DAC8 Sanctions by Member State: A Comparative Overview

Penalty levels for DAC8 non-compliance vary significantly across EU Member States. This article provides a comparative overview of the approaches taken by key jurisdictions.

High-Penalty Jurisdictions

Several Member States have historically imposed substantial penalties for tax reporting violations and are expected to maintain this approach under DAC8. Germany's penalties can reach €25,000 per violation, with additional criminal sanctions for deliberate non-compliance. France imposes €200 per missing data item with minimums of €500 per report, plus additional penalties for late filing. Spain's framework includes fines of up to €20,000 per quarter for late filing and €200 per data item for incomplete reports.

Moderate-Penalty Jurisdictions

Other Member States take a more moderate approach while still ensuring meaningful enforcement. The Netherlands imposes fines of up to €5,278 per violation for negligent non-compliance. Austria applies penalties proportional to the severity and duration of the non-compliance. And Ireland uses a combination of penalties, surcharges, and potential prosecution for serious offenses.

Developing Frameworks

Some Member States, particularly newer EU members and smaller economies, are still developing their DAC8 penalty frameworks. These jurisdictions may initially adopt lighter penalties but are expected to strengthen enforcement over time as their tax authorities gain experience with crypto-asset reporting.

Cross-Border Implications

CASPs operating across multiple Member States must be aware that non-compliance in one jurisdiction may have consequences in others. Tax authorities share information about non-compliant entities, and a reputation for poor compliance in one Member State can attract increased scrutiny from others.

Conclusion

The variation in penalty levels across Member States means that CASPs must understand the specific enforcement environment in each jurisdiction where they operate. A one-size-fits-all compliance approach may leave CASPs exposed in high-penalty jurisdictions.