REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the operation of the arrangements established by Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures
Date: 2017-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European tax cooperation, administrative cooperation, claim, exchange of information, tax authorities, tax collection, tax law, tax offence

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2017  COM(2017) 778 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the operation of the arrangements established by Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures {SWD(2017) 461 final}  
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

a.  Everyone is expected to pay his/her share of taxes. If taxes remain unpaid, tax authorities 
take  recovery  actions  to  collect  the  taxes.  The  competence  of  the  tax  authorities  is 
however  limited  to  their  national  territory.  They  cannot  take  recovery  actions  in  other 
countries,  although  tax  debtors  may  have  moved  to  another  country  or  may  dispose  of 
assets in other countries. Therefore, the EU has adopted legislation which allows the EU 
Member States to provide mutual assistance to each other, for the recovery of their taxes 
and for EU claims as defined in Article 2 of the Directive. 

The  following  example  illustrates  the  functioning  of  this  recovery  assistance:  a  person 
does not pay his tax debts in Member State A. He moves to Member State B, and he also 
owns property in Member State C. In that case, the tax authorities of Member State A can 
ask  the  tax  authorities  of  Member  States  B  and  C  to  help  to  recover  the  taxes  due  to 
Member State A. 

In  this  way,  mutual  recovery  assistance  contributes  to  ensuring  equity  and  non-
discrimination  in  the  field  of  taxation:  it  helps  to  ensure  that  everyone  is  paying  his/her 
taxes and it helps to prevent tax fraud and budgetary losses for the Member States and for 
the EU. 

b.  On  16  March  2010,  the  Council  adopted  Directive  2010/24/EU  concerning  mutual 
assistance  for  the  recovery  of  claims  relating  to  taxes,  duties  and  other  measures.1  It 
provides for different forms of recovery assistance: 
-   exchange of information which is foreseeably relevant for the recovery of tax claims 
(exchange  of  information  at  request;  exchange  of  information  without  prior  request 
about  refunds  of  taxes;  presence  in  administrative  offices  and  participation  in 
administrative enquiries in other Member States); 

-   assistance for the notification of documents relating to tax claims or to their recovery; 
-   requests for recovery of tax claims; 
-   requests for precautionary measures in order to ensure recovery where a claim or the 
instrument  permitting  enforcement  in  the  applicant  Member  State  is  contested  or 
where the claim is not yet the subject of an instrument permitting enforcement in the 
applicant Member State. 

This Directive organises recovery assistance for claims relating to all taxes levied by or on 
behalf of the Member States or their territorial or administrative subdivisions, or on behalf 
of the Union. 

c.  The Member States had to transpose this Directive by 31 December 2011, and these new 

provisions had to apply from 1 January 2012 (Article 28 of this Directive).  

1   OJ L 84, 31.3.2010, p. 1. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
d.  Article 27(3) of this Directive provides that the Commission shall report every 5 years to 
the European Parliament and the Council on the operation of the arrangements established 
by this Directive. The present report is the first report under this new Directive.2 

e.  This report is accompanied by a synopsis report describing the stakeholder consultations 
done by the Commission in the preparation of this report. The consultation of the Member 
States'  tax  authorities  has  been  done  via  the  activities  of  the  Recovery  Expert  group, 
responsible  for  the  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  EU  framework  on  recovery 
assistance, and via a questionnaire to the tax authorities dealing with recovery assistance. 
The  Commission  also  launched  a  public  consultation  on  this  matter.  Reports  of  these 
consultations are published on the Commission's website. 

A Commission staff working document, attached to this report, contains a more detailed 
evaluation of the use of this Directive. 

2. GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF THE USE OF MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN 20113-2015 

a.  The use of all traditional types of recovery assistance (requests for information, requests 
for  notification,  requests  for  precautionary  and/or  recovery  measures)  has  continued  to 
increase in the period 2011-2016: 

Table 1: total numbers of requests received by all Member States in 2011-2016: 

Requests for 
information 

Requests for 
notification 

Requests for 
precautionary 
measures4 

Requests for 
recovery 

2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 

3218 
6081 
8250 
9988 
10733 
13630 

1284 
1323 
2066 
2195 
2168 
2205 

9566 
7661 
10391 
14123 
14769 
16403 

102 
80 
123 
76 

The  total  number  of  annual  communications  (new  requests  and  follow-up  of  existing 
requests)  between  applicant  and  requested  authorities  in  all  EU  Member  States  is  also 
increasing.  

2   Previous  reports  on  mutual  tax  recovery  assistance  dealt  with  the  recovery  assistance  on  the  basis  of  the 
former legislation: the first arrangements for mutual recovery assistance were set out in Council Directive 
76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976. That Directive and the acts amending it were codified by Council Directive 
2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008.  
These previous reports were presented on 04.09.2009 (report COM(2009)451 on the use of mutual recovery 
assistance in 2005-2008) and on 15.02.2012 (report COM(2012)58 on the use of mutual recovery assistance 
in 2009-2010). 

3   Directive  2010/24/EU  had  to  be  implemented  by  1  January  2012.  The  Commission  however  considers  it 
useful to compare also with the situation in 2011, when the former Directive 2008/55/EC still applied. 
4   No statistics are available with regard to the number of requests for precautionary measures before 2013. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table  2:  total  annual  communications  with  regard  to  recovery  assistance  requests  in 
2012-2016: 
2012 

2015 

2014 

2016 

125.163 

138.628 

139.402 

166.457 

2013 
98.493 5 

b.  However, Member States do not yet make use of the possibility for tax recovery officials 
of  one  Member  State  to  go  to  another  Member  State  and  to  be  present  during 
administrative  enquiries  –  or  even  to  participate  in  these  enquiries  by  interviewing 
individuals and examining records – and to assist officials of the requested Member State 
during  court  proceedings  in  that  State.6  On  this  point,  the  results  are  in  line  with  the 
experiences  relating  to  the  lack  of  use  of  corresponding  provisions  in  the  other  EU 
legislation concerning administrative cooperation between tax authorities.7 

c.  A large majority of Member States is of the opinion that the cooperation under the present 
Directive  has  improved  the  collection  and  recovery  of  their  tax  related  claims.  The 
statistical  information  available  confirms  that  the  amounts  recovered  on  the  basis  of  the 
EU  legislation  have  increased  again,  after  an  initial  regression  in  2012.  The  decrease  in 
2012 can be explained – at least to some extent – by the late implementation of Directive 
2010/24/EU  in  many  Member  States  and  the  workload  generated  by  the  need  for  the 
competent authorities to get acquainted with the new legislation, the new procedures, the 
new request forms and the uniform instruments. The amounts recovered in 2013-2014 are 
in line with the amounts recovered in 2009-2010. The results have continued to increase in 
2015 (and are better than the previous best result that was achieved in 2011). 

Table 3: overview of recovered amounts (2011-2016): 

Recovered at the request of other MS 
(before deduction of the own costs) 

Recovered via requests to other MS 

2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 

in € 

54.031.822 
30.641.451 
35.580.763 
42.839.876 
81.402.061 
76.500.163 

in € 

62.475.879 
32.076.738 
41.115.223 
46.395.481 
65.711.419 
67.019.250 

5   There is no clear explanation for the temporary dip in 2013. However, several Member States were late in 
implementing Directive 2010/24 and this may also have affected the communication of new requests and the 
follow-up of old requests. 
In the years 2015-2016, one case of officials going to another Member State was reported. 

6  
7   Regulation  904/2010  on  administrative  cooperation  in  the  field  of  VAT;  Regulation  389/2012  on 
administrative cooperation in the field of excise duties; Directive 2011/16 on administrative cooperation for 
other taxes. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
d.  Of  course,  the  increase  of  assistance  requests  and  of  the  recovered  amounts  does  not  as 
such  give  a  proper  indication  about  the  functioning  of  the  EU  recovery  assistance 
framework.  

It  results  from  the  consultations  of  the  Member  States'  tax  authorities  that  recovery 
assistance  is  working  well  in  simple  situations  (e.g.  border  workers),  where  recovery 
assistance  provides  a  solution  for  the  lack  of  cross-border  competence  of  the  tax 
authorities. However, in other situations – in particular where the non-collection is due to 
the fraudulent intention of the debtor  – the recovery assistance is considered to be more 
difficult, as is the recovery in the applicant Member State itself. 

This view of the Member States is confirmed by the statistics. Even though these statistics 
only  permit  to  give  a  rough  indication  of  the  recovery  rate,8  they  make  it  clear  that  the 
amounts  actually  recovered  are  much  lower  than  the  amounts  for  which  recovery 
assistance is requested.9 

3.  IMPACT OF DIRECTIVE 2010/24/EU ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE 

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE: A POSITIVE APPRECIATION  

a.  The  importance  of  well-functioning recovery  assistance  was  emphasized  by  respondents 
to  the  public  consultation.  The  existence  and  the  use  of  clear  and  efficient  assistance 
procedures were considered to benefit all parties in such proceedings. 

b.  With regard to the financial and administrative burden, it should be noted that the nature 
of the Directive – providing the legal base and technical tools allowing Member States to 
assist  each other  in  the  recovery  of  claims,  without  setting  the  national recovery  rules  – 
makes it difficult to quantify the burden linked to the recovery assistance. This burden is 
largely influenced by the costs and the workload involved in national recovery processes. 
Moreover, each recovery case is different and depends on the particular circumstances of 
the  claim.  The  evaluation  therefore  only  gathered  (some)  evidence  on  the  costs  and 
burdens  within  the  limitations  of  the  Directive's  application  and  reflecting  individual 
experiences  of  the  recovery  officials.  That  information  is  duly  analysed  in  the  attached 
Commission  staff  working  document.  However,  any  extrapolation  allowing  an  EU-level 
statement on the regulatory costs related to the Directive is not possible. 

In this regard, it should also be noted that reliable quantitative information concerning the 
administrative  burden  is  not  available.  The  Commission  services  do  not  have  access  to 
individual  files  (in  accordance  with  Article  23  of  the  Directive)  and  national  tax 
authorities are reluctant to provide more detailed quantitative statistical information than 
what is imposed by Article 27(1) of the Directive. 

c.  One of the  major  goals of  Council Directive 2010/24/EU was "to make  assistance more 
efficient  and  effective  and  to  facilitate  it  in  practice".10  The  Member  States  almost 

8   The statistics currently collected do not permit to draw precise conclusions with regard to the recovery rate 

(see Commission staff working document, point 4.2.3.). 
9   See Commission staff working document, point 6.1.1.2. 
10   Preamble of Council Directive 2010/24/EU, point 4. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
unanimously  confirm  that  this  goal  has  been  achieved.  All  Member  States  but  one  have 
confirmed that Directive 2010/24/EU has made it easier for them to provide and to receive 
mutual recovery assistance, compared to the situation under the previous legal framework. 
All respondents in the public consultation also agreed that the current EU framework has 
made it easier for Member States to help each other recover taxes. 

d.  Most respondents in  the Member States' consultation and in the public consultation also 
considered  that  the  existence  of  the  EU  recovery  assistance  rules  increases  tax 
compliance, although it is not possible to have a precise estimation of this effect. 

e.  The use of the electronic request forms and the uniform instruments (Uniform instrument 
permitting  enforcement  in  the  requested  Member  State (UIPE)  and  Uniform  notification 
form (UNF)) have improved the efficiency and effectiveness of recovery assistance.  

The  electronic  request  forms,  permitting  an  automatic  translation,  have  set  a  common 
standard for the communication between tax authorities. Some tax authorities have made 
comments, e.g. about the length of the recovery request form, but these forms have been 
developed  in  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  and  it  was  their  wish  to  include  the 
many possible options and situations. 

Almost  all  Member  States  confirm  that  the  use  of  the  uniform  instrument  permitting 
enforcement in the requested Member State (UIPE) facilitates the preparation of requests 
for  assistance.  The  processing  of  assistance  requests  from  other  Member  States  is  also 
easier.11 The main advantages of the UIPE are the lack of translation costs, the avoidance 
of  recognition  issues  and  the  electronic  transmission.  Most  Member  States  also  have  a 
positive opinion about the use of the uniform notification form (UNF) which accompanies 
the documents for which notification assistance is requested. 

Although  the  increased  number  of  requests  leads  to  a  higher  workload,  it  was  also 
considered that this effect has been alleviated by the use of the uniform instruments.  

Positive  opinions  about  the  usefulness  of  these  uniform  instruments  (UIPE  and  UNF) 
were also expressed by respondents (representing the tax payer or debtor perspective) in 
the public consultation.12 It was considered that these documents provide a good amount 
of details with regard to the claims and the responsible offices. 

f.  The extension of the material scope has caused a heavier workload for the tax authorities 
involved.  Although  the  total  amounts  of  these  other  taxes  and  duties  remains  relatively 
low (compared to the amounts of the main categories of taxes: VAT and income taxes), 
they may relate to a considerable number of requests. Nevertheless, a majority of Member 
States confirmed that it is useful to have the scope of the Directive extended, as this also 
contributes to ensuring tax compliance.  

4. MAIN CONCERNS AND PROSPECT FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENT  

11   This conclusion was also confirmed in an analysis made by the Belgian Court of audit in October 2014 (see 

point 6.2.2.1.f. of the Commission staff working document). 

12   It should however be noted that the number of respondents having a personal experience with these uniform 

instruments was very low.  

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
4.1. A need for sufficient resources to achieve more solidarity between tax 

administrations 

a.  In  their  replies  to  the  evaluation  questionnaire,  18  Member  States  observed  that  the 
number of requests for recovery from other Member States is very burdensome for them, 
and 17 Member States reported concerns about a lack of resources on the national level. 
They explain that they do not dispose of the human resources that are necessary to ensure 
a timely follow-up of all requests.  

b.  10 Member States also expressed a feeling that cross-border recovery assistance is not a 

priority for some tax administrations.  

It can be assumed that  the results of the mutual recovery assistance  are at least to  some 
extent influenced by an insufficient level of efforts of requested Member States to provide 
recovery assistance (and incidentally by weaknesses of their internal tax recovery system; 
see point 4.2.).     

Table  4:  Percentage  of  average  yearly  recovered  amounts,  compared  to  the  average 
yearly  amounts  for  which  recovery  assistance  requests  are  received,  both  in  the  period 
2013-2016, as reported by the requested Member State: 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

c.  The  success  of  mutual  recovery  assistance  largely  depends  on  sufficient  resources  and 
efforts  to  cooperate.  Member  States  should  devote  sufficient  resources  to  the  internal 
collection  as  well  as  to  the  recovery  assistance  requests  coming  from  other  Member 
States.  

Such investment in each Member State is a prerequisite for the proper functioning of the 
internal market, without discriminatory protective measures. It also helps preventing fraud 
and budgetary losses.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Eventually  investing  in  mutual  recovery  assistance  can  be  seen  as  an  important  part  of 
compliance  strategy  for  tax  administrations,  as  it  addresses  the  dishonest  taxpayers' 
feeling of impunity.  

It  is  of  course  also  the  responsibility  of  the  applicant  Member  States  to  increase  tax 
compliance  and  to  maximise  the  internal  tax  collection  and  recovery  possibilities,  but  if 
needed,  the  applicant  Member  States  should  be  able  to  count  on  the  solidarity  from  the 
requested Member States. 

4.2. Reinforcing internal tax collection and recovery: a prerequisite for a 

more successful recovery assistance 

a.  When  executing  a  request  for  recovery  or  a  request  for  precautionary  measures,  the 
requested  authority  will  use  the  powers  and  procedures  provided  under  the  laws, 
regulations  or  administrative  provisions  of  the  requested  Member  State  applying  to  the 
same  or  similar  claims  (Art.  13(1)  and  17  of  Directive  2010/24).  This  means  that  the 
success  of  mutual  recovery  assistance  is  largely  influenced  by  the  efficiency  of  each 
national tax recovery system.  

As confirmed by several respondents to the public consultation and the consultation of the 
tax authorities, Member States should increase their efforts to provide recovery assistance 
to  other  Member  States,  and  they  should  reduce  unjustified  internal  constraints  and 
requirements which restrict their capacity to execute recovery assistance requests. 

In  this  regard,  it  appears  indeed  that  national  tax  recovery  measures  are  not  always 
sufficient nor efficient. In their replies to the questionnaire, several tax authorities indicate 
that  their  work  is  complicated  by  complex  national  rules  or  burdensome  internal 
procedures and requirements, seriously hindering the possibilities of tax authorities to take 
precautionary or recovery measures.  

It also appears that the exchange of information within Member States and the access to 
databases containing information relevant for tax recovery purposes need to be improved 
and facilitated. 

Moreover, the rule of the use of national tax recovery procedures is often applied in such a 
way  that  steps  preceding  the  actual  recovery  (notification  of  the  claim;  new  payment 
period) are repeated in the requested Member State, though they have already been dealt 
with in the applicant Member State, causing an extra delay in the recovery process and an 
extra chance for the fraudulent taxpayers to hide and move their assets before the recovery 
starts.  

Sound  management  of  tax  recovery  therefore  implies  that  Member  States  facilitate  the 
execution  of  assistance  requests  in  their  territory,  by  adapting  and  reinforcing  their 
internal  legislation  and  improving  tax  recovery  practices.  At  the  same  time,  Member 
States should take account of the need to respect the rights of the tax debtors, as requested 
by the respondents to the public consultation. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b.  The above conclusion is in line with the conclusions presented by the Commission in its 
Communication of 7 April 2016 on an action plan on VAT, where the Commission held 
that tax administrations have to become more efficient.13 

Strategic  discussions  with  Member  States'  heads  of  the  tax  recovery  authorities  shall  be 
provided to support tax recovery initiatives and reforms in the Member States.  

It should however be taken into account that each Member State has its own particularities 
with  regard  to  the  organisation  of  its  tax  authorities  and  its  tax  recovery  processes. 
Therefore, the bottlenecks in the recovery processes and organisation are not  necessarily 
the same in all Member States, so that best practice examples of one Member State cannot 
always simply be transposed to any other Member State.  

As  a  priority,  the  Commission  will  invite  the  Member  States  with  the  lowest  recovery 
assistance  rates  (i.e.  recovery  rate  below  or  around  2%:  Cyprus,  Romania,  Malta, 
Bulgaria,  Latvia,  Slovakia,  Croatia,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  United  Kingdom,  Estonia, 
Greece, Luxemburg, Austria, Spain and Italy)14 to have an analysis of the main problems 
in  these  countries,  with  the  participation  of  national  tax  recovery  experts  (from  the 
administration and possibly other experts) of these Member States. The Commission will 
provide its support to assess possible measures to improve their recovery performance. 

4.3. Improving the functioning of the EU framework for recovery assistance 

a.  It is generally acknowledged that the EU framework is the most advanced one in the field 
of  tax  recovery  assistance.  It  contains  practical  enforcement  tools  such  as  the  uniform 
notification  form  (UNF)  and  the  uniform  instrument  permitting  enforcement  in  the 
requested Member State (UIPE); it has a wide material scope and well elaborated rules for 
the handling of assistance requests). However, several suggestions for further improving 
the  legal  framework  were  made  by  Member  States  and  by  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation.15  

Particular attention was paid to the scope; the exchange of information and the access to 
relevant  databases;  the  precautionary  measures;  the  conditions  governing  recovery 
assistance (conditions concerning old claims, use of thresholds). 

b.  However,  Member  States'  views  with  regard  to  possible  simplification  and  other 

amendments of the current legislation appear to be very different and opposed. 

Several  simplification  suggestions  have  already  been  analysed  and  to  some  extent 
discussed with the Member States, within the Recovery Expert Group and the Recovery 
Committee, e.g.: 
-   an  extension  of  the  scope  would  permit  to  avoid  some  doubts  with  regard  to  the 
limitations of the current scope and would permit the application of uniform rules and 

13   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic 

and Social Committee on an action plan on VAT, COM(2016)148 final, point 3.2. 

14   See the Commission staff working document (point 6.1.1.2., table 5c). 
15   An overview of these suggestions can be found in the Commission staff working document (point 6.3.2.). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
- 

arrangements for more claims (e.g. social security claims; other public claims) but is 
likely to raise serious problems (rules concerning assistance for the recovery of social 
security  claims  are  laid  down  in  different  legal  instruments,  adopted  on  a  different 
legal basis; extension of the scope to other claims can only be done with unanimity); 
-   some rules of the current Directive may be considered to be rather complex (e.g. rules 
of Article 18(2) of the Directive, about the condition relating to the age of the claims; 
rules  of  Article  19(2)  of  the  Directive,  about  the  suspension,  interruption  or 
prolongation  of  periods  of  limitation).  However,  it  seems  to  be  difficult  to  reach  a 
unanimous view on how to amend these provisions; 
a suggestion to facilitate the exchange of information with regard to car related data, 
by  permitting  the  use  of  the  EUCARIS  (European  CAR  and  driving  license 
Information  System)  network  –  which  permits  an  automated  handling  of  requests  – 
was rejected by an important number of Member States; 
the  Recovery  Committee  recently  agreed  to  adopt  some  simplifications  in  the 
Commission implementing Regulation 1189/2011, namely with regard to the reference 
to the exchange rate (Article 18(2) of this Regulation) in order to permit an automated 
calculation of the exchange rate in the future electronic request forms; and with regard 
to  the  use  of  a  specific  form  to  explain  the  reasons  and  conditions  for  requests  for 
precautionary  measures,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  execution  of  such  requests  in  the 
requested Member State. 

- 

c.  Conflicting views with regard to specific amendment suggestions were also expressed by 
the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation.  Although  there  was  a  general  consensus  that 
the  EU  should  take  a  strict  approach  towards  non-cooperative  Member  States  or  other 
countries,  and  that  there  is  a  need  to  strengthen  precautionary  measures  and  to  ensure 
timely  responses  to  assistance  requests,  several  respondents  also  underlined  the  need  to 
respect  the  rights  of  defence  of  the  tax  debtor  and  the  need  to  limit  the  administrative 
burden  for  the  requested  Member  State.  On  the  basis  of  the  above  considerations, 
respondents  in  the  public  consultation  expressed  mixed  opinions  with  regard  to  the 
questions  whether  recovery  assistance  should  be  provided  for  contested  claims  or  for 
claims below the current threshold. 

b.  In view of the previous sections, priority should be given to improving the execution of 
recovery  assistance  requests  at  national  level,  within  the  current  legal  framework  for 
recovery assistance. It seems that more can be done at national level to take full advantage 
of the possibilities offered by the existing EU legislation. 

c.  The  problem  of  missing  debtors  and  assets  is  not  only  an  intra-EU  problem.  Since  it  is 
clear that tax fraudsters easily escape from tax recovery actions within the EU if they can 
move  freely  and  dislocate  their  assets  to  third  countries,  the  Commission  has  recently 
negotiated  a  first  international  agreement  between  the  EU  and  Norway,  relating  to 
administrative  cooperation  in  the  field  of  VAT.  Mutual  recovery  assistance  for  VAT 
claims  is  included  in  this  agreement.  The  rules  governing  this  recovery  assistance 
correspond to the provisions of the EU Directive – although the scope of this agreement is 
limited to VAT claims – and the EU electronic forms would be used in the relations with 
Norway. The electronic recovery forms are indeed developed in such a way that they can 
be used in relations with third countries. This common framework will facilitate the work 
of the competent authorities.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
4.4. Better communication and more guidance needed 

a.  The Commission services have already taken several actions to raise the awareness about 
the EU legislation concerning mutual tax recovery assistance, and to explain the complex 
rules of this legislation: 

-   national tax authorities can raise their questions in the Recovery Expert Group or via 
their  national  contact  points,  and  they  are  invited  to  participate  in  Fiscalis  202016 
workshops or project groups; 

-  

the  legislation  is  explained  to  the  public  via  a  specific  webpage,  with  "frequently 
asked questions and answers", on the website of the Commission;17 

-   a  newsletter  on  national,  EU  and  international  developments  in  the  field  of  tax 
collection  and  recovery,  including  recovery  assistance,  is  also  published  on  the 
website of the Commission.18 

b.  However,  the  responses  to  the  consultation  of  the  tax  authorities  as  well  as  the  public 
consultation make it clear that tax authorities, taxpayers and tax practitioners wish to have 
more guidance on the interpretation and application of the EU rules in this field.  

The  extension  of  the  scope  to  all  taxes  and  the  fact  that  other  (decentralised)  offices 
should also be aware of the recovery assistance possibilities (for sending requests) or of 
their  obligations  if  they  have  to  take  recovery  or  precautionary  measures  (for  incoming 
requests) would require providing more information and/or training to national authorities.  

Such  further  guidance  may  also  be  useful  for  other  tax  practitioners  dealing  with  tax 
recovery assistance cases (e.g. judges in the Member States, having to authorise specific 
precautionary or recovery measures, or dealing with contestations of such measures) and 
more information could also be shared with the public.19 

c.  Member  States  have  an  important  role  in  this  communication.  The  Commission  will 
continue to support the Member States in this effort. A first step will be the publication of 
the explanatory notes on the interpretation of the EU recovery assistance legislation.20 

5. CONCLUSIONS 

16   Fiscalis 2020 is an EU cooperation programme enabling national tax administrations to create and exchange 
information  and  expertise.  See:  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/fiscalis-programme/fiscalis-2020-
programme_en 

17   http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/tax-cooperation-control/tax-recovery_en 
18   http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/tax-cooperation-control/tax-recovery_en 
19   It  resulted  from  the  open  public  consultation  that  most  respondents  are  not  aware  of  the  communication 

actions already undertaken by the Commission services. 

20   On 22 February 2017, the Recovery Expert Group agreed to make these explanatory notes publicly available 

in the near future. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
a.  The EU legislation and framework for tax recovery assistance has facilitated tax recovery 

assistance between the EU Member States.  

b.  In  order  to  guarantee  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  mutual  recovery  assistance, 
Member States should strengthen their internal tax recovery systems and deploy sufficient 
resources to deal with recovery assistance requests. 
In  this  regard,  it  should  be  examined  if  and  how  detailed  and  precise  quantitative 
information  can  be  collected  about  the  administrative  burden  and  costs,  and  about  the 
correspondence  between  the  workload  of  incoming  requests  for  assistance  and  the 
administrative resources deployed in the requested State. 

c.  Improving different (legal and technical) aspects of the functioning of the system may still 

be considered with the Member States and other stakeholders, including taxpayers. 

d.  More communication to explain and promote this legislation would contribute to increase 

tax compliance and respect of taxpayers' rights. 

e.  Recovery  of  taxes  is  and  remains  difficult  in  case  of  organised  tax  fraud  by  natural  or 
legal persons: natural persons committing fraud or setting up fraudulent tax structures go 
missing and dislocate their assets; legal persons organise their insolvency and also move 
their  assets.  As  a  consequence  of  the  international  development  of  exchange  of 
information, recovery assistance between the EU and third countries will become a more 
prominent issue. 

11