European Fund and Asset Management Association

…rue Montoyer 47, B-1000 Bruxelles  +32 2 513 39 69 • e-mail : [email protected] • www.efama.org • Transparency Register nr. : 3373670692-24 Brussels, 04 March 2019 Public consultation on the functioning of the administrative cooperation in the field of direct taxation I. Introduction EFAMA1 is a strong supporter of the Commission’s agenda to enhance tax transparency within the EU with the aim to tackle tax abuse and resulting distortions in the internal market. European investment funds are subject to stringent EU and local regulations covering governance, organisational and operational arrangements, investment guidelines, transparency and investor protection. Last December EFAMA sent a letter to the European Commission and to the tax administrations of all 28 countries adopting DAC6 in parallel. Our letter is attached under Section F of this consultation document.

…of all 28 countries adopting DAC6 in parallel. Our letter is attached under Section F of this consultation document. The letter sets out the views of the European investment management industry with regard to the implementation of Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 (“DAC6”), including general comments on the Directive, on its background and on the Commission’s agenda to enhance tax transparency within the EU. It equally features EFAMA’s concerns with respect to some of the hallmarks introduced as Annex IV of DAC6. Considering the wide scope and broad wording of DAC 6, the letter includes requests for clarifications and provisions aiming at avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens and providing for more legal certainty.

…and provisions aiming at avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens and providing for more legal certainty. EFAMA understands that the European Commission can play a valuable role in helping tax authorities coordinate their approach in the implementation of DAC, with a view to consistency of outcome. Therefore, EFAMA now takes this opportunity to: a) Reply to the questionnaire on the Overall assessment of the Directive (Section A)); b) Provide the European Commission with more detailed comments that further develop EFAMA’s position (Section F)). These comments should be read alongside the EFAMA letter referred above. 1 EFAMA is the voice of the European investment management industry. It represents through its 28 member associations and 62 corporate members more than EUR 16 trillion of investment fund assets at end Q3 2018.

…its 28 member associations and 62 corporate members more than EUR 16 trillion of investment fund assets at end Q3 2018. These assets were managed by almost 61,600 investment funds, of which close to 33,000 were UCITS (Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities) funds, with the remaining funds composed of AIFs (Alternative Investment Funds). Including discretionary mandates, third-party regulated asset managers managed EUR 25 trillion in Europe at end 2017. Ref. Ares(2019)6268007 - 10/10/2019 EFAMA comments Public consultation on the functioning of the administrative cooperation in the field of direct taxation Page 2 of 8 II. Reply to the questionnaire A) Overall assessment of the directive To what extent do you believe the following goals of administrative cooperation are important for Europe and globally?

…what extent do you believe the following goals of administrative cooperation are important for Europe and globally? Very important Important Moderately important Marginally important Not important at all Don’t know Increase EU Member States’ ability to ensure that all taxpayers pay their taxes, irrespective of the place where the incomes are received or assets are held X Reduce incentives for Member States to offer particularly favourable tax conditions not available to other taxpayers, thus competing for tax revenues with other Member States X Increase transparency in the tax planning of companies active in several EU Member States X To what extent do you consider the tools given for tax authorities in the Directive appropriate to meet the goals?

…what extent do you consider the tools given for tax authorities in the Directive appropriate to meet the goals? To a very large extent To a large extent To some extent To a limited extent To a very limited extent Don’t know Increase EU Member States’ ability to ensure that all taxpayers pay their taxes, irrespective of the place where the incomes are received or assets are held X Reduce incentives for Member States to offer particularly favourable tax conditions not available to other taxpayers, thus competing for tax revenues with other Member States X Increase transparency in the tax planning of companies active in several EU Member States X Concerning the effects of the Directive, to what extent would you agree with the following statements?

Member States X Concerning the effects of the Directive, to what extent would you agree with the following statements? Agree Partly agree Neutral Partly disagree Disagree Don’t know Increase EU Member States’ ability to ensure that all taxpayers pay their taxes, irrespective of the place where the incomes are received or assets are held X Reduce incentives for Member States to offer particularly favourable tax conditions not available to other taxpayers, thus competing for tax revenues with other Member States X Increase transparency in the tax planning of companies active in several EU Member States X EFAMA comments Public consultation on the functioning of the administrative cooperation in the field of direct taxation Page 3 of 8 In your opinion, would the same results have been achieved even without the Directive (i.e. by means of international initiatives or national interventions)?

…have been achieved even without the Directive (i.e. by means of international initiatives or national interventions)? (only one answer please) Yes, the same results would have been achieved without the Directive Most of the same results would have been achieved without the Directive Some of the results would have been achieved without the Directive, but the Directive was useful and/or instrumental to most of them X No, the Directive was essential to achieve these results Don’t know Please explain how the same results could have been achieved, and/or how the Directive was useful to achieve them. Member States could use the work of the OECD on the Common Reporting Standard, and also more specifically its Model Mandatory Disclosure Rules. In your experience, do you see any aspects in which the Directive is not in line with other laws or initiatives?

Rules. In your experience, do you see any aspects in which the Directive is not in line with other laws or initiatives? (only one answer please) Yes x No Don’t know If you replied yes to the previous question, could you please explain? EFAMA supports the European Commission's regulatory fitness and performance (REFIT) programme which aims to ensure that EU legislation delivers results for citizens and businesses effectively, efficiently and at minimum cost. According to the 2018 Annual Burden Survey “[t]he Commission is pursuing its simplification efforts by continuing the evaluation of a number of policy areas to assess the fitness for purpose of the existing legislation. It is also assessing opportunities for simplifying the existing framework or decreasing regulatory costs that can be identified.

…assessing opportunities for simplifying the existing framework or decreasing regulatory costs that can be identified. This includes evaluations in the area of: (…) administrative cooperation in the field of direct taxation.” However, with regards to DAC 6, EFAMA is of the opinion that “care needs to be taken in the implementation of the directive at a national level to avoid multiple reporting (or even over-reporting) that would trigger unnecessary compliance costs for investment fund structures. Tax authorities [would] receive a “tsunami” of information and there is a big risk that the most import information [would] drown” - please refer to our letter (attached under Section F of this consultation document).

…information [would] drown” - please refer to our letter (attached under Section F of this consultation document). EFAMA comments Public consultation on the functioning of the administrative cooperation in the field of direct taxation Page 4 of 8 To ensure consistency within the whole DAC framework, Member States could use the clarifications, definitions and exemptions of the MDR as a source of illustration and interpretation, not only for those parts of the Directive addressing CRS avoidance arrangements, but for the whole Directive. EFAMA understands that public clarification / guidance is needed on the interpretation of several concepts that embody the wide scope of DAC6 – Please refer to our comments below, under section F of this consultation document. If you wish to add other comments or remarks on the overall assessment of the Directive, please feel free to do so here.

…you wish to add other comments or remarks on the overall assessment of the Directive, please feel free to do so here. 1000 character(s) maximum EFAMA agrees with the conclusions that emerge from EC’s Report “on overview and assessment of the statistics and information on the automatic exchanges in the field of direct taxation” – COM(2018)844 final, from 17-12-2018. The quality of information exchanged must be improved and Member States should ensure that they make a better use of the data received. It is not effective to collect information if no use would be made of such information by tax authorities in the Member States. Mass reporting should be avoided and tax authorities should focus on aggressive and harmful tax planning. F) Document upload and final comments If you wish to add further information within the scope of this questionnaire, please feel free to do so here.

86 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

EFAMA | European Fund and Asset Management Association Rue Marie-Thérèse 11 | B-1000 Bruxelles | T +32 2 513 39 69 | [email protected] | www.efama.org | EU transparency register: 3373670692-24 RESPONSE Brussels, 10 February 2026 EFAMA COMMENTS ON THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE RECAST OF EU RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF TAXATION Executive Summary EFAMA supports this initiative and the Commission’s efforts to simplify EU law. DAC and other tax transparency-related measures have significantly improved cross-border tax cooperation; this should be supported. However, care needs to be taken to ensure compliance burdens imposed on taxpayers do not strain tax authorities’ resources. This is why we are calling Member States to: - Avoid insufficiently informed amendments.

…tax authorities’ resources. This is why we are calling Member States to: - Avoid insufficiently informed amendments. Such amendments risk unintended consequences and additional costs for end-investors. Rather than introducing new legislation, Member States should focus on maximising the potential of the existing legal framework. Unexpected changes may result in unjustified costs. We are already paying the price for tax integrity, and we want to help ease the DAC's administrative tasks. If it is working in practice, don’t touch it. - Follow an holistic approach and make better use of the existing tools, and make better use of the work of the OECD on the CRS and MDR. Explore synergies between tax transparency packages, administrative cooperation tools, and anti-avoidance measures (e.g.

…synergies between tax transparency packages, administrative cooperation tools, and anti-avoidance measures (e.g. better alignment between DAC2/CRS obligations, as there may already be appropriate measures that do not necessitate duplication. Alignment with the OECD on CRS and MDR would ensure coherence across these initiatives, which is crucial to effective tax governance. - Consider agreeing on soft-law initiatives (administrative guidance). There is room for improvement, and some principles and DAC rules can be clarified/harmonised at the EU level, as well as the possible work/actions that could be taken at the EU level, e.g. interpretation / post- implementation measures (e.g. common harmonised guidelines). - Fully embrace digital transformation and enhance monitoring mechanisms. Digitalisation can lead to efficiency gains, reduced compliance costs, and improved data quality.

…mechanisms. Digitalisation can lead to efficiency gains, reduced compliance costs, and improved data quality. Adequate financial, human, and IT resources are essential for successful implementation. Monitoring mechanisms can be enhanced, and tax administrations must make better use of information received through the system. By leveraging existing tools and embracing digital transformation, we can enhance tax transparency and combat aggressive tax planning effectively. - Consider launching a separate initiative to align DAC4 and DAC9. Given current discussions on the Pillar Two Side-by-Side solution and its impact on DAC9, the alignment of these new requirements should be addressed with caution. At this stage, it may be premature to have a clear picture of Member States' Pillar Two profiles. Ref.

…with caution. At this stage, it may be premature to have a clear picture of Member States' Pillar Two profiles. Ref. Ares(2026)1784446 - 17/02/2026 EFAMA’s comments on EC’s Public Consultation on the recast of EU DAC’s | Feb 2026 2 / 10 Below, EFAMA provides possible responses to some of the questions raised in the questionnaire, and we stand ready to assist, discuss the issues raised in this document, and follow up with targeted discussions with the technical teams of TAXUD and other relevant stakeholders who will work on this initiative. *** EFAMA’s comments on the European Commission’s questionnaire. Introduction The current Political Guidelines of the European Commission set out the objective of making business easier and faster in Europe by reducing administrative burdens and simplifying implementation.

…of making business easier and faster in Europe by reducing administrative burdens and simplifying implementation. Furthermore, the Commission’s long-term competitiveness Communication sets a target of reducing burdens associated with reporting requirements by 25%, and by 35% for SME’s without undermining the related policy objectives of the initiatives concerned. In this context, the Commission is working on a possible legislative proposal to recast the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC). DAC governs the cooperation and exchange of direct tax information between tax authorities in the EU. It aims to ensure efficient and effective administrative cooperation between the tax authorities of Member States, to combat tax fraud, evasion and avoidance while protecting tax fairness. DAC has been subject to several amendments in recent years.

…fraud, evasion and avoidance while protecting tax fairness. DAC has been subject to several amendments in recent years. To date, there have been eight amendments to the original DAC1, with the most recent update in 2025; DAC9. The various iterations of DAC have responded to the challenges presented by the increasingly digitalised economy and the associated risks of tax planning and avoidance.

…challenges presented by the increasingly digitalised economy and the associated risks of tax planning and avoidance. More specifically: • DAC1 laid the foundations for current cooperation between tax authorities in the European Union and introduced Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) for certain categories of income and capital received by residents of other Member States; it also reinforced or introduced other forms of administrative cooperation among tax authorities; • DAC2 extended the scope of AEOI to certain financial assets held by non-residents and income accruing from such assets; • DAC3 introduced the AEOI of advance cross-border rulings and pricing arrangements (ATR/APA); • DAC4 introduced the AEOI of Country-By-Country Reports (CBCR) for multinational enterprises (MNEs); • DAC5 provides tax authorities with access to beneficial ownership information collected under…

…services providers; and • DAC9 introduced standard forms for reporting requirements under the Pillar 2 directive. While the DAC has been subject to several amendments over time, there is no current consolidated legal text of the Directive. In this light, it is necessary to bring together, in one single legal text, the DAC and its eight legislative amendments. This will simplify readability and clarity for all relevant stakeholders. A recent Evaluation of the DAC has highlighted the need to simplify the reporting obligations for stakeholders with a view to eliminating possible overlaps, inconsistencies or inefficient reporting, in a manner that reduces the administrative burden. This has been further supported by stakeholders consulted in the context of the overall simplification exercise undertaken by the European Commission.

…by stakeholders consulted in the context of the overall simplification exercise undertaken by the European Commission. For more information regarding the outcome of the DAC Evaluation and lessons learned therein, please consult the dedicated page. EFAMA’s comments on EC’s Public Consultation on the recast of EU DAC’s | Feb 2026 3 / 10 DAC general The DAC prescribes the standardised IT reporting format (schema) for exchange of information between Member States’ tax authorities. This is applied in a harmonised manner across the EU. However, there is no harmonisation of the domestic reporting format that the relevant tax authorities of the Member States require for reporting by the business of DAC information.

…format that the relevant tax authorities of the Member States require for reporting by the business of DAC information. Some Member States use the schema prescribed in DAC with little or no modifications while some Member States develop their own national reporting schemas, which can create an additional burden for business, especially those that report in several Member States. Question 1: Would you be in favour of making the schema used for the exchange of information between Member States’ tax authorities also mandatory for the reporting of information by reporting entities to tax authorities, in all Member States? Yes No No opinion EFAMA’s comments Some Member States already developed their own schemas and, in practice, reporting entities may have to deal with different schemas to report on domestic and cross-border information.

…reporting entities may have to deal with different schemas to report on domestic and cross-border information. TAXUD aims to amend the existing reporting model and create a single reporting model to reduce the additional burden imposed on businesses, especially when reporting impacts activities across several Member States. TAXUD is looking into the longstanding costs and assessing how the reporting procedures can be centralised. One challenge this exercise poses is estimating the cost savings the amendments could bring. The idea would not be to create a new reporting schema, but to use the one already in place under the existing implementing regulation frameworks. This would supposedly address the existing concerns with fragmentation, as businesses have to report in several Member States where the data points are not aligned, as a single reporting form is not available.

43 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

EFAMA | European Fund and Asset Management Association Rue Marie-Thérèse 11 | B-1000 Bruxelles | T +32 2 513 39 69 | [email protected] | www.efama.org | EU transparency register: 3373670692-24 Brussels, 3 April 2023 EFAMA STATEMENT ON THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S ViDA PROPOSAL VAT IN THE DIGITAL AGE (ViDA) Following up on the comments delivered during the public consultation EFAMA welcomes the ViDA proposal released in December 2022 and is re-engaging to deliver the following remarks. After reviewing the information made available by TAXUD (e.g. proposal, impact assessment, a summary of impact assessment and a factual summary report of the public consultation) EFAMA’s members' concerns are limited to the Digital Reporting Requirements (DRRs) (e.g. electronic invoices) that will be introduced.

…concerns are limited to the Digital Reporting Requirements (DRRs) (e.g. electronic invoices) that will be introduced. One of the aims of this DRR element of the proposal is to fight tax fraud (which can be hard to happen in transactions that are VAT exempt). We understand that the exemption to issue invoices for exempt supplies will remain available and these rules will not be impacted by the ViDA proposal. The modernisation and simplification of the VAT reporting obligations are to be welcomed by the concerned businesses, such as the investment management sector, but also by tax authorities that, otherwise would have to start handling a huge volume of data that most likely and ultimately would be useless because exempt services are not a source a VAT fraud. We welcome the consistency of the proposal and the fact that VAT-exempt services will not be covered by the new DDR.

We welcome the consistency of the proposal and the fact that VAT-exempt services will not be covered by the new DDR. Hopefully, the requirements that already apply will not be changed by the ViDA proposal. With this solution, the proposal should allow tax authorities to focus on the real risk of tax fraud cases and should not create new burdensome procedures/compliance obligations that would represent new costs that in the end would be imposed on clients/consumers (e.g. end investors) for no reason.

…would represent new costs that in the end would be imposed on clients/consumers (e.g. end investors) for no reason. At first glance, this important proposal might not have a major impact on our industry that would continue to benefit from the exemption to issue invoices for exempt services of article 220.2 of the VAT Directive1, which we understand is not affected by the ViDA proposal and that must be kept – otherwise, its suppression would imply an additional administrative burden that would be useless due to the absence of VAT fraud in case of exempt services.

…an additional administrative burden that would be useless due to the absence of VAT fraud in case of exempt services. Notwithstanding, as some actors in the investment management sector may perform VAT-taxable services (few) – and they may have to deal with the new DDR rules – we take the opportunity to raise our voice and share the following specific comments on the proposal: 1 Council Directive 2006/112/EC, of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax. Response to Public Consultation Ref. Ares(2023)2399380 - 03/04/2023 2 / 2 - Article 222 – The two-day delay to issue and report invoices is extremely short, will lead to many practical difficulties and impose huge investments and will be detrimental to the qualify of the reported information. In this respect, we note that other reporting aimed at fighting against VAT fraud (e.g.

…of the reported information. In this respect, we note that other reporting aimed at fighting against VAT fraud (e.g. DAC7 or Central Electronic System of Payment information (CESOP)) foresee a much longer delay. - Article 223 (to be deleted) – Summary invoices must be maintained because they are an extremely useful tool in case of long-term relationships which is typically the case in the investment management industry. The fact that summary invoices are used in the case of long-term relationships indicates that the risk of fraud in these cases is limited. - Article 232 (to be deleted) – It is proposed that the authorisation of the customer to accept electronic invoices should be removed as from 1st January [2024 – deadline that Member States will have to adopt, publish and apply the ViDA proposal provisions].

…1st January [2024 – deadline that Member States will have to adopt, publish and apply the ViDA proposal provisions]. This would require that all Member States unanimously agree with this proposal and the issuance of national guidance will be required. Suppliers and customers will need to update their systems and controls to send and receive invoices electronically. Consequently, with these challenges in mind, Member States should consider the introduction of an additional delay of one year and remove the authorisation of the recipient rule only as of 1st January [2025]. The transposition deadlines of the ViDA proposal will be challenging both for Member States and for businesses that should be allowed sufficient time to implement the new rules.

…both for Member States and for businesses that should be allowed sufficient time to implement the new rules. We understand that these concerns will be examined in more detail by other affected and/or specialized stakeholders (namely business and tax authorities representatives that will be requested to implement the new rules from an IT perspective). These comments are being shared with the Commission and with all Fiscal Attachés/Ministers of Finance of the 27 EU Member States. EFAMA stands ready to assist and discuss the issues raised in this document with the technical teams of the relevant stakeholders that will work in the upcoming negotiations of this proposal. ABOUT EFAMA EFAMA is the voice of the European investment management industry, which manages over EUR 30 trillion of assets on behalf of its clients in Europe and around the world.

…industry, which manages over EUR 30 trillion of assets on behalf of its clients in Europe and around the world. We advocate for a regulatory environment that supports our industry’s crucial role in steering capital towards investments for a sustainable future and providing long-term value for investors. Besides fostering a Capital Markets Union, consumer empowerment and sustainable finance in Europe, we also support open and well-functioning global capital markets and engage with international standard setters and relevant third-country authorities. EFAMA is a primary source of industry statistical data and issues regular publications, including Market Insights and the authoritative EFAMA Fact Book. More information is available at www.efama.org. Follow us on Twitter @EFAMANews or LinkedIn @EFAMA.

EFAMA Fact Book. More information is available at www.efama.org. Follow us on Twitter @EFAMANews or LinkedIn @EFAMA. Contacts: António Frade Correia Senior Tax Advisor [email protected] | +32 2 513 39 69

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗