Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Report on the implementation of the Fiscalis programme (1998-2002)
Date: 2003-11-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European tax cooperation, administrative formalities, computer network, database, exchange of information, project evaluation, report, systems interconnection, tax system

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 12.11.2003
COM(2003)678 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
THE COUNCIL

Report on the implementation of the Fiscalis programme (1998-2002)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL Report on the implementation of the Fiscalis programme (1998-2002) ..................1

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL Report on the implementation of the Fiscalis programme (1998-2002) ..................7

Summary.....................................................................................................................................8

Part 1: Report on the implementation of joint activities under the Fiscalis programme (1998-
2002) .........................................................................................................................................12

1.

Introduction.................................................................................................................13

1.1.

The Fiscalis programme..............................................................................................13

1.1.1. Background .................................................................................................................13

1.1.2.

The programme’s organisational structures................................................................13

Nature and objective of the report.............................................................................................14

1.2.1.

Scope of analysis.........................................................................................................14

1.2.2. Approach.....................................................................................................................14

1.2.3.

The programme’s objectives.......................................................................................15

1.2.4. Data observation.........................................................................................................15

2.

3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

4.

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

5.

5.1.

5.2.

5.3.

Budget .........................................................................................................................16

Seminars......................................................................................................................17

Number of seminars....................................................................................................17

Conclusions .................................................................................................................17

Desired improvements ................................................................................................18

Exchanges ...................................................................................................................18

Number of exchanges..................................................................................................18

Conclusions .................................................................................................................19

Desired improvements ................................................................................................19

Multilateral controls....................................................................................................20

Number of controls .....................................................................................................20

Conclusions .................................................................................................................20

Desired improvements ................................................................................................21

2

6.

6.1.

6.2.

6.3.

7.

8.

9.

Training.......................................................................................................................22

Number of training activities ......................................................................................22

Conclusions .................................................................................................................23

Desired improvements ................................................................................................23

Programme management and efficiency.....................................................................23

Opening up the programme to candidate countries ....................................................24

Results and impact of joint activities ..........................................................................24

9.1.

Improve administrative procedures: simplify and modernise legislation...................25

9.1.1.

Immediate results ........................................................................................................25

9.1.2. Medium and long-term impact....................................................................................26

9.1.3. Conclusions .................................................................................................................26

9.2.

Give officials a high level of understanding of Community law and uniformly apply
Community legislation................................................................................................26

9.2.1.

Short-term impact .......................................................................................................26

9.2.2. Medium and long-term impact....................................................................................27

9.2.3. Conclusions .................................................................................................................27

9.3.

Efficient, effective and extensive administrative cooperation between Member States
and combating fraud....................................................................................................27

9.3.1.

Short-term impact .......................................................................................................27

9.3.2. Medium and long-term impact....................................................................................28

9.3.3. Conclusions .................................................................................................................28

10.

Conclusions and recommendations on joint activities................................................28

Part 2: Report on the implementation of the Fiscalis PROGRAMME in the IT sector (1998-
2002) .........................................................................................................................................31

1.

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

1.4.

2.

3.

Introduction.................................................................................................................32

Background .................................................................................................................32

Information sources.....................................................................................................32

The interim evaluation report......................................................................................32

Structure of the analysis..............................................................................................32

Budget .........................................................................................................................33

Systems common to the Fiscalis and customs 2002 programmes ..............................34

3.1.

CCN/CSI (Common Communication Network/Common System Interface).............34

3

3.1.1. Description..................................................................................................................34

3.1.2.

Evaluation of the deployment and development of the CCN/CSI..............................34

3.1.3. Results.........................................................................................................................35

3.1.3.1. Qualitative user evaluation..........................................................................................35

3.1.3.2. Quantitative data .........................................................................................................35

3.1.3.3. The Gartner Group study (2002).................................................................................36

3.1.4.

Impact..........................................................................................................................36

3.2.

Programme management tools....................................................................................36

3.2.1.

Project Support Office (PSO) .....................................................................................36

3.2.2.

TEMPO (Taxud Electronic Management of Projects Online)....................................36

3.2.2.1. Description..................................................................................................................36

3.2.2.2. Tempo’s contribution..................................................................................................37

4.

4.1.

VAT and excise applications ......................................................................................37

Evaluation of the development, deployment and operation of tax applications as a
whole...........................................................................................................................37

4.1.1. Development and deployment ....................................................................................37

4.1.2. Operatio n.....................................................................................................................38

4.2.

4.3.

Usefulness/sustainability.............................................................................................38

The VIES (VAT Information Exchange System) application....................................38

4.3.1. Description of the system............................................................................................38

4.3.2. Results.........................................................................................................................39

4.3.2.1. Qualitative assessment by Member States..................................................................39

4.3.2.2. Quantitative data .........................................................................................................39

4.3.3.

Impact..........................................................................................................................42

4.4.

Electronic forms SCACform 2001..............................................................................42

4.4.1. Description..................................................................................................................42

4.4.2. Qualitative and quantitative results.............................................................................43

4.5.

The SEED database.....................................................................................................43

4.5.1. Description..................................................................................................................43

4.5.2. Results.........................................................................................................................44

4.5.3.

Impact..........................................................................................................................45

4.6.

EWSE application (Excise Early Warning System) ...................................................45

4

4.6.1. Description..................................................................................................................45

4.6.2. Results.........................................................................................................................45

4.6.3.

Impact..........................................................................................................................46

4.7.

MVS electronic forms.................................................................................................46

4.7.1. Description..................................................................................................................46

4.7.2. Results.........................................................................................................................47

4.7.3.

Impact..........................................................................................................................47

4.8.

4.9.

5.

5.1.

5.2.

e-commerce VAT........................................................................................................48

The EMCS (Excise Movement and Control System) feasibility study......................48

Conclusions .................................................................................................................48

Applications common to the Customs 2002 and Fiscalis programmes ......................48

VAT and excise applications ......................................................................................48

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS................................................................................................50

BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................53

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................54

Annex 1 Fiscalis Seminars.........................................................................................................54

Annex 2 Responses by participants in 2000 and 2001 seminars to individual evaluation

questionnaires..............................................................................................................55

Annex 3 Responses by participants in 2000 and 2001 seminars to individual evaluation

questionnaires..............................................................................................................56

Annex 4 Exchanges Fiscalis ......................................................................................................57

Annex 5 Responses by participants in 2000 and 2001 exchanges to individual evaluation

questionnaires..............................................................................................................58

Annex 6 Exchanges by Member State.......................................................................................59

Annex 7 Multilateral controls....................................................................................................60

Annex 8 Number of multilateral controls in 1998 and 1999.....................................................61

Annex 9 Number of multilateral controls in 2000 and 2001.....................................................62

Annex 10

Number of multilateral controls in 2002 ........................................................63

Annex 11

Fiscalis Training .............................................................................................64

Annex 12

Improving personal administrative procedures..............................................65

Annex 13

Fiscalis IT budget...........................................................................................66

5

Annex 14

Evaluation by Member States of the development, deployment and operation
of the CCN/CSI...........................................................................................................67

Annex 15

Evaluation by Member States of the deployment and operation of the
national components of the systems developed under the Fiscalis programme .........68

Annex 16

Evaluation by Member States of the quality of information provided by
Fiscalis systems...........................................................................................................69

Annex 17

Evaluation by Member States of the completeness of information provided

by Fiscalis applications ...............................................................................................70

Annex 18

Evaluation by Head of Central Liaison office (CLOs) of VAT applications .71

Annex 19

Evaluation by Heads of Excise Liaison Offices (ELOs) of excise applications72

Annex 20

under the Evaluation by Member States of the use made of the applications

developed Fiscalis programme....................................................................................73

Annex 21

Evaluation by participants in Fiscalis joint measures of the usefulness of

communication and information exchange systems ...................................................74

6

Summary

The  Fiscalis  programme  is  a  multiannual  Community  action  programme  designed  to  improve  the
operation of indirect taxation systems in the internal market.

This report has been drawn in accordance with Article 12(3) of Decision 888/98/EC of 30 March 1998
to review the programme’s implementation. It is divided into two parts:

Part  1  which  looks  at  joint  activities  (exchanges,  multilateral  controls  and  training

(1)
initiatives);

(2)

Part 2 which deals with computer systems.

(I) Part 1 discusses joint activities and their financial data. It sets out what has been achieved under
each instrument, their role in the programme (conclusions) and desired improvements.

In accordance with Article 7 of the Fiscalis Decision the programme was opened up to the associated
countries of Central and Eastern Europe under the conditions laid down in the Association Agreements
or  the  Additional  Protocols  governing  their  participation  in  the  programme.  Funding  was  provided
through programmes other than the Fiscalis programme under the pre-accession strategy.

The report analyses achievements against the programme’s formal or strategic objectives.
The programme’s formal objectives (Article 3 of the Fiscalis Decision) are:

(1)

(2)

to enable officials to achieve a high common standard of understanding of Community law;

to improve administrative procedures;

to secure efficient, effective and extensive cooperation between Member States and between

(3)
Member States and the Commission.

The programme’s strategic objectives are:

to simplify and modernise legislation;

to modernise administration;

to uniformly apply Community legislation;

to improve administrative cooperation and the combating of fraud.

– 

– 

– 

– 

Budget

The Fiscalis programme has a budget of  €40  million.   35%  of  annual  commitments  are  allocated  to
joint activities.

Evaluation method

The  report  identifies  three  levels  of  impact:  short-term  impact  or  immediate  results,  medium-term
impact:  appropriate  exploitation  by  officials,  who  are  the  direct  beneficiaries,  of  their  experience  in
their national administration and long-term impact: dissemination of the programme’s achievements in
national  administrations  and  use  by  officials  who  did  not  participate  directly  in  the  programme’s
activities.

7

Short-term impact: Member States assessed each activity’s contribution to the programme’s objectives
on  a  scale  of  1  (useless)  to  4  (very  useful).  Participants  were  also  asked  to  express  their  level  of
satisfaction about the improvement of their knowledge of Community legislation on indirect taxation,
identification of good practice and improvements in administrative cooperation.

Medium-term impact was measured on the basis of the final reports produced by Member States on the
changes  made  in  their  national  administration  as  a  result  of  participation  by  their  officials  in  the
Fiscalis programme.

Long-term impact:  as  there  are  few  indicators  to  measure  the  degree  of  dissemination,  this  has  been
assessed on the basis of Member States’ reports. They indicate that dissemination activities have been
organised  (special  conferences,  meetings  with  other  departments,  internal  publications,  presentations
on Internet, etc.) to inform as many people as possible about the programme’s activities and seminars
in  particular.  Other  joint  activities  do  not  seem  to  have  been  widely  publicised.  Result  and  impact
indicators will be developed under the new Fiscalis programme 2003-2007.

Results and impact of joint activities

The final conclusions indicate, firstly, how the improvements proposed in the interim evaluation report
of  June  2001  have  been  implemented  and  how  the  new  VAT  strategy  guidelines  have  been
incorporated into the action plans for 2001 and 2002.

The report shows that all joint activities helped to improve participants’ knowledge and understanding
in specific areas of indirect taxation. The programme disseminated  good practice (in fraud monitoring
procedures,  the  organisation  of  anti-fraud  teams,  risk  analysis  methods  and  identification  of  types  of
fraud)  contributing  to  more  effective  combating  of  fraud.  It  gave  the  officials  participating  in  the
programme an opportunity to use new working methods in cooperation with other tax administrations.
It contributed to the simplification of instruments facilitating traders’ compliance with tax obligations.

It  helped  participants  set  up  contact  points  in  other  national  administrations  and  this  facilitated
exchanges of information and improved administrative cooperation. Member States consider this to be
the programme’s most significant result despite the lack of formal rules. The Commission’s proposal
for  a  regulation  on  administrative  cooperation  in  the  VAT  field 1  will  improve  the  current  legal
framework. This proposal creates a single effective legal framework to combat fraud by establishing a
direct and rapid system for information exchange between Member States.

Overall  the  programme’s  joint  activities  are  helping  to  ensure  that  tax  systems  operate  more
effectively  in  the  internal  market.  However,  there  must  be  greater  complementarity  between  the
programme’s  activities  (e.g.  the  results  of  a  control  exercise  could  be  discussed  at  a  seminar  or
exchanges  could  be  organised  on  the  basis  of  one  area  discussed  at  a  seminar  if  they  are  to  have
greater impact). A number of this report’s recommendations have already been incorporated into the
new Fiscalis programme 2003-2007.

1

COM(2001) 294 final of 18 June 2001

8

                                                
(II) Part 2  deals  with  computer  systems  explaining  the  results  and  impact  of  computer  applications
financed  by  programmes  and  the  management  tools  of  IT  projects.  It  presents  the  results  and  the
impacts  generated  by  the  various  computer  applications  financed  by  the  programs  as  well  as  the
management tools of the computer projects.

IT budget

Total  commitments  under  the  Fiscalis  programme  in  the  period  1998-2002  were  €19  622 659.  Since
computer systems have a Community and national component, the Customs 2002 programme finances
only the Community component and Member States finance the national component.

The  CCN/CSI  Communication  Network2  required  an  investment  of  €23  801  472  of  which  half  was
financed  by  the  Fiscalis  programme  and  the  other  half  by  the  Customs  2002  programme.  This  huge
investment covers development and deployment costs.

The  VIES  application3  accounts  for  most  of  the  FITS  (Fiscalis  Information  Technology  System)
budget of  €5  547  267.  This  is  the  largest  application  in  the  Fiscalis  budget  and  the  funds  allocated
cover operating and maintenance costs as the system had been developed and was already in operation
before the Fiscalis programme was introduced.

Contrary to original plans the Fiscalis programme did not finance the EMCS application4 as its costs
totalled €35  million  and  its  development  timeline  was  six  years  making  it  impossible  to  be  financed
from the Fiscalis programme’s budget of €40 million.

Part common to the Fiscalis and Customs 2002 programmes

These two programmes have been used to develop and deploy the CCN/CSI.

The  services  this  system  offers  are  extremely  comprehensive  and  the  networks  operates  well  and  is
used intensively. Deployment, development and operating costs were high because the CCN/CSI had
to be made compatible with other national systems. Similarly, its decentralised technical architecture
means that each new connection requires a specific infrastructure and even further development to be
compatible with other local technologies.

Introduction  of  the  Tempo  methodology5  improved  efficiency  and  effectiveness  in  the  organisation
and management of Commission IT projects.

However, national delegates in the project management committees do not have sufficient information
on available (budgetary and human) resources to implement the  national component of projects. This
makes it difficult to set realistic project timetables.

VAT applications

The  programme  financed  the  maintenance  of  the  VIES  system  and  the  introduction  of  electronic
information exchange forms (SCAC form 2001).

VIES’s technical efficiency was demonstrated by the rapidity of responses and the huge number and
volume  of  messages  exchanged.  The  number  of  requests  over  the  programme’s  lifetime  exceeded
100  million  (information  on  VAT  numbers  and  level  1  and  2  information  on  intra-Community
acquisitions  of  goods).  The  recent  installation  of  VIES  on  the  Internet  will  increase  the  number  of
messages in the future.

2

3

4

5

Common Communication Network / Common System Interface
VAT Information Exchange System
Excise Movement and Control System
Taxud Electronic Management of Projects Online

9

                                                
Electronic forms for information exchange between Member States were in the pilot phase at the end
of 2002 and the messaging system and the form itself could benefit from technical improvements. The
use of this form has helped Member States comply with response times.

Member  States  consider  that  VIES  and  electronic  forms  are  extremely  useful  tools  of  administrative
cooperation.  They  indicate  that  the  accuracy  and  precision  of  information  exchange  could  be
improved.  However  it  should  be  noted  that  such  improvements  do  not  come  under  the  Fiscalis
programme as this is only one component of administrative cooperation.

Excise applications

The  programme  financed  maintenance  of  the  SEED  and  EWSE6  systems,  the  creation  of  electronic
information exchange forms and a feasibility study of the EMCS programme.

Improvements to the efficiency of the SEED and EWSE systems was not a priority objective for the
Fiscalis programme as they are of a transitional nature only and will be incorporated into the EMCS.
The results of the EMCS feasibility study financed by the Fiscalis programme were very positive and
form the basis of the Commission’s proposals on computerisation in the excise sector.7

The SEED application had some technical and organisational problems mainly owing to delays in its
updating by national administrations. This affected its reliability.

Member States consider EWSE made a very positive contribution to combating fraud, but, according
to  some  of  them,  no  distinction  is  made  between  alert  and  information  messages  which  makes  the
system less effective. They would like messages to be sent before goods leave so that checks can be
undertaken  in  the  Member  State  of  arrival.  However  these  are  procedural  problems  which  do  not
concern the application as such.

As electronic MVS (Movement Verification System) forms were in the pilot stage at the end of 2002,
it  is  difficult  to  measure  the  results  or  impact  of  this  application.  However,  there  does  appear  to  be
system.
unanimous 

among  Member 

developing 

interest 

States 

this 

in 

6

7

Excise Early Warning System
COM(2001) 466

10

                                                
Part 1: Report on the implementation of joint activities
under the Fiscalis programme (1998-2002)

11

1. 

INTRODUCTION

In  accordance  with  Article  12(3)  of  Decision  888/98/EC  of  30  March  1998  (referred  to  below  as  the
Fiscalis Decision),8 the Commission is required to present to the European Parliament and the Council,
by 30 June 2003, a final report on the implementation and impact of the Fiscalis programme.

Under Article 12(2) of the Fiscalis Decision the report has been drawn up by Commission on the basis of
the  final  reports  submitted  by  Member  States,  evaluation  forms  completed  by  participants  in  the
programme’s activities (Annex  II  of  the  Implementing  Decision),  the  interim  evaluation  report  (2001),
and programme documents.

1.1. 

The Fiscalis programme

This  multiannual  Community  action  programme  was  introduced  to  improve  the  operation  of  indirect
taxation systems in the internal market and responds to the needs identified by the Fiscalis Decision:

(a) creation of a Community infrastructure and promotion of good practice following the introduction in
1993 of the so called transitional VAT arrangements and the definitive excise system;

(b) preparation of Central and Eastern European countries, Malta and Cyprus in the use of the VAT and
excise systems under the enlargement process.

1.1.1.  Background

Although checks of goods at internal borders were abolished on 1 January 1993 there are still some tax
obstacles  in  the  single  market.  A  number  of  measures  were  taken  simultaneously  to  improve  the
functioning of new Community legislation. These are the introduction of administrative cooperation and
information exchange instruments and the Matthaeus Tax programme9 providing vocational training for
officials responsible for indirect taxation.

Funding  for  these  measures  was  then  consolidated  into  one  single  instrument,  the  Fiscalis  programme.
This  was  adopted  on  30  March  1998  and  runs  from  1  January  1998  to  31  December  2002  and  has  a
budget of €40 million.

1.1.2. 

The programme’s organisational structures

The  Fiscalis  programme  is  overseen  by  a  Steering  Committee  (SCAC).10  It  was  set  up  by  Council
Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 on administrative cooperation in the VAT field 11 and acts as a regulatory
committee for administrative cooperation and mutual assistance and as a management committee for the
Fiscalis programme.

8

9

10

11

Decis ion  888/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  30  March  1998  (OJ  L  126,
28.04.1998)
Council Decision 93/588/EEC of 29 October 1993 (OJ L 280, 13.11.93)
Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation
Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 (OJ L 24, 01.02.1992)

12

                                                
The  following  subcommittees  have  been  set  up  in  specific  areas:  SCIT  (Subcommittee  on  computer
applications), SCAF (Anti-fraud Subcommittee), SCAT (Subcommittee on administrative training

SCAC
SCAC
SCAC

Standing committee on
Standing committee on
Standing committee on
administrative
administrative
administrative

SCIT
SCIT
SCIT
Information technology
Information technology
Information technology
subcommittee
subcommittee
subcommittee

SCAF
SCAF
SCAF
Anti-fraud committee
Anti-fraud committee
Anti-fraud committee

SCAT
SCAT
SCAT
Training subcommittee
Training subcommittee
Training subcommittee

1.2. 

Nature and objective of the report

Administrative cooperation
Administrative cooperation
Administrative cooperation
(regulation  EEC N°218/92)
(regulation  EEC N°218/92)
(regulation  EEC N°218/92)

Mutual Assistance
Mutual Assistance
Mutual Assistance
Directive 77/799/ECC
Directive 77/799/ECC
Directive 77/799/ECC

Fiscalis Porigramme
Fiscalis Porigramme
Fiscalis Porigramme

This report updates SEC(2001) 1328 (referred to below as the interim report) which was produced by the
Commission on the basis of interim reports from the Member States and covers the period up to 2002.

The  interim  report  concluded  that  the  programme  should  be  continued  after  2002  and  formed  the  basis
for  the  proposal  for  the  Fiscalis  programme  2003-2007.  This  report  evaluates  the  progress  made  in
implementing  the  Fiscalis  programme  up  to  2002.  It  uses  the  MEANS  methodology12  which  it  has
adapted  to  the  programme’s  needs  in  order  to  assess  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  activities,
progress made and the sustainability of the programme’s results and impact.

1.2.1. 

Scope of analysis

Review  period  This  report  covers  the  programme’s  implementation  from  1  January  1998  to
31 December 2002. It supplements the interim report which covered the period from 1 January 1998 to
30 June 2000 and analysed the progress made in 1998 and 1990 with data for 2002, 2001 and 2002.

Programme partners: Member States and Commission Achievement of the programme’s objectives
is  dependent  on  the  way  in  which  national  administrations  use  the  opportunities  it  provides.  The
Commission’s role is to facilitate and coordinate activities in partnership with the Member States.

Candidate countries The Fiscalis programme was opened up to the candidate countries to facilitate their
preparation for accession. Their participation was funded by sources other than the Fiscalis programme.

1.2.2.  Approach

The  approach  use  is  based  primarily  on  the  final  reports  produced  by  Member  States  in  the  form  of
replies  to  a  questionnaire.  This  asked  them  to  give  their  opinions,  and  in  the  case  of  29  questions,  to
assess  on  a  scale  of  1  (useless)  to  4  (very  useful)  the  contribution  of  each  type  of  activity  or  the
programme as a whole to a particular result or impact. Replies to individual evaluation forms collected
during the programme’s five-year lifetime were also used. Assessments were interpreted in the light of
what has been achieved and participants’ comments.

For  each  component  of  joint  activities  (seminars,  exchanges,  multilateral  controls  and  training)  the
information obtained was used to reply to the following questions:

–  Was the activity carried out at a reasonable cost (effectiveness)?

12

Méthodes d’Evaluation des Actions de Nature Structurelle (Structural evaluation methods used to evaluate
Community programmes)

13

                                                
–  What  were  its  immediate  results13  and  its  longer-term  impact14  on  beneficiary

administrations?

– 

How did it contribute to the programme’s objectives (effectiveness) and were objectives
made more relevant?

1.2.3. 

The programme’s objectives

Article 3 of the Fiscalis Decision15 defines the programme’s objective as supporting, through Community
action, Member States’ efforts to:

– 

– 

– 

enable officials to achieve a high common level of understanding of Community law on
indirect taxation and its implementation in Member States;

secure  efficient,  effective  and  extensive  cooperation  between  Member  States  and
between Member States and the Commission;

ensure continuing improvement of administrative procedures to take account of the needs
of  administrations  and  taxpayers  through  the  development  and  dissemination  of  good
administrative practice.

The report defining the success criteria for the Fiscalis Programme16 recommended certain objectives and
the interim evaluation report of 200117 underlined the need for measurable objectives. The programme’s
general objectives were set out in the 2002 action plan:

– 

– 

– 

– 

simplification and modernisation of legislation;

modernisation of administrations;

uniform application of legislation;

improvement of administrative cooperation and efforts to combat tax fraud.

1.2.4.  Data observation

– 

– 

13

14

15

16

17

This report is based primarily on the 2001 interim evaluation and the final reports produced by
Member States under Article 12(2)(a) of the Fiscalis Decision.

The  interim  evaluation  report  demonstrated  the  effectiveness  of  each  type  of  instrument  for
joint activities but suggested the following improvements:

– 

– 

– 

– 

greater clarity in the specific objectives for each activity;

impact indicators;

degree of dissemination between national administrations;

individual evaluation forms to be sent to the Commission.

One example: after one seminar practical problems in applying the rules following the abolition of tax-free
sales for intra-Community travellers were identified and solutions were proposed.
One  example:  after  a  multilateral  control  the  control  analysis  method  was  changed  and  the  national
administration concerned improved its performance in combating fraud.
Decision 888/98/EEC of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 March 1998
Document SCAC No 279
SEC(2001)1328 of 31 July 2001

14

                                                
– 

– 

To ensure some degree of consistency in the final reports  questionnaires were sent to Member
States to evaluate the joint activities in the light of predefined  results and  impact, their degree
of usefulness and any improvements.

Other sources of information used are the individual evaluation forms (average response rate of
30%)  and  programme  monitoring  documents  (action  plans,  SCAC  documents,  documents
produced under joint activities: minutes, reports and progress reports).

2. 

BUDGET

Fiscalis  was  allocated  a  budget  of  €40  million  for five years and  35%  of  annual  commitments  were
allocated to joint activities.

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

TOTAL

Commitments
Payment
% of payment
Commitments
Payment
% of payment
Commitments
Payment
% of payment
Commitments
Payment
% of payment
Commitments
Payment
% of payment
Commitments
Payment
% of payment

Joint activities

2 006 500
1 822 276

IT

1 940 162
1 940 162

Total

3 946 662
3 762 438

90.82%

100.00%

95.33%

2 095 000
1 556 000

4 116 675
4 116 675

6 211 675
5 672 675

74.27%

100.00%

91.32%

2 500 000
1 497 193

3 249 692
3 249 692

5 749 692
4 746 885

59.89%

100.00%

82.56%

2 325 000
1 577 760

5 163 120
2 888 712

7 488 120
4 466 472

67.86%

55.95%

59.65%

2 250 000
1 063 415

5 153 010

7 403 010
1 063 415

47.26%

0.00%

14.36%

11 176 500
7 516 644

19 622 659
12 195 241

30 799 159
19 711 885

67.25%

62.15%

64.00%

(In 2002, commitments for IT applications had been implemented by the end of the year but payments will be made in 2003)

Although  commitments  were  divided  equally  between  joint  activities  and  the  IT  component  of  the
programme in 1998, the latter’s share of the budget rose to  67% compared to  33% for joint activities in
1999  following  the  introductions  of  the  CCN/CSI  which  absorbed  over  55%  of  commitments.  This
pattern was repeated in subsequent years.

Costs for each joint activity break down as follows: exchanges account for the largest proportion,  60%,
seminar monitoring  28%,  multilateral  controls  10% and training  2%.  This  breakdown  was  based  on
commitments.  The  computerised  management  system  ART18  is  being  developed  to  more  accurately
determine the real costs of each activity under the Fiscalis programme 2003-2007.

The under-utilisation of budget allocations (30.799 million were committed whereas 40 million had been
allocated) is largely due to the decision not to finance the EMCS19 from the Fiscalis budget because the
system’s  cost  estimates  and  timetable  exceeded  the  programme’s  capabilities.  A  change  in  the
Commission’s VAT strategy in 2001 also delayed the preparation of the action plan for the last two years
of  the  programme  and  consequently  some  measures  were  not  carried  out.  This  is  not  in  any  way  a
reflection on the effectiveness of the programme.

18

19

Activity Reporting Tool
Excise Movement and Control System

15

                                                
3. 

SEMINARS

The Fiscalis implementing Decision20 provides for a  maximum of 15 seminars each year to be attended
by  two  representatives  from  each  Member  State.  Each  candidate  country  can  send  one  representative
under the conditions laid down in the Association Agreements or Additional Protocols in preparation for
accession.

The  SCAC  Committee  chooses  seminar  topics  in  the  light  of  the  programme’s  general  objectives.21
Seminars  are  organised  into  plenary  sessions  and  workshops  in  small  groups.  The  formula  used  by  the
Matthaeus  Tax  programme  proved  extremely  effective  in  encouraging  the  active  participation  of  all
delegates.

3.1. 

Number of seminars

Annual activities

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

VAT

Excise

VAT & Excise

Management

Total

4

1

1

1

7

8

2

0

1

8

2

1

1

11

2

0

1

8

2

0

1

11

12

14

11

3.2. 

Conclusions

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

20

21

22

The number of seminars  rose  from  a  minimum  of  7  in  1998  to  a  maximum  of  14  in  2001.
Member  States  consider  it  to  be  an  extremely  useful  instrument  in  extending  knowledge  on
specific  areas  of  indirect  taxation,  identifying  good  practice  and  improving  administrative
cooperation. This is the virtually unanimous opinion of seminar participants.

In statistical terms , Member States’ reports show that the index of general satisfaction about
seminars’ utility is extremely high:  3.29.22 Ten Member States consider this to be  useful and
four  Member  States  very  useful  (Annex  1).  Seminar  participants  are  even  more  positive
considering  that  the  choice  of  seminar  topics  and  objectives  is  very  good  (53.9%)  or  good
(43.3) (Annex 2).

Officials  participating  in  these  seminars  consider  that  the  quality  of  the  presentations  is  very
good  (44.9%)  or  good  (52.7%),  the  quality  of  discussions  in  the  plenary  sessions  and  in
working groups is very good (34%) or  good (60%) (Annex 2), and the work of the chairs and
rapporteurs is very good (60.9%) or good (38.8%).

As  all  the  Member  States  participated  in  the  seminars,  they  were  divided  equally
geographically in terms of location and participants.

As  regards  equal  opportunities,  there  was  a  slight  increase  in  the  number  of  women
participating  in  seminars  and  exchanges  in  2000  and  2001  in  relation  to  previous  years.  The

Article 8 of Decision 98/467/EC
Article 3 of Decision 888/98/EC
Score 1 (useless), 2 (not very useful), 3 (useful), 4 (very useful)

16

                                                
breakdown of participants by sex for seminars and exchanges in 1998 and 1999 was 69% men
compared with 31% women and in 2000 and 2001 66% men compared with 34% women.

– 

At organisational level, most seminars were held in the second half of the year with very few
being  organised  in  the  first  half.  Some  Member  States  mentioned  in  their  reports  that  the
number  of  participants  for  each  seminar  was  too  high  (an  average  of  38  persons  for  each
seminar). This will become even more difficult in a Europe of 25 Member States.

3.3. 

Desired improvements

Generally  speaking,  Member  States  and  participants  see  this  as  a  very  good  instrument  and  do  not
question its usefulness. However, Member States mentioned certain areas where improvements could be
made:

– 

– 

– 

– 

better planning of seminars;

organising Member States should send out documentation early;

selection and number of participants;

more information sharing after the seminar has been held.

More  balanced  planning  throughout  the  year  is  desirable.  This  would  mean  that  the  annual  action  plan
should  be  adopted  sufficiently  early  for  seminars  to  begin  at  the  beginning  of  the  year.  An  alternative
would be to use a rolling plan.

There  also  appears  to  be  some  divergence  between  the  replies  of  Member  States  and  participants  on
seminar preparation. Participants do not have any reservations to make.

From  an  organisational  viewpoint,  it  would  be  difficult  to  send  out  invitations  (at  present  two  months
before the seminar) or working documents (at present two weeks before the seminar) any earlier.

According to  60%  of  participants,  the  way  in  which  participants  are  selected  is  good  but  depends  on
availability of officials within their national administrations.

Finally,  many  Member  States  mentioned  the  organisation  of  internal  conferences  or  seminars  and
publication of reports to pass on value added to other officials within their national administrations.

4. 

EXCHANGES

According to the implementing Decision, each Member State must send at least  three  officials for  two
weeks to each of the other Member States.

4.1. 

Number of exchanges

Annual activities

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

1st half

2nd half

Total

3

41

38

79

33

385

391

390

337

279

388

432

428

416

312*

(*Total of 11 Member States)

17

4.2. 

Conclusions

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

There was no significant variation in the  number of exchanges  (some  400  a  year)  during  the
duration  of  the  programme.  Generally  speaking,  Member  States  consider  that  exchanges
contributed to  improving  understanding  of  particular  areas  of  indirect  taxation  (3.08)  and
identifying contact points in Member States to improve administrative cooperation between tax
departments (3.14) (Annex 4, questions 5.1 and 5.3).

In statistical terms , Member States’ reports show that the general index of satisfaction about
the  utility  of  exchanges  was  high:  3.43.  Six  Member  States  consider  exchanges  to  be  very
useful and eight Member States useful (Annex 4).

Individual replies by participants in the exchanges demonstrate the same pattern:  53% consider
that  they  understand  Community  legislation  on  indirect  taxation  much  better  (and 22%  very
much  better)  (Annex  5).  As  regards  areas  of  work,  60%  of  participants  in  exchanges  come
from the VAT field and 9% from the excise field (Annex 5).

As regards the  geographical distribution, countries such as Sweden, the United Kingdom and
the  Netherlands  organised  exchanges  much  more  frequently  than  others  (Annex  6).  The
implementing  Directive  requires  that  there  should  be  a  certain  geographical  balance  between
host Member States but language problems and bureaucracy are an obstacle (minimum length
of exchange, number of officials available, problem of integration in administrations).

As regards logistics ,  it  was  noted  that  most  exchanges  appear  to  be  organised  in  the  second
half of the year: 90% in 2000 and 81% in 2001 (Annex 6).

Participants’  general  opinion  of  the  organisation  of exchanges was very positive.  79.6%  of
participants  consider  that  the  host  administration’s  efforts  were  very  satisfactory  (Annex  5).
Steps have been taken to improve the efficiency of this instrument. These include the seminar
in Snekkersten in Denmark23  which  looked  at  the  management  and  the  results  and  impact  of
exchanges.

4.3. 

Desired improvements

In  general  Member  States  have  no  comment  about  the  number  of  exchanges  organised.  One  Member
State would like their number to be increased. A number of improvements were proposed:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

23

The objectives of an exchange should be defined in advance, be clarified and focus on specific
aspects.

There should be greater flexibility in the duration of exchanges and a more practical focus on
the type of work undertaken.

Participants  should  be  better  prepared  in  terms  of  language  knowledge.Member  States  must
ensure their officials receive appropriate language training to be able to participate effectively.

There  should  be  more  balanced  use  of  this  instrument.  All  Member  States  should  be
encouraged to make use of exchanges. The host Member State should be chosen according to
the  exchange’s  objectives  rather  than  according  to  geographical  distribution  criteria.  It  is  also
essential to overcome administrative (minimal length of two weeks) and legal (participation by
exchanges officials in investigations in the territory of the host Member State) problems.

Several Member States group exchanges of officials in a certain period in the year. This is due
to the minimum compulsory duration of two weeks for each exchange and the opportunity this

Seminar held from 26 to 28 June 2000

18

                                                
provides  to  keep  organisational  costs  to  a  minimum  for  each  host  Member  State.  The
disadvantage of this system is, however, its lack of uniformity. The host Member State should
be  able  to  continue  to  organise  exchanges  at  a  certain  time  in  the  year  but  on  condition  that
individual programmes be drawn up for participants.

– 

The  new  Fiscalis  programme  has  introduced  greater  flexibility  in  the  management  of
exchanges,  particularly  as  regards  the  requirement  of  an  average  length  of  14  days  and  their
geographical distribution.

5. 

MULTILATERAL CONTROLS

This involves collaboration between at least three national administrations to coordinate their controls of
taxpayers with tax obligations in one or more Member States (Article 2 of the Fiscalis Decision).

Interested  Member  States  propose  multilateral  controls  to  the  Commission  for  financing  by  the
programme. The decision to finance a multilateral control is taken by the SCAC Committee in the light
of the programme’s objectives. Such controls focus on tax obligations in respect of VAT and/or excise
duty.

5.1. 

Number of controls

Multilateral controls

Annual activities

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

VAT

Excise

VAT & Excise

Total

10

1

2

13

10

1

2

13

15

0

2

17

5

1

2

8

4

0

0

4

The companies chosen represent a wide range of  sectors of activity (food industry, frozen foods, health,
beauty  products  and  cosmetics,  telecommunications,  tobacco,  electronic  products,  petrochemical
products, etc.).

5.2. 

Conclusions

Member  States’  reports  show  that  multilateral  controls  are  effective  instruments  in  the  fight  against
fraud. They enable large-scale controls to be undertaken to check that companies operating in more than
one  Member  State  comply  with  their  tax  obligations.  They  also  help  to  improve  administrative
cooperation between Member States taking part in such controls.

Participants also stated that multilateral controls helped to improve their knowledge of the way in which
indirect taxation is organised and applied within the European Union.

The interim report also indicated that these controls had extremely satisfactory results. In practical terms
they  had  beneficial  financial  results  and  helped  not  only  to  prevent  fraud  but  also  to  promote
administrative cooperation.

– 

In  statistical  terms ,  the  utility  of  multilateral  controls  is  recognised  by  Member  States
(average score 3.43). Seven Member States considered that they are very useful and six  useful

19

– 

– 

– 

(Annex 7). A better understanding of Community legislation, and in particular of audit systems,
and closer administrative cooperation are the benefits mentioned by Member States.

This  instrument  is  used  more  frequently  by  some  Member  States  than  others.  Four  Member
States  have  never  taken  the  initiative  to  organise  a  control  whereas  one  Member  State  had
proposed six of the 16 undertaken in 2000. Their  use  is  conditioned  by  scarcity  of  resources
since  they  require  more  human  resources  than  those  undertaken  at  national  level  (Annexes  8,
10 and 11).

At organisational level, the choice of companies to be investigated,  which  is  crucial  to  the
success  of  controls,  is  made  by  some  Member  States  on  the  basis  of  disparities  between
transactions  declared  and  those  reconstructed  from  information  transmitted  via  the  VIES
system.  However  as  multilateral  controls  involve  an  onerous  and  binding  administrative
procedure little use was made of this instrument, particularly in the last year of the programme
(Annex 10). The report24 shows that multilateral controls involve complex procedures (cited by
most Member States) and they are too short.

One  major  problem  mentioned  by  Member  States  is  the  obstacle  to  the  rapid  exchange  of
information. Current legislation on administrative cooperation and mutual assistance on VAT
is based on two legal instruments:  Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 introducing a common system
for the exchange of information and  Directive  77/799/EEC  on  mutual  assistance  between  the
competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States.25  Under  this  legal  framework  all  information
exchanges  have  to  be  via  the competent authorities  and  this  means  the  system  is  too  slow.
Direct  exchanges  are  still  possible  if  there  is  a  bilateral  agreement  between  two  competent
authorities. The Directive also allows Member States to authorise  officials from other Member
States to participate in certain controls, but in practice Member States make very little use of
this facility.

5.3. 

Desired improvements

In  view  of  the  problems  inherent  in  multilateral  controls,  two  seminars  were  organised  in  Finland26  to
prepare  and  update  a  manual  to  make  them  more  flexible  and  effective.  Other  recommendations  have
been made and several have been taken into account in the Fiscalis programme 2003-2007.

In their evaluation reports Member States mentioned that:

– 

– 

– 

24

25

26

27

Selection  criteria  should  be  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  a  risk  analysis  of  companies  to  be
investigated.

There should be greater flexibility in procedures. Informal preparatory meetings should be held
prior  to  multilateral  controls  to  make  them  more  effective.  There  should  also  be  flexibility  in
the time allowed for controls depending on their complexity.

The  present  legal  framework  needs  to  be  changed.  The  Commission  recently  presented  a
proposal  for  a  regulation  on  administrative  cooperation  in  the  VAT  field.27  This  proposal
creates a single legal framework to combat fraud by establishing a system for direct and rapid
exchange of information between national administrations. It also introduces new procedures to
enable  tax  officials  from  other  Member  States  to  participate  in  controls  and  for  simultaneous
controls to be undertaken. This Regulation is expected come into force in 2004.

SCAC document No 314 of 24 October 2001
OJ L 336 of 27 December 1977
Helsinki in 2000 and 2001
COM(2001) 294 final of 18 June 2001

20

                                                
– 

Finally,  national  administrations  should  be  encouraged  to  recruit  more  staff  for  multilateral
controls.

6. 

TRAINING

Article 6 of the Fiscalis Decision provides for training initiatives in which the Commission and Member
States  are  to  participate  to  create  a  common  platform  for  training  for  officials  from  indirect  taxation
departments. Such initiatives will:

– 

– 

– 

develop existing training programmes or design new ones;

open  up  training  courses  organised  by  each  Member  State  for  its  own  officials  to
officials from other Member States;

develop  the  common  tools  required  for  training  in  indirect  taxation,  and  in  particular
language training.

Member States must ensure that their own officials receive initial training and continue to follow training
courses to acquire common vocational skills. They must have an adequate knowledge of languages.

A  group  overseeing  training  (SCAT)  which  meets  two  or  three  times  a  year  sets  the  objectives  and
coordinates their attainment through joint activities and training programmes.

6.1. 

Number of training activities

Year

2000

2001

2002

IT training project

Computer training project

Training standards

Language training project

Language training project

Computerised audit project

the  SCAT
Seminar  on 
training  standard  -  analysis
of 
role  of  officials
working in indirect taxation

the 

s
e
i
t
i
v
i
t
c
A

training 

SCAT  seminar  on  computer
audit 
standards
projects  -  standards  applying
to 
in
computer 
Member States 

auditors 

Language training project

Seminar on public authorities,
general activities and
subsidies

Seminar on computerised
auditing (VAT)

Training survey

In 2000 a group of training project leaders carried out a survey of training in the Member States in the
indirect  taxation  field  to  help  national  trainers  improve  their  own  training  systems.  A  database
containing information on training material and equipment has been set up.

In the last two years covered by the programme training modules (in the form of CD ROMs), were fully
developed. These include:

– 

Computer-based training project (CBT)  explaining the different ways of producing a
computer-based language training tool;

21

– 

– 

– 

Computerised audit training project analysing computerised audit systems used by the
participating countries and identifying best practice. This is particularly useful as there is
no training at European level in this area;

VISAFIN  which  is  a  language  training  tool  containing  terminology  on  taxation  and
income  tax  and  VAT  procedures.  The  software  has  two  aims:  to  provide  training  in
taxation  (30  hours)  and  language  training.  VISAFIN  exists  in  English,  French,  German
and Spanish;

A glossary containing over 1500 technical terms on VAT and indirect taxation. It will be
made available on CD-ROM.

6.2. 

Conclusions

– 

– 

– 

– 

The last two years of the programme were extremely productive in training activities with most
training projects being completed in 2001 and 2002.

In  statistical  terms , the  utility  of  training  is  recognised  by  Member  States  (score  of  2.92)
(Annex 11), but scores range from 1 to 4 in some Member States. The comments received on
the  training’s  usefulness  reflect  different  approaches  and  different  administrative  practices.
Some Member States consider not enough has been achieved whereas others have been able to
improve their own training and language training in particular through the Fiscalis programme.

A large majority of officials participating in training activities consider  language training they
receive within their own national administrations to be insufficient, whereas as others welcome
the  language  projects  developed  under  the  programme  which  have  helped  to  improve  this
situation.

Some Member States point to organisational weaknesses underlining the need to  better target
objectives or better structure cooperation to make it sustainable.

6.3. 

Desired improvements

Member States mention the following improvements:

– 

– 

– 

encourage  the  establishment  of  Community  standards  to  be  incorporated  into  national
training programmes;

develop cooperation between national schools or training centres;

organise training funded by the programme’s budget directly with trainers from Member
States.

Other  improvements  include  development  of  common  training  modules  in  the  three  working  languages
by trilingual teams and translation of material which is already available .

7. 

– 

– 

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT AND EFFICIENCY

SCAC acted as management committee for the Fiscalis programme. Its organisation became
extremely  complex  as  increasing  numbers  of  subcommittees  and  working  parties  were  set  up
and  this  led  to  a  multiplication  of  work.  The  adoption  of  a  new  regulation  on  administrative
cooperation  making  SCAC  the  regulatory  committee  and  abolishing  certain  subcommittees
should improve efficiency.

The  programme’s  activities  are  set  out  in  the  annual  action  plan.  The  presentation  of  the
action  plan  was  changed  in  2001  so  that  the  relationship  between  annual  activities  and

22

– 

– 

– 

objectives could be more clearly established. The plan sets out the proposed measures for each
priority  area.  Organisers  of  joint  activities  are  required  to  indicate  the  areas  and  anticipated
results for each activity.

At  organisational  level,  Member  States  and  participants  believe  there  was  effective
coordination.  However,  the  only  indicators  available  during  the  programme’s  lifetime  were
management indicators. They had the advantage of being simple and continuously measurable
but  do  not  give  any  idea  of  the  real  effectiveness  of  activities.  Result  indicators  will  be
developed under the new Fiscalis programme 2003-2007 so that a continuous impact evaluation
can  be  carried  out.  There  must  be  a  certain  consistency  in  the  presentation  of  documents
concerning joint activities. The Commission could suggest to Member States that they use one
single document to facilitate analysis of the contribution of joint activities to the programme’s
objectives.

There  should  be  greater  monitoring  of  activities.  Three  types  of  results  are  anticipated:
sharing  of  information  on  work  undertaken  with  countries  not  participating  in  the  activity  in
question,  updating  of  the  results  of  completed  activities  without  which  they  would  otherwise
become  irrelevant  (e.g. training  modules),  and,  above  all,  information  on  improvements
achieved through the applications of the results of joint activities.

A new tool (CIRCA) was introduced in 2002. This is a web site with restricted access. It gives
programme managers direct access to organisational documents (agendas, working documents,
summaries, etc.) and reports on the activities organised. It is a significant improvement on the
previous  system  of  information  exchange  between  national  delegations  and  the  Commission.
CIRCA  can  be  used  as  a  information-sharing  instrument  by  providing  documents  produced
quickly on line according to a clear and consistent classification.

8. 

OPENING UP THE PROGRAMME TO CANDIDATE COUNTRIES

In  accordance  with  Article  7  of  the  Fiscalis  Decision  the  programme  has  been  opened  up  to  the
associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe and to Cyprus under the conditions laid down in the
Europe Agreements or in the Additional Protocols governing their participation in the programme. Malta
and Turkey were therefore not eligible to participate in the programme.

Their participation in Community programmes is part of the pre-accession strategy which is designed to
support  and  prepare  them  for  accession  to  the  European  Union.  Funding  is  provided  by  the  candidate
countries themselves and not by the Fiscalis programme.

The  legal  instruments  (Council  association  decisions)  laying  down  the  conditions  for  their  participation
in the programme were not adopted until 2002 by 8 of the 11 countries concerned. Cyprus, Poland and
Lithuania have not yet adopted the necessary legal instruments.

Prior to their formal participation a pilot project financed by an external budget heading of the  Customs
2002  programme   (which  is  discussed  in  a  chapter  in  the  report  on  the  Customs  2002  programme)
enabled one representative from each country to participate in a small number of seminars and exchanges
(Annex 11). Their participation was then financed by the national budgets of the countries concerned.

As a result of their participation the officials concerned indicated that they have a greater understanding
of Community legislation and benefited from exchanges of experience with Member States.

9. 

RESULTS AND IMPACT OF JOINT ACTIVITIES

Individual  activities  of  whatever  kind  cannot  attain  a  given  objective  but  joint  activities  have  an  added
impact which contributes to the programme’s objectives.

23

This report has identified three levels of effect: short-term impact or immediate results, medium-term
impact where the officials who benefit directly from the activity put what they have learnt to use in their
national  administrations  and  long-term  impact  where  the  results  of  the  programme’s  activities  are
disseminated  in  national  administrations  and  used  by  officials  who  did  not  participate  in  the  activities.
The long term impact is the most difficult to measure.

The  results  and  impact  of  joint  activities  and  their  contribution  to  the  attainment  of  the  programme’s
objectives are:

– 

– 

– 

to improve administrative procedures;

to give officials a high level of understanding of Community law;

to ensure efficient, effective and extensive cooperation between Member States and the
Commission.

These three general objectives break down into specific objectives (see the programme’s objective tree).

9.1. 

Improve administrative procedures: simplify and modernise legislation

9.1.1. 

Immediate results

Three immediate results have been identified:

– 

– 

– 

Simplification  of  national  and  Community  legislation  on  taxation  and  excise:  the  Salzburg
seminar28  simplified  the  Accompanying  Administrative  Document  (AAD)  for  excisable
products.

Simplification  and  modernisation  of  instruments  facilitating  taxpayers’  and  traders’
compliance  with  tax  obligations:  the  Madrid  seminar29  discussed  the  use  of  the  Internet  to
facilitate relations with taxpayers and the Chester seminar30 looked at ways of simplifying and
reducing VAT costs for business.

Simplification  and  improvement  of  administrative  procedures  (one  of  the  most  important
effects of the programme according to Member States). Their average score for improvements
in  working  methods  and  identification  of  good  administrative  practice  through  their  officials’
participation in  seminars  is  3.29 (Annex 1, question 2.3). Five Member States explicitly refer
to  this  point  in  their  report.  In  the  case  of  exchanges,  the  score  is  slightly  lower  since  any
changes  in  this  area  which  is  highly  regulated  take  some  considerable  time.  Eleven  countries
consider  (average  score  2.79)  that  they  are  reflected  in  new  working  methods  in  national
administrations  (Annex 4,  question  5.2).  Other  countries  pointed  to  improvements  in
participants’  personal  working  methods.  In  the  case  of  multilateral  controls  (average  score
2.71),  five  countries  consider  that  this  instrument  has  improved  control  methods  (Annex 7,
question 8.4). In the case of training, four countries refer to improvements in working methods
(average score 2.31) (Annex 11, question 11.2). Finally,  37%  of  participants  in  exchanges  or
34% in seminars consider that administrative procedures in their national administrations were
significantly improved following their participation in one of these activities (Annex 12).

The impact of joint activities on the  modernisation of administrations is not as clear-cut as that of new
technologies  financed  by  the  programme.  These  computer  systems  have  led  to  an  increase  in  the
exchange of information between national administrations and between national administrations and the

28

29

30

20 to 23 April 2000
15 to 17 November 2000
3 to 5 October 2001

24

                                                
Commission. The results obtained by the CCN/CSI communication network and computer applications
for VAT and excise are analysed in the IT report which is attached.

9.1.2.  Medium and long-term impact

– 

– 

Joint  activities  have  had  an  impact  in  the  medium  term  by  simplifying  administrative
procedures  and  through  the  adoption  of  new  working  methods  by  national  administrations.
However, although two Member States have adopted new administrative procedures following
their officials’ participation in the programme, participants’ capacity to incorporate significant
changes  in  national  legislation  is  limited  (average  score  2.73)  in  the  case  of  seminars  and
(average score 2.36) for exchanges (Annex 1, question 3.3 and Annex 4, question 6.2).

The long-term impact is more difficult to measure. Member States indicate that the results of
activities  such  as  seminars  and  exchanges  have  been  disseminated  within  national
administrations (Intranet, seminars, conferences, distribution of progress reports, etc.) and that
officials  who  did  not  participate  in  these  activities  have  received  and  used  this  information
(Annexes 1 and 5). However, to analyse the intensity of this impact can only be measured on
the basis of a special analysis.

9.1.3.  Conclusions

– 

– 

Joint activities helped to simplify and harmonise control methods and procedures through the
use of the tools presented during these activities (risk analysis, model, computerised audit, etc.)
but there is still room for improvement.

Member  States  said  that  they  would  disseminate  information  exchanged  in  joint  activities
within their national administrations.

9.2. 

Give  officials  a  high  level  of  understanding  of  Community  law  and  uniformly  apply
Community legislation

The interim report identified two results of joint activities which contributed to the uniform application
of Community legislation: greater understanding of specific areas  of  Community  legislation  on  indirect
taxation and greater knowledge of indirect taxation in other Member States.

9.2.1. 

Short-term impact

– 

– 

– 

The final report confirms that joint activities contributed to a greater understanding of specific
areas  of indirect taxation. Member States’ average score for the attainment of this objective is
3.  Four  Member  States  draw  attention  to  this  point  in  their  evaluation  reports.  Other  Member
States  underlined  that  informal  discussions  outside  the  actual  activities  undertaken  also
contributed to this result (Annex 1, question 2.1, Annex 4, question 5.1 and Annex 7, question
8.2).

45%  of  participants  in  seminars   consider  they  have  a  much  greater  understanding  of
Community legislation on indirect taxation and  12% have a significantly better understanding.
Only 3% of participants expressed a negative opinion. In the case of exchanges, the proportion
is 47%, 25% and 1% respectively (Annex 5).

As regards an understanding of indirect taxation in other Member States, most Member States
replied  that  improvements  had  been  brought  about  by  joint  activities.  The  index  of  Member
States’ satisfaction with the contributions of  seminars and exchanges to this objective is  3.08
(Annexes 1 and 5). In the case of  multilateral  controls ,  Member  States  underlined  that  they
have  a  greater  knowledge  of  auditing  systems  (average score  3.29)  (Annex  7,  question  8.2).
Seven countries explicitly stated that auditors had improved their knowledge by participating in
multilateral controls. Finally,  training also contributed to this objective  (average score  2.31)
(Annex 11). The  computerised audit training  project  presented  at  the  Luxembourg  seminar  in

25

November 2002 should be mentioned here. The first phase of this project was to analyse audit
methods in Member States and the second to develop training in computerised auditing.

– 

An international tax guide  containing  information  on  tax  systems  and  control  methods  in  all
Member States was presented at the seminar in Breukelen. 31

9.2.2.  Medium and long-term impact

– 

– 

Member States’ average score for dissemination within national administrations of knowledge
required  by  participants  in  seminars  and  exchanges  was  2.93  and  2.92.  Five  Member  States
have introduced formal dissemination of information gathered at seminars   via  the  Intranet  or
presentations  and  conferences.  Some  Member  States,  however,  consider  that  the  impact  of
exchanges is limited to participants.

The  impact  of  multilateral  controls scored  2.58  showing  that  their  results  are  less  widely
disseminated than in the case of other activities.

9.2.3.  Conclusions

– 

– 

The  programmes’  joint  activities  have  improved  participants’  knowledge  of  Community
legislation in the specific areas presented at seminars.

A  knowledge  of  other  tax  systems  has  made  it  possible  to  compare  the  treatment  of  certain
specific aspects of taxation.

9.3. 

Efficient, effective and extensive administrative cooperation between Member States and
combating fraud

Greater administrative cooperation is considered by Member States to be  the  most  important  result  of
joint activities. A short-term impact was identified in two areas:  identification  of  contact  points  within
other national administrations and greater exchange of information on combating fraud.

9.3.1. 

Short-term impact

– 

– 

Identification  of  contact  points  Seminars   are  considered  to  have  made  a  very  positive
contribution  to  identifying  contact  points  in  other  national  administrations  (average  score
3.62).  Six  Member  States  explicitly  stated  that  identification  of  contact  points  helped  to
improve administration cooperation. This also applies to  exchanges (average score 3.15) with
five  Member  States  also  mentioning  that  identification  of  contact  points  is  the  main  result  of
exchanges. 47% of participants in exchanges also hope to cooperate much more effectively and
closely  with  officials  in  other  Member  States  and  28%  much  more  effectively  and  closely.
Multilateral controls  also contributed to this objective (average score 3.23). According to four
Member  States,  these  contacts  subsequently  facilitated  participants’  control  work  and  made
them aware of the European dimension of their work.

Exchanges  of  information  on  combating  fraud  Seminars  and  multilateral  controls  are
considered  to  have  made  a  greater  contribution  to  improving  control  methods  (average  score
2.7) than exchanges (average score 2.38). However, Member States recognise that a restrictive
interpretation  of  legal  instruments  and,  in  particular,  the  slowness  of  responses  is  the  main
obstacle to the exchange of information to combat fraud. Participants in seminars consider that
they are  much better (30%) or somewhat better (47%) able to prevent and detect tax evasion
and fraud. For participants in exchanges the proportion is 6% and 36% respectively.

31

14 to 16 September 2000

26

                                                
Risk analysis  In their comments Member States point to very precise areas in which risk analysis can be
improved.  They  consider  that  this  instrument  is  the  best  way  of  effectively  combating  fraud  in  view  of
the limited human resources available.32  Seminars  had  promoted  the  use  of  this  tool.  At  the  seminar  in
Helsinki  a  computerised  selection  system  PUMA33  developed  in  Sweden  was  presented  as  a  way  of
identifying at little cost traders involved in the import or export of goods who presented a risk.

Combating fraud  Various  seminars  had  been  organised  in  this  area34  and  discuss  practical  cases.35  A
number  of  studies  were  also  undertaken  by  SCAF,36  to  identify  type  of  fraud   and  the  underlying
mechanisms.  These  studies  analysed  over  1000  cases  of  fraud  and  identified  the  main  techniques
employed  by  fraudsters.  Working  parties  prepared  reports  on  carrousel  fraud  and  manuals  of  good
practice to combat this type of fraud.

9.3.2.  Medium and long-term impact

– 

– 

Administrative cooperation has been improved through the use of networks established under
joint activities. Member States consider that seminars  made a very significantly contribution to
this impact (average score 3.21) (Annex 1, question 3.2). Most Member States admit that there
the  ELO/CLO37  but  between  other
were  very  contacts  between  representatives  of 
representatives.  Exchanges’  contribution  was  slightly  less  (average  score  2.92)  (Annex 4,
question  6.3).  Several  Member  States  mentioned  that  contacts  were  sporadic  or  informal.
Member  States  which  participated  in  multilateral  controls  consider  that  there  has  been  has
significant improvement in cooperation (average score 2.64) (Annex 7, question 9.3).

Member  States’ 
replies  underline  dissemination  of  good  practice  within  national
administrations  and  awareness  raising  of  the  importance  of  information  exchanges  to  combat
fraud.  An  agreement  was  signed  at  the  end  of  2002  by  a  number  of  Member  States  to
automatically and voluntarily exchange information on sales of new means of transport.

9.3.3.  Conclusions

– 

Greater administrative cooperation and combating fraud are a positive effect of the programme.
However,  under  the  current  mutual  assistance  arrangements38  it  is  impossible  to  exchange
information  sufficiently  quickly  to  track  or  detect  fraud  in  time.  The  proposed  Commission
Regulation  on  administrative  cooperation  on  VAT39  will  make  mutual  assistance  more
effective.

10. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON JOINT ACTIVITIES

1
The interim evaluation report suggested that  any  changes  to  the  programme’s  objectives  be
clarified  in  the  light  of  the  Commission’s  new  strategy  on  VAT,  the  links  between  the  objectives  of
Article  3  of  the  Fiscalis  Decision  and  the  strategic  anti-fraud  objectives  be  clearly  defined,  impact
indicators be developed  to  measure  how  the  programme’s  results  are  disseminated  within  the  national
administrations and surveys be undertaken on the ground to gather the necessary data.

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Member States devote most of their resources to the examination and administration of VAT returns
15 to 16 May 2000
Oporto in November 2001 and Snekkersten in November 2001
Ireland from 20 to 22 November 2002
Anti-fraud Subcommittee
Excise Liaison Office/Central Liaison Office
Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ L 336, 27.12.1977) and Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 (OJ L 24, 01.02.1992)
COM(2001) 294 final of 18 June 2001

27

                                                
The  programme  has  developed  in  this  direction  as  a  result  of  the  2001  and  2002  action  plans  which
incorporated  the  guidelines  laid  down  in  the  new  VAT  strategy  and  defined  four  priority  areas  for  the
programme.  The  suggestion  that  surveys  be  carried  out  in  the  field  to  assess  the  degree  to  which
information was disseminated in national administrations was not taken up owing to a lack of resources.
These were replaced by pilot questionnaires in 2002 but they did not prove useful because of the low rate
of response by Member States. Development of impact indicators and gathering of the relevant data have
been deferred to the 2007 Fiscalis programme.

2
Joint activities accounted for 35% of total budget commitments compared with 65% in the case
of  computer  applications.  The  predominance  of  the  IT  component  is  due  to  the  development  and
operating costs of the CCN/CSI communication network and the under-utilisation  of  budget  allocations
in  general  and  of  the  funds  allocated  to  seminars  and  multilateral  controls  in  particular.  Since  these
instruments  make  a  particularly  useful  contribution  to  the  programme’s  objectives  their  use  should  be
increased and encouraged.

Seminars’ main contribution has been to provide participants with greater knowledge of specific
3
aspects  of  indirect  taxation,  to  identify  good  practice  and  improve  administrative  cooperation  between
Member States. They account for over  25% of  expenditure  on  joint  activities.  The  added  value  of  this
instrument could be increased by:

– 

– 

timing seminars more effectively so that documentation can be sent out in time;

disseminating results more widely.

4
Exchanges  have  improved  understanding  of  indirect  taxation  in  other  Member  States  and
enabled informal contact points to be identified to promote closer administrative cooperation between tax
departments. They account for the largest share of expenditure on joint activities (some  60%). However
their effectiveness could be improved by:

– 

– 

– 

– 

setting  exchanges’  objectives  in  advance,  clarifying  them  and  focusing  them  on
particular well-defined aspects;

introducing greater flexibility in timing and targeting the type of work undertaken
in more practical areas;

improving participant’s language skills;

tailoring programmes to participant officials’ needs particularly if exchanges are
undertaken at a particular time of the year.

5
Multilateral  controls account for  10%  of  the  budget  for  joint  activities.  These  are  the  most
effective programme instruments to combat fraud. They enable large-scale controls to be undertaken to
check that companies operating in more than one Member State are complying with their tax obligations.
They  help  to  improve  administrative  cooperation  between  participant  Member  States  and  increase
participants’ knowledge of control systems used throughout the European Union.

However  the  number  of  multilateral  controls  fell  during  the  last  years  of  the  programme.  Their  use
should  be  encouraged,  particularly  by  Member  States  who  make  no  or  very  little  use  of  them.  It  is
suggested that:

– 

– 

greater flexibility should be introduced in the procedure for selecting multilateral
controls and their duration;

auditing targets should be selected on the basis of risk analysis criteria.

28

6
Training initiatives were introduced in 2000 and most training projects were completed in 2001
and  2002.  They  accounted  for  2%  of  the  budget  for  joint  activities.  They  improved  participants’
knowledge, in particular of language and computerised auditing. Improvements might include:

– 

– 

– 

promoting  the  development  of  Community  standards  to  be  incorporated  in
national training programmes;

developing cooperation between national schools or training centres;

organising training sessions with experts from Member States.

7
Candidate countries participated in the programme under the pre-accession strategy to support
and prepare them for entry into the European Union. They took part in seminars and exchanges. Officials
from  these  countries  consider  that  they  have  a  greater  knowledge  of  Community  legislation  and  that
exchanges of experience with their counterparts in the Member States have been beneficial.

8
The  report  identifies  and  measures the  short and  medium-term  impact  (use  of  the  results  of
activity  in  the  national  administrations)  on  the  basis  of  final  reports  produced  by  the  Member  States
indicating the changes made in national administrations as a result of the participation of their officials in
the programme.

As regards the  long-term  impact  (dissemination  of  results  in  national  administrations),  there  are  few
indicators which can measure the degree of such dissemination. This has therefore been estimated solely
on  the  basis  of  Member  States’  reports  on:  measures  undertaken  (special  conferences,  meetings  with
other  departments,  internal  publications,  presentations  on  Intranet,  etc.)  to  inform  as  many  officials  as
possible about the results of the programme’s activities, and in particular seminars. The results of other
joint  activities  do  not  appear  to  have  been  as  widely  disseminated.  Result  and  impact  indicators  will
therefore be developed under the new Fiscalis programme 2003-2007.

Joint activities helped to improve administrative procedures, in particular for controls and fraud
9
detection,  to  simplify  instruments  to  promote  traders’  compliance  with  tax  obligations,  to  improve
understanding  of  specific  areas  of  indirect  taxation,  to  uniformly  apply  Community  legislation,  to
disseminate  good  practice  (risk  analysis,  identification  of  the  most  serious  types  of  fraud  such  as
carrousel  fraud)  and  to  improve  administrative  cooperation.  Greater  administrative  cooperation  is
considered by the Member States to be the most significant result of the programme’s activities. This will
be enhanced by the adoption of the proposal for a regulation on administrative cooperation in the VAT
field 40  which  introduces  a  single  and  effective  legal  framework  to  combat  fraud  through  a  system  of
direct  and  rapid  information  exchange  between  Member  States.  The  proposal  also  sets  out  new
procedures  allowing  officials  from  other  Member  States  to  take  part  in  controls  undertaken  on  the
territory of a Member State and the use of simultaneous controls.

Joint activities under the Fiscalis programme have helped achieve the objective of more effective
10
functioning of tax systems in the internal market, and have increased cooperation between officials from
national  administrations.  The  Fiscalis  programme  for  2003-2007  has  already  incorporated  many  of  the
suggestions made by the Member States. However if these activities are to have a greater impact there
must  be  greater  complementarity  between  programme  activities  (e.g.  the  results  of  a  control  could  be
discussed at a seminar or exchanges could be organised on the basis of an aspect discussed at a seminar,
etc.).

Member States are aware of the repercussions national measures have at European level and  vice
11
versa.  The  Commission’s  role  is  to  coordinate  and  promote  efforts  to  combat  fraud.  Operational
responsibility lies with the Member States and greater involvement by participating Member States will
improve the programme’s effectiveness.

40

COM(2001) 294 final of 18 June 2001

29

                                                
Part 2: Report on the implementation of the Fiscalis
PROGRAMME in the IT sector (1998-2002)

30

1. 

INTRODUCTION

1.1. 

Background

The second part of this report which has been drawn up in accordance with Article 12(3) of Decision
888/98/EC  of  30  March  1998  deals  with  the  implementation  of  the  Fiscalis  programme  in  the  IT
sector.

1.2. 

Information sources

The sources used in this evaluation are:

– 

– 

the  opinions  expressed  by  Member  States  in  a  questionnaire  designed  to  evaluate  as
objectively  as  possible  their  views  on  the  computer  applications  introduced  under  the
programme. The response rate to the questionnaire is around 75%;

quantitative data on applications financed by the programme.

The views given by Member States on computer applications concern final applications, i.e. they are
the  views  of  users.  They  break  down  into  the  components  financed  by  the  European  Union
(Community component) and those financed by the Member States themselves (national component).

1.3. 

The interim evaluation report

The interim evaluation report concluded that:

– 

– 

the programme had helped to promote the use and dissemination of the VIES system41 in the
Member States;

the  system  of  VAT  information  exchange  could  be  made  more  effective  by  changing  the
legal framework for administrative cooperation.

It recommended that an ex-post evaluation be undertaken to:

– 

– 

– 

determine  whether  the  VIES  system  met  the  objective  of  combating  fraud  (effectiveness
analysis);

evaluate the effectiveness of computer systems including the CCN/CSI;42

check whether administrative cooperation has been improved through the use of information
exchange systems (measured by increased demand for information between Member States
and the quality of responses).

1.4. 

Structure of the analysis

In some cases computer systems are used by both the Customs 2002 and Fiscalis programmes and, in
others, by only one of them. Consequently funds for the systems which are common to both of them is
shared equally between the two programmes.

These applications are shown below.

41

42

VAT Information Exchange System
Common Communication Network/Common System Interface

31

                                                
Communication network and common management tools

Full name

Definition/Objective

CCN/CSI

CCN: Common 
Communication Network

CSI: Common System 
Interface

Taxud Electronic 
Management of Project 
Online
Project Support Office 

Tempo

PSO

Common communication network enabling partners to communicate
via a technical architecture of gateways in national administration or
DG TAXUD
Common computer language enabling national and Community IT
systems to use CCN services and to dialogue in secure and monitored
fashion
Methodology for developing and managing computer projects

Office to support IT projects managers in their daily tasks 

IT applications financed by Fiscalis programme

Full name

Definition/Objective

Commitments 
(in 1000 euros)

23.801

1.418

Commitments 
(in 1000 euros)

Vies (including 
Vies on Internet)

VAT Information Exchange 
System

SCACform2001

SEED

MVS

e-commerce 
VAT

Movement verification 
system

EWSE

EMCS 

Excise Early Warning 
System 

Excise Movement and 
Control System

Computer system linking Member States and enabling them to obtain
information on any intra-Community transactions involving goods
between traders registered in their own VAT records and those
registered in another Member State, and to confirm validity of VAT
identification number of taxable persons
Electronic form to obtain additional information if that provided by
VIES is not sufficient

Obligatory electronic database located in each Member State
containing a register of persons who are authorized warehousekeepers
or registered traders within the meaning of Directive 92/12/EEC
Electronic form for information exchange in excise field

5.547

Designed to develop and implement computerised system for
declaration, collection and allocation of VAT payable by traders not
established in European Community supplying goods or services over
the Internet to consumers established in European Community
Involves Member State from which a consignment of excisable
products departs to send an information or warning message to
Member State of arrival so checks can be carried out in time
Integrated computerised movement and control system for excisable
products

580

An analysis of the budget will be followed by a description of the systems used by both programmes
and of Fiscalis applications.

2. 

BUDGET

The  Table  in  Annex  13  shows  the  amounts  committed  (in  euros)  for  services  relating  to  computer
systems under the Fiscalis programme. The commitments relating to payments cover the period from
1998 to 2000. Payments for a commitment are made over a number of years as and when the services
are carried out whereas a commitment is made at the time a service contract is signed. Commitments
for  2002  were  made  at  the  end  of  the  year  and  covered  services  over  12  months.  The  bulk  of  the
corresponding payments is to be made in 2003 and the remainder in 2004.

The total amount of commitments under the Fiscalis programme is €19  622.659.  This  amount  includes
funding for the CCN/CSI network and programme management tools (financed jointly by the Fiscalis
and Customs 2002 programmes) and for VAT and excise applications.

It  should  be  noted  that  as  the  computer  systems  have  a  national  and  Community  component,  the
Fiscalis programme finances only the Community component and Member States have to finance the
national component.

32

The  CCN/CSI  Communication  Network  required  an  investment  of  €23  801  472  of  which  half  was
financed by the Fiscalis programme. The magnitude of the amounts committed is due to the fact that
they cover development and deployment costs.

The  VIES  application  accounts  for  the  major  share  of  the  FITS  (Fiscalis  Information  Technology
System) budget of €5  547 267. This is the most important application in the Fiscalis budget. The VIES
budget covers operational and maintenance costs as the system had been developed and was already
operating when the Fiscalis programme began.

The  Fiscalis  programme  was  unable  to  finance  the  EMCS  application43  as  funding  estimates  and
scheduling needs exceeded the programme’s capabilities.

3. 

SYSTEMS COMMON TO THE FISCALIS AND CUSTOMS 2002 PROGRAMMES

3.1. 

CCN/CSI (Common Communication Network/Common System Interface)

3.1.1.  Description

The  development  of  a  common  communication  network/common  system  interface  was  approved  in
December  1992  by  Directors-General  for  Customs  and  Taxation  to  harmonise  intra-Community
transfer  of  computer  data.  The  objective  is  to  create  a  gateway  between  national  and  Commission
computer  systems  which  are  all  different  in  a  single  infrastructure  ensuring  interoperability  between
all the systems.

The CCN/CSI came into operation on 8 May 1999. Activities financed under the Fiscalis and Customs
2002  programmes  concern  development  and  deployment  prior  to  1999,  ongoing  and  corrective
maintenance and subsequent extension to other sites (in particular candidate countries).

The Commission manages its computers and gateways up to national entry points. Member States are
responsible for training of officials and deployment of computer tools in their national networks.

3.1.2.  Evaluation of the deployment and development of the CCN/CSI

The opinions expressed by Member States44 on the deployment of the CCN/CSI are based on a scale
of 1 to 5 (1 = extremely good, 5 = very poor). The opinion of customs administrations and indirect tax
administrations is generally positive.

Budget resources and timetables for the deployment and development of the CCN/CSI are considered
to  be  realistic.  The  same  applies  to  the  support  provided  by  the  Commission  in  terms  of  assistance,
training  or  documentation.  The  link  facility  for  local  applications  to  the  CCN/CSI  is  deemed  to  be
satisfactory.

This confirms the results of a study undertaken in 2000 by the Gartner Group under the ATOS origin
integration  contract45  on  the  deployment  of  the  system.  The  study  concluded  that  the  CCN/CSI’s
technology  and  architecture  functioned  correctly  and  its  capacity  to  support  a  growing  number  of
connections  was  demonstrated.  However,  it  underlined  that  integration  of  systems  in  the  CCN/CSI
also  required  a  huge  organisational  effort  and  support  by  Member  States  which  wished  to  link  up  to
the system.

43

44

45

Excise Movement and Control System
See Annex 14
Under  the  contract  concluded  between  the  Commission  and  ATOS  the  latter  was  allowed  to  sub-
contract the study on the CCN/CSI to the Gartner Group.

33

                                                
3.1.3.  Results

The results are evaluated:

– 

– 

– 

qualitatively (satisfaction of user national administrations with its operation);

quantitatively;

by an external study (Gartner Group 2002).

3.1.3.1.  Qualitative user evaluation46

National  administrations  are  very  satisfied  with  the  support  offered  by  the  Commission  (general
support), the secure use and availability of the network.

The  utilisation  facility  (operation  and  interconnection  with  national  systems)  is  also  deemed  to  be
good by national administrations.

However,  although  customs  administrations  believe  that  the  system  meets  its  need  for  information
exchange and helps rationalises resources, indirect tax administrations have more reservations.

3.1.3.2.  Quantitative data

Network availability is considered to be over 99% (98% in the year it came into service).

CCN availability

)

%

(
y
t
i
l
i

b
a
l
i
a
v
A

100.00

99.00

98.00

97.00

96.00

1999

2000

2001

2002

Statistics on the use of the CCN networks point to a sharp upward trend. The following table shows a
number of messages and the volume of information carried.

Volume and number of messages
managed by CCN network

80 000
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0

2000

2001

2002

Volume
(Mbytes)
No messages
(*1000)

The following graph gives some idea of the breakdown of message by application. The VIES, NSTI
(New  Computerised  Transit  System)  and  AFIS  (Anti  Fraud  Information  System)  generate  a  huge
number of messages since their function is information exchange between Member States. The NSTI
application, which is still in the deployment phase, will generate a growing number of messages in the
future.

46

See Annex 14

34

 
                                                
CCN traffic by number of messages
messages

VIES
71%

TQM
0 %

SCI
0 %

TARIC
0 %

NSTI
11%

RTCE
1 %

AFIS
17%

MVSELO
0 %

SCAC form 2001
0 %

3.1.3.3.  The Gartner Group study (2002)47

The study shows that the CCN/CSI works wells, is widely used and that the services it provides are
very extensive but its cost is relatively high and is rising steadily as functionalities expand.

Since it is proving impossible to apply a common standard in all Member States, the Commission has
adapted  the  CCN/CSI  to  make  it  compatible  with  national  systems  and  this  has  entailed  vast
development costs for the Fiscalis and Customs 2002 programmes.

Technically  the  system  can  still  cope  with  many  additional  connections  but  this  will  involve  huge
investment. Because of its decentralised technical architecture a specific infrastructure is required for
each  new  connection  and  the  system  may  have  to  be  developed  to  adapt  to  each  additional  local
technology.

Similarly the addition of any new functionality in this technical architecture may entail huge costs to
maintain a high level of quality, availability and security.

3.1.4. 

Impact

The introduction of the CCN/CSI network was a prior condition for the development of a number of
other  computer  applications  for  information  exchange  between  Member  States  (in  particular  the
NSTI), and its impact on the programmes’ objectives are assessed on the basis of the impact of other
applications.  The  costs  of  investing  and  maintaining  the  quality  of  its  service  are  justified  by  the
productivity gains which are likely to result from the development of applications.

3.2. 

Programme management tools

3.2.1.  Project Support Office (PSO)

A  PSO  was  set  up  to  make  management  of  computer  programmes  more  effective  and  efficient  by
centralising tasks common to these projects.

The study phase was completed in 2002 and the pilot phase is scheduled to begin in 2003.

3.2.2.  TEMPO (Taxud Electronic Management of Projects Online)

3.2.2.1.  Description

TEMPO is a methodology for the development and management of computer projects which complies
with  recognised  standards  such  as  those  of  the  PMI  (Project  Management  Institute)  and  ISO
(International Standards Organisation). Its aim is to reduce the risk inherent in these projects in terms

47

The  Commission  concluded  a  contract  with  ATOS  allowing  it  to  sub-contract  the  study  on  the
CCN/CSI to the Gartner Group

35

                                                
of  quality  and  compliance  with  deadlines  and  budgets.  It  covers  all  project  cycles  from  preparatory
studies to contractual management.

3.2.2.2.  Tempo’s contribution

Projects centre on three pillars: the NSTI, other customs tariff applications and Fiscalis applications.
Services  are  divided  into  two  lots:  development  and  maintenance  and  training  and  helpdesk
operations. This rationalisation has led to a reduction in separate agreements (from 115 in 1999 to 35
in 2003) and management savings and has consolidated good practice in project management.

Invitations to tender are worded according to the service to be provided (fixed costs for each service
module) and are based on quantified results rather than manpower-hour costs.

TEMPO  has  helped  to  improve  programme  effectiveness  and  efficiency  by  introducing  a  common
approach to the development of computer applications and contractual management.

4. 

VAT AND EXCISE APPLICATIONS

4.1. 

Evaluation of the development, deployment and operation of tax applications as
a whole

This  chapter  analyses  Member  States’  perception  of  development,  deployment  and  operation  of
applications at organisational level48 before evaluating each computer application separately.

4.1.1.  Development and deployment

Specifications  are  considered  to  be  very  comprehensive.  Deadlines  for  deployment  of  systems  are
deemed to be averagely realistic. Support during deployment (training and assistance) is considered to
be good but some Member States suggest that there should be longer and more training courses.

Respondents accept that their administration should do what they can to ensure that systems are used
according  to  specifications.  However,  they  are  much  less  optimistic  about  the  availability  of  budget
and, in particular, human resources for this purpose.

The quality and availability of administrative and legal tools in the Member States which are required
for  the  systems  are  considered  to  be  good.  However  the  appropriateness  of  technology  supplied  by
national administrations is deemed to be only average.

The aim of the survey among Member States was to determine what human and budgetary resources
were available at national level to develop computer systems under the programme. However, it was
impossible  to  draw  any  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  as  there  was  few
responses on this point.

The  problem  of  budgetary  and  human  resources  in  the  Member  States  to  develop  and  deploy  the
systems is due to the composition of the committees overseeing management of the computer projects
under the programme.

National  delegates  in  these  committees  do  not  always  have  the  authority  to  commit  the  human  or
budgetary resources required to implement any decisions adopted by the committees at national level.
This  may  hamper  coordination  and  lead  to  delays  in  the  implementation  of  decisions.  Delays  in  one
country can slow down the whole project.

48

See Annex 15

36

                                                
These delays are also due to the sensitivity of computer projects to political decisions introducing new
priorities  during  the  programme.  Their  implementation  often  requires  a  complete  overhaul  of  work
plans and such decisions are rarely backed up the additional resources required in the Member States.

Finally,  Member  States  are  satisfied  with  the  quality  of  information  exchanged  at  meetings  of  the
committees  responsible  for  computer  projects  but  they  believe  that  the  Commission  could  propose
more opportunities for information sharing between Member States.

4.1.2.  Operation

The support provided by the Commission during the operation of applications is deemed to be fairly
good.

The  Commission  also  pays  great  attention  to  this  through  its  helpdesk,  which  is  regularly  evaluated
according to precise quality criteria.

The facility for system administration in the Member States is judged to be pretty average. The reason
for  this  problem  lies  in  the  large  number  of  applications.  However  this  does  not  fall  within  the
Commission’s remit.

4.2. 

Usefulness/sustainability

The survey of Member States49 shows that 88% of systems financed by the programme are considered
to  be  essential  or  frequently  used,  6%  are  used  occasionally  and  6%  are  never  used  or  are  being
introduced. A little less than half (45%) of Member States have drawn up an action plan to improve
the  use  of  systems  created  under  the  programme.  75%  of  systems  are  required  to  be  used  under  a
(legal or administrative) obligation in the Member States. All these figures give some idea of Member
States’ perception of the usefulness (utility criterion) of systems and, where appropriate, of their long-
term use (sustainability criterion).

Another  survey  of  participants  in  joint  activities  (exchanges,  seminar  and  multilateral  controls)
financed  by 
the  Commission’s
communication and exchange systems to be satisfactory and 15% very satisfactory.50

that  55%  of  respondents  consider 

the  programme  shows 

4.3. 

The VIES (VAT Information Exchange System) application

4.3.1.  Description of the system

The VIES system was introduced under Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 on administrative cooperation to
enable  information  to  be  exchanged  on  intra-Community  supplies  between  the  competent  authorities
of the Member States for the purpose of VAT control. Requests for information are made under the
administrative cooperation rules.

The VIES system is a computer system linking up Member States. It allows them:

– 

– 

to  obtain  information  on  all  intra-Community  supplies  of  goods  between  traders
registered for VAT purposes with them and those registered in another Member State;

to confirm the validity of a taxable person’s VAT number.

At technical level, each Member State has its own national VAT database into which information from
their  record  of  VAT-registered  traders  and  recapitulative  statements  submitted  quarterly  by  intra-
Community  suppliers  of  goods  identified  on  their  territory  is  fed.  The  VIES  system  provides  access

49

50

See Annex 20
See Annex 21

37

                                                
from  one  database  to  another.  There  is  no  central  database.  Each  national  database  can  be  directly
consulted by other Member States.

The VIES system came into operation in 1993. The Fiscalis programme has simply provided funding
for the ongoing maintenance of the system (addition of new messages).

4.3.2.  Results

4.3.2.1.  Qualitative assessment by Member States 51

Member States consider that the information provided is updated in time by other Member States. The
information is deemed to be comprehensive although some Member States would like the system to be
extended to services.

A number of proposals were made in the evaluation to make the information provided by VIES (and
other systems) more comprehensive. These concern:

– 

– 

– 

information on private purchasers of new means of transport (in an intra-Community
supply);

information on the legal situation of taxable persons (type of activity, bankruptcy, etc.)
or the type of goods supplied (goods codes);

indication if a VAT number has been removed following detection of fraud.

However, they are less positive about the accuracy of information provided by the system.52 It should
be noted that as VIES is a system of information distribution but does not use a centralised database,
the quality of evaluated data depends not only on each Member State but also on the source and type
of data exchanged (traders’ quarterly returns). If data is not available or is incorrect (trader risk) or is
not  properly  integrated  into  the  national  database  (national  administration  risk)  this  can  affect  the
efficiency of the information exchange system. Similarly, as data are retrospective responses are not
very rapid (some Member States call for risk analysis tools to be used to overcome this problem).

Some Member States allow returns to be submitted electronically to ensure that the data contained in
quarterly  returns  is  captured  by  the  VIES  system.  This  will  bring  a  significant  improvement  in  the
system’s efficiency.

However, it may be difficult to reduce the risk of error on the part of traders. They do not attach much
importance to the classification of a transaction if it has a neutral impact on their budgets or that of the
Member  State  collecting  the  VAT.  They  may  make  no  distinction  between  supplies  of  goods  and
services; 
incorrectly  applied  but  has  no  financial  consequences.
Administrative penalties for this type of error are not applied uniformly in the Member States.

this  means 

legislation 

is 

The interim evaluation report indicated that the problems could not be entirely solved by the Fiscalis
programme which was not designed for this purpose.

4.3.2.2.  Quantitative data

– 

Verification of VAT identification numbers

VIES must be able to supply, within ten seconds, the name and address of the person to whom a VAT
identification number has been attributed, the date it was issued and, where appropriate, the date it on
which it ceases to be valid.

51

52

See Annexes 16 and 17
See the results of the survey of Heads of Central Liaison Offices, Annex 18

38

                                                
Over  27.6  million  requests  for  verification  (VATR)  were  made  between  1  January  1998  and
31 December  2002.  The  initial  objective  of  a  response  time  of  less  than  ten  seconds  for  this  type  of
request  was  already  attained  in  the  first  half  of  the  year  in  which  VIES  came  into  operation  (1993).
The response time in the CCN/CSI network is now usually less than 1.5 seconds.

During the same period there were over 2 million requests for the full record of a VAT number: the
VATR  historic  facility  gives  additional  information  (change  of  address  or  name  or  other  changes
concerning the person using the VAT number).

The following graph shows a regular annual increase in VATR requests since 1998 and an increasing
interest  in  the  VATR  historic  facility  during  the  last  two  years.  The  VIES  application  was  made
available to the public on the Internet in 2002. These statistics are also included in the diagram.

VAT identification number verification
requests

8 000 000

6 000 000

4 000 000
2 000 000

-

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

VATR Historic VATR VIES on WEB

– 

Specific information requests (Level 1 and 2, Facility 2)

Every  quarter  Member  States  exchange  lists  of  suppliers  who  have  carried  out  intra-Community
supplies of goods to other Member States and details of the amount of the supplies and the purchaser’s
VAT number. This is  Level 1 Facility 1  information  as  defined  by  Article  4(2)  of  Regulation  (EEC)
No 218/92.

VIES  must  supply  each  Member  State  within  five  minutes  with  details  of  the  total  number  of  intra-
Community acquisitions of goods effected in a quarter by one of its traders from other traders in other
Member States. This is “Level 1 Facility 2”  (L1F2)  information  defined  by  Article  4(2)  of  Directive
(EEC) 218/92.

VIES  must  also  provide  Member  States  with  more  detailed  information  within  five  minutes:  a
breakdown, by supplier, of the total amount of intra-Community acquisitions effected by a trader in a
particular quarter. This is Level 2 Facility 2 (L2F2) information defined by Article 4(3) of Regulation
(EEC) No 218/92.

A  new  type  of  message  was  introduced  at  the  end  of  2002:  Level  2  Facility  1  (L2F1)  information
giving the total amount of intra-Community acquisitions of goods effected by traders in one Member
State from a particular supplier in another Member State.

Between  January  1998  and  December  2002  over  73.3  million  requests  for  information  (L1F2  and
L2F2) were made by Member States.

These requests are made in real time (synchronous communication) or via a letter box (asynchronous
communication) as Member States wish. For those Member States using the synchronous service the
response time is the same as for requests for verification of VAT numbers (an average of less than 1.5
seconds). For those communicating via a letter box, the objective of five minutes was already attained
in the period 1993-1995.

39

Level 1 and 2, facility 2 requests

15 000 000

10 000 000

5 000 000

-

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

L1F2

L2F2

It  should,  however,  be  noted  that  there  are  significant  differences  in  the  number  of  requests  by
Member States as shown in the following graph.

The greater use made by some Member States is due to the fact that they have more terminals linked
up to VIES and this make the system more accessible to their officials. The large number of requests
from  the  United  Kingdom  is  also  due  to  the  fact  that  the  system  is  set  up  in  such  a  way  that  each
request is made twice.

Member States' use of Facility 2 in the year 2002

7 000 000
6 000 000
5 000 000
4 000 000
3 000 000
2 000 000
1 000 000
0

L1F2
L2F2

AT BE DE DK EL ES FI

FR GB IE I T

LU NL PT SE

– 

Quantitative evaluation of VIES on the Internet

VIES was opened experimentally on the Internet in October 2001 and officially in June 2002. The first
graph below shows the trend in the number of requests in 2002.

180000

160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

l
i
r
p
A

e
n
u
J

l

y
u
J

y
r
a
u
n
a
J

y
r
a
u
r
b
e
r
F

h
c
r
a
M

t
s
u
g
u
A

r
e
b
m
e
p
e
S

t

r
e
b
o
t
c
O

r
e
b
m
e
v
o
N

r
e
b
m
e
c
e
D

In  2002  the  system  experienced  a  relatively  large  number  of  problems  (unavailability  of  the
application  or  response  time  of  over  15  seconds).  The  following  graph  shows  the  trend  in  the
percentage of errors generated by the system in 2002 and their cause. The huge increase in problems in
September  2002  is  due  to  greater  utilisation  and  certain  software  and  hardware  problems.  These
problems were resolved and the percentage returned to normal by the end of the year.

40

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

1

3

5

7

9

11

4.3.3. 

Impact53

Failure due to
system
unavailibilty

Failure due to
time-out (>15
seconds) or
other errors

Failure due to
time-out (>15
seconds) only

Total failure

In  their  replies  Member  States  stress  that  the  VIES  system  has  played  a  major  role  in  improving
administrative  cooperation.  They  also  consider  that  it  has  helped  to  make  administrative  procedures
more effective and assisted efforts to combat fraud.

4.4. 

Electronic forms SCACform 2001

4.4.1.  Description

The  Fiscalis  programme  financed  the  design  and  technical  implementation  of  electronic  forms
(SCACform 2001) which enable Member States to request additional information if that provided by
the VIES system is not sufficient.

The  CCN  mail  system  (secure  messaging  system  in  CCN/CSI)  was  developed  to  transmit  these  and
excise sector forms.

A  pilot  phase  involving  the  use  of  these  electronic  forms  started  in  some  Member  States  in  March
2002 and these will replace the SCAC paper forms.

53

See Annex 18

41

                                                
4.4.2.  Qualitative and quantitative results

Member  States  are  extremely  pleased  with  the  comprehensive  information  contained  in  the  forms.
They also consider the quality of information to be good (information is updated and supplied in real
time and is accurate).

Trend in number of
nombre de
SCACforms2001

300

200

100

0

Mar
rs-02

Apr
02

May
02

June
-02

July
02

Aug
02

Sept
02

Oct
02

Nov
02

Dec
02

In  the  pilot  phase  a  number  of  weaknesses  were  identified  and  these  will  be  corrected  in  the
production phase:

– 

– 

– 

– 

the  use  of  the  CCN  mail  system  poses  problems  because  it  is  not  compatible  with
national messaging systems and allows only one document to be attached (a study was
launched in 2002 to develop a CCN-mail2 system to overcome these problems);

improvements could be made to the form;

the format of the forms should be standardised for information exchange;

a manual of instructions on how to fill in the form should be made available to users.

The number of forms exchanged is too small for their results to be analysed.

However,  their  computerisation  will  help  save  time  for  information  exchange  compared  to  the
conventional channel (post) and this will help Member States meet response deadlines.

4.5. 

The SEED database

4.5.1.  Description

The SEED system is an obligatory electronic database located in each Member State and contains:

– 

a register of persons who are authorised warehousekeepers or registered traders within
the meaning of Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject
to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products;

– 

a register of facilities approved as tax warehouses.

It  allows  each  Member  State  access  to  the  electronic  records  of  other  Member  States.  It  uses  the
facilities of the AFIS mail system (Anti-Fraud Information System) which is an electronic messaging
system.

Improvements  to  this  application  was  not  a  priority  objective  of  the  programme.  The  aim  was  to
maintain  it  by  attempting  to  find  temporary  solutions  to  any  problems  encountered  pending
development of the EMCS system which will replace SEED and EWSE.

42

4.5.2.  Results

The effectiveness of excise applications was assessed at a Fiscalis seminar held in 200254 attended by
the Heads of Excise Liaison Offices (ELOs) who:

– 

– 

– 

are  responsible  for  the  operation  of  the  SEED,  EWSE  and  MVS  systems  and  for
related risk analysis;

act as national contact points but also as national contact points for the monitoring of
Community procedures and systems for which they are responsible;

have  a  general  overview  of  all  movements  under  these  procedures  and  systems  by
monitoring  quality  and  filtering  information  exchange  (SEED  requests,  EWSE
exchanges, MVS exchanges, informal exchanges and any targeted measures).

The  most  trenchant  criticisms  made  of  this  system  do  not  concern  its  technical  aspects  but  the  huge
delays by Member States in updating data (some do not carry out monthly updates).

Failure  to  comply  with  common  specifications  for  file  format,  the  lack  of  harmonisation  of  excise
numbers and information, the slowness of the AFIS and problems in integrating national systems are
considered to hamper the exchange of files.

SEED does not provide all the services anticipated either for national administrations or traders. Some
national administrations prefer to use fax and e-mail rather than this system to exchange data.

This  is  borne  out  by  a  survey  of  Member  States  (delays  in  updating,  incorrect  and  inaccurate
information).55 Some Member States also believe that the system does not supply all the information
required. 56

The following operational solutions are proposed:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

ensure updating deadlines are met;

draw up a trader risk profile;

make the database accessible online to ensure that all authorised traders are included
and are accessible at the same time in the database or, at least, carry out more frequent
updates;

confine  updates  to  changes  rather  than  the  whole  database  to  avoid  blocking  the
system for hours;

harmonise the structure of excise numbers;

coordinate  and  harmonise  goods  codes  so  that  traders  entered  in  SEED  can  send  or
receive them;

maintain a “historic” of traders from whom authorisation has been withdrawn so that
subsequent searches can be made on it.

54

55

56

Seminar  held  in  Chester  from  22  to  24  April  2002  on  the  development  and  improvement  of  methods
and  systems  of  communication  on  movements  of  goods  subject  to  excise  duty  under  suspensive
arrangements.  It  was  attended  by  the  heads  of  Excise  Liaison  Offices  in  the  Member  States  and
candidate countries
See Annex 16
See Annex 17

43

                                                
The EMCS project should have overcome these problems. However, pending its entry into service the
Commission and the Member States intend to develop a new version of SEED (SEED v0) which will
incorporate some of the solutions proposed.

4.5.3. 

Impact57

Despite  these  deficiencies  Member  States  believe  that  SEED  has  helped  to  improve  administrative
cooperation between Member States and is useful in combating fraud.

4.6. 

EWSE application (Excise Early Warning System)

4.6.1.  Description

This  system  enables  the  Member  State  from  which  excisable  goods  depart  to  send  an  information  or
warning message to the Member State where they arrive so that the goods can be checked in time.

It  was  introduced  on  the  basis  of  recommendation  by  a  High-Level  Group  on  fraud  in  tobacco  and
alcohol in December 1998.

The pilot phase started in December 2002 and involved six Member States. By the end of 2002 only
four  Member  States  were  still  participating. 58  The  two  Member  States  which  withdrew  from  the
project did so for technical or legal reasons.

Information is sent via the AFIS (Anti-Fraud Information System) messaging system.

EWSE is one of the precursors of a future integrated excise movement and control system (EMCS). It
is being used on a provisional basis until the EMCS is fully developed.

Its development and operation have been financed by the Fiscalis programme.

4.6.2.  Results

EWSE was evaluated by the Heads of the Excise and Liaison Offices (ELOs) at the Fiscalis seminar in
Chester in 2002. 59

The following points were underlined:

–  Member  States  regret  the  fact  that  the  messages  they  send  are  not  followed  up  and
there  is  no  clear  distinction  made  between  information  and  warning  messages.  They
note that ELOs receive numerous purely informative messages.

– 

– 

They recommend that warnings really be  “early”,  i.e.  are  sent  at  least  as  the  goods
leave so that the administration in the Member State of arrival can check them when
they arrive.

At a legal level, Member States do not wish OLAF to have access to information sent
via the AFIS system. OLAF has given Member States the necessary guarantees noting
that its role would be simply to coordinate information exchange.

The survey carried out among Member States underscored these points. The comprehensive nature60
and quality61 of the information provided by EWSE is judged to be average.

57

58

59

60

See Annex 19
Other Member States do not participate as such but use fax or e-mail to send information
See footnote 54
See Annex 17

44

                                                
Member States suggested the following solutions to these problems:

– 

– 

– 

administrations in the Member State of departure and arrival should both make greater
use  of  risk  analysis  to  better  target  messages  to  be  sent  and  received  and  limit  the
number of messages exchanged to those presenting real risks;

an  alternative  technical  solution  for  management  of  the  application  by  the
Commission should be found;

pending  the  introduction  of  this  alternative  solution  use  of  EWSE  should  be
encouraged irrespective of the method of transmission (AFIS, fax or e- mail).

It  should  be  noted  that  the  Commission  has  already  submitted  a  draft  plan  to  Member  States  for
approval  setting  out  technical  solutions  for  transfer  from  the  EWSE  to  the  CCN  with  a  view  to  its
future incorporation into the EMCS.

4.6.3. 

Impact

Member  States  consider62  that  EWSE  has  helped  to  make  national  administrative  procedures  more
efficient and is a tool which can be used to combat fraud.

It  is  however,  impossible  to  obtain  detailed  information  on  cases  of  fraud  detected  for  reasons  of
confidentiality.

The  information  message  version  has  helped  to  attain  the  objective  of  uniform  application  of
Community  legislation.  However,  not  all  Member  States  attach  the  same  importance  to  purely
informative  messages.  Some  believe  that  they  might  swamp  offices  responsible  for  receiving  and
processing them. Consequently Member States are allowed to not send a message if they consider that
it is unnecessary after carrying out a risk analysis. The system is therefore used differently from one
Member State to another and this dilutes the system’s impact.

Member  States  stress  the  need  for  powerful  risk  analysis  tools  to  process  information  supplied  by
computerised systems. This need will become even greater in the EMCS system where all messages
on movements of excisable products will be computerised.

4.7.  MVS electronic forms

4.7.1.  Description

MVS (Movement verification system) electronic forms were introduced in 2002 for excisable products
to improve administrative cooperation and mutual assistance between administrations and facilitate the
exchange of information. Information can be exchanged between Member States using these forms.

The Fiscalis programme financed the technical implementation of these forms.

The  pilot  phase  using  CCN  mail  began  in  May  2002  but  was  not  completed  until  December  of  that
year. Eight Member States took part. Countries not participating in the pilot phase exchanged forms by
manual means.

61

62

See Annex 16
See Annex 19

45

                                                                                                                                                        
4.7.2.  Results

The MVS electronic forms were evaluated by the Heads of the ELOs at the Fiscalis seminar in Chester
in 2002. 63

The participating Member States consider that the forms should be used by all Member States pending
development of the EMCS.

They stress that risk analysis tools should be used with the forms.

The evaluation in Chester drew attention to the following operational problems:

– 

– 

some countries consider that MVS should not be sent for low-risk movements;

some Member States believe training should be organised for users (when the system
is introduced).

The number of message exchanged during the pilot phase is shown below.

Number of MVS

800
600

400
200
0

May
02

June
02

July
02

Aug
02

Sept
02

Oct
02

Nov
02

Dec
02

Since  the  MVS  was  still  in  the  pilot  phase  at  the  end  of  2002  there  are  no  conclusive  results.  The
survey  carried  out  among  Member  States  showed  unanimous  interest  in  the  development  of  the
system. However they suggest that forms and instructions could be improved.

A specific evaluation of the pilot phase will be undertaken in 2003.

4.7.3. 

Impact

Member States believe64 that the MVS electronic forms will help to:

– 

– 

significantly improve administrative cooperation between Member States. However it
must be underlined that responses also cover the paper version of the MVS forms;

make national administrative procedures more efficient.

63

64

See footnote 54

See Annex 19

46

                                                
4.8. 

e-commerce VAT

The objective of the e-commerce project is to develop and implement a computerised system for the
declaration,  collection  and  allocation  of  VAT  payable  by  traders  not  established  in  the  European
Community  who  supply  goods  and  services  over  the  Internet  to  consumers  in  the  European
Community.

National administrations must collect data from these traders via the Internet or by any other electronic
means.  Although  this  is  a  national  responsibility,  the  Commission  will  define  standards  to  ensure  a
minimum level of quality throughout the Community.

The  functional  and  technical  specifications  were  completed  and  adopted  in  November  2002.  The
system  is  due  to  become  operational  by  1  July  2003.  All  Community  activities  are  financed  by  the
Fiscalis programme.

4.9. 

The EMCS (Excise Movement and Control System) feasibility study

A  feasibility  study  financed  by  the  Fiscalis  programme  was  launched  in  1999  by  the  Commission  to
develop and deploy an integrated computerised movement and control system for excisable products.
The results of the study are extremely positive and form the basis for the Commission’s proposals in
the Communication on the computerisation of the excise sector.65

The  project  is  designed  to  replace  the  current  system  to  monitor  excisable  goods  moving  under  the
suspension arrangements by a system of secure electronic messages between the parties involved.

The  decision  to  set  up  the  EMCS  is  expected  to  be  taken  in  June  2003  and  the  project  will  take  six
years to develop.

The  Fiscalis  programme  was  unable  to  finance  the  development  of  the  EMCS  since  its  financial
estimates and schedules exceeded its capabilities.

5. 

CONCLUSIONS

5.1. 

Applications common to the Customs 2002 and Fiscalis programmes

1
The services offered by the CCN/CSI are extremely comprehensive and the network operates
well  and  is  widely  used.  Its  deployment,  development  and  operational  costs  were  conditioned  by  the
need  to  make  it  compatible  with  other  existing  national  systems.  Its  decentralised  technical
architecture  means  that  each  new  connection  requires  a  specific  infrastructure  and,  in  some  cases,  a
development to adapt to supplementary local technology.

The  introduction  of  the  Tempo  methodology  has  improved  the  organisational  effectiveness

2
and efficiency of the Commission’s management of computerised projects.

However, national delegates in the project committees do not possess all the information on available
(budgetary  and  human)  resources  to  carry  out  the  national  components  of  projects.  This  makes  it
difficult to set realistic timetables for projects.

5.2. 

VAT and excise applications

1
The technical efficiency of the VIES system has been demonstrated by the speed of responses
and  the  huge  volume  and  number  of  messages.  The  number  of  requests  during  the  programme’s  life
exceeded  100  million  (information  on  VAT  numbers  and  Level  1  and  2  information  on  intra-

65

COM(2001)466

47

                                                
Community acquisitions of goods). This will continue to rise following the system’s recent installation
on the Internet.

Electronic forms for information exchange between Member States were still in the pilot phase at the
end  of  2002  and  the  messaging  system  and  the  form  itself  appear  to  need  some  technical
improvements. These forms will ensure response times are met by Member States.

Member States consider that VIES and the electronic forms are very good administrative cooperation
tools.  They  mention  that  the  accuracy  and  precision  of  information  exchange  could  be  improved.  It
should,  however,  be  noted  that  such  improvements  go  beyond  the  framework  of  the  Fiscalis
programme which is only one component of administrative cooperation.

2
Efficiency  gains  in  the  SEED  and  EWSE  systems  were  not  a  priority  of  the  Fiscalis
programme as these are only transitional systems. They will eventually be replaced by the EMCS. The
EMCS  feasibility  study  financed  by  the  Fiscalis  programme  was  extremely  positive  and  formed  the
basis for the Commission’s proposals in the Communication on computerisation of the excise sector. 66

There are still some technical and organisational problems in the SEED application; these are mainly
due to delays in updating by national administrations which create a problem of reliability.

Member  States  consider  that  EWSE  has  made  a  positive  contribution  to  combating  fraud  but,
according to some Member States, the lack of distinction between warning and information messages
makes the system less efficient. They would like messages to be sent before goods leave so that checks
can  be  undertaken  in  the  Member  State  where  they  arrive.  However,  these  are  procedural  problems
which do not concern the application as such.

The  MVS  electronic  forms  were  in  the  pilot  phase  at  the  end  of  2002.  It  is  therefore  difficult  to
measure  their  results  or  impact.  Nevertheless  Member  States  have  shown  unanimous  interest  in  the
development of this system.

66

COM(2001) 466

48

                                                
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

AFIS
Anti  Fraud Information System (Electronic messaging system providing swift
and secure exchange of information between the Commission and national administrations to prevent, identify
and pursue irregularities in the customs and agricultural field)

ART

Activity Reporting Tool (Computerisedbudget management system)

The amount of time that a network is capable of operating. In the case of the
Availability
CCN/CSI  availability  is  the  average  for  gateways  and  their  connections.  Unavailability  owing  to  network  or
systems managed by national administrations is not taken into account

System 
CCN/CSI
(Communication platform and interface used to link national administrations and the Commission)

Network/ Common 

Communication 

Common 

Interface

CLO

Central Liaison Office

Computer application

Synonym for IT application

Customs 2002
measures taken by Member States in the customs field

Multiannual  Community  action  programme  to  underpin  and  supplement

DDS

Data Dissemination System (Server for internet publication of data)

Deployment
life cycle of a computer system deployment follows development and precedes operation

Installation of a computer application or system where it is to be used. In the

Development
system development follows studies and precedes deployment

Programming  and  testing  a  computer  system.  In  the  life  cycle  of  a  computer

DG TAXUD

Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union

EBTIs
European  Binding  Tariff  Information  (system  for  exchanging  and  consulting
Member  States'  goods  classification  decisions  and,  therefore,  their  tariff  treatment  and  application  of  trade
policy measures)

e-commerce VAT
payable by traders

Computerised  system  for  the  declaration,  collection  and  allocation  of  VAT

Effectiveness
have been achieved and if anticipated effects have been obtained

Criterion to determine the extent to which the programme's official objectives

Efficiency
the resources mobilised and if the effects have been achieved at a reasonable cost

Criterion to determine the extent to which results obtained are proportionate to

ELO

Excise Liaison Office

EMCS
and monitoring system for excisable products)

Excise  Movement  and  Control  System  (Integrated  computerised  movement

Evaluation
standards

Assessment of the value of public action with reference to explicit criteria and

Exchanges
Visits by officials who spend 15 days in an administration in another Member
State.  They  enable  exchange  officials  to  meet  other  officials  and  improve  their  understanding  of  the
organisation, methods and procedures used in another Member State

Ex-post evaluation

Evaluation summarising and assessing the programme after its completion

49

EWSE
Excise  Early Warning System  (enables a Member State from which excisable
goods depart to send an information or warning message to the Member State where the goods arrive so that
checks can be carried out in time)

FISCALIS
indirect taxation systems in the Single Market

Multiannual  Community  action  programme  to  improve  the  operation  of

Functioning/Operation
Use of a computer system. In the life cycle of a computer system, operation is
the final objective. It is at this stage that the investment previously approved (study, development, deployment)
bears fruit and the system begins to contribute to objectives

Gateway
Connection point for national administration to a CCN network. There is only
one gateway for each administration connected. The system communicates with the gateway via the networks
managed by national administrations

Interim evaluation
assess the quality of programme monitoring and implementation

Critical evaluation of the initial achievements and results of a programme to

Impact
indirectly, on other beneficiaries

Medium- to long-term  effects  of  an  activity  on  the  intended  beneficiaries  or,

Indicator
obtained or a variable. Information provided by an indicator is a quantitative measurement of facts or opinions

Measurement  of  an  objective  to  be  achieved,  resources  mobilised,  effect

IT

Information Technology

Joint measures
Member States, i.e. seminars, exchanges, multilateral controls and training

All measures organised under the programme jointly by the Commission and

MEANS
Methode  d'Evaluation  des  Actions  de  Nature  Structurelle  -  method  of
evaluating structural measures used to evaluate Community programmes. The MEANS methodology defines the
standard phases and stages of an evaluation, with delineation and structuring of the evaluation (described in
detail below) preceding observation, analysis and assessment

MVS

Movement Verification System

Multilateral  controls  are  inspections  of  multinationals  with  interests  or
Multilateral Controls
commercial activities in several countries. Usually, as least three Member States, and in some cases, more are
involved in such controls. There are two types of multinational controls under this programme: (a) multinational
control, i.e. integration and coordination of national controls of a multinational with branches or subsidiaries in
two or more Member States and (b) coordinated control of two traders or more in different Member States

NCTS
exchange of transit data between national administrations in parallel with the movement of goods)

New  Computerised  Transit  System  (Computerised  system  for  the  electronic

OLAF

PSO

Results

Anti-Fraud Office at the European Commission

Project Support Office

Short-term effects of an activity on intended beneficiaries

Relevance
needs of Member States

Criterion for assessing the extent to which a programme's objectives match the

SCAC

Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation

SCACform2001
information provided by VIES is not sufficient)

SCAC  form  (Electronic  form  to  obtain  additional  information  if  the

SCAF

Subcommittee on combating fraud

50

SCIT

SCAT

Subcommittee on computerisation

Subcommittee on administrative training

SEED
warehousekeepers or registered traders within the meaning of Directive 92/12/EEC

System  of  exchange  of  excise  data.  Register  of  persons  who  are  authorised

Seminars
Seminars provide the ideal forum for national officials and experts to meet to
analyse  problems  and  identify  and  disseminate  best  practice.  Their  purpose  is  to  give  national  officials  the
opportunity  to  speak  about  their  experience  on  their  own  behalf  (and  not  as  representatives  of  national
administrations), with a view to improving administrative cooperation

SIGL
to provide information on import licences for textiles and steel products subject to quotas)

Système d’Information de Gestion des Licences (Integrated Licensing System -

Sustainability
the programme is completed

Criterion to determine the extent to which changes and their benefits last after

TARIC
Integrated Tariff of the European Communities (on the basis of the Combined
Nomenclature  it  sets  out  the  relevant  rates  of  duty,  other  Community  levies  and  other  specific  Community
measures for each type of goods)

TCO/TCT
Commission to send information on origin and transit stamps to Member State administrations by e-mail)

Origin  stamps/transit  stamps  transmission  system  (Application  used  by  the

TEMPO
developing and managing computer projects)

Taxud  Electronic  Management  of  Projects  On  line  (Methodology  for

TQS
monitoring imported products to check tariff ceilings or for economic reasons or anti-fraud reasons)

Tariff  Quota and  Surveillance  (Application  for  managing  tariff  quotas  and

VAT

Value Added Ta x

Unit values

Application to calculate average prices used as points of reference

Utility
changes in the light of the needs of the parties concerned

Criterion for judging whether a programme has brought about the anticipated

VATR

Request for verification of a VAT member in VIES

VAT  Information  Exchange  System  (Computer  system  linking  the  Member
VIES
States  and  enabling  them  to  obtain  information  on  intra-Community  transactions  involving  goods  between
traders registered in their own VAT records and those registered in another Member State, and to confirm the
validity of the VAT identification number of taxable persons)

51

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The sources of information used are:

– 

Legal documents

Decision No 888/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 1998 establishing
a programme of Community action to ameliorate the indirect taxation systems of the internal market
(Fiscalis programme) (OJ L 126 of 28 April 1998, p. 1)

Decision  98/467/EC  of  2  July  1998  establishing  certain  implementing  provisions  for  European
Parliament  and  Council  Decision  No  888/98/EC  establishing  a  programme  of  Community  action  to
improve the function of the indirect taxation systems of the internal market (Fiscalis programme)  (OJ
L 206 of 23 July 1998. p.43)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 of 27 January 1992 on administrative cooperation in the field of
indirect taxation (VAT) (OJ L 24 of 1 February 1992)

Council  Directive  91/680/EEC  of  16  December  1991  supplementing  the  common  system  of  value
added tax and amending Directive No 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers  (OJ
L 272 of 17 September 1992, p. 0072 – 0072)

Council  Directive  79/1070/EEC  of  6  December  1979  amending  Directive  77/799/EEC  concerning
mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation  (OJ
L 331 o 2 December 1989, p. 0008 – 0009)

Directive  77/799/EEC  concerning  mutual  assistance  by  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member
States in the field of direct taxation (OJ L 336 of 27 December 1977)

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation on the laws of the Member
States  relating  to  turnover  taxes  -  Common  system  of  value  added  tax:  uniform  basis  of  assessment
(OJ L 262 of 15 October 1977, p. 0044)

– 

Other documents

Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  the  execution  of  the
Matthaeus  Tax  Programme  from  1  January  1995  to  31  December  1995  (COM(96)  543  final,
4 November 1996)

Interim evaluation report on the Fiscalis programme (SEC (2001) 1328 of 31 June 2001)

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  -  a  strategy  to
improve the operation of the VAT system within the context of the internal market (COM (2000) 348
final of 7 June 2000)

MEANS  is  a  Commission  programme  to  improve  methods  to  evaluate  structural  measures

52

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1

FISCALIS SEMINARS

Response

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

15

D

AT B

DK E

FIN F

GR IRL I

LX NL PT UK SV

No of 
responses

AVERAGE

UTILITY

R
E
S
U
L
T
S

I
M
P
A
C
T

1.1 What is your general 
appreciation of the 
usefulness of the seminars 
of the Fiscalis programme? 

2.1 Did the seminars made 
it possible to improve the 
participants' knowledge and 
comprehension of 
individual subjects of 
indirect taxation?

2.2  Did the seminars made 
it possible to identify 
contact points in other 
national administrations?

2.3 Did the seminars made 
it possible to identify good 
administrative practices for 
indirect taxation?

2.4 Do you consider that 
seminars generated results 
other than those mentioned 
above? (yes = 1, no = 0) 

3.1 As a result of the seminars, 
could the knowledge on 
indirect taxation acquired by 
the participants be 
disseminated within the 
national  administration?

3.2 As a result of the 
seminars, were the 
networks identified by the 
participants used and did 
they allow better 
cooperation between 
national administrations?

3.3 As a result of the 
seminars, were the working 
methods of the national 
administration improved?

3.4 As a result of the 
seminars, was coordination 
between services within the 
national administration 
improved (e.g. cooperation 
between the tax and 
customs authorities in the 
fight against VAT fraud)?

3.5 Do you consider that 
seminars generated an 
impact other than that 
mentioned above? (yes = 1, 
no = 0) 

3

3

3

3

3

4

3

4

3

3

3

4

4

3

0

14

3.29

3

3

3

3

4

3

3

4

3

3

3

1

3

3

3

15

3

3

4

4

4

3

4

3

4

3

4

4

4

3

3

0

14

3.57

3

3

3

3

4

3

4

4

3

3

3

4

3

3

0

14

3.29

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

15

0,67

2

4

3

2

2

3

3

4

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

15

2.87

2

4

4

3

3

3

3

4

3

3

3

4

3

3

0

14

3.21

2

4

2

2

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

4

15

2.73

2

3

2

1

2

2

2

3

3

4

2

1

2

2

0

14

2.21

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

15

0,47

Scale from 1 (useless) to 4 (very useful)

53

ANNEX 2

RESPONSES BY PARTICIPANTS IN  2000  AND  2001  SEMINARS  TO  INDIVIDUAL

EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRES

Was the choice of subject and objectives of seminar?

No reply
2.1%

Poor
1.3%

Good
45.1%

Very good
51.6%

Was the quality of presentations?

No reply
2%

Poor
6%

Very good
32%

Good
60%

Was the quality of the discussions in the plenary session and in the working parties?

No reply
2%

Poor
6%

Very good
32%

Good
60%

54

ANNEX 3

RESPONSES BY PARTICIPANTS IN  2000  AND  2001  SEMINARS  TO  INDIVIDUAL

EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRES

Was work of seminar and working party chairs and rapporteurs?

Poor 0.5%

No reply
1.7%

Good
36.8%

Very good
60.9%

Breakdown of participants by sex

Women 34%

Men 66%

Do you consider that you or your administration as a whole will be able

to prevent and detect tax avoidance and evasion?

No reply
8%

Significantly better

5%

No better at all

10%

Much better
mieux?30%

A little better
47%

55

ANNEX 4

EXCHANGES FISCALIS

D

AT B

DK E

FIN F

G R IRL I

LX NL PT UK SV

No of 
responses

AVERAGE

Response

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

4

0

4

3

4

3

3

3

4

3

3

4

3

4

15

14

3.43

UTILITY

R
E
S
U
L
T
S

I
M
P
A
C
T

4.1 What is your general 
assessment of the 
usefulness of the exchanges 
of the Fiscalis programme?

5.1 Did the exchanges 
enable the participants to 
improve their 
comprehension of 
individual subjects of 
indirect taxation?

5.2 Identification by the 
participants in the 
exchanges of ways to 
improve working methods 
(including the identification 
of good practices)

5.3 Is identification by the 
participants in the 
exchanges of contact points 
(or of networks) in other 
Member States likely to 
improve administrative 
cooperation between fiscal 
services?

5.4 Do you consider that 
the exchanges generated 
results other than those 
mentioned above? (yes =1; 
no =0)

6.1 As a result of the 
exchanges, was the 
knowledge acquired by the 
participants disseminated 
within the national 
administration?

6.2 As a result of the 
exchanges, were working 
methods of the national 
administration improved?

6.3 As a result of the 
exchanges, were the contact 
points identified by the 
participants used and was it 
possible to improve 
cooperation between 
national administrations?

6.4 Do you consider that 
the exchanges generated an 
impact other than that 
mentioned above? (yes = 1, 
no = 0) 

3

3

0

3

3

3

3

4

3

4

3

2

4

2

0

13

3.08

2

3

0

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

3

14

2.79

3

3

0

3

2

3

2

2

3

4

4

4

4

4

3

14

3.14

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

15

0,2

3

3

0

2

3

3

3

2

3

4

3

3

3

3

3

14

2.93

2

3

0

2

2

3

2

2

3

3

2

2

2

2

3

14

2.36

3

3

0

1

2

3

2

2

3

3

3

4

2

4

3

13

2.92

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

15

0,33

Scale from 1 (useless) to 4 (very useful)

56

ANNEX 5

RESPONSES BY PARTICIPANTS IN 2000 AND 2001  EXCHANGES TO INDIVIDUAL

EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRES

Do you have a better understanding of Community legislation on indirect taxation, its 
administration and implementation at national level in your Member State and in the host 
Member State?

No reply 1%

No better at all 1%

A little better 23%

Significantly better 22%

Much better 53%

Area of work

Customs duties 4%

Direct taxation 
27%

Excise 9%

VAT 60%

How do you assess the efforts made by the host administration to meet your needs?

Unsatisfactory 1.3%

Satisfactory 18.4%

No reply 0.7%

Very satisfactory 79.6%

57

ANNEX 6

EXCHANGES BY M EMBER STATE

Fiscalis – Exchanges by Member State in 2000

First
half 2000

Second

half 2000

TOTAL

AT
BE
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
UK
GR
IRL
 IT
LUX
NL
PT
SE
TOTAL

AT
BE
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
UK
GR
IRL
 IT
LUX
NL
PT
SE
TOTAL

25
35
38
11
39
22
55
37
22
17
37
2
26
32
30
428

27
35
53
10
32
27
43
27
24
18
13
10
29
27
41
416

1
3
2
1
1

6
9
1
3
8

4
1

40
9.35%

24
32
36
10
38
22
49
28
21
14
29
2
22
31
30
388
90.65%

Fiscalis – Exchanges by Member State in 2001

First
half 2000

Second

half 2000

TOTAL

23
30
41
7
28
19
42
21
20
11
10
2
25
21
37
337
81.01%

4
5
12
3
4
8
1
6
4
7
3
8
4
6
4
79
18.99%

58

ANNEX 7

MULTILATERAL CONTROLS

Response

UTILITY

R
E
S
U
L
T
S

I
M
P
A
C
T

7.1 What is your general assessment of the 
usefulness of multilateral controls of the 
Fiscalis programme? 

8.1 The main goal of multilateral controls 
is to check, from a fiscal point of view, the 
validity of the operations of multinational 
companies. Concerning multilateral 
controls in which you took part, do you 
consider that this objective was achieved?

8.2 Multilateral controls made it possible 
to improve knowledge by the participants 
of legislation on indirect taxation, on its 
interpretation and on its application by the 
various Member States, and in particular 
on the various audit systems used.

8.3 Multilateral controls enabled the 
participants to identify contact points in 
other national administrations.

8.4 Multilateral controls enabled the 
participants to identify ways of improving 
their own working methods and in 
particular audit (including the adaptation 
of good practices).

8.5 Multilateral controls enabled the 
participants to identify ways of improving 
the current methods of exchange of 
information between Member States.

8.6 Do you consider that multilateral 
controls generated results other than those 
mentioned above? (yes = 1; no =0)

9.1 As a result of multilateral controls, 
could the knowledge acquired by the 
participants on indirect taxation be 
disseminated within the national 
administration?

9.2 As a result of the multilateral controls, 
were audit procedures within the national 
administration improved?

9.3 As a result of multilateral controls, 
were the contact points identified by the 
participants used and was it possible to 
improve cooperation between national 
administrations?

9.4 As a result of multilateral controls, 
were actions implemented in order to 
facilitate the exchange of information 
between Member States?

9.5 As a result of multilateral controls, did 
the national administration change its 
procedures so as to better take  into 
account the needs of economic operators 
(including simplification of the 
formalities)?

9.6 Do you consider that multilateral 
controls generated an impact other than 
that mentioned above? (yes = 1; no = 0)

D

AT B

DK E

FIN F

G R IRL I

LX NL PT UK SV

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

4

4

4

3

2

4

4

4

3

4

0

3

3

No of 
responses

AVERAGE

15

14

3.43

3

4

4

3

2

3

2

4

3

2

2

3

0

3

3

14

2.93

3

3

3

3

4

3

3

4

3

4

3

3

0

3

4

14

3.29

3

3

3

4

2

4

3

3

3

4

3

3

0

3

4

14

3.21

2

3

2

3

3

3

2

3

3

4

2

2

0

2

4

14

2.71

3

4

3

3

2

3

2

2

4

4

2

2

0

3

3

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

3

3

3

2

3

3

1

2

3

4

2

0

0

2

3

1

2

3

2

2

2

1

3

3

3

2

3

0

2

3

14

15

12

14

2.86

2.83

2.29

3

3

3

1

3

3

1

2

3

3

2

4

0

2

4

14

2.64

1

3

3

3

2

2

1

3

3

3

0

3

0

2

0

12

2.42

1

2

3

1

2

2

1

2

3

2

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1.92

12

15

Scale from 1 (useless) to 4 (very useful)

59

ANNEX 8

NUMBER OF MULTILATERAL CONTROLS IN 1998 AND 1999

Number of multilateral controls in 1998

Member
State

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Number of
proposals

VAT

Excise

Number of
participants

0

2

1

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

1

0

1+1

0

1+1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

3

6

1

6

9

1

1

7

3

7

2

4

3

8

1+1: VAT & Excise

Number of multilateral controls in 1999

Member
State

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Number of
proposals

VAT

Excise

Number of
participants

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

3

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1+1

1

1

1

3

0

0

1

0

2

0

1

0

1+1

1+1: VAT & Excise

60

2

4

2

2

7

6

1

2

3

2

8

0

3

3

5

ANNEX 9

NUMBER OF MULTILATERAL CONTROLS IN 2000 AND 2001

Number of multilateral controls in 2000

VAT

Excise

Number of
proposals
0

2+1*

Member State

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

Member State

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

0

1

3

2

0

0

0

0

1*

0

0

1

6

3

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

1

3

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

2+1

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1+1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Number of
participants
2

6

4

6

5

13

1

3

8

2

9

2

6

3

6

Number of
participants
1

4

1

0

6

5

0

3

3

1

6

2

4

3

6

1+1

6

* Plus B and NL proposal
1+1: VAT & Excise

Number of multilateral controls in 2001

Number of
proposals
0

VAT

Excise

1+1

1+1: VAT and Excise control

61

ANNEX 10

NUMBER OF MULTILATERAL CONTROLS IN 2002 

Member State

Number of
proposals

VAT

Excise

Number of
participants

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

United
Kingdom

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1+1: VAT and Excise control

1

0

3

0

3

2

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

3

62

ANNEX 11

FISCALIS TRAINING

D

A  B

DK E

FIN F

GR IRL I

LX NL PT UK S

No of responses AVERAGE

RESPONSES Received = 1

UTILITY

I
M
P
A
C
T

Not received = 0
10.1 What is your general assessment of the 
usefulness of the Fiscalis programme 
training activities?
11.1 Do you consider that the training 
activities of the Fiscalis programme made it 
possible to improve the availability of the 
training proposed to the officials of the 
national administration (adoption of a 
common basis for training, access to the 
training of the other Member States, 
quality...)?
11.2 Do you consider that the training 
activities of the Fiscalis programme made it 
possible to improve the knowledge of 
specific fiscal subjects?
11.3 Do you consider that the training 
activities of the Fiscalis programme made it 
possible to improve use by the officials of 
your administration of the linguistic tools?

11.4 Do you consider that the training 
activities generated an impact other than 
that mentioned above? (yes = 1; no = 0)

1

3

1

4

1

3

1

3

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

4

1

3

1

4

1

3

1

2

1

0

1

3

1

0

0

3

2

2

2

1

1

3

3

3

2

1

0

2

0

2

2

3

2

3

1

1

3

3

3

2

2

0

3

0

0

0

4

1

3

0

0

1

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

2

0

4

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

15

13

12

13

11

14

2,92

2,08

2,31

2,00

0,29

Scale from 1 (useless) to 4 (very useful)

External measures: Fiscalis seminars 2000 and 2001

Number of participants from candidate countries

17

13

14

7

8

21

18

18

15

14

12

13

9

BG CY CZ

EST H LV LT PL RO SK

SLO M TR

25

20

15

10

5

0

63

ANNEX 12

IMPROVING PERSONAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Fiscalis seminars 2000 and 2001

Do you hope that you or your administration will improve your personnel 
administration procedures?

No reply 8%

Very significantly  4%

Not at all 5%

Significantly 34%

A little 49%

Fiscalis exchanges 2000 and 2001

Do you hope to improve your personnel administrative procedures?

No reply 1%

Not at all 4%

Very significantly 12%

A little 46%

Significantly 37%

64

ANNEX 13

FISCALIS IT BUDGET

Project/Year

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Total

CCN/CSI (50% Fiscalis - 50% Customs)

2 182 687

6 033 857

4 336 042

4 672 356

6 576 530

23 801 472

Management tools (50% Fiscalis - 50% Customs)

Tempo

PSO

Fiscalis (excluding CCN/CSI and management tools)

EMCS study

FITS

SIPA

-

-

-

850 407

580 925

269 482

-

124 627

124 627

-

476 406

476 406

344 175

129 500

129 500

-

344 175

-

1 074 708

730

344

944 286

880 925

1 730 851

1 796 723

6 203 192

-

-

-

-

944 286

880 925

1 655 851

1 796 723

-

-

75 000

-

580

5 547 267

75

TOTAL Fiscalis (including 50% CCN/CSI and
management tools component)

1 940 162

4 116 675

3 249 692

5 163 120

5 153 010

19 622 659

65

ANNEX 14

EVALUATION  BY  M EMBER  STATES  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT,  DEPLOYMENT

AND OPERATION OF THE  CCN/CSI

Question

Please indicate whether you agree with the following statements on a scale of 1 (I completely
agree) to 5 (I completely disagree)

Responses

Development and deployment of CCN/CSI

A. Realistic time targets for the implementation of 
CCN/CSI in your Member State
B. Realistic budgets for the implementation of CCN/CSI 
in your Member State
C. Sufficient support of the Commission (CCN/TC) 
during the implementation/deployment of CCN/CSI in 
your Member State
D. Sufficient training provided by the European 
Commission for the implementation /deployment of 
CCN/CSI in your Member State
E. Sufficient documentation provided by the European 
Commission for the implementation/ deployment of 
CCN/CSI in your Member State
 F. Easy to link CCN/CSI with your national system 
platforms
G. Locally supported technologies are used in the 
specification of CCN/CSI (i.e. supported in your Member 
State)

About the operation of CCN/CSI (1999-2002)

H. Sufficient support of the European Commission 
(CCN/TC) during the operation of CCN/CSI
I. Sufficient documentation and training provided by the 
European Commission (CCN/TC) for the operation of 
CCN/CSI and system development
J. Easy to  operate CCN/CSI in your Member State
K. CCN/CSI services cover all requirements for 
information exchange between administrations as 
required by the programme (synchronous & 
asynchronous services, HTTP, CCN-mail)
L. Sufficient availability of the backbone-system, 
managed by the European Commission
M. Sufficient availability of other gateways, managed by 
other Member States

N. CCN/CSI easily interfaces with the national systems
O. Any system using CCN/CSI contains in their 
specification the required specifications to interoperate 
with CCN/CSI
P. CCN/CSI is saving considerable resources to set up a 
new Fiscalis IT system in your Member State
Q. Sufficient security for all exchange services

No of 
responses 
Fiscalis

Average 
Fiscalis

No of 
responses 
Customs

Average 
Customs

General 
average

9

8

9

9

6

9

9

9

9
9

8

8

7

9

8

5
8

2,00

1,56

1,78

1,83

1,83

1,83

1,67

2,00

2,22
2,17

2,88

1,88

1,71

2,22

2,38

2,60
2,00

10

10

10

10

10

10

2,00

1,70

2,00

1,64

2,00

1,90

2,10

1,97

2,10

2,30

2,00

2,08

10

2,10

1,90

11

1,73

1,85

11
11

10

10

10

10

10

9
11

2,09
2,64

2,10

1,80

2,00

2,50

2,10

2,11
1,36

2,15
2,43

2,44

1,83

1,88

2,37

2,22

2,29
1,63

Rating
1 = I completely agree
5 = I completely disagree
Average <=2.0
Average between 2 and 2.5
Average >2.5

66

ANNEX 15

EVALUATION  BY  M EMBER  STATES  OF  THE  DEPLOYMENT  AND
OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEMS DEVELOPED
UNDER THE  FISCALIS PROGRAMME

Please  indicate  whether  you  agree  with  the  following  statements  on  a  scale  of
1 (I completely agree) to 5 (I completely disagree)

Deployment in the Member States and operation of the systems 
developed under the Fiscalis programme

No of 
responses Average

A. Your Member State feels the need for and is committed to have 
the systems deployed at national level as specified in the common 
specification
B. Time span for the deployment of the systems is realistic
C. Training provided is sufficient
D. Support provided is sufficient
E. Requirements and/or specifications for the systems to be 
deployed and/or developed are comprehensive enough
F. Clear and timely communication between the European 
Commission and your Member State about deployment
G. Enough budgetary resources available at national level
H. Enough people that can be dedicated to these projects on a 
national level
I. Required technology supported by your Member State
J. Timely availability and high quality of the legal instruments 
necessary for the operation of the systems
K. Timely availability and high quality of the administration 
arrangements necessary for the operation of the systems
L. Interoperability with existing back end systems possible
About the operation of systems falling under the Fiscalis 
programme in your Member State

M. Sufficient support of the European Commission during the 
operation of the systems
N. Easy to administrate in your Member State

About the cooperation of your Member State with the other 
Member States

O. There are sufficient opportunities to share valuable information 
between your Member State and other Member States on the 
deployment and development of systems proposed by the 
European Commission

P. Regular meetings between our Member State other Member 
States (e.g. working groups) provide you with valuable information

10
10
10
10

10

10
9

9
10

10

10
9

10
10

10

10

1,75
2,50
2,25
2,05

1,95

2,15
2,50

2,78
2,55

2,25

2,10
1,94

2,30
2,50

2,70

2,45

Rating
1 = I completely agree
5 = I completely disagree 

Average <=2.0
Average between 2 and 2.5
Average >2.5

67

ANNEX 16

EVALUATION BY M EMBER STATES OF THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY  FISCALIS SYSTEMS

Can you rate the quality of information provided by the other Member States for all the systems listed below?

Rate the statements on a scale of 1 (I completely agree) to 5 (I completely disagree)

Quality of the information provided by Fiscalis applications

VIES

SCADCform 
2001

System

SEED

EWSE

MVS

A. Other Member States update the information your Member 
State depends on in time

No of countries which replied
Average

B. Other Member States provide new information your Member 
State depends on in time

No of countries which replied
Average

C. Information provided by other Member States is accurate and 
correct

No of countries which replied
Average

Total average

18
7
2,57

21
7
3,00

18,3
7
2,61

2,73

21
8
2,63

22
8
2,75

18
8
2,25

2,54

22
10
2,20

20,5
10
2,05

19
9
1,67

1,97

10
3
3,33

10
3
3,33

7
3
2,33

3,00

4,00

3,80

3,00

3,60

Rating
1 = I completely agree
5 = I completely disagree 
Average <=2.0
Average between 2 and 2.5
Average >2.5

68

ANNEX 17

EVALUATION  BY  M EMBER  STATES  OF  THE  COMPLETENESS  OF

INFORMATION PROVIDED BY FISCALIS APPLICATIONS

The systems developed under Fiscalis provide your Member State with information
on taxpayers, administrations, taxable goods, legislation and intra-Community sales
of goods.

Can  you  rate  the  completeness  of  the  information  these  systems  provide  your
Member State with regarding the main objectives of the programme?

– 

– 

– 

– 

simplification and modernisation of legislation;

uniform application of legislation;

enhancing administrative cooperation;

fighting tax fraud?

1

All necessary information is provided.

Almost  all  the  necessary  information  is  provided,  some  improvements  are  possible

2
however.

3

4

Not all the necessary information is provided.

The information provided is not useful.

Completeness of information provided by Fiscalis applications

The following systems (including Community 
and national components)

VAT-related systems

A. VIES (VAT Information Exchange System)
B. VIES - CloForms – VAT

Excise-related systems

C. SEED (System for Exchange of Excise Data)
D. EWSE (Early Warning System for Excise)
E. MVS (Movement Verification System)

No of 
responses Average

9
6

8
4
5

1,78
1,67

2,44
2,25
2,20

Average <=2
Average between 2 and 2.5
Average >2.5

69

ANNEX 18

EVALUATION  BY  HEAD  OF  CENTRAL  LIAISON  OFFICE (CLOS)  OF

VAT APPLICATIONS

Please indicate whether or not the statements in the table below apply to the systems
you are using in your Member State

Rate the statements on a scale of 1 (I completely agree) to 5 (I completely disagree)

Vies

SCACform 2001 Vies

SCACform 2001

A. The systems lead to more efficiency in national 
administrative processes
B. The systems enhance the cooperation between 
tax administrations of different Member States
C. The systems enhance simplification of tax 
collection
D. The systems effectively support the  combating of 
fraud
E. The implementation of requirements is well 
supported by guidelines, training, standards etc...
F. Availability of data and systems is overall 
sufficient
G. Data are consistent and correct so your 
administration can rely on them
H. User manuals are always well elaborated and 
enhance the use of the programmes
I. The translations are overall of a sufficient quality
J. Your administration receives adequate feedback 
on types of errors found by data checks
K. Response time is overall acceptable
L. The system is easily accessible

M. The interfaces support easy consultation of data

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

7
4

7
7
7

6

1,73

1,36

2,50

2,00

2,35

2,45

3,00

2,70
2,00

2,50
1,64
1,45

1,91

2,12

1,88

1,50

2,50

1,75

3,00

2,50

1,75

2,57
2,00

2,00
2,86
1,43

2,50

2,17

Rating
1 = I completely agree
5 = I completely disagree

Average <=2.0
Average between 2 and 2.5
Average >2.5

11

11

10

11

10

11

11

10
5

10
11
11

11

70

ANNEX 19

EVALUATION BY  HEADS  OF  EXCISE  LIAISON  OFFICES  (ELOS)  OF

EXCISE APPLICATIONS

Please indicate whether or not the statements in the table below apply to the systems
you are using in your Member State

Rate the statements on a scale of 1 (I completely agree) to 5 (I completely disagree)

Contribution to objectives
A. The systems lead to more efficiency in national 
administrative processes
B. The systems enhance the cooperation between 
tax administrations of different Member States
C. The systems enhance simplification of tax 
collection
D. The systems effectively support the  combating of 
fraud
E. The implementation of requirements is well 
supported by guidelines, training, standards etc...
F. Availability of data and systems is overall 
sufficient
G. Data are consistent and correct so your 
administration can rely on them
H. User manuals are always well elaborated and 
enhance the use of the programmes
I. The translations are overall of a sufficient quality
J. Your administration receives adequate feedback 
on types of errors found by data checks
K. Response time is overall acceptable
L. The system is easily accessible

M. The interfaces support easy consultation of data

No of responses

Average

SEED

EWSE MVS

SEED EWSE MVS

12

11

11

12

11

12

12

10
9

10
10
11

9

9

9

8

9

8

9

9

6
6

5
6
7

6

10

10

9

10

9

10

10

8
7

7
9
9

8

2,50

2,33

2,10

2,36

2,56

1,90

2,64

2,50

2,11

2,33

2,33

2,30

2,91

3,00

2,78

3,17

3,00

2,40

3,42

2,44

2,30

3,00
2,22

3,70
2,20
2,00

3,50
2,50

2,80
2,17
3,00

3,00
2,29

2,57
2,44
2,22

2,44

2,83

2,50

Average

2,68

2,69

2,38

Rating
1 = I completely agree
5 = I completely disagree 

Average <=2.0
Average between 2 and 2.5
Average >2.5

71

ANNEX 20

UNDER THE  EVALUATION BY M EMBER STATES OF THE USE MADE OF THE APPLICATIONS DEVELOPED FISCALIS PROGRAMME

Questions

Do you monitor the use of the available systems in your Member State, i.e. do you keep regular statistics on the use of these systems?

Mark  with  a  cross  in  the  table  below  (in  the  columns  marked  “Monitoring”)  whether  or  not  you  monitor  the  listed  systems,  and  whether  on  a  more  regular  basis
(i.e. continuous monitoring at the system level, and regular reporting) or ad hoc (no regular reporting).

For all those systems that you monitor, or for which you have a clear perception of their usage, please also mark with a cross in the table below (in the columns named
“Frequency”) to what extent your Member State actually use the listed systems?

Do the users have a legal or administrative obligation to use these systems in your Member States? Mark column “Obligation” with a cross.

Responses

Systems

Monitoring

Frequency

Obligation

o
N

a
n
o
,
s
e
Y

i

s
s
a
b
r
a
u
g
e
r

l

VAT-related systems

A. VIES (VAT Information Exchange System)
B. VIES – CLOForms – TVA

Excise-related systems

C. SEED (System for Exchange of Excise Data)
D. EWSE (Early Warning System for Excise)
E. MVS (Movement Verification System)

2
1

2
1
0

6
5

4
4
7

c
o
h

d
a

t
u
b

,
s
e
Y

2
2

2
1
0

No of systems
No of systems covered in questionnaire
Proportion

6
39
15%

26
39
67%

7
39
18%

d
e
s
u

r
e
v
e
N

i

g
n
e
B

d
e
c
u
d
o
r
t
n

i

y

l
l

i

a
n
o
s
a
c
c
O

d
e
s
u

e
s
u

e
n
i
t
u
o
R

l

e
b
a
s
n
e
p
s
d
n
I

i

0
0

0
0
0

0
32
0%

0
0

0
1
1

2
32
6%

1
1

0
0
0

2
32
6 %

k
r
o
w
y

l
i

a
d

r
o
f

4
2

1
0
1

o
N

s
e
Y

1
2

1
3
2

8
5

7
3
5

3
3

6
4
4

20
32
63%

8
32
25%

9
37
24%

28
37
76%

72

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 21

EVALUATION  BY  PARTICIPANTS  IN  FISCALIS  JOINT  MEASURES  OF  THE

USEFULNESS OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE SYSTEMS

How do you rate the usefulness of the Commission’s communication and information 
exchange systems (VIES, SEED, etc.)? (1345 responses for 2000 and 2001)

No reply 13%

Very satisfactory 15%

Highly unsatsifactory 1%

Unsatisfactory 16%

Satisfactory 55%

73