Subcommittee on Tax Matters Ordinary meeting
14 July 2026
Contents updated on 14 Jul 2026
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Official source
Offset
Transcript offset
0s
Text size
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
FISC European Parliament
Follow its sittings06:00 - 09:33
Speaker 1
Okay, so we will slowly start and good afternoon everyone for this last FISC meeting before the summer holidays. So we have interpretation available in twelve languages that you can see on the side of you. And you can find the meeting documents as always digitally, and the meeting is also being webstreamed on the European Parliament's website. So I think that is the logistics of the meeting. And in regards to the adoption of the draft agenda, the agenda was emailed to members on the 8th of July, and unless there are any objections, the meeting agenda is adopted.
It looks to be the case. And for today there are no chair's announcements or adoption of minutes because we didn't have a meeting since last. So we can go straight into our public hearing on the recast of the DAC. So in today's discussion we will examine the proposal by the Commission published on the 24th of June as part of the tax simplification package. And firstly I would like to welcome our guests.
For this hearing we have Mr. Philip Kerfs, who's the head of the International Cooperation for a Center for Tax Policy and Administration at OECD.
And then we have online with us Professor Dr. Nadine Riedel, who is the professor and director of the Institute for Public and Regional Economics at the University of Münster. And then we have also Dr. Miroslav Palanský, head of research for the Tax Justice Network joining us as speakers. And at the end of the of the podium, we also have the participation of Benjamin Angel, who is the director in TAXUD, who will express the views of the Commission after the three panelists' interventions and who is also available as always in FISC to answer many questions from the from the members of the subcommittee. So as you all know, the DAC recast proposal aims to simplify the EU framework for exchange of tax information by consolidating the DAC and the eight amendments into one single text. And in addition, the Commission has also proposed to change to simplify and enhance the DAC framework.
And some of these changes include some of the notable ones, the exemptions from companies who are subject to Pillar Two from the DAC6 reporting obligations, a higher threshold for sellers on online platforms to become reportable under DAC7, and also the inclusion of beneficial ownerships of real estate in the exchange of information. In today's discussion, we will we aim to analyze analyze to what extent the proposal can achieve the aim of simplification without also compromising the EU's efforts to effectively combat tax evasion and tax avoidance. And in addition, the discussion will also provide an opportunity to reflect further on possible amendments to reinforce the current framework for exchange of information. So that was the introductory remarks by myself. And now I will turn over to the the speakers.
Each of you will have seven minutes for the for the opening and introductory remarks. And afterwards, I'll give the floor to the the members, where each member will have two minutes for questions, and then there will be a possibility for replies of three minutes. So I will start by giving you, Mr. Philip Kerfs, the floor. Thank you.
09:33 - 11:55
Speaker 3
Thank you, Chair and honorable members. Thank you for inviting me as a representative of the OECD Secretariat to contribute to your discussion on the proposed recast of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation. It's a pleasure to be with you today. To start, I should probably say that as a member of the OECD Secretariat, I'm not here to take a position on any policy choices that have been made by the EU in connection with the DAC recast. I will in my presentation rather focus on how the proposal relates to the internationally agreed transparency standards and and frameworks.
And before turning into the the proposal itself, I would like to recall the close relationship that exists between the OECD's work and the Directive on Administrative Cooperation for over 15 years now. And since the adoption of the DAC in 2011, the EU has consistently incorporated internationally agreed standards and frameworks into the DAC, of course adapting them where needed to reflect the objectives of the single market and the EU legal order. There was the original directive, DAC1, which already included the international standard of exchange of information, but also other infor forms of administrative information and exchange of information. And actually with DAC1, the EU was actually the precursor when it comes to automatic exchange of information. And since then, successive amendments maintained a close alignment between the the EU developments and what the international standards.
With these amendments, they have implemented, amongst others, the Common Reporting Standard, DAC2, the exchange of information on rulings, which I think is DAC3, country-by-country reporting, DAC4, the model reporting rules for digital platforms, DAC7, the CARF, the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, DAC8, and and then more recently the automatic exchange of information that is supporting the GloBE minimum tax in DAC9.
11:55 - 13:22
Speaker 2
The directive has also drawn on OECD recommendations that were made at the time of of the BEPS actions on mandatory disclosure rules. So in other words almost every major international tax transparency initiative developed over these past 15 years has found its way into the DAC. And that close cooperation has enabled to the member states to rapidly and consistently implement these transparency initiatives but also it has allowed to contain costs implementation costs compliance costs in particular for large international active businesses because it will it has allowed them to comply with reporting obligations that are broadly aligned across jurisdictions. Against that background I would like to highlight three aspects of the recast proposal that are of particular importance to the from an OECD perspective. First we are obviously very pleased to see that this proposal continues the successful approach of maintaining close alignment with the OECD standards and frameworks including in the CRS and the CARF and the model reporting rules on digital platforms.