Association Luxembourgeoise des Fonds d'Investissement

European Commission DG for Taxation and Customs Union TAXUD Unit D2 – Direct Tax Policy & Cooperation [email protected] Luxembourg, 10 February 2026 Object: European Commission public consultation on the EU rules on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation – recast Dear Madam, Dear Sir, ALFI as the representative of the Luxembourg investment fund and asset management industry, welcomes the public consultation on the EU rules on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation – recast and is pleased to hereby provide its views in this respect. In addition to our answers to the questionnaire, below are some comments that we hope you will find useful.

…respect. In addition to our answers to the questionnaire, below are some comments that we hope you will find useful. DAC general As a matter of principle, ALFI welcomes any initiative aimed at simplifying and harmonizing, from a technical standpoint, the information exchange processes in place between member states and with other non-EU jurisdictions, both between tax authorities and between taxpayers and said tax authorities. In general, any initiative aimed at making these processes simpler and ultimately less costly can only be beneficial for all economic actors and other stakeholders. That said, ALFI urges careful consideration of the fact that any transition from existing systems, which generally function well, to new standards will entail upgrade costs that will be borne by financial sector operators, investment funds, and ultimately investors.

…will entail upgrade costs that will be borne by financial sector operators, investment funds, and ultimately investors. It is therefore important to ensure that these costs are not excessive and can be absorbed in an acceptable manner in the short to medium term. We therefore recommend conducting a specific assessment of any proposed changes. Ref. Ares(2026)1785588 - 17/02/2026 2 The above is particularly important in the context of DAC 2 / CRS reporting. For this reporting, the use of harmonized templates would be welcome. However, these templates must consider and comply with the XML schemas provided and regularly reviewed by the OECD. DAC4 / DAC9 Removing of the annual reporting requirement under DAC 4 The removal of the annual reporting requirement under DAC 4 and its replacement with a more targeted requirement would be a welcome simplification.

…requirement under DAC 4 and its replacement with a more targeted requirement would be a welcome simplification. We understand and support the rationale behind these reporting requirements in the fight against tax evasion, nevertheless, these requirements remain an administrative burden and a cost for the financial intermediaries concerned. Any simplification that does not undermine the objectives for which these reporting requirements were introduced would therefore be useful. Combining the notifications for the purposes of DAC4 and P2D In principle, combining DAC4 and P2D notifications could be a useful streamlining measure.

…the purposes of DAC4 and P2D In principle, combining DAC4 and P2D notifications could be a useful streamlining measure. However, we note that the procedures and formalities relating to P2D have only recently been issued by most Member States and, as a result, stakeholders and other interested parties may not yet be in a position to comment on the benefits and usefulness of combining these two notifications. Merging the two reporting schemas under DAC4 and DAC9 As with notification, merging DAC4 and P2D reports could, in principle, be a useful streamlining measure. However, before changing processes that work well and introducing new ones that will deliver long-term savings, it is important to bear in mind that any change will involve new deployment costs and time for business analysis.

…it is important to bear in mind that any change will involve new deployment costs and time for business analysis. We therefore recommend that a specific assessment be carried out for any proposed changes in this regard as well. DAC 6 Longer deadlines to report an arrangement The current reporting deadline is extremely short and ALFI strongly supports extending this deadline to 90 days or more.

…current reporting deadline is extremely short and ALFI strongly supports extending this deadline to 90 days or more. In that context, in order to introduce further streamlining, it would also be relevant to consider: − extending the deadline for the notification to other intermediaries (to 45 days or even longer) to allow sufficient time for other intermediaries /taxpayers to report within the applicable deadline; and 3 − revising the starting point of the notification/reporting period from the date on which “the reportable cross-border arrangement is ready to be implemented” to the date on which the reportable cross-border arrangement is actually implemented in practice. This is due to the fact that the start date of the reporting period may sometimes occur before the intermediary is even aware of the reporting obligation.

…date of the reporting period may sometimes occur before the intermediary is even aware of the reporting obligation. This would avoid the reporting of cross-border arrangements that have never been implemented in practice, thereby also ensuring that tax authorities only receive relevant information. We would also like to emphasize that compliance with DAC 6 is much more complex than simple reporting/notification. Intermediaries (and taxpayers in some cases) must review each cross-border arrangement, maintain assessment records, and ensure internal coordination by intermediaries subject to reporting obligations. This complexity makes DAC 6 an extremely costly measure, with often very high penalties for non-compliance.

This complexity makes DAC 6 an extremely costly measure, with often very high penalties for non-compliance. It should therefore be assessed whether the benefits actually outweigh the costs of operating the system at all levels, for taxpayers, intermediaries, tax authorities, and the EU. Outcome of the DAC evaluation on the Main benefit test (MBT) and the connected hallmarks A1, A2 and A3 We do agree that hallmarks A are difficult to apply and create significant administrative burden due to their inherent complexity and divergent interpretations across Member States. However, we also believe that this can hold true for most of all other hallmarks as well, as they are formulated in broad terms and leave ample room for interpretation by intermediaries, taxpayers, tax authorities and across Member States.

…terms and leave ample room for interpretation by intermediaries, taxpayers, tax authorities and across Member States. When it comes to Hallmarks A (and those to which the main benefit test also applies), the MBT acts as a filter and prevents mass reporting of arrangements that are not harmful. For example, in the investment fund sector, many documents are “standardized” in the sense that they must comply with strict regulatory requirements that ensure appropriate information is provided to investors, particularly retail investors. Without the MBT, what is designed as an investor protection measure would end up being classified as a potentially harmful cross- border arrangement.

…an investor protection measure would end up being classified as a potentially harmful cross- border arrangement. ALFI believes that, more than the hallmarks, the complexity of DAC 6 stems from how it works and the allocation of roles to intermediaries and taxpayers, which cause confusion as to what is expected of the various actors in the process. In addition, compared to other DACs, such as DAC 2 which is mainly data driven and for which the information to be reported is clearly identified/identifiable, under DAC 6, the information to be reported leaves much to the judgment and interpretation of stakeholders who are often not tax experts. 4 Issues with application of any other hallmarks As mentioned above, in our view, the hallmarks are worded in general terms that allow for interpretation and that Member States do not interpret them in a consistent and harmonized manner.

…terms that allow for interpretation and that Member States do not interpret them in a consistent and harmonized manner. This has led, particularly in order to avoid often significant penalties, to the reporting of genuine arrangements that did not constitute aggressive tax planning and were not even motivated by tax considerations, and which DAC 6 was therefore not intended to cover. As an example, the liquidation of entities that, in practice, results in a transfer of assets, very often falls within the scope of Hallmark E3.

15 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

European Commission Directorate General taxation and customs union Luxembourg, 30 March 2023 Object: Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC 8) Dear Madam, Dear Sir, The Association of the Luxembourg Fund Industry (ALFI) is the representative body of the Luxembourg investment fund community and counts among its members not only investment funds, asset management firms but also a large variety of service providers of the financial sector.

…only investment funds, asset management firms but also a large variety of service providers of the financial sector. ALFI supports the need to improve the existing framework for exchange of information and administrative cooperation in the European Union (EU) in relation to crypto-assets and ALFI appreciates the opportunity to provide its views on the proposed Council Directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (“DAC 8" or the "draft Directive") and is pleased to share its comments herewith. ALFI notes that the draft Directive should be seen in the wider context of the OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) and as an extension of the scope of the Common Reporting Standard (CRS), as introduced in EU legislation through the DAC 21, that is reflecting the latest additions to the CRS that have been agreed at OECD level.

…legislation through the DAC 21, that is reflecting the latest additions to the CRS that have been agreed at OECD level. 1 Council Directive 2014/107/EU of 9 December 2014 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation. Ref. Ares(2023)2318459 - 30/03/2023 2 ALFI has analysed the DAC 8 text with a view to assessing its impact on investment funds. For the purposes of this analysis, ALFI has identified two main situations in which investment funds could deal with crypto- assets: investment funds can either invest in crypto-assets or their units or shares can be tokenised and become crypto-assets. These situations are discussed below. 1.

…or their units or shares can be tokenised and become crypto-assets. These situations are discussed below. 1. Investments of funds in crypto-assets ALFI notes that an investment fund investing in crypto-assets is in principle in a similar position towards crypto-assets than towards any other type of assets it would have invested in. Accordingly, and as it is currently the case for any other asset held by an investment fund, crypto-assets are included in the reporting under DAC 2/CRS. However, investing in crypto-assets does not trigger any direct DAC 2/CRS reporting. ALFI understands that in this situation, an investment fund would qualify as a Reportable Crypto-Asset User as defined in Annex IV, Section IV, point D., 2.

…an investment fund would qualify as a Reportable Crypto-Asset User as defined in Annex IV, Section IV, point D., 2. of DAC 8 as far as it is an Entity “that is a customer of a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers for purposes of carrying out Reportable Transactions.” DAC 8 defines Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASP) by reference to the definition provided by the draft EU regulation on MiCA as “any person whose occupation or business is the provision of one or more crypto- asset services to third parties on a professional basis”. 2 Crypto-asset services as defined in MiCA are more market-making type activities3 that are not typical investment fund activities.

…services as defined in MiCA are more market-making type activities3 that are not typical investment fund activities. The understanding of ALFI seems to be supported by the CARF that analyses the situation of investment funds investing in crypto-assets as follows: “A service effectuating Exchange Transactions includes any service through which the customer can receive Relevant Crypto-Assets for Fiat Currencies, or vice versa, or exchange Relevant Crypto-Assets for other Relevant Crypto-Assets. The activities of an investment fund investing in Relevant Crypto-Assets do not constitute a service effectuating Exchange Transactions since such activities do not permit the investors in the fund to effectuate Exchange Transactions.”4 (emphasis added).

…since such activities do not permit the investors in the fund to effectuate Exchange Transactions.”4 (emphasis added). ALFI calls for a clarification of the treatment of investment funds under the draft Directive in order to ensure that no reporting is due by investment funds investing in crypto-assets under DAC 8. In that context, ALFI believes it would be useful to confirm in the DAC 8 that the CARF may be used as a relevant source of interpretation in order to ensure the DAC 8 reporting requirements are applied consistently with the broader international reporting framework. 2EU regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) - Compromise text published on 5 October 2022 - Article 3, point (1), (8).

Council on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) - Compromise text published on 5 October 2022 - Article 3, point (1), (8). 3 MiCA - Article 3, point (1), (9): “crypto-asset service’ means any of the services and activities listed below relating to any crypto-asset: (a) the custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of third parties; (b) the operation of a trading platform for crypto-assets; (c) the exchange of crypto-assets for funds; (d) the exchange of crypto-assets for other crypto-assets; (e) the execution of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of third parties; (f) placing of crypto-assets; (fa) providing transfer services for crypto-assets on behalf of third parties; (g) the reception and transmission of orders for crypto-assets on behalf of third parties; (h) providing advice on crypto-assets; (hb) providing portfolio management on crypto-assets;”. 4 Para.

…third parties; (h) providing advice on crypto-assets; (hb) providing portfolio management on crypto-assets;”. 4 Para. 23 on page 50 of the OECD CARF. 3 In addition, and generally speaking, in order to ensure clarity and legal certainty in the application of the DAC 8, ALFI recommends that where the DAC 8 refers to MiCA, sufficient guidance that possibly includes objective criteria and practical examples is provided. As an example, it would be helpful to introduce a definition of a “Crypto-Asset Operator” in Section IV, (B), (2) of Annex VI that would be adequately detailed in line with the indications provided in the Explanatory Memorandum of the DAC 8.5 2. Fund units or shares are tokenised Although this situation is not yet a widespread market practice, the practice of tokenising fund units is expected to become more common in the future.

…a widespread market practice, the practice of tokenising fund units is expected to become more common in the future. ALFI has identified two possible situations that are outlined below. • Units or shares of the fund may only be subscribed or redeemed through the fund or its appointed intermediaries This corresponds to the current situation also for fund units or shares that are not tokenised. ALFI understands that, in this case, under the current CRS rules, investment funds or other Reporting Financial Institutions, as the case may be, will have the obligation to report all relevant information on the fund units or shares in accordance with the current DAC 2/CRS.

…the obligation to report all relevant information on the fund units or shares in accordance with the current DAC 2/CRS. With the introduction of the DAC 8 rules, it is the understanding of ALFI that a Luxembourg investment fund, and more generally an investment fund established in the EU, would not be considered as a CASP under DAC 8 as it would not fit in the definition of CASP as per MiCA. However, tokenised units or shares would qualify as Reportable Crypto-Assets within the meaning of the DAC 86 7 and any transaction on them would qualify as a Reportable Transaction according to DAC 8 i.e.

…meaning of the DAC 86 7 and any transaction on them would qualify as a Reportable Transaction according to DAC 8 i.e. “(a) any Exchange Transaction and (b) Transfer of Reportable Crypto-Assets”.8 In a context where a transfer agent that provides services of custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of third parties would be involved, it would be important to understand whether the current reporting obligation under DAC 2/CRS would either remain unchanged, be extended or merely be superseded by the reporting obligations under DAC 8. 5 Explanatory memorandum of DAC 8 – Page 11: “A crypto-asset operator means any natural person, legal person or undertaking whose occupation or business is the provision of one or more crypto-asset services to third parties on a professional basis but who is not covered by the scope of Regulation XXX”. 6 Article 3, point 1.

16 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

European Commission DG for Taxation and Customs Union Digital delivery of Customs and Taxation Policies (TAXUD.B.4) Indirect Taxation and Tax Administration (TAXUD. C.4, C.1) Direct taxation, Tax Coordination, Economic Analysis and Evaluation (TAXUD. D.2, D.3, D.4) International and General Affairs (TAXUD. E.2) Luxembourg, 2 June 2021 Object: European Commission public consultation on stronger EU tax cooperation through crypto-assets, e-money and tailored compliance measures Dear Madam, Dear Sir, ALFI has welcomed the publication of the public consultation on stronger EU tax cooperation through crypto-assets, e-money and tailored compliance measures and is pleased to hereby provide its views in this respect. The ALFI response reflects the views of its members being almost exclusively the views of investment funds investing in crypto-assets and e-moneys.

…views of its members being almost exclusively the views of investment funds investing in crypto-assets and e-moneys. As of today, the number of crypto assets initiatives from an asset servicing perspective as well as from an asset management perspective is still quite limited. The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in Crypto- assets, and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 (MiCA) that is part of the digital finance package for a competitive EU financial sector and is expected for 2022 will provide a clear framework and will be a catalyst for more investments in crypto-asset including for the investment fund and asset management industry. The development of investments in crypto-assets and e-moneys is an innovation that should rely on a level playing field also from a tax perspective.

…in crypto-assets and e-moneys is an innovation that should rely on a level playing field also from a tax perspective. We are grateful in advance for your attention and remain at your disposal for any additional information you may wish to receive. Sincerely yours, ALFI Ref. Ares(2021)3695118 - 04/06/2021

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗