Confédération Fiscale Européenne

…1 Opinion Statement PAC 1/2026 on the EU Consultation on the Recast of the EU legislation on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC) Issued by CFE Tax Advisers Europe Submitted to the EU Institutions on 10 February 2026 CFE Tax Advisers Europe is the European association of tax institutes and associations of tax advisers. Founded in 1959, CFE brings together 33 national tax institutes, associations and tax advisers’ chambers from 24 European countries. CFE was the initiator of the Global Tax Advisers Platform through which it is associated with more than 600,000 tax advisers worldwide. CFE is part of the EU Transparency Register no. 3543183647‐05. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding our Opinion Statement. For further information, please contact Eduardo Gracia Espinar, Chairman of the CFE Professional Affairs Committee or Dr Aleksandar…

Tax Advisers Europe please visit our web page http://www.taxadviserseurope.org/ Ref. Ares(2026)1784383 - 17/02/2026 2 1. General Remarks CFE Tax Advisers Europe (CFE) welcomes the European Commission’s initiative to recast the Directive on Administrative Cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC) and the associated Call for Evidence and public consultation questionnaire. 1 CFE broadly supports the Commission’s objective of simplifying the DAC framework, reducing unnecessary administrative burden for intermediaries, and improving the overall functioning and effectiveness of administrative cooperation within the EU. The recast and consolidation of DAC1–DAC9 into a single legislative instrument is a necessary and timely step. The current fragmentation of the legal framework, resulting from multiple successive amendments, has materially reduced legal clarity, increased compliance costs, and…

…consultation questionnaire. They are intended to provide practical input to support the impact assessment process. 2. General Simplification Priorities (IT format-related) CFE notes that the DAC prescribes a harmonised IT schema for exchange of information between Member States’ tax authorities, while domestic reporting formats for businesses may remain different. CFE acknowledges that IT-related questions in the consultation are primarily of IT character and that reliable cost estimates are difficult to provide. Nevertheless, CFE supports convergence of reporting formats where feasible, provided this does not result in additional cost for reporting entities and it is not detrimental to the protection of private data of the taxpayers. 1 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,…

…in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC; OJ L 64, 11.3.2011, with subsequent amendments. 3 3. DAC4 and DAC9: Alignment and Centralised Reporting CFE strongly supports the alignment and effective merger of DAC4 (country-by-country reporting) and DAC9 (Pillar Two reporting). The two regimes are substantively aligned and currently generate unnecessary duplication, including overlapping notifications and reporting schemas. Merging the DAC4 and DAC9 reporting schemas will eliminate overlaps and prevent double reporting. Similarly, CFE would welcome the introduction of a centralised reporting approach, whereby a head/parent company acts as the notifying and reporting entity within each jurisdiction, on behalf of the group entities. Finally, replacing annual notifications with a notification-of-changes-only approach, significantly reducing the compliance burden. These…

…administrative complexity while preserving the policy objectives of transparency and effective information exchange. 4. DAC6 Amendments Reporting Deadline DAC6 currently requires potentially reportable cross-border arrangements to be disclosed within 30 days. Based on practitioner experience, CFE strongly supports extending this deadline to 90 days, as foreseen as an option in the consultation questionnaire. A longer deadline would: • better reflect the complexity of DAC6 assessments; • reduce compliance errors; and • alleviate disproportionate administrative pressure on taxpayers and intermediaries. Cost of DAC6 compliance CFE members report that DAC6 compliance generates significant costs.

…and intermediaries. Cost of DAC6 compliance CFE members report that DAC6 compliance generates significant costs. For intermediaries, particularly lawyers, the average cost of preparing and filing a DAC6 report is estimated at approximately EUR 5000 per report, covering legal analysis, hallmark assessment, and reporting obligations. These costs are incurred on a per-report basis and may multiply where a single 4 taxpayer generates multiple reportable arrangements. While costs vary by jurisdiction, the overall burden is widely considered high and disproportionate relative to the practical utility of many reports. Hallmarks and the Main Benefit Test CFE agrees with the Commission’s evaluation that the Main Benefit Test (MBT) and hallmarks A1, A2 and A3 create significant administrative burden and are applied inconsistently across Member States.

…hallmarks A1, A2 and A3 create significant administrative burden and are applied inconsistently across Member States. Based on member experience: • Hallmarks B1 and E2 are generally clear and workable. • Hallmarks B2, C1(a), C1(b), C1(c), C2, D1 and D2 are unclear, extremely difficult, or in some cases practically impossible to apply due to lack of access to relevant information (notably recipient tax status or ownership transparency). • Hallmarks D1 and D2 are particularly problematic, as they effectively require intermediaries or taxpayers to assume circumvention of CRS or non-transparent ownership structures, which may also be problematic from a legal point of view. CFE recommends a targeted reassessment of these hallmarks to ensure they are objective, proportionate and enforceable.

CFE recommends a targeted reassessment of these hallmarks to ensure they are objective, proportionate and enforceable. A periodic assessment of the hallmarks (for instance, every 5 years) to determine which ones should remain, which ones should be dropped and whether any new ones should be added to the list is encouraged by CFE. In-house Lawyers and Structural Asymmetry Under current EU case law, in-house lawyers remain excluded from EU-law legal professional privilege, despite the increasing professionalisation of in-house legal and tax functions. This creates a structural asymmetry whereby identical legal advice is privileged when provided externally but not when provided internally. 5 CFE acknowledges that revisiting the established earlier CJEU case law lies primarily with the CJEU.

…internally. 5 CFE acknowledges that revisiting the established earlier CJEU case law lies primarily with the CJEU. Nevertheless, the DAC recast should at least recognise this asymmetry and ensure that reporting obligations do not indirectly penalise robust internal compliance and governance structures. DAC6 Reporting Obligation: Role of Intermediaries and Taxpayers Article 8ab(9) currently requires all intermediaries involved in a reportable arrangement to report, resulting in duplicative reporting and legal uncertainty. Where intermediaries are exempt due to legal professional privilege, the reporting obligation shifts to the taxpayer. CFE considers this structure inefficient and misaligned with both simplification objectives and the realities of legal professional privilege. CFE recommends the introduction of a taxpayer-only reporting obligation under DAC6.

…of legal professional privilege. CFE recommends the introduction of a taxpayer-only reporting obligation under DAC6. Taxpayers are the ultimate beneficiaries of tax advice and legal professional privilege and the principal stakeholders in the arrangements concerned. A taxpayer-only reporting model: • eliminates duplicative intermediary reporting; • aligns with legal professional privilege across Member States; • creates a level playing field within the internal market; and • supports the Commission’s objective of reducing administrative burdens. Legal Professional Privilege and Protection of the Advisory Relationship CFE reiterates that legal professional privilege is a fundamental safeguard for taxpayers and a cornerstone of trust in the tax system. Recent case law has highlighted the tension between DAC obligations and confidentiality protections.

…in the tax system. Recent case law has highlighted the tension between DAC obligations and confidentiality protections. CFE is particularly concerned that allowing tax authorities to bypass privileged advisers and obtain equivalent information directly from taxpayers risks undermining the substance of privilege in practice, in areas which are not covered by mandatory reporting (i.e. requests for due diligence reports, or the advice provided by a lawyer to a taxpayer in the course of a tax inspection of the latter). 6 CFE recommends the DAC recast explicitly recognises the need to protect the confidential advisory relationship and require a meaningful proportionality assessment where information requests risk indirectly neutralising legal professional privilege.

…proportionality assessment where information requests risk indirectly neutralising legal professional privilege. 5. Streamlining and Governance Improvements Publication of Consolidated DAC Texts CFE recommends that, whenever the DAC is amended, the Commission should simultaneously publish an updated, consolidated and officially endorsed recast version of the directive. Current practice, whereby unofficial consolidated texts are published with significant delays, undermines legal certainty and accessibility. Codification of Taxpayer Rights CJEU case law has progressively recognised taxpayer rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the context of administrative cooperation and information exchange. CFE recommends codifying these established principles directly in the DAC recast to provide statutory clarity and balance the increasing compliance obligations imposed on taxpayers.

13 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

…1 Opinion Statement PAC 1/2026 on the EU Consultation on the Recast of the EU legislation on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC) Issued by CFE Tax Advisers Europe Submitted to the EU Institutions on 10 February 2026 CFE Tax Advisers Europe is the European association of tax institutes and associations of tax advisers. Founded in 1959, CFE brings together 33 national tax institutes, associations and tax advisers’ chambers from 24 European countries. CFE was the initiator of the Global Tax Advisers Platform through which it is associated with more than 600,000 tax advisers worldwide. CFE is part of the EU Transparency Register no. 3543183647‐05. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding our Opinion Statement. For further information, please contact Eduardo Gracia Espinar, Chairman of the CFE Professional Affairs Committee or Dr Aleksandar…

Tax Advisers Europe please visit our web page http://www.taxadviserseurope.org/ Ref. Ares(2026)1452524 - 09/02/2026 2 1. General Remarks CFE Tax Advisers Europe (CFE) welcomes the European Commission’s initiative to recast the Directive on Administrative Cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC) and the associated Call for Evidence and public consultation questionnaire. 1 CFE broadly supports the Commission’s objective of simplifying the DAC framework, reducing unnecessary administrative burden for intermediaries, and improving the overall functioning and effectiveness of administrative cooperation within the EU. The recast and consolidation of DAC1–DAC9 into a single legislative instrument is a necessary and timely step. The current fragmentation of the legal framework, resulting from multiple successive amendments, has materially reduced legal clarity, increased compliance costs, and…

…consultation questionnaire. They are intended to provide practical input to support the impact assessment process. 2. General Simplification Priorities (IT format-related) CFE notes that the DAC prescribes a harmonised IT schema for exchange of information between Member States’ tax authorities, while domestic reporting formats for businesses may remain different. CFE acknowledges that IT-related questions in the consultation are primarily of IT character and that reliable cost estimates are difficult to provide. Nevertheless, CFE supports convergence of reporting formats where feasible, provided this does not result in additional cost for reporting entities and it is not detrimental to the protection of private data of the taxpayers. 1 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,…

…in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC; OJ L 64, 11.3.2011, with subsequent amendments. 3 3. DAC4 and DAC9: Alignment and Centralised Reporting CFE strongly supports the alignment and effective merger of DAC4 (country-by-country reporting) and DAC9 (Pillar Two reporting). The two regimes are substantively aligned and currently generate unnecessary duplication, including overlapping notifications and reporting schemas. Merging the DAC4 and DAC9 reporting schemas will eliminate overlaps and prevent double reporting. Similarly, CFE would welcome the introduction of a centralised reporting approach, whereby a head/parent company acts as the notifying and reporting entity within each jurisdiction, on behalf of the group entities. Finally, replacing annual notifications with a notification-of-changes-only approach, significantly reducing the compliance burden. These…

…administrative complexity while preserving the policy objectives of transparency and effective information exchange. 4. DAC6 Amendments Reporting Deadline DAC6 currently requires potentially reportable cross-border arrangements to be disclosed within 30 days. Based on practitioner experience, CFE strongly supports extending this deadline to 90 days, as foreseen as an option in the consultation questionnaire. A longer deadline would: • better reflect the complexity of DAC6 assessments; • reduce compliance errors; and • alleviate disproportionate administrative pressure on taxpayers and intermediaries. Cost of DAC6 compliance CFE members report that DAC6 compliance generates significant costs.

…and intermediaries. Cost of DAC6 compliance CFE members report that DAC6 compliance generates significant costs. For intermediaries, particularly lawyers, the average cost of preparing and filing a DAC6 report is estimated at approximately EUR 5000 per report, covering legal analysis, hallmark assessment, and reporting obligations. These costs are incurred on a per-report basis and may multiply where a single 4 taxpayer generates multiple reportable arrangements. While costs vary by jurisdiction, the overall burden is widely considered high and disproportionate relative to the practical utility of many reports. Hallmarks and the Main Benefit Test CFE agrees with the Commission’s evaluation that the Main Benefit Test (MBT) and hallmarks A1, A2 and A3 create significant administrative burden and are applied inconsistently across Member States.

…hallmarks A1, A2 and A3 create significant administrative burden and are applied inconsistently across Member States. Based on member experience: • Hallmarks B1 and E2 are generally clear and workable. • Hallmarks B2, C1(a), C1(b), C1(c), C2, D1 and D2 are unclear, extremely difficult, or in some cases practically impossible to apply due to lack of access to relevant information (notably recipient tax status or ownership transparency). • Hallmarks D1 and D2 are particularly problematic, as they effectively require intermediaries or taxpayers to assume circumvention of CRS or non-transparent ownership structures, which may also be problematic from a legal point of view. CFE recommends a targeted reassessment of these hallmarks to ensure they are objective, proportionate and enforceable.

CFE recommends a targeted reassessment of these hallmarks to ensure they are objective, proportionate and enforceable. A periodic assessment of the hallmarks (for instance, every 5 years) to determine which ones should remain, which ones should be dropped and whether any new ones should be added to the list is encouraged by CFE. In-house Lawyers and Structural Asymmetry Under current EU case law, in-house lawyers remain excluded from EU-law legal professional privilege, despite the increasing professionalisation of in-house legal and tax functions. This creates a structural asymmetry whereby identical legal advice is privileged when provided externally but not when provided internally. 5 CFE acknowledges that revisiting the established earlier CJEU case law lies primarily with the CJEU.

…internally. 5 CFE acknowledges that revisiting the established earlier CJEU case law lies primarily with the CJEU. Nevertheless, the DAC recast should at least recognise this asymmetry and ensure that reporting obligations do not indirectly penalise robust internal compliance and governance structures. DAC6 Reporting Obligation: Role of Intermediaries and Taxpayers Article 8ab(9) currently requires all intermediaries involved in a reportable arrangement to report, resulting in duplicative reporting and legal uncertainty. Where intermediaries are exempt due to legal professional privilege, the reporting obligation shifts to the taxpayer. CFE considers this structure inefficient and misaligned with both simplification objectives and the realities of legal professional privilege. CFE recommends the introduction of a taxpayer-only reporting obligation under DAC6.

…of legal professional privilege. CFE recommends the introduction of a taxpayer-only reporting obligation under DAC6. Taxpayers are the ultimate beneficiaries of tax advice and legal professional privilege and the principal stakeholders in the arrangements concerned. A taxpayer-only reporting model: • eliminates duplicative intermediary reporting; • aligns with legal professional privilege across Member States; • creates a level playing field within the internal market; and • supports the Commission’s objective of reducing administrative burdens. Legal Professional Privilege and Protection of the Advisory Relationship CFE reiterates that legal professional privilege is a fundamental safeguard for taxpayers and a cornerstone of trust in the tax system. Recent case law has highlighted the tension between DAC obligations and confidentiality protections.

…in the tax system. Recent case law has highlighted the tension between DAC obligations and confidentiality protections. CFE is particularly concerned that allowing tax authorities to bypass privileged advisers and obtain equivalent information directly from taxpayers risks undermining the substance of privilege in practice, in areas which are not covered by mandatory reporting (i.e. requests for due diligence reports, or the advice provided by a lawyer to a taxpayer in the course of a tax inspection of the latter). 6 CFE recommends the DAC recast explicitly recognises the need to protect the confidential advisory relationship and require a meaningful proportionality assessment where information requests risk indirectly neutralising legal professional privilege.

…proportionality assessment where information requests risk indirectly neutralising legal professional privilege. 5. Streamlining and Governance Improvements Publication of Consolidated DAC Texts CFE recommends that, whenever the DAC is amended, the Commission should simultaneously publish an updated, consolidated and officially endorsed recast version of the directive. Current practice, whereby unofficial consolidated texts are published with significant delays, undermines legal certainty and accessibility. Codification of Taxpayer Rights CJEU case law has progressively recognised taxpayer rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the context of administrative cooperation and information exchange. CFE recommends codifying these established principles directly in the DAC recast to provide statutory clarity and balance the increasing compliance obligations imposed on taxpayers.

13 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

…1 Opinion Statement FC 5/2024 - Evaluation of the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) – Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2017/952 of 29 May 2017 Issued by CFE Tax Advisers Europe Submitted to the EU Institutions on 11 September 2024 CFE Tax Advisers Europe is the European association of tax institutes and associations of tax advisers. Founded in 1959, CFE brings together 33 national tax institutes, associations and tax advisers’ chambers from 24 European countries. CFE was the initiator of the Global Tax Advisers Platform through which it is associated with more than 600,000 tax advisers worldwide. CFE is part of the EU Transparency Register no. 3543183647‐05. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding our Opinion Statement. For further information, please contact Bruno Gouthière, Chairman of the Fiscal…

Tax Advisers Europe please visit our web page http://www.taxadviserseurope.org/ Ref. Ares(2024)6445807 - 11/09/2024 2 1. General Remarks CFE Tax Advisers Europe is pleased to contribute to the European Commission public consultation on the evaluation of the EU’s EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (“ATAD”).1 The consultation invites comments on the general implementation of ATAD in the European Union and the functioning of ATAD, a qualitative assessment of the effectiveness of the measures as a minimum standard for addressing aggressive tax planning and on future potential modifications of the Directive. Our comments relate in particular to the interaction of ATAD with the rules introduced in the European Union with the Council Directive on a global minimum level of taxation EU 2022/2523 of 14 December 2022. (“Minimum Tax Directive”).

Council Directive on a global minimum level of taxation EU 2022/2523 of 14 December 2022. (“Minimum Tax Directive”). CFE’s comments do not relate to the Commission’s focus on quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the measures as a minimum standard for addressing aggressive tax planning, nor to aspects such as evaluation of budget revenue generated as a result of the measures or costs for the stakeholders concerned, in particular tax administrations and affected businesses, as we do not possess such evidence nor data. Furthermore, CFE notes the difficulty in assessing ATAD's effectiveness is partly due to delayed implementation in some Member states of the EU, the requirement for tax authorities to audit companies and apply ATAD provisions, and the lack of published decisions on ATAD application.

…tax authorities to audit companies and apply ATAD provisions, and the lack of published decisions on ATAD application. CFE considers the public consultation an extraordinarily important tool in reaching out to stakeholders which are addressees of certain pieces of EU law, and remarks that public consultations should be of a longer duration and avoid the holiday periods where stakeholders are typically less available to provide qualitative input. This will ensure sufficiently representative feedback to be provided to the Commission in communication with our constituent bodies. 1 European Union: Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2017/952 of 29 May 2017 3 2.

Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2017/952 of 29 May 2017 3 2. Remarks on the functioning of ATAD and assessment of its effectiveness as a standard for addressing aggressive tax planning (“ATP”) At the outset, CFE Tax Advisers Europe’s perspective has been consistent in support of the European Union efforts to tackle tax evasion, and aggressive tax avoidance.

…has been consistent in support of the European Union efforts to tackle tax evasion, and aggressive tax avoidance. To this end, we have supported the goals and objectives of the European Commission’s 2020 Action Plan for Fair and Simple Taxation as well as the Supporting the Recovery Strategy which was aimed at preventing losses to national and EU budget within the framework of globalisation, digitalisation and new business models, which “are creating new limits for tax competition and new opportunities for aggressive tax planning”.2 CFE notes ATAD has been effective in establishing EU’s anti-avoidance system and changing mentality, however its implementation has led to increased complexity and administrative burdens for businesses.

…mentality, however its implementation has led to increased complexity and administrative burdens for businesses. The EU has sought to target aggressive tax avoidance through individual-country initiatives (European Semester Reports), EU law measures, State aid and other infringement of EU law investigations and CJEU judgments, which have all contributed to a better understanding of aggressive tax avoidance and how to address it. It is also important to note that the work of policymakers to target aggressive avoidance has centred on abusive and aggressive tax avoidance.

…note that the work of policymakers to target aggressive avoidance has centred on abusive and aggressive tax avoidance. As indicated in CFE’s Paper on professional judgment in tax planning3, abusive and aggressive tax planning is distinct from both tax evasion (where a taxpayer breaks the law by, for example, not reporting income or simply not paying taxes due), and tax planning (where a taxpayer’s obligations are minimised through the non-abusive measures intended by legislation, such as use of tax deductions, tax deferral plans and tax credits). Therefore, policymakers have focused on aggressive tax planning based on arrangements that are deemed manipulated or artificial where they are without economic substance but for the essential purpose of avoiding taxation and achieving a tax benefit which would not otherwise exist.

…but for the essential purpose of avoiding taxation and achieving a tax benefit which would not otherwise exist. 2 European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. An action plan for fair and simple taxation supporting the recovery strategy, Brussels, 15.7.2020 COM(2020) 312 final. 3 CFE Tax Advisers Europe, “Professional Judgment in Tax Planning - An Ethics Quality Bar for All Tax Advisers”, Discussion Paper, June 2021.

“Professional Judgment in Tax Planning - An Ethics Quality Bar for All Tax Advisers”, Discussion Paper, June 2021. 4 In this context, we also note that per the General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) in the EU’s Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD), the main target of the policymakers is arrangements which defeat the object of applicable tax, are not genuine and are not put in place for valid commercial reasons which reflect reality.4 What remains problematic at EU level is the ongoing absence of clarity on definitions and a common European understanding of key concepts of law. Although the EU has adopted the ATAD, it is clear that definitions are not fit for purpose in defining what constitutes tax avoidance. Neither EU primary nor secondary legislation defines the notion of “tax avoidance”, primarily due to the evolution of the concept over time and geography within the EU.

…the notion of “tax avoidance”, primarily due to the evolution of the concept over time and geography within the EU. Overall, a lack of consensus among Member states on a common definition of aggressive tax avoidance has shaped the EU approach. Consequently, EU legislation operates with descriptive and explanatory language instead, as per Article 6 of the ATAD, setting out the European GAAR: “For the purposes of calculating the corporate tax liability, a Member State shall ignore an arrangement or a series of arrangements which, having been put into place for the main purpose or one of the main purposes of obtaining a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of the applicable tax law, are not genuine having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances. An arrangement may comprise more than one step or part.

…genuine having regard to all relevant facts and circumstances. An arrangement may comprise more than one step or part. For the purposes of paragraph 1, an arrangement or a series thereof shall be regarded as nongenuine to the extent that they are not put into place for valid commercial reasons which reflect economic reality.”5 Combating aggressive tax planning and preventing the risks of tax avoidance and evasion constitute objectives of general public interest recognised by the European Union for the purposes of Article 52(1) of the Charter, capable of enabling a limitation to be placed on the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as decided by the Court of Justice of the EU.6 4 The OECD has also played a major role through its guidelines by stressing the importance of compliance with “both the letter and the spirit” of the law, as well as…

24 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

TAXUD European Commission VIA: Have Your Say Portal CFE Tax Advisers Europe Avenue de Tervueren 188A B – 1150 Brussels Tel. + 32 2 761 00 92 [email protected] www.taxadviserseurope.org Brussels, 2 June 2021 Dear Sir/Madam, Re: EU Commission Consultation on Expansion of DAC to Crypto-Assets We hope this communication finds you well and take this opportunity to extend the best wishes of the CFE Executive Board and the CFE Brussels Office. CFE Tax Advisers Europe welcomes the opportunity to engage with the European Commission concerning the proposed expansion of the EU directive on administrative cooperation to including crypto-assets.

…concerning the proposed expansion of the EU directive on administrative cooperation to including crypto-assets. However, CFE are of the view that we are at an early stage in the evolution of cryptocurrencies and tokens, so early movement concerning taxation and reporting requirements may have the effect of stilting that development either by location or structure. Regulation of crypto is far wider than the tax implications and the tax systems designed to accommodate it should be followers not leaders. Additionally, one of the features of crypto exchanges is the removal of the need to use intermediaries for the purposes of security and transactional efficiency. CFE view this as a weakness as regards the use of DAC8 to place a reporting requirement upon an intermediary [or an adviser] because the intermediary may be as ignorant and blind as the Revenue administration.

…an intermediary [or an adviser] because the intermediary may be as ignorant and blind as the Revenue administration. Heavy penalties for failure placed on the intermediary would be counterproductive. CFE is of the view that all persons trading legitimately should be made aware of any compliance requirements of gains/income derived from crypto activity and this should be a joint effort by tax administrations/tax advisers and tax intermediaries. Third party information coming from crypto exchanges to revenue authorities creates a system of checks and balances into the reporting and reflects other non-digital correlation. Criminals will in all cases positively engineer non compliance which means it is the ignorant or negligent "non-criminal" and his/her advisers who could fall foul of the law.

…which means it is the ignorant or negligent "non-criminal" and his/her advisers who could fall foul of the law. Rather than move to issue DAC8 with compliance requirements which, frankly, may be unenforceable, what makes sense is to prepare the way for "crypto compliance" coupled with clear explanations of what it means. Ref. Ares(2021)3695110 - 04/06/2021 Regulation of records, exchanges and token holding would provide relevant and usable access to the data that revenue administrations are desperate to receive and which are unlikely to be attainable by DAC8 disclosure requirements alone. CFE Tax Advisers Europe is pleased to be a member of the European Commission’s Platform for Tax Good Governance, and has given further detailed input on an earlier discussion paper on the potential expansion of DAC to include crypto-assets.

…given further detailed input on an earlier discussion paper on the potential expansion of DAC to include crypto-assets. We invite you to re-read our Opinion Statement concerning the discussion paper, and remain available to discuss our views further. CFE stands ready to continue working with the European Commission on this issue. With our best regards, On behalf of the CFE Executive Board, (signed electronically) Ian Hayes Chair CFE Tax Technology Committee

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗