008 of the European Parliament
and of the Council on the transmission of data subject to statistical confidentiality to the Statistical
Office of the European Communities, Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 on Community Statistics,
and Council Decision 89/382/EEC, Euratom establishing a Committee on the Statistical Programmes of
the European Communities (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland);
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/223/2024-12-26.
EN 29 EN
elect not to apply the IIR and UTPR for a limited period of time. In such cases, a
Member State, if it is not a QDTT-only Member State, should only start applying the
rules on exchange of Top-up tax information returns (i.e. receive and send the
information) when the election period under Directive (EU) 2022/2523 ends.
new
(109) This Directive coexists with, and is fully consistent with, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065
of the European Parliament and of the Council44, which harmonises the rules
governing the liability and accountability of providers of intermediary services,
including online platforms, and establishes due diligence obligations applicable
throughout the Union. This Directive is without prejudice to, and complements, the
obligations established under that Regulation.
(EU) 2016/2258 recital 6
(110) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised
by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Where this Directive
requires that access to personal data by tax authorities be provided by law, this does
not necessarily require an act of parliament, without prejudice to the constitutional
order of the Member State concerned. However, such a law should be clear and
precise, and its application should be clear and foreseeable to persons subject to it, in
accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the
European Court of Human Rights.
new
(111) The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with
Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the
Council45 and delivered an opinion on [XXX]46.
(112) In implementing this Directive, Member States should ensure full respect for the
fundamental rights and general principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union, in particular the rights to respect for private life and
communications, to the protection of personal data, and to an effective remedy and a
fair trial, as guaranteed, inter alia, by Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter. Member
States should reconcile the objective of effective administrative cooperation and the
fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance with the imperative to ensure a
high level of protection of fundamental rights in national procedures giving effect to
this Directive and any limitation of those rights must be provided for by law, respect
44
Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a
Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) OJ L
277, 27.10.2022, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj.
45
Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions,
bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No
45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC; OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, pp. 39–98; ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj.
46
[….]
EN 30 EN
their essence, and comply with the principle of proportionality in accordance with
Article 52(1) of the Charter.
(113) Furthermore, while this Directive does not harmonise Member States’ national
procedural remedies, and while the effectiveness of administrative cooperation
requires that certain investigative steps may, where justified, be taken without prior
notification to the taxpayer concerned, Member States should ensure, in accordance
with their obligations, inter alia, under the European Convention on Human Rights,
that persons whose rights are affected by investigative or disclosure measures
connected with the implementation of this Directive have access, under national law,
to effective review by a court or by an independent and impartial body competent to
examine, within a reasonable time, the legality of the measure, including compliance
with the applicable conditions relating to its justification, scope and any relevant
privileges or protections.
(EU) 2015/2376 recital 23
(114) Since the objective of this Directive, namely the efficient administrative cooperation
between Member States under conditions compatible with the proper functioning of
the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can
rather, by reason of the uniformity and effectiveness required, be better achieved at
Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of
subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance
with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not
go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
new
(115) The obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those
provisions which represent a substantive amendment as compared to the earlier
Directives. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises
under the earlier Directives.
(116) This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States
relating to the time-limits for the transposition into national law and the dates of
application of the Directives set out in Part B of Annex VIII,
2011/16/EU
new
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
Subject matter
1. This Directive lays down the rules and procedures under which the Member States
shall cooperate with each other with a view to exchanging information for that is
EN 31 EN
foreseeably relevant to the administration and enforcement of the domestic laws of the
Member States concerning the taxes referred to in Article 2.
2. This Directive also lays down provisions for the exchange of information referred to in
paragraph 1 by electronic means, as well as rules and procedures under which the Member
States and the Commission are to cooperate on matters concerning coordination and
evaluation.
3. This Directive shall not affect the application in the Member States of the rules on
mutual assistance in criminal matters. It shall also be without prejudice to the fulfilment of
any obligations of the Member States in relation to wider administrative cooperation ensuing
from other legal instruments, including bilateral or multilateral agreements.
new
4. Member States shall not introduce or maintain, after the entry into force of this
Directive, any domestic reporting obligations that require the collection, reporting, or
transmission of information which substantially duplicates information required to be reported
under Chapter II of this Directive.
For the purposes of first subparagraph, a national reporting obligation shall be considered
duplicative where it requires reporting of the same or substantially similar data, from the same
or equivalent categories of reporting entities or persons, and within a comparable timeframe,
as that required under this Directive.
2011/16/EU
Article 2
Scope
1. This Directive shall apply to all taxes of any kind levied by, or on behalf of, a Member
State or the Member State’s territorial or administrative subdivisions, including the local
authorities.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, this Directive shall not apply to value added tax and
customs duties, or to excise duties covered by other Union legislation on administrative
cooperation between Member States. This Directive shall also not apply to compulsory social
security contributions payable to the Member State or a subdivision of the Member State or to
social security institutions established under public law.
3. In no case shall the taxes referred to in paragraph 1 be construed as including:
(a) fees, such as for certificates and other documents issued by public authorities;
or
(b) dues of a contractual nature, such as consideration for public utilities.
4. This Directive shall apply to the taxes referred to in paragraph 1 levied within the
territory to which the Treaties apply by virtue of Article 52 of the Treaty on the European
Union.
EN 32 EN
Article 3
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:
(1) ‘competent authority’ of a Member State means the authority which has been
designated as such by that Member State. When acting pursuant to this Directive, the
central liaison office, a liaison department or a competent official shall also be
deemed to be competent authorities by delegation according to Article 29;
(2) ‘central liaison office’ means the office which has been designated as such
with principal responsibility for contacts with other Member States in the field of
administrative cooperation;
(3) ‘liaison department’ means any office other than the central liaison office
which has been designated as such to directly exchange information pursuant to this
Directive;
(4) ‘competent official’ means any official who is authorised to directly exchange
information pursuant to this Directive;
(5) ‘requesting authority’ means the central liaison office, a liaison department or
any competent official of a Member State who makes a request for assistance on
behalf of the competent authority;
(6) ‘requested authority’ means the central liaison office, a liaison department or
any competent official of a Member State who receives a request for assistance on
behalf of the competent authority;
(7) ‘administrative enquiry’ means all controls, checks and other action taken by
Member States in the performance of their duties with a view to ensuring the proper
application of tax legislation;
(8) ‘exchange of information on request’ means the exchange of information based
on a request made by the requesting Member State to the requested Member State in
a specific case;
2016/881 Art. 1.1
(9) ‘automatic exchange’ means,
2025/872 Art. 1.1(a)
(a) for the purposes of Article 8(1) and Articles 8a to 8ae, the systematic
communication of predefined information to another Member State, without
prior request, at pre-established regular intervals;
2016/881 Art. 1.1
(b) for the purposes of Article 8(3a), the systematic communication of
predefined information on residents in other Member States to the relevant
Member State of residence, without prior request, at pre-established regular
intervals;
EN 33 EN
2025/872 Art. 1.1(a)
(c) for the purposes of provisions of this Directive other than Articles 8(1)
and 8(3a) and Articles 8a to 8ae, the systematic communication of predefined
information provided for in the first subparagraph, points (a) and (b), of this
point.
new
(10) ‘available information’ means, for the purposes of Article 4, information held
by governmental authorities, acting on behalf of the State, in registers and
databases, which shall be made available by electronic means, in digital format,
to the tax authorities of the Member State communicating the information;
2011/16/EU
new
(11) 10 ‘spontaneous exchange’ means the non-systematic communication, at
any moment and without prior request, of information to another Member State;
(12)11 ‘person’ means:
(a) a natural person;
(b) a legal person;
(c) where the legislation in force so provides, an association of persons
recognised as having the capacity to perform legal acts but lacking the status of
a legal person; or
(d) any other legal arrangement of whatever nature and form, regardless of
whether it has legal personality, owning or managing assets, which, including
income derived therefrom, are subject to any of the taxes covered by this
Directive;
(13)12 ‘by electronic means’ means using electronic equipment for the processing,
including digital compression, and storage of data, and employing wires, radio
transmission, optical technologies or other electromagnetic means the use of any
technological systems or tools to process, transmit, or store data in a non-physical
form, regardless of the specific infrastructure or transmission method used ;
13. ‘CCN network’ means the common platform based on the common
communication network (CCN), developed by the Union for all transmissions by
electronic means between competent authorities in the area of customs and taxation;
new
(14) ‘Secure Digital Information Exchange (SDIE)’ means the common platform
established by the Union to enable secure and interoperable transmission of
information between competent authorities in the areas of customs and taxation,
regardless of the underlying communication infrastructure, technologies, or technical
solutions used to support such transmissions;
EN 34 EN
2015/2376 Art. 1.1(b)
(15)14 ‘advance cross-border ruling’ means any agreement, communication, or
any other instrument or action with similar effects, including one issued, amended or
renewed in the context of a tax audit, and which meets the following conditions:
(a) is issued, amended or renewed by, or on behalf of, the government or
the tax authority of a Member State, or the Member State's territorial or
administrative subdivisions, including local authorities, irrespective of whether
it is effectively used;
(b) is issued, amended or renewed, to a particular person or a group of
persons, and upon which that person or a group of persons is entitled to rely;
(c) concerns the interpretation or application of a legal or administrative
provision concerning the administration or enforcement of national laws
relating to taxes of the Member State, or the Member State's territorial or
administrative subdivisions, including local authorities;
2023/2226 Art. 1.1(b)
(d) relates to a cross-border transaction, or to the question of whether or
not activities carried on by a person in another jurisdiction create a permanent
establishment or to the question of whether or not a natural person is resident
for tax purposes in the Member State issuing the ruling; and
2015/2376 Art. 1.1(b)
(e) is made in advance of the transactions or of the activities in another
jurisdiction potentially creating a permanent establishment or in advance of the
filing of a tax return covering the period in which the transaction or series of
transactions or activities took place.
The cross-border transaction may involve, but is not restricted to, the making
of investments, the provision of goods, services, finance or the use of tangible
or intangible assets and does not have to directly involve the person receiving
the advance cross-border ruling;
(16)15 ‘advance pricing arrangement’ means any agreement, communication
or any other instrument or action with similar effects, including one issued, amended
or renewed in the context of a tax audit, and which meets the following conditions:
(a) is issued, amended or renewed by, or on behalf of, the government or
the tax authority of one or more Member States, including any territorial or
administrative subdivision thereof, including local authorities, irrespective of
whether it is effectively used;
(b) is issued, amended or renewed, to a particular person or a group of
persons and upon which that person or a group of persons is entitled to rely;
and
(c) determines in advance of cross-border transactions between associated
enterprises, an appropriate set of criteria for the determination of the transfer
EN 35 EN
pricing for those transactions or determines the attribution of profits to a
permanent establishment.
Enterprises are associated enterprises where one enterprise participates directly
or indirectly in the management, control or capital of another enterprise or the
same persons participate directly or indirectly in the management, control or
capital of the enterprises.
Transfer prices are the prices at which an enterprise transfers physical goods
and intangible property or provides services to associated enterprises, and
‘transfer pricing’ is to be construed accordingly;
(17)16 For the purpose of point 1514 ‘cross-border transaction’ means a
transaction or series of transactions where:
(a) not all of the parties to the transaction or series of transactions are
resident for tax purposes in the Member State issuing, amending or renewing
the advance cross-border ruling;
(b) any of the parties to the transaction or series of transactions is
simultaneously resident for tax purposes in more than one jurisdiction;
(c) one of the parties to the transaction or series of transactions carries on
business in another jurisdiction through a permanent establishment and the
transaction or series of transactions forms part or the whole of the business of
the permanent establishment. A cross-border transaction or series of
transactions shall also include arrangements made by a person in respect of
business activities in another jurisdiction which that person carries on through
a permanent establishment; or
(d) such transactions or series of transactions have a cross-border impact.
For the purpose of point 1615, ‘cross-border transaction’ means a transaction or
series of transactions involving associated enterprises which are not all resident for
tax purposes in the territory of a single jurisdiction or a transaction or series of
transactions which have a cross-border impact;
(18)17 For the purpose of point 1615 and 1716, ‘enterprise’ means any form of
conducting business;
2018/822 Art. 1.1(b)
new
(19)18 ‘cross-border arrangement’ means an arrangement concerning either
more than one Member State or a Member State and a third country where at least
one of the following conditions set out in points (a) to (e) is met, unless the
conditions set out in point (f) are satisfied :
(a) not all of the participants in the arrangement are resident for tax
purposes in the same jurisdiction;
(b) one or more of the participants in the arrangement is simultaneously
resident for tax purposes in more than one jurisdiction;
(c) one or more of the participants in the arrangement carries on a business
in another jurisdiction through a permanent establishment situated in that
EN 36 EN
jurisdiction and the arrangement forms part or the whole of the business of that
permanent establishment;
(d) one or more of the participants in the arrangement carries on an activity
in another jurisdiction without being resident for tax purposes or creating a
permanent establishment situated in that jurisdiction;
(e) such arrangement has a possible impact on the automatic exchange of
information or the identification of beneficial ownership;
new
(f) each of the participants in the arrangements is either part:
(i) of an MNE group or a large-scale domestic group, which for the
tax period falls within the scope of the rules laid down in Council
Directive 2022/2523 or, as regards third-country jurisdictions, the OECD
Model Rules, unless the ultimate parent entity of that MNE group is
located in a jurisdiction with a qualified side-by-side regime for the tax
period; or
(ii) of an MNE group or a large-scale domestic group, which for the
tax period falls within the scope of the rules laid down in Council
Directive 2022/2523 or, as regards third-country jurisdictions, the OECD
Model Rules, and is directly or indirectly held by an Ultimate Parent
Entity that is located in a jurisdiction with a qualified side-by-side regime
for the tax period and both of the following conditions are met: (1) the
participant is subject to a qualified domestic top-up tax for the tax period;
(2) no refund or direct or indirect financial benefit is granted in relation
to that tax.
For the purpose of this point, a jurisdiction with a qualified side-by-side
regime means a jurisdiction that is reported as having such status on the
OECD Central Record for purposes of the Global Minimum Tax in
accordance with the agreement of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework
on a Side-by-Side Package of 5 January 2026.
2018/822 Art. 1.1(b) (adapted)
new
For the purposes of points 1918 to 23 25 of this Article, Article 8ab and Annex IV,
an arrangement shall also include a series of arrangements. An arrangement may
comprise more than one step or part;
(20)19 ‘reportable cross-border arrangement’ means any cross-border
arrangement that contains at least one of the hallmarks set out in Annex IV;
(21)20 ‘hallmark’ means a characteristic or feature of a cross-border
arrangement that presents an indication of a potential risk of tax avoidance, as listed
in Annex IV;
EN 37 EN
(22)21 ‘intermediary’ means any person or legal arrangement, such as a
partnership, trust or foundation, that designs, markets, organises or makes
available for implementation or manages the implementation of a reportable cross-
border arrangement.
It also means any person that, having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances
and based on available information and the relevant expertise and understanding
required to provide such services, knows or could be reasonably expected to know
that they have undertaken to provide, directly or by means of other persons, aid,
assistance or advice with respect to designing, marketing, organising, making
available for implementation or managing the implementation of a reportable cross-
border arrangement. Any person shall have the right to provide evidence that such
person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that that person
was involved in a reportable cross-border arrangement. For this purpose, that person
may refer to all relevant facts and circumstances as well as available information and
their relevant expertise and understanding.
In order to be an intermediary, a person shall meet at least one of the following
additional conditions:
(a) be resident for tax purposes in a Member State;
(b) have a permanent establishment in a Member State through which the
services with respect to the arrangement are provided;
(c) be incorporated in, or governed by the laws of, a Member State;
(d) be registered with a professional association related to legal, taxation or
consultancy services in a Member State;
(23)22 ‘relevant taxpayer’ means any person to whom a reportable cross-
border arrangement is made available for implementation, or who is ready to
implement a reportable cross-border arrangement or who has implemented
the first step of a reportable such an arrangement;
(24)23 for the purposes of Article 8ab, ‘associated enterprise’ means a person
who is related to another person in at least one of the following ways:
(a) a person participates in the management of another person by being in a
position to exercise a significant influence over the other person;
(b) a person participates in the control of another person through a holding
that exceeds 25 % of the voting rights;
(c) a person participates in the capital of another person through a right of
ownership that, directly or indirectly, exceeds 25 % of the capital;
(d) a person is entitled to 25 % or more of the profits of another person.
If more than one person participates, as referred to in points (a) to (d), in the
management, control, capital or profits of the same person, all persons concerned
shall be regarded as associated enterprises.
If the same persons participate, as referred to in points (a) to (d), in the management,
control, capital or profits of more than one person, all persons concerned shall be
regarded as associated enterprises.
For the purposes of this point, a person who acts together with another person in
respect of the voting rights or capital ownership of an entity shall be treated as
EN 38 EN
holding a participation in all of the voting rights or capital ownership of that entity
that are held by the other person.
In indirect participations, the fulfilment of requirements under point (c) shall be
determined by multiplying the rates of holding through the successive tiers. A person
holding more than 50 % of the voting rights shall be deemed to hold 100 %.
An individual, his or her spouse and his or her lineal ascendants or descendants shall
be treated as a single person;
24. ‘marketable arrangement’ means a cross-border arrangement that is designed,
marketed, ready for implementation or made available for implementation without a
need to be substantially customised;
25. ‘bespoke arrangement’ means any cross-border arrangement that is not a
marketable arrangement;
2021/514 Art. 1.1(d)
(25)26 ‘joint audit’ means an administrative enquiry jointly conducted by the
competent authorities of two or more Member States, and linked to one or more
persons of common or complementary interest to the competent authorities of those
Member States;
(26)27 ‘data breach’ means a breach of security leading to destruction, loss,
alteration or any incident of inappropriate or unauthorised access, disclosure or use
of information, including but not limited to personal data transmitted, stored or
otherwise processed, as the result of deliberate unlawful acts, negligence or
accidents. A data breach may concern the confidentiality, availability and integrity of
data;
2023/2226 Art. 1.1(c)
new
(27)28 ‘non-custodial dividend income’ means dividends or other income treated as
dividends in the payer’s Member State which are paid or credited with regard
to an account other than:
(a) a Custodial Account as defined in Section VIII, subparagraph C(3), of
Annex I;
new
(b) an equity interest in an Investment Entity as defined in Section VIII,
subparagraph C(1)(a) or (b), of Annex I;
2023/2226 Art. 1.1(c)
29. ‘life insurance products not covered by other Union legal instruments on
exchange of information and other similar measures’ means Insurance Contracts,
other than Cash Value Insurance Contracts subject to reporting under Section I of
Annex I, where benefits under the contracts are payable on death of a policy holder;
EN 39 EN
(28)30 ‘distributed ledger address’ means distributed ledger address referred to
in Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council47;
(29)31 ‘client’ means, for the purposes of Article 8ab, any intermediary or
relevant taxpayer that receives services, including assistance, advice, counsel or
guidance, from an intermediary subject to legal professional privilege in relation to a
reportable cross-border arrangement.
2025/872 Art. 1.1(b) (adapted)
new
In the context of this Article, Articles 8(3a), 8(7a) and 21(2) and Article 5 of this
Directive and Annex IV to this Directive, any capitalised term shall have the
meaning that it has under the corresponding definitions set out in Section III
of Annex I to this Directive. In the context of Article 21(5) and Article 25(3) and (4)
Article 40 (3) and (4) of this Directive, any capitalised term shall have the meaning
that it has under the corresponding definitions set out in Section VIII of
Annex I, Section I of Annex V or Section IV of Annex VI to this Directive. In the
context of Article 78aa of this Directive and Section I of Annex III to this Directive,
any capitalised term shall have the meaning that it has under the corresponding
definitions set out in Annex III to this Directive. In the context of Article 8ac
Articles 9, 10 and 11 of this Directive and Annex V to this Directive, any capitalised
term shall have the meaning that it has under the corresponding definitions set out in
Section I of Annex V to this Directive. In the context of Article 8ad Articles12, 13
and 14 of this Directive and Annex VI to this Directive, any capitalised term shall
have the meaning that it has under the corresponding definitions set out in Section
IV of Annex VI to this Directive. For the purposes In the context of point
19 of this Article, Articles 158ae and 229a of this Directive and Annex VII to this
Directive, the definitions laid down any term shall have the same meaning as
defined in Article 3, Article 9(2), point (a), Article 16(4), (6), (8) and (11),
Article 17(1), Article 21(5), Article 22(1), Article 24(4) and (6), Article 26(2),
Article 27(3), (4), and (5), Article 28(1), Article 30(2), Article 31(1), Article 32,
Article 33(1), Article 35(1), Article 36(1), Article 37(1), Article 39(1), Article 42(1),
Article 44(1), Article 47(1) and Article 49(3) of Council Directive (EU) 2022/252348
apply . Furthermore, any capitalised term shall have the same meaning as
defined in Section I of Annex VII to this Directive.
47
Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets
in crypto-assets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and
Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937 (OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 40).
48
Council Directive (EU) 2022/2523 of 15 December 2022 on ensuring a global minimum level of
taxation for multinational enterprise groups and large-scale domestic groups in the Union (OJ L 328,
22.12.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2523/oj).
EN 40 EN
2011/16/EU (adapted)
CHAPTER II
MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
SECTION I
MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AUTOMATIC
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON INCOME FROM EMPLOYMENT, DIRECTOR’S
FEES, PENSIONS, INCOME AND OWNERSHIP OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY,
ROYALTIES AND NON-CUSTODIAL DIVIDENDS
ARTICLE 8
Scope and conditions of mandatory Automatic exchange of information
Article 4
Scope and conditions
2023/2226 Art. 1.2(a) (adapted)
new
1. The competent authority of each Member State shall, by automatic exchange,
communicate to the competent authority of any other Member State all available
information information that is available concerning residents of that other Member State,
on all of the following specific categories of income and capital as they are to be
understood under the national legislation of the Member State which communicates the
information:
(a) income from employment;
(b) director’s fees;
(c) income from life insurance products not covered by other Union legal
instruments on exchange of information and other similar measures;
(cd) pensions;
(de) ownership , including beneficial ownership as defined in Article 2(1), point
28 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the
Council49, of and income from immovable property;
(ef) royalties;
49
Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2024 on the
prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing
(Text with EEA relevance); OJ L, 2024/1624, 19.6.2024, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1624/oj.
EN 41 EN
(fg) non-custodial dividend income other than income from dividends exempt from
corporate income tax pursuant to Articles 4, 5 or 6 of Council
Directive 2011/96/EU50.
2021/514 Art. 1.6(a)
new
For taxable periods starting on or after 1 January 2024, Member States shall endeavour to
include the Tax Identification Number(TIN) of taxpayers residents issued by the
Member State of residence in the communication of the information referred to in the first
subparagraph.
Member States shall inform the Commission annually of at least two categories of income and
capital listed in the first subparagraph with regard to which they communicate information
concerning residents of another Member State.
2. Before 1 January 2024, Member States shall inform the Commission of at least four
categories listed in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 in respect of which the competent
authority of each Member State shall, by automatic exchange, communicate to the competent
authority of any other Member State information concerning residents of that other Member
State. Such information shall concern taxable periods starting on or after 1 January 2025.
2023/2226 Art. 1.2(b)
Before 1 January 2026, Member States shall inform the Commission of at least five categories
listed in paragraph 1, first subparagraph, in respect of which the competent authority of each
Member State shall, by automatic exchange, communicate to the competent authority of any
other Member State information concerning residents of that other Member State. Such
information shall concern taxable periods starting on or after 1 January 2026.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.2(a)
23. The competent authority of a Member State may indicate to the competent authority of
any other Member State that it does not wish to receive information on one or several of the
categories of income and capital referred to in paragraph 1. It shall also inform the
Commission thereof.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.2(d)
(adapted)
new
36. The communication of information shall take place as follows:
(a) for the categories laid down in paragraph 1: at least once a year, as soon as
it becomes available and in any case no later than within six months following the
end of the calendar tax year of the Member State during which the information
became available.;
50
Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in
the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ L 345, 29.12.2011, p. 8
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/96/oj).
EN 42 EN
(b) for the information laid down in paragraph 3a: annually, within nine months
following the end of the calendar year or other appropriate reporting period to which
the information relates.
7. The Commission shall adopt the practical arrangements for the automatic exchange of
information, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2), before the dates
referred to in Article 29(1)
2025/872 Art. 1.2 (adapted)
SECTION II
MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Article 5
Scope and conditions
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require its Reporting
Financial Institutions to perform the reporting and due diligence rules included in
Annexes I and II and to ensure effective implementation of, and compliance with, such rules
in accordance with Section IX of Annex I.
Pursuant to the applicable reporting and due diligence rules contained in Annexes I and II, the
competent authority of each Member State shall, by automatic exchange, communicate within
the deadline laid down in point (b) of paragraph 36, to the competent authority of any other
Member State, the following information regarding taxable periods as from 1 January 2016
concerning a Reportable Account:
(a) the name, address, TIN(s) and date and place of birth (in the case of an
individual) of each Reportable Person that is an Account Holder of the account and,
in the case of any Entity that is an Account Holder and that, after application of due
diligence rules consistent with the Annexes I and II, is identified as having one or
more Controlling Persons that are Reportable Persons, the name, address, and TIN(s)
of the Entity and the name, address, TIN(s) and date and place of birth of each
Reportable Person;
(b) the account number (or functional equivalent in the absence of an account
number);
(c) the name and identifying number (if any) of the Reporting Financial
Institution;
(d) the account balance or value (including, in the case of a Cash Value Insurance
Contract or Annuity Contract, the Cash Value or surrender value) as of the end of the
relevant calendar year or other appropriate reporting period or, if the account was
closed during such year or period, the closure of the account;
(e) in the case of any Custodial Account:
(i) the total gross amount of interest, the total gross amount of dividends,
and the total gross amount of other income generated with respect to the assets
held in the account, in each case paid or credited to the account (or with respect
to the account) during the calendar year or other appropriate reporting period;
and
EN 43 EN
(ii) the total gross proceeds from the sale or redemption of Financial Assets
paid or credited to the account during the calendar year or other appropriate
reporting period with respect to which the Reporting Financial Institution acted
as a custodian, broker, nominee, or otherwise as an agent for the Account
Holder;
(f) in the case of any Depository Account, the total gross amount of interest paid
or credited to the account during the calendar year or other appropriate reporting
period;
(g) in the case of any account not described in point (e) or point (f), the total gross
amount paid or credited to the Account Holder with respect to the account during the
calendar year or other appropriate reporting period with respect to which the
Reporting Financial Institution is the obligor or debtor, including the aggregate
amount of any redemption payments made to the Account Holder during the calendar
year or other appropriate reporting period;
(h) whether a valid self-certification has been provided for each Account Holder;
(i) the role(s) by virtue of which each Reportable Person that is a Controlling
Person of an Entity Account Holder is a Controlling Person of the Entity and whether
a valid self-certification has been provided for each such Reportable Person;
(j) the type of account, whether the account is a Pre-existing Account or a New
Account and whether the account is a joint account, including the number of joint
Account Holders; and
(k) in the case of any Equity Interest held in an Investment Entity that is a legal
arrangement, the role(s) by virtue of which the Reportable Person is an Equity
Interest holder.
For the purposes of the exchange of information under this paragraph, unless otherwise
provided for in this paragraph or in Annex I or II, the amount and characterisation of
payments made with respect to a Reportable Account shall be determined in accordance with
the national legislation of the Member State which communicates the information.
The first and second subparagraphs of this paragraph shall prevail over paragraph 1, point (c)
of paragraph 1 or any other Union legal instrument, to the extent that the exchange of
information at issue would fall within the scope of point (c) of paragraph 1, point (c), or of
any other Union legal instrument.
The competent authority of each Member State shall communicate the information referred to
in points (h) to (k) of the second subparagraph regarding taxable periods as from 1 January
2026.
2023/2226 Art. 1.2(c)
7a2. Member States shall ensure that entities and accounts that are to be treated,
respectively, as Non-Reporting Financial Institutions and Excluded Accounts satisfy all the
requirements listed in Section VIII, subparagraph B(1), point (c), and subparagraph C(17),
point (g), of Annex I, and in particular that the status of a Financial Institution as a Non-
Reporting Financial Institution or the status of an account as an Excluded Account does not
frustrate the purposes of this Directive.
EN 44 EN
new
3. The automatic exchange of information shall take place annually, as soon as it
becomes available and, not later than nine months after the end of the calendar year or other
appropriate reporting period to which the information relates.
2015/2376 Art. 1.3 (adapted)
new
SECTION III
MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON ADVANCE
CROSS-BORDER RULINGS AND ADVANCE PRICING ARRANGEMENTS
Article 68a
Scope and conditions of mandatory automatic exchange of information on advance
cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements
1. The competent authority of a Member State, where an advance cross-border ruling or
an advance pricing arrangement was issued, amended or renewed after 31 December 2016
shall, by automatic exchange, communicate information thereon to the competent authorities
of all other Member States as well as to the European Commission, with the limitation of
cases set out in paragraph 78 of this Article, in accordance with applicable practical
arrangements adopted pursuant to Article 21.
2015/2376 Art. 1.3 (adapted)
2. The competent authority of a Member State shall, in accordance with applicable
practical arrangements adopted pursuant to Article 21, also communicate information to the
competent authorities of all other Member States as well as to the European Commission,
with the limitation of cases set out in paragraph 8 of this Article, on advance cross-border
rulings and advance pricing arrangements issued, amended or renewed within a period
beginning five years before 1 January 2017.
If advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements are issued, amended or
renewed between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013, such communication shall take
place under the condition that they were still valid on 1 January 2014.
If advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements are issued, amended or
renewed between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016, such communication shall take
place irrespective of whether they are still valid.
Member States may exclude from the communication referred to in this paragraph,
information on advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements issued,
amended or renewed before 1 April 2016 to a particular person or a group of persons,
excluding those conducting mainly financial or investment activities, with a group-wide
annual net turnover, as defined in point (5) of Article 2 of Directive 2013/34/EU of the
EN 45 EN
European Parliament and of the Council51, of less than EUR 40000000 (or the equivalent
amount in any other currency) in the fiscal year preceding the date of issuance, amendment or
renewal of those cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements.
23. Bilateral or multilateral advance pricing arrangements with third countries shall be
excluded from the scope of automatic exchange of information under this Article where the
international tax agreement under which the advance pricing arrangement was negotiated does
not permit its disclosure to third parties. Such bilateral or multilateral advance pricing
arrangements will be exchanged under Article 219, where the international tax agreement
under which the advance pricing arrangement was negotiated permits its disclosure, and the
competent authority of the third country gives permission for the information to be disclosed.
However, where the bilateral or multilateral advance pricing arrangements would be excluded
from the automatic exchange of information under the first sentence of the first subparagraph
of this paragraph, the information identified in paragraph 6 of this Article referred to in the
request that lead to issuance of such a bilateral or multilateral advance pricing arrangement
shall instead be exchanged under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.
2023/2226 Art. 1.3(a) (adapted)
34. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply in a case where an advance cross-border ruling
exclusively concerns and involves the tax affairs of one or more natural persons, except where
such an advance cross-border ruling was issued, amended or renewed after 1 January 2026
and where:
(a) the amount of the transaction or series of transactions of the advance cross-
border ruling exceeds EUR 1500000 (or the equivalent amount in any other
currency), if such amount is referred to in the advance cross-border ruling; or
(b) the advance cross-border ruling determines whether a person is or is not
resident for tax purposes in the Member State issuing the ruling.
For the purposes of the first subparagraph, point (a), and without prejudice to the amount
referred to in the advance cross-border ruling, in a series of transactions regarding different
goods, services or assets the amount of the advance cross-border ruling shall comprise the
total underlying value. The amounts shall not be aggregated if the same goods, services or
assets are transacted several times.
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, point (b), the exchange of information on advance
cross-border rulings concerning natural persons shall not include such rulings on taxation at
source with regard to non-residents’ income from employment, director’s fees or pensions.
2015/2376 Art. 1.3 (adapted)
45. The exchange of information shall take place as follows:
51
Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual
financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of
undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and
repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19).
EN 46 EN
2021/514 Art. 1.7(a) (adapted)
(a) in respect of information exchanged pursuant to paragraph 1 – without delay
after as soon as the advance cross-border rulings or advance pricing
arrangements have been issued, amended or renewed and at the latest three months
following the end of the half of the calendar year during which the advance cross-
border rulings or advance pricing arrangements were issued, amended or renewed.;
2015/2376 Art. 1.3 (adapted)
(b) in respect of the information exchanged pursuant to paragraph 2 — before 1
January 2018.
56. The information to be communicated by a Member State pursuant to paragraphs 1 and
2 of this Article shall include the following:
2023/2226 Art. 1.3(b)
(a) the identification of the person, other than a natural person, except where the
advance-cross border ruling concerns a natural person and shall be communicated
pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 34, and where appropriate the group of persons to
which it belongs;
2021/514 Art. 1.7(b)
(b) a summary of the advance cross-border ruling or advance pricing arrangement,
including a description of the relevant business activities or transactions or series of
transactions and any other information that could assist the competent authority in
assessing a potential tax risk, without leading to the disclosure of a commercial,
industrial or professional secret or of a commercial process, or of information whose
disclosure would be contrary to public policy;
2015/2376 Art. 1.3
(c) the dates of issuance, amendment or renewal of the advance cross-border
ruling or advance pricing arrangement;
(d) the start date of the period of validity of the advance cross-border ruling or
advance pricing arrangement, if specified;
(e) the end date of the period of validity of the advance cross-border ruling or
advance pricing arrangement, if specified;
(f) the type of the advance cross-border ruling or advance pricing arrangement;
(g) the amount of the transaction or series of transactions of the advance cross-
border ruling or advance pricing arrangement if such amount is referred to in the
advance cross-border ruling or advance pricing arrangement;
(h) the description of the set of criteria used for the determination of the transfer
pricing or the transfer price itself in the case of an advance pricing arrangement;
EN 47 EN
(i) the identification of the method used for determination of the transfer pricing
or the transfer price itself in the case of an advance pricing arrangement;
(j) the identification of the other Member States, if any, likely to be concerned by
the advance cross-border ruling or advance pricing arrangement;
2023/2226 Art. 1.3(b)
(k) the identification of any person, other than a natural person, except where the
advance-cross border ruling concerns a natural person and shall be communicated
pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 34, in the other Member States, if any, likely to be
affected by the advance cross-border ruling, or advance pricing arrangement
(indicating to which Member States the affected persons are linked); and
2015/2376 Art. 1.3 (adapted)
(l) the indication whether the information communicated is based upon the
advance cross-border ruling or advance pricing arrangement itself or upon the
request referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 23, second
subparagraph of this Article.
7. To facilitate the exchange of information referred to in paragraph 6 of this Article, the
Commission shall adopt the practical arrangements necessary for the implementation of this
Article, including measures to standardise the communication of the information set out in
paragraph 6 of this Article, as part of the procedure for establishing the standard form
provided for in Article 20(5).
68. Information referred to in as defined under paragraph 5, points (a), (b), (h) and
(k), of paragraph 6 of this Article shall not be communicated to the European Commission.
9. The competent authority of the Member States concerned, identified under paragraph
6(j), shall confirm, if possible by electronic means, the receipt of the information to the
competent authority which provided the information without delay and in any event no later
than seven working days. This measure shall be applicable until the directory referred to in
Article 21(5) becomes operational.
710. Member States may, in accordance with Article 175, and having regard to Article
21(4), request additional information, including the full text of an advance cross-border ruling
or an advance pricing arrangement.
EN 48 EN
2016/881 Art. 1.2 (adapted)
new
SECTION IV
MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON THE COUNTRY-
BY-COUNTRY REPORT
Article 8aa
Article 7
Scope and conditions
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require the Ultimate Parent
Entity of an MNE Group that is resident for tax purposes in its territory, or any other
Reporting Entity in accordance with Section II of Annex III, to file a country-by-country
report using the standard form adopted in accordance with the procedure set out in Article
43 with respect to its Reporting Fiscal Year within 12 months of the last day of the
Reporting Fiscal Year of the MNE Group in accordance with Section II of Annex III.
2. The competent authority of a Member State where the country-by-country report was
received pursuant to paragraph 1 shall, by means of automatic exchange and within the
deadline laid down in paragraph 4, communicate the country-by-country report to any other
Member State in which, on the basis of the information in the country-by-country report, one
or more Constituent Entities of the MNE Group of the Reporting Entity are either resident for
tax purposes or subject to tax with respect to the business carried out through a permanent
establishment.
3. The country-by-country report shall contain the following information with respect to
the MNE Group:
(a) aggregate information relating to the amount of revenue, profit (loss) before
income tax, income tax paid, income tax accrued, stated capital, accumulated
earnings, number of employees, and tangible assets other than cash or cash
equivalents with regard to each jurisdiction in which the MNE Group operates;
(b) an identification of each Constituent Entity of the MNE Group , including
the TIN, setting out the jurisdiction of tax residence of that Constituent Entity and,
where different from that jurisdiction of tax residence, the jurisdiction under the laws
of which that Constituent Entity is organised, and the nature of the main business
activity or activities of that Constituent Entity.
4. The communication shall take place without delay and not later than within 15
months of the last day of the Fiscal Year of the MNE Group to which the country-by-country
report relates. The first country-by-country report shall be communicated for the Fiscal Year
of the MNE Group commencing on or after 1 January 2016, which shall take place within 18
months of the last day of that Fiscal Year.
EN 49 EN
2018/822 Art. 1.2 (adapted)
new
SECTION V
MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON REPORTABLE
CROSS-BORDER ARRANGEMENTS
Article 8ab
Scope and conditions of mandatory automatic exchange of information on reportable
cross-border arrangements
Article 8
Scope and conditions
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require intermediaries to file
information that is within their knowledge, possession or control on reportable cross-border
arrangements with the competent authorities within 30 90 days beginning:
(a) on the day after the reportable cross-border arrangement is made available for
implementation; or
(b) on the day after the reportable cross-border arrangement is ready for
implementation; or
(c) when the first step in the implementation of the reportable cross-border
arrangement has been made.,
whichever occurs first.
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, intermediaries referred to in the second paragraph of
point 21 of Article 3 shall also be required to file information within 30 days beginning on the
day after they provided, directly or by means of other persons, aid, assistance or advice.
2. In the case of marketable arrangements, Member States shall take the necessary
measures to require that a periodic report be made by the intermediary every 3 months
providing an update which contains new reportable information as referred to in points (a),
(d), (g) and (h) of paragraph 14 that has become available since the last report was filed.
23. Where the intermediary is liable to file information on reportable cross-border
arrangements with the competent authorities of more than one Member State, such
information shall be filed only in the Member State that features first in the list below:
(a) the Member State where the intermediary is resident for tax purposes;
(b) the Member State where the intermediary has a permanent establishment
through which the services with respect to the arrangement are provided;
(c) the Member State which the intermediary is incorporated in or governed by the
laws of;
(d) the Member State where the intermediary is registered with a professional
association related to legal, taxation or consultancy services.
EN 50 EN
34. Where, pursuant to paragraph 23, there is a multiple reporting obligation, the
intermediary shall be exempt from filing the information if it has proof, in accordance with
national law, that the same information has been filed in another Member State.
2023/2226 Art. 1.4(a)
new
45. Each Member State shall may take the necessary measures to give intermediaries
which are lawyers and other professionals that are legally authorised to ensure legal
representation the right to a waiver from filing information on a reportable cross-border
arrangement where the reporting obligation would breach the legal professional privilege
under the national law of that Member State.
In such circumstances, Eeach Member State shall take the necessary measures to require any
intermediaries that have exercised been granted a waiver on the basis of them
pursuing their professional activities under one of the professional titles referred to in Article
1(2), point (a), of Directive 98/5/EC to notify, without delay, their client, if that client is an
intermediary or, where there is no such intermediary, that client is the relevant taxpayer, of
that client’s reporting obligations under paragraph 6 .
new
Notwithstanding the second subparagraph of this paragraph, each Member State shall take the
necessary measures to require other intermediaries which are legally authorised to ensure
legal representation, but do not pursue their professional activities under one of the
professional titles referred to in Article 1(2), point (a), of Directive 98/5/EC, to notify, without
delay, any other intermediary or, if there is no such intermediary, the relevant taxpayer of
their reporting obligations under paragraph 6.
2018/822 Art. 1.2
new
5. Intermediaries may only be entitled to a waiver under the first subparagraph paragraph
4 to the extent that they operate within the limits of the relevant national laws that define their
professions.
6. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require that, where there is no
intermediary at the time when the first step of the implementation of the reportable cross-
border arrangement has been made, or the intermediary notifies the relevant taxpayer or
another intermediary of the application of a waiver under paragraph 4 5, the obligation to file
information on a reportable cross-border arrangement lies with the other notified
intermediary, or, if there is no such intermediary, with the relevant taxpayer.
7. The relevant taxpayer with whom the reporting obligation lies shall file the
information within 90 30 days, beginning on the day after the reportable cross-border
arrangement is made available for implementation to that relevant taxpayer, or is ready for
implementation by the relevant taxpayer, or when the first step in its implementation has been
made in relation to the relevant taxpayer, whichever occurs first.
Where the relevant taxpayer has an obligation to file information on the reportable cross-
border arrangement with the competent authorities of more than one Member State, such
EN 51 EN
information shall be filed only with the competent authorities of the Member State that
features first in the list below:
(a) the Member State where the relevant taxpayer is resident for tax purposes;
(b) the Member State where the relevant taxpayer has a permanent establishment
benefiting from the arrangement;
(c) the Member State where the relevant taxpayer receives income or generates
profits, although the relevant taxpayer is not resident for tax purposes and has no
permanent establishment in any Member State;
(d) the Member State where the relevant taxpayer carries on an activity, although
the relevant taxpayer is not resident for tax purposes and has no permanent
establishment in any Member State.
8. Where, pursuant to paragraph 7, there is a multiple reporting obligation, the relevant
taxpayer shall be exempt from filing the information if it has proof, in accordance with
national law, that the same information has been filed in another Member State.
9. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require that, where there is
more than one intermediary, the obligation to file information on the reportable cross-border
arrangement lie with all intermediaries involved in the same reportable cross-border
arrangement.
An intermediary shall be exempt from filing the information only to the extent that it has
proof, in accordance with national law, that the same information referred to in paragraph
1314 has already been filed by another intermediary.
10. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require that, where the
reporting obligation lies with the relevant taxpayer and where there is more than one relevant
taxpayer, the relevant taxpayer that is to file information in accordance with paragraph 6 be
the one that features first in the list below:
(a) the relevant taxpayer that agreed the reportable cross-border arrangement with
the intermediary;
(b) the relevant taxpayer that manages the implementation of the arrangement.
Any relevant taxpayer shall only be exempt from filing the information to the extent that it
has proof, in accordance with national law, that the same information referred to in paragraph
13 has already been filed by another relevant taxpayer.
11. Each Member State may take the necessary measures to require that each relevant
taxpayer file information about their use of the arrangement to the tax administration in each
of the years for which they use it.
Corrigendum, OJ L 031,
1.2.2019, p. 108 (adapted)
12. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require intermediaries and
relevant taxpayers to file information on reportable cross-border arrangements the first step of
which was implemented between 25 June 2018 and 30 June 2020. Intermediaries and relevant
taxpayers, as appropriate, shall file information on those reportable cross-border arrangements
by 31 August 2020.
EN 52 EN
2018/822 Art. 1.2 (adapted)
new
1213. The competent authority of a Member State where the information was filed pursuant
to paragraphs 1 to 11 of this Article shall, by means of an automatic exchange, communicate
the information specified in paragraph 1314 of this Article to the competent authorities of all
other Member States, in accordance with the practical arrangements adopted pursuant to
Article .
1314. The information to be communicated by the competent authority of a Member State
under paragraph 1213 shall contain the following, as applicable:
2023/2226 Art. 1.4(b)
(a) the identification of intermediaries, other than intermediaries exempt from the
reporting obligation on account of the legal professional privilege pursuant to
paragraph 45, and relevant taxpayers, including their name, date and place of birth
(in the case of an individual), residence for tax purposes, TIN and, where
appropriate, the persons that are associated enterprises to the relevant taxpayer;
2018/822 Art. 1.2
(b) details of the hallmarks set out in Annex IV that make the cross-border
arrangement reportable;
2023/2226 Art. 1.4(b)
(c) a summary of the content of the reportable cross-border arrangement, including
a reference to the name by which it is commonly known, if any, and a description of
the relevant arrangements and any other information that could assist the competent
authority in assessing a potential tax risk, without leading to the disclosure of a
commercial, industrial or professional secret or of a commercial process, or of
information whose disclosure would be contrary to public policy;
2018/822 Art. 1.2 (adapted)
new
(d) the date on which the first step in implementing the reportable cross-border
arrangement has been made or will be made;
(e) details of the national provisions that form the basis of the reportable cross-
border arrangement;
(f) the value of the reportable cross-border arrangement;
(g) the identification of the Member State of the relevant taxpayer(s) and any other
Member States or third country jurisdictions which are likely to be concerned
by the reportable cross-border arrangement;
(h) the identification of any other person in a Member State or third country
jurisdiction likely to be affected by the reportable cross-border arrangement,
indicating to which Member States such person is linked.
EN 53 EN
1415. The fact that a tax administration does not react to a reportable cross-border
arrangement shall not imply any acceptance of the validity or tax treatment of that
arrangement.
16. To facilitate the exchange of information referred to in paragraph 13 of this Article,
the Commission shall adopt the practical arrangements necessary for the implementation of
this Article, including measures to standardise the communication of the information set out
in paragraph 14 of this Article, as part of the procedure for establishing the standard form
provided for in Article 20(5).
1517. The Commission shall not have access to information referred to in paragraph 13,
points (a), (c) and (h) of paragraph 14.
1618. The automatic exchange of information shall take place as soon as the information
becomes available and not than within one month after of the end of the quarter in
which the information was filed. The first information shall be communicated by 31 October
2020.
2021/514 Art. 1.8 (adapted)
new
SECTION VI
MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION REPORTED BY
PLATFORM OPERATORS
Article 8ac
Scope and conditions of mandatory automatic exchange of information reported by Platform
Operators
Article 9
Scope and conditions
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require Reporting Platform
Operators to carry out the due diligence procedures and fulfil reporting requirements laid
down in Sections II and III of Annex V. Each Member State shall also ensure the effective
implementation of, and compliance with, such measures in accordance with Section IV of
Annex V.
2. Pursuant to the applicable due diligence procedures and reporting requirements
contained in Sections II and III of Annex V, the competent authority of a Member State where
the reporting in accordance with paragraph 1 took place shall, by means of automatic
exchange, and within the time limit laid down in paragraph 3, communicate to the competent
authority of the Member State in which the Reportable Seller is resident as determined
pursuant to paragraph D of Section II, paragraph D, of Annex V and, where the Reportable
Seller provides immovable property rental services, in any case to the competent authority of
the Member State in which the immovable property is located, the following information
regarding each Reportable Seller:
(a) the name, registered office address, TIN and, where relevant, individual
identification number allocated pursuant to the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 of
EN 54 EN
Article 10(1), the first subparagraph 4, of the Reporting Platform Operator, as well as
the business name(s) of the Platform(s) in respect of which the Reporting Platform
Operator is reporting;
(b) the first and last name of the Reportable Seller who is an individual, and legal
name of the Reportable Seller that is an Entity;
(c) the Primary Address;
(d) any TIN of the Reportable Seller, including each Member State of issuance, or,
in the absence of a TIN, the place of birth of the Reportable Seller who is an
individual;
(e) the business registration number of the Reportable Seller that is an Entity;
(f) the VAT identification number of the Reportable Seller, where available;
(g) the date of birth of the Reportable Seller who is an individual;
(h) the Financial Account Identifier to which the Consideration is paid or credited,
insofar as it is available to the Reporting Platform Operator and the competent
authority of the Member State where the Reportable Seller is resident in the meaning
of paragraph D of Section II, paragraph D, of Annex V has not notified the
competent authorities of all other Member States that it does not intend to use the
Financial Account Identifier for this purpose;
(i) where different from the name of the Reportable Seller, in addition to the
Financial Account Identifier, the name of the holder of the financial account to which
the Consideration is paid or credited, to the extent available to the Reporting
Platform Operator, as well as any other financial identification information available
to the Reporting Platform Operator with respect to that account holder;
(j) each Member State in which the Reportable Seller is resident determined
pursuant to paragraph D of Section II, paragraph D of Annex V;
(k) the total Consideration paid or credited during each quarter of the Reportable
Period and the number of Relevant Activities in respect of which it was paid or
credited;
(l) any fees, commissions or taxes withheld or charged by the Reporting Platform
during each quarter of the Reportable Period;
2023/2226 Art. 1.5
(m) the Identification Service identifier and the Member State of issuance, where
the Reporting Platform Operator relies on direct confirmation of the identity and
residence of the Seller through an Identification Service made available by a Member
State or the Union to ascertain the identity and tax residence of the Seller; in such
cases it is not necessary to communicate to the Member State of issuance of the
Identification Service identifier the information referred to in points (c) to (g).
2021/514 Art. 1.8 (adapted)
new
Where the Reportable Seller provides immovable property rental services, the following
additional information shall be communicated:
EN 55 EN
(a) the address of each Property Listing, determined on the basis of the procedures
set out in paragraph E of Section II, paragraph E, of Annex V and respective land
registration number or its equivalent under the national law of the Member State
or other jurisdiction where it is located, where available;
(b) the total Consideration paid or credited during each quarter of the Reportable
Period and number of Relevant Activities provided with respect to each Property
Listing;
(c) where available, the number of days each Property Listing was rented during
the Reportable Period and the type of each Property Listing.
3. The communication pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article shall take place as soon
as the information becomes available and not later than using the standard computerised
format referred to in Article 20(4) within two months following the end of the Reportable
Period to which the reporting requirements applicable to the Reporting Platform Operator
relate. The first information shall be communicated for Reportable Periods as from 1 January
2023.
Article 10
Registration of Reporting Platform Operators
14. For the purpose of complying with the reporting requirements pursuant to paragraph 1
of this Article 9(1), each Member State shall lay down the necessary rules to require a
Reporting Platform Operator within the meaning of point (b) of subparagraph A(4) of Section
I, point (b) of subparagraph A(4), of Annex V to register within the Union. The
competent authority of the Member State of registration shall allocate an individual
identification number to such Reporting Platform Operator.
Member States shall lay down rules pursuant to which a Reporting Platform Operator may
choose to register with the competent authority of a single Member State in accordance with
the rules laid down in paragraph F of Section IV , paragraph F of Annex V. Member
States shall take the necessary measures to require that a Reporting Platform Operator within
the meaning of point (b) of subparagraph A(4) of Section I , point (b) of subparagraph
A(4) of Annex V, whose registration has been revoked in accordance with subparagraph
F(7) of Section IV , subparagraph F(7) of Annex V, can only be permitted to re-
register on the condition that it provides to the authorities of a Member State concerned
appropriate assurances as regards its commitment to comply with the reporting requirements
within the Union, including any outstanding unfulfilled reporting requirements.
The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down the practical arrangements
necessary for the registration and identification of Reporting Platform Operators. Those
implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article
5126(2).
25. Where a Platform Operator is deemed to be an Excluded Platform Operator, the
competent authority of the Member State where the demonstration in accordance with
subparagraph A(3) of Section I, subparagraph A(3) of Annex V was provided to, shall notify
the competent authorities of all other Member States accordingly, including any subsequent
changes.
36. The Commission shall, by 31 December 2022, establish maintain a central
register where information to be notified in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article and
communicated in accordance with subparagraphs F(2) of Section IV, subparagraphs
EN 56 EN
F(2) and F(8) of Annex V shall be recorded. That central register shall be available
to the competent authorities of all Member States.
Article 11
Equivalence
1.7. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, following a reasoned request
by a Member State or on its own initiative, determine whether the information that is required
to be automatically exchanged pursuant to an agreement between competent authorities of the
Member State concerned and a non-Union jurisdiction is, within the meaning of subparagraph
A(7) of Section I , subparagraph A(7) of Annex V, equivalent to that specified in
paragraph B of Section III of Annex V. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in
accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5126(2).
A Member State requesting the measure referred to in the first subparagraph shall send a
reasoned request to the Commission.
If the Commission considers that it does not have all the information necessary for the
appraisal of the request, it shall contact the Member State concerned within two months of
receipt of the request and specify what additional information is required. Once the
Commission has all the information it considers necessary, it shall, within one month, notify
the requesting Member State and it shall submit the relevant information to the Committee
referred to in Article 51(1)26(2).
When acting on its own initiative, the Commission shall adopt an implementing act as
referred to in the first subparagraph only after a Member State has concluded a competent
authority agreement with a non-Union jurisdiction that requires the automatic exchange of
information on sellers deriving income from activities facilitated by Platforms.
When determining whether information is equivalent within the meaning of the first
subparagraph in relation to a Relevant Activity, the Commission shall take into due account
the extent to which the regime on which such information is based corresponds to that set out
in Annex V, in particular with regard to:
(i) the definitions of Reporting Platform Operator, Reportable Seller, Relevant
Activity;
(ii) the procedures applicable for the purpose of identifying Reportable Sellers;
(iii) the reporting requirements; and
(iv) the rules and administrative procedures that non-Union jurisdictions are to
have in place to ensure effective implementation of, and compliance with, the due
diligence procedures and reporting requirements set out in that regime.
The same procedure shall apply for determining that the information is no longer equivalent.
new
2. Where a competent authority agreement with a non-Union jurisdiction that requires
the automatic exchange of information on sellers deriving income from activities facilitated
by Platforms has been determined as equivalent, Member States shall, in accordance with
their respective internal procedures, take all necessary measures to activate without delay the
exchange relationship with the non-Union jurisdiction concerned and notify the European
Commission thereof.
EN 57 EN
2023/2226 Art. 1.6 (adapted)
new
SECTION VII
MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION REPORTED BY
REPORTING CRYPTO-ASSET SERVICE PROVIDERS
Article 8ad
Scope and conditions of mandatory automatic exchange of information reported by Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Providers
Article 12
Scope and conditions
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require Reporting Crypto-
Asset Service Providers to fulfil the reporting requirements and carry out the due diligence
procedures laid down in Sections II and III of Annex VI, respectively. Each Member State
shall also ensure the effective implementation of, and compliance with, such measures in
accordance with Section V of Annex VI.
2. Pursuant to the applicable reporting requirements and due diligence procedures
contained in Sections II and III of Annex VI, respectively, the competent authority of a
Member State where the reporting referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article takes place shall,
by means of automatic exchange, and within the time limit laid down in paragraph 56 of this
Article, communicate the information specified in paragraph 3 of this Article to the competent
authorities of the Member States concerned in accordance with the practical arrangements
adopted pursuant to Article 21.
3. The competent authority of a Member State shall communicate the following
information regarding each Reportable Person:
(a) the name, address, Member State(s) of residence, TIN(s) and, in the case of an
individual, date and place of birth of each Reportable User and, in the case of any
Entity that, after application of the due diligence procedures laid down in Section III
of Annex VI is identified as having one or more Controlling Persons that is a
Reportable Person, the name, address, Member State(s) of residence and TIN(s) of
the Entity and the name, address, Member State(s) of residence, TIN(s) and date and
place of birth of each Controlling Person of the Entity that is a Reportable Person, as
well as the role(s) by virtue of which each such Reportable Person is a Controlling
Person of the Entity;
notwithstanding the first subparagraph of this point, where the Reporting Crypto-
Asset Service Provider relies on direct confirmation of the identity and residence of
the Reportable Person through an Identification Service made available by a Member
State or the Union to ascertain the identity and tax residence of the Reportable
Person, the information to be communicated to the Member State of issuance of the
Identification Service identifier regarding the Reportable Person shall include the
name, the Identification Service identifier and the Member State of issuance, as well
EN 58 EN
as the role(s) by virtue of which each Reportable Person is a Controlling Person of
the Entity;
(b) the name, address, TIN and, if available, the individual identification number
referred to in Article 13(1)paragraph 7 and the global legal entity identifier of the
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider;
(c) for each type of Reportable Crypto-Asset with respect to which the Reporting
Crypto-Asset Service Provider has effectuated Reportable Transactions during the
relevant calendar year or other appropriate reporting period, where relevant:
(i) the full name of the type of Reportable Crypto-Asset;
(ii) the aggregate gross amount paid, the aggregate number of units and the
number of Reportable Transactions in respect of acquisitions against Fiat
Currency;
(iii) the aggregate gross amount received, the aggregate number of units and
the number of Reportable Transactions in respect of disposals against Fiat
Currency;
(iv) the aggregate fair market value, the aggregate number of units and the
number of Reportable Transactions in respect of acquisitions against other
Reportable Crypto-Assets;
(v) the aggregate fair market value, the aggregate number of units and the
number of Reportable Transactions in respect of disposals against other
Reportable Crypto-Assets;
(vi) the aggregate fair market value, the aggregate number of units and the
number of Reportable Retail Payment Transactions;
(vii) the aggregate fair market value, the aggregate number of units and the
number of Reportable Transactions, and subdivided by transfer type where
known by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider, in respect of Transfers
to the Reportable User not covered by points (ii) and (iv);
(viii) the aggregate fair market value, the aggregate number of units and the
number of Reportable Transactions, and subdivided by transfer type where
known by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider, in respect of Transfers
by the Reportable User not covered by points (iii), (v) and (vi); and
(ix) the aggregate fair market value, as well as the aggregate number of
units of Transfers effectuated by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider
to distributed ledger addresses referred to in Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 not
known to be associated with a virtual asset service provider or financial
institution.
For the purposes of points (c)(ii) and (iii), the amount paid or received shall be communicated
in the Fiat Currency in which it was paid or received. In case the amounts were paid or
received in multiple Fiat Currencies, the amounts shall be communicated in a single Fiat
Currency, converted at the time of each Reportable Transaction in a manner that is
consistently applied by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider.
For the purposes of points (c)(iv) to (ix), the fair market value shall be determined and
communicated in a single Fiat Currency, valued at the time of each Reportable Transaction in
a manner that is consistently applied by the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider.
EN 59 EN
The information communicated shall specify the Fiat Currency in which each amount is
reported.
4. To facilitate the exchange of information referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, the
Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt the necessary practical
arrangements, including measures to standardise the communication of the information set out
in that paragraph, as part of the procedure for establishing the standard computerised form
provided for in Article 20(5). Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with
the procedure referred to in Article 26(2).
45. The Commission shall not have access to information referred to in paragraph 3,
points (a) and (b).
5. The communication pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article shall take place without
delay and not later than using the standard computerised form referred to in Article 20(5)
within nine months following the end of the calendar year to which the reporting requirements
applicable to Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers relate. The first information shall be
communicated for the relevant calendar year or other appropriate reporting period as from
1 January 2026.
Article 13
Registration of Crypto-Asset Operators
17. For the purpose of complying with the reporting requirements referred to in paragraph
1 of Article 12(1), each Member State shall lay down the necessary rules to require a Crypto-
Asset Operator to register within the Union. The competent authority of the Member State of
registration shall allocate an individual identification number to such Crypto-Asset Operator.
Member States shall lay down rules pursuant to which a Crypto-Asset Operator shall register
with the competent authority of a single Member State in accordance with the rules laid down
in Section V, paragraph F, of Annex VI.
Member States shall take the necessary measures to require that a Crypto-Asset Operator
whose registration has been revoked in accordance with Section V, subparagraph F(7), of
Annex VI can be permitted to register again only if it provides to the authorities of a Member
State concerned appropriate assurance as regards its commitment to comply with the reporting
requirements within the Union, including any outstanding unfulfilled reporting requirements.
28. Paragraph 17 of this Article shall not apply to Crypto-Asset Service Providers within
the meaning of Section IV, subparagraph B(1), of Annex VI.
39. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down the practical and
technical arrangements necessary for the registration and identification of Crypto-Asset
Operators. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure
referred to in Article 5126(2).
410. The Commission shall, by 31 December 2025, establish maintain a Crypto-
Asset Operator register where information to be communicated in accordance with Section V,
subparagraph F(2), of Annex VI shall be recorded. That Crypto-Asset Operator register shall
be available to the competent authorities of all Member States.
Article 14
Equivalence
EN 60 EN
111. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, following a reasoned request
by any Member State or on its own initiative, determine whether the information that is
required to be automatically exchanged pursuant to an agreement between competent
authorities of the Member State concerned and a non-Union jurisdiction corresponds to that
specified in Section II, paragraph B, of Annex VI, within the meaning of Section IV,
subparagraph F(5), of Annex VI. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance
with the procedure referred to in Article 5126(2).
A Member State requesting the measure referred to in the first subparagraph shall send a
reasoned request to the Commission.
If the Commission considers that it does not have all the information necessary for the
appraisal of the request, it shall contact the Member State concerned within two months of
receipt of the request and specify what additional information is required. Once the
Commission has all the information it considers necessary, it shall, within one month, notify
the requesting Member State and it shall submit the relevant information to the Committee
referred to in Article 5126(1).
When acting on its own initiative, the Commission shall adopt an implementing act as
referred to in the first subparagraph only in respect of a competent authority agreement with a
non-Union jurisdiction that requires the automatic exchange of information on an individual
or Entity that is a customer of a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider for the purpose of
carrying out Reportable Transactions, concluded by a Member State.
When determining whether information is corresponding information within the meaning of
the first subparagraph in relation to Reportable Transactions, the Commission shall take into
due account the extent to which the regime on which such information is based corresponds to
that set out in Annex VI, in particular with regard to:
(a) the definitions of Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider, Reportable User,
and Reportable Transaction;
(b) the procedures applicable for the purpose of identifying Reportable Users;
(c) the reporting requirements;
(d) the rules and administrative procedures that non-Union jurisdictions are to
have in place to ensure effective implementation of, and compliance with, the due
diligence procedures and reporting requirements set out in that regime.
The procedure set out in this paragraph shall also apply for determining that the information is
no longer corresponding within the meaning of Section IV, subparagraph F(5), of Annex VI.
212. Notwithstanding paragraph 111, where an international standard on the reporting and
automatic exchange of information on crypto-assets is determined to be a minimum standard
or equivalent, any determination by the Commission, by means of implementing acts, on
whether the information that is required to be automatically exchanged pursuant to the
implementation of that standard and the competent authority agreement between the Member
State(s) concerned and a non-Union jurisdiction is corresponding information shall no longer
be required. That information shall be deemed to correspond to the information that is
required under this Directive, provided that there is a competent authority agreement in place
between the competent authorities of all Member States concerned and the non-Union
jurisdiction that requires the automatic exchange of information on an individual or Entity that
is a customer of a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider for the purpose of carrying out
Reportable Transactions. The corresponding provisions in this Article and in Annex VI shall
no longer apply for such purposes.
EN 61 EN
2025/872 Art. 1.3 (adapted)
new
SECTION VIII
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO TOP-UP TAX INFORMATION
RETURNS UNDER ARTICLE 44 OF DIRECTIVE (EU) 2022/2523
Article 8ae
Filing format and exchange OF INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO TOP-UP TAX
INFORMATION RETURNS UNDER ARTICLE 44 OF DIRECTIVE (EU) 2022/2523
Article 15
Filing format and exchange of information
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require the filing constituent
entity of an MNE group to use the standard template set out in Section IV of Annex VII to
form established in accordance with Article 43 of this Directive to fulfil the filing
obligations under Article 44 of Directive (EU) 2022/2523.
2. The competent authority of a Member State which has received the Top-up tax
information return filed by the ultimate parent entity or designated filing entity, as referred to
in Article 44(3), points (a) and (b), of Directive (EU) 2022/2523, shall communicate, by
means of automatic exchange and in accordance with the dissemination approach in points (a)
to (c) below, the following:
(a) the General section of the Top-up tax information return, to the Implementing
Member State where the ultimate parent entity or constituent entities of the MNE
group are located;
(b) the General section of the Top-up tax information return, with the exception of
the high-level summary information in Section 1.4 thereof, to the Qualified domestic
top-up tax (QDTT)-only Member States:
(i) where constituent entities of the MNE group are located;
(ii) where a joint venture or a member of a joint venture group of the MNE
group is located if the qualified domestic top-up tax is imposed in respect of
joint ventures in the Member State;
(iii) where the qualified domestic top-up tax is imposed in the Member
State in respect of a stateless constituent entity or a stateless joint venture of the
MNE group;
(c) one or more Jurisdictional sections of the Top-up tax information return, to
Member States that have taxing rights under Directive (EU) 2022/2523, including the
qualified domestic top-up tax, in respect of the Member States to which such
Jurisdictional sections relate.
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, point (c), UTPR jurisdictions with a UTPR
percentage of zero shall only be provided with the portion of the Top-up tax information
return that contains information on the attribution of Top-up tax under the UTPR in respect of
that jurisdiction, such information being consistent with an excerpt of Section 3.4.3 of the
EN 62 EN
Top-up tax information return, and the Implementing Member State in which the ultimate
parent entity is located shall be provided with all Jurisdictional sections.
3. The competent authority of a Member State shall communicate the Top-up tax
information return received pursuant to paragraph 2 and that communication shall take place
without delay and not later than three 3 months after the filing deadline for the
Reporting fiscal year.
4. The competent authority of a Member State shall communicate the Top-up tax
information return received after the filing deadline, and that communication shall take place
as soon as the information is available and in any case no no later than three 3
months after the date on which it is received.
5. The Commission shall adopt, by means of implementing acts, the necessary practical
arrangements to facilitate the communication as referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.
Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to
in Article 26(2).
5.6 The Commission shall not have access to the information referred to in paragraph 2,
points (a), (b) and to (c).
7. The communication of information, as referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this
Article, shall take place using the standard computerised format referred to in Article 20(4).
SECTION IX – NOTIFICATIONS
new
Article 16
Notifications for the purpose of Annex III of this Directive and Article 44(4) of Directive
(EU) 2022/2523 and automatic exchange
1. Notwithstanding Section II of Annex III of this Directive and Article 44(4) of
Directive (EU) 2022/2523, each Member State shall take the necessary measures to allow the
reporting entity under Article 7 of this Directive or the filing constituent entity of an MNE
group that is filing reports under Article 15 of this Directive to file a single notification.
The single notification shall be filed by the filing constituent entity of an MNE group on
behalf of all of the entities of an MNE group that are resident within the Union using the
standard form established in accordance with Article 43 no later than the last day of the
Reporting Fiscal Year of such MNE Group.
This notification shall include the following information:
(a) identification of the MNE group;
(b) identification of entities of the MNE Group that are resident or located within the
Union;
(c) identification of the Ultimate Parent Entity of the MNE Group;
(d) identification of the constituent entity that will file the report referred to in Article
44 of Directive (EU) 2022/2523 and Section II of Annex III of this Directive;
(e) start and end date of the Reporting Fiscal Year:
EN 63 EN
(f) information whether the entity is notifying for the purpose of submitting reports
under Article 7 of this Directive, Article 15 of this Directive or both.
2. The competent authority of a Member State which has received the notification filed
by the constituent entity of an MNE group, shall communicate, by means of automatic
exchange, the notification to all the Member States concerned without delay and not later than
three months after the date on which it is received.
2011/16/EU (adapted)
new
CHAPTER III
NON-AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
SECTION I
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON REQUEST
Article 175
Procedure for the exchange of information on request
At the request of the requesting authority, the requested authority shall communicate to the
requesting authority any information that is foreseeably relevant and referred to in
Article 1(1) that it has in its possession or that it obtains as a result of administrative
enquiries.
2021/514 Art. 1.2
Article 185a
Foreseeable relevance
1. For the purposes of a request referred to in Article 17, the requested information is
foreseeably relevant where, at the time the request is made, the requesting authority considers
that, in accordance with its national law, there is a reasonable possibility that the requested
information will be relevant to the tax affairs of one or several taxpayers, whether identified
by name or otherwise, and be justified for the purposes of the investigation.
2. With the aim to demonstrate the foreseeable relevance of the requested information,
the requesting authority shall provide at least the following information to the requested
authority:
(a) the tax purpose for which the information is sought; and
(b) a specification of the information required for the administration or
enforcement of its national law.
3. Where a request referred to in Article 175 relates to a group of taxpayers who cannot
be identified individually the requesting authority shall provide at least the following
information to the requested authority:
EN 64 EN
(a) a detailed description of the group;
(b) an explanation of the applicable law and of the facts based on which there is
reason to believe that the taxpayers in the group have not complied with the
applicable law;
(c) an explanation how the requested information would assist in determining
compliance by the taxpayers in the group; and
(d) where relevant facts and circumstances related to the involvement of a third
party that actively contributed to the potential non-compliance of the taxpayers in the
group with the applicable law.
2011/16/EU
Article 196
Administrative enquiries
1. The requested authority shall arrange for the carrying out of any administrative
enquiries necessary to obtain the information referred to in Article 175.
2021/514 Art. 1.3
2. The request referred to in Article 175 may contain a reasoned request for an
administrative enquiry. If the requested authority takes the view that no administrative
enquiry is necessary, it shall immediately inform the requesting authority of the reasons
thereof.
2011/16/EU
3. In order to obtain the requested information or to conduct the administrative enquiry
requested, the requested authority shall follow the same procedures as it would when acting
on its own initiative or at the request of another authority in its own Member State.
4. When specifically requested by the requesting authority, the requested authority shall
communicate original documents provided that this is not contrary to the provisions in force
in the Member State of the requested authority.
Article 207
Time limits
2021/514 Art. 1.4
new
1. The requested authority shall provide the information referred to in Article 175 as
soon as it becomes available as quickly as possible, and no later than three months from the
date of receipt of the request. However, where the requested authority is unable to respond to
the request by the relevant time limit, it shall inform the requesting authority immediately and
in any event within three months of the receipt of the request, of the reasons for its failure to
do so, and the date by which it considers it might be able to respond. The time limit shall not
be longer than six months from the date of receipt of the request.
EN 65 EN
However, where the requested authority is already in possession of that information, the
information shall be transmitted within two months of that date.
2011/16/EU (adapted)
2. In certain special cases, time limits other than those provided for in paragraph 1 may
be agreed upon between the requested and the requesting authorities.
3. The requested authority shall confirm immediately and, in any event, no later than
seven working days from receipt, if possible by electronic means, the receipt of a
request to the requesting authority.
4. Within one month of receipt of the request, the requested authority shall notify the
requesting authority of any deficiencies in the request and of the need for any additional
background information. In such a case, the time limits provided for in paragraph 1 shall start
the day after the requested authority has received the additional information needed.
2011/16/EU
56. Where the requested authority is not in possession of the requested information and is
unable to respond to the request for information or refuses to do so on the grounds provided
for in Article 3117, it shall inform the requesting authority of the reasons thereof immediately
and in any event within one month of receipt of the request.
SECTION IIIII
SPONTANEOUS EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
Article 219
Scope and conditions of spontaneous exchange of information
1. The competent authority of each Member State shall communicate the information
referred to in Article 1(1) to the competent authority of any other Member State concerned, in
any of the following circumstances:
(a) the competent authority of one Member State has grounds for supposing that
there may be a loss of tax in the other Member State;
(b) a person liable to tax obtains a reduction in, or an exemption from, tax in one
Member State which would give rise to an increase in tax or to liability to tax in the
other Member State;
(c) business dealings between a person liable to tax in one Member State and a
person liable to tax in the other Member State are conducted through one or more
countries in such a way that a saving in tax may result in one or the other Member
State or in both;
(d) the competent authority of a Member State has grounds for supposing that a
saving of tax may result from artificial transfers of profits within groups of
enterprises;
(e) information forwarded to one Member State by the competent authority of the
other Member State has enabled information to be obtained which may be relevant in
assessing liability to tax in the latter Member State.
EN 66 EN
2. The competent authorities of each Member State may communicate, by spontaneous
exchange, to the competent authorities of the other Member States any information of which
they are aware and which may be useful to the competent authorities of the other Member
States.
2025/872 Art. 1.5 (adapted)
(adapted)
Article 229a
Collaboration on corrections, compliance and enforcement with respect to Top-up tax
information returns
1. Where the competent authority of a Member State has reason to believe that the
information in a Top-up tax information return filed by an ultimate parent entity or designated
filing entity that is located in the jurisdiction of the other Member State, communicated under
Article 158ae, requires the correction of manifest errors, it shall, without undue delay, notify
the competent authority of the other Member State. If the notified competent authority agrees
that the information in the Top-up tax information return requires correction, it shall take,
without undue delay, appropriate measures to obtain a corrected Top-up tax information
return from the concerned ultimate parent entity or designated filing entity. It shall
communicate, without undue delay, the corrected Top-up tax information return with all
competent authorities for which such information is subject to exchange in accordance with
this Directive.
2. When the competent authority of a Member State has received a notification from one
or more constituent entities located in its Member State that the Top-up tax information return
for such constituent entities was to be filed by the ultimate parent entity or designated filing
entity located in another Member State, but the information included in the Top-up tax
information return was not communicated within the deadlines specified in Article 158ae(3)
or Article 54(1)27d(3) and (4), it shall, without undue delay, notify the other competent
authority that the information has not been received. The notified competent authority shall,
without undue delay, determine the reason for not communicating the concerned Top-up tax
information return and shall inform the competent authority within one 1 month of
receipt of the notification, including the expected exchange date for the Top-up tax
information return, where relevant. The expected exchange date shall be set for a date no later
than three 3 months from the date of the receipt of notification of the missing
exchange.
2011/16/EU
(adapted)
Article 2310
Time limits
1. The competent authority to which information referred to in Article 219(1) becomes
available, shall forward that information to the competent authority of any other Member
State concerned as quickly as possible, and no later than one month after it becomes available.
2. The competent authority to which information is communicated pursuant to Article
219 shall confirm if possible by electronic means, the receipt of the information to the
EN 67 EN
competent authority which provided the information immediately and, in any event, no later
than seven working days.
CHAPTER IVIII
OTHER FORMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION
SECTION I
PRESENCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND PARTICIPATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE
ENQUIRIES
Article 2411
Scope and conditions
2021/514 Art. 1.10(a)
1. With a view to exchanging the information referred to in Article 1(1), the competent
authority of a Member State may request the competent authority of another Member State
that officials authorised by the former and in accordance with the procedural arrangements
laid down by the latter:
(a) be present in the offices where the administrative authorities of the requested
Member State carry out their duties;
(b) be present during administrative enquiries carried out in the territory of the
requested Member State;
(c) participate in the administrative enquiries carried out by the requested Member
State through the use of electronic means of communication, where appropriate.
The requested authority shall respond to a request in accordance with the first
subparagraph within 60 days of the receipt of the request, to confirm its agreement or
communicate its reasoned refusal to the requesting authority.
Where the requested information is contained in documentation to which the officials
of the requested authority have access, the officials of the requesting authority shall
be given copies thereof.
2011/16/EU
(adapted)
➔1 2021/514 Art. 1.10(b)
new
2. ➔1 Where officials of the requesting authority are present during administrative
enquiries, or participate in the administrative enquiries through the use of electronic means of
communication, they may interview individuals and examine records subject to the procedural
arrangements laid down by the requested Member State.
Any refusal by the person under investigation to respect the inspection measures of the
officials of the requesting authority shall be treated by the requested authority as if that refusal
was committed against officials of the latter authority.
EN 68 EN
3. Officials authorised by the requesting Member State present in another Member State
in accordance with paragraph 1 shall at all times be able to produce written authority stating
their identity and their official capacity.
SECTION II
SIMULTANEOUS CONTROLS
Article 2512
Simultaneous controls
1. Where two or more Member States agree to conduct simultaneous controls, in their
own territory, of one or more persons of common or complementary interest to them, with a
view to exchanging the information thus obtained, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 and 5 shall
apply.
2. The competent authority in each Member State shall identify independently the
persons for whom it intends to propose a simultaneous control. It shall notify the competent
authority of the other Member States concerned of any cases for which it proposes a
simultaneous control, giving reasons for its choice.
It shall specify the period of time during which those controls are to be conducted.
2021/514 Art. 1.11
3. The competent authority of each Member State concerned shall decide whether it
wishes to take part in simultaneous controls. It shall confirm its agreement or communicate its
reasoned refusal to the authority that proposed a simultaneous control within 60 days of
receiving the proposal.
2011/16/EU
4. The competent authority of each Member State concerned shall appoint a
representative with responsibility for supervising and coordinating the control operation.
new
5. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1 where one or more persons of common or
complementary interest are Reporting Platform Operators as defined in Section I, A.4(b) of
Annex V, those controls shall be carried out for the purpose of ensuring compliance with
Article 9 and Annex V, taking into account the Reporting Platform Operator’s economic
activity or the provision of relevant activities within the Union. The findings of those controls
may support the coordination of Member States’ actions to ensure compliance, including by
applying the penalties referred to in Article 34.
EN 69 EN
2021/514 Art. 1.12
(adapted)
SECTION IIIIIA
JOINT AUDITS
Article 2612a
Joint audits
1. The competent authority of one or more Member States may request the competent
authority of another Member State (or other Member States) to conduct a joint audit. The
requested competent authorities shall respond to the request for a joint audit within 60 days of
the receipt of the request. The requested competent authorities may reject a request for a joint
audit by the competent authority of a Member State on justified grounds.
2. Joint audits shall be conducted in a pre-agreed and coordinated manner, including
linguistic arrangements, by the competent authorities of the requesting and the requested
Member States, and in accordance with the laws and procedural requirements of the Member
State where the activities of a joint audit take place. In each Member State where the activities
of a joint audit take place, the competent authority of that Member State shall appoint a
representative with responsibility for supervising and coordinating the joint audit in that
Member State.
The rights and obligations of the officials of Member States who participate in the joint audit,
when they are present in activities performed in a different Member State, shall be determined
in accordance with the laws of the Member State where the activities of the joint audit take
place. While complying with the laws of the Member State where the activities of the joint
audit take place, officials of another Member State shall not exercise any powers that would
exceed the scope of the powers granted to them under the laws of their Member State.
3. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, a Member State where the activities of the joint
audit take place shall take the necessary measures to:
(a) permit that officials of other Member States who participate in the activities of
the joint audit interview individuals and examine records together with the officials
of the Member State where the activities of the joint audit take place, subject to the
procedural arrangements laid down by the Member State where those activities take
place;
(b) ensure that evidence collected during the activities of the joint audit can be
assessed, including on its admissibility, under the same legal conditions as in the case
of an audit carried out in that Member State where only the officials of that Member
State take part, including in the course of any process of complaint, review or appeal;
and
(c) ensure that the person(s) subject to a joint audit or affected by it enjoy the same
rights and have the same obligations as in the case of an audit where only the officers
of that Member State take part, including in the course of any process of complaint,
review or appeal.
4. Where competent authorities of two or more Member States conduct a joint audit, they
shall endeavour to agree on the facts and circumstances relevant to the joint audit and
EN 70 EN
endeavour to reach an agreement on the tax position of the audited person(s) based on the
results of the joint audit. The findings of the joint audit shall be incorporated in a final report.
Issues on which the competent authorities agree shall be reflected in the final report and be
taken into account in the relevant instruments issued by the competent authorities of the
participating Member States following that joint audit.
Subject to the first subparagraph, the actions by the competent authorities of a Member State
or any of its officers following a joint audit and any further processes taking place in that
Member State, such as a decision of tax authorities, process of appeal or settlement relating
thereto, shall take place in accordance with the national law of that Member State.
5. The audited person(s) shall be informed of the outcome of the joint audit, including a
copy of the final report within 60 days of the issuance of the final report.
2011/16/EU (adapted)
new
SECTION IVIII
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTIFICATION
Article 2713
Request for notification
1. At the request of the competent authority of a Member State, the competent authority
of another Member State shall, in accordance with the rules governing the notification of
similar instruments in the requested Member State, notify the addressee of any instruments
and decisions which emanate from the administrative authorities of the requesting Member
State and concern the application in its territory of legislation on taxes covered by this
Directive.
2. Requests for notification shall indicate the subject of the instrument or decision to be
notified and shall specify the name and address of the addressee, together with any other
information which may facilitate identification of the addressee.
3. The requested authority shall inform the requesting authority immediately of its
response and, in particular, of the date of notification of the instrument or decision to the
addressee.
4. The requesting authority shall only make a request for notification pursuant to this
Article when it is unable to notify in accordance with the rules governing the notification of
the instruments concerned in the requesting Member State, or where such notification would
give rise to disproportionate difficulties. The competent authority of a Member State may
notify any document by registered mail or electronically directly to a person within the
territory of another Member State.
SECTION VIV
FEEDBACK
Article 1428
Conditions
EN 71 EN
1. Where a competent authority provides information pursuant to Articles 175 or 219, it
may request the competent authority which receives the information to send feedback thereon.
If feedback is requested, the competent authority which received the information shall,
without prejudice to the rules on tax secrecy and data protection applicable in its Member
State, send feedback to the competent authority which provided the information as soon as
possible and no later than three months after the outcome of the use of the requested
information is known. The Commission shall determine the practical arrangements in
accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 4226(2).
2. Member States’ competent authorities shall send feedback on the automatic exchange
of information to the other Member States concerned at least once a year, in accordance
with practical arrangements agreed upon bilaterally , and with the technical support of the
Commission as provided for in Articles 43 and 44 .
CHAPTER VIV
CONDITIONS GOVERNING ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION
GOVERNANCE PROVISIONS
SECTION I
GENERAL
Article 294
Organisation
1. Each Member State shall inform the Commission, within one month from 11 March
2011, of its competent authority for the purposes of this Directive and shall inform the
Commission without delay of any change thereto.
The Commission shall make the information available to the other Member States and publish
a list of the authorities of the Member States in the Official Journal of the European Union.
2. The competent authority shall designate a single central liaison office. The competent
authority shall be responsible for informing the Commission and the other Member States
thereof.
The central liaison office may also be designated as responsible for contacts with the
Commission. The competent authority shall be responsible for informing the Commission
thereof.
3. The competent authority of each Member State may designate liaison departments
with the competence assigned according to its national legislation or policy. The central
liaison office shall be responsible for keeping the list of liaison departments up to date and
making it available to the central liaison offices of the other Member States concerned and to
the Commission.
4. The competent authority of each Member State may designate competent officials.
The central liaison office shall be responsible for keeping the list of competent officials up to
date and making it available to the central liaison offices of the other Member States
concerned and to the Commission.
EN 72 EN
5. The officials engaged in administrative cooperation pursuant to this Directive shall in
any case be deemed to be competent officials for that purpose, in accordance with
arrangements laid down by the competent authorities.
6. Where a liaison department or a competent official sends or receives a request or a
reply to a request for cooperation, it shall inform the central liaison office of its Member State
under the procedures laid down by that Member State.
7. Where a liaison department or a competent official receives a request for cooperation
requiring action which falls outside the competence it is assigned according to the national
legislation or policy of its Member State, it shall forward such request without delay to the
central liaison office of its Member State and inform the requesting authority thereof. In such
a case, the period laid down in Article 2020 shall start the day after the request for
cooperation is forwarded to the central liaison office.
Article 3016
Disclosure of information and documents
2023/2226 Art. 1.7(a)
1. Information communicated between Member States in any form pursuant to this
Directive shall be covered by the obligation of official secrecy and enjoy the protection
extended to similar information under the national law of the Member State which received it.
Such information may be used for the assessment, administration and enforcement of the
national law of Member States concerning the taxes referred to in Article 2 as well as VAT,
other indirect taxes, customs duties and anti-money laundering and countering the financing
of terrorism.
2011/16/EU
new
Such information may also be used for the assessment , administration and enforcement
of other taxes and duties covered by Article 2 of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March
2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and
other measures52, or for the assessment , administration and enforcement of compulsory
social security contributions.
In addition, it may be used in connection with judicial and administrative proceedings that
may involve penalties, initiated as a result of infringements of tax law, without prejudice to
the general rules and provisions governing the rights of defendants and witnesses in such
proceedings.
new
Such information may also be used for statistical purposes.
52
Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of
claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (OJ L 84, 31.3.2010, p. 1,
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/24/oj).
EN 73 EN
2021/514 Art. 1.13(b)
2. With the permission of the competent authority of the Member State communicating
information pursuant to this Directive, and only in so far as this is allowed under the national
law of the Member State of the competent authority receiving the information, information
and documents received pursuant to this Directive may be used for other purposes than those
referred to in paragraph 1. Such permission shall be granted if the information can be used for
similar purposes in the Member State of the competent authority communicating the
information.
The competent authority of each Member State may communicate to the competent
authorities of all other Member States a list of purposes for which, in accordance with its
national law, information and documents may be used, other than those referred to in
paragraph 1. The competent authority that receives information and documents may use the
received information and documents without the permission referred to in the first
subparagraph of this paragraph for any of the purposes listed by the communicating Member
State.
2023/2226 Art. 1.7(b)
(adapted)
The competent authority that receives information and documents may also use the received
information and documents without the permission referred to in the first subparagraph of this
paragraph for any purpose that is covered by an act based on Article 215 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union and share them for such purpose with the competent
authority in charge of restrictive measures in the Member State concerned.
2023/2226 Art. 1.7(c)
3. Where a competent authority of a Member State considers that information which it
has received from the competent authority of another Member State is likely to be useful for
the purposes referred to in paragraph 1 to the competent authority of a third Member State, it
may transmit that information to the latter competent authority, provided that the transmission
is in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in this Directive. It shall inform the
competent authority of the Member State from which the information originates about its
intention to share that information with a third Member State. The Member State of origin of
the information may oppose such a sharing of information within 15 calendar days of receipt
of the communication from the Member State wishing to share the information.
2011/16/EU
4. Permission to use information pursuant to paragraph 2, which has been transmitted
pursuant to paragraph 3, may be granted only by the competent authority of the Member State
from which the information originates.
5. Information, reports, statements and any other documents, or certified true copies or
extracts thereof, obtained by the requested authority and communicated to the requesting
authority in accordance with this Directive may be invoked as evidence by the competent
bodies of the requesting Member State on the same basis as similar information, reports,
statements and any other documents provided by an authority of that Member State.
EN 74 EN
2016/881 Art. 1.3
(adapted)
new
6. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Article, information communicated between
Member States pursuant to Article 78aa shall be used for the purposes of assessing high-level
transfer-pricing risks and other risks related to base erosion and profit shifting, including
assessing the risk of non-compliance by members of the MNE gGroup with applicable
transfer-pricing rules, and where appropriate for economic and statistical analysis. Transfer-
pricing adjustments by the tax authorities of the receiving Member State shall not be
exclusively based on the information exchanged pursuant to Article 78aa.
Notwithstanding the above, there is no prohibition on using the information communicated
between Member States pursuant to Article 78aa as a basis for making further enquiries into
the MNE group's transfer-pricing arrangements or into other tax matters in the course of a tax
audit, and, as a result, appropriate adjustments to the taxable income of a Constituent Entity
may be made.
2011/16/EU
Article 3117
Limits
1. A requested authority in one Member State shall provide a requesting authority in
another Member State with the information referred to in Article 175 provided that the
requesting authority has exhausted the usual sources of information which it could have used
in the circumstances for obtaining the information requested, without running the risk of
jeopardising the achievement of its objectives.
2. This Directive shall impose no obligation upon a requested Member State to carry out
enquiries or to communicate information, if it would be contrary to its legislation to conduct
such inquiries or to collect the information requested for its own purposes.
3. The competent authority of a requested Member State may decline to provide
information where the requesting Member State is unable, for legal reasons, to provide similar
information.
4. The provision of information may be refused where it would lead to the disclosure of a
commercial, industrial or professional secret or of a commercial process, or of information
whose disclosure would be contrary to public policy.
5. The requested authority shall inform the requesting authority of the grounds for
refusing a request for information.
Article 3218
Obligations
1. If information is requested by a Member State in accordance with this Directive, the
requested Member State shall use its measures aimed at gathering information to obtain the
requested information, even though that Member State may not need such information for its
own tax purposes. That obligation is without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article
31(2), (3) and (4)17, the invocation of which shall in no case be construed as permitting a
EN 75 EN
requested Member State to decline to supply information solely because it has no domestic
interest in such information.
2. In no case shall Article 3117(2) and (4) be construed as permitting a requested
authority of a Member State to decline to supply information solely because this information
is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or a
fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person.
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, a Member State may refuse the transmission of
requested information where such information concerns taxable periods prior to 1 January
2011 and where the transmission of such information could have been refused on the basis of
Article 8(1) of Directive 77/799/EEC if it had been requested before 11 March 2011.
2025/872 Art. 1.6
new
34. The competent authority of each Member State shall put in place an effective
mechanism to ensure the use of information acquired through the reporting or the exchange of
information under Articles 8 to 8ae 4 to 9, 12, 15 and 16 .
2011/16/EU
48. Where Member States agree on the automatic exchange of information for additional
categories of income and capital in bilateral or multilateral agreements which they conclude
with other Member States, they shall communicate those agreements to the Commission
which shall make those agreements available to all the other Member States.
Article 3319
Extension of wider cooperation provided to a third country
Where a Member State provides a wider cooperation to a third country than that provided for
under this Directive, that Member State may not refuse to provide such wider cooperation to
any other Member State wishing to enter into such mutual wider cooperation with that
Member State.
2025/872 Art. 1.9
new
Article 3425a
Penalties
Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national
provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and concerning Articles and shall take all
measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be
effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national
provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and concerning Articles 8aa to 8ae 5, 7, 8, 9,
10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are
implemented. The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
EN 76 EN
2023/2226 Art. 1.16 (adapted)
SECTION II – TIN
Article 3527c
Reporting and communication of the TIN
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require that the TIN of
reported individuals or entities issued by the Member State of residence be reported by the
reporting entity or reporting individual and be communicated by each Member State when
explicitly required by, and pursuant to the Articles and Annexes of this Directive.
2. For taxable periods starting on or after 1 January 2030, each Member State shall take
the necessary measures to require that the TIN of residents issued by the Member State of
residence be reported.
Article 36
TIN verification tool
2023/2226 Art. 1.10(b)
(adapted)
new
18. The Commission shall provide Member States at the latest by 31 December 2030
Member States with a tool allowing an electronic a digital and automated verification of
the correctness validity of the a TIN provided by a reporting entity or a taxpayer
for the purposes of the automatic exchange of information.
The Commission shall develop set out the technical parameters of the tool referred to in
the first subparagraph by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be
adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5126(2).
2025/872 Art. 1.8 (adapted)
new
24. Member States shall ensure that tax authorities obtain confirmation by electronic
means of the validity of TIN of any taxpayer subject to exchange of information under
Articles 4 and 6 .
Member States shall endeavour to ensure that a reporting entity that so wishes is
allowed to obtain confirmation by electronic means of the validity of the information on the
TIN of any taxpayer subject to the exchange of information under Articles 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15
and 16 8 to 8ae. The confirmation of the validity of the TIN may be requested only for
the purposes of validation of the correctness of data.
new
3. By way of derogation from Articles 8, 9, 12, 15 and 16, Member States shall allow a
reporting entity to report only the name and the verified TIN of the taxpayer concerned in any
of the following cases:
EN 77 EN
(a) the confirmation of the validity of TIN was obtained by means of the TIN
verification tool, referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article;
(b) the taxpayer was identified through government verification services of
Member States or equivalent EU services or the EUID attributed in accordance with
Directive 2017/1132.
2011/16/EU (adapted)
SECTION III – SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS AND ACCESS TO REGISTERS
Article 3722
Specific obligations
1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to:
(a) ensure effective internal coordination within the organisation referred to in
Article 294;
(b) establish direct cooperation with the authorities of the other Member States
referred to in Article 294;
(c) ensure the smooth operation of the administrative cooperation arrangements
provided for in this Directive.
2011/16/EU
2. The Commission shall communicate to each Member State any general information
concerning the implementation and application of this Directive which it receives and which it
is able to provide.
new
Article 38
Access to the registers and procedures established under anti-money laundering
legislation
1. Member States shall ensure that tax authorities have immediate and direct access free of
charge to information which allows for the identification in a timely manner of beneficial
owners of legal entities and of legal arrangements via interconnected central beneficial
ownership registers as provided for in Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2024/1640.
2. Member States shall ensure that tax authorities have the power to access and search,
directly and immediately, bank account information available through the bank account
registers referred to in Article 16(1) of Directive 2024/1640.
3. Member States shall ensure that tax authorities have immediate and direct access free of
charge to information which allows for the identification in a timely manner of any real estate
property and of the natural persons or legal entities or legal arrangements owning that
property, as well as to information allowing for the identification and analysis of transactions
involving real estate as referred to in Article 18 of Directive (EU) 2024/1640. The access shall
be provided via a single access point to be established in each Member State which allows
EN 78 EN
competent authorities to access, via electronic means, information in digital format, which
shall be, where possible, machine-readable.
2021/514 Art. 1.16
new
41a. For the purposes of the implementation and enforcement of the laws of Member States
giving effect to this Directive and to ensure the functioning of the administrative cooperation
it establishes, Member States shall provide by law for access by tax authorities to the
mechanisms, procedures, documents and information referred to in Articles 13, 30, 31, 32a
and 40 of Directive (EU) 2015/849 Chapter III and Article 77 of Regulation (EU)
2024/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
new
Article 39
Access to national registers and databases on pension payments
Member States shall ensure that tax authorities have direct and expeditious access to the
information necessary for those purposes which is held in existing national registers and
databases concerning payments of pensions, in accordance with the conditions laid down by
national law.
2021/514 Art. 1.18 (adapted)
new
SECTION IV
DATA PROTECTION
Article 2540
Data protection
1. All exchange of information pursuant to this Directive shall be subject to Regulation
(EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council53. However, Member States
shall, for the purposes of the correct application of this Directive, restrict the scope of the
obligations and rights provided for in Article 13, Article 14(1) and Article 15, of Regulation
(EU) 2016/679, to the extent required in order to safeguard the interests referred to in point (e)
of Article 23(1), point (e) of that Regulation.
2. Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council54 shall
apply to any processing of personal data under this Directive by the Union institutions,
53
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016,
p. 1).
54
Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions,
bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No
EN 79 EN
bodies, offices and agencies. However, for the purposes of the correct application of this
Directive, the scope of the obligations and rights provided for in Article 15, Article 16(1), and
Articles 17 to 21, of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, shall be restricted to the extent required in
order to safeguard the interests referred to in Article 25(1) point points (c) and (g)
of Article 25(1) of that Regulation.
2023/2226 Art. 1.13(a)
3. Reporting Financial Institutions, intermediaries, Reporting Platform Operators,
Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers and the competent authorities of Member States
shall be considered to be controllers, acting alone or jointly. When processing personal data
for the purposes of this Directive, the Commission shall be considered to process the personal
data on behalf of the controllers and shall comply with the requirements for processors set out
in Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. The processing shall be governed by a contract within the
meaning of Article 28(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 29(3) of Regulation
(EU) 2018/1725.
2023/2226 Art. 1.13(b)
new
4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, each Member State shall ensure that each Reporting
Financial Institution or intermediary or Reporting Platform Operator or Reporting Crypto-
Asset Service Provider, as the case may be, which is under its jurisdiction:
(a) informs each individual concerned that information relating to that individual
will be collected and transferred processed in accordance with this Directive;
and
(b) provides to each individual concerned all information that the individual is
entitled to from the data controller in accordance with Articles 13 and 14 of
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 in sufficient time for that individual to exercise his or
her data protection rights and, in any case, before the information is reported.
2021/514 Art. 1.18
Notwithstanding point (b) of the first subparagraph, each Member State shall lay down rules
obliging Reporting Platform Operators to inform Reportable Sellers of the reported
Consideration.
5. Information processed in accordance with this Directive shall be retained for no longer
than is necessary to achieve the purposes of this Directive, and in any case in accordance with
each data controller’s domestic rules on statute of limitations.
2025/872 Art. 1.8
new
63. Member States shall retain the records of the information received through the
automatic exchange of information pursuant to Articles 8 to 8ad 4 to 9, 12, 15 and 16
45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 30; ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1725/oj.
EN 80 EN
for no longer than necessary but in any event not less than five years from its date of receipt to
achieve the purposes of this Directive.
2021/514 Art. 1.18 (adapted)
new
Article 41
Data breach
16. A Member State where a data breach occurred, shall report the data breach and any
subsequent remedial action to the Commission without delay. The Commission shall inform
all Member States without delay of the data breach that has been reported to it or of which it
is aware and any remedial action.
Each Member State may suspend the exchange of information to the Member State(s) where
the data breach occurred by giving notice in writing to the Commission and the Member
State(s) concerned. Such suspension shall have immediate effect.
The Member State(s) where the data breach occurred shall investigate, contain and remedy
the data breach and shall, by giving notice in writing to the Commission, request the
suspension of the SDIE CCN access for the purposes of this Directive, if the data breach
cannot be contained immediately and appropriately. Upon such request, the Commission shall
suspend the SDIE CCN access of such Member State(s) for the purposes of this
Directive.
Upon reporting by the Member State where the data breach occurred of remedying the data
breach, the Commission shall resume the SDIE CCN access of the Member State(s)
concerned for the purposes of this Directive. In case one or more Member States request the
Commission to jointly verify whether the remediation of the data breach was successful, the
Commission shall resume the SDIE CCN access of such Member State(s) for the
purposes of this Directive upon such verification.
Where a data breach occurs to the central directory or the SDIE CCN for the purposes of
this Directive and where the exchanges of Member States through the SDIE CCN can
potentially be affected, the Commission shall inform Member States of the data breach and
any remedial actions taken without undue delay. Such remedial actions may include
suspending access to the central directory or the SDIE CCN for the purposes of this
Directive until the data breach is remedied.
27. Member States, assisted by the Commission, shall agree on the practical arrangements
necessary for the implementation of this Article, including data breach management processes
which are aligned with internationally recognised good practices and where appropriate a
joint data controller agreement, a data processor – data controller agreement, or models
thereof.
2014/107/EU Art. 1.4
new
3. In the event of a personal data breach, Member States shall ensure that the
controller notifies each individual Reportable Person taxpayer in accordance with
Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. is notified of a breach of security with regard to
EN 81 EN
his data when that breach is likely to adversely affect the protection of his personal data or
privacy.
2011/16/EU (adapted)
SECTION V
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TOPICS
Article 4220
Standard forms and linguistic arrangements for non-automatic exchange of
information computerised formats
2011/16/EU
new
1. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts, in accordance
with the procedure referred to in Article 51(2), to establish the standard form in digital format
to be used for sending rRequests for information and for administrative enquiries pursuant
to Article 175 and their replies, acknowledgements, requests for additional background
information, inability or refusal pursuant to Article 207 shall, as far as possible, be sent using
a standard form adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in
Article 5126(2).
2011/16/EU
The standard forms may be accompanied by reports, statements and any other documents, or
certified true copies or extracts thereof.
2021/514 Art. 1.14(a)
2. The standard form referred to in paragraph 1 shall include at least the following
information to be provided by the requesting authority:
(a) the identity of the person under examination or investigation and, in the case of
group requests as referred to in Article 185a(3), detailed description of the group;
(b) the tax purpose for which the information is sought.
2011/16/EU
The requesting authority may, to the extent known and in line with international
developments, provide the name and address of any person believed to be in possession of the
requested information as well as any element that may facilitate the collection of information
by the requested authority.
EN 82 EN
2021/514 Art. 1.14(b)
new
3. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts, in accordance
with the procedure referred to in Article 51(2), to establish the standard form in digital format
to be used for sending Sspontaneous information and its acknowledgement pursuant to
Articles 921, 22 and 2310 respectively, requests for administrative notifications
pursuant to Article 2713, feedback information pursuant to Article 2814 and communications
pursuant to Articles 3016(2) and (3) and Article 5024(2) shall be sent using the standard
forms adopted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article
26(2).
2011/16/EU (adapted)
4. Requests for cooperation, including requests for notification, and attached documents
may be made in any language agreed between the requested and requesting authority.
Those requests shall be accompanied by a translation into the official language or one of the
official languages of the Member State of the requested authority only in special cases when
the requested authority states its reason for requesting a translation.
Article 43
Standard forms and linguistic arrangements for automatic exchange of
information
2025/872 Art. 1.7
new
14. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts, in accordance
with the procedure referred to in Article 51(2), to establish the standard form in digital format,
including the linguistic arrangement to be used for The automatic exchange of information
pursuant to Articles 8, 8ac and 8ae 4 to 9 and Articles 12, 15 and 16 . shall be carried out
using a standard computerised format aimed at facilitating such automatic exchange,
including the linguistic arrangements, adopted by the Commission in accordance with the
procedure referred to in Article 26(2).
2023/2226 Art. 1.9 (adapted)
new
2. Those standard computerised digital forms shall not exceed the components for
the exchange of information listed in Articles 8a(6), 8ab(14) and 8ad(3) 4 to 9 and Articles
12, 15 and 16 as well as Article 44 of Directive (EU) 2023/2523 and such other related
fields which are linked to those components which are necessary to achieve the objectives of
Articles 8a, 8ab and 8ad, respectively the respective exchanges .
3. The linguistic arrangements referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall
not preclude Member States from communicating the information referred to in Articles 8a6
and 8ab8 in any of the official languages of the Union. However, those linguistic
arrangements may provide that the key elements of such information shall also be sent in
another official language of the Union.
EN 83 EN
2011/16/EU (adapted)
new
Article 4421
Practical arrangements for communication of information
1. Information communicated pursuant to this Directive shall, as far as possible, be
provided by electronic means using the CCN network SDIE .
Where necessary, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt practical arrangements
necessary for the implementation of the first subparagraph in accordance with the procedure
referred to in Article 5126(2).
2014/107/EU Art. 1.4
new
2. The Commission shall be responsible for whatever development of the CCN network
SDIE is necessary to permit the exchange of that information between Member States
and for ensuring the security of the theCCN network SDIE .
Member States shall be responsible for whatever development of their systems is necessary to
enable that information to be exchanged using the the CCN network SDIE and for
ensuring the security of their systems.
Member States shall waive all claims for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in applying
this Directive except, where appropriate, in respect of fees paid to experts.
2015/2376 Art. 1.5(a)
new
3. Persons duly accredited by the Security Accreditation Authority of the Commission
may have access to that information only in so far as it is necessary for the care, maintenance
and development of the SDIE directory referred to in paragraph 5 and of the CCN
network.
2023/2226 Art. 1.10(a)
(adapted)
5. The Commission shall by 31 December 2017 develop and provide with technical and
logistical support a secure Member State central directory on administrative cooperation in
the field of taxation where information to be communicated in the framework of Article 8a(1)
and (2) shall be recorded in order to satisfy the automatic exchange provided for in those
paragraphs.
The Commission shall by 31 December 2019 develop and provide with technical and
logistical support a secure Member State central directory on administrative cooperation in
the field of taxation where information to be communicated in the framework of
Article 8ab(13), (14) and (16) shall be recorded in order to satisfy the automatic exchange
provided for in those paragraphs.
EN 84 EN
The Commission shall by 31 December 2026 develop and provide with technical and
logistical support a secure Member State central directory on administrative cooperation in
the field of taxation where information to be communicated in the framework of
Article 8ad(2) and (3) shall be recorded in order to satisfy the automatic exchange provided
for in those paragraphs.
The competent authorities of all Member States shall have access to the information recorded
in that directory. With respect to the information to be communicated in the framework of
Article 8ad(2) and (3), the competent authority of a Member State shall, however, have access
only to information pertaining to Reportable Users and Reportable Persons resident in that
Member State. The Commission shall also have access to the information recorded in that
directory, however with the limitations set out in Articles 8a(8), 8ab(17) and 8ad(5), and only
for the purpose of collecting statistics in accordance with paragraph 7 of this Article. The
Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt the necessary practical
arrangements. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure
referred to in Article 26(2).
Until that secure central directory is operational, the automatic exchange provided for in
Article 8a(1) and (2), Article 8ab(13), (14) and (16) and Article 8ad(2) and (3) shall be carried
out in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and the applicable practical arrangements.
6. Information communicated pursuant to Article 8aa(2) shall be provided by electronic
means using the CCN network. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt
the necessary practical arrangements for the upgrading of the CCN network. Those
implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article
26(2).
2011/16/EU
CHAPTER VIV
SHARING OF BEST PRACTICES AND EXPERIENCE
Article 4515
Scope and conditions
1. Member States shall, together with the Commission, examine and evaluate
administrative cooperation pursuant to this Directive and shall share their experience, with a
view to improving such cooperation and, where appropriate, drawing up rules in the fields
concerned.
2. Member States may, together with the Commission, produce guidelines on any aspect
deemed necessary for sharing best practices and sharing experience.
2025/872 Art. 1.4 (adapted)
new
Article 468b
Statistics on automatic exchanges and provision of information to the national
statistic offices
1. Member States shall provide the Commission on an annual basis with statistics on the
volume of automatic exchanges under Articles 8(1), 8(3a), 8aa, 8ac and 8ae 4 to 9, 12, 15
and 16 and with information on the administrative and other relevant costs and benefits
EN 85 EN
relating to exchanges that have taken place and any potential changes, for both tax
administrations and third parties.
new
2. Member States shall provide their national statistical institutes on annual basis with
statistics on the volume of automatic exchanges under Articles 4 to 9 and Articles 12, 15 and
16. Member States shall provide their respective national statistical authority, on annual basis,
all information received through the exchanges pursuant to Article 7. The national statistical
authorities shall use the data exclusively for statistical purposes and ensure full confidentiality
of information received.
Article 47
Platform for collecting statistics on automatic exchanges
(EU) 2021/514 Art. 1.15
new
7. The Commission shall develop and provide technical and logistical support for a
secure central interface on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation where Member
States communicate with the use of standard forms pursuant to Article 20(1) and (3) 43. The
competent authorities of all Member States shall have access to that interface. For the purpose
of collecting statistics, the Commission shall have access to information about the
automatic exchanges recorded to the interface and which can be extracted automatically.
The Commission shall have only access to anonymous and aggregated data. The access by the
Commission shall be without prejudice to the obligation of Member States to provide
statistics on exchanges of information in accordance with Article 4823(4). The Commission
shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down the necessary practical arrangements. Those
implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article
5126(2).
2023/2226 Art. 1.10(b)
8. The Commission shall provide Member States with a tool allowing an electronic and
automated verification of the correctness of the TIN provided by a reporting entity or a
taxpayer for the purposes of the automatic exchange of information.
The Commission shall develop the technical parameters of the tool referred to in the first
subparagraph by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in
accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 26(2).
2011/16/EU
Article 4823
Evaluation
1. Member States and the Commission shall examine and evaluate the functioning of the
administrative cooperation provided for in this Directive.
EN 86 EN
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission any relevant information
necessary for the evaluation of the effectiveness of administrative cooperation in accordance
with this Directive in combating tax evasion and tax avoidance.
2023/2226 Art. 1.12
new
3. Each Member State shall monitor and assess, in relation to itself, the effectiveness of
administrative cooperation in accordance with this Directive, including in combating tax
evasion and tax avoidance, and shall communicate the results of its assessment including
instruments measuring the outcome of the administrative cooperation to the Commission once
a year . The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt the form and the
conditions of communication for that yearly assessment. Those implementing acts shall be
adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5126(2).
2011/16/EU
4. The Commission shall, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article
5126(2), determine a list of statistical data which shall be provided by the Member States for
the purposes of evaluation of this Directive.
2015/2376 Art. 1.7
Article 4923a
Confidentiality of information
1. Information communicated to the Commission pursuant to this Directive shall be kept
confidential by the Commission in accordance with the provisions applicable to Union
authorities and may not be used for any purposes other than those required to determine
whether and to what extent Member States comply with this Directive.
2021/514 Art. 1.17 (adapted)
new
2. Information communicated to the Commission by a Member State under Article 2348,
as well as any report or document produced by the Commission using such information, may
be transmitted to other Member States. Such transmitted information shall be covered by the
obligation of official secrecy and enjoy the protection extended to similar information under
the national law of the Member State which received it.
Reports and documents produced by the Commission, referred to in the first subparagraph,
may be used by Member States only for analytical purposes, and shall not be published or
made available to any other person or body without the express agreement of the
Commission.
Notwithstanding the first and second subparagraphs, the Commission may publish reports
on the use of the information exchanged under this Directive as well as annually
anonymised annual summaries of the statistical data that Member States communicate
to it in accordance with Article 4823(4).
EN 87 EN
2011/16/EU
CHAPTER VIIVI
RELATIONS WITH THIRD COUNTRIES
Article 5024
Exchange of information with third countries
1. Where the competent authority of a Member State receives from a third country
information that is foreseeably relevant to the administration and enforcement of the domestic
laws of that Member State concerning the taxes referred to in Article 2, that authority may, in
so far as this is allowed pursuant to an agreement with that third country, provide that
information to the competent authorities of Member States for which that information might
be useful and to any requesting authorities.
2. Competent authorities may communicate, in accordance with their domestic
provisions on the communication of personal data to third countries, information obtained in
accordance with this Directive to a third country, provided that all of the following conditions
are met:
(a) the competent authority of the Member State from which the information
originates have consented to that communication;
(b) the third country concerned has given an undertaking to provide the
cooperation required to gather evidence of the irregular or illegal nature of
transactions which appear to contravene or constitute an abuse of tax legislation.
CHAPTER VIIIVII
GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS
2016/881 Art. 1.8
Article 5126
Committee procedure
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee on administrative cooperation for
taxation. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No
182/201155.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011
shall apply.
55
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States
of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).
EN 88 EN
new
Article 52
Council implementing act
On the basis of a proposal from the Commission, the Council shall, within 5 years from the
date of entry into force of this Directive, adopt an implementing act, establishing the
applicable criteria for the requirements set out in Part II, points D.2(a) and (b) of Annex IV.
2018/822 Art. 1.7
Article 5327
Reporting
1. Every five years after 1 January 2013, the Commission shall submit a report on the
application of this Directive to the European Parliament and to the Council.
2020/876 Art. 1 (adapted)
Article 27a
Optional deferral of time limits because of the COVID-19 pandemic
1. Notwithstanding the time limits for filing information on reportable cross-border
arrangements as specified in Article 8ab(12), Member States may take the measures necessary
to allow intermediaries and relevant taxpayers to file, by 28 February 2021, information on
reportable cross-border arrangements the first step of which was implemented between 25
June 2018 and 30 June 2020.
2. Where Member States take measures as referred to in paragraph 1, they shall also take
the measures necessary to allow:
(a) notwithstanding Article 8ab(18), the first information to be communicated by
30 April 2021;
(b) the period of 30 days for filing information referred to in Article 8ab(1) and (7)
to begin by 1 January 2021 where:
(i) a reportable cross-border arrangement is made available for
implementation or is ready for implementation, or where the first step in its
implementation has been made between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2020; or
(ii) intermediaries within the meaning of the second paragraph of point 21
of Article 3 provide, directly or by means of other persons, aid, assistance or
advice between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2020;
(c) in the case of marketable arrangements, the first periodic report in accordance
with Article 8ab(2) to be made by the intermediary by 30 April 2021.
3. Notwithstanding the time limit laid down in point (b) of Article 8(6), Member States
may take the measures necessary to allow the communication of information referred to in
Article 8(3a) that relates to the calendar year 2019 or another appropriate reporting period to
EN 89 EN
take place within 12 months following the end of the calendar year 2019 or the other
appropriate reporting period.
Article 27b
Extension of the period of deferral
1. The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may take an
implementing decision to extend the period of deferral of the time limits set out in Article 27a
by three months, provided that severe risks to public health, hindrances and economic
disturbance caused by the COVID-19 pandemic continue to exist and Member States apply
lockdown measures.
2. The proposal for a Council implementing decision shall be submitted to the Council at
least one month before the expiry of the relevant deadline.
2025/872 Art. 1.10 (adapted)
Article 5427d
The first Reporting fiscal year and communication of the information under Article 15
8ae for the first time
1. The first Reporting fiscal year for which the information is to be communicated under
Article 8ae is the first fiscal year beginning from 31 December 2023.
12. For the Member States that have elected not to apply the IIR and the UTPR pursuant
to Article 50(1) of Directive (EU) 2022/2523, the first Reporting fiscal year for which the
information is to be communicated under Article 158ae shall be the first fiscal year following
the end of such election.
Notwithstanding the first subparagraph of this paragraph, for the Member States that have
elected not to apply the IIR and the UTPR pursuant to Article 50(1) of Directive (EU)
2022/2523 and have elected to apply a qualified domestic top-up tax pursuant to Article 11(1)
of that Directive, the first Reporting fiscal year for which the information is to be
communicated under Article 158ae shall be the first fiscal year during which the qualified
domestic top-up tax applies.
23. The competent authority of the Member State shall communicate the information
under Article 158ae with respect to the first Reporting fiscal year no later than six6 months
after the filing deadline.
4. In any case, Member States shall communicate the information under Article 8ae for
the first time no earlier than 1 December 2026.
2011/16/EU
Article 28
Repeal of Directive 77/799/EEC
Directive 77/799/EEC is repealed with effect from 1 January 2013.
References made to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive.
EN 90 EN
Article 5529
Transposition
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive with effect from 1 January 2013.
However, they shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Article 8 of this Directive with effect from 1 January 2015.
They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
new
1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by [31 December 2027], laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with points 19, 23 and 30 of Article 3, 8(1), (4)
to (7), (13) and (16), 7 and 15 and, Annex IV and Section I of Annex V They shall
immediately communicate the text of those measures to the Commission.
They shall apply those measures from [1 January 2028].
2. Member States shall adopt and publish, by [31 December 2029], the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1(1), (3) and (4), points 3, 10,
13, 14, 22, 26, 27, 30 of Article 3, Articles 4(1) and (3), 5(3), 6(2), 7(1), (3) and (4), 9, 10(3),
11(2), 12(1) and (5), 15(1), (3) and (4), 16, 17, 20(1) and (3), 23(2), 25(5), 28(2), 30(1) and
(6), 34, 35(1), 36, 38, 39, 40(2) and (4), 41(1) and (3), 42(1) and (3), 43(1) and (2), 44, 46,
38(3), 49(2), and 52 and Section VIII of Annex I, Annex V, Sections III and V of Annex VI.
They shall immediately communicate the text of those measures to the Commission.
They shall apply those measures from [1 January 2030].
(EU) 2025/872 Art 1.10
new
31. When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this
Directive. or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official
publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States
They shall also include a statement that references in existing laws, regulations and
administrative provisions to the Directive repealed by this Directive shall be construed as
references to this Directive. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made
and how that statement is to be formulated.
2025/872 Art. 1.10 (adapted)
42. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions
measures of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
2011/16/EU (adapted)
new
Article 5628
Repeal of Directive 77/799/EEC
EN 91 EN
Directive 2011/16/EU as amended by the Directives listed in Part A of Annex VIII,
77/799/EEC is repealed with effect from 1 January 2013 1 January 2030 , without
prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for the
transposition into national law and the dates of application of the Directives set out in Part B
of Annex VIII, Part B .
References made to the repealed Directive shall be construed as references to this Directive
and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex IX .
Article 5730
Entry into force and application
1. This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
new
2. Annexes III and VII shall apply the day after this Directive enters into force.
3. Articles 1(2), 2, points 1 to 8, 11, 12, 15 to 18, 20, 21, 24 and 25 of Article 3, Articles
5(1) and (2), 6(1), (3) to (8), 7(2), 8(2), (3), (8) to (12), (14) and (15), 10(1) and (2), 11(1),
12(2) to (4), 13, 14, 15(2) and (5), 18, 19, 20(2) and (4), 21, 22, 23(1), 24, 25(1) to (4), 26, 27,
28(1), 29, 30(2) to (5), 31, 32, 33, 35(2), 37, 40(1), (3), (5) and (6), 41(2), 42(2) and (4),
43(3), 45, 47, 48(1), (2) and (4), 49(1), 50, 51, 54 and Sections I to VII and IX of Annex I,
Annex II, Sections I, II and IV of Annex V shall apply from [1 January 2030].
2025/872 Art. 2 (adapted)
3. They Member States shall apply those the measures referred to in
Article 2(2), first subparagraph, of Directive 2025/872 from the day after the day such
the election referred to in that subparagraph ends.
They shall apply those the measures referred to in Article 2(2), third subparagraph,
of Directive 2025/872 from the beginning of the first Reporting fiscal year under the
election to apply a qualified domestic top-up tax.
2011/16/EU
Article 5831
Addressees
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
EN 92 EN
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL AND DIGITAL STATEMENT
1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE
1.1. Title of the proposal/initiative
Council Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast)
1.2. Policy area concerned
Taxation policy
1.3. Objective
1.3.1. General objective
The proposal consolidates Directive 2011/16/EU with its 9 subsequent amendments into a
single coherent text, thus ensuring consistency and user-friendliness of the text.
The proposal aims to ensure a fair and efficient functioning of the internal market by
providing Member States with clear and comprehensive rules based on which they cooperate
with each other to ensure that taxes are levied correctly. This way, the proposal ensures that
the Member States have efficient and effective tools to fight tax fraud, avoidance and evasion.
The proposal simplifies and streamlines reporting obligations by business, therefore reduces
the administrative burden placed on them.
1.3.2. Specific objective
Less administrative burden placed on business due to streamlining notification obligations for
Country-by-country reporting and notifications for the purposes of central filing of the top-up
tax information return. Less administrative burden placed on business due to reducing
reporting obligations that are not considered anymore as proportionate.
Less burden is placed on Member States since the TIN verification tool will allow automatic
verification and matching of the taxpayers concerned.
1.3.3. Expected result(s) and impact
Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups
targeted.
On the business side, we distinguish between large MNE groups which are in scope of the
Pillar 2 Directive, other companies outside of the scope of the Pillar 2, and platform operators
of any size.
MNE groups within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive (consolidated annual revenues of at
least EUR 750 million) will no longer be obliged to report cross-border arrangements under
DAC6, as risks are deemed covered by the global minimum tax rules. This will directly
reduce the associated compliance costs for those companies. They will also benefit from a
EN 1 EN
single notification for DAC4/DAC9, filing only once per group via a common template and
harmonised deadline, instead of separate notifications for DAC4 and DAC9 purposes by each
of the 109,000 subsidiaries of MNEs in scope of Pillar 2.
Smaller MNE groups, i.e. those outside the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive, will benefit from a
reduction in the number of DAC6 disclosures (about 8,300 per year). Given their larger
population, a significant share of the resulting compliance cost savings is expected to accrue
to smaller companies, including those with fewer than 50 employees. Within the population
of MNEs in Europe, companies with fewer than 50 employees account for nearly two thirds,
meaning that a substantial proportion of the benefits is likely to be concentrated among these
smaller entities.
Platform operators, both larger and smaller ones, will see a reduction in reporting volumes
due to the increased monetary threshold (to EUR 3,000) and the removal of the 30-transaction
activity threshold for sellers of goods, eliminating the need to report low-value occasional
sellers. The preferred option has the potential to reduce the number of reported sellers by up
to 11.3 million per year.
Finally, taxpayers and tax intermediaries, e.g., advisors and accountants, will benefit from the
removal of Category A (generic) hallmarks under DAC6 and clearer guidance on the Main
Benefit Test (MBT), reducing “defensive reporting” of standard commercial transactions.
Tax authorities will process higher-quality data due to centralized TIN verification and more
complete DAC1 exchanges, while the volume of low-value information from DAC6 and
DAC7 will decrease, allowing for better-targeted risk assessments. Costs are expected to be
driven primarily by the need to adjust IT systems and data-sharing arrangements in order to
access and exchange information held by a broader set of public authorities. The magnitude of
these costs will depend on the existing level of digitalisation and interoperability of public
sector databases in each Member State. In more advanced systems, where data is already
centrally accessible, the required adjustments may be relatively limited. By contrast, Member
States with more fragmented data infrastructures may face higher initial investment costs
related to system integration, data standardisation and governance frameworks.
1.3.4. Indicators of performance
Specify the indicators for monitoring progress and achievements.
Specific objective Indicator Baseline value Data source Frequency
Ensure Number of 8300 disclosure reports DAC6 central Annual
proportionate and annual DAC6 annually linked to the directory
legally certain disclosures MBT related A hallmarks statistics
DAC6 reporting (approx. 8% of which
(removal of certain originate from reporting
MBT-related A entities within Pillar 2
hallmarks and scope)
EN 2 EN
exclusion of Pillar 2
entities)
Ensure Number of 13.5 million sellers Statistics Annual
proportionate and annual sellers reported annually reported by
better targeted reported for the Member States
reporting of sellers sale of goods.
under DAC7
Eliminate Number of Approx. 4,700 MNE Statistics Annual
duplicative notifications groups and 109.000 reported by
(DAC4/DAC9) and submitted by constituent entities Member States
non-harmonised constituent
notification entities and
obligations for number of
MNE Groups notifications
submitted at
group level
Improve the Automatic Current automatic Statistics Annual
correctness of the matching rate matching rates reported provided by
reported TIN of TINs in by Member States Member States
receiving
Member States;
Improve the quality Number of Minimum of five DAC1 DAC1 statistics Annual
and completeness of categories income categories and reported by
DAC1 exchanges exchanged by only information Member States
Member States available in tax files
and increase in
the volume of
information
exchanged
Strengthen tax Estimated Current levels reported Statistics Annual
compliance and additional tax by Member States reported by
protection of tax assessments or following DAC Member States
bases revenue linked exchanges
to information
exchanged
EN 3 EN
under DAC
1.4. The proposal/initiative relates to:
¨ a new action
¨ a new action following a pilot project / preparatory action56
¨ the extension of an existing action
☒a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action
1.5. Grounds for the proposal/initiative
1.5.1. Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for
roll-out of the implementation of the initiative
The proposal should be implemented in three steps:
First, deletions of tables used for reporting of Country-by-Country reports and the tables used
for reporting top-up information return in Annex III and Annex VI respectively should come
into effect with the date of entry into force of the Directive, since it enables the MNEs to use
the existing form for reporting contained in implementing acts.
Secondly, measures aimed at simplification of reporting by business, namely those contained
in Article 8 and Annex IV, Article 9 and 12, Article 36, paragraph 4 and Annex V, section I,
point B.4 (d) require less adaptations and should be implemented by 1. 1. 2028, since they
concern reducing the reporting requirements and using the existing forms for reporting that
are contained in implementing acts.
Thirdly, measures that require more extensive adaptations of IT systems and are aimed at
improving the functioning of the administrative cooperation, such as the streamlining of
notifications in Article 15, the TIN verification tool in Article 36, and the changes in Article 4
should be implemented by 1. 1. 2030.
1.5.2. Added value of EU involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g.
coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For
the purposes of this section 'added value of EU involvement' is the value resulting
from EU action, that is additional to the value that would have been otherwise
created by Member States alone.
The proposal simplifies on one hand and improves the existing tools of administrative
cooperation between Member States. Such action is not possible on a Member State level,
since the framework of cooperation needs to be common to function in practice. Therefore,
EU action is essential.
56
As referred to in Article 58(2), point (a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.
EN 4 EN
1.5.3. Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past
The proposal consolidates and simplifies and improves existing mechanisms of administrative
cooperation between tax authorities. Changes build on extensive consultations with
stakeholders as well as the evaluation of the Directive that was concluded in 2024 which
showed that the Directive functions well, however some improvements are necessary.
Furthermore, in line with the Political Guidelines of the European Commission, existing
obligations have been reviewed and simplified when possible.
1.5.4. Compatibility with the multiannual financial framework and possible synergies
with other appropriate instruments
As the proposal is a recast of the existing Directive on administrative cooperation, the
procedures, arrangements and IT tools already established or under development of this
Directive will be available for the purposes of this proposal.
1.5.5. Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for
redeployment
Implementation costs for the initiative will be financed by the EU budget only as regards the
central components of the system of automatic exchange of information in Article 16 and TIN
verification tool in Article 36. Otherwise, it will be for Member States to implement the
measures envisaged.
EN 5 EN
1.6. Duration of the proposal/initiative and of its financial impact
☐¨ limited duration
– in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY
– financial impact from YYYY to YYYY for commitment appropriations and from
YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations.
☒unlimited duration
– Implementation with a start-up period from 2027,
– followed by full-scale operation 2030.
1.7. Method(s) of budget implementation planned
☒Direct management by the Commission
– by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;
– by the executive agencies
☐¨ Shared management with the Member States
☐¨ Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to:
– third countries or the bodies they have designated
– international organisations and their agencies (to be specified)
– the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund
– bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation
– public law bodies
– bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that they
are provided with adequate financial guarantees
– bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with the
implementation of a public-private partnership and that are provided with adequate
financial guarantees
– bodies or persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in the
common foreign and security policy pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European
Union, and identified in the relevant basic act
– bodies established in a Member State, governed by the private law of a Member State
or Union law and eligible to be entrusted, in accordance with sector-specific rules,
with the implementation of Union funds or budgetary guarantees, to the extent that
such bodies are controlled by public law bodies or by bodies governed by private law
with a public service mission, and are provided with adequate financial guarantees in
the form of joint and several liability by the controlling bodies or equivalent financial
guarantees and which may be, for each action, limited to the maximum amount of the
Union support.
Comments
EN 6 EN
This proposal builds on the existing framework and systems for the automatic exchange of
information which were developed pursuant to Article 21 of Directive 2011/16/EU and in the
context of previous amendments (Article 43 of the Proposal). The Commission, in
conjunction with Member States, shall develop a standardised electronic format for
information exchange through implementing measures. As regards the Secure Digital
Information Exchange (SDIE) which will permit the exchange of information between
Member States, the Commission is responsible for the development, maintenance and
adaptation of such a network and Member States will undertake to create the appropriate
domestic infrastructure that will enable the exchange of information via the SDIE network.
The Commission will develop a new tool for TIN verification, also building on experience
with existing tool in the field of VAT.
EN 7 EN
2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES
2.1. Monitoring and reporting rules
Specify frequency and conditions.
The Commission will evaluate the functioning of the intervention against the main policy
objectives. Monitoring and evaluation will be carried out in alignment with the other elements
of administrative cooperation.
Member States will submit data on an annual basis to the Commission for the information
outlined in the above table on indicators of performance which will be used to monitor
compliance with the proposal.
Member States undertake to:
- communicate to the Commission a yearly assessment of the effectiveness of the
automatic exchange of information provided for through this proposal;
- provide a list of statistical data which is determined by the Commission in
accordance with the procedure of Article 51(2) (implementing measures) for the
evaluation of this Directive;
- communicate to the Commission annually the results of their assessment the
effectiveness of administrative cooperation.
In Article 48 of the proposal, the Commission has undertaken to submit a report on the
application of the Directive every five years, which started counting following 1 January
2013.
2.2. Management and control system(s)
2.2.1. Justification of the budget implementation method(s), the funding
implementation mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy
proposed
The implementation of the initiative will rely on the competent authorities (tax
administrations) of the Member States. They will be responsible for financing their own
national systems and adaptations necessary for the exchanges to take place.
The Commission will set up the infrastructure, that will allow exchanges to be made between
Member States’ tax authorities. IT systems have been set up for the current scope of the DAC
which will also be used for this initiative. The Commission will finance the adaptations of the
systems needed to allow exchanges to take place, which will undergo the main elements of
control being that for procurement contracts, technical verification of the procurement, ex-
ante verification of commitments, and ex-ante verification of payments.
2.2.2. Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s)
set up to mitigate them
EN 8 EN
To ensure assessment of the overall compliance with the business reporting obligations
Member States will be required to report relevant statistics to the Commission on an annual
basis. Furthermore, national administrations will be in charge of enforcing penalties and more
generally of ensuring compliance with the proposed intervention. National tax administrations
will also be able to perform audits to detect and deter non-compliance.
The subsequent programme57 to the Fiscalis programme will support the internal control
system, by providing funds for the following:
- Joint Actions (e.g. in the form of project groups);
- The development of the technical specifications, including the XML schema.
The main elements of the control strategy are:
Procurement contracts
The control procedures for procurement defined in the Financial Regulation: any procurement
contract is established following the established procedure of verification by the services of
the Commission for payment, taking into account contractual obligations and sound financial
and general management. Anti-fraud measures (controls, reports, etc.) are foreseen in all
contracts concluded between the Commission and the beneficiaries. Detailed terms of
reference are drafted and form the basis of each specific contract. The acceptance process
follows strictly the TAXUD TEMPO methodology: deliverables are reviewed, amended if
necessary and finally explicitly accepted (or rejected). No invoice can be paid without an
"acceptance letter".
Technical verification of procurement
DG TAXUD performs controls of deliverables and supervises operations and services carried
out by contractors. It also conducts quality and security audits of their contractors on a regular
basis. Quality audits verify the compliance of the contractors' actual processes against the
rules and procedures defined in their quality plans. Security audits focus on the specific
processes, procedures and set-up.
In addition to the above controls, DG TAXUD performs the traditional financial controls:
Ex-ante verification of commitments
All commitments in DG TAXUD are verified by the Head of the Finances, public
procurement, compliance Unit. Consequently, 100% of the committed amounts are covered
by the ex-ante verification. This procedure gives a high level of assurance as to the legality
and regularity of transactions.
57
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Single Market
and Customs Programme for the period 2028-2034 and repealing Regulations (EU) 2021/444, (EU)
2021/690, (EU) 2021/785, (EU) 2021/847 and (EU) 2021/1077 2b258769-ecbc-4b4a-b3d5-
e99c28752c75_en.
EN 9 EN
Ex-ante verification of payments
100% of payments are verified ex-ante. Moreover, at least one payment (from all categories
of expenditures) per week is randomly selected for additional ex-ante verification performed
by the head of the Finances, public procurement and compliance Unit. There is no target
concerning the coverage, as the purpose of this verification is to check payments "randomly"
in order to verify that all payments were prepared in line with the requirements. The
remaining payments are processed according to the rules in force on a daily basis.
Declarations of the Authorising Officers by Sub-Delegations (AOSD)
All the AOSD sign declarations supporting the Annual Activity Report for the year
concerned. These declarations cover the operations under the programme. The AOSD declare
that the operations connected with the implementation of the budget have been executed in
accordance with the principles of the sound financial management, that the management and
control systems in place provided satisfactory assurance concerning the legality and regularity
of the transactions and that the risks associated to these operations have been properly
identified, reported and that mitigating actions have been implemented.
2.2.3. Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio
between the control costs and the value of the related funds managed), and
assessment of the expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure)
The controls established enable DG TAXUD to have sufficient assurance of the quality and
regularity of the expenditure and to reduce the risk of non-compliance. The above control
strategy measures reduce the potential risks below the target of 2% and reach all beneficiaries.
Any additional measures for further risk reduction would result in disproportionately high
costs and are therefore not envisaged. The overall costs linked to implementing the above
control strategy – for all expenditures under the new programme – are limited to 1.6% of the
total payments made. It is expected to remain at the same ratio for this initiative. The
programme control strategy limits the risk of non-compliance to virtually zero and remains
proportionate to the risks entailed.
2.3. Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities
The European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) may carry out investigations, including on-the-spot
checks and inspections, in accordance with the provisions and procedures laid down in
Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council58 and Council
Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/9659 with a view to establishing whether there has been
fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union in
58
Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999
concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136 p. 1,
31.5.1999.
59
Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks
and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial
interests against fraud and other irregularities, OJ L 292 p. 2, 15.11.96.
EN 10 EN
connection with a grant agreement or grant decision or a contract funded under this
Regulation.
EN 11 EN
3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE
PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE
The estimated impact on expenditure and staffing for 2028 and beyond is added for
illustrative purposes only and does not pre-judge the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
The source of financing and scope of Union financial commitment in the post-2027 period
remain subject to the outcome of interinstitutional negotiations on the MFF 2028-2034 and
thereafter shall be determined through the annual budgetary procedure. All appropriations and
staffing allocations as of 2028 are indicative.
3.1. Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure
budget line(s) affected
• Existing budget lines
In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.
Type of
Budget line expendit Contribution
Heading ure
of from
multiann candidat
ual From
from e
financial Number other other
Diff./No EFTA countrie
framewo third assigned
n-diff.60 countri s and
rk countri revenue
es61 potential
es
candidat
es62
05.0305 – Single Market and Customs
1 Diff. NO NO NO NO
Programme
60
Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations.
61
EFTA: European Free Trade Association.
62
Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans.
EN 12 EN
3.2. Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations
3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations
– The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations
– ☒ The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below
3.2.1.1. Appropriations from voted budget
EUR million (to three decimal places)
Heading of multiannual financial framework 1 Single Market
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
DG: TAXUD TOTAL MFF 2028-2034
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Operational appropriations
Commitments (1a) 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
Budget line 05.0305
Payments (2a) 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
Appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelope of specific programmes63
Budget line (3) 0
63
Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research.
EN 13 EN
3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
TOTAL appropriations Commitments =1a+1b+3
for DG TAXUD Payments =2a+2b+3 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL
MFF
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2028-
2034
• TOTAL Commitments (4) 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
operational
appropriations (all 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
operational Payments (5)
headings)
• TOTAL appropriations of an
administrative nature financed
from the envelope for specific (6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
programmes (all operational
headings)
TOTAL 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
appropriations
Commitments =4+6
Under
Heading 1 to 3
EN 14 EN
of the multiannual 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
financial
framework Payments =5+6
(Reference
amount)
Heading of multiannual financial framework 4 ‘Administrative expenditure’
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL
MFF
DG: TAXUD
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2028-
2034
Ÿ Human resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ÿ Other administrative expenditure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL DG
Appropriations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<…….>
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL
MFF
DG: <…….>
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2028-
2034
EN 15 EN
Ÿ Human resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ÿ Other administrative expenditure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL DG
Appropriations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<…….>
(Total
TOTAL appropriations under
commitments
HEADING 4 of the multiannual financial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
= Total
framework
payments)
EUR million (to three decimal places)
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL
MFF 2028-
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2034
TOTAL 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
appropriations
Commitments
under HEADINGS 1
to 4
of the multiannual 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
Payments
financial framework
3.2.2. Estimated output funded from operational appropriations
Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places)
EN 16 EN
Indicate Year Year Year Year
Year 2032 Year 2033 Year 2034 TOTAL
objectives 2028 2029 2030 2031
and OUTPUTS
outputs
Type Aver
64 Cos Cos Tota Total
age Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
t t l No cost
ò cost
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE
65
…
Specificatio 1,5 0,3 1,8
ns
Developme 1,8 2,3 2,2 6,3
nt
Maintenanc 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,8
eSupport 0,1 0,1 0,9 0,5 0,2 0,2 2,1
Training 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,1 0,1 2,1
ITSM – 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,1 1,2
Infrastructur
Subtotal for specific 3,4 3,3 3,3 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
eobjective No 1
TOTALS 3,4 3,3 3,3 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
64
Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g. number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.).
65
As described in Section 1.3.2. ‘Specific objective(s)’
EN 17 EN
3.2.3. Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations
– ☒ The proposal/initiative does not require the use of appropriations of an administrative nature
– The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative nature, as explained below
3.2.3.1. Appropriations from voted budget
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL
VOTED APPROPRIATIONS 2028 -
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2034
HEADING 4
Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Other administrative expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Subtotal HEADING 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Outside HEADING 4
Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Other expenditure of an administrative nature 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Subtotal outside HEADING 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
TOTAL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
3.2.4. Estimated requirements of human resources
EN 0 EN
– ☒ The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources
– The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained below
3.2.4.1. Financed from voted budget
Estimate to be expressed in full-time equivalent units (FTEs)66
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
VOTED APPROPRIATIONS
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Ÿ Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff)
20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commission’s Representation Offices)
20 01 02 03 (EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Indirect research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(Direct research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other budget lines (specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• External staff (inFTEs)
66
Please specify below the table how many FTEs within the number indicated are already assigned to the management of the action and/or can be redeployed within your DG
and what are your net needs.
EN 1 EN
20 02 01 (AC, END from the ‘global
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
envelope’)
20 02 03 (AC, AL, END and JPD in the
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EU Delegations)
• at
Admin. Support line Headqua 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rters
• in EU
[XX.01.YY.YY] Delegati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ons
(AC, END - Indirect research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(AC, END - Direct research) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other budget lines (specify) - Heading 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other budget lines (specify) - Outside
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heading 4
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Considering the overall strained situation in Heading 4, in terms of both staffing and the level of appropriations, the human resources required will be
met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to the management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG or other Commission
services.
The Estimated impact on expenditure and staffing for 2028 and beyond is added for illustrative purposes only and does not pre-judge the next
Multiannual Financial Framework. The source of financing and scope of Union financial commitment in the post-2027 period remain subject to the
EN 2 EN
outcome of interinstitutional negotiations on the MFF 2028-2034 and thereafter shall be determined through the annual budgetary procedure. All
appropriations and staffing allocations as of 2028 are indicative.
The staff required to implement the proposal (in FTEs):
To be covered Exceptional additional staff*
by current staff
available in the
Commission
services
To be financed To be financed To be financed
under Heading from BA line from fees
4 or Research
Establishment 3 N/A
plan posts
External staff 3
(CA, SNEs,
INT)
3.2.5. Overview of estimated impact on digital technology-related investments
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year TOTAL
TOTAL Digital and
MFF 2028 -
IT appropriations
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2034
HEADING 4
EN 3 EN
IT expenditure
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(corporate)
Subtotal HEADING
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4
Outside HEADING 4
Policy IT expenditure
on operational 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
programmes
Subtotal outside
3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
HEADING 4
TOTAL 3,4 3,3 3,2 1,9 1,5 0,5 0,5 14,3
3.2.6. Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework
The proposal/initiative:
– ☒ can be fully financed through redeployment within the relevant heading of the multiannual financial framework (MFF)
This proposal will be financed by the new Single Market and Customs Program to be included in the MFF 2028-2034.
The estimated impact on expenditure and staffing for 2028 and beyond is added for illustrative purposes only and does not pre-judge the next
Multiannual Financial Framework. The source of financing and scope of Union financial commitment in the post-2027 period remain subject to the
EN 4 EN
outcome of interinstitutional negotiations on the MFF 2028-2034 and thereafter shall be determined through the annual budgetary procedure. All
appropriations and staffing allocations as of 2028 are indicative.
– requires use of the unallocated margin under the relevant heading of the MFF and/or use of the special instruments as defined in the
MFF Regulation
– requires a revision of the MFF
3.2.7. Third-party contributions
The proposal/initiative:
– ☒ does not provide for co-financing by third parties
– provides for the co-financing by third parties estimated below:
Appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places)
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
Total
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Specify the co-
financing body
TOTAL
appropriations co-
financed
3.3. Estimated impact on revenue
– ☒ The proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.
EN 5 EN
– ¨ The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:
– ¨ on own resources
– ¨ on other revenue
– ¨ please indicate, if the revenue is assigned to expenditure lines
EUR million (to three decimal places)
Appropriations Impact of the proposal/initiative67
available for the
Budget revenue line: Year 2032 Year 2033 Year 2034
current financial Year 2028 Year 2029 Year 2030 Year 2031
year
Article ………….
For assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.
Other remarks (e.g. method/formula used for calculating the impact on revenue or any other information).
67
In the case of traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 10 % for collection
costs, as proposed in COM(2025)574.
EN 6 EN
4. Digital dimensions
4.1. Requirements of digital relevance
Actor affected or
Reference to the High-level
Requirement description concerned by the Category
requirement Processes
requirement
Member States
competent
Data
authorities for
Administrative cooperation must rely exchange of Establish a
Digital solutions
Recital (4) on secure and up-to-date digital information Digital Public
communication systems. Service Exchange of
information
Member States
Adopt the necessary practical competent
arrangements to facilitate the Data
authorities for
communication of information related exchange of Establish a
Digital solutions
Art. 4 to categories of income and capital. information Digital Public
Service Exchange of
Provide a standard computerised format information
to exchange information.
Adopt the necessary practical Member States
Art. 5 Establish a Data
arrangements to facilitate the competent
Digital Public
communication of information in line authorities for
EN 7 EN
with OECD CRS. exchange of Service Digital solutions
information
Provide a standard computerised format Exchange of
to exchange information. information
Adopt the necessary practical Member States
arrangements to facilitate the competent
Data
communication of information on authorities for
exchange of Establish a
advance cross-border rulings and Digital solutions
Art. 6 information Digital Public
advance pricing arrangements. Service Exchange of
Provide a standard computerised format information
to exchange information.
Member States
Adopt the necessary practical competent
arrangements to facilitate the Data
authorities for
communication of information on the exchange of Establish a
Digital solutions
Art. 7 country-by-country reports. information Digital Public
Service Exchange of
Provide a standard computerised format information
to exchange information.
Adopt the necessary practical Member States
arrangements to facilitate the competent Establish a Data
Art. 8 communication of information on authorities for Digital Public Digital solutions
reportable cross-border arrangements. exchange of Service
information Exchange of
Provide a standard computerised format
EN 8 EN
to exchange information. information
Member States
Adopt the necessary practical competent
arrangements to facilitate the Data
authorities for
communication of information reported exchange of Establish a
Digital solutions
Art. 9 by platform operators. information Digital Public
Service Exchange of
Provide a standard computerised format information
to exchange information.
Member States
competent
Data
Adopt the necessary practical authorities for
exchange of Establish a
arrangements for the registration and Digital solutions
Art. 10 information Digital Public
identification of Reporting Platform
Service Exchange of
Operators.
information
Adopt the necessary practical Data
Member States
arrangements to facilitate the
competent Establish a
communication of information reported Digital solutions
Art. 12 authorities for Digital Public
by Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
exchange of Service Exchange of
Providers.
information information
Provide a standard computerised format
EN 9 EN
to exchange information.
Adopt the necessary practical
arrangements to facilitate the Member States
communication of information reported competent
by Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Data
authorities for
Providers. Establish a register to allow exchange of Establish a
Digital solutions
Art. 13 Crypto-asset operators that do not fall information Digital Public
under the scope of Regulation (EU) Service Exchange of
2023/1114 (MiCA Directive) to register information
in one single Member State for the
purpose of complying with their
reporting obligations.
Adopt the necessary practical Member States
arrangements to facilitate the competent
communication of information with Data
authorities for
respect to Top-up tax information exchange of Establish a
Digital solutions
Art. 15 returns under Art. 44 of Directive (EU) information Digital Public
2022/2523. Service Exchange of
information
Provide a standard computerised format
to exchange information.
EN 10 EN
Adopt the necessary practical
arrangements to facilitate the
communication of information with Member States
respect to notifications of Country-by- competent Data
Country reporting and the top-up tax authorities for Establish a
Digital solutions
Art. 16 information return and exchange of exchange of Digital Public
information under Art. 44 of Directive information Service Exchange of
(EU) 2022/2523. information
Provide a standard computerised format
to exchange information.
Member States
Adopt the necessary practical competent Data
arrangements to facilitate the digital and authorities for Establish a
Digital solutions
Art. 36 automated verification of the validity of exchange of Digital Public
a TIN provided by a reporting entity or information Service Exchange of
a taxpayer information
4.2. Data
Type of data Reference(s) to the requirement Standard and/or specification (if applicable)
EN 11 EN
Tax information on income from employment, Art. 4 Specifications of the data as per the paragraph 4(1)
director’s fees, pensions, income and ownership of of the article. XML format is used as common
immovable property, royalties and non-custodial exchange standard.
dividends.
Tax information from financial data reported by Art. 5 Specifications of the data as per the paragraph 5(1)
Financial Institutions of each Member State. of the article. The common standardised format set
out in Annex I and Annex II of the Recast Directive.
XML format is used as common exchange standard.
Tax information on advance cross-border rulings Art. 6 Specifications of the data as per the paragraph 6(5)
and advance pricing arrangements. of the article. XML format is used as common
exchange standard.
Tax information on country-by-country reports. Art. 7 Specifications of the data as per the paragraph 7(3)
and the standard defined in Article 51(2). XML
format is used as common exchange standard.
Tax information on reportable cross-border Art. 8 Specifications of the data as per the paragraphs 8(3),
arrangements 8(7), 8(10), 8(13), of the article and Annex IV for
details of hallmarks that make the cross-border
arrangement reportable. XML format is used as
common exchange standard.
Tax information reported by platform operators Art. 9 Specifications of the data as per paragraph 2 of Art.
9. XML format is used as common exchange
standard.
Tax information pertaining to the registration of Art. 10 Specifications of the data as per Art. 10. XML
EN 12 EN
Reporting Platform Operators format is used as common exchange standard.
Tax information on Crypto-asset transactions Art. 12(3) and Annex VI, Section I The common standardised format set out in Annex
Reporting Requirements VI, section II of the Recast Directive, REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS. XML format is used as common
exchange standard.
Tax information with respect to top-up tax Art. 15 Specifications of the data as per Art. 15. XML
information returns under article 44 of Directive format is used as common exchange standard.
(EU) 2022/2523
Tax information with respect to notifications of Art. 16 of the Recast Directive. Specifications of the data as per the standard defined
Country-by-Country reporting and the central filing in Article 51(2). XML format is used as common
of the top-up tax information return and the exchange standard.
exchange of information.
Tax information with respect to the verification of Art. 36 of the Recast Directive. Specifications of the data as per the standard defined
the validity of a TIN. in Article 51(2). XML format is used as common
exchange standard.
Alignment with the European Data Strategy
Art. 4 - Mandatory Automatic Exchange of Information on Income from Employment, Director’s Fees, Pensions, Income and Ownership of
Immovable Property, Royalties and Non-Custodial Dividends
AEOI (Automatic Exchange of Information), is a system where tax authorities in different jurisdictions of EU regularly and automatically
share financial and taxpayer information with each other to improve transparency and combat tax evasion.
Directive Section I (aka DAC1):
EN 13 EN
➢ Automatic exchange of tax information
➢ Cross-border tax transparency
➢ Regular and structured reporting
➢ Improved tax compliance and fraud detection
➢ Cooperation between tax authorities
The DAC1 Taxation Information System supports the European Data Strategy by:
• Enabling cross-border data flows (core objective).
• Promoting data availability in the public sector
• Strengthening government-to-government (G2G) data sharing
• Supporting fair and efficient data-driven economies
• Contributing to EU data interoperability
• Building trust in data sharing systems
• Supporting timely and reusable data flows
• Advancing European data sovereignty
Art. 5 - Mandatory Automatic Exchange of Financial Information
Automatic exchange of financial account information between EU tax authorities, based on the OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS), a
EN 14 EN
global standard developed to combat tax evasion and increase transparency in the international financial system.
Directive Section II (aka DAC2):
➢ Requires financial institutions to report account information of non-resident account holders to their national tax authority.
➢ Covers key financial data, including account balances, interest, dividends, and proceeds from financial assets.
➢ Enables identification of taxpayers holding offshore financial accounts, improving cross-border tax transparency and compliance.
➢ Standardises reporting and due diligence rules across the EU, ensuring consistent collection and exchange of financial data among
Member States.
The DAC2 Taxation Information System supports the European Data Strategy by:
• Enabling large-scale cross-border data sharing in the financial sector
• Strengthening the EU single market for data (public-sector use case)
• Improving data availability and quality for public authorities
• Building trust and governance frameworks for sensitive data exchange
• Advancing interoperability and standardisation in EU data systems
Art. 6 - Mandatory Automatic Exchange of Information on Advance Cross-Border Rulings and Advance Pricing Arrangements.
Requires Member States to automatically exchange information on cross-border tax rulings and advance pricing agreements so that tax
authorities can assess potential tax risks and ensure fair corporate taxation across the EU.
EN 15 EN
Directive Section III (aka DAC3):
➢ Introduces automatic exchange of information on cross-border tax rulings and advance pricing agreements (APAs) between EU
Member States.
➢ Requires tax authorities to share summaries of rulings issued to multinational companies, especially those with cross-border effects.
➢ Ensures other Member States are informed when a tax ruling may affect their tax base, improving transparency in corporate taxation.
➢ Creates a central EU repository for tax rulings information, accessible to all Member States for risk assessment and compliance checks.
➢ Strengthens cooperation and reduces harmful tax practices by limiting secrecy around preferential tax rulings.
The DAC3 Taxation Information System supports the European Data Strategy by:
• Enabling structured cross-border data sharing between tax authorities
• Improving availability of high-value public-sector data
• Strengthening trust and governance in sensitive data exchange
• Supporting EU-wide data harmonisation and consistency
• Enhancing data-driven enforcement and policy-making
• Contributing to the emerging EU “data space” logic in public administration
Art. 7 - Mandatory Automatic Exchange of the Country-By-Country Reports.
Requires multinational enterprises to file a country-by-country report of their revenues, profits, taxes paid, and economic activity, which is
EN 16 EN
shared between tax authorities to improve transparency and assess tax avoidance risks.
Directive Section IV (aka DAC4):
➢ Introduces Country-by-Country Reporting for multinational enterprises with consolidated group revenues.
➢ Mandates automatic exchange of reports between EU tax authorities, based on the jurisdiction where the ultimate parent entity is
located or where subsidiaries operate.
➢ Enhances tax transparency and risk assessment by enabling authorities to identify profit shifting and base erosion risks.
➢ Supports coordinated EU action against tax avoidance by improving comparability of multinational corporate structures and economic
activity across Member States.
The DAC4 Taxation Information System supports the European Data Strategy by:
• Creating structured, high-value cross-border datasets for public authorities
• Enabling trusted government-to-government data sharing
• Improving data-driven enforcement and policy-making
• Promoting harmonisation and interoperability of financial reporting data
• Supporting the EU goal of a trusted data ecosystem for economic governance
Art. 8 - Mandatory Automatic Exchange of Information on Reportable Cross-Border Arrangements.
Requires intermediaries (or taxpayers in certain cases) to report cross-border tax arrangements with specific “hallmarks” of potential tax
avoidance, which are then automatically shared between EU tax authorities to increase transparency and deter aggressive tax planning.
EN 17 EN
Directive Section V (aka DAC6):
➢ Introduces mandatory reporting of certain cross-border tax arrangements that display defined “hallmarks” linked to tax avoidance or
aggressive tax planning.
➢ Places primary reporting obligation on intermediaries and in some cases on taxpayers themselves.
➢ Requires reporting to national tax authorities within strict deadlines
➢ Mandates automatic exchange of reported information between EU Member States, enabling cross-border visibility of potentially
aggressive tax schemes.
➢ Aims to increase transparency and deter tax avoidance practices by giving tax authorities early insight into potentially abusive tax
arrangements.
The DAC6 Taxation Information System supports the European Data Strategy by:
• Enabling structured cross-border exchange of high-value regulatory data
• Strengthening trusted data flows between public authorities
• Improving availability of timely, actionable data for enforcement
• Promoting standardisation and structured reporting
• Supporting EU-wide data-driven governance and coordination
• Reinforcing the EU model of controlled data sharing for public interest
Dir Art. 9, 10, 11 - Mandatory Automatic Exchange of Information reported by Platform Operators.
EN 18 EN
Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to require Reporting Platform Operators to carry out the due diligence procedures and
fulfil reporting requirements on Reportable Sellers.
Directive Section VI (aka DAC7):
➢ Requires a set of information on the Reportable Seller to which the Consideration is paid or credited, available to the Reporting
Platform Operator, to be exchanged with the competent authority of the Member State where the Reportable Seller is resident.
➢ Introduces reporting where the Reportable Seller provides immovable property rental services, in any case to the competent authority of
the Member State in which the immovable property is located.
➢ Imposes the registration within EU of Reporting Platform Operators, to whom an individual identification number is allocated.
➢ Sets the framework in case a Member State has concluded a competent authority agreement with a non-Union jurisdiction that requires
the automatic exchange of information on sellers deriving income from activities facilitated by Platforms.
➢ Aims to increase transparency and deter tax avoidance practices.
The DAC7 Taxation Information System supports the European Data Strategy by:
• Enabling structured cross-border exchange of high-value regulatory data
• Strengthening trusted data flows between public authorities
• Improving availability of timely, actionable data for enforcement
• Promoting standardisation and structured reporting
• Supporting EU-wide data-driven governance and coordination
• Reinforcing the EU model of controlled data sharing for public interest
EN 19 EN
Dir Art. 12 - Mandatory Automatic Exchange of Information reported by Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers
The Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI), a global standard developed to combat tax evasion and increase transparency in the
international financial system, is being implemented across the EU using the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), introduced by
OECD, to report on Crypto-asset transactions in the framework of Recast Directive.
Directive Section VII (aka DAC8):
➢ Brings digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies and e-money, under the tax information exchange framework.
➢ Requires standardized digital data reporting (XML/XSD)
➢ Imposes new reporting obligations on digital platform operators, exchanges, and wallet providers regarding transactions in crypto-
assets.
The DAC8 Taxation Information System supports the European Data Strategy by:
• Enhancing data quality and granularity for greater tax transparency with regard to crypto-assets and their reporting
• Implementing machine-readable, standardized formats across jurisdictions
• Enabling data reuse for policy, regulation, and economic forecasting (a key FAIR principle)
• Supporting Cross-border Data Sharing and data availability that enables access to high-quality public and private sector data across
member states
• Assuring data interoperability, reusability and use of common standards
• Promoting data Sovereignty & governance
EN 20 EN
• Ensuring Trust, Transparency, Security, Fairness, Ethics and GDPR Compliance
Dir Art. 15 - Exchange of Information with respect to Top-up Tax Information Returns under Article 44 of Directive (EU) 2022/2523.
Mandates each Member State to take the necessary measures to require the filing constituent entity of an MNE group to use a standard form to
fulfil the filing obligations under Article 44 of Directive (EU) 2022/2523, with the aim of assuring a minimum tax rate for MNE groups across
EU.
Recast Directive Section VIII (aka DAC9):
➢ Introduces mandatory reporting of top-up tax information returns among Member States.
➢ Sets specific reporting obligations for the MNE group entities and Member State competent tax authorities.
➢ Requires reporting to national tax authorities within strict deadlines.
➢ Mandates automatic exchange of reported information between EU Member States, enabling cross-border visibility of Top-up tax
information returns.
➢ Aims at assuring a global minimum tax rate for MNE groups is applied across EU.
The DAC9 Taxation Information System supports the European Data Strategy by:
• Enabling structured cross-border exchange of high-value regulatory data
• Strengthening trusted data flows between public authorities
• Improving availability of timely, actionable data for enforcement
• Promoting standardisation and structured reporting
EN 21 EN
• Supporting EU-wide data-driven governance and coordination
• Reinforcing the EU model of controlled data sharing for public interest
Art. 16 - Notifications for the purpose of Country-by-Country reporting and the central filing of the top-up tax information return and exchange
of information.
Mandates each Member State to take the necessary measures to allow the reporting entity under Article 7 or the filing constituent entity of an
MNE Group that is filing reports under Article 15 to file a single notification.
Section VIII (aka DAC9):
➢ Introduces mandatory reporting of top-up tax information returns among Member States.
➢ Sets specific reporting obligations for the MNE group entities and Member State competent tax authorities.
➢ Requires reporting to national tax authorities within strict deadlines.
➢ Mandates automatic exchange of reported information between EU Member States, enabling cross-border visibility of Top-up tax
information returns.
➢ Aims at assuring a global minimum tax rate for MNE groups is applied across EU.
This digital approach on communication between different Taxation Information Systems supports the European Data Strategy by:
• Enabling structured cross-border exchange of high-value regulatory data
• Strengthening trusted data flows between public authorities
• Improving availability of timely, actionable data for enforcement
• Promoting standardisation and structured reporting
EN 22 EN
• Supporting EU-wide data-driven governance and coordination
• Reinforcing the EU model of controlled data sharing for public interest
Art. 36 - TIN verification tool
Provides Member States with a tool, developed by the European Commission, that allows a digital and automated verification of the validity of
a TIN provided by a reporting entity or a taxpayer.
ToW (TIN-on-the-Web):
➢ Allows to verify whether a Tax Identification Number (TIN) matches the official national format of a Member State.
➢ Performs a validation of the structure and syntax of the TIN, helping determine whether the number appears formally correct.
➢ Supports tax administrations and reporting entities in reducing errors in cross-border tax reporting and automatic exchange of
information procedures under DAC frameworks.
➢ Improves interoperability and data quality by applying harmonised validation rules for TIN formats across EU Member States.
➢ Does not normally confirm the identity of the taxpayer or whether the TIN belongs to a specific person; it mainly validates the
correctness of the TIN format and structure.
This ToW system supports the European Data Strategy by:
• Supporting interoperability of tax data across Member States through standardized Tax Identification Number (TIN) validation.
• Enhancing data quality and reliability by reducing errors in taxpayer identification during cross-border exchanges.
• Enabling reuse of existing taxpayer identification data in line with the once-only principle.
EN 23 EN
• Facilitating automated and machine-readable verification of taxpayer identifiers within EU tax information systems.
• Strengthening trusted public-sector data sharing by improving consistency and traceability of exchanged tax records.
• Contributing to harmonised digital taxation services and high-quality reusable datasets within the EU data ecosystem.
Alignment with the once-only principle
In the context of the Directive, information is collected at national level following the once-only principle and is reused through data
exchanges among the EU Member States.
Explain how newly created data is findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable, and meets high-quality standards
Art. 4 - MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON INCOME FROM EMPLOYMENT, DIRECTOR’S FEES,
PENSIONS, INCOME AND OWNERSHIP OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, ROYALTIES AND NON-CUSTODIAL DIVIDENDS
DAC1 is a Taxation Information System which functions as a Trans-European System with a system-to-system data exchange between
Member States’ tax databases. There is no central EU database, but the system’s approach is a push-based automatic data transmission, where
source systems periodically export predefined taxpayer datasets.
In DAC1, the data model is category-driven, covering structured fields (such as employment income, director’s fees, pensions, immovable
property income, royalties and non-custodial dividends). Each national TIS acts as both a data provider and data consumer node in a
distributed network architecture.
DAC1 meets the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while maintaining high-quality standards.
Findable
• DAC1 data is structured into predefined categories (e.g., employment income, pensions, property income), making it systematically
EN 24 EN
indexable by tax authorities.
• Use of taxpayer identifiers (such as TIN where available) enables reliable matching of records across Member States.
• Data is transmitted through established administrative cooperation channels, ensuring it can be located within national and EU-level tax
systems.
Accessible
• Information is exchanged directly between competent tax authorities via secure, regulated communication systems.
• Access is restricted to authorised public bodies, ensuring controlled but reliable retrieval of data.
• The legal framework guarantees continuous availability of data once it has been reported by the source Member State.
Interoperable
• DAC1 defines common categories of income and standardized reporting obligations across Member States.
• Although full technical harmonisation is limited, shared legal definitions ensure semantic interoperability of tax data.
• Use of common identifiers (e.g., TIN where applicable) supports cross-border matching of taxpayer records.
Reusable
• Data is exchanged for multiple lawful tax purposes, including compliance checks, audits, and risk analysis.
• Once collected, it can be reused by receiving tax authorities without re-collection from the taxpayer (supporting the once-only
principle).
• Harmonised categories enable secondary analytical uses, such as tax gap analysis and policy evaluation.
EN 25 EN
High-quality standards
• DAC1 imposes obligations for completeness, regularity (at least annual exchange), and timeliness of data submission.
• Information is sourced from verified administrative records, enhancing reliability.
• Legal accountability of competent authorities ensures accuracy and consistency of reported data across Member States.
Art. 5 - Mandatory automatic exchange of financial information.
DAC2 can be described as a standardised, high-volume financial data ingestion and exchange module integrated into national tax
administration systems for automatic cross-border reporting under the OECD CRS framework.
DAC2 operates as a data pipeline between financial institutions, national tax authorities, and foreign tax administrations. It requires financial
institutions to perform data extraction from core banking systems (accounts, balances, income flows) and submit structured reports to domestic
tax authorities. National tax systems act as aggregation and validation hubs, performing data quality checks before transmission. Data is
exchanged using standardised schemas aligned with the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) to ensure semantic and structural interoperability.
DAC2 meets the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while maintaining high-quality standards.
Findable
• DAC2 data is structured using standardized OECD CRS schemas, enabling consistent indexing of financial account information across
jurisdictions.
• Taxpayer identification data (e.g., TIN, name, date of birth) enables precise matching and retrieval across Member States’ systems.
• Data is transmitted through designated tax authority channels, ensuring it is systematically recorded and traceable within national tax
information systems.
EN 26 EN
Accessible
• Data is exchanged securely between competent tax authorities via established administrative cooperation networks.
• Access is strictly limited to authorised public bodies under legal gateways, ensuring controlled but reliable availability.
• Once submitted by financial institutions and validated by tax authorities, data becomes accessible for multiple tax administration
functions without re-collection.
Interoperable
• DAC2 is based on the OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS), providing a globally harmonised data model and syntax.
• Standardised fields (account balances, interest, dividends, account holders) ensure semantic and structural interoperability across
systems.
• Use of common identifiers and validation rules enables cross-system matching and integration into national tax platforms.
Reusable
• Data is reused by tax authorities for compliance monitoring, risk analysis, audit selection, and enforcement activities.
• Once collected, it supports multiple secondary uses without requiring additional taxpayer reporting, aligning with the once-only
principle.
• Harmonised structure allows integration into analytical models and cross-border tax intelligence systems.
High-quality standards
• Data is subject to multi-layer validation: at financial institution level, national tax authority level, and receiving authority checks.
EN 27 EN
• DAC2 imposes strict reporting obligations, ensuring completeness, timeliness, and consistency of financial data.
• Standardised CRS formats reduce errors and improve comparability and reliability of datasets across jurisdictions.
Art. 6 - MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON ADVANCE CROSS-BORDER RULINGS AND ADVANCE
PRICING ARRANGEMENTS.
DAC3 is a structured legal–technical interface for exchanging rulings metadata between national tax administration systems and an EU-wide
coordination repository. It operates as a regulatory data-sharing module embedded in national tax administration systems, focused on tax
rulings and advance pricing agreements (APAs). DAC3 requires tax authorities to extract structured metadata from internal ruling systems (not
full documents in all cases) for cross-border-relevant rulings. Each Member State’s TIS acts as a data publisher node, transmitting ruling
summaries to other Member States’ tax systems via secure channels.
DAC3 meets the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while maintaining high-quality standards.
Findable
• DAC3 uses a standardised metadata schema for tax rulings and advance pricing agreements, enabling consistent indexing across
Member States.
• Each ruling is linked to identifiable entities (taxpayer, jurisdiction, ruling type), making it searchable within national systems and the
EU-level repository.
• The central EU repository acts as an indexing layer, allowing Member States to locate relevant cross-border rulings efficiently.
Accessible
• Ruling information is exchanged between competent tax authorities via secure administrative cooperation channels.
EN 28 EN
• Access is restricted to authorised public authorities, ensuring controlled but reliable retrieval of sensitive tax information.
• Once reported, rulings become accessible to other Member States without requiring additional requests to taxpayers or issuing
authorities
Interoperable
• DAC3 applies a harmonised reporting format for tax rulings and APAs, ensuring semantic consistency across jurisdictions.
• Standardised metadata fields enable integration across different national tax administration systems.
• The system supports cross-border linking of rulings to multinational entities, improving system-to-system compatibility.
Reusable
• Data is reused by tax authorities for risk assessment, transfer pricing analysis, and audit selection.
• Once collected, ruling information supports multiple downstream uses without re-collection from taxpayers (supporting the once-only
principle).
• Harmonised structure allows integration into broader tax intelligence and compliance analytics systems.
High-quality standards
• DAC3 requires structured and timely reporting of rulings, ensuring completeness and consistency of submitted data.
• Metadata standardisation reduces ambiguity and improves comparability across Member States.
• Centralised aggregation and cross-checking enhance data reliability and help detect inconsistencies or gaps in reporting.
EN 29 EN
Art. 7 - MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF THE COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY REPORTS.
DAC4 is a standardised distributed reporting and exchange module for country-by-country corporate tax data integrated into national tax
administration systems and coordinated through an EU-wide interconnection layer. It operates as a data collection interface within national TIS
environments, requiring multinational enterprises to submit structured Country-by-Country Reports. Data is generated from corporate
consolidation and accounting systems, then transformed into a standard reporting format. National tax administrations act as data ingestion,
validation, and forwarding nodes within a distributed exchange network.
DAC4 meets the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while maintaining high-quality standards.
Findable
• DAC4 data is structured using a standardised Country-by-Country Reporting template, enabling consistent indexing across Member
States.
• Each report is linked to identifiable multinational enterprise groups and tax jurisdictions, allowing precise retrieval in tax
administration systems.
• National systems and the EU exchange framework enable systematic cataloguing of Country-by-Country Reporting datasets for cross-
border identification.
Accessible
• Data is exchanged between competent tax authorities through secure, regulated administrative cooperation channels.
• Access is restricted to authorised public bodies, ensuring controlled availability of sensitive corporate information.
• Once submitted and validated, data becomes accessible to multiple Member States without requiring additional reporting from the
taxpayer.
EN 30 EN
Interoperable
• DAC4 uses a harmonised reporting schema aligned with OECD Country-by-Country Reporting standards, ensuring structural and
semantic consistency.
• Standardised fields (revenues, profits, taxes, employees, assets) allow integration across different national tax systems.
• The common format enables cross-border comparability and integration into EU-level tax intelligence systems.
Reusable
• Data is reused for tax risk assessment, transfer pricing analysis, and base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) monitoring.
• Once collected, it supports multiple analytical and compliance purposes without re-collection, aligning with the once-only principle.
• Harmonised structure enables integration into broader statistical, enforcement, and policy evaluation systems.
High-quality standards
• DAC4 imposes mandatory, standardised reporting obligations for large multinational groups, ensuring completeness and comparability.
• Data is subject to validation by national tax authorities before exchange, improving accuracy and reliability.
• The structured OECD-aligned format reduces inconsistencies and ensures high data integrity across jurisdictions.
Art. 8 - MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON REPORTABLE CROSS-BORDER ARRANGEMENTS.
DAC6 is an event-driven compliance reporting module integrated into national tax administration systems, enabling the capture, structuring,
and cross-border exchange of tax arrangement metadata identified through intermediary disclosure obligations. It functions as a regulatory
“early-warning” data capture layer within national TIS architectures, focused on reportable cross-border arrangements. Data is generated
EN 31 EN
externally by intermediaries (e.g. tax advisors, lawyers, financial institutions) or taxpayers, then submitted into tax administration systems.
National tax authorities act as validation and routing nodes, ensuring completeness and compliance before onward transmission.
DAC6 meets the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while maintaining high-quality standards.
Findable
• DAC6 uses a standardised reporting template based on predefined “hallmarks”, enabling consistent classification and indexing of
reportable arrangements.
• Each disclosure is linked to identifiable entities (intermediaries, taxpayers, jurisdictions), enabling structured retrieval within national
tax systems.
• The reporting framework allows tax authorities to catalogue arrangements in searchable databases and EU-level exchanges.
Accessible
• Data is submitted to and exchanged between competent tax authorities through secure, legally governed administrative cooperation
channels.
• Access is restricted to authorised public authorities, ensuring controlled availability of sensitive compliance information.
• Once reported, information becomes accessible across Member States without requiring additional disclosure from taxpayers or
intermediaries.
Interoperable
• DAC6 applies a harmonised reporting schema and common “hallmark” taxonomy, ensuring semantic consistency across Member
States.
• Standardised data fields allow integration into different national tax administration systems.
EN 32 EN
• The uniform structure supports cross-border comparability and enables linkage with other DAC datasets (e.g. DAC3 rulings, DAC4
CbCR).
Reusable
• Data is reused for risk assessment, audit selection, and detection of aggressive tax planning schemes.
• Once collected, it supports multiple analytical and enforcement purposes without re-collection from taxpayers (supporting the once-
only principle).
• Structured reporting enables integration into broader tax intelligence and compliance analytics systems.
High-quality standards
• DAC6 imposes strict reporting deadlines (typically 30 days) and mandatory disclosure obligations, ensuring timeliness.
• The use of predefined hallmarks improves consistency and reduces ambiguity in reporting.
• Multi-layer validation by tax authorities enhances completeness, accuracy, and reliability of submitted data.
Art. 9 - MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION REPORTED BY PLATFORM OPERATORS.
DAC7 is a hybrid system consisting mainly of standardised distributed reporting and exchange module for reportable sellers’ tax data reported
into national tax administration systems by platform operators and coordinated through an EU-wide interconnection layer. It operates also as a
register for platform operators and reportable sellers to assure data collection interface within national TIS environments. Data is generated
from corporate consolidation and accounting systems, then transformed into a standard reporting format. National tax administrations act as
data ingestion, validation, and forwarding nodes within a distributed exchange network. Data is generated externally by intermediaries (e.g. tax
advisors, lawyers, financial institutions) or taxpayers, then submitted into tax administration systems. National tax authorities act as validation
EN 33 EN
and routing nodes, ensuring completeness and compliance before onward transmission.
DAC7 meets the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while maintaining high-quality standards.
Findable
• DAC7 uses a standardised reporting template based on predefined rules, enabling consistent exchange of tax data on reportable sellers.
• Registration of platform operators and sellers is standardised allowing tax authorities to catalogue platforms and sellers in searchable
databases and EU-level exchanges.
• The Member State of Single Registration principle is assuring that the activity of a reportable seller is constantly reported to the
competent tax authority of the place of residence.
Accessible
• Data is submitted to and exchanged between competent tax authorities through secure, legally governed administrative cooperation
channels.
• Access is restricted to authorised public authorities and users, ensuring controlled availability of sensitive compliance information.
• Once reported, information becomes accessible across Member States without requiring additional disclosure from platform operators.
Interoperable
• DAC7 applies a harmonised reporting schema and common rules taxonomy, ensuring semantic consistency across Member States.
• Standardised data fields allow integration into different national tax administration systems.
• The uniform structure supports cross-border comparability and enables linkage with other DAC datasets.
EN 34 EN
Reusable
• Data is reused for risk assessment, audit selection, and detection of fraud and tax avoidance.
• Once collected, it supports multiple analytical and enforcement purposes without re-collection from taxpayers (supporting the once-
only principle).
• Structured reporting enables integration into broader tax intelligence and compliance analytics systems.
High-quality standards
• DAC7 imposes strict reporting deadlines and mandatory disclosure obligations, ensuring timeliness.
• The application of business and technical rules improves consistency and reduces ambiguity in reporting.
• Multi-layer validation by tax authorities enhances completeness, accuracy, and reliability of submitted data.
Art. 12 - MANDATORY AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION REPORTED BY REPORTING CRYPTO-ASSET SERVICE
PROVIDERS – DAC8
The DAC8 Taxation Information System is a hybrid system consisting of the Trans-European System communicating with national DAC8
systems for the automatic exchange of DAC8 information, and the DAC8 Central System, structured as a component-based application with
two components serving distinct purposes:
➢ The DAC8 Central Register (DAC8 CR) made available by the Commission to Member States for the registration and consultation of
information regarding Crypto-Asset Operators (CAOs).
➢ The DAC8 Central Directory (DAC8 CD) supporting the communication of information between the competent authorities of Member
States for the reporting of Exchange Transactions operated by Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers (RCASPs) on behalf of Crypto-
EN 35 EN
Asset Users (CAUs) residing in the EU.
The DAC8 Validation Module (DAC8 VM) is an application developed and tested centrally and provided to MS for the validation of their
local DAC8 implementations.
DAC8 meets the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while maintaining high-quality standards.
Findable, as centralized metadata are maintained in a central register and directory where transactions are linked to Reporting Crypto-Asset
Service Providers (RCASPs) identified with a unique number generated by the system.
Accessible, as transfer of information from national systems via CCN allows secure, controlled and lawful access.
Interoperable, as data are exchanged in shared XML format (for structure and validation).
Reusable, as data transactions are curated, documented and include cryptographic fingerprints of origin, transformations, and usage—crucial
for audit trails.
High quality of data is assured by the validation module which will be made available for use by the national systems.
Art. 15 - EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO TOP-UP TAX INFORMATION RETURNS UNDER ARTICLE 44 OF
DIRECTIVE (EU) 2022/2523.
DAC9 is a Taxation Information System which functions as a Trans-European System with user-to-system and system-to-system data
exchange between Member States’ tax databases. There is no central EU database, but the system’s approach is a push-based automatic data
transmission, where source systems periodically export predefined taxpayer datasets.
In DAC9, the data model is focused on handling the Top-up tax information returns. Each national TIS acts as both a data provider and data
consumer node in a distributed network architecture.
EN 36 EN
DAC9 meets the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while maintaining high-quality standards.
Findable
• DAC9 data form is standardised for MNE groups, making it systematically indexable by tax authorities.
• Use of taxpayer identifiers (such as TIN where available) enables reliable matching of records across Member States.
• Data is transmitted through established administrative cooperation channels, ensuring it can be located within national and EU-level tax
systems.
Accessible
• Information is exchanged directly between competent tax authorities via secure, regulated communication systems.
• Access is restricted to authorised public bodies, ensuring controlled but reliable retrieval of data.
• The legal framework guarantees continuous availability of data once it has been reported by the source Member State.
Interoperable
• DAC9 defines common base of income calculation and standardized reporting obligations across Member States.
• Although full technical harmonisation is limited, shared legal definitions ensure semantic interoperability of tax data.
• Use of common identifiers (e.g., TIN where applicable) supports cross-border matching of taxpayer records.
Reusable
• Data is exchanged for multiple lawful tax purposes, including compliance checks, audits, and risk analysis.
• Once collected, it can be reused by receiving tax authorities without re-collection from the MNE groups (supporting the once-only
EN 37 EN
principle).
• Harmonised categories enable secondary analytical uses, such as tax gap analysis and policy evaluation.
High-quality standards
• DAC9 imposes obligations for completeness, regularity (at least annual exchange), and timeliness of data submission.
• Information is sourced from verified administrative records, enhancing reliability.
• Legal accountability of competent authorities ensures accuracy and consistency of reported data across Member States.
Art. 16 - Notifications for the purpose of Country-by-Country reporting and the central filing of the top-up tax information return and
exchange of information.
Taxation Information System which functions as a Trans-European System with user-to-system and system-to-system data exchange between
Member States’ tax databases. There is no central EU database, but the system’s approach is a push-based automatic data transmission, where
source systems periodically export predefined taxpayer datasets.
It meets the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while maintaining high-quality standards.
Findable
• data form is standardised for MNE groups, making it systematically indexable by tax authorities.
• Use of taxpayer identifiers (such as TIN where available) enables reliable matching of records across Member States.
• Data is transmitted through established administrative cooperation channels, ensuring it can be located within national and EU-level tax
systems.
EN 38 EN
Accessible
• Information is exchanged directly between competent tax authorities via secure, regulated communication systems.
• Access is restricted to authorised public bodies, ensuring controlled but reliable retrieval of data.
• The legal framework guarantees continuous availability of data once it has been reported by the source Member State.
Interoperable
• Although full technical harmonisation is limited, shared legal definitions ensure semantic interoperability of tax data.
• Use of common identifiers (e.g., TIN where applicable) supports cross-border matching of taxpayer records.
Reusable
• Data is exchanged for multiple lawful tax purposes, including compliance checks, audits, and risk analysis.
• Once collected, it can be reused by receiving tax authorities without re-collection from the MNE groups (supporting the once-only
principle).
• Harmonised categories enable secondary analytical uses, such as tax gap analysis and policy evaluation.
High-quality standards
• obligations for completeness, regularity (at least annual exchange), and timeliness of data submission.
• Information is sourced from verified administrative records, enhancing reliability.
• Legal accountability of competent authorities ensures accuracy and consistency of reported data across Member States.
EN 39 EN
Art. 36 - TIN verification tool
ToW (TIN-on-the-Web) is a tool that allows the digital and automated verification of the validity of a TIN provided by a reporting entity or a
taxpayer for the purposes of the automatic exchange of information.
ToW meets the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while maintaining high-quality standards.
Findable
• ToW data is structured around standardized Tax Identification Number formats and country-specific validation rules, enabling efficient
identification and matching of taxpayer records across Member States.
Accessible
• TIN validation information is accessible to authorised users and tax administrations through a centrally available EU web-based
service, ensuring reliable retrieval of taxpayer identification reference data.
Interoperable
• The system supports interoperability by harmonising TIN validation mechanisms and providing common reference structures usable
across different national tax information systems.
Reusable
• Once validated, TIN reference data can be reused across multiple tax administration processes and cross-border exchanges without
repeated manual verification, supporting the once-only principle.
High-quality standards
• The system improves data quality by validating the structure and correctness of taxpayer identifiers, reducing inconsistencies,
duplication, and identification errors in exchanged tax data.
EN 40 EN
Data flows
Type of data Reference(s) Actor who Actor who Trigger for the Frequency (if
to the provides the receives the data exchange applicable)
requirement(s) data data
Art. 4. Tax information on income from Art. 4 Public Tax authority of Exchanges are Exchange is
employment, director’s fees, pensions, authorities the Member performed during annually and not
income and ownership of immovable State periods specified by later than six
property, royalties and non-custodial Art. 4. months following
dividends. the end of the
calendar year.
Art. 5. Tax information from financial Art. 5 Financial Tax authority of Exchanges are Exchange is
data from Financial Institutions of each institutions the Member performed during annually and not
Member State. State periods specified by later than nine
Art. 5. months following
the end of the
calendar year.
Art. 6. Tax information on advance cross- Art. 6 Tax authority of Tax authority of Issuance, No later than three
border rulings and advance pricing the Member the Member amendment, or months after the
arrangements. State State renewal of a cross- end of the half-
border tax ruling or year.
APA
Art. 7. Tax information on country-by- Art. 7 MNEs Tax authority of Exchanges are Exchange follows
country reports. the Member performed during annual reporting
periods specified by
EN 41 EN
State Art. 7. cycle.
Art. 8. Tax information on reportable Art. 8 Intermediaries Tax authority of Exchanges are The exchange
cross-border arrangements the Member performed during should take place
State periods specified by as soon as the
Art. 8. information
becomes available
and in no case later
than one month
after the end of the
quarter in which
the information was
filed.
Art. 9, 10, 11 - Mandatory Automatic Art. 9, Section Platform Tax authority of Exchanges are Reporting Platform
Exchange of Information reported by III of Annex V Operators the Member performed during Operator shall
Platform Operators. State periods specified by report the
Art. 9. information with
respect to the
Reportable Period
to the competent
authority of the
Member State of
election, no later
than 31st of January
of the year
following the
calendar year in
EN 42 EN
which the Seller is
identified as a
Reportable Seller.
Art 12 – Tax information on Crypto-asset Art. 12 RCASPs Tax authority of Exchanges are The reporting of
transactions the Member performed during crypto-asset
State periods specified by transactions is an
the DAC8 Directive annual exercise.
The first reporting
year will be 2026
and the exchange
of information will
start in September
2027.
Art. 15 - Exchange of Information with Art. 15 MNE groups Tax authority of Exchanges are Top-up tax
respect to Top-up Tax Information the Member performed during information return
Returns under Article 44 of Directive State periods specified by received after the
(EU) 2022/2523. Art. 15. filing deadline,
shall be
communicated in
no case later than 3
months after the
date on which it is
received.
Art. 16 – Information on notifications for Art. 16 MNE groups Tax authority of Exchanges are The notification to
the purpose of Country-by-Country the Member performed during all the Member
EN 43 EN
reporting and the central filing of the top- State periods specified by States concerned
up tax information return and exchange of Art. 16. should be
information. performed and in
no case later than 3
months after the
date on which it is
received.
Art. 36 – Information on the automated Art. 36 Reporting Tax authority of Exchanges are The verification of
verification of the validity of a TIN entities, the Member performed during the validity of a
provided by a reporting entity or a taxpayers, public State verification TIN provided by a
taxpayer authorities, processes. reporting entity or a
third-party taxpayer should be
entities using the immediate.
service.
4.3. Digital solutions
Digital solution Reference(s) Main mandated Responsible How is accessibility How is reusability Use of AI
to the functionalities body catered for? considered? technologies
requirement(s) (if
applicable)
Standard Art. 4. Information to be The Data exchanged is Data exchanged is N/A
computerised exchanged is provided in Commission accessible to authorised reusable by competent
forms for the paragraph 4(1) of the tax authorities through tax authorities for
automatic secure, standardised multiple lawful
EN 44 EN
exchange of article. administrative purposes, including
information on cooperation channels, tax assessment,
Tax information ensuring timely and compliance
on income from reliable retrieval of verification, risk
employment, information once it has analysis, and audit
director’s fees, been collected, while activities, without
pensions, income remaining restricted to requiring re-collection
and ownership of competent authorities in from the taxpayer, in
immovable accordance with EU line with the once-
property, royalties legal and data only principle and
and non-custodial protection applicable EU legal
dividends. requirements. frameworks.
Standard Art. 5 Information to be The Data exchanged is Data exchanged is N/A
computerised exchanged is provided in Commission accessible to authorised reusable by competent
forms for the paragraph 5(1) of the tax authorities through tax authorities for
automatic article. The common secure, standardised multiple lawful
exchange of standardised format set out CRS-based purposes, including
information on in Annex I and Annex II of administrative tax compliance
financial data the Recast Directive. cooperation channels, verification, risk
from Financial ensuring timely, assessment, audit
Institutions of reliable, and controlled selection, and
each Member retrieval of validated detection of offshore
State financial account financial assets,
information, in without requiring re-
accordance with EU collection from
legal and data reporting financial
protection institutions, in line
EN 45 EN
requirements. with the once-only
principle and
applicable EU
regulatory
frameworks.
Standard Art. 6 Information to be The Data exchanged is Data exchanged is N/A
computerised exchanged is provided in Commission accessible to competent reusable by competent
forms for the paragraph 6(5) of the tax authorities through tax authorities for risk
automatic article. secure, standardised assessment, transfer
exchange of administrative pricing analysis, and
information on cooperation channels evaluation of cross-
advance cross- and a central EU border tax ruling
border rulings and repository of tax ruling practices, enabling
advance pricing metadata, ensuring multiple downstream
arrangements. controlled, timely analytical and
retrieval of cross-border compliance uses
tax ruling information without re-collection
in accordance with from taxpayers, in line
applicable EU legal and with the once-only
confidentiality principle and
requirements. applicable EU legal
frameworks.
Standard Art. 7 Information to be The Data exchanged is Data exchanged is N/A
computerised exchanged is provided in Commission accessible to competent reusable by competent
forms for the paragraph 7(3) and the tax authorities through tax authorities for
automatic standard defined in Article secure, standardised transfer pricing
EN 46 EN
exchange of 51(2).. administrative analysis, risk
information on cooperation systems for assessment, and
country-by- the automatic exchange evaluation of profit
country reports. of Country-by-Country allocation within
Reports, ensuring multinational
timely and controlled enterprise groups,
access to validated enabling multiple
multinational enterprise analytical and
data in accordance with compliance uses
EU legal and without re-collection
confidentiality from taxpayers, in line
requirements. with the once-only
principle and
applicable EU
regulatory
frameworks.
Standard Art. 8 Information to be The Data exchanged is Data exchanged under N/A
computerised exchanged is provided in Commission accessible to competent DAC6 is reusable by
forms for the paragraphs 8(3), 8(7), tax authorities through competent tax
automatic 8(10), 8(13), of the article secure, standardised authorities for risk
exchange of and Annex IV for details of administrative assessment, early
information on hallmarks that make the cooperation channels detection of
reportable cross- cross-border arrangement following mandatory aggressive tax
border reportable. disclosure of reportable planning schemes, and
arrangements. cross-border targeted compliance
arrangements, ensuring investigations,
timely and controlled enabling multiple
EN 47 EN
access to validated analytical and
compliance information enforcement uses
in accordance with EU without re-collection
legal and from taxpayers or
confidentiality intermediaries, in line
requirements. with the once-only
principle and
applicable EU
regulatory
frameworks.
Standard Art. 9 Information to be The Data is submitted to Data is reused for risk N/A
computerised exchanged is provided in Commission and exchanged between assessment, audit
forms for the paragraph 2 of Art. 9 and competent tax selection, and
automatic section III of Annex 5). authorities through detection of fraud and
exchange of secure, legally tax avoidance.
information on governed
Reportable Sellers administrative Once collected, it
pursuant to cooperation channels. supports multiple
Article 9. analytical and
Access is restricted to enforcement purposes
authorised public without re-collection
authorities and users, from taxpayers
ensuring controlled (supporting the once-
availability of sensitive only principle).
compliance
information. Structured reporting
enables integration
EN 48 EN
Once reported, into broader tax
information becomes intelligence and
accessible across compliance analytics
Member States without systems.
requiring additional
disclosure from
platform operators.
Standard Art. 12(3) List of information to be The Common standards are High-quality public N/A
computerised exchanged is provided in Commission used to assure and private sector data
forms for the Section Annex VI of the homogeneity of data, across member states
automatic Recast Directive, Section I removing any obstacles will be reused in
exchange of Reporting Requirements, to the efficient exchanges of DAC8
information on for the digital solution; exchange among data to accommodate
Reportable standardised XML format national administrations the purposes of the
Crypto-Assets CARF from the OECD is DAC8 Directive
pursuant to used.
Article 12.
Standard Art. 15 Information to be The Information is Data is exchanged for N/A
computerised exchanged is provided in Commission exchanged directly multiple lawful tax
forms for the Art. 15. between competent tax purposes, including
automatic authorities via secure, compliance checks,
exchange of regulated audits, and risk
information on communication analysis.
Top-up Tax systems.
information return Once collected, it can
pursuant to Access is restricted to be reused by receiving
EN 49 EN
Article 15. authorised public tax authorities without
bodies, ensuring re-collection from the
controlled but reliable MNE groups
retrieval of data. (supporting the once-
only principle).
The legal framework
guarantees continuous Harmonised
availability of data once categories enable
it has been reported by secondary analytical
the source Member uses, such as tax gap
State. analysis and policy
evaluation.
Standard Art. 16 Information to be The Information is Data is exchanged for N/A
computerised exchanged is provided in Commission exchanged directly multiple lawful tax
forms for the Art. 16. between competent tax purposes, including
automatic authorities via secure, compliance checks,
exchange of regulated audits, and risk
notifications for communication analysis.
Country-by- systems.
Country reporting Once collected, it can
and the central Access is restricted to be reused by receiving
filing of the top- authorised public tax authorities without
up tax bodies, ensuring re-collection from the
information return controlled but reliable MNE groups
pursuant to retrieval of data. (supporting the once-
Article 16. only principle).
The legal framework
guarantees continuous Harmonised
EN 50 EN
availability of data once categories enable
it has been reported by secondary analytical
the source Member uses, such as tax gap
State. analysis and policy
evaluation.
TIN validation Art 36 Automatic and The Information is The TIN on the Web N/A
tool instantaneous TIN Commission exchanged directly application will be
validation between competent tax reused to validate the
authorities via secure, TIN reported by
regulated reporting entities,
communication taxpayers, public
systems. authorities, third-party
entities using the
Access is restricted to service.
authorised public
bodies, ensuring
controlled but reliable
retrieval of data.
The legal framework
guarantees continuous
availability of data once
it has been reported by
the source Member
State.
Automatic Recital. 4 Practical arrangements to The The The Common N/A
exchange of facilitate automatic Commission shall adopt Communication
EN 51 EN
information – exchange of information Commission implementing acts Network infrastructure
common trunk establishing common of the Commission
technical specifications will be reused to
support the automatic
exchange of
information
Automatic 2023/2226/ EU To ensure uniform The Integration with the The TIN on the Web N/A
exchange of (39) conditions for the Commission TIN on the Web application will be
information – implementation of this application for the reused to validate the
common trunk Directive, implementing automatic verification TIN of reporting
powers should be conferred of TIN is developed as RCASPs and reported
on the Commission to functionality of the sellers
develop a tool allowing an DAC8 Central Register
electronic and automated
verification of the
correctness of the TIN that
has been provided by the
taxpayer or the reporting
entity or reporting
individual. Those powers
should be exercised in
accordance with
Regulation (EU) No
182/2011. The IT tool to be
provided to Member States
is intended to help increase
the matching rates for tax
EN 52 EN
administrations and
improve the quality of the
exchanged information in
general.
For each digital solution, explain how the digital solution complies with the requirements and obligations of the EU cybersecurity framework, and
other applicable digital policies and legislative enactments (such as eIDAS, Single Digital Gateway, etc.).
Standard template in xml format
Digital and/or sectorial policy (when these are Explanation on how it aligns
applicable)
AI Act Not applicable
EU Cybersecurity framework Without prejudice to DAC RECAST Directive, Member States shall ensure the security,
integrity, authenticity and confidentiality of the data collected and stored for the purpose of
this Directive.
The DAC RECAST Directive framework is aligned with the EU cybersecurity framework
and architecture, since it applies the following principles:
1. Security by Design & Default (GDPR + NIS2) with,
End-to-end encryption (typically TLS or equivalent)
➢ Secure messaging solutions like CCN & CCN2 Mail or CCN/CSI
EN 53 EN
➢ Strong access control and authentication (role-based access, CCN/CCN2
authentication)
This aligns with:
➢ GDPR Article 25 (data protection by design/default)
➢ NIS2 Directive (network and information systems security for critical entities)
2. Use of EU Trusted Infrastructure
CCN & CCN2 are operated by the European Commission’s Common Domain (DG
TAXUD), under strict IT governance.
➢ CCN & CCN2 use closed-loop, government-only networks, insulated from the
public internet.
➢ Only certified national systems can connect via the CCN and CCN2.
This supports:
➢ ENISA guidance on trusted infrastructures
➢ Digital Europe Programme’s goal of sovereign EU cloud and networks
3. Monitoring, Logging & Incident Response
All DAC data flows (e.g., under DAC7/DAC8/DAC9) via CCN & CCN2 are:
➢ Monitored in real time
➢ Logged securely for auditing
EN 54 EN
➢ Backed by incident response protocols
Member States must report cyber incidents or cybersecurity events via coordinated
channels under the applicable Union legislation.
4. Interoperability & Standardization
CCN & CCN2 use standardized:
➢ XML schemas
➢ Validation mechanisms
➢ Secure certificates for message signing
CCN and CCN2 support:
➢ Secure authentication and trusted services
➢ Interoperability frameworks
5. Business Continuity & Redundancy
CCN and CCN2 ensure redundant systems and failover capabilities for critical services
like tax data exchanges.
The cybersecurity alignment of DAC systems can be assessed against the core principles
of the EU cybersecurity framework, including the NIS2 Directive, guidance from the
ENISA, and EU principles of trust, resilience, and digital sovereignty.
EN 55 EN
1. Principle of Security-by-Design and Risk Management
DAC systems are designed as secure-by-design distributed information systems, where
cybersecurity controls are embedded in architecture and operations.
• Security requirements are integrated into system design for all DAC systems
• Risk-based approaches govern data exchange sensitivity (e.g. financial vs.
administrative data)
• Member States implement national controls consistent with EU-level coordination
requirements
• Continuous risk assessment supports adaptation to evolving cyber threats
2. Principle of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA Triad)
DAC systems ensure protection of tax data through the foundational cybersecurity
principles:
• Confidentiality: Access is strictly limited to authorised tax authorities under legal
mandates
• Integrity: Standardised formats and validation processes ensure data accuracy and
prevent tampering
• Availability: Secure communication infrastructures ensure continuous cross-border
EN 56 EN
data exchange
These principles are consistently applied across all DAC systems, regardless of data type
or frequency.
3. Principle of Trust and Controlled Data Sharing
DAC systems operationalise trusted digital cooperation between Member States.
• Data is exchanged only between verified competent authorities
• Legal frameworks define purpose limitation and access rights
• Controlled interoperability ensures that sensitive tax data is shared only within a
trusted public-sector ecosystem
• DAC5 extends trust principles by enabling regulated access to AML-derived
intelligence data
4. Principle of Resilience and Continuity of Services
DAC infrastructures are designed to ensure cyber-resilient public-sector operations.
• Redundant and secure communication channels support uninterrupted data flows
• Backup and recovery mechanisms ensure continuity in case of disruption
• Systems are designed to maintain functionality under cyber incidents or high
EN 57 EN
operational load
• Supports the NIS2 requirement for resilience of essential digital services
5. Principle of Secure Interoperability
DAC systems enable cross-border interoperability without compromising security.
• Standardised data models (CRS, ETR, CbCR, MDR, DPI, CARF, GIR, DAC
reporting schemas) reduce integration risks
• Harmonised semantics improve system compatibility across Member States
• Secure APIs and communication protocols enable system-to-system integration
• Interoperability is implemented with embedded security controls rather than added
externally
6. Principle of Accountability and Governance
DAC systems operate under a shared governance model across EU and national levels.
• Member States are responsible for securing national tax information systems
• EU coordination ensures harmonised implementation standards
• Auditability and traceability mechanisms support accountability of data exchanges
• Incident reporting obligations align with EU cyber incident management
EN 58 EN
requirements
7. Principle of Data Protection and Purpose Limitation
Cybersecurity in DAC systems is tightly linked to legal safeguards for sensitive data.
• Access is restricted to defined tax and enforcement purposes
• Data use is limited by EU legal frameworks (including GDPR where applicable)
• Role-based access control ensures least-privilege principles
• Logging and monitoring support compliance and misuse detection
eIDAS DAC RECAST is not aligned with current eIDAS architecture. Exchanges of XML
messages in the context DAC automatic exchange of information among national
administrations are supported by CCN and CCN2. White-list security is applicable.
Single Digital Gateway and IMI Not applicable, a Commission infrastructure is used instead, for the exchange of XML
files.
Others Not applicable
Automatic exchange of information
Digital and/or sectorial policy (when these are Explanation on how it aligns
applicable)
AI Act Not applicable
EU Cybersecurity framework Without prejudice to DAC RECAST Directive, Member States shall ensure the security,
integrity, authenticity and confidentiality of the data collected and stored for the purpose of
EN 59 EN
this Directive.
The DAC RECAST Directive framework is aligned with the EU cybersecurity framework
and architecture, since it applies the following principles:
1. Security by Design & Default (GDPR + NIS2) with,
End-to-end encryption (typically TLS or equivalent)
➢ Secure messaging protocols like CCN & CCN2 Mail or CCN/CSI
➢ Strong access control and authentication (role-based access, CCN/CCN2
authentication)
This aligns with:
➢ GDPR Article 25 (data protection by design/default)
➢ NIS2 Directive (network and information systems security for critical entities)
2. Use of EU Trusted Infrastructure
CCN & CCN2 are operated by the European Commission’s Common Domain (DG
TAXUD), under strict IT governance.
➢ CCN & CCN2 use closed-loop, government-only networks, insulated from the
public internet.
➢ Only certified national systems can connect via the CCN and CCN2.
This supports:
EN 60 EN
➢ ENISA guidance on trusted infrastructures
➢ Digital Europe Programme’s goal of sovereign EU cloud and networks
3. Monitoring, Logging & Incident Response
All DAC data flows (e.g., under DAC7/DAC8/DAC9) via CCN & CCN2 are:
➢ Monitored in real time
➢ Logged securely for auditing
➢ Backed by incident response protocols
Member States must report cyber incidents or cybersecurity events via coordinated
channels under the applicable Union legislation.
4. Interoperability & Standardization
CCN & CCN2 use standardized:
➢ XML schemas
➢ Validation mechanisms
➢ Secure certificates for message signing
CCN and CCN2 support:
➢ Secure authentication and trusted services
➢ Interoperability frameworks
EN 61 EN
5. Business Continuity & Redundancy
CCN and CCN2 ensure redundant systems and failover capabilities for critical services
like tax data exchanges.
The cybersecurity alignment of DAC systems can be assessed against the core principles
of the EU cybersecurity framework, including the NIS2 Directive, guidance from the
ENISA, and EU principles of trust, resilience, and digital sovereignty.
1. Principle of Security-by-Design and Risk Management
DAC systems are designed as secure-by-design distributed information systems, where
cybersecurity controls are embedded in architecture and operations.
• Security requirements are integrated into system design for all DAC systems
• Risk-based approaches govern data exchange sensitivity (e.g. financial vs.
administrative data)
• Member States implement national controls consistent with EU-level coordination
requirements
• Continuous risk assessment supports adaptation to evolving cyber threats
2. Principle of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA Triad)
EN 62 EN
DAC systems ensure protection of tax data through the foundational cybersecurity
principles:
• Confidentiality: Access is strictly limited to authorised tax authorities under legal
mandates
• Integrity: Standardised formats and validation processes ensure data accuracy and
prevent tampering
• Availability: Secure communication infrastructures ensure continuous cross-border
data exchange
These principles are consistently applied across all DAC systems, regardless of data type
or frequency.
3. Principle of Trust and Controlled Data Sharing
DAC systems operationalise trusted digital cooperation between Member States.
• Data is exchanged only between verified competent authorities
• Legal frameworks define purpose limitation and access rights
• Controlled interoperability ensures that sensitive tax data is shared only within a
trusted public-sector ecosystem
• DAC5 extends trust principles by enabling regulated access to AML-derived
intelligence data
EN 63 EN
4. Principle of Resilience and Continuity of Services
DAC infrastructures are designed to ensure cyber-resilient public-sector operations.
• Redundant and secure communication channels support uninterrupted data flows
• Backup and recovery mechanisms ensure continuity in case of disruption
• Systems are designed to maintain functionality under cyber incidents or high
operational load
• Supports the NIS2 requirement for resilience of essential digital services
5. Principle of Secure Interoperability
DAC systems enable cross-border interoperability without compromising security.
• Standardised data models (CRS, ETR, CbCR, MDR, DPI, CARF, GIR, DAC
reporting schemas) reduce integration risks
• Harmonised semantics improve system compatibility across Member States
• Secure APIs and communication protocols enable system-to-system integration
• Interoperability is implemented with embedded security controls rather than added
externally
EN 64 EN
6. Principle of Accountability and Governance
DAC systems operate under a shared governance model across EU and national levels.
• Member States are responsible for securing national tax information systems
• EU coordination ensures harmonised implementation standards
• Auditability and traceability mechanisms support accountability of data exchanges
• Incident reporting obligations align with EU cyber incident management
requirements
7. Principle of Data Protection and Purpose Limitation
Cybersecurity in DAC systems is tightly linked to legal safeguards for sensitive data.
• Access is restricted to defined tax and enforcement purposes
• Data use is limited by EU legal frameworks (including GDPR where applicable)
• Role-based access control ensures least-privilege principles
• Logging and monitoring support compliance and misuse detection
eIDAS Non-eIDAS aligned. The automatic exchange of information in the context of DAC8 is
based on exchanges of XML messages among national administrations’ authenticated
users via CCN. White-list security is applicable.
Single Digital Gateway and IMI Not applicable, a Commission infrastructure is used instead.
EN 65 EN
Others Not applicable
4.4. Interoperability assessment
Digital public Description Reference(s) to Interoperable Other interoperability solution(s)
service or category the Europe Solution(s)
of digital public requirement(s)
services
Automatic exchange Structured cross-border exchange of Art. 4. Common structured National tax administration systems;
of income predefined income categories tax data schemas; secure inter-authority communication
information (employment, pensions, property CCN/CSI secure channels; taxpayer identification
income, etc.) between tax authorities exchange network; systems (TIN-based matching)
on a periodic basis. semantic tax category
standardisation
Financial account Automatic exchange of financial Art. 5 OECD Common Banking reporting systems; national
information account data (balances, interest, Reporting Standard tax data warehouses; validation and
exchange (CRS) dividends) reported by financial (CRS) schema; secure reconciliation engines
institutions to tax authorities. batch exchange
systems; standardised
financial reporting
taxonomy
Exchange of tax Exchange of metadata on cross-border Art. 6 Central EU tax rulings National tax ruling databases; cross-
rulings and APAs tax rulings and advance pricing repository (metadata border risk analysis tools; structured
agreements via a centralised EU index); standardised metadata extraction systems
EN 66 EN
index. ruling classification
schema
Country-by-country Exchange of multinational enterprise Art. 7 Country-by-Country Corporate ERP/accounting systems;
reporting reports containing aggregated Reporting (CbCR) tax consolidation systems; transfer
financial and tax data per jurisdiction. XML schema; pricing analytics tools
standardised corporate
reporting templates;
secure EU exchange
channels
Mandatory Event-driven reporting and exchange Art. 8 Standardised DAC6 Compliance reporting platforms; tax
disclosure of cross- of reportable cross-border tax reporting schema; advisory systems; automated risk
border tax arrangements identified through structured hallmark detection and pattern analysis tools
arrangements defined hallmarks. taxonomy; secure
rapid exchange
mechanisms
Reporting by Register of Platform Operators and Art. 9 NOT APPLICABLE National tax administration systems;
Platform Operators Reportable Sellers. secure inter-authority communication
on Reportable channels; taxpayer identification
Sellers Automatic exchange of reported systems (TIN-based matching)
information on reportable sellers
between tax authorities on a periodic
basis.
Mandatory Each Member State shall take the Art. 12 NOT APPLICABLE XML message exchange via the
automatic exchange necessary measures to require Common Communication Network
of information Reporting Crypto-Asset Service
EN 67 EN
reported by Providers to fulfil the reporting
Reporting Crypto- requirements and carry out the due
Asset Service diligence procedures laid down in
Providers Sections II and III of Annex VI,
respectively. Each Member State shall
also ensure the effective
implementation of, and compliance
with, such measures in accordance
with Section V of Annex VI of the
DAC8 Directive.
Automatic exchange Providing necessary practical Art. 12 NOT APPLICABLE XML message exchange via the
of information on arrangements to facilitate the Common Communication Network
Reportable Crypto- communication
Assets
Top-up Tax Automatic exchange of reported Art. 15 NOT APPLICABLE National tax administration systems;
information returns information on Top-up Tax secure inter-authority communication
of MNE groups information returns reported to tax channels; taxpayer identification
authorities by MNE groups on a systems (TIN-based matching)
periodic basis.
Notifications for the Automatic exchange of reported Art. 16 NOT APPLICABLE National tax administration systems;
purpose of Country- information on notifications for the secure inter-authority communication
by-Country purpose of Country-by-Country channels; taxpayer identification
reporting and the reporting and the central filing of the systems (TIN-based matching)
central filing of the top-up tax information return and
top-up tax exchange of information.
EN 68 EN
information return
and exchange of
information.
Tax Identification Digital and automated verification of Art. 36 NOT APPLICABLE National tax administration systems;
Number (TIN) the validity of a TIN provided by a secure inter-authority communication
verification. reporting entity or a taxpayer for the channels; taxpayer identification
purposes of the automatic exchange of systems (TIN-based matching)
information.
4.5. Measures to support digital implementation
For the measures already implemented, the Commission provides continuous support to Member States throughout the life-cylce of each measure.
Measures that are yet to be implemented, namely, the exchange foreseen under Article 16 and TIN verification tool under Article 36, the
Commission will develop technical specifications for the exchange and the tool together with Member States to be adopted as an implementing act.
EN 69 EN
EN 70 EN
Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 24 June 2026
(OR. en)
11060/26
ADD 2
Interinstitutional File:
2026/0168 (CNS)
FISC 235
ECOFIN 895
COVER NOTE
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Ms Martine
DEPREZ, Director
date of receipt: 24 June 2026
To: Ms Thérèse BLANCHET, Secretary-General of the Council of the
European Union
No. Cion doc.: SWD(2026) 164 final
Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Subsidiarity Grid
Accompanying the document Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on
administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast)
Delegations will find attached document SWD(2026) 164 final.
Encl.: SWD(2026) 164 final
11060/26 ADD 2
ECOFIN.2.B EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 24.6.2026
SWD(2026) 164 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Subsidiarity Grid
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast)
{COM(2026) 308 final} - {SEC(2026) 186 final} - {SWD(2026) 165 final} -
{SWD(2026) 166 final}
EN EN
Subsidiarity Grid
-
1. Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action?
1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative?
The legal basis of DAC relies on Articles 113 and 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU). The key objective of the DAC is to ensure that there is a robust legal instrument based
on uniform conditions and harmonised practices to facilitate administrative cooperation and
exchange of information in the field of direct taxation. This is necessary to ensure the proper
functioning of the Internal Market and reduce the negative effects of tax fraud, evasion and
avoidance in the EU.
1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in
nature?
In the case of direct tax policy, the Union’s competence is shared.
Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive competence as defined
in Article 3 TFEU1. It is the specific legal basis which determines whether the proposal falls under
the subsidiarity control mechanism. Article 4 TFEU2 sets out the areas where competence is shared
between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU3 sets out the areas for which the Unions
has competence only to support the actions of the Member States.
2. Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act?
2.1 Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 24:
- Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act?
- Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level?
The evidence for the impact assessment report was gathered through various activities and from
different sources:
• 2025 Evaluation of the Directive on administrative cooperation.5
•
2021 Special Report of the European Court of Auditors.6
• 2024 Special Report of the European Cour of Auditors.7
• Study by an external contractor: “Evaluation of the Directive 2011/16 and its
Amendments”8
• Study by an external contractor: “Study on a possible EU Taxpayer Identification
Number (TIN) and its verification instruments”9
1
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E003&from=EN
2
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E004&from=EN
3
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E006:EN:HTML
4
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN
5
COM(2025) 695 final Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the
evaluation of Council Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation.
6
Special Report 03/2021: Exchanging tax information in the EU: solid foundation, cracks in the implementation.
7
Special Report 27/24: Combatting harmful tax regimes and corporate tax avoidance.
8
Evaluation of the Directive 2011/16 and its Amendments, 11 January 2024.
9
The final report of the study is scheduled for finalisation by mid-June 2026.
1
• Targeted consultation with Member States in the Working Party IV (WPIV) Commission
Expert group on direct taxation.
• Outcome from work in the VISDAC Expert Team (Fiscalis program) which collected
evidence through on-site visits to Member States tax administrations.
• Consultations in the expert group Platform on Tax Good Governance which gathers
experts from business, interest groups and Member States.
In addition, the Commission also carried out a public consultation and call for evidence to support
the initiative. The consultation remained open until 10 February 2026 and received a total of 60
written responses.
2.2 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the
Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the
principle of subsidiarity?
The explanatory memorandum as well as the impact assessment contains a section on the principle
of subsidiarity with relevant qualitative and quantitative indicators that demonstrate the need for
action at EU level.
The proposal fully observes the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5(3) of the Treaty on
European Union (TEU). The DAC and its 8 amendments are legal acts of the EU. The political
objectives of simplification necessitate proposals to codify, simplify and clarify the existing
framework to eliminate any overlaps and contradictions, cut unnecessary and low-value reporting
and ensure consistent implementation, while not undermining the policy objectives of the
legislation. Given the need to act an EU approach is the only option to ensure that there is a
comprehensive and uniform solution that conforms with EU law, does not distort competition and
maintains the level playing field. Individual actions taken by Member States could not achieve these
objectives. At the same time, the current inefficiencies in the effective functioning of the DAC acquis,
as identified in the 2025 DAC evaluation and the Special Reports of the ECA (2021 and 2024) are
linked to several existing reporting and exchange obligations contained in the DAC, which can only
be comprehensively and uniformly addressed by an EU legislative initiative.
2.3 Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be
achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)?
No Union wide administrative cooperation cannot be achieved by a Member State acting alone.
Bilateral or multilateral action that does not provide for a uniform regulation across the EU, would
result in an unlevel playing field, and obstacles within the Internal Market, which would negatively
affect the competitiveness of the Union.
(a) Are there significant/appreciable transnational/cross-border aspects to the problems
being tackled? Have these been quantified?
The main purpose of the provisions in the proposal is to regulate administrative cooperation
between Member States’ tax authorities, in particular the exchange of information. This is by nature
cross-border.
(b) Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of
the Treaty10 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States?
10
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en
2
Yes, If the administrative cooperation were to be set up at Member State level, on a bilateral basis,
this would result in different solutions across the EU which would result in a fragmentation of the
rules applicable in the Internal Market and inhibit the competitiveness of EU companies and
SME’s.
(c) To what extent do Member States have the ability or possibility to enact appropriate
measures?
Member States could conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements to the extent that they do not
conflict with existing EU legislation.
(d) How does the problem and its causes (e.g. negative externalities, spill-over effects) vary
across the national, regional and local levels of the EU?
The issues that necessitate administrative cooperation among Member States are tax fraud, tax
avoidance and tax evasion. In particular the cross-border dimension of certain activities creates a
complex environment where it can be challenging to enforce tax rules and ensure tax compliance.
These issues will appear in different forms in different Member States, depending on the structure
of the economy of the Member State, its geographic situation and other factors. The concentration
of certain industries in certain Member States will have an effect on which provisions of the Directive
are applicable.
(e) Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States?
The problem exists in all Member States.
(f) Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure?
The planned measures will require Member States to make limited investments in the adaptations
of some IT structures and to ensure that tax administrations have secure access to certain databases.
This will mainly have one-off effects in terms of budget and staffing. In the longer term, the planned
measures should achieve streamlining of processes and positive efficiency gains at Member States
level.
(g) How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities
differ across the EU?
Overall, Member States agree on the need to simplify the Directive in order to support the
competitiveness of EU business. This assessment is supported by the fact that Member States
unanimously supported simplification in the field of direct taxation and, on 20 March 2025, adopted
Council Conclusions11 calling for efforts at EU, national and regional levels to ensure a clear, simple
and smart regulatory framework that reduces administrative, regulatory and reporting burdens for
businesses and public administrations without undermining the policy goals.
2.4 Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be
better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)?
11 European Council, European Council conclusions, 20 March 2025, EUCO 1/25, 20 March 2025, available at:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/viyhc2m4/20250320-european-council-conclusions-en.pdf
3
To fight tax fraud, tax avoidance and tax evasion that are cross-border there is a need for
administrative cooperation. To ensure a level playing field and to protect the Internal Market, this
is better achieved at EU level.
(a) Are there clear benefits from EU level action?
The added value of EU action is that it ensures that there is a coherent, uniform and complete
solution at EU level, which achieves the targeted reductions in reporting burdens and associated
administrative costs for EU businesses, and which could not be achieved by individual actions taken
by Member States. Simultaneously, the improvements ensure that Member States are better
equipped to use all information to maximise the benefits of the DAC.
(b) Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level
(larger benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved?
The proposal includes provisions that introduce common IT tools and more proportionate reporting
obligations which contribute to the economies of scale.
Common rules and reporting instruments (such as XML schema) in all Member States will contribute
to the better functioning of the internal market by eliminating the potential obstacles that would
result from 27 divergent national sets of rules.
(c) What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more
homogenous policy approach?
Administrative cooperation could not be replaced by unilateral rules, but would need to be done
through bilateral agreements. Such agreements would be burdensome to achieve and they would
lead to a fragmented approach across the Internal Market and negative affect on the
competitiveness of EU companies.
(d) Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States
and the local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national,
regional and local levels)?
Considering that the Directive regulates administrative cooperation among national administrations
a common action at EU level outweighs any loss of competence of the Member States. A plethora
of agreements at national and inter-regional level would lead to serious obstacles in the Internal
Market.
(e) Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation?
The proposal is a recast with the inherent ambition to increase the clarity of the Directive.
Furthermore, a number of improvements of the legal text are proposed in order to contribute to
the improved legal clarity.
3. Proportionality: How the EU should act
3.1 Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the
Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of the
proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with the
principle of proportionality?
Yes. The proposal codifies, simplifies and improves existing provisions of the DAC. The changes are
very targeted and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the desired objective. In particular,
4
the changes fully preserve the current safeguards offered by the DAC and do not lower the existing
level of protection against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance.
The added value of EU action is that it ensures that there is a coherent, uniform and complete
solution at EU level, which achieves the targeted reductions in reporting burdens and associated
administrative costs for EU businesses, in line with the political priorities of the Commission. At the
same time, EU action will comprehensively address the current identified inefficiencies in the
functioning of the DAC with targeted improvements to the existing acquis ensuring that tax
administrations, reporting entities and taxpayers benefit from a more efficient and effective
functioning of the DAC.
3.2 Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives?
Yes, the proposed actions are the most appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives, as more
proportionate reporting requirements leading to a reduction of administrative costs requires an
amendment of the existing EU acquis. Conversely administrative cooperation is inherently a cross-
border issue. Member States cannot achieve this on their own, they would have to engage in
bilateral and/or multilateral agreements, which would create a series of patch-work solutions.
Therefore, an EU approach is the only approach that allows for a comprehensive and uniform
solution that does not distort the internal market.
(a) Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily
on their own, and where the Union can do better?
Given the need to act and the nature and extent of the problem, an EU approach is the only option
to ensure that there is a comprehensive and uniform solution that conforms with EU law, does not
distort competition and maintains the level playing field. Individual actions taken by Member States
could not achieve these objectives. At the same time, the current inefficiencies in the effective
functioning of the DAC acquis are linked to several existing reporting and exchange obligations
contained in the DAC, which can only be comprehensively and uniformly addressed by an EU
legislative initiative.
(b) Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and
coherent with the satisfactory achievement of, and ensuring compliance with the
objectives pursued (e.g. choice between regulation, (framework) directive,
recommendation, or alternative regulatory methods such as co-legislation, etc.)?
The proposal is for a Directive, which is the only instrument available under one of the two legal
basis (Article 115 TFEU). Furthermore, this Directive represents the recast of the existing DAC, as
subsequently amended.
(c) Does the Union action leave as much scope for national decision as possible while
achieving satisfactorily the objectives set? (e.g. is it possible to limit the European action to
minimum standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?)
Yes, Union action is limited to amendments to the existing EU DAC acquis. The action does not inhibit
the application of national taxation rules and domestic competencies for example organisation of
procedures and processes within the tax administration.
In terms of organisation, the proposal only stipulates the competent authorities, i.e. the part of each
tax administration that is competent to engage in administrative cooperation. Internal organisation
of competent authorities is left to Member States to organise as they see fit.
5
(d) Does the initiative create financial or administrative cost for the Union, national
governments, regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs
commensurate with the objective to be achieved?
Limited adjustment costs are expected for businesses and administrations for most of the measures,
mainly related to adapting reporting systems and procedures, over time, costs should decrease due
to streamlined and reduced reporting leading to efficiency gains. Tax administrations may incur
initial implementation costs but will benefit from reduced processing of low-value data and
improved data matching, leading to efficiency gains.
The centralised TIN verification system will entail adjustment costs at EU level (approximately EUR
1.0 to 1.8 million for on-off costs and EUR 1.8 to 2.4 million per year for recurrent costs) and national
level (approximately EUR 15 to 25 million for on-off costs and EUR 4.5 to 12 million per year for
recurrent costs). Given the voluntary nature of the measure for the reporting entities, while upfront
costs are expected, the measure is expected to deliver net administrative savings over time through
improved data quality, and use of information and reduced correction and validation efforts,
although the precise magnitude of these effects cannot be quantified at this stage. While the
introduction of a TIN validation tool entails upfront and operational costs for all stakeholders, it will
also generate significant overall savings by reducing the need for resource-intensive ex post
correction procedures, that can be quantified to up to approximately EUR 70 million per year.
(e) While respecting the Union law, have special circumstances applying in individual Member
States been taken into account?
N/A
6
Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 24 June 2026
(OR. en)
11060/26
ADD 4
Interinstitutional File:
2026/0168 (CNS)
FISC 235
ECOFIN 895
IA 182
COVER NOTE
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Ms Martine
DEPREZ, Director
date of receipt: 24 June 2026
To: Ms Thérèse BLANCHET, Secretary-General of the Council of the
European Union
No. Cion doc.: SWD(2026) 166 final
Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the document Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on
administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast)
Delegations will find attached document SWD(2026) 166 final.
Encl.: SWD(2026) 166 final
11060/26 ADD 4
ECOFIN.2.B EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 24.6.2026
SWD(2026) 166 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast)
{COM(2026) 308 final} - {SEC(2026) 186 final} - {SWD(2026) 164 final} -
{SWD(2026) 165 final}
EN EN
Executive Summary Sheet
Impact assessment for an initiative to recast Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation
in the field of taxation
A. Need for action
Why? What is the problem being addressed?
The DAC provides a comprehensive framework for administrative cooperation in direct taxation within
the EU, including reporting of information by certain entities and the subsequent automatic exchange
of this information by tax administrations. The DAC framework has evolved through successive
amendments (DAC2–DAC9), resulting in a fragmented and complex legal structure. This has created a
lack of legal clarity and legal certainty for taxpayers, reporting entities and tax administrations.
Moreover, some notification obligations and reporting requirements generate large volumes of
information which has limited tax relevance, particularly in relation to DAC4 (country-by-country
reporting)/DAC9, DAC6 (cross-border arrangements) and DAC7 (income earned through digital
platforms). This had led to disproportionate compliance costs and, in particular, administrative burdens
for all stakeholders. Furthermore, weaknesses in data quality, notably incomplete or inaccurate
taxpayer identification numbers (TINs), and limitations in the DAC1 reporting framework reduce the
effective use of exchanged information by tax administrations in tackling tax fraud, evasion and
avoidance
What is this initiative expected to achieve?
The initiative aims to clarify, simplify and improve the functioning of the DAC framework, while
preserving its core objective of combating tax fraud, evasion and avoidance. It will reduce complexity
and improve legal clarity and legal certainty for all stakeholders. It will ensure that reporting and
notification obligations are proportionate, thereby reducing administrative burdens and contributing to
the Commission’s political priority of lowering such burdens by at least 25% for businesses and 35%
for SMEs, to support EU competitiveness. At the same time, it will enhance the relevance and quality
of reported information and strengthen the effective use of exchanged data by tax authorities.
What is the value added of action at the EU level?
EU action ensures a coherent, uniform and complete solution that cannot be achieved by Member
States acting individually, enabling targeted reductions in reporting burdens and administrative costs
for businesses across the Union. At the same time, it addresses inefficiencies in the current DAC
framework through targeted improvements, enhancing data completeness, quality and the effective use
of exchanged information. Overall, this strengthens the capacity of Member States’ tax authorities to
combat tax fraud, evasion and avoidance and maintains a level playing field in the Internal Market.
B. Solutions
What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred
choice or not? Why?
As regards the legislative approach, it is proposed to recast the DAC by: (1) codifying the initial legal
act (DAC1) and all its subsequent amendments (DAC2-DAC9) into one single legally binding act and
(2) introducing new substantive changes in line with the preferred policy package stemming from the
different options assessed.
The impact assessment considered a baseline scenario (no policy change) and the following targeted
legislative measures, including different policy options to address identified shortcomings in the DAC
framework:
• Measure 1 – Ensuring that DAC6 reporting obligations (cross-border arrangements) remain
proportionate and effective while promoting a more harmonised application of the Main Benefit
Test (MBT).
1
• Measure 2 – Amending the reporting threshold for activities involving the sale of goods under
DAC7 (income earned through digital platforms).
• Measure 3 – Streamlining notification obligations for multinational enterprise groups for the
purposes of DAC4 (country-by-country reporting) and DAC9 (central filing of the top-up tax
information return).
• Measure 4 – Improving the accuracy of reported TINs.
• Measure 5 – Improving the completeness of information exchanged under DAC1 (certain
categories of income and capital).
The preferred policy package includes the following options under each measure:
➢ Excluding all companies within the scope of Pillar 2 Directive from reporting under DAC6; refining
DAC6 reporting by removing hallmarks with limited added value (category A); issuing guidance on
the application of the MBT to the remaining hallmarks subject to the test (measure 1).
➢ Adjusting DAC7 thresholds by removing the activity threshold and increasing the monetary
threshold to EUR 3,000 (measure 2).
➢ Introducing a single notification obligation covering both DAC4 and DAC9, including a harmonised
filing deadline, a common notification template and central filing (measure 3).
➢ Introducing a centralised TIN verification system, accessible to both Member States tax
administrations (compulsory) and reporting entities (on a voluntary basis) (measure 4).
➢ Removing from DAC1 the life insurance products category and requiring Member States to
automatically exchange information available to relevant public authorities at national level on all
remaining six categories of income and capital (measure 5).
The preferred option is therefore a combined package of targeted legislative measures accompanied
by guidance for certain provisions, which ensures simplification, reduces administrative burdens and
improves legal clarity, while preserving the effectiveness of the framework in tackling tax fraud,
evasion and avoidance. It provides the most proportionate and efficient solution by focusing on high-
risk information and eliminating redundant or low-value reporting, while ensuring consistent
implementation across Member States and improving the effective use of exchanged information.
Who supports which option?
Stakeholders broadly support simplification. Businesses and tax intermediaries favour reducing low-
value reporting, streamlining notifications and improving clarity. Member States support measures that
improve efficiency and data quality while maintaining effective tax transparency. Views converge on
the need for targeted adjustments rather than major structural changes.
C. Impacts of the preferred option
What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?
The preferred policy package delivers significant simplification benefits through a set of targeted
measures within the scope of this initiative, reducing compliance costs and administrative burdens for
both businesses and tax administrations. It removes low-value reporting under DAC6 and DAC7,
where current obligations generate substantial costs for business, with DAC6 compliance costs
estimated at up to around EUR 340 million annually and DAC7 costs at around EUR 678 million per
year. It also streamlines the duplicative notification obligations which support the reporting
requirements under DAC4 and DAC9, reducing compliance costs that could otherwise reach up to
EUR 264 million annually. In parallel, measures to improve TIN verification enhance data quality and
increase automatic matching rates, enabling more efficient and automated use of exchanged
information, have been identified. Improvements to the completeness of DAC1 exchanges further
strengthen risk assessment and enforcement. Overall, the preferred policy package improves the
efficiency, effectiveness and proportionality of the DAC framework, while supporting EU
competitiveness through the reduction of administrative burdens and related costs.
2
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?
Limited adjustment costs are expected for businesses and administrations for most of the measures,
mainly related to adapting reporting systems and procedures. The centralised TIN verification system
will entail adjustment costs at EU level (approximately EUR 1.0 to 1.8 million for on-off costs and
EUR 1.8 to 2.4 million per year for recurrent costs) and national level (approximately EUR 15 to 25
million for on-off costs and EUR 4.5 to 12 million per year for recurrent costs). Given the voluntary
nature of the measure for the reporting entities, while upfront costs are expected, the measure is
expected to deliver net administrative savings over time through improved data quality, and use of
information and reduced correction and validation efforts, although the precise magnitude of these
effects cannot be quantified at this stage. While the introduction of a TIN validation tool entails upfront
and operational costs for all stakeholders, it will also generate significant overall savings by reducing
the need for resource-intensive ex post correction procedures, that can be quantified to up to
approximately EUR 70 million per year.
How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?
Businesses will benefit from a significant reduction in compliance costs and administrative burdens
resulting from the simplification measures included in the preferred policy package, in line with the
Commission’s targets of reducing such burdens by at least 25% for businesses and 35% for SMEs. The
removal of low-value reporting requirements under DAC6 and DAC7, together with the streamlining of
notification obligations related to DAC4 and DAC9, will substantially reduce unnecessary reporting
and duplication. SMEs and micro-enterprises are expected to benefit in particular from the
simplification of reporting requirements under DAC6 and DAC7, where compliance costs are
proportionally higher, while measures related to DAC4 and DAC9 mainly affect larger multinational
groups. Overall, the initiative supports a more favourable business environment and enhances EU
competitiveness.
Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?
Tax administrations may incur initial implementation costs for example with respect to the TIN
validation measure but will benefit from reduced processing of low-value data and improved data
matching, leading to overall efficiency gains.
Will there be other significant impacts?
The initiative strengthens the functioning of the internal market, supports competitiveness and
contributes to improved governance and transparency. This initiative is also compatible with the
Charter of Fundamental Rights.
D. Follow up
When will the policy be reviewed?
The policy will be reviewed through a structured monitoring and evaluation framework. Monitoring
will be carried out on an ongoing basis using indicators such as reporting volumes, data quality,
matching rates and compliance costs, in cooperation with Member States and business stakeholders. In
line with Article 27 of the DAC, the Commission will carry out an evaluation of the framework every
five years. This evaluation will assess the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added
value of the initiative, including its impact on administrative burdens and tax compliance.
3
Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 24 August 2026
(OR. en)
12521/26
Interinstitutional File:
2026/0168 (CNS)
FISC 278
ECOFIN 1099
NOTE
From: General Secretariat of the Council
To: Delegations
No. prev. doc.: 11060/26
Subject: Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for
a Council Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation
(recast)
Delegations will find attached the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the
Proposal for a Council Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast).
12521/26
ECOFIN.2.B EN
Saatja: "Kevin Kassihin - RAM" <
[email protected]>
Saaja: "info - AKI" <
[email protected]>
Teema: Maksustamisalase halduskoostöö direktiivi uuestisõnastamise ettepanek
Kuupäev: 2026-08-31 08:44
Tere!
Saadame Andmekaitse Inspektsioonile arvamuse avaldamiseks maksustamisalase
halduskoostöö direktiivi uuestisõnastamise (DAC Recast) ettepaneku.
Direktiiviga tehakse muudatusi praegu kehtivas maksustamisalase
halduskoostöö raamistikus, mis mõjutab eelkõige maksualase teabevahetuse
valdkonda. Teabevahetuse raames vahetatakse riikide vahel maksuriskide
tuvastamist toetavaid andmeid.
Direktiivi ettepanek koos asjaomaste dokumentidega on lisatud manusena.
Ettepaneku kohta on arvamust avaldanud ka Euroopa Andmekaitseinspektor
(EDPS), ning nende kommentaarid on samuti lisatud manusena.
Ettepaneku tutvustus koos asjaomaste dokumentidega on leitav ka Euroopa
Komisjoni veebilehelt aadressil: European Commission proposes landmark tax
simplification package to streamline compliance and boost competitiveness
- Taxation and Customs Union
<https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/news/european-commission-proposes-l
andmark-tax-simplification-package-streamline-compliance-and-boost-2026-06
-24_en> .
Juhul kui teil on DAC Recast ettepaneku kohta märkuseid siis oleme
tänulikud kui saate need meile saata 11. septembriks.
Parimate soovidega
Kevin Kassihin
Kevin Kassihin
peaspetsialist | Maksu- ja tollipoliitika osakond
58331868| <mailto:
[email protected]>
[email protected]
Rahandusministeerium | Suur-Ameerika 1, 10122 Tallinn |
<https://www.fin.ee> www.fin.ee
_____
Käesolev e-kiri võib sisaldada asutusesiseseks kasutamiseks tunnistatud
teavet.
This e-mail may contain information which is classified for official use.
Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 24 June 2026
(OR. en)
11060/26
ADD 5
Interinstitutional File:
2026/0168 (CNS)
FISC 235
ECOFIN 895
IA 182
COVER NOTE
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Ms Martine
DEPREZ, Director
date of receipt: 24 June 2026
To: Ms Thérèse BLANCHET, Secretary-General of the Council of the
European Union
No. Cion doc.: SEC(2026) 186 final
Subject: Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on administrative cooperation in
the field of taxation (recast)
Opinion of the RSB
Delegations will find attached document SEC(2026) 186 final.
Encl.: SEC(2026) 186 final
11060/26 ADD 5
ECOFIN.2.B EN
Council of the
European Union
Brussels, 24 June 2026
(OR. en)
11060/26
ADD 3
Interinstitutional File:
2026/0168 (CNS)
FISC 235
ECOFIN 895
IA 182
COVER NOTE
From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Ms Martine
DEPREZ, Director
date of receipt: 24 June 2026
To: Ms Thérèse BLANCHET, Secretary-General of the Council of the
European Union
No. Cion doc.: SWD(2026) 165 final
Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the document Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on
administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast)
Delegations will find attached document SWD(2026) 165 final.
Encl.: SWD(2026) 165 final
11060/26 ADD 3
ECOFIN.2.B EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 24.6.2026
SWD(2026) 165 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the document
Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (recast)
{COM(2026) 308 final} - {SEC(2026) 186 final} - {SWD(2026) 164 final} -
{SWD(2026) 166 final}
EN EN
Table of contents
1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 5
1.1. Political context ................................................................................................. 5
1.2. Legal context ..................................................................................................... 6
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 8
2.1. What are the problems? ..................................................................................... 9
2.2. What are the problem drivers? ........................................................................ 17
2.3. How likely is the problem to persist? .............................................................. 18
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 19
3.1. Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 19
3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 19
3.3. Proportionality: Added value of EU action ..................................................... 20
4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 20
4.1 General objectives ............................................................................................... 21
4.2 Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 21
5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .......................................................................... 22
5.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed? ...................................... 22
5.2 Description of the policy options ........................................................................ 23
5.3 Discarded Options ............................................................................................. 26
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ................................................................. 27
6.1 Impact on simplification while preserving the policy objectives of the DAC
framework (compliance costs and risks assessment) ...................................... 28
6.2 Impact on competitiveness and SME’s ........................................................... 43
6.3 Other impacts................................................................................................... 44
7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ................................................................................................. 46
Measure 1 – Ensuring that DAC6 reporting obligations remain proportionate
and effective while promoting a more harmonised application of the
MBT ................................................................................................................ 46
Measure 2 – Amending the reporting threshold for activities involving the sale
of goods under DAC7 ...................................................................................... 48
Measure 3 – Streamlining notification obligations for MNE group under DAC4
and DAC9 ........................................................................................................ 49
Measure 4 - Improving the verification of TINs ....................................................... 50
Measure 5 - Improving the completeness of information reported under DAC1 ..... 52
8. PREFERRED OPTION ...................................................................................................................... 55
8.1 Preferred policy options and option package .................................................. 55
8.2 Summary of the preferred policy package....................................................... 57
8.3 REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) ............................................ 59
8.4 Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach ................................................. 59
9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 60
1
9.1. Monitoring arrangements ................................................................................ 61
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 64
1. LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES ....................................................................... 64
2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING ........................................................................................................... 64
3. CONSULTATION OF THE RSB ............................................................................................................ 64
4. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY ......................................................................................... 70
5. EXTERNAL EXPERTISE .................................................................................................................. 71
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) ................................................ 72
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 72
2. RESULTS OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES ............................................................................... 72
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 79
1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE..................................................................... 79
2. SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ....................................................................................... 80
3. RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS ............................................................... 82
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 84
ANNEX 5: COMPETITIVENESS CHECK ................................................................................................ 95
ANNEX 6: SME CHECK ............................................................................................................................ 97
ANNEX 7: OVERVIEW OF SELECTED REPORTING AND EXCHANGE MECHANISMS IN
THE DIRECTIVE ON ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION (DAC) .......................................... 100
ANNEX 8: PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF NATIONAL TAXATION RULES FOR THE SALE OF
GOODS (DAC7) ............................................................................................................................... 109
ANNEX 9: RATIONALE FOR DIVERGING AUTOMATIC MATCHING RATES .............................. 110
2
Glossary
Acronym Meaning or definition
AEOI Automatic Exchange of Information
ATAD Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive
AUTOMATIC Automatic matching is the automated process of
MATCHING linking information reported under DAC to the relevant
taxpayer in the national tax database using identifying
information (e.g. TIN).
BEPS Base Erosion and Profits Shifting
BO Beneficial ownership
BRIS Business Registers Interconnection System
CbCR Country-by-Country Reporting
CfE Call for Evidence
DAC Directive on Administrative Cooperation in the field of
direct taxation
DF Directors’ Fees
ECA European Court of Auditors
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation
GIR GloBE Information Return
IE Income from Employment
IIR Income Inclusion Rule
IP Income from immovable property
LIP Life Insurance Products
LPP Legal professional privilege
MBT Main Benefit Test
MCAA Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement
MDR Mandatory Disclosure Rules
3
MNE Multinational Enterprise
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development
OECD MRDP OECD Model Rules for Reporting by Digital Platform
Operators
PC Public Consultation
PEN Pension Income
PO Policy Option
QDMTT Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SME Small and medium sized enterprise
TIN Taxpayer Identification Number
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UPE Ultimate Parent Entity
UTPR Undertaxed Profits Rule
VIES VAT Information Exchange System
4
1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
1.1. Political context
The Political Guidelines of the European Commission1 have set the objective of making
business easier and faster in Europe by reducing administrative burdens and simplifying
implementation, while upholding high standards, with a view to strengthening European
competitiveness.
The Competitiveness Compass2 highlighted the need to simplify the regulatory environment
and reduce administrative burdens in order to strengthen competitiveness across all sectors.
Subsequently, in its Communication on implementation and simplification3, the
Commission reiterated the need for a bold approach to enhance EU competitiveness and
introduced new targets to reduce administrative burdens. Under the new approach, the
burden-reduction targets of at least 25% for all companies and at least 35% for small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will be applied to a baseline covering the full range of
administrative costs rather than focusing solely on reporting obligations.
To achieve these objectives, the Commission committed to prioritise proposals that simplify,
consolidate and codify legislation in order to eliminate overlaps and inconsistencies while
ensuring that the EU’s priorities continue to be met. The 2025 Commission Work
Programme4 therefore placed a stronger focus on simplification than ever before and
included a series of omnibus packages and other simplification initiatives addressing priority
areas identified with stakeholders.
The 2026 Commission Work Programme5 builds on this momentum by including a new
cycle of simplification initiatives and omnibus packages aimed at simplifying rules across
key policy areas, including taxation. In particular, the Omnibus on Taxation will streamline,
simplify and clarify the EU direct tax acquis including the Interest and Royalties Directive6,
the Tax Merger Directive7, the Parent-Subsidiary Directive8, the Anti-Tax Avoidance
Directive9, the Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Directive10, and the Faster and Safer Relief
of Excess Withholding Taxes Directive11 with a view to reducing administrative burdens for
businesses and ensuring a level playing field across Member States.
1
European Commission, Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission 2024–2029: Europe’s Choice, July 2024, available at:
https://commission.europa.eu/priorities-2024-2029_en
2
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Competitiveness Compass for the EU, COM(2025) 30
final, 29 January 2025, available at: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/10017eb1-4722-4333-add2-e0ed18105a34_en
3
European Commission, Competitiveness Compass, COM(2025) 30 final.
4
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Commission Work Programme 2025 – Moving forward together: A Bolder, Simpler,
Faster Union, COM(2025) 45 final, 11 February 2025, available at: EUR-Lex - 52025DC0045 - EN - EUR-Lex
5
European Commission, Communication from the Commission: Commission Work Programme 2026 – Europe’s Independence Moment,
21 October 2025, available at: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategy-documents/commission-work-
programme/commission-work-programme-2026_en
6
Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between
associated companies of different Member States, OJ L 157
7
Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions,
transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered office
of an SE or SCE between Member States, OJ L 310
8
Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
subsidiaries of different Member States (recast), OJ L 345
9
Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning
of the internal market, OJ L 193
10
Council Directive (EU) 2017/1852 of 10 October 2017 on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union, OJ L 265
11
Council Directive (EU) 2025/50 of 10 December 2024 on Faster and Safer Relief of Excess Withholding Taxes (FASTER), OJ L,
2025/50
5
The proposal to recast the Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of direct
taxation (DAC)12 will complement these simplification efforts by clarifying, streamlining
and improving the functioning of the EU framework for administrative cooperation in direct
taxation. The objective is to reduce the administrative burden on businesses while increasing
the efficiency of tax administration without undermining the overarching policy objective
of combating tax fraud, evasion and avoidance.
Member States unanimously support simplification in the field of direct taxation and on 20
March 2025, adopted Council Conclusions13 calling for efforts at EU, national and regional
levels to ensure a clear, simple and smart regulatory framework that reduces administrative,
regulatory and reporting burdens for businesses and public administrations without
undermining the policy goals.
This initiative is consistent with the recent proposal for a regulation on the 28th Regime
Corporate Legal Framework – EU Inc14, which includes the “once-only” principle for the
submission of information, as well as with the FASTER Directive, which simplifies
procedures for claiming relief of excess withholding taxes while, at the same time, providing
for reporting obligations to increase transparency. The DAC, once recast, will continue to
be coherent and complementary with the EU Accounting Directive15 which intends to
promote the public transparency of the MNE group.
In addition, the DAC recast initiative is consistent with the Union’s commitment to the
United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development16. It contributes in particular to
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9
(Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace,
Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). A more detailed
analysis of these aspects is included in Annex 3.
1.2. Legal context
The DAC is the main piece of EU legislation governing administrative cooperation in direct
taxation. It provides harmonised tools such as exchange of information (on request,
automatic and spontaneous) as well as other cooperation instruments (presence in
administrative offices or during administrative enquiries, simultaneous controls and joint
audits). These mechanisms enable Member States’ tax authorities to cooperate efficiently in
combating tax fraud, evasion and avoidance. By increasing tax transparency, the DAC helps
protect the financial interests of Member States and the EU, ensures the proper functioning
of the internal market and contributes to a fairer taxation system.
The most impactful cooperation tool under the DAC is the automatic exchange of
information (AEOI). In most cases, this mechanism operates through a two-step process: i)
reporting to the tax authorities by the taxpayer or a third-party (e.g. financial institutions)
12
Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive
77/799/EEC, OJ L 64
13
European Council, European Council conclusions, 20 March 2025, EUCO 1/25, 20 March 2025, available at:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/viyhc2m4/20250320-european-council-conclusions-en.pdf
14
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation on the 28th Regime Corporate Legal Framework – ‘EU Inc.’, COM(2026) 321 final,
18 March 2026
15
Directive (EU) 2021/2101 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2021 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as
regards disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches; OJ L 429, 1.12.2021, pp. 1–14, ELI:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2021/2101/oj.
16
United Nations, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1, available at: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/70/1
6
and ii) automatic exchange between the tax authorities concerned of the information that has
been reported. The scope of AEOI under the DAC has been expanded several times over
recent years, in order to respond to emerging challenges and evolving economic realities.
While the initial framework covered AEOI on five categories of income and capital (DAC1),
the framework was subsequently expanded to provide for third-party reporting and AEOI
on financial accounts (DAC2)17, cross-border tax rulings (DAC3)18, country-by country
reporting (CbCR) on the activities of multinational enterprise (MNE) groups (DAC4)19,
reportable cross-border arrangements (DAC6)20, income earned through digital platforms
(DAC7)21, crypto-asset transactions (DAC8)22 and information related to the global
minimum tax for MNE groups (DAC9)23. In addition, (DAC5)24 provides access for tax
authorities to beneficial ownership registers.
Figure 1: Evolution of the DAC
17
Council Directive (EU) 2014/107 of 9 December 2014 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of
information in the field of taxation, OJ L 359
18
Council Directive (EU) 2015/2376 of 8 December 2015 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of
information in the field of taxation, OJ L 332
19
Council Directive (EU) 2016/881 of 25 May 2016 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of
information in the field of taxation, OJ L 146
20
Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of
information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements, OJ L 139
21
Council Directive (EU) 2021/514 of 22 March 2021 amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of
taxation, OJ L 104
22
Council Directive (EU) 2023/2226 of 17 October 2023 amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of
taxation, OJ L 2023/2226
23
Council Directive (EU) 2025/872 of 29 April 2024 amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of
taxation, OJ L 2024/1263
24
Council Directive (EU) 2016/2258 of 6 December 2016 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards access to anti-money-laundering
information by tax authorities, OJ L 342
7
In 2025 the Commission published an evaluation report on the application of the DAC25.The
report covers the period from 2018 to 2023 and all amendments up to DAC6. The report is
supported by an accompanying staff working document (the SWD)26, which is based inter
alia on the findings of an external study27. The evaluation report and SWD concluded that
that the DAC provides a robust legal framework that has facilitated the exchange of
substantial volumes of information. It also found that there has been a progressive increase
in both the matching of information and the use of exchanged information by tax authorities,
which has had a positive effect on Member States’ tax bases and revenues 28. However, the
evaluation also identified several areas for improvement29. In particular, the evaluation
concluded that frequent amendments to the DAC since 2011 and the absence of a
consolidated legal text have made the framework more complex and less user-friendly. The
evaluation also highlighted the need to simplify reporting obligations, in particular under
DAC6, to eliminate inefficient reporting practices, thereby reducing administrative burdens
for stakeholders. In addition, the evaluation found that, despite progress made, challenges
remain with respect to the automatic matching of information and the identification of
taxpayers, which increases the burden on tax administrations to cross check the information
received.
These findings are consistent with the conclusions and recommendations of the European
Court of Auditors (ECA) in its 2021 Special Report30 on DAC1 – DAC4 and their 2024
Special Report31 on DAC6. The targeted consultations carried out by the Commission
services on the simplification of the EU direct tax acquis and the public consultation and
call for evidence 32 conducted to inform this impact assessment also confirmed that there are
a number of issues related to DAC6 while also identifying further areas for simplification
with respect to the interaction of notification obligations to support reporting under DAC4
and DAC9 as well as DAC7. No significant issues were identified with respect to DAC2,
DAC3, DAC5 and DAC8 (further information is provided in Annex 7). The latter only
entered into application on 1 January 2026.
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
This section describes the problems and tries to estimate their magnitude.
A problem tree (Figure 2) has been included to visually present the problem, its drivers and
consequences.
Figure 2: Problem tree
25
European Commission (2025), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of Council
Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation, COM (2025) 695 final, 19 November 2025. Available at:
https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/c24ef108-3dce-4169-84e3-
0d024f419efd_en?filename=COM_2025_695_1_EN_ACT_part1_v3.pdf
26
European Commission (2025), Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Report on the evaluation of Council Directive
2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation, SWD(2025) [final], Brussels. Available at: https://taxation-
customs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/c1235b9c-8c70-4c36-8270-fc908d3d28fa_en?filename=Soon.pdf
27
Ramboll, London School of Economics and Political Science, and Syntesia (2025), Study supporting the evaluation of Directive
2011/16/EU (DAC), external study for the European Commission. Available at: https://taxation-
customs.ec.europa.eu/document/download/2206de45-1576-4eab-826a-4cb22aa7f80d_en?filename=Soon_0.pdf
28
See COM(2025) 695 final, pp. 6–8; SWD(2025), pp. 33–40.
29
European Commission (2025), COM(2025) 695 final, Section 3
30
European Court of Auditors, Special Report 03/2021: Exchanging tax information in the EU: solid foundation, cracks in the
implementation, 2021, available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/SR21_03
31
European Court of Auditors, Special Report 27/2024: Combatting harmful tax regimes and corporate tax avoidance, 28 November
2024, available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/SR-2024-27
32
European Commission, EU rules on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation – recast (call for evidence and public
consultation), available at: EU rules on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation – recast
8
2.1. What are the problems?
2.1.1 Increasing complexity and insufficient legal clarity and certainty
The DAC is a patchwork of nine different legal instruments comprised of the initial DAC1,
multiple amending directives (DAC2-DAC9) and corresponding annexes. This leads to
increased complexity and lack of legal clarity and certainty as tax administrations and
reporting entities are often required to interpret and apply provisions that are dispersed
across several legal instruments. The DAC evaluation concluded that the frequency of
amendments since 2011 has made the legal text more complex and less user-friendly33.
These conclusions were corroborated by both Member States and business stakeholders,
during the consultation activities. Stakeholders unanimously emphasised that the complexity
of the existing acquis has created practical difficulties in understanding, interpreting, and
applying the rules consistently across the Union.
33
See COM(2025) 695 final, pp. 7–9; SWD(2025), pp. 20–24.
9
2.1.2 Reporting requirements with limited added value for tax administrations
The conclusions from the DAC evaluation, recommendations from the 2024 ECA Special
Report and outcomes from the targeted consultations highlight that certain aspects of the
framework create legal uncertainty and result in reporting/notification outcomes that provide
limited added value for tax administrations. These aspects primarily relate to the
DAC4/DAC9, DAC6 and DAC7 which have led to disproportionately high volumes of
notifications and reporting that are either redundant or do not present a risk of tax fraud,
evasion or avoidance. These outcomes limit the effectiveness and efficiency of the DAC, as
they create high compliance burdens for business stakeholders and high administrative costs
for tax administrations who must process and analyse high volumes of information that
provide limited added value in tackling tax fraud, evasion and avoidance.
a. DAC6
DAC6 requires intermediaries (e.g. tax advisers, accountants, financial institutions) or, in
some cases the taxpayer to report to the tax authorities of Member States information on
certain potentially aggressive cross-border tax arrangements. This information enables tax
authorities to react promptly against harmful tax practices by enacting legislation to close
loopholes or by undertaking risk assessments or carrying out tax audits. These arrangements
must be reported whereupon they meet specific characteristics known as “hallmarks”.
These hallmarks serve as indicators of potentially aggressive tax planning arrangements and
are grouped into five categories: A (Generic hallmarks), B (Specific hallmarks), C (Specific
hallmarks related to cross-border transactions), D (Specific hallmarks concerning exchange
of information and beneficial ownership) and E (Specific hallmarks concerning transfer
pricing). Reporting requirements under hallmark A, hallmark B and points b(i), (c) and (d)
of paragraph 1 of hallmark C are linked to the application of a Main Benefit Test (MBT).
The MBT is intended to operate as a filter that reduces reporting volumes as it requires that
obtaining a tax advantage must be one of the main benefits that a person can reasonably
expect to obtain from an arrangement for that arrangement to be reportable.
While DAC6 is intended to discourage the use of aggressive tax planning arrangements, it
has generated significant volumes of reporting. Since reporting first commenced in 2020
more than 60,000 cross-border arrangements comprised of 79,274 disclosure reports have
been reported by Member States to the DAC6 Central Directory. While multiple different
hallmarks may be reported in each disclosure report, the SWD from the DAC evaluation
identified the proportion of reporting under each hallmark as follows34: hallmark A (35%),
hallmark B (34%), hallmark C (16%), hallmark D (4%) and hallmark E (12%). These high
volumes of reporting underline the importance of ensuring that the information reported
remains proportionate and targeted to achieving the objectives of tackling tax fraud, evasion
and avoidance.
Limited tax relevance of DAC6 reporting for MNE Groups within the scope of the Pillar
2 Directive
Since the adoption of DAC6, the legal environment at both the EU and international level
has significantly evolved with the implementation of the Pillar 2 Directive. The Pillar 2
Directive prevents base erosion and profit shifting by ensuring that MNE groups in scope
pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on profits in each jurisdiction that they operate.
34
See SWD(2025) [final], p. 96.
10
The main mechanism to achieve this objective is an Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) which
requires the ultimate parent entity (UPE) of a group to pay an additional amount of tax ("top-
up tax") on profits from entities in the group that are subject to an effective tax rate below
15%. The rules also include an Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR), which is designed to
operate as a backstop to the IIR. Finally, the rules allow jurisdictions to collect any top-up
tax due from domestic entities before the application of the IIR top-up tax or UTPR top-up
tax.
As the Pillar 2 Directive was only recently transposed by Member States the actual effects
of the interaction between the two sets of rules are not yet possible to assess in a reliable
manner. That said, the core objective of DAC6 is to target cross-border aggressive tax
planning arrangements which are developed to take advantage of disparate national tax rules.
However, the introduction of a global minimum effective tax rate has significantly reduced
the risk of shifting profit to low tax jurisdictions via these types of tax planning
arrangements.
In their contributions to the public consultation 14 stakeholders expressly highlighted that
DAC6 should only focus on high-risk arrangements that are not already covered by other
EU rules. Several business stakeholders involved in the targeted consultations called for a
complete carve out from DAC6 reporting for MNE groups within the scope of the Pillar 2
Directive. Currently there are approximately 4,700 MNE groups with at least one subsidiary
in the EU that are within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive. It is estimated that 3,000 of these
MNE groups have a sufficiently large operational footprint in the EU, in particular in terms
of multiple subsidiaries and cross-border intra-group transactions, to give rise to DAC6
reportable arrangements. Such MNE groups have complex organisational structures and
high volumes of cross-border transactions that necessitate dedicated in-house compliance
functions for DAC6 purposes, which result in high compliance costs. These groups are
estimated to incur compliance costs of around EUR 300 million per year35.
Limited tax relevance of certain arrangements reported under Hallmark A
The findings from the DAC evaluation report highlighted that business stakeholders and EU
tax administrations view certain DAC6 hallmarks as no longer fit for purpose 36. Tax
administrations highlighted that reporting associated with A1 is frequently precautionary in
nature and triggered by standard confidentiality clauses that are not specifically related to
tax arrangements. The SWD from the evaluation noted that this practice has led to significant
administrative workload without necessarily increasing the value of the reports 37 Tax
administrations also highlighted that the application of A3 has been problematic due to its
broad and ambiguous language and that this has led to excessive reporting38.
During the targeted consultations, 4 Member States accounting for 75% of all reporting
under DAC6 highlighted that reporting linked to A1, A2 and A3 provides limited added
value in identifying tax fraud, avoidance and evasion while creating significant operational
processing burdens for tax administrations. The ECA also identified that tax administrations
35
This estimate is based on approximately 3,000 MNE groups within the scope of Pillar 2 and an average annual compliance cost of EUR
100,000 per group, drawing on evidence from the evaluation of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive. This results in an aggregate compliance
cost of around EUR 300 million per year (see Chapter 6 and Annex 4 for details).
36
COM(2025) 695 final, p. 6.
37
SWD(2025) 695 final, p. 109
38
SWD(2025) 695 final, p. 109
11
face difficulties filtering and prioritising large volumes of DAC6 information including
arrangements that do not necessarily present a substantive tax risk39.
In their contribution to the public consultation, 17 business stakeholders expressly
highlighted the necessity to review and refine the DAC6 hallmarks to better target
arrangements that pose a genuine risk of aggressive tax planning. In this respect, they
converged on the need to remove hallmark A. In particular they indicated that A1 does not
provide any added value for tax administrations, A2 concerns transactions that are already
prohibited by law in many Member States and advised that A3 has led to excessive reporting
that has negatively impacted on the efficiency and effectiveness of the framework. These
findings broadly correspond to those of the targeted consultations of business stakeholders.
Since reporting commenced in July 2020, the volumes of reports linked to these hallmarks
are as follows, A1 (19,256), A2 (704) and A3 (33,785) representing an annual average of
8,300 reports by companies outside of the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive. For these
companies, compliance costs are more closely linked to the preparation and submission of
individual reports, and they often rely upon external advisory services for these purposes40.
Based upon the average cost per report of EUR 5,000, as indicated during stakeholder
consultations with tax advisory firms (see Annex 2 for more details on stakeholder
consultations), the corresponding total compliance burden is estimated at approximately
EUR 41 million per year.
Divergent interpretation of the Main Benefit Test (MBT)
A consistent interpretation and application of the MBT is of critical importance to the
effective and efficient functioning of the framework. Reporting requirements under hallmark
A, hallmark B and points b(i), (c) and (d) of paragraph 1 of hallmark C are linked to the
application of the MBT. The MBT is intended to operate as a filter to reduce reporting
volumes, however reports linked to these hallmarks are listed in 77% of all disclosure reports
(Annex 7). The findings from the DAC evaluation SWD41 indicate that the MBT is
interpreted and applied differently across the Union. These divergent interpretations, which
reflect variations in administrative practices and approaches to risk assessment reduce legal
certainty for intermediaries and taxpayers that operate cross-border. They also negatively
impact on reporting behaviours resulting in inconsistent reporting outcomes across Member
States which limits the efficiency and effectiveness of the framework.
Similar findings were included in the 2024 ECA Report42 where it was identified that there
is persistent uncertainty in determining whether obtaining a tax advantage constitutes the
main or one of the main benefits of an arrangement, including whether such assessments
should rely on a quantitative comparison of expected benefits. Consequentially, the ECA
concluded that similar cross-border arrangements may be treated differently across Member
States in terms of reportability.
39
ECA, Special Report 27/2024, paras 59–63
40
DAC6 reporting obligations are primarily imposed on intermediaries, which account for approximately two thirds of all disclosures,
while the remaining one third are filed directly by taxpayers. For the purpose of this analysis, no distinction is made between intermediary
and taxpayer filed reports, as the associated compliance costs are assumed to be broadly comparable. In practice, costs incurred by
intermediaries are typically passed on to the underlying taxpayer, such that the overall economic burden is borne by companies irrespective
of the reporting channel.
41
See SWD (2025), pp. 118–128; COM (2025) 695 final, pp. 8–9.
42
ECA, Special Report 27/2024, paras 59–63
12
b. DAC7
Limited tax relevance of certain sellers reported in relation to the sale of goods
DAC7 introduced reporting obligations for digital platform operators to improve tax
transparency and tax compliance in the platform economy. Platform operators must collect
and report information on sellers engaging in activities such as selling goods, providing
personal services or renting immovable property or means of transport. This information is
then automatically exchanged with the Member State where the seller is resident and where
the immovable property is located. Under the current rules and with respect to activities
involving the sale of goods, sellers carrying out fewer than 30 transactions not exceeding
EUR 2,000 in a calendar year are excluded from reporting. Consequentially the reporting
obligation will apply even where the monetary value of transactions is minimal e.g. a seller
carrying out 30 transactions with a value of EUR 1 each would still be reportable.
In their response to the public consultation 6 business stakeholders, mainly online platform
associations, expressly highlighted issues concerning the current threshold for the sale of
goods. These respondents considered this current threshold as too low and proposed
amendments including raising the monetary threshold (e.g. to EUR 5,000) and removing the
transaction threshold. These views are largely consistent with those expressed by business
stakeholders during targeted consultations where platform operators indicated that the
current threshold is leading to the reporting of many non-professional sellers that carry out
many transactions for minimal income and that this is particularly prevalent in the second-
hand goods market. They also indicated that the current thresholds discourage private
individuals from selling their second-hand goods with many of these individuals concerned
by the requirement to provide their TIN. According to them, this has reduced the number of
sales of second-hand goods, conflicting with the broader Union objective of promoting the
circular economy43.
Sixteen out of 19 Member States that expressed a view highlighted that the current threshold
is not sufficiently proportionate and is leading to the reporting of information that is of
limited value from a tax perspective, as under national tax rules income from the occasional
sale of personal goods is generally not taxable. Moreover, the reporting of large volumes of
low-value transactions that do not present a tax risk creates operational challenges and
resourcing costs for tax administrations. Seven out of 12 Member States that expressed more
specific views supported removing the activity threshold while there were diverging views
on the appropriate level for the monetary threshold, with 2 supporting the retention of EUR
2,000, 3 favouring a threshold of between EUR 3,000 and EUR 5,000 and 2 supporting a
threshold above EUR 5,000. Since these views were expressed all relevant jurisdictions and
26 Member States reached a provisional agreement at technical level at the OECD, to
remove the activity threshold and increase the monetary threshold to EUR 3,000. in relation
to the Model Rules for Digital Platform Operators (MRDP), which are implemented in the
EU through DAC7. This provisional technical agreement is reflective of the fact that
Member States do not view an increase of the threshold as negatively impacting on their
ability to effectively apply their national taxation rules. While the application of national
43
European Commission, A new Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner and more competitive Europe, COM(2020) 98 final, 11
March 2020, available at: Circular Economy Action Plan (COM(2020) 98)
13
taxation rules is dependent on specific personal circumstances e.g. entitlement to tax credits
and allowances based on marital and parental status, general case study examples of national
taxation rules are included at Annex 8.
DAC7 reporting has reached a significant scale across the Union. According to statistics
made available by the Member States to the Commission services approximately 52,000
platform operators were active in the EU in 2024. These operators reported information on
approximately 13.5 million sellers out of an estimated total seller base of approximately 71
million individuals engaged in platform-based activities. According to information provided
by major platform operators in the EU almost 80% of sellers reported for activities involving
the sale of goods consist of those exceeding the activity threshold of 30 transactions but
remaining below the EUR 2,000 monetary threshold. Platforms operators incur the
compliance costs associated with reporting these low value sellers, which are estimated at
approximately EUR 640 million per year across all platform operators. At the same time,
tax administrations are required to process and analyse large volumes of information that
are of limited relevance for assessing tax liabilities, which reduces the overall effectiveness
and efficiency of their risk analysis and enforcement activities.
c. DAC4/DAC9
Duplication of notification obligations
DAC4 requires certain MNE groups to file a country-by-country report (CbCR) with the
relevant tax authorities of Member States. CbCR applies to MNE Groups with an annual
consolidated group revenue of EUR 750 million or more in the preceding fiscal years. The
report includes information on revenue, profits, income tax paid, number of employees, etc.
Tax authorities can use this information to perform high-level transfer pricing risk
assessments, evaluate other BEPS related risks and for economic and statistical analysis.
DAC4 requires entities of the MNE group to notify the tax authorities of the entity
responsible for reporting for the group. DAC9, which also applies to MNE groups with an
annual consolidated revenue of EUR 750 million or more, enables central filing of the
GloBE Information Return (GIR). However, each entity of the MNE group is required to
notify the tax authorities of the entity responsible for reporting for the group
While the content of these notifications are not directly aligned, they do contain duplicate
informational requirements. With respect to the filing deadline for these notifications, DAC4
requires that the filing should take place before the last day of the reporting fiscal year of
the MNE group, however there is no such filing deadline prescribed for the notification
obligations which support the DAC9 reporting requirements. This has led to diverging filing
deadlines across the Union.
In their response to the public consultation, 12 stakeholders expressly highlighted the need
for a centralised Union wide system for such notifications. Ten of these stakeholders
supported a single DAC4/DAC9 group level notification in tandem with a ‘change only’
approach, standardised template and EU wide harmonised filing deadline. These
respondents highlighted that the absence of standardised notification procedures and
templates has led to divergent approaches across the Union which increases the compliance
burden for MNE groups.
14
According to Orbis there are approximately 4,700 MNE groups comprised of around
109,000 constituent entities with activities in the Union. These entities are subject to
notification obligations under both DAC4 and DAC9. Groups that are subject to the existing
notification obligations under DAC4 estimate that the associated administrative costs of
compliance are approximately EUR 135 million per year. In the absence of streamlining, the
combined compliance costs for DAC4 and DAC9 could reach around EUR 270 million per
year.
2.1.2. Member States limited in their ability to maximise the benefits of the DAC
Limited automatic identification of reported taxpayers in national tax systems reducing
the effective use of reported information
The TIN is a unique identifier issued by public authorities to taxpayers to facilitate the
administration of their national tax affairs. The TIN is a fundamental element of the DAC
framework as it ensures that information exchanged between tax authorities can be
accurately matched to the correct taxpayers, thereby facilitating the correct assessment of
tax obligations. Under the DAC, the TIN and other information is collected and reported by
the relevant reporting entity to the relevant tax administration. The information is then
automatically exchanged with the tax administrations of other Member States. The
evaluation SWD44 identified weaknesses in the completeness and quality of reported TINs
and highlighted that automatic matching rates remain relatively low for certain categories of
exchanged information. In some cases, the automatic matching rate is below 30% (Figure
3 below), a detailed rationale for the diverging automatic matching rates between DAC1 -
DAC7 is included at Annex 9.
Figure 3: Average automatic matching rates for TIN for 2025
DAC1 DAC1 DAC1 DAC1 DAC1 DAC2 DAC3 DAC4 DAC6 DAC7
IE DF PEN LIP IP
39.3% 41.6% 46.9% 24.2% 35% 67.9% 27.3% 81.5% 56.8% 69.7%
Source: European Commission statistics
Legend: Income from employment (IE), directors’ fees (DF), pension income (PEN), life insurance products
(LIP), income from immovable property (IP)
The inaccurate reporting of TINs constrains the ability of tax administrations to
automatically reconcile data received from other Member States with national taxpayer
databases. This constraint inhibits effective risk assessment and follow-up compliance
actions and substantially increases reliance on manual processing and follow up requests,
which in turn increases administrative costs and burden for tax administrations. This
assessment is corroborated by the findings of the 2021 ECA Special Report45, which
identified that matching performance (automatic and manual) varies significantly across
Member States and that unmatched information cannot be readily used for compliance
purposes.
44
See SWD(2025), pp. 95–97
45
ECA, Special Report 03/2021, paras 57–63.
15
Where information cannot be automatically matched this reduces the scope for tax
administrations to automate and digitalise their processes for using information.
Simultaneously operational costs increase due to the necessity to manually match
information and submit follow up requests for information to the tax administration that
exchanged the information. This limits the effective use of all information by tax authorities
and negatively impacts on the efficiency and effectiveness of the framework. In their
response to the public consultation 7 stakeholders expressly highlighted the necessity for a
centralised TIN verification system.
d. DAC1
Incomplete reporting across categories and limitations in the information available for
reporting
Under DAC1 Member States must exchange information that is “available” in their tax files
on at least 5 of the 7 DAC1 income categories. The evaluation SWD identified significant
differences between Member States in the number and type of income categories exchanged
under DAC146 (see figure 4). Furthermore, the ECA in their 2021 Special Report also
highlighted the large differences between the number of categories reported and exchanged
by Member States and that this may contribute to situations where income is not taxed in
the Member State of residence of the taxpayer because the relevant information is not
exchanged47. These structural limitations reduce the effectiveness of the administrative
cooperation framework, in particular, where the information is already held at national level
but not made available to tax administrations, thereby further constraining the ability of tax
administrations to maximise the benefits of the DAC.
Figure 4: Categories of information exchanged by Member States
Category of Income and Capital Number of Member States
exchanging information
Income from employment 26
Directors Fees 23
Income from life insurance products 10
Pensions 25
Ownership and income from immovable property 24
Royalties 18
Non-custodial dividend income AEOI will start in 2027
Source: European Commission statistics
In particular, income from life insurance products (LIP) is exchanged by only 10 Member
States and represents less than 1% of both the number of taxpayers and the total value of
income exchanged under DAC1. This limited use partly reflects the fact that several Member
States do not hold relevant information in their tax files due to the absence of national tax
provisions applicable to LIP. Moreover, certain LIP are already covered by exchanges under
46
See SWD(2025), pp. 45–49
47
ECA, Special Report 03/2021, para. VIII; see also paras 29–33, 108
16
DAC2. This overlap arises because certain LIP are treated as financial accounts and are
therefore reported by financial institutions under the DAC2 framework.
2.2. What are the problem drivers?
Fragmentation of the legal framework due to numerous amending legal instruments
Since its first adoption in 2011, the DAC has been amended 8 times to introduce new
reporting requirements and administrative cooperation mechanisms. While these
amendments have progressively expanded the scope of administrative cooperation,
particularly AEOI, they have also resulted in a fragmented legal framework that must be
read and interpreted together. This has increased the complexity of the legal framework and
has contributed to challenges in ensuring consistent interpretation and implementation of the
DAC across the Union.
Evolution of tax compliance risks faced by tax administrations
The compliance risks faced by tax administrations have evolved significantly since 2011,
due to increased cross-border economic activity, digitalisation and the growing complexity
of MNE structures. In response, the administrative cooperation framework has expanded to
include additional reporting obligations under instruments such as DAC4 for MNE groups,
DAC6 for cross-border tax arrangements and DAC7 for activities carried out through digital
platforms. While these instruments were introduced to address specific tax compliance risks,
the cumulative expansion of reporting obligations has also increased the complexity and
compliance costs associated with the framework.
Certain tax compliance risks that were once prevalent have now significantly reduced
particularly since the introduction of the Pillar 2 Directive (which was adopted in 2022) and
which has established a comprehensive framework for ensuring a minimum effective level
of taxation for MNE groups in each jurisdiction they operate. Simultaneously, the evolution
of tax compliance risks in other areas such as activities carried out via digital platforms
means that certain reported information may now be of limited value for tax administrations.
This affects the efficiency and proportionality of the reporting system and increases
administrative burdens for both tax administrations and reporting entities.
Inaccurate reporting of the TIN and limitations in the legislative reporting framework
The DAC evaluation identified that weaknesses remain in the accurate reporting of TINs.
While the DAC requires reporting entities to validate the TIN of the reported taxpayer, it
does not prescribe the method by which the TIN should be validated. At present there is no
centralised system for reporting entities and tax administrations to validate that a TIN is
correct and that it corresponds to the relevant taxpayer. The Commission has developed an
online tool (i.e. the TIN-on-the Web module48). However, the tool is limited to verifying
whether the structure of the TIN is valid (types and number of characters i.e. syntax).
Moreover, and as highlighted by the ECA in their 2021 Special Report, there are structural
limitations in the design of the legal framework governing the exchange of information
under DAC149. Member States are required to exchange information on at least five of the
48
European Commission, TIN on the Web (Taxpayer Identification Number), available at: TIN on the Web
49
ECA, Special Report 03/2021, para. VIII; see also paras 29–33, 108
17
seven DAC1 income categories. In addition, only information that is “available” in the tax
files of the competent tax authority must be exchanged, meaning that if relevant information
exists within a Member State’s public administration but is not recorded in the tax
administration’s databases, Member States are not obliged to exchange this information. For
example, information on ownership of immovable property may be held by a land registry
or another public authority but not systematically captured in the tax authority’s records.
Where such information is not available in the tax administration’s files, it is not considered
“available” for the purposes of DAC1 and is therefore not exchanged. This “availability”
provision substantially limits the scope of information exchanged between Member States.
2.3. How likely is the problem to persist?
The DAC and its subsequent amendments constitute Union legal acts intended to ensure that
there is a coherent and comprehensive framework for administrative cooperation within the
Internal Market. To this end the DAC establishes harmonised reporting and exchange of
information requirements across Member States.
In the absence of amendments to the existing Union acquis, the problems identified are
expected to persist and, in several areas, intensify over time. The complexity of the current
legal framework stems from the cumulative development of the DAC through successive
amendments. Without EU action, tax administrations and reporting entities would continue
to interpret and apply provisions dispersed across several legislative instruments. Divergent
interpretations of certain provisions across Member States would therefore likely remain,
creating legal uncertainty for businesses operating cross-border and potentially affecting the
level playing field.
At the same time, available evidence points to a continued increase in the volume of
information exchanged under the DAC framework. For example, under DAC1, between
2018 and mid-2022, Member States exchanged information covering approximately 36.7
million taxpayers and EUR 239.5 billion in income. On an annual basis (2018–2021), this
corresponds to around 8.6 million taxpayers and EUR 54.8 billion in income exchanged,
with a clear upward trend compared to earlier periods (50). In the absence of reform, this
trend is expected to continue, further increasing the volume of data handled by tax
administrations.
At the same time, the evolution of reporting obligations introduced under different DAC
instruments would continue to generate situations where certain notification obligations
overlap and reporting requirements result in the reporting of large volumes of information
that may be of limited added value for tax administrations. This is particularly evident in
the case of DAC6, where stakeholder consultations indicate that continued reporting at
current levels would generate substantial volumes of disclosures, a significant share of
which are considered to have limited tax relevance (“noise”).
This assessment is substantiated by the fact that during the targeted consultations, 4 Member
States accounting for 75% of all reporting under DAC6 highlighted that reporting linked to
A1, A2 and A3 provides limited added value in identifying tax fraud, avoidance and evasion
while creating significant operational processing burdens for tax administrations. This
concern is reinforced by observed trends since the introduction of DAC6, with more than
(50) Evaluation of the Directive 2011/16 and its amendments, Final Report, 2025, Figure 5.
18
60,000 arrangements reported between mid-2020 and 2025. In the absence of reform, these
volumes are expected to remain high or increase further, thereby exacerbating administrative
burdens and reducing the capacity of tax administrations to focus on high-risk cases.
Similarly, for DAC7, while time series data are still limited, broader economic developments
such as the continued expansion of the platform economy and increasing digitalisation
suggest that the number of platform users and transactions will continue to grow. This is
expected to translate into a rising number of reportable sellers and corresponding reporting
obligations over time.
In the absence of legislative amendments, compliance costs would continue not to be
proportionate to the contribution of these obligations to the underlying policy objectives.
More generally, the combination of increasing reporting volumes and overlapping
obligations is expected to lead to rising compliance costs for both businesses and tax
administrations, as also evidenced in the DAC evaluation.
Limitations affecting the completeness and use of exchanged information would also persist.
In particular, the optionality associated with certain reporting requirements under DAC1 and
the obligation to exchange only information available in the tax files of the competent
authority would continue to result in differences in the scope of information exchanged
across Member States. In addition, challenges related to the accurate identification of
taxpayers would remain as weaknesses in the verification of TINs would continue to limit
the ability of tax administrations to automatically match exchanged information with
national taxpayer databases and, therefore, to effectively and efficiently use exchanged
information for risk assessment and compliance purposes.
These trends indicate that, in the absence of policy intervention, the current challenges
related to complexity, fragmentation, data quality and administrative burden are likely not
only to persist but to become more pronounced over time, driven by increasing volumes of
exchanged information and the evolving economic environment.
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?
3.1. Legal basis
The legal basis of DAC relies on Articles 113 and 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (TFEU). Article 113 of the TFEU provides a legal basis for the
harmonisation of indirect tax systems of Member States, as far as is needed to ensure the
functioning of the Internal Market and to avoid distortion of competition. Article 115 of the
TFEU provides for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions
of the Member States, which directly affect the establishment or functioning of the Internal
Market and make the approximation of laws necessary. The key objective of the DAC is to
ensure that there is a robust legal instrument based on uniform conditions and harmonised
practices to facilitate administrative cooperation and exchange of information in the field of
direct taxation. This is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the Internal Market and
reduce the negative effects of tax fraud, evasion and avoidance in the EU.
3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action
The DAC and its 8 amendments are legal acts of the EU. The political objectives of
simplification necessitate proposals to codify, simplify and clarify the existing framework
to eliminate any overlaps and contradictions, cut unnecessary and low-value reporting and
19
ensure consistent implementation, while not undermining the policy objectives of the
legislation. Given the need to act and the nature and extent of the problem as set out in
chapter 2, an EU approach is the only option to ensure that there is a comprehensive and
uniform solution that conforms with EU law, does not distort competition and maintains the
level playing field. Individual actions taken by Member States could not achieve these
objectives. At the same time, the current inefficiencies in the effective functioning of the
DAC acquis, as identified in the DAC evaluation and the Special Reports of the ECA are
linked to several existing reporting and exchange obligations contained in the DAC, which
can only be comprehensively and uniformly addressed by an EU legislative initiative.
3.3. Proportionality: Added value of EU action
The added value of EU action is that it ensures that there is a coherent, uniform and complete
solution at EU level, which achieves the targeted reductions in reporting burdens and
associated administrative costs for EU businesses, and which could not be achieved by
individual actions taken by Member States. At the same time, EU action will
comprehensively address the current identified inefficiencies in the functioning of the DAC
with targeted improvements to the existing acquis ensuring that tax administrations,
reporting entities and taxpayers benefit from a more efficient and effective functioning of
the DAC. More specifically, these uniform and coherent enhancements will support
improvements in data completeness, data quality and use of information and therein advance
the capabilities of the tax authorities of Member States to effectively tackle tax fraud,
avoidance and evasion.
4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?
Figure 5: Intervention logic
20
4.1 General objectives
In response to the problems identified, the general objectives of this initiative are to
contribute to strengthening the competitiveness of EU businesses and to enhance the
functioning of the Internal Market. These objectives are consistent with the priorities set
out in the Competitiveness Compass51 and the 2025 Single Market Strategy52, which
emphasise the importance of regulatory efficiency as a means of supporting competitiveness
and economic resilience.
At the same time, the initiative aims to continue to effectively support the Union’s efforts
to fight against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance with a view to safeguarding Member
States’ tax bases, ensuring fair taxation, and maintaining a level playing field within the
Single Market. A key objective of the DAC is to ensure that Member States receive
information, which enables their tax administrations to effectively enforce their national tax
rules. The information is intended to support compliance and effectively address non-
compliance. In certain instances, non-compliance may take the form of tax fraud or tax
evasion both of which are illegal activities. In other instances, non-compliance may take the
form of tax avoidance, which is not by its nature an illegal activity, but is an activity that is
usually contrary to the intention of the legislation. Attaining these objectives requires that
Member States’ tax administrations remain equipped with effective and proportionate tools
to detect, assess, and address non-compliance with tax obligations.
4.2 Specific objectives
Reducing complexity and improving legal clarity and legal certainty for all stakeholders
This objective addresses the fragmentation resulting from successive amendments to the
DAC and aims to improve legal clarity and certainty for tax administrations, reporting
entities and taxpayers by consolidating the Directive into one legal text. Greater clarity will
facilitate easier readability and usability thus facilitating more consistent implementation of
reporting obligations across the Union and supporting a more predictable, streamlined and
cost-efficient compliance environment for stakeholders.
Ensuring reporting and notification obligations are proportionate and better targeted
while preserving the policy objectives
This objective seeks to reduce reporting requirements and notification obligations that
generate limited added value for tax administrations while preserving and upholding the
policy objectives of tackling tax fraud, evasion and avoidance. Aligning reporting
requirements and notification obligations with the tax compliance risks that they are
intended to address will improve the relevance of the information collected, reported and
exchanged under the framework thereby ensuring that the framework remains proportionate,
efficient and effective.
51
European Commission, Competitiveness Compass, available at:
https://commission.europa.eu/topics/competitiveness/competitiveness-compass_en
52
European Commission, The Single Market: our European home market in an uncertain world – A Strategy for making the Single
Market simple, seamless and strong, COM(2025) 500 final, 21 May 2025, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52025DC0500
21
Improving the effectiveness and usability of exchanged information
This objective focuses on improving the completeness, accuracy, and usability of exchanged
data, including the automatic identification of taxpayers via their TIN. This will enhance the
ability of tax administrations to automatically identify taxpayers and effectively use all
exchanged information for risk assessment and compliance purposes. The objective also
seeks to address the current limitations in the legislative framework that are leading to
incomplete and fragmented reporting under DAC1.
5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS?
5.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed?
The policy options are assessed against a baseline scenario in which no Union level action
is taken to amend the existing acquis under the DAC. Under this baseline, the current
legislative framework, consisting of 9 separate legal instruments, would remain unchanged.
Tax administrations and reporting entities would therefore continue to operate under the
existing notification, reporting and automatic exchange of information obligations
established under the DAC.
Under DAC6, the reporting framework for cross-border arrangements would remain
unchanged, including the existing scope of reportable arrangements and the application of
the MBT. Since the reporting regime became operational in 2020, more than 60,000 cross-
border arrangements and over 79,000 disclosure reports have been reported through the
DAC6 Central Directory. Approximately 35% of all reporting is attributable to Hallmark A,
while around 8% of total disclosure reports are filed by MNE groups within the scope of the
Pillar 2 Directive.
Under DAC7, platform operators would continue to report information on sellers in
accordance with the existing thresholds for the sale of goods. In the baseline scenario, it is
estimated that approximately 13.5 million sellers in the EU are currently reportable
corresponding to around 20% of all individuals engaged in platform-based selling activities.
Under DAC4 and DAC9, entities of MNE groups would continue to be subject to multiple
duplicative notification obligations across Member States. In the baseline scenario,
approximately 4,700 MNE Groups and 109,000 constituent entities are subject to these
notification obligations.
As regards TINs, the baseline is reflected in the current automatic matching rates achieved
by the receiving tax administrations when linking exchanged information with national
taxpayer databases. These automatic matching rates represent the baseline performance of
the system across the Union (see figure 3). Available administrative data indicates that a
share of exchanged records cannot be automatically matched to national taxpayer databases
due to incorrect or inconsistent taxpayer identification information (including invalid or
mismatched TINs). This necessitates manual verification or follow-up requests between tax
administrations.
Finally, under DAC1, Member States would continue to exchange information on five
categories of income and capital and only where such information is “available” in the tax
22
files of the competent authority. As a result, differences in the scope and completeness of
the information exchanged across Member States would remain under the baseline scenario.
5.2 Description of the policy options
As regards the legislative approach it is proposed to recast the DAC to simplify and reduce
the complexity of the acquis, to enhance legal clarity of the provisions and to provide legal
certainty for all stakeholders. The recast of the DAC will: (i) codify the initial legal act
(DAC1) and all its subsequent amendments (DAC2-DAC9) by bringing them together, into
a single, legally binding act; and (ii) introduce new substantive changes, in line with the
preferred policy options stemming from measures 1 to 5 below. The new text of the DAC
will repeal and replace all earlier versions.
Measure 1 - Ensuring that DAC6 reporting obligations remain proportionate and
effective while promoting a more harmonised application of the MBT
The policy options aim to ensure that reporting obligations under DAC6 remain
proportionate and effective in supporting the overarching aims of tackling tax fraud, evasion
and avoidance. At the same time, they are intended to improve legal certainty and achieve a
more harmonised application of the MBT, which will in turn contribute to strengthening the
competitiveness of EU businesses and enhancing the functioning of the Internal Market.
Measure 1
Baseline (Status Quo) Policy Option 1a Policy Option 1b Policy Option 1c
Intermediaries and, in Excluding all Policy Option 1a + Policy Option 1a +
certain instances, relevant companies within Removing all reporting Removing all reporting
taxpayers are required to the scope of Pillar 2 requirements related to requirements related to
report information on from the reporting hallmark A hallmark A
cross-border arrangements under DAC6. + +
based on hallmarks with Issuing guidance on Removing the MBT +
reportability for certain application of the MBT revising the remaining
hallmarks conditional on to remaining hallmarks hallmarks previously
the MBT being met. subject to the test. subject to the test
Policy Option 1a would exclude all companies within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive
from reporting under DAC6. Policy Option 1b would build on Option 1a and would also
remove all reporting obligations related to hallmark A for all other companies and
intermediaries within the scope of DAC6. In addition, the Commission services would issue
guidance to support a more harmonised interpretation and application of the MBT with
respect to the remaining hallmarks subject to the test (hallmark B and C(1)(b)(i), C(1)(c)
and C(1)(d)). Policy Option 1c would build on Option 1a and on Option 1b and in addition
would remove the MBT from the remaining hallmarks currently subject to the test (hallmark
B and C(1)(b)(i), C(1)(c) and C(1)(d)). These hallmarks would be revised to make them fit
for purpose without the MBT.
Measure 2 - Amending the reporting threshold for activities involving the sale of goods
under DAC7
The proposed policy options aim to ensure that the information reported and exchanged in
relation to activities involving the sale of goods remains proportionate and relevant for tax
23
authorities in supporting the policy objectives of tackling tax fraud, evasion and avoidance.
This will in turn contribute to strengthening the competitiveness of EU businesses and
enhancing the functioning of the Internal Market. The options also seek to ensure coherence
with the OECD Model Rules for Reporting by Digital Platform Operators (OECD MRDP)
and with broader Union policy objectives that promote longer product lifetimes under the
Commission’s Circular Economy Action Plan53.
Measure 2
Baseline (Status Quo) Policy Option 2a Policy Option 2b Policy Option 2c
Platform operators Removing the activity Removing the activity Removing the activity
report information on threshold of 30 threshold of 30 threshold of 30
sellers who carry out 30 transactions and transaction and transaction and
or more activities or retaining the monetary increasing the monetary increasing the monetary
receive income of EUR threshold of EUR 2,000. threshold to EUR 3,000. threshold to EUR 5,000.
2,000 or more during the
calendar year.
Policy Option 2a would remove the current activity-based threshold of 30 transactions and
retain only the existing monetary threshold of EUR 2,000. Under this option, the number of
activities carried out by a seller would no longer be relevant for reporting purposes. A seller
would be reportable only where the total consideration received during the calendar year
reaches or exceeds EUR 2,000. Policy Option 2b would also remove the activity-based
threshold and, in addition, increase the monetary threshold to EUR 3,000, in line with the
approach agreed at technical level at the OECD in relation to the MRDP, which are
implemented in the EU through DAC7. Under this option, the number of activities carried
out by a seller would no longer be relevant for reporting purposes and a seller would be
reportable only where the total consideration received during the calendar year reaches or
exceeds EUR 3,000. Policy Option 2c would also remove the activity-based threshold and
in addition, increase the monetary threshold to EUR 5,000. This option would implement a
more ambitious adjustment of the monetary threshold, as suggested by some Member States
and business stakeholders, to further reduce the reporting of low-value transactions.
Measure 3 - Streamlining notification obligations for MNE groups under DAC4 and
DAC9
The proposed policy options aim to streamline the notification obligations applicable to
MNE groups under DAC4 and DAC9 to ensure that they are proportionate and better
targeted to achieving the policy objectives of tackling tax fraud, evasion and avoidance. This
will in turn contribute to strengthening the competitiveness of EU businesses and enhancing
the functioning of the Internal Market. The notifications are an important preliminary step
to inform tax authorities of the relevant reporting entity for the group.
Measure 3
Baseline (Status Quo) Policy Option 3a Policy Option 3b
53
European Commission, A new Circular Economy Action Plan, COM (2020) 98 final; see also ongoing work on a Circular Economy
Act (2025–2026)
24
Each entity of the MNE Introducing a single Policy Option 3a +
group is required to submit notification obligation
a separate notification covering both DAC4 and Introducing central filing of the single
under DAC4 and DAC9 DAC9 including a harmonised notification in one Member State by one
identifying the entity filing deadline and a common entity of the MNE group, followed by
responsible for filing the notification template. exchange of the notification information
relevant group-level between Member States.
report, without harmonised
deadlines or notification
template.
Policy Option 3a would introduce a single notification obligation covering both DAC4 and
DAC9 for entities of the MNE group. Under the single notification obligation, each entity
would submit this information only once, and it would be accompanied by a common
notification template and a harmonised filing deadline. Policy Option 3b would build on
Policy Option 3a with the introduction of central filing of the notification. Under this
approach, only one entity within the MNE group would submit the single notification
covering both DAC4 and DAC9 on behalf of the entire group. The information contained in
the notification would subsequently be exchanged between Member States through the
existing administrative cooperation framework.
Measure 4 - Improving the accuracy of reported TINs
The proposed policy options aim to address the current limitations in the verification of TINs
that prevent automatic matching of the information by tax administrations. Therein these
options are designed to improve the use of exchanged information and effectively support
the fight against tax fraud, avoidance and evasion.
Measure 4
Baseline (Status Quo) Policy Option 4a Policy Option 4b
There is no centralised system Introducing a centralised TIN Introducing a centralised TIN
for reporting entities and tax verification system, accessible verification system, accessible to
administrations to validate the only to Member States tax both Member States tax
accuracy of the TINs. administrations. administrations and reporting
entities.
Policy Option 4a would introduce a centralised TIN verification system at Union level.
Access to the system would be limited to tax administrations and would allow them to verify
whether a reported TIN corresponds to an identifiable taxpayer in the relevant Member
State. Under this option, the sending Member State would verify the TIN before transmitting
information to the receiving Member State. Where a TIN cannot be verified, the sending tax
administration would revert to the reporting entity to obtain corrected information from the
taxpayer. Policy Option 4b would also introduce a centralised TIN verification system at
Union level but would extend access to reporting entities. Under this option, reporting
entities may on a voluntary basis also use the centralised TIN verification system to verify
TINs before submitting information to tax administrations, allowing incorrect TINs to be
corrected at source. As a result, tax administrations would receive information that has
already been verified.
25
Measure 5 - Improving the completeness of information exchanged under DAC1
The proposed policy options aim to address limitations in the current DAC1 legislative
framework that contribute to incomplete reporting and differences in the scope of
information exchanged between Member States. Therein these options are designed to
improve the use of exchanged information and effectively support the fight against tax fraud,
evasion and avoidance. The policy options focus on adjustments to the scope of income
categories exchanged and the sources from which information may be obtained by tax
administrations for reporting purposes. Moreover, the proposed policy options aim to
address the current duplicate reporting issues associated with the category of life insurance
products (LIP).
Measure 5
Baseline Policy Option 5a Policy Option 5b Policy Option 5c
(Status Quo)
Member States The life insurance Policy Option 5a + Policy option 5a +
automatically products (LIP) Member States are Member States are
exchange information category is removed. required to automatically required to
available in their tax exchange information automatically exchange
files on at least five available in their tax files information available to
out of seven DAC1 on all remaining six relevant public
categories. Member categories of income and authorities on all
States may choose capital. remaining six categories
which categories to of income and capital.
exchange.
Policy Option 5a would remove the requirement to exchange information on the category
of LIP. Consequently, Member States would continue to be required to automatically
exchange information on at least five of the remaining six categories of income and capital,
while retaining the flexibility to choose which categories to exchange. Within each category,
only information that is “available” in the tax files would be exchanged. Policy Option 5b
would also remove the requirement for AEOI on the category of LIP. In addition, Member
States would be required to automatically exchange information for all six remaining
categories of income and capital. Within each category, only information that is available in
the tax files would be exchanged. Policy Option 5c would also remove the requirement for
AEOI on the category of LIP. Moreover, under this option Member States would be required
to automatically exchange information available not only in their tax files but also in the
files of other relevant public authorities in respect of all six remaining categories of income
and capital.
5.3 Discarded Options
During the preparation of this initiative, stakeholders suggested additional measures that
were considered but not retained for further analysis. These options were assessed against
the specific objectives of this initiative, alignment with existing international standards and
the policy objectives of the DAC in tackling tax fraud, evasion and avoidance.
Repeal of DAC6
Some business stakeholders proposed a repeal of DAC6 in its entirety. This option was not
considered appropriate. DAC6 constitutes an important component of the EU administrative
cooperation framework by requiring the early disclosure of potentially aggressive cross-
26
border tax arrangements. In doing so, DAC6 provides a strong dissuasive effect that
effectively discourages aggressive tax planning arrangements. Removing this reporting
obligation would significantly reduce the ability of tax administrations to identify and
address risks related to tax fraud, evasion and avoidance involving cross-border tax
arrangements. The repeal of DAC6 would therefore undermine the effectiveness of the
Union framework for combating harmful tax practices and would remove the dissuasive
effects of the instrument.
Carve-out from DAC4 reporting for groups reporting under DAC9
Stakeholders also suggested introducing a full carve-out from CbCR obligations under
DAC4 for MNE groups that are already subject to reporting under DAC9. This option was
not retained for further consideration as DAC4 provides tax administrations with important
information on the global allocation of income, taxes and economic activity within MNE
groups, which is used in particular for transfer pricing risk assessment. Reporting under
DAC9 does not cover this specific category of information.
Excluding DAC4 MNE groups that report under DAC9 would therefore lead to the loss of
valuable transfer pricing information for tax administrations and consequently lower the
current level of protection against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance. In addition, such a
carve-out would create inconsistencies with the OECD BEPS Action 13 standard on CbCR
with which DAC4 is aligned. Maintaining alignment with this international standard is
essential for ensuring the effectiveness, comparability and international consistency of the
information exchanged.
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?
This Chapter assesses the impacts of the policy options identified under each measure
compared with the baseline scenario. The assessment focuses on how the policy options
would affect reporting volumes, compliance costs, administrative burden, legal certainty and
the effectiveness of administrative cooperation compared with the current framework.
In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, the analysis considers economic, social,
environmental and fundamental rights impacts, as well as the effects on competitiveness,
SMEs and digitalisation. Given that the DAC primarily establishes reporting obligations and
information exchange mechanisms between economic operators and tax administrations, the
most significant impacts are expected to arise in the form of economic and administrative
burden reduction. These relate mainly to compliance costs for reporting entities and tax
authorities.
Methodology and analytical approach
The assessment combines quantitative estimates and qualitative analysis drawing on several
sources of evidence. These include the DAC evaluation (published in 2025), statistical
information reported by Member States through DAC reporting systems, available
analytical studies and extensive stakeholder consultation activities with business
stakeholders and Member States. In the latter context targeted consultations were carried out
with stakeholders in 2025 with a public consultation and call for evidence carried out
between the 16 December 2025 and 10 February 2026.
Where sufficient data were available, impacts were quantified using reporting volumes,
compliance cost estimates and administrative workload indicators. Where reliable
27
quantification was not possible, impacts were assessed qualitatively, based on the
stakeholders’ inputs and indicating the expected direction and relative magnitude of effects.
The quantification relies on several simplifying assumptions, including the use of average
compliance cost estimates derived from evaluation evidence and stakeholder input, and the
use of recent reporting statistics as proxies for future reporting volumes. Further details on
the methodology, assumptions and sensitivity analysis are provided in Annex 4 (Analytical
Methods). In the case of DAC, the costs associated with regulatory obligations (i.e.
adjustment costs) are by nature, administrative. As a result, compliance costs overlap with
administrative costs unless otherwise specified.
6.1 Impact on simplification while preserving the policy objectives of the DAC
framework (compliance costs and risks assessment)
Policy options under Measure 1 – Ensuring that DAC6 reporting obligations remain
proportionate and effective while promoting a more harmonised application of the MBT
Baseline: Intermediaries and, in certain instances, relevant taxpayers are required to report information on
cross-border arrangements based on predefined hallmark criteria, with reportability for certain hallmarks
conditional on the MBT being met.
PO1a: Excluding all companies within the scope of Pillar 2 from the reporting under DAC6.
PO1b: PO1a + removing reporting requirements related to generic hallmarks (category A) and issuing guidance
on application of the MBT to remaining hallmarks subject the test.
PO1c: PO1a + removing reporting requirements related to generic hallmarks (category A) + removing the
MBT and revising the remaining hallmarks previously subject to the MBT.
All policy options have a direct and increasing impact on improving the proportionality of
the framework by ensuring that reporting obligations are better targeted to compliance risks.
Therein the options presented are intended to ensure that there is a much greater alignment
between the reporting requirements and the associated compliance costs for business and
tax administrations and the information that is necessary for tax administrations to tackle tax
fraud, evasion and avoidance. Therefore, the analysis estimates the cost savings resulting
from the reduced scope of reporting requirements while also assessing the extent to which
these reductions may impact on the policy objectives of the DAC.
In assessing the impacts of Measure 1, companies within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive
and those outside its scope are considered separately. This distinction reflects both the
different policy treatment envisaged and the underlying differences in their compliance cost
structures. MNE groups within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive would benefit from a full
exemption from DAC6 reporting obligations, whereas companies outside this scope would
remain subject to DAC6, albeit with a reduced set of reporting requirements. MNE groups
typically have a broader operational and tax footprint, as they conduct activities and
maintain entities across multiple jurisdictions. Consequentially they engage in a higher
volume of transactions across more complex cross-border structures. This necessitates more
extensive and dedicated internal resources to identify, assess and document potentially
reportable arrangements. As a result, both the baseline compliance costs and the expected
cost savings differ significantly between the two groups, justifying a separate assessment.
Under Policy Option 1a MNE groups within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive are exempted
from DAC6 reporting obligations. Approximately 3,000 MNE groups in the EU fall within
28
the scope of Pillar 2 and are considered relevant for this exemption54. As the compliance
activities under ATAD and DAC6 can be considered broadly comparable in nature, this
assessment draws on evidence from the ATAD evaluation as a benchmark. Both ATAD and
DAC6 require companies to continuously monitor and assess cross-border transactions
against predefined tax rules, often involving detailed legal and economic analysis, internal
coordination across group entities and the application of specialised tax expertise. Based on
this parallel, MNE groups are estimated to dedicate around 1.5 FTE staff to DAC6 related
administrative work, corresponding to an annual compliance cost of approximately EUR
100,000 per group (55). The total compliance cost savings are therefore estimated at
approximately EUR 300 million per year.
DAC6 obligations are imposed on intermediaries and in certain instances relevant taxpayers
meaning that, in principle, each entity within a MNE group could be required to report a
relevant arrangement. However, in practice, large MNE groups typically centralise their
DAC6 compliance processes within dedicated in-house tax departments. As a result, the
incremental compliance burden is not proportional to the number of entities but reflects the
overall complexity and volume of cross-border arrangements at group level. Modelling
compliance costs on a per-entity basis would therefore risk significantly overstating the
actual resource requirements. The present approach accordingly estimates compliance costs
at group level, implicitly covering all constituent entities within the group structure.
Under this option and based on statistical reporting data covering the distribution of
disclosure reports across hallmarks combined with company level information on the share
of MNE’s within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive, the number of disclosure reports is
estimated to decrease by approximately 2,000 to 3,000 per year.
This reduction is not expected to impact on the policy objectives of the DAC as MNE groups
in scope will be subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15%. While ex post empirical
evidence is not yet available, given that Pillar 2 has only recently been implemented,
existing ex ante analyses provide important insights in this respect. Notably, the OECD’s
impact assessment finds that the Pillar 2 framework, by ensuring a minimum level of
effective taxation (15%) for MNE groups in each jurisdiction in which they operate, is
limiting effective tax rate differentials across jurisdictions. Therefore, it is expected to
reduce the extent of profit shifting by MNE groups from high-tax to low-tax jurisdictions
(56). In this context, the reduction in DAC6 reporting obligations for Pillar 2 in-scope firms
is not expected to materially weaken the framework’s effectiveness in addressing tax
avoidance risks but rather to remove reporting obligations which have become redundant
54
Company level data from the ORBIS database indicate that approximately 4,700 multinational enterprise groups worldwide meet the
relevant turnover threshold (EUR 750 million) and have a presence in the EU (as of 2024), of which around 1,900 are headquartered
within the Union. Given that not all groups with a limited EU presence are equally exposed to DAC6 reporting obligations, a central
estimate of 3,000 MNE groups is used as a pragmatic midpoint within this range (see Annex 4 for more details).
55
Study prepared for the European Commission to support an evaluation of the Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD Evaluation), Final
Report (2026). Estimates cited in the ATAD evaluation are based on targeted consultations with companies, which indicate that
compliance costs vary significantly depending on the size and complexity of the firm. While some MNEs report relatively modest
compliance efforts (e.g. below 1 FTE where rules are not binding), costs for large and complex groups are typically higher and often in
the range of around EUR 100,000 per year, corresponding to approximately 2–3 FTEs. At the same time, the evaluation acknowledges
considerable uncertainty, with some firms reporting even higher costs in specific cases (e.g. related to exit taxation or high reliance on
external advisors). To reflect this uncertainty, we have complemented the central estimate with a sensitivity analysis, including alternative
low and high-cost scenarios (EUR 75,000 and EUR 125,000 per year) in Annex 4.
56
See in particular chapter 3.6 of the impact assessment on the expected impact on profit shifting, which has been singled out as the most
substantive risk: OECD (2020), Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Economic Impact Assessment: Inclusive Framework on
BEPS, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0e3cc2d4-en.
29
following the implementation of the Pillar 2 framework. Moreover, MNE groups are subject
to extensive cooperative compliance programmes in many Member States of the Union,
which ensure that MNE groups are subject to continuous audit interventions and have
several dedicated caseworkers from the tax administration assigned to monitor their
operations.
Policy Option 1b removes selected hallmarks (A1, A2 and A3) affecting approximately
8,300 disclosures annually57 all of which were reported by companies outside of the scope
of the Pillar 2 Directive. For those companies, compliance costs are approximated on the
basis of an average cost per DAC6 disclosure report. Available evidence suggests that the
administrative cost of preparing, assessing and submitting a report range between EUR
3,000 and EUR 5,000, depending on the complexity of the arrangement. The estimate is
based on information obtained through stakeholder consultations, in particular from
intermediaries such as tax advisory firms, which are responsible for filing a large share of
DAC6 reports. These stakeholders indicated that the costs per report can vary depending on
their complexity with higher costs associated with hallmarks requiring more extensive legal
and economic analysis, such as those in hallmark A, as compared to the more specific
hallmarks that often involve more straightforward assessments. The estimated cost of EUR
5,000 per report is consistent with this feedback and is broadly in line with available
evidence from the DAC6 evaluation, which reports costs of up to approximately EUR 3,000
per report (58). It should be noted that the external DAC6 evaluation is based on evidence
collected several years earlier. In this context, the somewhat higher estimate used in the
present impact assessment reflects more recent stakeholder evidence and evolving reporting
practices. At the same time, both estimates clearly fall within the same overall order of
magnitude and should therefore be regarded as broadly consistent.
Given that the generic hallmarks covered by this option tend to involve broader and less
clearly defined concepts, requiring more extensive analysis and documentation, the upper
bound of EUR 5,000 per report is used as the central estimate. The associated compliance
cost savings are therefore estimated as EUR 41 million per year, bringing the total savings
from this and the previous measure under Policy option 1a to approximately EUR 340
million annually. These estimates are indicative, as arrangements may remain reportable
under other hallmarks59. Under this option the number of disclosures reports is expected to
further decrease by approximately 8,300 per annum. This reduction further improves the
proportionality of the framework while not undermining the policy objectives as reporting
linked to these hallmarks has provided limited added value for tax administrations. This
assessment is supported by the findings from the evaluation, feedback from stakeholders
and from the Member States where most of the reporting takes places. In particular, evidence
gathered from Member States (i.e. the tax administrations that have used DAC6 information
to establish if the reported arrangements pose a risk of tax fraud, evasion or avoidance)
provides strong support for concluding that this measure is not expected to have significant
57
Over the period 2019–2025, the hallmarks linked to category accounted for a significant share of all disclosures (namely, A1: 24.3%,
A2: 0.8%, A3: 42.6%). They account for approximately 9,000 disclosures annually in absolute terms. Combined with information from
Member States indicating that around 92% of all disclosures are filed by companies outside the scope of Pillar Two, the final number of
relevant disclosures is estimated at approximately 8,300 per year. See Annex 4 for further details.
(58) See external support study by Ramboll “Evaluation of the Directive 2011/16 and its amendments”, 2024, Table 30.
59
DAC6 disclosures occasionally refer to more than one hallmark for the same arrangement. As a result, the removal of specific hallmarks
does not necessarily imply that all corresponding disclosures would disappear entirely, as some arrangements may remain reportable under
other applicable hallmarks (see Annex 4 for a discussion of this aspect).
30
negative effects on the fight against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance. A broad majority of
Member States, particularly high-reporting Member States such as Germany, the
Netherlands, Luxembourg and Sweden find that the hallmarks in Category A generate a
large volume of disclosure reports with limited tax relevance (“noise”). These disclosure
reports are widely seen as imposing significant administrative burdens on both tax
administrations and intermediaries without materially contributing to the detection of tax
risks.
Policy Option 1c removes the MBT from the remaining hallmarks currently subject to it
(notably those in Category B and certain hallmarks in Category C). The impact of this
change on reporting volumes cannot be robustly quantified. This is because there is no
historical evidence where identical hallmarks have alternated between being subject to and
exempt from the MBT, which would allow isolating its effect on disclosure behaviour. The
effect of the MBT is ambiguous. On the one hand, stakeholder consultations indicate that
the MBT can provide useful guidance to intermediaries in assessing whether an arrangement
is reportable, therefore limiting disclosures by acting as a filter. On the other hand, the MBT
may also give rise to defensive reporting, as intermediaries may choose to report in cases of
uncertainty, thereby increasing the number of disclosures. In the absence of reliable
empirical evidence and given that comparisons across hallmarks with and without the MBT
are not informative due to differences in their underlying scope, no quantitative estimate of
the impact is provided.
The combined costs savings from Policy Options 1a and 1b is approximately EUR 340
million per annum, while the impact from Policy Option 1c is not quantifiable. All policy
options are not expected to lower the ambition or have any significant negative effect on the
fight against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance.
Finally, concerning the cost savings for tax administrations, the proposed simplifications are
expected to result in an overall reduction of administrative costs for tax administrations,
primarily through a decrease in the volume and complexity of reported information. The
removal of certain generic hallmarks and the clarifications or elimination of the MBT are
likely to reduce the number of disclosure reports submitted, in particular those driven by
defensive reporting. This would, in turn, lower the resources required for processing,
validating, storing and analysing reports, as well as for the exchange of information between
Member States.
In addition to the volume effects, the measures are expected to improve the quality and
relevance of reported information. By reducing the reporting of arrangements with limited
tax risk relevance, tax administrations may be able to allocate resources more efficiently
towards higher-risk cases, thereby improving the effectiveness of risk assessment and audit
selection. At the same time, the implementation of the revised framework may entail short-
term administrative costs. Tax administrations may need to update IT systems, adapt
reporting schemas, revise guidance and provide support to intermediaries and taxpayers
during the transition phase. Changes to the interpretation or structure of hallmarks may also
require internal training and adjustments to risk assessment tools.
At the same time, while the implementation of the revised framework may entail short-term
administrative costs (e.g. updates to IT systems, reporting schemas, guidance and training),
these costs are expected to be limited and largely marginal in nature. This is because the
underlying DAC6 reporting infrastructure is already in place, and the proposed changes
31
primarily affect the scope and interpretation of reporting obligations rather than requiring
the development of new systems. As a result, adjustments are expected to concern
incremental modifications (such as updates to reporting templates or system parameters)
rather than substantial investments.
This assessment is supported by stakeholder feedback, which did not identify significant
transition costs and generally indicated that the proposed changes would be straightforward
to implement. Given their limited scale and the absence of robust and comparable data across
Member States, these adjustment costs could not be meaningfully quantified.
Overall, while some transitional costs are expected, Measure 1 is likely to generate net
administrative savings in the medium to long term, driven by reduced reporting volumes,
improved data quality and more targeted use of administrative resources. However, the
precise magnitude of these effects cannot be quantified due to differences in national
systems and the absence of detailed data on current administrative costs.
Quantified Cost Savings under Policy Option 1
PO1a PO1b PO1c
Companies EUR 300mn EUR 341mn Not quantifiable
Policy options under Measure 2 - Amending the reporting threshold for activities
involving the sale of goods under DAC7
Baseline: Digital platform operators are required to report information on sellers who carry out 30 or more activities or receive income of
EUR 2000 or more during the calendar year.
PO2a: Removing the activity threshold of 30 and retaining the monetary threshold of EUR 2,000.
PO2b: Removing the activity threshold of 30 and increasing the monetary threshold to EUR 3,000.
PO2c: Removal of the activity threshold of 30 and increase of the monetary threshold to EUR 5,000.
All policy options have a direct and increasing impact on improving the proportionality of
the framework by ensuring that reporting obligations are better targeted to compliance risks.
Therein the options presented are intended to ensure that there is much greater alignment
between the reporting requirements and associated compliance costs for business and the
information that is necessary for tax administrations to tackle tax fraud, evasion and
avoidance. Therefore, the analysis estimates the cost savings resulting from the reduced
scope of reporting requirements while also assessing the extent to which these reductions
may impact on the policy objectives of the DAC.
Under the current framework, a substantial share of reported sellers consists of individuals
with low levels of economic activity. This information is of limited relevance for tax risk
assessment yet generates significant data volumes for both platform operators and tax
administrations. By narrowing the scope of reportable sellers, the policy options allow tax
administrations to focus more effectively on higher-value and higher-risk cases, thereby
improving the efficiency of risk analysis and enforcement activities. At the same time, they
reduce the administrative burden linked to processing, validating and exchanging large
amounts of low-value information without materially undermining the core objective of
DAC7. However, as the monetary threshold increases and a larger share of sellers are
32
excluded from reporting, the overall information available to tax administrations is reduced.
While this may improve efficiency, it could also entail a risk of reduced visibility over
certain segments of economic activity, potentially limiting the ability to detect non-
compliance at the margin.
Evidence collected from major EU market participants suggests that annual compliance
costs associated with the operation of DAC reporting systems are approximately EUR
50,000 per platform. Furthermore, DAC7 statistics indicate that approximately 52,000
platforms were operating in the EU in 2024. Taken together, this implies total recurrent
reporting costs of around EUR 2.6 billion per year across all reporting and compliance
functions supported by these systems, including DAC7 as well as other DAC-related,
regulatory and tax reporting obligations.
To isolate the DAC7-specific component of these overall system costs, a share of 30% is
applied, reflecting the fact that platform operators typically use the same reporting
infrastructure for multiple compliance purposes.
Concretely, DAC7 constitutes the primary and, in many cases, the only EU tax reporting
obligation specifically targeting platform operators (60). The chosen 30% share therefore
represents a balanced assumption, acknowledging both the multi-purpose nature of reporting
systems and the central role of DAC7 in driving compliance costs for platform operators.
Therefore, under a simplifying assumption that 30% of total reporting costs relate to DAC7,
total DAC7-related compliance costs are estimated at approximately EUR 780 million
annually (61).
DAC7 statistics made available to the Commission services combined with the feedback
from business indicates that approximately 13.5 million sellers in the EU are currently
reportable under DAC7, corresponding to around 20% of all individuals engaged in
platform-based selling activities while the remaining majority fall below the applicable
thresholds62. While DAC7 covers several categories of reportable activities (including
immovable property, transport, personal services and the sale of goods), it is not possible to
isolate the share of sellers engaged in the sale of goods, to which the reporting threshold
applies. Available evidence from France, a relatively service-oriented market (e.g. short-
term accommodation platforms), suggests that the split between goods and services is
broadly balanced (around 50/50 in value terms) (63). In other Member States, such as
Sweden, the composition is expected to be more tilted towards goods-based activities. As a
result, the estimates presented should be interpreted as upper-bound approximations.
On this basis and using an estimated total annual compliance cost of approximately EUR
780 million for platform operators, the average compliance cost per reported seller is
estimated at around EUR 60 per seller per year. To reflect uncertainty in both the allocation
(60) This is further corroborated by evidence collected through the call for evidence, where approximately three quarters of responding
platform operators indicated that DAC7 constituted the only DAC-related reporting obligation they had filed during the previous year.
One quarter of respondents reported that they were also subject to DAC4 and/or DAC6 reporting obligations, suggesting that DAC7
represents the primary DAC-related compliance burden for the large majority of platform operators.
61
The precise share of total reporting system costs attributable specifically to DAC7 cannot be observed directly and is therefore subject
to uncertainty. The 30% assumption is based on stakeholder feedback and the operational characteristics of reporting systems used by
platform operators. To account for this uncertainty, the assessment includes robustness checks further below and in Annex 4 using
alternative parameter values in order to assess the sensitivity of the estimated compliance costs and cost savings to different assumptions.
62
This estimate is based on survey evidence from Sweden on the share of individuals engaging in platform-based selling and the proportion
of reportable sellers. The figures are extrapolated to the EU level by adjusting for differences in internet usage across Member States and
applying these shares to national population data. See Annex 4 for further details on the methodology and underlying assumptions.
63
Statistique publique de la fiscalité, “Près de 40 Md€ de ventes sur les plateformes en 2022 : une diversité de profils de vendeurs”, DGFIP
Analyses N° 09.
33
of system costs to DAC7 and the estimation of the reportable seller base, a sensitivity range
is applied, resulting in a per-seller cost of EUR 40 (low scenario), EUR 60 (central scenario)
and EUR 80 (high scenario).
In respect of Policy Option 2a of the 13.5 million sellers that are reported by platform
operators, around 79% are reportable solely due to exceeding the 30-transaction threshold
while remaining below the EUR 2,000 monetary threshold (64). Applying this share to the
total population of 13.5 million reported sellers implies that approximately 10.7 million
sellers per year would be removed from scope under this option. The associated compliance
cost savings are estimated as follows:
• Low-cost scenario: 10.7 million sellers × EUR 40 = EUR 428 million
• Central scenario :10.7 million sellers × EUR 60 = EUR 642 million
• High-cost scenario: 10.7 million sellers × EUR 80 = EUR 856 million
In respect of Policy Option 2b, according to platform data on seller income distribution,
increasing the monetary threshold to EUR 3,000 is estimated to increase the share of non-
reportable sellers by around 16 percentage points compared to the status quo, corresponding
to approximately 11.3 million fewer reported sellers per year. The associated compliance
cost savings are estimated as follows:
• Low-cost scenario: EUR 452 million
• Central scenario: EUR 678 million
• High-cost scenario: EUR 904 million
In respect of Policy Option 2c stakeholder information suggests that this option would
increase the share of non-reportable sellers by around 17 percentage points compared to the
status quo (65). Applied to the population of 71 million sellers, this corresponds to
approximately 12.1 million fewer reported sellers per year. The associated compliance cost
savings are estimated as follows:
• Low-cost scenario: EUR 484 million
• Central scenario: EUR 726 million
• High-cost scenario: EUR 968 million
Concerning the impact on tax administrations, the proposed changes are strongly expected
to reduce administrative costs for tax administrations, primarily through a reduction in the
volume of reported sellers and the associated data flows. By removing the activity threshold
and increasing the monetary threshold, a significant share of low-value sellers would no
longer be reported. This would decrease the amount of data to be processed, validated, stored
and exchanged between Member States, thereby lowering the administrative workload.
64
The estimate is based on evidence collected through stakeholder engagement, in particular input from major platform operators in the
EU. These platforms provided detailed simulations on the distribution of sellers across different reporting thresholds, including the share
of sellers reportable solely due to the activity threshold.
65
This is based on information obtained through stakeholder consultations, in particular from major platform operators in the EU. These
operators provided detailed simulations on the distribution of sellers across different thresholds and the corresponding number of sellers
that would fall out of scope under alternative policy scenarios. This evidence was used to calibrate the estimates.
34
In addition to reducing volumes, the measures are expected to improve the relevance of the
information collected. In line with the rationale for Measure 1 by focusing reporting on
sellers with higher levels of economic activity, tax administrations may be able to conduct
more targeted and effective risk assessments, reducing the need to filter large amounts of
low-value data. At the same time, some limited one-off administrative costs may arise from
adapting IT systems and reporting processes to reflect the revised thresholds. However,
these adjustments are expected to be relatively small compared to the ongoing efficiency
gains.
Overall, Measure 2 is expected to lead to net administrative savings for tax administrations,
driven by lower data volumes and improved targeting of enforcement activities, although
the exact magnitude of these savings cannot be quantified.
Quantified Cost Savings under Policy Option 2
PO2a PO2b PO2c
EUR 428mn (low-cost case) EUR 452mn (low-cost case) EUR 484mn (low-cost case)
Companies EUR 642mn (central case) EUR 678mn (central case) EUR 726mn (central case)
EUR 856mn (high-cost case) EUR 904mn (high-cost case) EUR 968mn (high-cost case)
Policy options under Measure 3 – Streamlining notification obligations from MNE
groups under DAC4 and DAC9
Baseline: DAC4 and DAC9 requires each entity of the MNE group to file separate notifications for reporting purposes often under
different formats and timelines.
PO3a: Introduce a single notification obligation for DAC4/DAC9, including a harmonised deadline and a common notification template
PO3b: PO3a + central filing of notification followed by exchange of information between Member States.
Both policy options have a direct and increasing impact on improving the proportionality of
the framework by eliminating duplicative notification requirements without undermining
the policy objectives of the DAC. This will be achieved by ensuring that Member States
receive the same information in a more streamlined manner, thereby ensuring a much greater
alignment between the reporting requirements and associated compliance costs for business
and the information that is necessary for tax administrations to tackle tax fraud, evasion and
avoidance. Therefore, the analysis estimates the cost savings resulting from the reduced
scope of reporting requirements while also assessing the extent to which these reductions
may impact on the policy objectives of the DAC.
Under the current framework, there are overlapping notification obligations under DAC4
and DAC9. The duplication identified does not relate to the substantive reporting obligations
under DAC4 and DAC9, which remain distinct, but rather to the notification layer that
precedes reporting. While the information included in the notification is limited in scope,
the associated compliance effort extends beyond the mere transmission of data. In practice,
it requires internal coordination across the group to identify the reporting entity, verification
of consistency across jurisdictions, preparation and validation of the notification, and
submission in accordance with national formats and timelines. Where these processes must
be carried out separately for DAC4 and DAC9, often at different points in time and under
non-harmonised requirements businesses may need to replicate these steps, including
35
internal communication, checks and administrative handling. The resulting duplication
therefore arises primarily at the level of processes and workflows, rather than the data
content itself. This assessment is supported by stakeholder feedback, including from
businesses and national tax administrations, which highlighted the absence of alignment
between the two frameworks in practice.
The proposed measures aim to streamline these processes and eliminate unnecessary
duplication. The analysis therefore focuses on estimating the compliance cost savings
resulting from the simplification and consolidation of notification requirements. The
estimation is based on the number of MNE groups currently required to submit notifications
and assumptions regarding the staff time needed to prepare them.
Available information from the company level database ORBIS indicates that approximately
4,700 MNE groups worldwide meet the relevant requirements under DAC4 and DAC9 and
have operations within the EU. As of 2024, these groups collectively account for
approximately 109,000 constituent entities (subsidiaries) located in the EU. Under the
current framework each of those 109,000 constituent entities is required to submit a DAC4
notification. According to information made available by MNE groups, the administrative
costs for collecting the relevant information, coordinating within the group and for
submitting the notification can be estimated at around 28 hours per entity per year, that
results in an overall compliance cost estimate of EUR 135 million per year (66). Assuming
similar notification requirements under DAC9 and no operational synergies, the combined
annual cost is EUR 135 million × 2 = EUR 270 million per year.
Under Policy Option 3a, a single harmonised notification (based on a common template
and common deadline) would replace the current separate notification obligations under
DAC4 and DAC9. This would streamline reporting for each entity in the group without
affecting the content of the information provided to tax authorities. In practice, under the
current framework, the ultimate parent entity (UPE) or designated reporting entity must first
collect and coordinate relevant group-level information and subsequently disseminate this
information to all constituent entities, which then submit separate notifications, to support
the reporting requirements under the DAC4 and the DAC9 framework using different
templates and timelines. Under Policy Option 3a, these notification requirements would be
aligned and standardised, thereby eliminating duplication related to the preparation,
coordination and submission of notifications across the two frameworks. Consequentially
duplicative administrative processes would be effectively eliminated leading to estimated
compliance cost savings of approximately EUR 135 million per year for affected businesses.
These savings arise primarily from the elimination of duplicative notifications across
constituent entities.
Policy Option 3b builds on Option 3a by introducing central filing, whereby a single entity
submits the notification on behalf of the entire MNE group, instead of each entity of the
MNE group. This would further reduce duplicative filings and allow groups to centralise
compliance processes, while ensuring that all relevant tax administrations continue to
receive the necessary information through automatic exchange. Under the current system,
each constituent entity is required to submit a notification to its domestic tax authority
containing largely identical information on the reporting entity, the fiscal year and group
affiliation. This requires the dissemination of centrally held information throughout the
66
Applying average EU labour costs for the sector “Accounting, bookkeeping and auditing activities; tax consultancy”, the cost per
notification is estimated at EUR 1,270 per entity.
36
group and the coordination of multiple entity-level filings. Under Policy Option 3b, these
separate filings would be replaced by a single notification submitted centrally by the UPE
or another designated entity using one harmonised template and timeline applicable to both
DAC4 and DAC9 obligations.
Importantly, the proposed centralisation would not materially affect the internal collection
and analysis of information within MNE groups, which would largely remain necessary
irrespective of the reporting channel. The main savings instead arise from eliminating the
repeated dissemination, coordination and submission of notifications by individual
constituent entities. Instead of entity-level notifications, one notification would be submitted
per MNE group. The annual compliance cost would therefore be 4,700 × EUR 1,270 = EUR
6 million per year. The resulting compliance cost savings are therefore EUR 270 million −
EUR 6 million = EUR 264 million per year.
As only one Member State would receive the notification, the information would need to be
exchanged with other Member States. This would require the development of an appropriate
IT exchange schema and the establishment of an exchange channel. The adjustment costs
linked to this investment are expected to be limited, as tax administrations can build upon
the existing secure communication infrastructure under the DAC framework. At the same
time, the streamlining of notification requirements is expected to generate efficiency gains
by reducing duplicative submissions and simplifying administrative processes across
Member States. Fewer notifications and more harmonised formats would lower the need for
data validation, reconciliation and manual processing, while improving the consistency and
usability of the information received. Overall, while some limited one-off implementation
costs are expected, the measure is likely to result in net administrative savings for tax
administrations in the medium to long term, although their precise magnitude cannot be
quantified.
Quantified Cost Savings under Policy Option 3
PO3a PO3b
Companies EUR 135mn EUR 264mn
Policy Options under measure 4 – Improving the verification of the taxpayer identification
number
Baseline: No centralised system for reporting entities and tax administrations to validate accuracy of TINs.
PO4a: Introduce a centralised TIN verification system accessible only to the Member States tax administrations.
PO4b: Introduce a centralised TIN verification system accessible to both Member States tax administrations and reporting entities.
Policy Option 4a would introduce a centralised TIN verification system accessible to the
tax administrations of Member States. The tool would allow tax administrations to verify
whether a reported TIN corresponds to the indicated taxpayer before transmitting
information to another Member State.
Compared with the baseline scenario, this option is expected to improve the verification of
TINs prior to the exchange of information which would, in turn, reduce the need for post-
exchange correction procedures and the associated administrative workload. In particular,
37
the tax administration of the sending Member State would be able to detect inconsistencies
between reported TINs and taxpayer identities before the information is exchanged. This
would reduce the number of follow-up requests and corrections required after the exchange
of information. For the tax administration of the receiving Member State, the receipt of
information that has already been verified by the sending Member State would improve the
automatic matching of exchanged data with national taxpayer records, thereby reducing the
need for manual verification procedures and follow-up actions. Therefore, when the TIN has
been verified, tax administrations can use the information much more effectively and
efficiently and in a manner that maximises the benefits of the framework. The administrative
burden for reporting entities would not change significantly compared with the baseline
scenario, as reporting entities would continue to provide identification information as
currently required under DAC. However, earlier detection of inconsistencies may reduce
delays in the overall exchange process.
The implementation of this option would entail initial development and recurrent operational
costs for the Commission, related to the creation and maintenance of the centralised TIN
verification system, and for Member States’ tax administrations, related to the development
of national access points and the integration with the central system. At EU level, the
development of the central component, including IT infrastructure, common specifications
and training, is estimated to generate one-off costs in the range of approximately EUR 0.5
million to EUR 0.9 million. In addition, recurrent operational, maintenance and technical
assistance costs are expected to amount to around EUR 0.6 million per year67.
At national level, tax administrations would incur one-off costs related to the development
of national access points and integration with the central system. These costs are estimated
at approximately EUR 11 million across the EU. Recurrent costs would include both system
maintenance and administrative costs associated with the validation of TINs. Maintenance
costs are estimated at around EUR 1.4 to 2 million annually across Member States. In
addition, the administrative burden linked to TIN validation activities, including the
handling of mismatches and follow-up procedures, is not expected to exceed EUR 10 million
per year at EU level. While tax administrations would need to process a large volume of
TIN validations, a high degree of automation and economies of scale are expected to
significantly limit the marginal cost of processing additional records. No significant
additional costs are expected for reporting entities under this option, as the responsibility for
TIN verification would remain entirely with tax administrations.
Policy Option 4b would extend access to the centralised TIN verification system to
reporting entities. Under this option, reporting entities would, on a voluntary basis, be able
to verify whether a collected TIN corresponds to the indicated taxpayer before submitting
information to the tax authority of the sending Member State.
This option is expected to further improve the quality and reliability of information
transmitted under DAC, as inaccuracies could be detected and corrected directly at source.
Reporting entities would be able to identify incorrect or incomplete TIN information before
submitting reports, thereby significantly reducing the number of correction requests initiated
by tax administrations. In addition, this option will reduce the need for reporting entities to
67
These estimates are based on cost benchmarks from comparable EU-level IT systems developed under the DAC and VAT frameworks.
They draw in particular on experience with the development of common specifications, validation tools and training activities under
programmes such as Fiscalis, as well as on the operational costs of existing central systems (e.g. the Excise Movement and Control System
(EMCS), the VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) and DAC-related infrastructures). The figures should be understood as indicative
and limited to the central EU component, excluding national implementation costs (see Annex 4 for details).
38
collect and report additional identification information, such as date of birth or other
supplementary identifiers, which are used by tax administrations to compensate for missing
or inaccurate TINs. By allowing reporting entities to confirm the validity of TINs at the
point of reporting, this option will simplify data collection requirements and generate
administrative savings for reporting entities over time from a reduction of data collection
points (e.g. date of birth). While these administrative savings are expected to be significant,
they cannot be quantified.
Similar to Policy Option 4a for tax administrations in both the sending and receiving
Member States, this option is expected to further increase automatic matching rates, reduce
manual validation procedures and improve the efficiency of information exchange and risk
analysis in a manner that maximises the benefits of the framework. Extending access to the
verification tool will require additional system development and access arrangements, and
reporting entities may need to adapt their internal systems and processes in order to use the
tool. These adjustments will generate adjustment costs for reporting entities, although these
costs may be partly offset over time by reductions in correction requests and compliance
risks linked to incorrect reporting of the TIN.
Under Policy Option 4b the main costs arise from extending access to the centralised TIN
verification system to reporting entities. At EU level, one-off costs would arise for
developing the central component of the system, drafting common specifications and access
rules, and training tax administrations. These one-off costs are estimated at approximately
EUR 1.0 to 1.8 million in total. In addition, recurrent EU-level IT costs for infrastructure,
operations, maintenance and technical support are estimated at around EUR 1.8 to 2.4
million per year. These costs are higher than under the tax-administration only option
because the system development would need to accommodate access by a potentially very
large number of private users. At national level, tax administrations would incur one-off
costs related to the development of national access points, system integration and the
implementation of access management arrangements for reporting entities. These one-off
costs are estimated at around EUR 15 to 25 million across the EU. Recurrent national IT
costs, including maintenance of national access points and user support, are estimated at
approximately EUR 4.5 to 12 million per year EU-wide.
For reporting entities, access to the validation tool would be entirely voluntary and therefore
would not give rise to mandatory compliance costs. While companies choosing to use the
tool may incur certain adjustment and operational costs (e.g. related to IT integration and
process adaptation), these would be offset, at least in part, by reductions in other data
collection and verification requirements, such as the need to obtain and report additional
identifiers (e.g. date of birth or address) to compensate for missing or inaccurate TINs. Given
the voluntary nature of the measure and the interplay between additional costs and expected
savings, it is not possible to derive a robust ex ante estimate of the net cost impact for
reporting entities. Overall, while upfront costs are expected, the measure is expected to
deliver net administrative savings over time through improved data quality, and use of
information and reduced correction and validation efforts, although the precise magnitude
of these effects cannot be quantified at this stage.
The cost estimates of both Policy Option 4a and 4b should be assessed against the costs of
alternative approaches that would achieve a comparable level of TIN matching in the
absence of ex ante validation. In particular, under the current system, inconsistencies in TIN
data are often identified only after the exchange of information, requiring follow-up
procedures between Member States and reporting entities. According to DAC2 statistics,
39
approximately 64 million financial accounts were reported in 2024, of which around 73%
(i.e. approximately 47 million accounts) included a TIN that would be subject to validation.
Assuming that 10% to 20% of these records require follow-up, this would correspond to
approximately 4.7 to 9.4 million cases across the EU. In practice, this implies that, following
an initial automatic matching exercise, the receiving Member State requests clarification
from the sending Member State, which in turn must contact the reporting entity to verify or
complete the information. These processes often involve multiple jurisdictions and require
manual, case-by-case handling. Assuming that around 1 million such cases arise annually
and that resolving each case requires approximately 1.5 hours of combined effort across the
relevant stakeholders, the associated administrative costs would amount to up to
approximately EUR 70 million per year (based on average EU labour costs for financial and
tax specialists). This illustrates that, while the introduction of a TIN validation tool entails
upfront and operational costs, it will also generate significant savings by reducing the need
for resource-intensive ex post correction procedures.
Policy Options under measure 5 - Improving the completeness of information reported
under DAC1
Baseline: Member States exchange information available in their tax files on at least five out of seven categories of income and capital.
PO5a: The category of life insurance products (LIP) is removed.
PO5b: PO5a + Member States are required to automatically exchange information “available” in their tax files on all six remaining
categories of income and capital.
PO5c: PO5a + Member States are required to automatically exchange information available to relevant public authorities in the Member
States with respect to all six remaining categories of income and capital.
This measure aims to address the structural limitations of the framework and enhance the
effective functioning and efficiency of DAC1. Firstly, the measure seeks to improve the
proportionality of the reporting framework by removing reporting requirements that are
duplicate and of limited value for tax administrations. Secondly, the measure also seeks to
enhance the scope and completeness of income categories that are subject to AEOI under
DAC1. By removing categories of limited added value and where appropriate, enhancing
the completeness and accessibility of relevant information, the measure aims to ensure that
administrative resources are focused on data that is more effective in identifying non-
compliance, while avoiding unnecessary processing and exchange of low-value information.
The main impact of Policy Option 5a is the simplification of the existing framework
stemming from the removal of the LIP category. 68Given the limited use of the LIP category
and its partial overlap with information exchanged under DAC2, removing this category is
expected to have minimal impact on the effectiveness of administrative cooperation, while
slightly reducing the administrative workload associated with processing and exchanging
information that appears to have limited operational relevance.
Policy Option 5b would, in addition to Policy Option 5a, require Member States to
exchange information “available” in their tax files for all six remaining income categories.
Compared with the baseline, this option is expected to improve the consistency and
comparability of information exchanged across Member States, thereby strengthening the
level playing field within the Union and reinforcing the overarching objective of tackling
tax fraud, evasion and avoidance. Moreover, more complete exchanges of information
68
According to the DAC Statistics, the LIP category is exchanged only by 10 Member States and represents less than 1% of both the
number of taxpayer and the total value of income exchanges under DAC1.
40
improve the effectiveness of risk analysis and enforcement activities carried out by tax
administrations in relation to taxpayers.
The main impacts would arise for tax administrations that currently exchange information
on fewer categories and would therefore need to activate exchange processes for additional
data already available in their systems (see Figure 4). These adjustment costs relate to IT
configuration, data extraction and processing changes for tax administrations, rather than
new data collection. As such, the associated costs are not expected to be significant, as tax
administrations can build on existing national IT systems and infrastructure. Nevertheless,
the magnitude of these costs may vary across Member States depending on the state of
digitalisation of their current systems and the extent of the required adaptations.
Policy Option 5c represents the most comprehensive reform. In addition to removing the
LIP category (Policy Option 5a) and requiring the exchange of information on all 6
remaining income categories, it would require Member States to exchange information
available to all public authorities at national level, rather than limiting exchanges to
information contained in the files of tax administrations. Implementing this option would
likely require organisational and technical adjustments at national level, including improved
access for tax administrations to information held by other public authorities, such as
pension institutions and land registries, and potentially the establishment of new data-
sharing arrangements or IT interconnections between databases. This would therefore entail
higher one-off adjustment costs for the Member States concerned compared to Policy option
5b. While these costs cannot be reliably quantified at this stage, information made available
to the Commission services by Member States indicates that these costs will be significantly
limited by several factors. Firstly, information made available to the Commission services
by Member States indicates that tax authorities already intend to increase the number of
categories of information that are exchanged by 1 July 2028. Consequentially, and as
demonstrated by Figure 5, the impact of the requirement for Member States to exchange
information on six categories will be limited to certain Member States and certain categories
of information.
Figure 5: Categories of information to be exchanged by Member States for the taxable
period 2026 with effect from 1 January 2028
Category of income and Number of Member States that will exchange as of
capital 1/7/2028
Income from employment 27 Member States
Ownership of and income 27 Member States
from immovable property
Directors Fees 24 Member States
Pensions 23 Member States
Royalties 22 Member States
Non-custodial dividend 8 Member States
income
With respect to the three Member States that do not currently exchange information on
directors' fees this information is already available to the tax authorities of these Member
41
States. However, these Member States are currently unable to exchange this information as
directors' fees are reported nationally under the category of income from employment.
Therefore, only limited technical national reporting adjustments are required to ensure that
all Member States exchange information on directors' fees. The lower number of Member
States that intend to exchange information on royalties and non-custodial dividend income
is reflective of the fact that these categories of information were only recently introduced by
DAC7 and DAC8 respectively. However, as this income is taxable in the vast majority of
Member States69, it is expected that this income will be available to the tax authorities.
PO5C also proposes that Member States shall exchange all information that is available at
the national level. A key rationale for this proposal is to ensure alignment with the
Commission’s ‘Once-Only Principle’70 according to which citizens and businesses should
provide the same information to public authorities only once. To achieve this objective the
principle provides that public administrations should then securely reuse and share that
information across authorities with an appropriate legal basis that will be provided for under
this initiative, which upon transposition will then be applied in accordance with the domestic
of law of Member States. Appropriate data sharing safeguards will be applied at the national
level in accordance with the requirements of the GDPR, while the automatic exchange of
information shall take place in accordance with the well-established secure transmission
system of the European Commission.
DAC5 already provides tax authorities with access to certain beneficial ownership
information that has been collected under anti-money laundering legislation. Consistent with
the once-only principle and in accordance with the existing well-established access
safeguards that have been applied at national level in accordance with the requirements of
the GDPR, this initiative will enhance access to relevant information under DAC5 in line
with the new Anti-Money Laundering Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/1640). More
specifically this enhancement will ensure that the tax authorities of Member States have the
necessary legal basis to access relevant information held by other public authorities at
national level with respect to ownership of and income from immovable property,
specifically the single access point for real estate information.
By providing tax authorities with a legal basis to access relevant information held by other
public authorities at national level this is also expected to significantly reduce the associated
technical implementation costs. However, these costs cannot be quantified, the main reasons
for this is the significant heterogeneity across Member States in terms of existing data-
sharing arrangements, IT infrastructures, legal frameworks and administrative capacities. In
some Member States, tax administrations already have relatively broad access to
information held by other public authorities, while in others such access remains limited and
would require more substantial adjustments.
69
As at 2025, 24 of the 27 EU Member States impose, or may impose in specified cases, domestic withholding tax on outbound royalty
payments falling outside the exemption in Council Directive 2003/49/EC; the exceptions are Hungary, Luxembourg and Malta. See IBFD,
European Tax Handbook 2025, country surveys; see also IBFD, European Tax Handbook 2025, EU Direct Taxation chapter, section on
the Interest and Royalties Directive.“All 27 EU Member States include dividend income in the tax base of resident taxpayers. Following
the introduction of the concept of ‘non-custodial dividend income’ in the DAC8 amendments, Member States are required to exchange
information on dividends or dividend-equivalent income paid or credited to an account other than a custodial account, reflecting the fact
that such income remains taxable in the residence State notwithstanding its exclusion from CRS custodial-account reporting.” See Council
Directive (EU) 2023/2226 (DAC8), recitals and Article 8; IBFD, European Tax Handbook 2025, country chapters.
70
European Commission, “The Once Only Principle System: A breakthrough for the EU’s Digital Single Market”, available at: European
Commission – Once Only Principle System (accessed 17 May 2026).
42
A robust cost estimate would therefore require a detailed, country-by-country assessment of
(i) the current level of data integration, (ii) the additional data sources to be covered under
the policy option, and (iii) the technical and organisational changes needed to enable access
and exchange. Such granular and comparable information is not available at EU level and
goes beyond the scope of the present analysis. As a result, the magnitude of adjustment costs
is expected to vary considerably across Member States. That said, this option would
significantly improve the level playing field and completeness of the information available
to tax administrations, thereby strengthening their capacity to effectively assess and tax
cross-border income.
6.2 Impact on competitiveness and SME’s
Impact on competitiveness
By introducing targeted simplifications, greater harmonisation and clarity across existing
DAC instruments, the initiative is expected to have a positive impact on business cost
competitiveness. The proposed measures reduce administrative burdens associated with
reporting, notification and compliance obligations, thereby lowering recurring compliance
costs for businesses operating in the Internal Market. In particular, the removal or
streamlining of certain reporting requirements under DAC6 and DAC7, as well as the
elimination of duplicative notification processes under DAC4 and DAC9 are expected to
reduce operational complexity and associated costs for businesses.
The initiative is also expected to contribute to a more level playing field within the
Internal Market. By reducing divergences in the interpretation and application of reporting
obligations, the measures aim to facilitate cross-border activity and reduce compliance
frictions for businesses operating in multiple Member States. This, in turn will enhance the
overall competitiveness of EU businesses, including in comparison with businesses
operating in jurisdictions with less complex reporting frameworks.
While the initiative does not directly target business capacity to innovate, the reduction in
compliance costs may indirectly support investment and growth by freeing up resources that
can be reallocated to productive activities. Depending on business-specific decisions, such
resources could be used, for example, to support expansion, digitalisation, or innovation-
related investments. The magnitude of such effects remains uncertain, as it depends on how
businesses choose to use the resources made available through the reduction in
administrative burdens. The impact on business competitiveness is further analysed in the
Competitiveness Test (Annex 5).
Impact on SMEs
Although the initiative does not include measures specifically targeted at SMEs, it is
expected to be particularly relevant for them due to the nature of tax compliance costs. Such
costs typically weigh more heavily on smaller businesses in relative terms, as they have
more limited administrative capacity and face higher fixed costs per reporting obligation
compared to large enterprises (see also Annex 6 “SME check” for more details).
Evidence from DAC6 reporting indicates that, among taxpayer filed reports, only a
relatively small share (around 8%) is attributable to large MNE groups with annual
consolidated revenues of at least 750 million. This implies that the vast majority of taxpayer
reporting entities, approximately 90% or more, consist of smaller businesses, including a
43
significant proportion of large SMEs (those at the upper limits of the SME threshold 71). As
a result, it can be assumed that SMEs account for a substantial share of DAC6 reporting
activity and are therefore directly affected by the associated reductions in compliance costs.
This is further supported by evidence collected through the call for evidence, where more
than three quarters of responding companies filing DAC6 reports identified themselves as
small or medium-sized enterprises. Taken together, this suggests that a substantial share of
the expected compliance cost savings from the proposed DAC6 simplifications is likely to
accrue to SMEs.
The proposed simplification measures, in particular the reduction of reporting obligations
under DAC6 and DAC7, are expected to reduce compliance costs for businesses across all
size categories. However, given that SMEs typically face higher compliance costs relative
to their size, these reductions are likely to be particularly beneficial for smaller businesses.
In relative terms, the resources made available from reduced compliance obligations may
represent a more significant share of operating costs for SMEs than for large enterprises.
More broadly, by reducing administrative complexity and improving legal clarity, the
initiative may facilitate SMEs’ participation in cross-border economic activities, where
compliance burdens have traditionally been identified as a barrier. While the measures do
not introduce SME-specific exemptions, they contribute to alleviating a structural
disadvantage faced by smaller businesses in navigating complex tax reporting frameworks
within the Internal Market. SME impacts are further analysed in the SME Test (Annex 6).
6.3 Other impacts
The measures considered are not expected to have any direct and immediate impact on
environmental outcomes. However, by reducing compliance costs, they may indirectly free
up financial resources within companies. Depending on business priorities and existing
constraints, these resources could be channelled into a range of activities, including
investments in more environmentally sustainable technologies or processes. From an
employment and social perspective, lower compliance burdens may allow businesses to
reallocate resources towards productive uses, such as business expansion, workforce
recruitment, or employee training, and potentially also higher remuneration, resulting from
higher productivities of workers. Alternatively, companies may decide to distribute part of
these gains to shareholders. Improved tax transparency and more effective detection of tax
avoidance may indirectly support fair taxation and public finances. The scale and direction
of these indirect effects remain uncertain, as they depend on individual business decisions
regarding the use of the resources made available.
The initiative has also been also assessed with regard to its potential implications on
fundamental rights, in particular those enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the European Union72.
Regarding the exchange of increased data sets due to TIN identification measures, with
respect to PO4b, it must be clarified from the outset there is no potential for an increase in
the data that is collected and exchanged as this policy option only focuses on introducing a
centralised system to enable tax authorities and, potentially, also reporting entities, to verify
71
SMEs are defined in accordance with Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC as enterprises with fewer than 250 employees and
either annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million or a balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million.
72
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C 326/391
44
the correctness of the reported TIN. By enabling this TIN verification, PO4b envisages that
certain data points may no longer be required (if a validated TIN is provided), which is
therefore likely to lead to a reduction in the data points collected and exchanged. This
privacy by design mechanism actively promotes the GDPR principle of data minimisation.
For all configurations, by querying up-to-date national records rather than a centralised
repository, the decentralised architecture minimises the risk of processing outdated or
duplicated information.
TINs qualify as personal data and validation requests necessarily involve accompanying the
TIN with additional taxpayer identifying elements (such as name, date of birth or place of
birth). The operation of the TIN verification system would thus engage Articles 7 and 8 of
the Charter, respectively, the rights to private and family life and to the protection of
personal data, as it would involve the processing of personal data relating to a large number
of EU taxpayers across all Member States on a continuous basis. The same applies to the
automatic exchange of information under DAC 1, to the extent that the measures involve the
collection, exchange or processing of information, including potentially personal data.
As regards the TIN verification system, first it must be clarified that it will be based on a
decentralised architecture (a gateway) that avoids central data storage: the gateway acts as a
distribution hub among the 27 national validation access points and does not itself store
personal data or national registry information, which limits the scope of EU-level
processing. Second, it will be designed based on a number of safeguard features, including
the following:
• Restriction of input and output data to predefined minimum sets in light of data
minimisation and purpose limitation to tax administration objectives: under PO4b,
the system will only facilitate a yes/no confirmation for such operators.
• Transient data retention for individual queries: the Gateway will be designed to
perform without accessing or storing underlying national registry data. The Union-
level legal instrument establishing the verification system will clearly delineate the
roles and responsibilities of the Gateway operator and the national tax authorities, to
prevent accountability gaps, in particular as regards the handling of data subject
rights and the allocation of liability.
• Access controls: The verification system will operate solely for the purpose of
taxpayer identification in the context of administrative cooperation under the DAC.
The Union legal instrument establishing the verification system will clearly define
this purpose and preclude any secondary use incompatible with it. Moreover, to
prevent function creep, the verification system will be accessible on a need-to-know
basis only, with access limited to authorised personnel within tax authorities and,
where applicable, reporting entities with each organisation responsible for defining
internal access rights and procedures.
• Audit logging: Traceability of use will be ensured through an audit log function,
which documents the actions carried out by each authorised account and, in the
context of optional use by reporting entities, could also support tax authorities in
avoiding duplicating validation requests already carried out.
• Architectural and technical safeguards providing secure communication
channels: For the use by tax authorities, the system will leverage the existing private
CCN/CSI network infrastructure of the European Commission, which substantially
45
limits exposure to external threats. Communication between reporting entities and
national validation access points will occur over the public Internet, requiring
appropriate, hardened network level security measures—on the side of each national
validation access points. At the data transport level, communication between
reporting entities and national validation access points must deploy secure
communication protocols, and digital certificates or credentials for system-to-system
communication.
As regards the collection and exchange of information available in the files of other national
public entities(PO5c), it is important to clarify that this policy option does not require the
centralisation of information held by different national authorities in one single
communication system but only requires that this information is shared with tax
administrations or that tax administration have access to the information so that it can be
subsequently exchanged. In other words, the fact that certain information is not immediately
available in the tax files of the tax administration should no longer prevent tax
administrations from exchanging this information, if that information is available in the files
of other relevant public authorities at national level (therefore excluding regional and local
level, which would be much more difficult and costly to implement).
As mentioned above, this will be achieved by enhancing the DAC5 legal basis to provide
access to updated and relevant AML information for tax authorities. As regards additional
safeguards required under the GDPR, those in place both at the level of Member States and
at the level of the Commission covering the processing of personal data will continue to
apply. For example, for tax authorities, user authentication and authorisation are managed
through existing national Identity and Access Management (IAM) frameworks. In addition,
for the use by tax authorities, the system will leverage the existing private CCN/CSI network
infrastructure of the European Commission, which substantially limits exposure to external
threats.
The initiative is therefore, overall, considered to be compatible with the Charter of
Fundamental Rights.
7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?
The comparison assesses the extent to which the options contribute to achieving the specific
objectives of reducing complexity and improving legal clarity and certainty, ensuring
reporting and notification obligations are proportionate and better targeted while preserving
the policy objectives, and improving the effectiveness and usability of information
exchanged between Member States. The relative effectiveness of the different options
against the general and specific objectives is summarised in each table. The symbol ‘0’
represents no change compared to the baseline ‘no action’ while ‘+’ (/ “ –“) symbols point
to a better/ worse performance of the option compared to the baseline. Performance
increases with the number of ‘+’ (/ “ –“) symbols.
Measure 1 – Ensuring that DAC6 reporting obligations remain proportionate and
effective while promoting a more harmonised application of the MBT
PO1a excludes all companies within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive from reporting under DAC6. PO1b
involves PO1a + removing reporting requirements related to generic hallmarks (category A), combined with
46
guidance on application of MBT to the remaining hallmarks subject to the test. PO1c involves PO1a +
removing reporting requirements related to generic hallmarks (category A), removing the MBT and revising
the remaining hallmarks previously subject to the test.
Effectiveness
Specific Objectives Baseline PO1a PO1b PO1c
Reduce complexity and improve legal clarity and 0 + +++ ++
legal certainty for stakeholders
Ensure reporting and notification obligations are 0 + +++ ++
proportionate and better targeted while
preserving the policy objectives
Improve the effectiveness and usability of 0 + +++ ++
exchanged information
The policy options contribute to different positive degrees, to the specific objectives of the
initiative and to the reduction of compliance costs. PO1a would significantly improve the
proportionality of the reporting framework and reduce the administrative burden for the
3,000 MNE groups within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive. Simultaneously it is not
expected to negatively impact on the fight against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance due to
the Pillar 2 minimum effective tax rules. PO1b would have a greater impact on the
proportionality of the framework than PO1a as it further reduces reporting volumes and
their associated costs for arrangements that provide limited added value for tax
administrations, thereby preserving the policy objectives. In addition, targeted guidance on
the interpretation of the MBT for the remaining hallmarks would promote greater
consistency in its application across Member States, thereby improving legal certainty for
intermediaries and taxpayers. PO1c would go further by removing the MBT from the
remaining hallmarks currently subject to the test and replacing it with revised hallmarks
based on objective criteria. While this is expected to address the complexity related to the
MBT, the impact on reporting outcomes is not predictable. While the removal of the MBT
may reduce defensive reporting (i.e. situations where intermediaries choose to report in
cases of uncertainty due to the complexity of the test), several business stakeholders have
indicated that the MBT can provide useful guidance to intermediaries in assessing whether
an arrangement is reportable therefore limiting disclosures by acting as a filter.
Moreover, the redesign of some of the hallmarks would involve higher adjustment costs for
reporting entities than PO1b as this would require updates to internal procedures,
compliance systems and staff training. This was one of the key findings from the targeted
consultations with business stakeholders as they stated that further modifications to the
DAC6 reporting hallmarks should be avoided as they would require businesses to once again
adapt their internal reporting systems and compliance processes, which would increase
compliance costs.
All options will reduce the complexity and enhance the legal certainty of the framework for
all stakeholders. This is more limited for PO1a than PO1b and PO1c, as all companies and
intermediaries benefit from the latter two options. All options are expected to improve the
effectiveness and use of information. PO1b scores higher than PO1a as it ensures that tax
administrations can better dedicate resources to arrangements that present a higher risk of
tax fraud, evasion and avoidance thereby further improving the functioning of the Internal
47
Market and strengthening competitiveness. PO1c scores slightly lower than PO1b due to
the less predictable nature of revised reporting outcomes.
Efficiency
Baseline PO1a PO1b PO1c
Companies and intermediaries
Administrative cost 0 - --- --
One-off adjustment and implementation 0 0 0 ++
costs
Public authorities
Administrative cost 0 - --- --
One-off adjustment and implementation 0 0 + ++
costs
Measure 2 – Amending the reporting threshold for activities involving the sale of goods
under DAC7
PO2a removes the activity threshold of 30 transactions while retaining the monetary threshold of EUR 2,000.
PO2b removes the activity threshold and increases the monetary threshold to EUR 3,000. PO2c removes the
activity threshold and increases the monetary threshold to EUR 5,000.
Effectiveness
Specific Objectives Baseline PO2a PO2b PO2c
Reducing complexity and 0 ++ ++ ++
improving legal clarity and
certainty for stakeholders
Ensuring reporting 0 ++ +++ +
obligations are
proportionate and better
targeted while preserving
policy objectives
Improving the 0 ++ +++ +
effectiveness and usability
of exchanged information
The policy options contribute to different degrees, to the specific objectives of the initiative
and to the reduction of compliance costs. While all options reduce compliance costs for
business stakeholders and improve legal certainty, certain options score lower as they do not
fully preserve the policy objectives and improve the effectiveness and use of information.
This is the case for PO2c, as increasing the monetary threshold to EUR 5,000 will mean that
tax administrations may no longer receive information that is relevant for the application of
national tax rules.
Under PO2a reporting obligations would be triggered solely by the value of the income
received, eliminating reporting linked to sellers carrying out a high number of low-value
transactions. PO2b further simplifies the framework by introducing a single monetary
reporting threshold of EUR 3,000. This improves legal clarity for reporting entities and
ensures that reporting obligations are triggered primarily by economically meaningful levels
48
of activity. The option also improves the targeting of reporting obligations by excluding
low-value sellers whose transactions are unlikely to generate tax relevant income. Policy
Option 2c would reduce reporting volumes even further by increasing the monetary
threshold to EUR 5,000. However, this option would also reduce the availability of tax
relevant information and therefore performs less strongly in terms of effectiveness as it may
negatively impact on preserving the policy objectives.
Efficiency
Baseline PO2a PO2b PO2c
Companies (platform operators)
Administrative cost 0 - -- ---
One-off implementation and adjustment
0 0/+ 0/+ 0/+
costs
Public authorities
Administrative cost 0 - -- --
One-off adjustment and implementation
0 0 0 0
costs
All options generate efficiency gains by reducing reporting obligations for digital platform
operators. PO2a would reduce the administrative costs for platforms related to reports linked
to sellers carrying out a high number of low-value transactions, as reporting obligations
would be triggered solely by the EUR 2,000 monetary threshold. PO2b would further reduce
administrative costs for platforms by increasing the standalone monetary threshold to EUR
3,000 whilst continuing to ensure reporting on economically relevant activity. PO2c would
result in the highest reduction of administrative costs for platforms as reporting volumes
would significantly decrease due to the increase of the reporting threshold to EUR 5,000.
However, there are expected to be one-off minor implementation costs for companies due
to the reconfiguration of reporting processes.
Similarly, there will be a reduction of administrative costs for tax administrations as they
will be able to deploy resources to areas that present a greater risk of tax fraud, evasion and
avoidance. However, as far as PO2c is concerned, the savings are partially offset by the fact
that Member States may lose information that is relevant for tax purposes and, therefore,
may need to carry out additional compliance activities to effectively apply their tax rules.
There are expected to be no adjustment and implementation costs for tax administrations as
every option removes reporting obligations thereby negating the need for IT adjustments.
Measure 3 – Streamlining notification obligations for MNE group under DAC4 and
DAC9
PO3a introduce a single notification obligation covering DAC4 and DAC9, including a harmonised filing
deadline and a common notification template. PO3b builds on PO3a and adds a central filing of the single
notification followed by exchange of information between Member States.
Effectiveness
Specific objective Baseline PO3a PO3b
49
Reducing complexity and improving legal
0 ++ +++
clarity and certainty
Ensuring reporting and notification obligations
are proportionate and better targeted while 0 ++ +++
preserving policy objectives
Improving the effectiveness and usability of
0 ++ +++
exchanged information
Both options address the duplication in notification obligations for MNE groups under
DAC4 and DAC9 and therefore positively contribute to all 3 specific objectives. PO3a
would improve legal clarity and certainty and reduce complexity by introducing a single
harmonised notification that supports the reporting requirements for both DAC4 and DAC9.
This would reduce parallel compliance processes within MNE groups and simplify
interactions with national tax administrations. PO3b performs more strongly across all
objectives. By allowing a single entity within the MNE group to file the notification centrally
in a Member State, this option would remove the need for multiple local notifications by
entities across the Union. The subsequent exchange of the notification between Member
States would ensure that all relevant tax administrations continue to receive the information
required for effective tax enforcement.
Efficiency
Baseline PO3a PO3b
Companies (MNE groups)
Administrative cost 0 - ---
One-off adjustment and implementation costs
0 + +
Public authorities
Administrative cost 0 - --
One-off adjustment and implementation costs 0 + +
Both options generate efficiency gains by eliminating duplicative notification requirements.
PO3a would reduce compliance costs and administrative burden by replacing 2
notifications, 1 under DAC4 and the other 1 under DAC9, with a single harmonised
notification. PO3b would generate larger efficiency gains by allowing central filing of the
notification. This would remove the need for local notifications by each entity of the MNE
group and, therefore, further reduces compliance costs for them. Both options would require
limited one-off adjustment and implementation costs for both companies and tax
administrations due to the need to revise current processes and procedures. In addition, the
exchange of notification information between Member States would require limited IT
adjustments, which are expected to be modest relative to the compliance savings generated.
Measure 4 - Improving the verification of TINs
PO4a introduces a centralised TIN verification system, accessible only to Member States tax administrations
while PO4b introduces a centralised TIN verification system, accessible to both Member States tax
administrations and reporting entities.
50
Effectiveness
Specific objective Baseline PO4a PO4b
Reducing complexity and improving legal
0 + +
clarity and certainty
Ensuring reporting and notification obligations
are proportionate and better targeted while 0 + ++
preserving policy objectives
Improving the effectiveness and usability of
0 ++ +++
exchanged information
Both policy options are expected to improve legal clarity and legal certainty, as reporting
entities and tax administrations can more effectively comply with their reporting and
exchange of information obligations. Both policy options would ensure that reporting
obligations are proportionate and better targeted as verification of the TIN ensures that
accurate information is reported and exchanged thereby limiting following up requests for
information. Simultaneously, they would both preserve the policy objectives of tackling tax
fraud, evasion and avoidance, as accurate reporting facilitates the enforcement of tax rules.
PO4b scores higher as it is envisaged that in situations where a validated TIN is provided
by the reporting entity, they will no longer be required to provide other identification
information (for example the date of birth of the taxpayer), which are used by tax
administrations to compensate for missing or inaccurate TINs. This provides for more
proportionate reporting obligations while not undermining the policy objectives of the
framework. Finally, both policy options score very positively in improving the effectiveness
and use of exchanged information as they are predicated on the fact that a verified TIN will
increase the automatic matching rate of information thereby facilitating enhanced use of the
information. PO4b scores higher in this area as in situations where the TIN cannot be
verified the reporting entity can directly contact the taxpayer to correct the information
whereas, under PO4a tax administrations must first contact the reporting entity who must
then contact the taxpayer to correct the information, thereby reducing the effectiveness and
efficiency of the framework.
Efficiency
Baseline PO4a PO4b
Companies (Reporting entities)
Administrative cost 0 0 -
One-off adjustment and implementation costs 0 0 +
Public authorities
Administrative cost 0 -- --
One-off adjustment and implementation costs 0 + ++
PO4a does not envisage any reduction in administrative costs for reporting entities as access
to the verification system is restricted to tax administrations. Consequentially there are no
one-off adjustment and implementation costs for reporting entities. PO4a is expected to
reduce administrative costs for tax administrations as it foresees that TINs will be validated
by the sending Member State thereby reducing follow up requests for correction
51
information. Simultaneously, it is expected that the reporting of verified TINs will lead to
higher automatic matching rates in receiving Member States thereby reducing the human
and technical resources assigned to manual matching processes and procedures. As clearly
identified in Chapter 6 there are expected to be one-off adjustment and implementation costs
for tax administrations arising from the introduction of a centralised verification system.
As PO4b envisages access by reporting entities, on a voluntary basis, administrative costs
are expected to decline for those reporting entities because they will receive less follow up
requests for correction information from tax authorities. Simultaneously in instances where
a verified TIN is provided, reporting entities choosing to use the centralised TIN verification
system, will no longer be required to verify and report additional identifying information
(e.g. the date of birth of the taxpayer), thereby further reducing administrative costs. Under
PO4b, tax authorities are expected to see a reduction in administrative costs as the reporting
of a verified TIN will reduce the need for follow up requests for correction information while
also reducing the necessity for human and technical investment in manual matching
processes and procedures. Finally, as detailed in Chapter 6, one-off adjustment costs are
expected to be higher than PO4a, as tax administrations will be required to verify
authentication and access to the system by reporting entities.
Measure 5 - Improving the completeness of information reported under DAC1
Under PO5a the LIP category is removed. This is also applicable to PO5b where, in addition, Member States
are required to automatically exchange information available in their tax files on all remaining six categories
of income and capital. PO5c builds on the preceding options and requires Member States to automatically
exchange information available to all relevant public authorities in the Member States on all remaining six
categories of income and capital.
Effectiveness
Specific Objective Baseline PO5a PO5b PO5c
Reducing complexity and 0 + ++ ++
improving legal clarity
and certainty
Ensuring reporting 0 + ++ +++
obligations are
proportionate and better
targeted while preserving
policy objectives
Improving the 0 + ++ +++
effectiveness and usability
of exchanged information
All options improve the functioning of AEOI under DAC1 by addressing limitations in the
completeness and consistency of the data exchanged between Member States. PO5a would
primarily simplify the existing framework, by removing the LIP category from the list of
categories subject to AEOI. In doing so, this policy option would not significantly affect the
overall effectiveness of administrative cooperation, given the limited use of the LIP category
and its partial overlap with information exchanged under DAC2. PO5b would, in addition
to the benefits brought about by PO5a, also improve the consistency and comparability of
information exchanged across Member States and strengthen the level playing field.
Moreover, by ensuring that all Member States exchange information on the same set of
52
categories, this option would also improve the usability of exchanged information for tax
compliance purposes. PO5c represents the most comprehensive approach, as it would
extend the scope of information exchange to data available to other public authorities at
national level. By enabling the exchange of relevant information held by other public
authorities, this option would significantly improve the completeness and usability of the
information available to tax administrations, while strengthening the level playing field
within the Union.
Efficiency
Baseline PO5a PO5b PO5c
Companies
Administrative cost 0 0 0 0
One-off implementation and adjustment 0 0 0 0
costs
Public authorities
Administrative cost 0 - + ++
One-off implementation and adjustment
0 0 + ++
costs
Because DAC1 exchanges take place between tax administrations with no specific reporting
obligation for any reporting entity, none of the options introduce additional reporting
obligations for taxpayers or companies. As a result, no direct compliance costs or savings
arise for the private sector under this measure.
PO5a would generate limited efficiency gains for tax administrations by removing the LIP
category, which currently has low operational relevance and overlaps partially with
information exchanged under DAC2. This option would slightly reduce the administrative
workload associated with processing and exchanging information. PO5b would entail an
increase of administrative costs resulting from the increased volume of exchanged
information. In addition, it would involve certain one-off administrative adjustments for
some tax administrations that currently exchange information on fewer than 6 categories.
These adjustments would mainly involve IT configuration, data extraction and processing
changes rather than new data collection. However, the benefits associated with more
consistent and complete information exchanges will improve the effectiveness of tax risk
analysis and enforcement activities. PO5c would entail a larger increase of administrative
costs resulting from the increased volume of exchanged information. It would also require
more substantial organisational and technical adjustments at national level, including
improved access for tax administrations to information held by other public authorities and
the establishment of appropriate data-sharing arrangements. While this option may involve
higher implementation costs, it would also provide the most comprehensive set of
information for administrative cooperation and therefore generate the greatest benefits for
the enforcement of taxation rules.
Coherence
All options ensure coherence with the existing framework of the DAC and its policy
objectives of tackling tax fraud, evasion, and avoidance. In the context of the DAC6
53
measure, the preferred policy option of PO1b, which excludes all companies within the
scope of Pillar 2 from DAC6 reporting obligations and which removes the reporting
requirements related to the generic category A hallmark for all other reporting entities and
taxpayers is coherent with the existing international framework. The assessment is supported
by the fact that DAC6 does not implement any existing international standard into EU
legislation and the proposed carve out for Pillar 2 companies does not therefore have any
impact on the ability of the Pillar 2 Directive to prevent base erosion and profit shifting by
ensuring that MNE groups in scope pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15% on profits in
each jurisdiction that they operate.
In the context of the DAC7 measure, the preferred policy option of PO2b, which removes
the activity threshold of 30 transactions and increases the monetary threshold to EUR 3,000
ensures coherence with the existing international framework as the proposed amendment is
consistent with the proposed amendment to the OECD MRDP, as provisionally agreed at
technical level.
In the context of the DAC4/DAC9 measure, the preferred policy option of PO3b proposes
the introduction of a single notification obligation including a harmonised filing deadline,
common notification template, central filing and exchange of information of that single
notification. This proposed measure will not affect the existing coherence with the
international OECD frameworks of Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) and the Pillar 2
rules. The rationale for this assessment is underpinned by the fact that the measure will not
amend the existing DAC4 reporting requirements and therefore remains aligned with the
OECD CbCR framework. The same rationale applies in the context of the Pillar Two rules,
as the measure does not in any way impact on the information that is reported under DAC9
to ensure that MNE groups and large domestic groups pay a minimum effective tax rate of
15% in each jurisdiction where they operate hence remaining aligned with the corresponding
OECD Global Information Return (GIR).
In addition, the proposed measure will have no impact on the existing EU Public Country-
by-Country Reporting (PCbCR) Directive which enhances the corporate tax transparency
and accountability by requiring large MNE’s to publicly disclose where they generate their
profits and where they pay their taxes. The rationale for this assessment is underpinned by
the fact that DAC4 CbCR and Public CbCR have two different objectives. The objective of
DAC4 is to provide EU tax authorities with information on the structure, transfer-pricing
policies and internal transactions of MNE groups. This information is used by tax authorities
to check for risks of tax abuse due to aggressive tax planning and other base-erosion and
profit-shifting risks related to the MNE group. Public CbCR requires MNE’s to publicly
disclose specific corporate tax information. The objective is to increase corporate
transparency and enhance public scrutiny. In summary while the scope of both Directives
covers the same MNE’s, the differing objectives and possibilities to use the information will
not be impacted by the measure therefore ensuring coherence with the existing broader EU
framework.
In the context of the measure to improve the verification of the TINs, the preferred policy
option of PO4b proposes the introduction of a centralised TIN verification system accessible
to the tax administrations of Member States and to reporting entities on an optional basis.
This measure is fully coherent with the existing EU and international legislative frameworks.
54
Finally, in the context of the measure to improve the completeness of information reported
under DAC1, the preferred policy option of PO5c proposes that the LIP category is no longer
required to be exchanged and that Member States are obliged to automatically exchange
information that is available to all national authorities in the Member State with respect to
the remaining six categories of income and capital. DAC1 does not have a directly
equivalent international framework for reporting and exchange of information.
However, the current scope of information reported and exchanged under the DAC1
category of ownership of and income from immovable property will be enhanced to ensure
coherence with the recent OECD initiative to exchange readily available information on
immovable property73
8. PREFERRED OPTION
8.1 Preferred policy options and option package
This chapter lists the preferred policy options under each measure, as resulting from the
analysis performed in the previous chapter and then identifies the preferred policy package.
The preferred policy package combines the options under each measure that best contribute
to the specific objectives of the initiative. It also considers the quantitative and qualitative
impacts identified in the previous chapter, including reductions in compliance costs for
reporting entities, improvements in the efficiency of administrative cooperation between
Member States, and the need to preserve the operational value of the information exchanged.
The preferred policy options under each measure are presented below.
Measure 1 – Ensuring proportionate and effective DAC6 reporting obligations while
promoting a more harmonised application of the MBT
The preferred option is Policy Option 1b.
This option combines the exclusion of companies within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive
from DAC6 reporting obligations with the removal of the generic hallmarks (category A)
and the issuance of guidance on the interpretation of the MBT for the remaining hallmarks
subject to the test.
This option performs best across the evaluation criteria. It significantly reduces reporting
volumes associated with hallmarks that generate large numbers of disclosures with limited
added value for tax administrations, thereby improving the proportionality of DAC6
reporting obligations. At the same time, the issuance of guidance would contribute to greater
legal clarity and more consistent application of the MBT across Member States.
Compared with Policy Option 1a, this option addresses the broader issues related to the
functioning of DAC6 reporting beyond the interaction with the Pillar 2 Directive. Compared
with Policy Option 1c, it achieves substantial simplification while avoiding the more
extensive redesign of the DAC6 reporting framework which would involve an uncertain
outcome in terms of reporting volumes and also an increase in one-off administrative burden
73
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Framework for the Automatic Exchange of Readily Available
Information on Immovable Property for Tax Purposes: OECD Report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (OECD
Publishing October 2025) https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-issues/tax-transparency-and-international-co-
operation/framework-for-the-automatic-exchange-of-readily-available-information-on-immovable-property-for-tax-purposes.pdf
55
for business and tax authorities, stemming from the removal of the MBT from the remaining
hallmarks.
Overall, Policy Option 1b provides the best balance between simplification of reporting
obligations, legal certainty for stakeholders and the continued effectiveness of DAC6 as a
tool for identifying potentially aggressive cross-border tax arrangements.
Measure 2 – Amending the reporting threshold for activities involving the sale of goods
under DAC7
The preferred option is Policy Option 2b.
This option removes the activity threshold and introduces a single monetary reporting
threshold of EUR 3,000. By relying on a single reporting trigger based on the value of
income received, this option simplifies the DAC7 reporting framework and improves legal
certainty and clarity for digital platform operators.
Compared with Policy Option 2a, which maintains the EUR 2,000 threshold, Policy Option
2b further improves the proportionality of reporting obligations by excluding additional low-
value sellers whose activities are unlikely to generate tax-relevant income. At the same time,
it ensures that tax relevant income remains subject to reporting and exchange of information.
Compared with Policy Option 2c, which would increase the threshold to EUR 5,000, Policy
Option 2b provides a better balance between reducing administrative burden and preserving
the effectiveness of DAC7 reporting. A threshold higher than EUR 3,000 would reduce the
availability of information relevant for the enforcement of national tax rules. Policy Option
2b is also fully consistent with developments in the OECD MRDP, thereby contributing to
greater international alignment in the design of digital platform reporting rules.
Overall, this option best ensures that reporting obligations remain proportionate while
preserving the effectiveness of the DAC7 framework.
Measure 3 – Streamlining notification obligations for MNE group under DAC4 and
DAC9
The preferred option is Policy Option 3b.
This option builds on the introduction of a single harmonised notification requirement by
allowing central filing of the notification by a single entity within the MNE Group in a
Member State, followed by the exchange of the notification information between Member
States.
Compared with Policy Option 3a, which introduces a single notification requirement but
still requires local filing in each Member State, this option further reduces the administrative
burden for MNE groups by eliminating duplicative filings by multiple constituent entities.
At the same time, the exchange of the notification between Member States ensures that all
relevant tax administrations continue to receive the information necessary for effective
administrative cooperation.
Policy Option 3b therefore achieves the greatest simplification of notification obligations
while maintaining the effectiveness of the DAC reporting framework.
56
Measure 4 – Improving the verification of TINs
The preferred option is Policy Option 4b.
This option envisages the development of a centralised TIN verification system that is
accessible to tax authorities and reporting entities.
Policy Option 4b supports more proportionate and targeted reporting requirements by
reducing the necessity, for reporting entities that choose to use the centralised TIN
verification tool, to report additional identification information in circumstances where a
verified TIN is reported. This option also preserves the policy objectives of the framework.
Simultaneously, Policy Option 4b scores higher in improving the effectiveness and use of
information, as reporting entities will have more streamlined processes and procedures in
place to attain corrected information from the taxpayer than those of tax authorities.
As regards administrative costs, Policy Option 4b scores higher as it envisages that
reporting entities that choose to use the centralised TIN verification too will benefit from a
reduction in administrative costs stemming from less follow up requests for corrective
information from tax authorities and the possibility to not require reporting of certain
additional identification information in circumstances where a verified TIN is reported.
Measure 5: Improving the completeness of information reported under DAC1
The preferred option is Policy Option 5c.
This option removes the category of LIP from the list of categories subject to exchange and
requires Member States to exchange information available to all public authorities with
respect to the remaining 6 income and capital categories.
Compared with Policy Options 5a and 5b, this option most effectively improves the
completeness and usability of information exchanged between Member States. By extending
the scope of information exchange beyond data contained in the files of tax administrations
it addresses a key limitation which currently affect the completeness of DAC1 exchanges.
While this option may involve higher implementation costs for Member States due to the
need to ensure access to information held by other public authorities, it provides the most
comprehensive improvement in the functioning of AEOI and contributes to a more level
playing field within the Union.
8.2 Summary of the preferred policy package
Taken together, the preferred options form a coherent package aimed at simplifying the
DAC reporting framework, reducing administrative burdens for reporting entities and tax
administrations and improving the effectiveness of administrative cooperation in taxation
within the Union.
Specific Objectives Reducing Ensuring reporting Improving the
complexity and obligations are effectiveness and
improving legal proportionate and usability of
clarity and certainty better targeted while exchanged
for stakeholders preserving policy information
objectives
57
Baseline 0 0 0
Measure 1 – DAC6 +++ +++ +++
PO1b: Excluding companies
within the scope of the Pillar 2
Directive from reporting under
DAC6 + removing the generic
hallmarks (category A) +
guidance to promote a more
harmonised interpretation of the
MBT for the remaining hallmarks
subject to the test.
Measure 2 – DAC7 ++ +++ +++
PO2b: Removing the activity
threshold of 30 transactions and
increasing the monetary threshold
to EUR 3,000
Measure 3 – DAC4/DAC9 +++ +++ +++
PO3b: Introducing a single
notification requirement for
DAC4/DAC9 via a common
standard template and harmonised
deadlines + central filing of the
notification followed by exchange
of information between Member
States
Measure 4 – TIN + ++ +++
PO4B: Introducing a centralised
TIN verification system
accessible to both Member States
tax administrations and reporting
entities.
Measure 5 – DAC1 ++ +++ +++
PO5c: The LIP category is no
longer required to be exchanged.
Member States are obliged to
automatically exchange
information available to all public
authorities in the Member States
with respect to the remaining six
categories of income and capital.
Efficiency
Baseline Measure 1 Measure 2 Measure 3 Measure 4 Measure 5
DAC6 DAC7 DAC4/DAC9 TIN DAC1
PO1b PO2b PO3b PO4b PO5c
Companies
Administrative cost 0 --- -- --- - 0
58
One-off implementation and 0 0 0/+ + + 0
adjustment costs
Public authorities
Administrative cost 0 --- -- -- -- ++
One-off implementation and 0 + 0 + ++ ++
adjustment costs
Total cost savings for the preferred policy measures
Policy Measure Cost Savings
Measure 1: DAC6 (PO1b) 341 million
Measure 2: DAC7 (PO2b) 678 million
Measure 3: DAC4/DAC9 (PO3b) 264 million
Total Savings 1,283,000,000 — One billion two hundred eighty-
three thousand
8.3 REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)
The preferred policy package contributes to the simplification objectives of the Union and
supports the REFIT programme by reducing unnecessary administrative burdens while
improving the effectiveness of the administrative cooperation framework. These measures
directly simplify existing reporting obligations and remove duplicative procedures. In
particular, the removal of certain DAC6 hallmarks and the exclusion of MNE groups subject
to the Pillar 2 Directive remove reporting requirements that generate limited operational
value for tax administrations. Similarly, the simplification of DAC7 reporting thresholds
reduces the volume of reports associated with low-value transactions, while the introduction
of centralised notifications for the purposes of DAC4 and DAC9 eliminates the current
duplicative notification obligations for MNE groups. Simultaneously the introduction of a
new verification system for TINs combined with improvements in the completeness of the
DAC1 framework improve the efficiency of the DAC. Together, these measures simplify
compliance procedures for EU businesses and SME’s and improve the quality, completeness
and use of exchanged information by tax administrations.
8.4 Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach
The simplification initiative generates significant reductions in reporting volumes and
notification obligations for EU businesses and SMEs. Based upon the estimates presented
in Chapter 6, the preferred options are expected to generate substantial compliance cost
savings and consequential reductions in administrative burden for EU businesses and SMEs.
These compliance costs savings will be primarily achieved via the simplification of certain
DAC6 reporting requirements for example the exclusion of MNE groups within the scope
of the Pillar 2 Directive is estimated to achieve compliance cost savings of approximately
EUR 263 million per year. Additional cost savings will be achieved from the simplification
of the DAC7 framework by increasing the reporting threshold for activities involving the
sale of goods and by simplifying and streamlining the notification obligations under
59
DAC4/DAC9. Overall, the initiative results in a significant net reduction in administrative
burden for EU businesses and SMEs in line with the Commission’s ‘one-in, one-out’
approach.
9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?
The actual impacts of these measures will be monitored and evaluated by the Commission
services in close cooperation with the Member States. The monitoring framework will assess
whether the initiative is achieving its specific objectives, namely, reducing complexity and
improving legal certainty, ensuring that reporting and notification obligations are
proportionate and better targeted while preserving the policy objectives and improving the
effectiveness and use of exchanged information. Collection of factual data on the suggested
monitoring indicators will also provide the basis for the future evaluation of the initiative
The following indicators are suggested to measure the success of the initiative in light of the
specific objectives (Chapter 4). An indication of the target for success is also provided.
Indicators74 Targets
Compliance cost from DAC6 Reduction of EUR 300 million/year for large MNEs
reporting Reduction of EUR 41.4 million/year for other MNEs
Compliance cost reductions from Overall reduction from EUR 452 million to EUR 904 million for digital
DAC7 reporting platforms.
Compliance cost from Reduction of EUR 264 million/year for large MNEs
DAC4/DAC9
Regulatory cost for Tax authorities Cost for tax authorities is expected to decrease following the decrease in the
number of disclosures. Given the difficulties to isolate such component from
other costs, the decrease will be appreciated qualitatively.
Reduction of the number of disclosures to be analysed by tax authorities:
9,000 disclosures less for DAC6:
11.3 million reported sellers less annually for DAC7
109,000 MNEs in scope of DAC9 not filing separate DAC4 and DAC9
notifications anymore.
Average automatic matching rate Average automatic matching rate increased up to 100% within 3 years from
for TINs the full implementation of the system by all Member States
One-off costs for development of For EU (central component): EUR 970,000–1,770,000; For Member States
IT system for TIN (national component): EUR 15–25 million
Recurrent IT maintenance and For EU (central component): EUR 1.8–2.4 million/year;
assistance for TIN For Member States (national component): EUR 5.5–18 million/year
The monitoring framework will largely rely upon the existing statistical reporting
mechanisms under DAC. Where necessary, these may be complemented by additional
relevant indicators to better assess the impacts of the proposed measures.
74
The ability of the Commission services to effectively monitor the compliance cost savings for EU businesses will be dependent upon
the detailed scope of information provided by EU businesses to the Commission service surveys.
60
9.1. Monitoring arrangements
The following indicators will be used to monitor the implementation and impacts of this
simplification initiative.
Specific objective Indicator Data source Frequency
Ensure proportionate and legally certain DAC6 Number of annual DAC6 DAC6 central directory Annual
reporting (removal of certain MBT-related A disclosures statistics
hallmarks and exclusion of Pillar 2 entities)
Ensure proportionate and legally certain DAC6 Reductions in Survey of Every 5 years
reporting (removal of certain MBT-related A administrative intermediaries in view of
hallmarks and exclusion of Pillar 2 entities) compliance costs evaluation
Ensure proportionate and better targeted Number of annual sellers Statistics reported by Annual
reporting of sellers under DAC7 reported for the sale of Member States
goods.
Ensure proportionate and better targeted Reductions in Survey of Platform Every 5 years
reporting of sellers under DAC7 administrative Operators in view of
compliance costs evaluation
Eliminate duplicative (DAC4/DAC9) and non- Number of notifications Statistics reported by Annual
harmonised notification obligations for MNE submitted by constituent Member States
Groups entities and number of
notifications submitted at
group level
Eliminate duplicative (DAC4/DAC9) and non- Reductions in Survey of Platform Every 5 years
harmonised notification obligations for MNE administrative Operators in view of
Groups compliance costs evaluation
Improve the quality and completeness of Number of categories DAC1 statistics Annual
DAC1 exchanges exchanged by Member reported by Member
States and increase in the States
volume of information
exchanged
Strengthen tax compliance and protection of Member States Statistics reported by Annual
tax bases qualitative and/or Member States
quantitative appreciation
of the ability to protect
tax base
61
Increase in tax revenues/tax base as a Assessment of the impact Statistics reported by Annual
direct/indirect consequence of making all of the new reporting Member States or
DAC1 categories mandatory and ensuring that requirements on tax qualitative appreciation
all information that is available is exchanged fraud, tax evasion and tax
avoidance
Monitoring will be carried out via the existing cooperation structures involving the
Commission services and the Member States. Accordingly, the Working Group on
Administrative Cooperation in Direct Taxation (WG ACDT), will discuss the
implementation and functioning of the revised framework. This forum allows the Member
States and Commission services to discuss implementation practices, identify operational
challenges and share experiences regarding the application of the framework.
Where appropriate, the Commission services will also collect feedback from relevant
stakeholders (e.g. intermediaries, MNE groups, digital platform operators, etc.) to better
assess the practical impact of the reforms. The Commission services will survey reporting
entities to establish that the measures are delivering the expected reductions in
administrative costs. The survey will cover the following areas:
• DAC6: Survey of intermediaries and Pillar 2 companies to confirm the expected
reductions in administrative compliance costs as a direct consequence of the removal
of hallmark A and the exclusion of Pillar 2 companies from the scope of reporting.
• DAC7: Survey of reporting platform operators to confirm the expected reductions in
administrative compliance costs as a direct consequence of the increase in the
reporting threshold for the sale of goods.
• DAC4/DAC9: Survey of MNE groups to confirm the expected reductions in
administrative compliance costs as a direct consequence of streamlining the current
dual notification obligations.
The information attained from these indicators will further inform the Commissions
evaluation of the effective functioning of the directive.
Evaluation
The Commission is required to carry out an evaluation of the DAC every five years based
on Article 27 of the Directive. The evaluation will assess the performance of the revised
framework in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value.
The evaluation will pay particular attention to assessing whether the simplification initiative
has:
• reduced compliance costs for reporting entities and eliminated duplicate notification
obligations;
• improved the quality, completeness and use of exchanged information,
• increased automatic matching rates; contributed to improvements in tax compliance,
tax revenues and the protection of national tax bases;
• contributed to a more consistent implementation of reporting rules across Member
States.
62
Changes in tax revenues will be interpreted cautiously, as revenue developments may also
be influenced by economic conditions or national policy changes. The evaluation will
therefore assess the extent to which improvements in tax compliance and revenue outcomes
can reasonably be linked to the enhanced availability and use of information under the DAC.
63
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
1. LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES
DG TAXUD, PLAN/2025/2140.
The initiative will complement the Omnibus initiative in the field of taxation that will
streamline, simplify and clarify the EU direct tax acquis and which, in turn, is part of a series
of simplification initiatives and omnibus packages aimed at simplifying rules across key
policy areas.
The initiative is planned as a recast of the directive and its 8 amendments comprising a
codification of the legal text with the addition of amendments that are aimed to simplify,
clarify and improve the functioning of the DAC framework.
2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING
An inter-service steering group was set up to steer and provide input to this impact
assessment report. The steering group was composed of the following services: SG,
TAXUD, COMP, CNECT, EEAS, GROW, JUST, FISMA, ECFIN, SJ. The steering group
met 4 times before the report was submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.
3. CONSULTATION OF THE RSB
On 8 April 2026, a draft version of the impact assessment was presented to the Regulatory
Scrutiny Board. On 4 May 2026, the RSB issued a positive opinion with reservations.
Afterwards, the draft report has been revised in order to take into account the
recommendations for improvement, as explained in more detail in the table below.
RSB Recommendations How have the recommendations led to
changes to the report?
The report does not sufficiently specify Explanations have been developed further
key policy measures included under in Chapter 6. In the context of measure 4,
different policy options, in particular the objective of which is to improve the
for options ‘improving the accuracy of accuracy of the reported TIN’s. This is a
reported TINS and improving the new measure; however, no additional
completeness of information exchanged information shall be required to be
under DAC1’. The report does not collected. There is already an existing legal
adequately specify what type of requirement to collect the TIN, measure 4
information is to be collected and ensures that there is a new tool to verify the
exchanged, and from which correct of the TIN. In addition, measure 4
entities/public bodies the information is also provides the possibility for reporting
expected to be automatically collected entities that opt to use this new tool, to
and exchanged. The report should also report less identification information e.g.
clarify whether some measures are new place of birth may no longer be required
or not. where a validated TIN is reported. As
regards, measure 5, which implements a
key recommendation of the ECA. The
measure ensures that the existing legislative
framework is enhanced by making all
64
categories of information (excluding LIP)
mandatory and by requiring the tax
authorities of Member States to exchange
all information that is available to public
authorities at national level. Currently, only
information that is available in the tax files
of tax authorities is required to be
exchanged, and Member States are only
required to exchange information on 5 of
the 7 categories. The categories of
information are income from employment,
life insurance products, pensions,
ownership of and income from immovable
property, directors fees, royalties and non-
custodial dividend income.
The report should better explain how The evidence and robustness of
the values used for the calculation of assumptions have been explained further.
administrative costs have been derived. Explanations have been developed further
It should also assess, based on in Chapter 6.
observational data, the related
uncertainty and what difference the use As regards, administrative costs for tax
of alternative assumptions would make. administrations, it is expected that the
It should explain why it was not possible implementation of the revised framework
to quantify costs or cost savings may entail short-term administrative costs.
resulting from the measures on tax Tax administrations may need to update IT
administrations. systems, adapt reporting schemas, revise
guidance and provide support to
intermediaries and taxpayers during the
transition phase. Changes to the
interpretation or structure of hallmarks may
also require internal training and
adjustments to risk assessment tools.
At the same time, while the implementation
of the revised framework may entail short-
term administrative costs (e.g. updates to IT
systems, reporting schemas, guidance and
training), these costs are expected to be
limited and largely marginal in nature. This
is because the underlying DAC6 reporting
infrastructure is already in place, and the
proposed changes primarily affect the scope
and interpretation of reporting obligations
rather than requiring the development of
new systems. As a result, adjustments are
expected to concern incremental
modifications (such as updates to reporting
65
templates or system parameters) rather than
substantial investments.
This assessment is supported by
stakeholder feedback, which did not
identify significant transition costs and
generally indicated that the proposed
changes would be straightforward to
implement. Given their limited scale and
the absence of robust and comparable data
across Member States, this adjustment cost
could not be meaningfully quantified.
Similarly in the context of measure 5 and
given the existing heterogeneity across
Member States it was not possible to
meaningfully quantify the costs.
The report needs to assess the legal and Explanations have been developed further
technical feasibility, as well as the in Chapter 6. In this context, the report now
possible costs, of the obligation to clarifies that the initiative will introduce a
automatically exchange the information legal basis that facilitates tax
held not only by tax authorities, but also administrations in obtaining information
held by other national public entities etc. held by other public authorities at the
This assessment should take into account national level. The absence of an existing
the underlying reasons for some member legal basis and appropriate data sharing
states not collecting or exchanging such arrangements with other public authorities
information at national level so far. is the key reason that some tax authorities
do not have access to this information. By
providing a legal basis this will ensure that
the costs of attaining the information are to
the greatest extent possible limited, as the
alternative would be to oblige third party
entities to report information. As regards
the safeguards that will apply, the
safeguards will be in line with the GDPR
while the reporting and exchange of
information will take place in accordance
with the existing well-established security
processes and procedures in place for the
DAC.
Based on a clear definition and an Explanations have been developed further
improved assessment of impacts and in Chapter 2, and Annex 9 has been added
risks, the report must contain an to provide further analysis of the matching
adequate analysis of the measures rates across the EU Member States.
included in options 4 and 5 to allow for
the assessment of their proportionality. In the context of measure 4, it is imperative
to recall that this measure does not impose
66
any new reporting obligation. The objective
of the measure is to ensure that the current
reporting obligations are efficiently and
effectively implemented in a manner that
ensures that tax administrations can
automatically use all information reported
under the DAC. The proportionality of the
measure is further enhanced by the fact that
the system is optional for reporting entities
and where such reporting entities report a
valid TIN, additional identification
information e.g. place of birth may no
longer be required.
In the context of measure 5, it is imperative
to recall that the measure is intended to
implement a key recommendation of the
ECA, which cited the fact that the current
DAC1 reporting framework was not
sufficiently robust to prevent tax fraud, tax
evasion and tax avoidance. The measure is
intended to ensure that all Member States
report all categories of information, which
ensures a level playing and effective
harmonization. Simultaneously, the
proportionality of the measure is further
enhanced by the fact that in line with the
Commission once only principle, Member
States are required to report information
that is already to public authorities at the
national level. The alternative of requiring
third party reporting would therefore be
disproportionate as it would lead to possible
duplicate reporting.
The report should provide an Explanations have been developed further
assessment of the risks on fundamental in Chapter 6. In particular, section 6.3 of the
rights, including privacy, resulting from report has been significantly enhanced.
the exchange of increased data sets due
to TIN identification measures and the The TIN verification system will be based
automatic exchange of information on a decentralised architecture (a gateway)
under DAC 1. that avoids central data storage: the
gateway acts as a distribution hub among
the 27 national validation access points and
does not itself store personal data or
national registry information, which limits
the scope of EU-level processing. Second,
it will be designed based on a number of
safeguard features, including the following:
67
• Restriction of input and output
data to predefined minimum sets.
• Transient data retention for
individual queries
• Access controls: The verification
system will operate solely for the
purpose of taxpayer identification in
the context of administrative
cooperation under the DAC.
• Audit logging: Traceability of use
will be ensured through an audit log
function.
• Architectural and technical
safeguards providing secure
communication channels: For the
use by tax authorities, the system
will leverage the existing private
CCN/CSI network infrastructure of
the European Commission, which
substantially limits exposure to
external threats.
As regards the collection and exchange of
information available in the files of other
national public entities(PO5c), it is
important to clarify that this policy option
does not require the centralisation of
information held by different national
authorities in one single communication
system but only requires that this
information is shared with tax
administrations or that tax administration
have access to the information so that it can
be subsequently exchanged. As regards
additional safeguards required under the
GDPR, those in place both at the level of
Member States and at the level of the
Commission covering the processing of
personal data will continue to apply.
For example, tax authorities, user
authentication and authorisation are
68
managed through existing national Identity
and Access Management (IAM)
frameworks. In addition, for the use by tax
authorities, the system will leverage the
existing private CCN/CSI network
infrastructure of the European Commission,
which substantially limits exposure to
external threats.
For the introduction of a centralised Explanations have been developed further
TIN verification system, the analysis in Chapter 6 and in particular 6.3. These
should also clarify what safeguards will explanations are detailed in the previous
be put in place. For collecting and text box
exchanging information available in the
files of other national public entities, the
report should specify what measures
will be taken to address data protection
and privacy concerns. It should assess
the resulting increased cybersecurity
risks and the measures envisaged to
mitigate them.
The analysis supporting the comparison Explanations have been developed further
and identification of preferred options in Chapter 2, and Annex 8 has been added.
needs to be improved, including
sensitivity analysis where relevant to The rationale for selecting PO1b over PO1c
illustrate the impact of different is primarily due to feedback from business
parameters, for example regarding the stakeholders who cautioned that removing
increase in reporting thresholds from the MBT and adapting the related hallmarks
EUR 3,000 to EUR 5,000. The report would result in increased costs for
neither demonstrates why option PO1b businesses due to the consequential
is preferred over PO1c adequately, nor requirement to adapt reporting systems,
why PO2b is preferred over PO2a. processes and procedures.
The rationale for preferring PO2b over
PO2a is to ensure alignment with the OECD
MRDP framework. The removal of the
activity threshold and increase of the
monetary threshold from EUR 2,000 to
EUR 3,000 was provisionally agreed at the
OECD technical level and endorsed by 26
Member States. In addition, Annex 8 details
practical examples of the application of
national taxation rules in certain Member
States, which further justifies the preferred
policy option.
Coherence with other measures, outside Explanations have been developed further
of the strictly defined tax policy area, in Chapter 7. These explanations
should also be analysed. The EU demonstrate that measure 3 will have no
country-by-country reporting directive impact on existing international and EU
69
is, for example, a relevant point of frameworks. In particular, the measure
consideration for understanding ensures that the DAC4 and OECD
whether policy options under DAC4 and equivalent CbCR reporting requirements
Pillar 2 are coherent with the EU legal remain aligned. In addition, the measure
framework. does not have any impact on the
information that is made available under
DAC9 and the equivalent OECD Global
Information Return to apply the Pillar 2
minimum tax rate of 15%. Finally, the
measure does not in any way impact on the
requirement of MNE’s to publicly disclose
certain information as part of the Public
CbCR transparency initiative.
The monitoring and evaluation Further details on consultations have been
framework should contain specific and added, and explanations have been
measurable indicators allowing for an developed further in Chapter 9. These
understanding of what success would details and explanations include specific
look like for this initiative. monitoring targets related to decreases in
reporting volumes, increases in tax
revenues, and reductions in compliance
costs for EU businesses. These targets will
be monitored and evaluated by the
Commission services in collaboration with
Member States and in tandem via dedicated
survey questionnaires to EU businesses, to
better establish ongoing savings.
4. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY
The evidence for the impact assessment report was gathered through various activities and
from different sources:
• 2025 Evaluation of the Directive on administrative cooperation.
• 2021 Special Report of the European Court of Auditors.
• 2024 Special Report of the European Cour of Auditors.
• Study by an external contractor: “Evaluation of the Directive 2011/16 and its
Amendments”75
• Study by an external contractor: “Study on Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN)
and possible verification instruments”
• Targeted consultation with Member States in the Working Party IV (WPIV)
Commission Expert group on direct taxation.
75
Final Report, 11 January 2024, Ramboll
70
• Outcome from work in the VISDAC Expert Team (Fiscalis program) which
collected evidence through on-site visits to Member States tax administrations.
• Consultations in the expert group Platform on Tax Good Governance which gathers
experts from business, interest groups and Member States.
• Yearly questionnaires to Member States on automatic exchange of information and
other forms of administrative cooperation, respectively.
• Targeted consultation with relevant stakeholders, such as business associations, tax
consultants, and leading corporations in the global market.
• Public consultation and Call for evidence.
• Desk research.
5. EXTERNAL EXPERTISE
Two studies by external consultants have been used to inform this impact assessment: a
study supporting the 2025 evaluation of the DAC, and a Study on Taxpayer Identification
Numbers (TIN) and possible verification instruments.
The study supporting the evaluation of the DAC covers directives DAC1 to DAC6. It
provides a basis for assessing the usefulness of DAC1 income categories and DAC6
hallmarks and MBT. The study also provides a general analysis of the quality and use of
data for all DAC’s, which is used for the assessment of all of the measures in this impact
assessment.
The TIN study specifically targets the use and quality of the TIN and assesses different
options to improve these. The preliminary results have been used in this report for assessing
the costs of a centralised verification tool.
71
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT)
1. INTRODUCTION
To inform the preparation of this initiative, DG TAXUD carried out the following
consultation activities:
➢ targeted consultations of business stakeholders;
➢ targeted consultations of Member States;
➢ Call for Evidence (CfE) and public consultation (PC).
The targeted consultations of business stakeholders took the form of interviews and
meetings with different private stakeholders, including businesses of different sizes
operating in different sectors, business associations, associations of tax consultants and
academia. The consultations were mainly aimed at identifying areas for simplification in
relation to DAC4/DAC9, DAC6 and DAC7.
As far as Member States are concerned, DG TAXUD organised 5 Working Party IV
meetings. These meetings focused on potential topics for simplification/improvement and
possible solutions related to DAC4/DAC9, DAC7, DAC1 and DAC6.
Finally, on 16 December 2025, DG TAXUD launched a CfE and, in parallel, a PC to collect
stakeholders’ views on the main policy options for simplification and their possible impact,
including potential cost savings associated with the simplification of reporting requirements.
The possibility to participate in the consultation process was published on the Commission’s
‘Have your say’ portal, allowing stakeholders to submit feedback in any official EU
language and to upload additional supporting documents. The consultation remained open
until 10 February 2026 and received a total of 60 written responses.
The PC consisted in the submission of a close-ended questionnaire, structured to gather
views on the proposed recast, including aspects such as simplification of reporting
obligations (e.g., under DAC4 and its interplay with DAC9, DAC6, and DAC7), potential
administrative burden reductions, and overall impacts on stakeholders. Respondents to the
PC could also upload additional documents integrating their answers or more generally
covering the subject of the consultation.
2. RESULTS OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES
2.1 Results of targeted consultations of business stakeholders
The targeted consultation of business stakeholders covered overall 50 stakeholders. These
were business organisations for the whole economy as well as for specific industries,
individual businesses in different industries and tax consultants.
Overall, the stakeholders favour the objectives of simplification and burden reduction, but
their current issues and needs vary relatively to their activities. The key take-aways from the
discussions are summarised below.
Concerning the interaction between DAC4/DAC9, many business stakeholders asked for a
carve-out from reporting under DAC4 for MNEs group in scope of the Pillar 2 Directive
(therefore reporting under DAC9), arguing that the transparency framework brought about
72
by DAC9 makes DAC4 redundant. More generally, business stakeholders supported the
harmonisation of reporting requirements to eliminate the current fragmented landscape. In
particular, there is significant support for merging DAC4 and DAC9 notifications into a
single, group-level submission and adopting a "change-only" approach to reduce redundant
filings.
As far as DAC6 is concerned, respondents emphasised the disproportionate administrative
burden and high staffing costs associated with DAC 6 and some of them called for a
complete repeal. In particular, the Main Benefit Test (MBT) was considered as particularly
complex and difficult to apply, also considering the different interpretation of the concept
across Member States. To mitigate this issue, the large majority of the business stakeholders
called for harmonised EU-level guidance. While few of them supported, instead, the
complete removal of the MBT, coupled with a revision of the hallmarks subject to the test
to make them more objective, several other opposed this idea, arguing that it would result in
an increase of the reporting and would also entail the need to change their current practices.
To make DAC6 more targeted and efficient, some stakeholders proposed narrowing the
directive’s scope through quantitative de minimis thresholds, “whitelists” for routine
commercial transactions, and the deletion of redundant hallmarks that overlap with Pillar 2
rules or carving out from DAC6 all MNEs groups that are withing the scope of the Pillar 2
Directive. There was a very broad consensus on the need to repeal the ‘generic hallmarks’
(category A) as it has led to excessive burden with limited impact on Member States’
revenues.
Finally, in relation to DAC7, two umbrella organisations for platform operators, two tax
advisers specialised in DAC7 and five single platform operators were consulted. The
consultations focused mainly on platforms specialised in the sale of goods and rental of
immovable property, but platforms for rental of transport modes and for personal services
were consulted in the context of the umbrella organisations. A major point of contention is
the current reporting thresholds: stakeholders strongly advocated for raising the monetary
threshold (EUR 2000) and removing the activity threshold (30 transactions) to avoid
capturing occasional, non-professional sellers. Additionally, there is a clear demand for
enhanced EU-level TIN verification tools to ease the data collection burden.
2.2 Results of targeted consultations of Member States
As far as DAC1 is concerned, Member States stressed the need to avoid duplications with
respect to the LIP category, since information may also be included in DAC2 reports.
However, they insisted that no information should be lost.
Regarding mandatory categories of information, Member States stressed that not all
information is readily available, and access other public databases can be very costly to
build. Most of them could however support, provided that the implementation timeline is
adequate.
Member States were overall sceptical on the streamlining of reporting under DAC4 and
DAC9, due to the risks of introducing discrepancies with the international standards that
would create different reports inside and outside the EU.
73
As regards DAC6, the large majority of the Member States expressed the view that the MBT
is an essential filter to prevent reporting of arrangements with little value. Therefore, several
of them were in favour of clarifying the MBT, as opposed to removing it and revising the
hallmarks subject to the test, to make them more objective.
Member States were also consulted on the relevance of hallmarks, and no Member State
opposed the deletion of the category A (generic hallmarks). Regarding the rest of the
hallmarks, views of Member States were varied and there was no clear preference to remove
or significantly change any other hallmark.
On DAC7, the majority of the Member States that gave an opinion expressed a clear
preference for the removal of the activity threshold. However, there was a divergence of
views on the possible increase of the monetary threshold, with some Member States
supporting the current threshold, others supporting a threshold between EUR 3,000 and EUR
5,000 and a minority even favouring an increase above EUR 5,000.
2.3 Results of CfE and PC
Identification of respondents
Overall, a total of 50 different stakeholders participated in the consultation process. Of these,
30 respondents completed the PC questionnaire, and the remaining 30 stakeholders
contributed exclusively through written feedback submissions in the CfE76. The largest share
of responses came from tax intermediaries, accountants, and tax advisors (14), reflecting the
strong engagement of professionals directly involved in tax reporting and compliance.
Online platforms (13), banking and financial services (12), and general business associations
(12) were also well represented among respondents. By contrast, very few contributions
were submitted by individual EU citizens and no feedback was received from SMEs or
SME-specific business organisations.
76
Although 10 of them contributed by written feedback and online questionnaire, and 4 respondents did not include their identification
data.
74
Figure 1: Distribution of respondents by area of activity
Distribution by area of activity
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Tax Generalist Online Banking and EU citizen N/A Blockchain
intermediary, business platforms other financial security
accountant, or association services company
tax advisor
General Comments
The distribution of comments across the different DAC instruments highlights which parts
of the framework stakeholders considered most relevant or impactful. DAC7 (the rules for
online platforms) received by far the highest number of comments, followed by DAC6, and
DAC4/DAC9.
A strong consensus emerged from the business sector on the need for codifying the DAC
by bringing together DAC1 and all its eight amendments (DAC2-DAC9) into a single new
legal act which would replace the current fragmented legal framework. There was also
broad agreement that the existing framework creates disproportionate administrative and
compliance burdens for reporting entities. 5 stakeholders from business and associations
proposed simplification and burden-reduction measures, such as simplified (5 inputs) or
excluded reporting for low-risk, or low-value transactions. The once-only reporting
principle was emphasized by 4 associations, along with the elimination of overlaps which
was supported by 2 associations.
5 business and tax advisor associations suggested relying on existing national identification
systems combined with a centralised validation tool. As regards the latter, contributors
advocated for centralised validation tools connected to authoritative sources, made available
to reporting entities early in the process, with interoperable verification mechanisms
preferred over new obligations on taxpayers.
More generally, business stakeholders emphasised the need for technical modernization and
digital-friendly infrastructures to support efficiency and prevent future administrative
burdens from piecemeal updates.
Finally, 2 contributors stressed that reporting obligations should remain limited to objective
data already held by reporting entities, without imposing investigative or interpretative roles.
3 stakeholders from business associations stressed the need to ensure full alignment and
consistency with existing international frameworks to avoid duplicative or conflicting
requirements.
Specific comments
75
DAC4/DAC9
The feedback provided by business stakeholders and tax advisors on this topic can be
summarised as follows.
Tax advisors and business stakeholders (12) strongly supported a single notification to
support the reporting requirements under DAC4/DAC9, based on a common template
and a harmonised timeline, to avoid duplications and address the current fragmentation
within the MS. They also advocated in favour of “central filing”, i.e. enabling one entity of
the group which is located in the EU to file the notification on behalf of the entire group,
thereby avoiding multiple notifications. To further simplify the notification requirements,
stakeholders proposed the "change-only" approach, which would keep the existing
notifications valid until there is a change in the underlying data.
On the contrary, tax advisors and businesses stakeholders expressed mixed views on
merging DAC4 and DAC9 reporting schemas, with 4 stakeholders supporting the
proposal, as a means to cut duplication and costs, and 2 others considering it premature given
the need to keep full consistency with international standards.
DAC6
30 respondents to the PC and CfE provided feedback on DAC6. 12 stakeholders from
business, and intermediaries called for clear and harmonised EU-level guidance to ensure
consistent interpretation and application of DAC6 across MS. One intermediary therefore
stressed the need for uniform guidelines clarifying key concepts such as “arrangement,”
“participant,” and “tax advantage”. 2 associations also suggested that guidance should
clarify the relationship between DAC6 and other EU frameworks, such as ATAD, the
Parent-Subsidiary Directive, the Interest and Royalties Directive, and Pillar 2 rules, to
prevent overlapping reporting obligations.
The Main Benefit Test (MBT) has been widely recognised as a key filtering tool to limit
the number of reporting under DAC6. However, 2 intermediaries reported that there have
been practical difficulties in applying the MBT. The divergence of national approaches,
particularly with regard to the requirement for the relevant tax advantage to arise within the
EU or to include third countries, has been a source of concern.
5 intermediaries’ associations (tax advisors, lawyers) emphasised the significant
compliance burden associated with DAC6. In particular, businesses must systematically
assess every cross-border transaction to determine whether it falls within the scope of the
directive, even when it ultimately does not trigger a reporting obligation. This screening
process requires substantial internal resources, with 3 tax advisors reporting the need for
several full-time employees to manage DAC6 compliance.
Similarly, business respondents argued that the scope of DAC6 reporting should be more
narrowly targeted to arrangements presenting genuine tax risks. In the light of this,
several business stakeholders argued in favour of carving out from DAC6 reporting all
companies that are within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive. Other business stakeholders
suggested limiting reporting to implemented arrangements rather than potential ones,
assigning the primary reporting obligation to taxpayers to avoid duplicative reporting, and
removing reporting obligations for secondary intermediaries that are not directly involved
with taxpayers. 5 business respondents also proposed introducing safe harbours for
76
transactions already covered by other EU frameworks and exempting entities subject to
extensive regulatory oversight, such as companies participating in cooperative compliance
programmes or continuous audits. 17 stakeholders from business and tax advisors
recommended reviewing and refining the DAC6 hallmarks to better target arrangements that
pose a genuine risk of aggressive tax planning. Business stakeholders were aligned on the
need to remove the category A hallmarks (generic hallmarks), which was regarded as
having a very limited added value in terms of identifying potentially harmful tax
arrangements. However, their views were very divergent on the potential removal of other
hallmarks, with each of them suggesting different hallmarks, linked to the sector in which
they operate.
Evidence gathered through stakeholder consultations with business representatives
consistently indicates that the cost of preparing and filing a DAC6 report is approximately
EUR 5,000 per report on average. Similar estimates were also reported by tax intermediaries,
accountants and tax advisory firms involved in DAC6 compliance processes. Stakeholders
highlighted that these costs primarily reflect the need for legal and tax analysis, internal
coordination, documentation and the preparation and submission of the report, with costs
varying depending on the complexity of the arrangement and the applicable hallmarks.
DAC7
22 respondents to the PC and CfE (including tax advisors, online platforms, and
associations) gave their opinion on DAC7. 6 stakeholders (4 of them associations
representing online platforms, 1 online platform and 1 tax adviser) expressed concerns
regarding the thresholds for the sales of goods. They argued that the thresholds are too
low, which results in reporting sales that are not relevant for tax purposes. In this respect, 2
stakeholders from online platforms and an association suggested raising the current
monetary threshold up to EUR 5,000. Stakeholders also suggested removing the activity
thresholds (30 transactions) and keeping only the monetary threshold.
Two tax advisor associations stressed the need for increased harmonisation of reporting
systems within the MS. These stakeholders identified that there are considerable variations
in national portals, formats, documentation requirements, timelines, and technical
specifications, which cause operational problems for cross-border platforms. One business
suggested that there is a need for the development of a unified reporting system for the
EU, including the adoption of a single XML reporting template that is accepted within all
the MS. Some suggestions were raised from 6 stakeholders about the reporting deadlines,
2 associations expressed their views that the current reporting deadline is giving rise to
certain problems, as the availability of certain information concerning the transactions that
took place in the later part of the year might only occur after the reporting date. 8
stakeholders (associations, business and online platforms) requested the development of a
centralised verification tool for TIN. Platforms face challenges in obtaining certain seller
information, such as place of birth as it may not be recorded in identification documents. To
address these issues, stakeholders suggested focusing on essential data points like name,
address, and TIN, while also developing enhanced verification tools for TIN at the EU level.
They highlighted the fragmented nature of current verification tools across MS and
expressed concerns about the costs, burdens, and GDPR/cybersecurity implications for
sellers and platforms.
77
Some respondents expressed concerns about the uneven enforcement between EU and non-
EU platforms, uncertainty regarding sanctions for incomplete data, and situations where
platforms must retain seller funds while awaiting missing information.
78
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW?
1. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE
The initiative aims to streamline and simplify the DAC, significantly reducing
administrative burdens for reporting entities while improving the efficiency of tax
administrations.
On the business side, we distinguish between large MNE groups which are in scope of the
Pillar 2 Directive, other companies outside of the scope of the Pillar 2, and platform
operators of any size.
MNE groups within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive (consolidated annual revenues of at
least EUR 750 million) will no longer be obliged to report cross-border arrangements under
DAC6, as risks are deemed covered by the global minimum tax rules. This will directly
reduce the associated compliance costs for those companies. They will also benefit from a
single notification to support the reporting requirements under DAC4/DAC9, filing only
once per group via a common template and harmonised deadline, instead of separate
notifications for DAC4 and DAC9 purposes by each of the 109,000 subsidiaries of MNEs
in scope of Pillar 2.
Smaller MNE groups, i.e. those outside the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive, will benefit from
a reduction in the number of DAC6 disclosures (about 8,300 per year). Given their larger
population, a significant share of the resulting compliance cost savings is expected to accrue
to smaller companies, including those with fewer than 50 employees. Within the population
of MNEs in Europe, companies with fewer than 50 employees account for nearly two thirds,
meaning that a substantial proportion of the benefits is likely to be concentrated among these
smaller entities.
Platform operators, both larger and smaller ones, will see a reduction in reporting volumes
due to increased monetary thresholds (to EUR 3,000) and the removal of the 30-transaction
activity threshold for sellers of goods, eliminating the need to report low-value occasional
sellers. The preferred option has the potential to reduce the number of reported sellers by up
to 11.3 million per year.
Finally, tax intermediaries, e.g., advisors and accountants, will benefit from the removal of
Category A (generic) hallmarks under DAC6 and clearer guidance on the Main Benefit Test
(MBT), reducing “defensive reporting” of standard commercial transactions.
Tax authorities will process higher-quality data due to centralized TIN verification and more
complete DAC1 exchanges, while the volume of low-value information from DAC6 and
DAC7 will decrease, allowing for better-targeted risk assessments. Costs are expected to be
driven primarily by the need to adjust IT systems and data-sharing arrangements in order to
access and exchange information held by a broader set of public authorities. The magnitude
of these costs will depend on the existing level of digitalisation and interoperability of public
sector databases in each Member State. In more advanced systems, where data is already
centrally accessible, the required adjustments may be relatively limited. By contrast,
Member States with more fragmented data infrastructures may face higher initial investment
costs related to system integration, data standardisation and governance frameworks.
79
Evidence from national assessments, such as in Sweden 77, suggests that while such reforms
may entail upfront IT development and coordination costs, they can also lead to efficiency
gains over time through improved data quality, reduced manual processing and more
effective risk analysis.
2. SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Compliance cost reductions EUR 300 million/year for large MNEs Large MNEs are those within the scope of
from DAC6 EUR 41.4 million/year for other MNEs Pillar 2. “Other MNEs” are those outside of
the scope of Pillar 2.
Compliance cost reductions From EUR 452 million to EUR 904 million for Estimated EU-wide savings for DAC7
from DAC7 digital platforms compliance costs, based on a range of costs
per reported seller from EUR 40 to EUR 80.
Compliance cost reductions EUR 264 million/year for large MNEs Large MNEs are those within the scope of
from DAC4/DAC9 DAC9 reporting.
Compliance cost reduction Quantification is not available Recast of Directive 2011/16/EU to reduce
for the overall DAC complexity and strengthen legal certainty.
framework
Regulatory cost reduction Quantification is not available For tax authorities dealing with a reduced
number of disclosures (DAC6: 9,000
disclosures from A hallmarks and those filed
by companies in scope of Pillar 2 under other
hallmarks; DAC7: up to 11.3 million
reported sellers annually less; DAC4:
109,000 entities of MNEs in scope of DAC9
not filing separate DAC4 and DAC9
notifications anymore).
Protect MS tax base (DAC1 Quantification is not available Tax administrations will benefit from
and TIN) improved effectiveness of risk analysis
stemming from (1) information on all six
income categories (DAC1) and (2)
centralised TIN verification system.
Support EU business Quantification is not available The initiative supports EU business
competitiveness trough competitiveness by simplifying and
simpler, harmonised and less streamlining DAC reporting obligations,
burdensome DAC reporting thereby reducing administrative and
obligations compliance costs for companies. Greater
harmonisation across Member States
improves legal certainty and reduces the
need for businesses to navigate divergent
national requirements. Taken together, these
changes facilitate cross-border activity and
allow businesses to allocate more resources
to productive and growth-enhancing
activities.
Indirect benefits
77
Skatteverket, “Rapportering och utbyte av upplysningar om inkomster från digitala plattformar och vissa andra ändringar i EU:s direktiv
om administrativt samarbete på direktskatteområdet”, 2022.
80
(1) Estimates are gross values relative to the baseline for the preferred option as a whole (i.e. the impact of
individual actions/obligations of the preferred option are aggregated together); (2) Please indicate in the
comments column which stakeholder group is the main recipient of the benefit;(3) For reductions in regulatory
costs, please describe in the comments column the details as to how the saving arises (e.g. reductions in
adjustment costs, administrative costs, regulatory charges, enforcement costs, etc.).
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
Development
of IT system,
access points,
Recurrent IT
and training of
Potential maintenance
staff for TIN
recurrent costs and assistance:
verification
Potential set-up for IT For EU (central
scheme.
costs for TIN maintenance component):
For EU
Direct adjustment verification TIN EUR 1.8–2.4
None None (central
costs scheme if used verification million/year;
component):
by reporting scheme if used For Member
EUR 970,000–
entities by reporting States (national
1,770,000; For
entities component):
Member States
EUR 5.5–18
(national
million/year
All component):
actions (1 EUR 15–25
to 7) million
Potential
recurrent costs
Direct for TIN
administrative None None None verification None
costs scheme if used
by reporting
entities
Direct regulatory None None None None
None None
fees and charges
Direct
None None Non-identified Non-identified Non-identified Non-identified
enforcement costs
Indirect costs None None Non-identified Non-identified Non-identified Non-identified
(1) Estimates (gross values) to be provided with respect to the baseline; (2) costs are provided for each
identifiable action/obligation of the preferred option otherwise for all retained options when no
preferred option is specified; (3) If relevant and available, please present information on costs
according to the standard typology of costs (adjustment costs, administrative costs, regulatory
charges, enforcement costs, indirect costs).
III. Contribution to the administrative burden reduction targets – Preferred option(s)
Measure 1 (DAC6): Excludes Pillar 2 companies and removes Category A hallmarks. It targets a EUR 341 million total annual
reduction in compliance costs for businesses.
81
Measure 2 (DAC7): Increases threshold to EUR 3,000 and removes the 30-transaction rule, reducing platform reporting costs
by approximately EUR 678 million/year.
Measure 3 (DAC4/DAC9): Introduces central filing for notifications, saving MNEs EUR 264 million/year.
Measure 4 (TIN): Establish a centralised TIN verification system accessible to the tax administrations of Member States and
reporting entities.
Measure 5 (DAC1): Removes life insurance products (LIP) from exchange requirements while mandating the exchange of all
"available" information across other categories to close reporting gaps.
There is no reliable element to assess the following removed costs in Euro. However, the overall benefit / costs balance
should be in favour of the private stakeholders, and relatively neutral for the tax administrations.
New recurrent costs Removed recurrent Net cost New one-off Removed one-
(INs) costs (OUTs) (INs – costs (INs) off costs
Administrative OUTs) (annualised total (OUTs)
(nominal values per (nominal values per
costs year) year) net present value (annualised total
[M€] (nominal over the relevant net present value
values per period) over the relevant
year) period)
None or
negative (if
reporting
entities opt-
Yes
in for access EUR 1,283
EUR 1,283 * (adaption to new None
All businesses to the net savings*
TIN schemas)
centralised
TIN
verification
system)
Yes Yes
(adaption to new
- in which Possibly (Quantitative Yes schemas) None
SMEs estimates not
available)
Yes
Yes Yes (adaption to new
schemas)
Public (Quantitative (Quantitative No None
administrations estimates not estimates not (Quantitative
available) available) estimates not
available)
None None None None
Citizens
3. RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
IV. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option(s)
Relevant SDG Expected progress towards the Goal Comments
SDG 8 – Decent work and The initiative reduces tax compliance costs and Lower compliance costs may free up
economic growth administrative burdens for businesses, in resources for productive investment,
particular through simplification of DAC6 and employment or wage growth. Impacts are
82
DAC7 reporting obligations and the streamlining indirect and depend on companies’ allocation
of notification requirements. This is expected to of cost savings.
improve the business environment, support
productivity and facilitate cross-border economic
activity within the Internal Market.
SDG 9 – Industry, innovation By simplifying reporting obligations and Reduced administrative complexity and
and infrastructure improving the coherence of EU tax information improved legal certainty may indirectly
systems, the initiative contributes to a more support innovation and investment decisions,
efficient regulatory framework and supports although no direct R&D incentives are
digitalisation of tax administration processes, introduced.
including data exchange and verification systems.
SDG 10 – Reduced By improving the effectiveness of tax Effects are indirect and depend on
inequalities transparency frameworks, the initiative may enforcement outcomes. Simplification
contribute indirectly to fairer taxation and a more measures are designed not to undermine core
level playing field across taxpayers. anti-avoidance objectives.
SDG 16 – Peace, justice and The initiative strengthens tax transparency, Enhanced data quality, reduced duplication
strong institutions administrative cooperation and the effectiveness and improved exchange of information
of tax enforcement across Member States, while contribute to more efficient and fair tax
improving the proportionality of reporting systems. Some measures (e.g. DAC7
obligations. threshold adjustments) may slightly reduce
available information but aim to better align
reporting with risk relevance.
SDG 17 – Partnerships for The initiative enhances cooperation and Improved administrative cooperation
the goals information exchange between Member States’ supports coordinated action at EU level and
tax administrations, including through harmonised strengthens the functioning of the Internal
reporting frameworks and potential centralised Market.
systems (e.g. TIN verification, DAC4/DAC9
notifications).
83
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS
This appendix provides the technical details underlying the quantification of compliance
cost savings associated with the DAC Recast measures. It describes the data sources used,
the assumptions applied and the methodologies to estimate the magnitude of the savings
across the different policy options. In particular, it sets out the numerical inputs, calculation
steps and simplifying assumptions used in deriving the estimates presented in the main text.
The purpose of this appendix is to ensure transparency regarding the analytical approach
and to allow the estimates to be reproduced and interpreted in light of the underlying data
limitations and methodological choices.
1. DAC6 (Measure 1)
The quantification of compliance cost savings under Measure 1 is based on the estimated
number of DAC6 disclosures affected by the removal or modification of certain hallmarks
and on the average cost of preparing a DAC6 disclosure.
In estimating the compliance cost savings under Measure 1, companies within the scope of
Pillar 2 and those outside its scope are considered separately, both because they are affected
to different extents by the proposed simplifications and because their compliance cost
structures differ. Large MNE groups within the scope of Pillar 2, i.e. those with consolidated
turnover of at least EUR 750 million, would benefit from a full exemption from DAC6
reporting obligations, whereas companies outside this scope would remain subject to DAC6
but would experience a reduction in reporting obligations through the removal or
modification of specific hallmarks. This distinction is particularly relevant as Pillar 2 entities
are typically large MNEs with more complex business models, a significantly higher volume
of cross-border transactions and more complex group structures, requiring substantial
resources to identify, analyse and document reportable arrangements.
At the same time, companies differ in how they organise their tax compliance functions.
Entities outside the scope of Pillar 2 are more likely to rely on external advisory services
due to more limited in-house capacity, meaning that compliance costs can be reasonably
approximated using a cost per disclosure, based on the EUR 3,000–5,000 range identified
in stakeholder consultations. By contrast, large MNE groups typically maintain dedicated
in-house tax and compliance departments and manage reporting obligations on a continuous
basis. For these entities, compliance costs are better captured through an estimation based
on internal resources, e.g., expressed in FTE staff devoted to DAC6-related activities. This
approach reflects economies of scale in internal compliance functions and provides a more
realistic representation of their cost structure than a per-disclosure methodology.
Consequently, the simplification measures are expected to generate comparatively larger
compliance cost savings for entities within the scope of Pillar 2, both in absolute terms and
in terms of the intensity of administrative effort avoided.
Compliance cost savings for companies falling within the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive
Starting with policy option 1a, the estimation of compliance costs for companies within the
scope of Pillar 2 requires an approximation of the number of MNE groups with a relevant
presence in the EU. Company-level data from the ORBIS database indicate that
approximately 4,700 global ultimate owner (GUO) groups worldwide meet the turnover
threshold of EUR 750 million and have at least one subsidiary in the EU, of which around
84
1,900 are headquartered within the Union. However, for DAC6, the relevant unit of analysis
differs, as reporting is trigger-based and depends on the existence of potentially reportable
cross-border arrangements. As a result, not all MNE groups in scope of DAC4/Pillar Two
will necessarily generate DAC6 reporting obligations, in particular those with only a limited
footprint in the EU.
For the purpose of estimating DAC6-related compliance costs, the analysis therefore focuses
on MNE groups that are likely to be actively engaged in DAC6 compliance activities. The
upper bound is given by all MNE groups with a presence in the EU (around 4,700), while
the lower bound corresponds to those headquartered in the EU (around 1,900), which are
assumed to have a sufficiently significant footprint to systematically assess DAC6
obligations. Against this background, a central estimate of approximately 3,000 MNE
groups is used as a pragmatic midpoint, capturing those non-EU groups with a sufficiently
substantial operational presence, such as multiple subsidiaries and cross-border intra-group
activities, that are most likely to give rise to DAC6-relevant arrangements. The estimation
of compliance costs for MNE groups within the scope of Pillar 2 is informed by evidence
from the evaluation of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD), which suggests that large
entities incur compliance costs of approximately EUR 100,000 per year (78). While ATAD
and DAC6 differ in their specific objectives and instruments, both frameworks require
entities on a continuous basis to identify, monitor and assess cross-border transactions
against predefined criteria, implying a comparable level of analytical effort and operational
complexity. Given that DAC6 compliance involves highly specialised tax expertise,
including the assessment of complex legal and economic arrangements, it is appropriate to
base the cost estimation on sector-specific labour costs. Using average EU labour costs for
tax specialists in the sector “Accounting, bookkeeping and auditing activities; tax
consultancy” of approximately EUR 45 per hour (average value for the EU in 2024), an
annual compliance cost of EUR 100,000 corresponds to around 2,200 hours of work input.
This is equivalent to approximately 1.3 to 1.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff dedicated to
DAC6-related compliance activities per MNE group. This approach provides a reasonable
approximation of the internal resources required by large MNEs to comply with DAC6
obligations.
Taken together, the estimated compliance cost savings for entities within the scope of Pillar
2 amount to approximately 3,000 MNEs × EUR 100,000 = EUR 300 million per year in
total (79).
The ATAD evaluation indicates that compliance costs vary significantly depending on the
size and complexity of the MNE group. While some firms report relatively limited
compliance efforts, large and complex groups often incur annual compliance costs in the
range of around EUR 100,000, corresponding to approximately 2–3 full-time equivalent
staff dedicated to compliance activities. At the same time, the evaluation also highlights
considerable uncertainty, with some firms reporting substantially higher costs in specific
cases, for example where significant external advisory support is required.
78
Study prepared for the European Commission to support an evaluation of the Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD Evaluation), Final
Report (2026).
79
This estimate is consistent with the findings of the 2025 DAC Evaluation (Evaluation of the Directive 2011/16 and its amendments,
Final Report, Table 32, p. 149), which identifies recurrent administrative burdens of approximately EUR 300 million per year for large
and very large MNE groups in relation to DAC6 reporting over the period 2020–2022. This aligns with the central estimate used in the
present impact assessment for the compliance cost reductions associated with exempting Pillar 2 in-scope entities from DAC6 reporting
obligations.
85
To reflect this uncertainty, sensitivity analysis was carried out using alternative low- and
high-cost scenarios. Under a lower-bound assumption of annual compliance costs of EUR
75,000 per MNE group, the estimated compliance cost savings would amount to
approximately EUR 225 million per year (3,000 MNEs × EUR 75,000). Under a higher-cost
scenario assuming annual compliance costs of EUR 125,000 per MNE group, the estimated
savings would increase to approximately EUR 375 million per year (3,000 MNEs × EUR
125,000).
Overall, this suggests that the estimated annual compliance cost savings for Pillar 2 in-scope
entities are likely to fall within a range of approximately EUR 225 million to EUR 375
million, with EUR 300 million representing the central estimate used in the impact
assessment.
Compliance cost for companies outside of the scope of the Pillar 2 Directive.
Policy option 1b extends policy option 1a by removing reporting obligations related to
generic hallmarks in Category A. According to the DAC evaluation, the average cost of
screening, assessing and reporting a DAC6 arrangement is estimated to range between EUR
3,000 and EUR 5,000 per disclosure. This range reflects the heterogeneity of reporting
obligations across different hallmarks. Some hallmarks require a more detailed assessment,
including legal and economic analysis, documentation of the underlying structure and the
preparation of comprehensive descriptions for reporting purposes. These cases often involve
significant input from tax, legal and compliance functions and may require external advisory
support. By contrast, other hallmarks are more straightforward in nature and may rely on
relatively simple criteria, in some cases amounting to binary (“yes/no”) determinations with
limited additional documentation requirements. In the case of the generic hallmarks under
Category A, which tend to involve broader and less precisely defined concepts and may
therefore require more extensive assessment and documentation, the upper bound of EUR
5,000 per disclosure is used for the purpose of the quantification to reflect their relatively
higher complexity.
For Policy Option 1b, which removes the generic hallmarks A.1, A.2(a), A.2(b) and A.3, the
estimation relies on DAC6 reporting statistics indicating that approximately 9,000
disclosures per year are associated with these A hallmarks 80.
According to the available information from Member States, approximately 8% of
disclosures are submitted by MNE groups within the scope of Pillar 2. Assuming that the
same proportion applies to the affected disclosures, 92% of those disclosures are filed by
companies outside of the scope of Pillar 2. Thus, the estimated annual compliance cost
savings for companies outside of the scope of Pillar 2 are calculated by multiplying the
number of relevant disclosures by the average cost per disclosure 81.
80
The respective numbers of disclosures between July 2020 and December 2025, i.e. over a time horizon of roughly six years, were as
follows: A.1: 19,256, A.2(a): 672, A.2(b): 32, A.3: 33,785 (Source: DAC6 Reporting Statistics).
81
Estimates are based on disclosures associated with the relevant hallmarks. As DAC6 reports may refer to multiple hallmarks for a single
arrangement, the removal of a given hallmark does not necessarily eliminate all corresponding reports. However, the generic hallmarks
concerned are broad in scope and account for a significant share of disclosures, such that their removal is expected to eliminate most
associated reporting. Any residual reporting under more specific hallmarks is considered limited and not quantifiable. Estimates should
therefore be interpreted as indicative.
86
9,000 disclosures × 92% × EUR 5,000 = EUR 41.4 million (82)
Under Policy Option 1c, in addition to excluding companies within the scope of Pillar 2
from DAC6 reporting (Policy Option 1a), the MBT would be removed from the remaining
hallmarks currently subject to it, notably those in Category B and certain hallmarks in
Category C.
The impact of this change on disclosure volumes cannot be robustly quantified. There is no
historical evidence in which identical hallmarks have alternated between being subject to
and exempt from the MBT, which would be necessary to isolate its effect on reporting
behaviour. Alternative attempts to approximate the impact using comparisons between
different hallmarks are subject to significant limitations, as differences in disclosure
volumes across hallmarks are primarily driven by differences in their scope rather than by
the presence or absence of the MBT.
In the absence of reliable empirical evidence and given the methodological limitations
outlined above, no quantitative estimate of the impact on disclosure volumes or compliance
costs is provided.
2. DAC7 (Measure 2)
The quantification of compliance cost under Measure 2 is based on an approximation of
recurrent reporting costs incurred by platform operators and the estimated reduction in the
number of reportable sellers under the alternative threshold options.
According to DAC statistics (83), there were approximately 52,000 platforms operating in
the EU in 2024, reporting information on around 5 million sellers. Evidence from the Impact
Assessment on “Tax fraud and evasion – better cooperation between national tax authorities
on exchanging information” (84), provides an estimate of EUR 50,000 in recurrent annual
compliance costs incurred by platform operators to operate reporting systems under the
DAC framework (85).
However, the reporting systems used by platform operators typically also serve multiple
regulatory and tax-related purposes beyond DAC7, including other DAC obligations (where
applicable) and, in some cases, requirements linked to other tax or regulatory frameworks
such as digital services taxation. As a result, only a share of the overall system costs can
reasonably be attributed specifically to DAC7. At the same time, DAC7 often constitutes
the primary reporting obligation for platform operators, suggesting that its cost share is non-
negligible. On this basis and considering both multi-purpose use and the central role of
DAC7 for platforms, a working assumption of 30% of recurrent reporting system costs being
82
The DAC Evaluation does not separately isolate costs for this specific group. Instead, it reports costs for “small-scale MNEs” of
approximately EUR 20 million, while grouping larger non-Pillar 2 MNEs together with the largest MNE categories (Evaluation of the
Directive 2011/16 and its amendments, Final Report, Table 32, p. 149). Given that compliance costs for larger firms are substantially
higher than for small-scale MNEs, the implied costs for all non-Pillar 2 firms combined would likely exceed EUR 20 million and move
closer to the EUR 40 million estimated in the present impact assessment.
83
DAC7 Statistical Reporting – EU Statistics 2025.
84
European Commission, Impact Assessment – Tax fraud and evasion – better cooperation between national tax authorities on exchanging
information, 2020.
85
Available evidence from Eurostat indicates that prices in the relevant category “Information and communication (equipment)” have
remained broadly stable, if not slightly declining, over the period 2018–2025. This suggests that the EUR 50,000 estimate remains a
reasonable proxy in current prices. The report will include a reference to this evidence to justify the continued use of this figure.
87
attributable to DAC7 is applied. This results in estimated annual DAC7-related compliance
costs of 52,000 × EUR 50,000 × 30% = EUR 780 million.
With regard to the overall number of sellers active on platforms, no harmonised EU-wide
data are currently available. The analysis therefore relies on survey-based evidence from
Sweden as a benchmark. A representative household survey indicates that approximately
one in four individuals aged 16 and above sold goods or services via an online platform in
2024 (86). When extended to the total population, this corresponds to roughly 20% of the
population, or approximately 2.1 million individuals. This estimate is particularly relevant
for the present analysis, as the Swedish platform economy is predominantly goods-based,
with major platforms such as Blocket, Tradera and eBay focusing on the sale of second-
hand goods.
At the same time, the Swedish Tax Agency estimates that approximately 400,000 sellers
were reportable under DAC7 in 2024. This implies that around 19% of all platform sellers
fall within the current DAC7 reporting scope in Sweden.
This evidence is used as a basis to approximate the total number of platform sellers in the
EU through extrapolation. To account for differences in digital uptake across Member
States, countries are grouped into three terciles based on internet usage. For the tercile with
the highest level of internet usage (87), it is assumed that 20% of the overall population
engages in platform selling, consistent with the Swedish benchmark. For the middle tercile
(88), a share of 16% is assumed, and for the lowest tercile (89), 12%.
Applying these shares to the 2024 EU population results in an estimated total of
approximately 71 million individuals selling goods or services via platforms. Assuming that
the proportion of reportable sellers among all sellers is broadly comparable to the Swedish
case (19%), this implies that approximately 13.5 million sellers are currently reportable
under DAC7, while around 57.5 million sellers (81% of all sellers) fall below the current
reporting thresholds.
Dividing the estimated total DAC7-related compliance costs by the number of reportable
sellers yields an indicative per-seller compliance cost of approximately EUR 780 million ÷
13.5 million ≈ EUR 60 per reported seller.
To reflect uncertainty in both the allocation of system costs to DAC7 and the estimation of
the reportable seller base, a sensitivity range is applied, resulting in a per-seller cost of EUR
40 (low scenario), EUR 60 (central scenario) and EUR 80 (high scenario).
Note that DAC7 covers several categories of reportable activities, including immovable
property, transport, personal services and the sale of goods. Due to limited data availability,
the analysis does not distinguish between these categories, and in particular does not allow
for an identification of the share of sellers engaged in the sale of goods, to which the
reporting threshold applies. Empirical evidence from France, a relatively service-oriented
market (e.g. short-term accommodation platforms), suggests that the split between goods
86
Befolkningens it-användning 2024, E-handel, Statistics Sweden.
87
The first tercile (highest internet usage) comprises the following Member States: Austria, Belgium, Spain, Finland, Sweden,
Luxembourg, Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark.
88
The second tercile (medium level of internet usage) comprises the following Member States: Estonia, Malta, Latvia, Romania, Hungary,
Czechia, Germany, Cyprus and France.
89
The third tercile (lowest level of internet usage) comprises the following Member States: Croatia, Greece, Bulgaria, Portugal, Lithuania,
Poland, Italy, Slovenia and Slovakia.
88
and services is broadly balanced (around 50/50 in value terms) (90). In other Member States,
such as Sweden, the composition is expected to be more skewed towards goods-based
activities. Accordingly, the estimates should be interpreted as indicative and may represent
an upper-bound approximation.
Policy option 2a – Removal of the activity threshold
Under the current rules, sellers must be reported if they either exceed 30 transactions or
receive more than EUR 2,000 in annual consideration (see illustration below). Option 2a
removes the activity threshold while maintaining the monetary threshold.
According to information collected from some mayor platforms in the EU, approximately
79% of the reportable sellers are reported solely due to exceeding the 30-transaction
threshold while remaining below the EUR 2,000 monetary threshold.
Applying this share to the population of reported sellers of 13.5 million sellers implies that
approximately 10.7 million sellers per year (13.5 million sellers × 79%) would fall out of
scope under Policy option 2a.
The associated compliance cost savings are estimated as follows:
Low-cost scenario: 10.7 million sellers × EUR 40 = EUR 428 million
Central scenario: 10.7 million sellers × EUR 60 = EUR 642 million
High-cost scenario: 10.7 million sellers × EUR 80 = EUR 856 million
Policy option 2b – Removal of the activity threshold and increase of the monetary
threshold to EUR 3,000
Policy Option 2b removes the activity threshold and increases the monetary threshold from
EUR 2,000 to EUR 3,000.
90
Statistique publique de la fiscalité, “Près de 40 Md€ de ventes sur les plateformes en 2022 : une diversité de profils de vendeurs”, DGFIP
Analyses N° 09.
89
Evidence from stakeholders’ consultation 91 suggest that the share of non-reportable sellers
is estimated to increase from approximately 81% under the current framework to around
97% under Option 2b, corresponding to an increase of about 16 percentage points. Applied
to an estimated seller population of 71 million, this implies that approximately 11.3 million
sellers (71 million sellers × 16%) would fall out of scope compared to the status quo.
The associated compliance cost savings are estimated as follows:
Low-cost scenario: 11.3 million sellers × EUR 40 = EUR 452 million
Central scenario: 11.3 million sellers × EUR 60 = EUR 678 million
High-cost scenario: 11.3 million sellers × EUR 80 = EUR 904 million
Policy option 2c – Removal of the activity threshold and increase of the monetary
threshold to EUR 5,000
Policy option 2c removes the activity threshold and increases the monetary threshold from
EUR 2,000 to EUR 5,000.
Under this option approximately 98% of sellers would fall below the reporting threshold,
compared with approximately 81% under the current framework, according to information
collected from affected platform companies. This implies an increase of roughly 17
percentage points in the share of non-reportable sellers. This is based on information
obtained through stakeholder consultations, in particular from major platform operators in
the EU. These operators provided detailed simulations on the distribution of sellers across
different thresholds and the corresponding number of sellers that would fall out of scope
under alternative policy scenarios. This evidence was used to calibrate the estimates.
Applying this change to the seller population of 71 million sellers results in an estimated
reduction of approximately 12.1 million reported sellers per year (71 million sellers × 17%).
The associated compliance cost savings are estimated as follows:
Low-cost scenario: 12.1 million sellers × EUR 40 = EUR 484 million
Central scenario: 12.1 million sellers × EUR 60 = EUR 726 million
High-cost scenario: 12.1 million sellers × EUR 80 = EUR 968 million
3. DAC4 and DAC9 (Measure 3)
The current framework gives rise to a clear duplication of compliance costs for MNE groups,
stemming from overlapping notification requirements under DAC4 and DAC9. In practice,
constituent entities within an MNE group are required to submit separate notifications
identifying the reporting entity responsible for filing group-level information under each
framework, despite the fact that these notifications largely concern the same underlying
information. Differences in scope, timing and national implementation mean that these
notifications cannot be consolidated, requiring companies to establish parallel internal
91
Data are available for thresholds at EUR 2,000, EUR 5,000 and EUR 10,000. These were used to approximate the intermediate value
by applying a non-linear interpolation, reflecting the fact that the share of exempted sellers increases at a decreasing rate and gradually
converges towards 100% at higher thresholds.
90
processes for data collection and submission. As a result, MNE groups must devote
additional administrative resources to monitor multiple reporting obligations across
jurisdictions, often involving repeated coordination across the group structure for essentially
identical information. This duplication increases compliance costs and creates unnecessary
complexity, without generating corresponding additional benefits for tax administrations.
Policy Option 3a introduces a single harmonised notification requirement covering both
DAC4 and DAC9. The estimation is based on the number of MNE entities currently required
to submit such notifications and on assumptions regarding the staff time required to prepare
them.
Under the current framework, each constituent entity is required to submit a DAC4
notification identifying the reporting entity within the group and the jurisdiction where the
Country-by-Country report will be filed. This requires internal coordination to gather the
relevant information, communicate across the group structure and prepare and report the
notification; according to information from stakeholders, it can be assumed that these
activities require approximately 28 hours per entity per year.
Applying average EU labour costs for the sector “Accounting, bookkeeping and auditing
activities; tax consultancy”, the estimated labour cost of preparing a notification corresponds
to approximately EUR 1,270 per entity.
Available information from the company level database ORBIS indicates that approximately
4,700 MNE groups worldwide meet the relevant DAC4 and DAC9 reporting thresholds, i.e.
are within the scope of Pillar 2, and have operations within the EU. These groups collectively
account for approximately 109,000 constituent entities (subsidiaries) located in the EU as of
2024.
The annual compliance cost burden for DAC4 notifications can therefore be approximated
as 109,000 entities × EUR 1,270 ≈ EUR 135 million per year (92).
Assuming a similar notification obligation for DAC9 and that no operational synergies arise
between DAC4 and DAC9 notifications, the combined compliance burden for both
notifications could reach approximately EUR 135 million × 2 = EUR 270 million per year.
Under Policy Option 3b, a single harmonised notification covering both DAC4 and DAC9
would be introduced. Instead of each constituent entity submitting a separate notification, a
single notification would be prepared and submitted for the entire MNE group.
Assuming that the internal coordination effort required to prepare this notification remains
approximately 28 hours per MNE group per year, the associated compliance costs can be
approximated as 4,700 groups × EUR 1,270 ≈ EUR 6 million per year.
92
The DAC Evaluation reports total recurrent compliance costs of approximately EUR 56 million in 2022, with estimated firm-level costs
ranging from around EUR 8,000 for smaller MNE groups to approximately EUR 45,000 for larger groups (Evaluation of the Directive
2011/16 and its amendments, Final Report, Table 27, p. 145). In the present impact assessment, DAC4-related compliance costs are
estimated at around EUR 135 million for approximately 4,700 MNE groups, corresponding to average annual costs of around EUR 29,000
per group. Importantly, this average lies well within the range identified in the DAC Evaluation. The difference in aggregate estimates
mainly reflects different assumptions regarding the distribution of firms across cost categories. While the DAC Evaluation assumes that
only around 10% of MNE groups incur higher compliance costs, stakeholder evidence collected for the present impact assessment suggests
a more balanced distribution between lower- and higher-cost firms, resulting in a higher aggregate estimate.
91
The resulting reduction in compliance costs is therefore estimated as EUR 270 million −
EUR 6 million ≈ EUR 264 million per year.
These estimates are intended to illustrate the order of magnitude of the potential savings
associated with eliminating duplicative notification requirements. They rely on simplifying
assumptions regarding the time required for internal coordination and the average labour
costs involved in preparing notifications.
4. Improving the verification of TINs (Measure 4)93
Policy option 4a – Centralised TIN verification system (access limited to tax
administrations)
The cost estimates for the introduction of a centralised TIN verification system accessible
only to Member States’ tax administrations are based on benchmark comparisons with
existing EU IT systems (notably VIES and DAC infrastructures), complemented by
available evidence from the DAC evaluation and limited stakeholder input. Estimates are
presented separately for EU-level (central component) and national-level (Member State)
costs.
At EU level, one-off development costs for the central component are estimated in the range
of EUR 300,000 to EUR 700,000. This range is derived from two benchmarks. The lower
bound reflects the cost of the modernisation of the VIES-on-the-web application
(approximately EUR 300,000), while the upper bound is informed by the development of
the central component for DAC3 exchanges (approximately EUR 715,000, based on the
DAC evaluation). Given that the TIN validation tool would require additional functionalities
compared to VIES (notably bulk request splitting, routing and reassembly) but remains less
complex than a full central repository such as DAC3, these two benchmarks are considered
appropriate lower and upper bounds.
In addition, the development of common specifications and validation rules is estimated at
EUR 150,000, based on the cost of developing a comparable “call-off stock” module within
VIES. Training costs for tax administrations are estimated at EUR 20,000, based on average
costs for in-person IT training under the Fiscalis programme. This results in total EU-level
one-off costs in the range of EUR 470,000 to EUR 870,000.
Recurrent EU-level costs, including infrastructure, operations, maintenance and technical
assistance, are estimated at EUR 600,000 per year. This estimate is based on two consistent
benchmarks: the operational costs of VIES-on-the-web (approximately EUR 600,000
annually) and the recurrent costs associated with DAC6 central systems, which are of a
similar magnitude.
At national level, one-off implementation costs are estimated at approximately EUR 11
million across the EU, corresponding to roughly EUR 265,000 per Member State on
average. This estimate is based on observed public procurement data for the implementation
of the BRIS, which provides a relevant benchmark for interoperability projects between
93
For the purpose of the cost assessment under Policy Options 4a and 4b, it is assumed that the TIN verification system would provide
only a binary yes/no response indicating whether the taxpayer identifiers match the information held in the relevant national register. An
alternative design would be to provide “close match” feedback for individual queries, indicating that the information submitted is
sufficiently close to the correct taxpayer identifiers and signalling the degree of proximity to the correct information. Such a functionality
could improve error resolution but would also imply additional technical and operational complexity.
92
national systems and EU-level infrastructure. A multiplier of 1.5 has been applied to account
for additional complexity in cases where TIN data are held by multiple authorities (e.g.
separate registries for natural and legal persons), including the need for coordination
arrangements and system integration. The resulting estimate reflects an average cost across
Member States, with potentially significant variation depending on national institutional
setups.
Recurrent national costs consist of both maintenance costs and administrative costs
associated with TIN validation. Maintenance costs are estimated at 12% to 18% of initial
development costs, corresponding to EUR 1.4 to 2 million annually at EU level, in line with
standard industry benchmarks for IT systems.
The administrative burden for TIN validation is estimated not to exceed EUR 10 million per
year across the EU. This estimate is derived by benchmarking against overall recurring
administrative costs for the AEOI under the DAC framework, which are estimated at EUR
20 to 40 million annually at EU level. Given that TIN validation represents a more narrowly
defined and highly automatable task within this broader framework, the associated costs are
assumed to be significantly lower. This assumption is further supported by limited
stakeholder input, which indicates substantial variation across Member States. Reported
estimates range from approximately EUR 40,000 per year in low-cost cases to up to EUR
0.5 million per year (corresponding to around 10 FTEs) in higher-cost scenarios. Even the
upper bound of these estimates would imply aggregate EU-level costs in the order of EUR
13–14 million annually, which supports the use of EUR 10 million as a conservative upper-
bound estimate.
No additional costs are expected for reporting entities under this option, as the validation
process would be carried out exclusively by tax administrations.
Policy option 4b – Centralised TIN verification system (optional access to reporting
entities)
This option assumes a centralised TIN validation tool providing binary (yes/no) feedback
and accessible to reporting entities. Costs are assessed at EU level, national level (tax
authorities), and for reporting entities.
At EU level, one-off development costs for the central component are estimated at EUR
600,000 to EUR 1.4 million, reflecting the need to scale the system to accommodate
potential access by reporting entities. This estimate builds on the cost range identified for
the tax-administration-only system (EUR 300,000–700,000) and applies an approximate
doubling factor to reflect higher system capacity requirements, including increased
concurrency, authentication and bulk processing functionalities. The development of
common specifications and access management rules is estimated at EUR 350,000, based
on benchmarks from VIES developments and the expected need for coordination among
Member States (comparable to the cost of an expert team under Fiscalis). Training costs for
tax administrations are estimated at EUR 20,000. Overall, total EU-level one-off costs are
estimated at EUR 970,000 to EUR 1.77 million.
Recurrent EU-level costs, including infrastructure, maintenance, and technical support, are
estimated at EUR 1.8 to 2.4 million per year. This estimate reflects a three- to fourfold
increase compared to systems limited to tax authority access (e.g., DAC6), driven by higher
93
expected system load, authentication requirements and fragmented user access patterns. The
resulting range is broadly consistent with observed costs for systems with private-sector
access, such as VIES-on-the-web.
At national level, one-off costs for tax administrations are estimated at EUR 15 to 25 million
across the EU. These costs include the development of national access points (estimated at
EUR 14–20 million), based on public procurement benchmarks for interoperability systems
such as BRIS, and additional costs for implementing authorisation and access management
systems (estimated at EUR 1–5 million). The increase compared to the tax-authority-only
scenario reflects the need to accommodate higher volumes of concurrent requests and to
implement secure access for reporting entities.
Recurrent national IT costs are estimated at EUR 4.5 to 12 million per year across the EU,
comprising maintenance of national access points (EUR 3–7 million annually) and technical
assistance and troubleshooting (EUR 1.5–5 million annually). These estimates are based on
standard industry benchmarks for maintenance (20–28% of development costs) and on
expected increases in user support needs resulting from a broader and more heterogeneous
user base.
The administrative burden for tax authorities associated with TIN validation is expected to
be significantly reduced compared to a tax-administration-only validation model. Reporting
entities would perform a share of validations voluntarily, reducing the volume of TINs to be
processed by tax authorities. Residual administrative costs are estimated at EUR 1 to 6
million per year at EU level, corresponding to validation of approximately 5% to 60% of
TINs not pre-validated by reporting entities.
Under this option, reporting entities would be granted access to the validation tool on a
voluntary basis and would not be subject to any legal obligation to use it. As a result, no
mandatory compliance costs arise for businesses. Reporting entities that choose to make use
of the tool may incur certain implementation and operational costs, including IT integration
and adjustments to existing processes. However, these costs are expected to be at least
partially offset by reductions in other data collection and verification requirements, such as
the need to obtain and report supplementary identifiers (e.g. date of birth or address) in cases
of missing or inaccurate TINs. Given the voluntary nature of the instrument and the
offsetting effects between additional costs and potential savings, it is not possible to provide
a robust ex ante quantification of the net cost impact for reporting entities under this PO.
94
ANNEX 5: COMPETITIVENESS CHECK
1. Overview of impacts on competitiveness
Impact of the initiative References to sub-
Dimensions of
sections of the main
Competitiveness (++ / + / 0 / - / -- / n.a.) report or annexes
Cost and price competitiveness ++ Chapters 5, 6, 7
International competitiveness + Chapters 5, 6, 7
Capacity to innovate ++ Chapters 5, 6, 7
SME competitiveness + Chapters 5, 6, 7
2. Synthetic assessment
The preferred options are expected to have a positive overall impact on competitiveness. By
simplifying and streamlining reporting and notification obligations across several DAC
instruments, the initiative reduces administrative burdens and recurring compliance costs
for businesses operating within the Internal Market. The removal of certain reporting
requirements, the clarification of legal concepts, and the reduction of duplication in
reporting and notification processes are expected to improve legal certainty and reduce
operational complexity.
These changes are likely to strengthen business’ cost competitiveness by lowering fixed
compliance costs and reducing the need for external advisory services. In addition, greater
consistency in the application of rules across Member States is expected to facilitate cross-
border business activities and reduce frictions associated with divergent national practices
as well as regulatory arbitrage. This is expected to contribute to a more efficient functioning
of the Internal Market and improve the overall business environment for EU businesses.
While the initiative does not directly target innovation, the reduction in compliance costs
will free up financial and administrative resources that can be dedicated to support
investment and growth. These resources may be reallocated to productive activities,
including digitalisation, expansion or innovation-related investments, depending on
company-specific decisions.
3. Competitive position of the most affected sectors
The initiative is horizontal in nature and does not target specific sectors. It applies broadly
to businesses subject to reporting obligations under the DAC framework. However, the
impact is expected to be more pronounced in sectors with a higher exposure to cross-border
transactions, complex organisational structures or platform-based business models.
In particular, MNE groups engaged in cross-border activities may benefit from reduced
duplication in notification and reporting requirements (notably under DAC4 and DAC9) and
from increased legal clarity under DAC6. Similarly, digital platform operators subject to
DAC7 reporting obligations are expected to benefit from simplified thresholds and reduced
95
reporting scope, particularly where large volumes of low-value transactions are currently
captured.
It should be noted that SMEs and smaller businesses are generally less engaged in cross-
border activities and are therefore, both in absolute and relative terms, less frequently
captured by DAC reporting obligations compared to large MNEs. As a result, they are, to
some extent, in a more favourable starting position under the baseline. At the same time,
while the initiative does not include SME-specific measures, SMEs and smaller businesses
are still expected to benefit from the proposed simplifications alongside larger businesses.
In addition, SMEs are likely to benefit disproportionately in relative terms, as compliance
costs tend to represent a higher share of their operating costs. The reduction in administrative
burdens may therefore improve their ability to participate in cross-border economic
activities within the Internal Market.
96
ANNEX 6: SME CHECK
Overview of impacts on SMEs
Relevance for SMEs
The initiative is relevant for SMEs as tax compliance costs generally impose a
proportionally higher burden on smaller businesses compared to large enterprises. While
the DAC Recast does not introduce SME-specific exemptions, it aims at simplifying and
streamlining reporting and notification obligations under several DAC instruments. These
simplifications are expected to reduce administrative complexity, legal uncertainty and
recurring compliance costs for all businesses, including SMEs.
Evidence from DAC6 reporting suggests that, among taxpayer-filed reports, only a limited
share (approximately 7–9%) is attributable to large MNE groups within the scope of
Pillar 2. This implies that the majority of reporting companies are outside this group and
include a significant number of SMEs. For example, the share of SMEs, i.e. those with less
than 50 employees, in all European MNEs accounts to as much as two thirds of the total.
Thus, they are directly affected by the compliance burden and are expected to benefit from
its reduction. In addition, evidence collected through the call for evidence indicates that
more than three quarters of responding companies filing DAC6 reports identified
themselves as small or medium-sized enterprises. This further illustrates that SMEs
potentially account for a substantial share of DAC6 reporting activity and are therefore
expected to benefit significantly from the reduction in compliance burdens resulting from
the proposed simplifications. A similar pattern can be expected for platform operators
under DAC7, where a substantial proportion are SMEs, which are likely to benefit directly
from the simplification of reporting obligations.
Given that compliance costs tend to be relatively higher for SMEs in proportion to their
size, any reduction in reporting obligations is expected to have a comparatively stronger
positive effect on SMEs. In addition, greater legal clarity and reduced fragmentation
across Member States may facilitate SMEs’ participation in cross-border activities within
the Internal Market.
(1) IDENTIFICATION OF AFFECTED BUSINESSES AND ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANCE
Are SMEs directly affected? (Yes/No) In which sectors?
Yes, SMEs are directly affected across all sectors to the extent that they are subject to
DAC reporting obligations (notably under DAC6 and DAC7).
Estimated number of directly affected SMEs
Not available. DAC reporting data do not provide a comprehensive breakdown of
reporting entities by company size at EU level.
Estimated number of employees in directly affected SMEs
97
Not available.
Are SMEs indirectly affected? (Yes/No) In which sectors? What is the estimated
number of indirectly affected SMEs and employees?
SMEs are primarily directly affected. Indirect effects may arise through improved
functioning of the Internal Market and reduced administrative complexity, but these are
not quantifiable.
(2) CONSULTATION OF SME STAKEHOLDERS
How has the input from the SME community been taken into consideration?
Stakeholder input was gathered through consultations with business representatives,
including platforms and industry associations, which reflect the views of a broad range of
businesses, including SMEs. These consultations highlighted the importance of reducing
administrative burdens and simplifying reporting obligations, particularly for businesses
with limited administrative capacity.
Are SMEs’ views different from those of large businesses? (Yes/No)
Partially. While both SMEs and large businesses support simplification, SMEs tend to
emphasise more strongly the burden of compliance costs and administrative complexity,
which can represent a larger relative cost burden.
(3) ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON SMES94
What are the estimated direct costs for SMEs of the preferred policy option?
Qualitative assessment
No significant additional direct costs are expected for SMEs. The initiative primarily
introduces simplifications and reductions in existing reporting and notification
requirements.
Quantitative assessment
Not applicable.
What are the estimated direct benefits/cost savings for SMEs of the preferred policy
option95?
Qualitative assessment
SMEs are expected to benefit from reduced compliance costs associated with DAC
reporting obligations, particularly under DAC6 and DAC7. As SMEs typically face higher
compliance costs relative to their size, these savings are likely to be proportionally more
94
The costs and benefits data in this annex are consistent with the data in annex 3. The preferred option includes the mitigating measures
listed in section 4.
95
The direct benefits for SMEs can also be cost savings.
98
significant for smaller businesses. Simplified rules and reduced reporting obligations may
also lower the need for external advisory services and internal administrative resources.
Quantitative assessment
While overall compliance cost savings have been estimated at aggregate level, it is not
possible to isolate the share accruing specifically to SMEs due to data limitations
regarding the size distribution of reporting entities.
What are the indirect impacts of this initiative on SMEs?
The initiative may indirectly benefit SMEs by improving legal clarity, reducing
fragmentation across Member States, and lowering barriers to cross-border activity.
These effects may support SME growth and participation in the Internal Market, although
they cannot be quantified.
(4) MINIMISING NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON SMES
Are SMEs disproportionately affected compared to large companies? (Yes/No)
If yes, are there any specific subgroups of SMEs more exposed than others?
No
Have mitigating measures been included in the preferred option/proposal? (Yes/No)
No
CONTRIBUTION TO THE 35% BURDEN REDUCTION TARGET FOR SMES
Are there any administrative cost savings relevant for the 35% burden reduction
target for SMEs?
Yes. The initiative is expected to generate compliance cost savings for businesses subject
to DAC reporting obligations. Given that SMEs represent a large share of reporting
entities and face relatively higher compliance costs, a substantial portion of these savings
is expected to accrue to SMEs. However, due to data limitations, the exact contribution to
the 35% burden reduction target cannot be quantified.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
None
99
ANNEX 7: OVERVIEW OF SELECTED REPORTING AND EXCHANGE
MECHANISMS IN THE DIRECTIVE ON ADMINISTRATIVE
COOPERATION (DAC)
Council Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC)
establishes the framework for administrative cooperation and exchange of information
between Member States’ tax authorities. The Directive provides for different forms of
cooperation, including exchange of information on request, spontaneous exchange of
information and automatic exchange of information.
Since its adoption, the Directive has been amended several times in order to extend the scope
of information exchanged between tax authorities and to address emerging risks related to
tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning.
This annex provides a brief overview of the rationale for not amending DAC2, DAC3 and
DAC8 and conversely details the amendments which are relevant for this impact assessment,
namely DAC1, DAC4, DAC6, and DAC7 and DAC9.
DAC2 – Automatic exchange of financial account information
DAC2 implements into EU law the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) developed by the
OECD. This is an international standard which is in force since 2014 and has already been
subject to revision in 2022 to reflect global developments (the changes have been
incorporated into EU law through DAC8). No further issues have emerged in relation to
DAC2, and this directive has not been identified by stakeholders as an area where there is
potential for simplification.
DAC3 – Exchange of cross-border rulings and advance pricing agreements
In 2015, the DAC was amended by Council Directive (EU) 2015/2376 (DAC3). DAC3
extends the scope of the existing provisions in relation to AEOI and administrative
cooperation between EU Member States. DAC3 obliges tax administrations to automatically
exchange information on advance cross-border tax rulings and advance pricing agreements
with other Member States. No potential for simplification of this reporting framework has
been identified by the Commission services or stakeholders.
DAC8 – Automatic exchange of crypto-assets information
DAC8 implements into EU law the OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). As
the directive only applies from 1 January 2026 and no reporting has yet taken place, no
potential for simplification of this reporting framework has been identified so far by the
OECD, the Commission services or stakeholders.
100
DAC1 – Automatic exchange of information on certain categories of income and assets
DAC1 introduced the automatic exchange of information (AEOI) between Member States
(MS) on certain categories of income received and assets held by taxpayers in another MS
than their MS of residence.
The main goal of DAC1 AEOI is to ensure tax fairness between the taxation of income
received and wealth held nationally by EU taxpayers and income received and wealth held
in other MS. MS can also use the information received to check if taxes have been levied in
the other MS to avoid double taxation of the taxpayer.
The categories of information covered include:
• Employment income
• Directors’ fees
• Pensions
• Ownership of and income from immovable property
• Life insurance products
• Royalties (added via later amendments, e.g., DAC7/DAC8 context)
• Non-custodial dividends (added as from 2026 via DAC8-related expansions)
MS have reported substantial revenue gains. For instance, in tax year 2022, DAC1-related
exchanges on employment and pension income alone contributed to approximately EUR
117 million in additional tax revenues, primarily through enhanced risk assessments, audits,
and voluntary disclosures.
DAC4 – Automatic exchange of Country-by-Country reports
DAC4 (Council Directive (EU) 2016/881) introduced the automatic exchange of Country-
by-Country (CbC) reports for large MNE groups, implementing the OECD BEPS (Base
Erosion and Profit Shifting) Action 13 standard within the EU legal framework.
Multinational groups with consolidated annual revenues exceeding EUR 750 million are
required to file a Country-by-Country report with the tax authority of the jurisdiction of the
ultimate parent entity of the group. The report shall contain aggregated information for each
tax jurisdiction in which the group operates, including:
• Revenues
• Profit or loss before income tax
• Income tax paid and accrued
• Number of employees
• Stated capital, accumulated earnings, and tangible assets
• Other economic activity indicators
Key mechanisms:
• Filing deadline: 12 months after the last day of the reporting fiscal year.
101
• Automatic exchange to all MS where the group has resident constituent entities or
permanent establishments subject to tax.
• Used for high-level transfer pricing risk assessment and BEPS detection (not as
direct audit evidence).
The information is intended to support high-level transfer pricing risk assessments and the
identification of potential BEPS risks. Since first exchanges in 2018 (for 2016 data), DAC4
has significantly improved tax authorities' ability to identify profit-shifting risks,
contributing to global efforts against aggressive tax planning.
DAC6 – Mandatory disclosure of cross-border arrangements
DAC6 (Council Directive (EU) 2018/822) introduced mandatory disclosure rules (MDR)
for certain cross-border arrangements that may present a risk of tax avoidance. It reflects a
fundamental shift in tax transparency from reactive enforcement towards proactive
information gathering, enabling tax administrations to detect emerging risks before they
fully materialise.
The reporting obligation primarily applies to intermediaries, meaning professionals who
help design or implement tax-related structures. The notion of intermediary is intentionally
broad and function-based, capturing both primary actors (e.g. designers and promoters) and
secondary actors (e.g. service providers assisting with implementation), such as tax advisors,
lawyers, accountants, and sometimes financial institutions. In practice, this broad scope has
ensured extensive coverage of the advisory ecosystem, although it has also raised issues of
overlap and duplication in reporting obligations.
Where no intermediary is involved, or where reporting is prevented (notably due to legal
professional privilege), the obligation shifts to the taxpayer, creating a cascade mechanism
to safeguard reporting completeness. This mechanism determines who must report the
arrangement. It works like a chain of responsibility, ensuring that at least one party reports
the information:
1. First level: intermediary (primary responsibility)
- The obligation normally falls on the intermediary who designed or promoted the
arrangement. Example: A tax advisor creates a cross-border structure for a client
→ the advisor must report it.
2. Second level: other intermediaries (if applicable)
- If there are multiple intermediaries involved (e.g. a lawyer and a bank), any of them
may have a reporting obligation. In practice, they may agree that one of them
reports, but all remain potentially responsible.
3. Third level: taxpayer (fallback)
- The obligation shifts to the taxpayer if: there is no intermediary (e.g. the
arrangement is designed in-house), or the intermediary is exempt from reporting
(e.g. due to legal professional privilege), or the intermediary is located outside the
EU and therefore not subject to DAC6.
Arrangements are reportable if they meet one hallmark (certain predefined characteristics).
Some hallmarks are subject to the main benefit test (MBT). This test asks whether it is
reasonable to conclude that obtaining a tax advantage is one of the main reasons for the
102
arrangement. In simpler terms, if the main purpose of a structure is to save taxes, it is more
likely to be reportable. The hallmarks are designed as risk indicators rather than legal
definitions of avoidance, and their breadth allows the framework to capture both known and
novel tax planning strategies:
• Category A (Generic hallmarks- MBT): These cover common features of
marketed tax schemes, such as confidentiality clauses (where clients are not allowed
to disclose how the scheme works) or fee structures linked to tax savings. These are
often standardized solutions sold to multiple clients.
1. An arrangement where the relevant taxpayer or a participant in the arrangement
undertakes to comply with a condition of confidentiality which may require them not to
disclose how the arrangement could secure a tax advantage vis-à-vis other intermediaries
or the tax authorities.
2. An arrangement where the intermediary is entitled to receive a fee (or interest,
remuneration for finance costs and other charges) for the arrangement and that fee is fixed
by reference to:
(a) the amount of the tax advantage derived from the arrangement; or
(b) whether or not a tax advantage is actually derived from the arrangement. This would
include an obligation on the intermediary to partially or fully refund the fees where the
intended tax advantage derived from the arrangement was not partially or fully achieved.
3. An arrangement that has substantially standardised documentation and/or structure and
is available to more than one relevant taxpayer without a need to be substantially customised
for implementation.
• Category B (Specific hallmarks – MBT): These refers to concrete strategies, such
as buying a company mainly to use its tax losses to reduce taxable profits, even if
there is little real economic activity behind the transaction.
1. An arrangement whereby a participant in the arrangement takes contrived steps which
consist in acquiring a lossmaking company, discontinuing the main activity of such company
and using its losses in order to reduce its tax liability, including through a transfer of those
losses to another jurisdiction or by the acceleration of the use of those losses.
2. An arrangement that has the effect of converting income into capital, gifts or other
categories of revenue which are taxed at a lower level or exempt from tax.
3. An arrangement which includes circular transactions resulting in the round-tripping of
funds, namely through involving interposed entities without other primary commercial
function or transactions that offset or cancel each other or that have other similar features.
• Category C (Specific hallmarks - Cross-border payments): These focus on
payments between countries that may reduce tax, for example when a company
makes payments to another entity located in a country with very low or no taxation.
This category captures many common international tax planning structures. (e.g.,
deductible payments to low-tax jurisdictions, misaligned tax treatments).
1. An arrangement that involves deductible cross-border payments made between two or
more associated
enterprises where at least one of the following conditions occurs:
103
(a) the recipient is not resident for tax purposes in any tax jurisdiction;
(b) although the recipient is resident for tax purposes in a jurisdiction, that jurisdiction
either:
(i) does not impose any corporate tax or imposes corporate tax at the rate of zero
or almost zero; or
(ii) is included in a list of third-country jurisdictions which have been assessed by
MS collectively or within the framework of the OECD as being non-cooperative;
(c) the payment benefits from a full exemption from tax in the jurisdiction where the
recipient is resident for tax purposes;
(d) the payment benefits from a preferential tax regime in the jurisdiction where the
recipient is resident for tax purposes;
2. Deductions for the same depreciation on the asset are claimed in more than one
jurisdiction.
3. Relief from double taxation in respect of the same item of income or capital is claimed in
more than one jurisdiction.
4. There is an arrangement that includes transfers of assets and where there is a material
difference in the amount being treated as payable in consideration for the assets in those
jurisdictions involved.
• Category D (Transparency hallmarks -automatic exchange/ beneficial
ownership): These aim at arrangements that try to hide information from tax
authorities, for example by obscuring who really owns assets or by circumventing
international information exchange systems. (e.g., undermining CRS/DAC rules).
1. An arrangement which may have the effect of undermining the reporting obligation under
the laws implementing Union legislation or any equivalent agreements on the automatic
exchange of Financial Account information, including agreements with third countries, or
which takes advantage of the absence of such legislation or agreements. Such arrangements
include at least the following:
(a) the use of an account, product or investment that is not, or purports not to be, a
Financial Account, but has features that are substantially similar to those of a Financial
Account;
(b) the transfer of Financial Accounts or assets to, or the use of jurisdictions that are not
bound by the automatic exchange of Financial Account information with the State of
residence of the relevant taxpayer;
(c) the reclassification of income and capital into products or payments that are not
subject to the automatic exchange of Financial Account information;
(d) the transfer or conversion of a Financial Institution or a Financial Account or the
assets therein into a Financial Institution or a Financial Account or assets not subject to
reporting under the automatic exchange of Financial Account information;
(e) the use of legal entities, arrangements or structures that eliminate or purport to
eliminate reporting of one or more Account Holders or Controlling Persons under the
automatic exchange of Financial Account information;
(f) arrangements that undermine, or exploit weaknesses in, the due diligence procedures
used by Financial Institutions to comply with their obligations to report Financial
Account information, including the use of jurisdictions with inadequate or weak regimes
104
of enforcement of anti-money-laundering legislation or with weak transparency
requirements for legal persons or legal arrangements.
2. An arrangement involving a non-transparent legal or beneficial ownership chain with the
use of persons, legal arrangements or structures:
(a) that do not carry on a substantive economic activity supported by adequate staff,
equipment, assets and premises; and
(b) that are incorporated, managed, resident, controlled or established in any jurisdiction
other than the jurisdiction of residence of one or more of the beneficial owners of the
assets held by such persons, legal arrangements or structures; and
(c) where the beneficial owners of such persons, legal arrangements or structures, as
defined in Directive (EU) 2015/849, are made unidentifiable.
• Category E (Transfer Pricing hallmarks): These relate to how MNEs price
transactions within their group, such as transferring intellectual property between
subsidiaries in different countries to shift profits, (e.g., unilateral safe harbours, hard-
to-value intangibles).
1. An arrangement which involves the use of unilateral safe harbour rules.
2. An arrangement involving the transfer of hard-to-value intangibles. The term “hard-to-
value intangibles” covers intangibles or rights in intangibles for which, at the time of their
transfer between associated enterprises:
(a) no reliable comparables exist; and
(b) at the time the transaction was entered into, the projections of future cash flows or
income expected to be derived from the transferred intangible, or the assumptions used
in valuing the intangible are highly uncertain, making it difficult to predict the level of
ultimate success of the intangible at the time of the transfer.
3. An arrangement involving an intragroup cross-border transfer of functions and/or risks
and/or assets, if the projected annual earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), during the
three-year period after the transfer, of the transferor or transferors, are less than 50 % of
the projected annual EBIT of such transferor or transferors if the transfer had not been
made.’
Information reported to national tax authorities is subsequently exchanged automatically
between MS within a month. This exchange is made by standardized XML schema for
data via a central depository provided by the Commission services and accessible by
Member States The data shared includes who is involved, what the arrangement looks like,
which hallmarks apply, and when it was implemented. The system enables all Member
States to access the information, creating a shared repository of intelligence on cross-
border tax arrangements.
The reporting framework aims to provide tax administrations with early information on
potentially aggressive tax planning arrangements, thereby supporting risk assessment
and enforcement activities.
Figure 2 on the following page includes an explanatory chart on the functioning of the
hallmarks and the Main Benefit Test.
105
Figure 2- DAC6 explanatory chart
Focusing on the distribution of reported arrangements across the different hallmarks under
DAC6. The total number of hallmark disclosures (Figure 3) does not equal 79,000 reports
because a single report may include multiple hallmarks. As a result, the same arrangement
106
can be counted under more than one hallmark category, leading to a higher cumulative total
when aggregating across hallmarks than the number of individual reports submitted.
Figure 3- Number of Disclosures affected by hallmarks
Figure 4- Total number of reported cross-border arrangements under the DAC6
Directive across MS from 2020 to 2025.
107
DAC7 – Reporting obligations for digital platform operators
DAC7 (Council Directive (EU) 2021/514 amending Directive 2011/16/EU) introduced
reporting obligations for digital platform operators facilitating certain activities carried
out by sellers through digital platforms.
Platform operators are required to collect and report information on sellers generating
income through their platforms. More concretely:
• Relevant activities: Rental of immovable property, personal services, sale of goods,
rental of means of transport.
• Reporting platform operators: EU-resident/established operators; non-EU operators
if facilitating EU sellers or EU immovable property rentals.
• Reportable sellers: Active sellers (≥30 transactions or >EUR 2,000 consideration
annually for goods, with exemptions applicable to all activities for listed entities,
government bodies, etc.).
The information reported includes, among other elements:
• identification details of the seller (individuals: name, address, TIN, DOB; entities:
name, address, TIN, incorporation details)
• the total consideration paid or credited to the seller
• fees or commissions charged by the platform
• the number of relevant transactions carried out
The information is reported to the tax authority of the MS where the platform operator is
registered and subsequently exchanged with the MS of residence of the seller.
The objective of this framework is to improve tax transparency in MS and facilitate the
taxation of income generated through the platform economy.
DAC9 - Automatic exchange for the purposes of the Pillar 2 Directive
DAC9 operationalises the implementation in the EU of the Pillar 2 Directive by enabling in
scope MNEs to file, at central level, the information to be reported and requiring Member
States tax authorities to subsequently exchange this information. As the directive only
applies from 1 January 2026 and no reporting has yet taken place, no potential for
simplification of this reporting framework has been identified so far by the OECD, the
Commission services or stakeholders.
108
ANNEX 8: PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF NATIONAL
TAXATION RULES FOR THE SALE OF GOODS (DAC7)
As detailed earlier in this report, 26 Member States reached a provisional agreement at
technical level at the OECD, to remove the activity threshold and increase the monetary
threshold to EUR 3,000. in relation to the Model Rules for Digital Platform Operators
(MRDP), which are implemented in the EU through DAC7.
This provisional technical agreement is reflective of the fact that Member States do not view
an increase of the threshold as negatively impacting on their ability to effectively apply their
national taxation rules. While the application of national taxation rules is dependent on
specific personal circumstances e.g. entitlement to tax credits and allowances based on
marital and parental status etc, general practical examples of certain national taxation rules
applicable to personal income are included below.
Member State Nature of tax-free amount Tax free amount annual
Austria Statutory % band €0–€13,539 at 0%
Croatia Personal allowance (deduction) €7,200
Cyprus Statutory % band €0–€19,500 at 0%
Germany Statutory basic allowance €12,096
Ireland Tax Credit System €4,000 credits
Luxembourg Statutory % band €0–€13,230 at 0%
Malta Statutory % band €0–€12,000 at 0%
Poland Statutory 0% band 30,000 PLN
Approx €7,000
Slovakia Likely exempt based on details If the taxpayer's tax base in
on website. 2025 is equal to or less than
EUR 25,426.27, the non-
taxable part is the amount of
EUR 5,753.79
Slovenia Statutory % band €0–€9,210.26 at 0%
Spain Personal allowance to reduce €5,500 per annum
taxable income
Sweden Profit dependent SEK 50,000
Approx €4,600
109
ANNEX 9: RATIONALE FOR DIVERGING AUTOMATIC
MATCHING RATES
The differences in the automatic matching rates across the individual DAC’s can be
explained by the fact that there is a direct correlation between the legislative requirements
to collect and verify identification information and automatic matching rates. A detailed
explanation of the divergent legislative requirements under each DAC is included below.
While this represents the ‘as is’ position it is important to note that Article 27c of Council
Directive (EU) 2023/2226 ‘DAC8’ introduce new and improved requirements for reporting
entities and tax administrations to report the taxpayer identification number (TIN). However,
these new requirements do not apply until the commencement of the taxable period 1
January 2028 for DAC3, DAC4 and DAC6 and the taxable period 1 January 2030 for DAC1.
Irrespective of these new requirements in the absence of a centralised tool to verify the TIN
an automatic matching rate of 100% cannot be achieved.
For DAC1 there are no third-party due diligence and reporting requirements. The tax
authorities of Member States are only required to report and exchange information that is
available in their tax files. Consequentially, the tax authorities of Member States routinely
collect only the TIN relevant to their own Member State and do not routinely collect any
other TIN. Therefore, receiving Member States receive a very limited subset of
identification information i.e. name, date of birth and non-resident address to the extent that
this information is routinely collected by the tax administration of the sending Member
State. Also, the directive does not require tax administrations to verify this information.
Consequentially, the automatic matching rates of 39.3% (Employment Income), 41.6%
(Directors Fees), 46.9% (Pensions) and 24.2% (Life Insurance Products) are reflective of
the current ‘availability’ limitations of the legislative framework and absence of a
centralised tool to verify the TIN.
For DAC2, Financial Institutions are required to collect and report the name, address,
Member State of residence, TIN, and date and place of birth of each reportable person. These
reporting requirements are supplemented by due diligence requirements whereby Financial
Institutions are required to attain a self-certification from every account holder of a new
account, including any documentation collected pursuant to anti-money laundering/know
your customer procedures. A new account is any account opened on or after 1 January 2016.
A pre-existing account is any account opened prior to 1 January 2016. Financial Institutions
are subject to less onerous due diligence requirements for pre-existing accounts as they are
only required to rely upon their existing records. Consequentially, the associated accuracy
and completeness of identification information that is reported and exchanged is lower for
pre-existing accounts than for new accounts. Therefore, the automatic matching rate of
67.9% is reflective of the higher collection and validation requirements for new accounts
and more limited requirements for pre-existing accounts. This is also compounded by the
absence of a centralised tool to verify the TIN.
Under DAC3, tax administrations that issue, amend or renew an advance cross-border ruling
or an advance pricing arrangement are required to automatically exchange certain
information to all other Member States. The information that is required to be automatically
110
exchanged includes the identification of the person, other than a natural person, and where
appropriate the group of persons to which it belongs. However, the directive is not
prescriptive on the type of identification information that must be provided for example the
directive does not require that the TIN of the Member State of residence must be provided.
Also, the directive does not require tax administrations to verify this information.
Consequentially, the significantly lower automatic matching rate of 27.3% is reflective of
the absence of the legislative requirement to collect and verify the TIN. This is also
compounded by the absence of a centralised tool to verify the TIN.
For DAC4, MNE groups are required to report specified information on their constituent
entities. The directive requires that in circumstances where the relevant constituent entity
has a TIN this must be mandatorily provided, and where the constituent entity does not have
a TIN, this information is not required. Consequentially, the automatic matching rate of
81.5% is reflective of these legislative requirements yet remains limited due to the absence
dedicated verification requirements and the absence of a centralised tool to verify the TIN.
For DAC6, intermediaries and relevant taxpayers are required to report their name, date and
place of birth (in the case of an individual), residence for tax purposes and the TIN. While
the legislation supports the reporting of the TIN there is no requirement for intermediaries
to verify the reported information. Consequentially, the automatic matching rate of 56.8%
is reflective of the absence of a requirement to verify the reported information and a
centralised tool to verify the TIN.
For DAC7, reporting platform operators are required to collect and report the name, address,
TIN and in the absence of a TIN, the place of birth, the VAT identification number (where
available) and the date of birth of the individual seller. Where the seller is an entity seller
the business registration number is also required to be collected and reported. The directive
requires reporting platform operators to also verify the collected information. The automatic
matching rate of 69.7% is reflective of the fact that there is no centralised system to verify
the TIN.
111