DAC8 and MiCA: How the Two EU Frameworks Interact

DAC8 and MiCA are the twin pillars of the EU's regulatory approach to crypto-assets. While MiCA focuses on market conduct, consumer protection, and prudential requirements, DAC8 addresses tax transparency. Understanding how these two frameworks interact is essential for CASPs navigating EU compliance.

Shared Foundations

DAC8 and MiCA share several foundational elements. Both frameworks use the same definition of crypto-assets, ensuring consistency in scope. Both identify CASPs as the primary regulated entities. Both were developed as part of the EU's broader Digital Finance Package. And both require CASPs to collect and verify customer identity information, though for different purposes — MiCA for AML/consumer protection and DAC8 for tax reporting.

This shared DNA means that compliance with one framework provides a significant head start on the other. CASPs that have invested in MiCA compliance infrastructure — particularly KYC processes, data collection systems, and governance frameworks — can leverage much of this investment for DAC8.

Key Differences

Despite their shared foundations, DAC8 and MiCA serve different objectives and impose different obligations. MiCA is a regulation (directly applicable in all Member States), while DAC8 is a directive (requiring national transposition, with potential variations). MiCA focuses on how CASPs operate, while DAC8 focuses on what CASPs report. MiCA's enforcement lies with national financial supervisory authorities, while DAC8's enforcement lies with national tax authorities. MiCA has no equivalent of DAC8's annual XML reporting requirement.

Practical Overlaps

Several areas of practical overlap create opportunities for compliance efficiency. Customer due diligence data collected for MiCA's KYC requirements substantially overlaps with DAC8's identification requirements. Transaction monitoring systems built for MiCA's market abuse detection can be extended to capture DAC8's reportable transaction categories. Record-keeping obligations under both frameworks can be consolidated. And governance structures established for MiCA compliance can be expanded to cover DAC8 oversight.

Timeline Coordination

The overlapping timelines of MiCA and DAC8 create both challenges and opportunities. MiCA's transitional provisions allow existing CASPs to continue operating while seeking full authorization. DAC8's obligations begin on January 1, 2026, regardless of a CASP's MiCA authorization status. CASPs must prepare for both frameworks simultaneously, which requires coordinated project planning and resource allocation.

Supervisory Implications

CASPs should expect coordination between their MiCA supervisor (the national financial authority) and their DAC8 overseer (the national tax authority). Non-compliance with DAC8 could affect a CASP's standing with its MiCA supervisor, and vice versa. Building a compliance framework that satisfies both sets of requirements from the outset is more efficient than addressing them separately.

Conclusion

DAC8 and MiCA are complementary frameworks that CASPs must implement in parallel. Leveraging the synergies between them — particularly in customer due diligence, data collection, and governance — is the most efficient approach to dual compliance.