Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards introducing certain requirements for payment service providers
Date: 2018-12-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: VAT, data collection, electronic banking, electronic commerce, exchange of information, information storage, payment system, personal data, tax authorities, tax offence

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.12.2018 COM(2018) 812 final 2018/0412 (CNS)  Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards introducing certain requirements for payment service providers {COM(2018) 813 final} - {SEC(2018) 495 final} - {SWD(2018) 487 final} - {SWD(2018) 488 final}  
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

• 
In  October  20171,  the  Commission  had  already  committed  to  address  the  administrative 
capacity  of  tax  authorities  to  fight  electronic  commerce  (hereinafter  ‘e-commerce’)  VAT 
fraud by improving cooperation with third parties. In the statement included in the minutes for 
the  adoption  of  Council  Directive  (EU)  2017/2455  (the  VAT  E-commerce  Directive)2  in 
December  2017,  the  Council  stressed  the  need  to  improve  anti-fraud  tools3.  The  current 
initiative  to  fight  e-commerce  VAT  fraud  complements  and  paves  the  ground  for  a  smooth 
application  of  the  new  measures  introduced  with  the  VAT  E-commerce  Directive  in  the 
context of the Commission’s Digital Single Market Strategy4.  

In  particular,  the  VAT  E-commerce  Directive  introduced  new  VAT  obligations  for  online 
marketplaces5  and  new  simplifications  to  help  businesses  comply  with  VAT  obligations  for 
supplies  of  services,  distance  sales  of  goods  and  imports,  including  electronic  VAT 
registration and VAT payment through the One Stop Shop (registration in one single Member 
States instead of in  all the Member States of consumption). These measures will strengthen 
VAT compliance by simplifying the VAT system, but tax authorities still need to be able to 
detect and control fraudulent businesses. At present, this is a challenge for tax authorities. The 
European  Court  of  Auditors6  has  remarked  that  the  VAT  legislation  on  e-commerce 
essentially relies on the willingness of businesses to voluntarily register and pay the due VAT. 
There are nevertheless limits to how Member States can use the current legal framework for 
administrative  cooperation.  If  the  above-mentioned  compliance  simplifications  are  not 
accompanied  by  anti-fraud  measures,  fraudsters  will  have  little  incentive  to  change  their 
attitude and start complying with VAT obligations. Thus, the success of compliance measures 
in  e-commerce  also  depends  on  the  effectiveness  of  anti-fraud  measures,  which  must  be 
developed in parallel. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee On the follow-up to the Action Plan on VAT – Towards a single EU 
VAT area – Time to act (COM(2017) 566 final), point 2.1.1, page 3. See also point 6 of 20 measures to 
tackle the VAT gap, annex to the VAT action plan, available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/docs/body/2016-03_20_measures_en.pdf  
Council  Directive  (EU)  2017/2455  of  5  December  2017  amending  Directive  2006/112/EC  and 
Directive  2009/132/EC  as  regards  certain  value  added  tax  obligations  for  supplies  of  services  and 
distance sales of goods (OJ L 348, 29.12.2017, p. 7). 
Council of the European Union 14769/1/17 REV 1, 30 November 2017, 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14769-2017-REV-1/en/pdf 
Implementation of the Digital Single Market digital single market strategy (COM(2017) 228 final, 
10.5.2017) see:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1496330315823&uri=CELEX:52017DC0228 
Article  14a  of  Council  Directive  2006/112/EC  will  make  online  market  places,  platforms  and  portals 
‘deemed  suppliers’  for  the  sales  of  goods  facilitated  through  their  electronic  interfaces.  They  will  be 
deemed to have received and supplied those goods themselves for (a) distance sales of goods imported 
from third territories or third countries not exceeding a value of EUR 150,  and (b) the B2C supplies of 
goods  which  are  already  in  the  EU  (i.e.  in  fulfilment  centres)  by  non-EU-established  taxable  persons 
facilitated through these platforms. 
European Court of Auditors, Background Paper, Collection of VAT and customs duties on cross-border 
e-commerce, July 2018. 

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
                                                 
E-commerce has been growing rapidly in recent years, helping consumers to buy goods and 
services  online.  Consumers  can  choose  between  different  suppliers,  products  and  brands. 
They  can  also  pay  online  in  a  trustful  environment  without  moving  from  their  computer  or 
smartphone. Suppliers have  changed their business  models to  benefit from  e-commerce and 
sell  their  products  to  consumers  globally  without  the  need  for  a  physical  retail  presence. 
However, this opportunity is also exploited by fraudulent businesses to gain an unfair market 
advantage by not fulfilling their VAT obligations. 

The impact assessment attached to the present proposal identified three main cases of cross-
border  e-commerce  VAT  fraud:  (i)  intra-EU  supplies  of  goods  and  services,  (ii)  imports  of 
goods  from  businesses  established  in  a  third  country  or  third  territory  (i.e.  a  country  or 
territory  outside  the  EU)  to  consumers  in  the  Member  States,  and  (iii)  supplies  of  services 
from businesses established in a third country7 to consumers in the Member States.  

The total VAT loss within the Member States on cross-border supplies of goods is estimated 
at  EUR 5 billion  a  year8. VAT fraud was also  reported in  cross-border supplies of services, 
namely in  online television and digital  games9. This  fraud was documented by  Europol  and 
the  European  Union  Intellectual  Property  Office  in  Europol’s  latest  report  about  illegal 
distribution  of  (and  sales  of  access  to)  television  broadcasts10.  This  fraud  has  also  been 
documented  by  the  television  industry  organisation  Nordic  Content  Protection  (NCP)11. 
Online  television  distributors  in  Denmark,  Finland  and  Sweden  alone  (these  countries 
together have less than 10% of the EU’s total online television market in terms of revenues)12 
estimate their annual loss of sales from illegal distribution at EUR 436 million. This amounts 
to  approximately  EUR  103  million  in  potential  VAT  losses13.  These  numbers  (which  will 
grow  in  parallel  with  the  growth  of  e-commerce)  show  the  urgent  need  to  act  to  combat  e-
commerce  VAT  fraud.  However,  most  tax  authorities  lack  the  tools  and  the  sources  of 
information to quantify the level of e-commerce VAT fraud14. In e-commerce VAT fraud, the 
internet allows fraudulent businesses to hide their own identity behind a domain name. Even 
when  a  tax  authority  is  aware  of  the  existence  of  a  given  online  shop,  the  identity  of  the 
business  behind  it,  its  real  location,  or  its  turnover  in  that  Member  State  often  remain 
unknown.  This  represents  a  problem  for  tax  authorities  who  might  seek  to  start  an 
investigation or initiate administrative cooperation at EU or international level. The Member 
States of consumption, where the VAT must be paid, most likely do not have any record or 
information  to  initiate  an  inspection.  This  is  because  the  final  consumers  have  no  record-

7 
8 

9 

10 

11 

12 
13 
14 

This includes third territories under article 6. 
See Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC and Directive 2009/132/EC as 
regards  certain  value  added  tax  obligations  for  supplies  of  services  and  distance  sales  of  goods 
(COM(2016) 757 final), p.2.  
The  amount of illegal TV broadcasting in  Latvia in 2015, Stockholm school of economics, Nelegālās 
maksas TV apraides apjoms Latvijā 2015, available at:  
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arnis_Sauka/publication/303382487_Nelegalas_maksas_TV_apra
ides_apjoms_Latvija_2015/links/573f5c7408ae298602e8f2f2.pdf  
Europol and European Union Intellectual Property Office: 2017 Situation Report on Counterfeiting and 
Piracy  in  the  European  Union,  available  at  www.europol.europa.eu/publications-documents/2017-
situation-report-counterfeiting-and-piracy-in-european-union 
Nordic  Content  Protection:  Trend  Report  2017,  available  at:  www.ncprotection.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/Trend-Report-2017.pdf 
See: www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/95661/ICMR-2016-4.pdf 
Calculated using standard rates without taking into account reduced rates 
In the targeted consultation to prepare this proposal, only three tax authorities provided rough VAT loss 
estimates on B2C intra-EU supplies of goods, B2C intra-EU supplies of services, and imports of goods 
in 2015, 2016 and 2017. 

EN 

2 

  EN 

 
                                                 
 
keeping  obligations  for  their  online  purchases.  Even  if  the  latter  was  the  case,  it  would  be 
disproportionate to systematically have recourse to these final consumers to investigate VAT 
fraud by the seller. 

Moreover, when the fraudsters and their location are unknown, it can become a real issue to 
know to which Member State a request for administrative cooperation should be addressed. 

This could result in bulk identification requests. They would have to be sent either to a third 
party (i.e. the online market place or payment service providers) which could potentially hold 
the information, or they could be made to a tax authority of a country where the third party is 
established.  Nevertheless,  this  would  be  considered  disproportionate  under  Article  54(1)  of 
Regulation  (EU)  No  904/2010.  Furthermore,  under  Article  54(2)  of  the  same  Regulation, 
Member States cannot be required to provide information if their national legislation does not 
authorise  them  to  collect  it.  This  limits  the  possibilities  for  Member  States  to  request  third-
party data from other Member States. 

The present proposal seeks to solve the problem of e-commerce VAT fraud by strengthening 
the cooperation between tax authorities and payment service providers. In recent years, more 
than  90 %  of  online  purchases  by  European  customers  were  made  through  credit  transfers, 
direct  debits  and card payments,  i.e. through an intermediary involved in  the transaction15(a 
payment service provider), and this is a trend that will continue in the future16. Third parties 
that  hold  payment  information  can  therefore  give  a  complete  picture  of  online  purchases  to 
tax authorities to help them properly carry out their task of monitoring compliance with VAT 
obligations  on  e-commerce  supplies  of  goods  and  services.  The  experience  of  the  Member 
States that already cooperate with payment service providers at national level has shown that 
cooperation with payment service providers produces tangible results in fighting e-commerce 
VAT fraud17. Some third countries also use payment information as a tool for detecting non-
compliant  traders  in  combination  with  simplified  collection  regimes  for  cross-border  B2C 
supplies of goods similar to the EU system18. 

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

This  proposal  complements  the  current  VAT  regulatory  framework  as  recently  modified  by 
the  VAT  E-commerce  Directive  in  the  context  of  the  Commission’s  Digital  Single  Market 
Strategy. Furthermore, this initiative strengthens the administrative cooperation framework to 
better tackle e-commerce VAT fraud and restore fair competition. Fighting tax fraud and tax 
evasion  to  prevent  distortion  of  competition  and  help  secure  national  and  EU  revenues  is  a 
Commission priority. The political guidelines19 of the present Commission called for greater 
efforts to be made to combat tax evasion and tax fraud, and in the State of the Union 201820 it 

15 

16 

17 

18 
19 

20 

E-shopper barometer 2017(DPD group), available at: 
https://www.dpd.com/be_en/business_customers/dpd_insights/e_shopper_barometer_2017 and 
International Post Corporation, e-Commerce logistics and delivery, eCom21 2016. 
See: 
https://www.atkearney.com/documents/10192/1448080/Winning+the+Growth+Challenge+in+Payment
s.pdf/b9da93a5-9687-419e-b166-0b25daf585ff, p. 5. 
In particular, the Finnish tax authority was able to collect EUR 16 million in 2016 based on cooperation 
with payment service providers. 
See Annex 11 of the Impact assessment, ‘Third countries using payment data as VAT control tool’. 
See: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/juncker-political-guidelines-
speech_en.pdf 
See: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-brochure_en.pdf  

EN 

3 

  EN 

 
 
                                                 
is  reiterated  that  the  Commission  is  pursuing  a  far-reaching  strategy  to  ensure  that  all 
companies, big and small, pay their fair share of tax. 
Regulation (EU) No 2018/154121 amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 on administrative 
cooperation  and  fighting  fraud  in  the  field  of  value  added  tax22  creates  new  tools  for 
administrative cooperation between Member State tax authorities. These tools will mainly be 
used to fight (i) so-called carousel fraud (carried out on B2B transactions); (ii) fraud involving 
the  margin  scheme  applicable  to  second-hand  cars;  (iii)  fraud  exploiting  specific  customs 
regimes applicable to imports carried out by taxable persons (also on B2B transactions); and 
(iv) will allow joint actions between tax authorities (i.e. joint administrative enquires). Experts 
from tax authorities and businesses in the EU VAT Forum23 stress that the traditional form of 
cooperation to combat VAT fraud is based on records held by the businesses directly involved 
in the transaction chain. For cross-border B2C supplies, this information may not be directly 
available  and  thus  ‘traditional’  cooperation  between  tax  authorities  is  insufficient24. 
Therefore,  this  initiative  also  complements  the  amendments  most  recently  introduced  to  the 
EU administrative cooperation framework in the field of VAT, by giving tax authorities a new 
tool to detect VAT fraud on cross-border B2C supplies. 

Finally,  this  initiative  should  also  be  seen  in  an  international  context.  When  fraud  is 
committed  by  suppliers  established  in  a  third  country  or  third  territory,  international 
cooperation is  crucial for the enforcement of the missing VAT due. The Union has recently 
concluded  an  agreement  for  VAT  cooperation  with  Norway25  and  is  active  in  the  OECD to 
strengthen the use of administrative cooperation tools at international level. This initiative will 
give Member States the evidence to detect fraudsters in third countries. This evidence will be 
used  as  a  first  step  to  activate  international  cooperation  or  to  contribute  to  the  international 
dialogue on improving administrative cooperation with other jurisdictions. 

2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

The  legal  basis  for  this  initiative  is  Article  113  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union  (TFEU).  This  Article  provides  for  the  Council,  acting  unanimously  in 
accordance with a special legislative procedure, to adopt provisions for the harmonisation of 
Member States’ rules in the area of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is 
necessary  to  ensure  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the  single  market  and  avoid 
distortion of competition. 

21

22 

23 

24 

25 

Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1541 of 2 October 2018 amending Regulations (EU) No 904/2010 and 
(EU)  2017/2454  as  regards  measures  to  strengthen  administrative  cooperation  in  the  field  of  value 
added tax (OJ L 259, 16.10.2018, p. 1). 
Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating 
fraud in the field of value added tax (OJ L 268, 12.10.2010, p. 1). 
The EU VAT Forum is a Commission experts group that offers a discussion platform where business 
and VAT authorities meet to discuss how the implementation of the VAT legislation can be improved 
in  practice.  See  Commission  Decision  of  3  July  2012  setting  up  the  EU  VAT  forum  (OJ  C  198, 
6.7.2012, p. 4). 
Consolidated  report  on  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  businesses  in  the  field  of  e-
commerce/modern commerce, p. 5. See: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/vat-reports-
published_en 
See:  http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/02/06/eu-norway-agreement-signed-
strengthening-the-prevention-of-vat-fraud/ 

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
                                                 
 
• 

Subsidiarity  

This initiative is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, as the main problem at stake, e-
commerce VAT fraud, is common to all Member States and is exacerbated by the insufficient 
tools at the disposal of tax authorities. Member States alone are not able to obtain from third 
parties  such  as  payment  service  providers,  the  information  necessary  to  control  VAT  cross-
border  supplies  of  goods  and  services,  ensure  that  the  e-commerce  VAT  rules  (as  recently 
amended  by  the  VAT  E-commerce  Directive)  are  correctly  applied,  and  tackle  e-commerce 
VAT  fraud.  Therefore,  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  is  crucial.  The  legal 
framework for administrative cooperation between Member States in the field of VAT is laid 
down  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  904/2010.  Therefore,  any  initiative  to  introduce  new  tools  for 
cooperation targeted at this specific problem requires a proposal by the Commission to amend 
the existing EU legal  framework. To  allow tax authorities to  collect  VAT-relevant  payment 
data, new record-keeping obligations for payment service providers must be introduced. This 
requires a proposal to amend the VAT Directive. 

• 

Proportionality 

This  proposal  does  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  meet  the  objective  of  fighting  e-
commerce  VAT  fraud.  In  particular,  the  new  system  is  expected  to  provide  tax  authorities 
with  the  necessary  information  and  resources  to  detect  e-commerce  VAT  fraud  and  collect 
additional  VAT.  The  administrative  burden  for  businesses  and  tax  authorities  would  be 
reduced  overall  compared  to  the  present  situation,  and  legitimate  businesses  would  benefit 
from a more level playing field.  

The requirement for payment service providers to keep a number of records to be sent to the 
tax authorities also complies with the principle of proportionality. Payment service providers 
will  be  required  to  keep  records  of  data  that  are  already  at  their  disposal  to  execute  the 
payment  transactions.  Furthermore,  an  EU-harmonised  obligation  for  record  keeping  and 
transmission  of  data  to  tax  authorities  will  limit  the  administrative  burdens  on  payment 
service  providers  (compared  to  the  burden  of  requiring  these  payment  service  providers  to 
comply with diverging national approaches). 

Fighting VAT fraud is an important objective of general public interest of the Union and of 
the Member States. Only the data necessary to achieve that objective (combating e-commerce 
VAT  fraud)  will  be  processed  by  the  anti-fraud  experts  of  tax  authorities,  in  line  with  the 
General  Data  Protection  Regulation26,  Regulation  (EU)  2018/172527  and  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights28. More precisely, the only data that will be processed are the data that 
allow the tax authorities to (i) identify the suppliers, (ii) verify the number of transactions and 
their monetary value, and (iii) verify the origin of the payments. Data on consumers are not 
included  in  the  present  initiative,  apart  from  data  on  the  Member  States  of  origin  of  the 
payments (i.e. the Member State the consumers are located in). Proportionality is also ensured 
by a threshold below which the payment service providers do not have to send payment data 

26 

27 

28 

Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of 
such  data,  and  repealing  Directive  95/46/EC  (General  Data  Protection  Regulation)  (Text  with  EEA 
relevance) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1). 
 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the  processing of personal data by the Union institutions, 
bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 
45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39). 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391). 

EN 

5 

  EN 

 
                                                 
to  the  tax  authorities.  The  threshold  would  exclude  from  the  present  initiative  and  from  the 
process of personal data those payments that most likely do not refer to economic activities.  

• 

Choice of the instrument 

A  Directive  is  proposed  in  view  of  amending  the  VAT  Directive  to  introduce  new  record 
keeping obligations for payment service providers. 

A  Regulation  is  proposed  in  view  of  amending  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  904/2010  on 
administrative cooperation and  fighting  fraud in  the field of value  added tax, to  introduce  a 
new database of VAT related payment data to be accessible by Member States only to fight e-
commerce VAT fraud.  

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex-post evaluations 

The  current  proposal  is  supported  by  an  evaluation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  904/2010,  in 
particular its sections focusing on its use in the field of e-commerce VAT fraud. 

In general, tax authorities considered the current  Regulation  (EU) No 904/2010 an effective 
tool  to  fight  e-commerce  VAT  fraud.  However,  tax  authorities  mentioned  that  the  tools  for 
administrative cooperation currently at their disposal do not easily allow the identification and 
control of online businesses when these online businesses’ domain and bookkeeping records 
are in another country (regardless of whether that other country is a Member State of the EU 
or not). Tax authorities also stressed the need to increase the commitment of Member States 
to invest more resources into administrative cooperation, as this is a key factor in increasing 
the  effectiveness  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  904/2010  in  the  fight  against  e-commerce  VAT 
fraud.  Finally, some Member States  also  mentioned that the effectiveness of the Regulation 
could  be  increased  with  new  tools,  such  as  access  to  -  and  exchange  of  -  relevant  payment 
information. 

While the tax authorities considered that the tools laid down in Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 
are relevant for fighting VAT fraud, they also stressed that there is room for improvement. In 
the view of tax authorities, the recent development of e-commerce and the large volumes of e-
tools  for 
transactions  require  new,  more  effective,  and  more  efficient 
commerce 
administrative cooperation. Moreover, tax authorities said they expected that existing tools for 
fighting  VAT  fraud  would  become  less  relevant  in  the  future  due  to  changes  in  business 
models and changes in the patterns of VAT fraud. 

Even though tax authorities generally lack quantitative evidence on the benefits and costs of 
administrative  cooperation,  they  consider  that  the  benefits  of  administrative  cooperation  are 
proportional to - or even higher than - the costs that tax authorities incurred in the exchange of 
information. 

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 and the current proposal contribute to the proper functioning of 
the  single  market.  They  are  also  consistent  with  the  VAT  E-commerce  Directive  rules. 
Nonetheless, Member State tax authorities recognised that the growth of e-commerce means 
they  must  deal  with  new  challenges,  such  as  how  to  process  data  for  the  detection  of  -  and 
fight against - e-commerce VAT fraud. 

EN 

6 

  EN 

 
Finally,  both  tax  authorities  and  other  stakeholders  recognised  the  added  value  of  the 
administrative  cooperation  framework  laid  down  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  904/2010,  as  e-
commerce VAT fraud affects all Member States. 

In  conclusion,  the  evaluation  showed  that  national  anti-fraud  measures  are  not  sufficient  to 
fight e-commerce VAT fraud and that administrative cooperation between Member States is 
necessary.  It  also  showed  that  changes  in  e-commerce  patterns  require  new  and  appropriate 
tools for the exchange of information. 

• 

Stakeholder consultations 

In  2017,  the  Commission  sought  the  opinion  of  several  stakeholders  through  a  targeted 
consultation  addressed  to  the  tax  authorities  and  to  businesses,  including  payment  service 
providers in particular. In 2017, a public consultation was also launched29.  

The results  of the consultations confirmed that all stakeholders recognise e-commerce VAT 
fraud as a significant problem. Businesses stressed that e-commerce VAT fraud harms honest 
businesses by distorting competition. Both tax authorities and businesses in general confirmed 
that  tax  authorities  need  payment  information  to  fight  e-commerce  VAT  fraud.  Data 
protection  was  not  considered  an  impediment  to  the  collection  and  exchange  of  payment 
information,  provided that  the personal  data of the payers is  processed under the conditions 
laid down by the General Data Protection Regulation. 

Most respondents expressed a positive opinion on amending the EU regulatory framework to 
provide  tax  authorities  with  more  effective  anti-fraud  tools.  A  centralised  EU  system  to 
collect  and  exchange  VAT-relevant  payment  information  was  considered  the  most  cost-
effective tool. 

Both  tax  authorities  and  payment  service  providers  confirmed  the  added  value  of  a 
standardised  and  harmonised  approach  for  the  collection  and  exchange  of  payment 
information. 

This proposal was drafted after consultation with Member State tax authorities and businesses 
representatives, including payment service providers, as part of the VAT Forum subgroup on 
e-commerce. 

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

Besides  consulting  all  stakeholders,  no  outside  experts  were  needed  to  draw  up  the  current 
proposal. 

• 

Impact assessment 

In addition to the baseline scenario, the impact assessment considered two options: 

(1) 

(2) 

29 

a  non-regulatory  option,  basically  consisting  in  providing  guidelines  to  help  tax 
authorities develop their administrative capacity to fight e-commerce VAT fraud; 

a regulatory option, implying the amendment of the EU legal framework (i) for the 
payment  service  providers  to  keep  records  of  VAT-relevant  payment  information, 

The  Commission  also  published 
impact  assessment  (see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-899238_en)  “Exchange  of  VAT-
relevant payment data”, allowing for initial feedback on the initiative. During the feedback period, 15 
February 2018 - 15 March 2018, the Commission received only three answers. Two were supporting the 
initiative while the third one was not related to the content of the initiative. 

the  combined  roadmap/inception 

EN 

7 

  EN 

 
                                                 
and  (ii)  for  the  Member  State  tax  authorities  to  collect  and  exchange  the  payment 
information. 

Under the regulatory option, two alternative technical solutions were envisaged to make tax 
authorities  exchange  the  payment  information:  a  distributed  application  similar  to  the  VAT 
Information  Exchange  System,  or  a  central  repository  at  EU  level  (to  be  developed  by  the 
Commission). 

The impact assessment showed that a central repository was the option that best addressed the 
objective of fighting e-commerce VAT fraud. 

A  central  repository  would  ensure  the  best  tackling  of  VAT  fraud.  It  would  give  more 
guarantees in terms of uniformity of data and data analysis, and would provide for a clearer 
EU-wide perspective of the turnover of detected fraudsters than decentralised repositories. 

The  exchange  of  information  through  a  central  repository  would  also  better  reduce  market 
distortion.  As  cooperation  leads  to  better  results  for  tax  authorities,  legitimate  businesses 
would  enjoy  a  more  level  playing  field.  The  stakeholder  consultation  did  not  allow  for  a 
precise  quantification  of  the  compliance  costs  for  payment  service  providers.  However,  the 
impact  assessment  showed  that  the  harmonisation  of  reporting  obligations  in  one  single 
format for the transmission of information (and one single interface) will reduce compliance 
costs for payment service providers. 

Tax  authorities  would also  have lower development  and running costs under the centralised 
solution than they would with a decentralised system at national level. 

The impact assessment for the proposal was considered by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 
27 June 2018. The Board gave a positive opinion to the proposal with some recommendations 
that  have  been  taken  into  account.  The  opinion  of  the  Board  and  its  recommendations  are 
included in Annex 1 to the Staff Working Document for the impact assessment accompanying 
the proposal30.  

• 

Regulatory fitness and simplification 

This initiative does not fall within the remit of the Regulatory Fitness Programme. The likely 
costs for tax authorities and the Commission are listed in Section 4. 

The information received during the targeted consultation did not make possible any reliable 
quantification of costs for the payment service providers in the impact assessment. However, 
payment  service  providers  currently  receive  information  requests  from  different  Member 
States  in  a  variety  of  different  formats  and  following  different  procedures.  Under  this 
initiative,  the  payment  service  providers  would  have  to  use  an  EU-harmonised  standard  for 
the transmission of payment information to the tax authorities of Member States. This would 
reduce the overall administrative burden on payment service providers. 

The initiative does not  provide for  any new VAT obligations on the suppliers of  goods and 
services to final consumers. 

30 

The executive summary sheet is available at the following page: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/index.cfm?fuseaction=list&coteId=10102&version=ALL&p=1
& 

EN 

8 

  EN 

 
                                                 
Finally, this initiative is expected to considerably reduce Member States’ VAT losses due to 
e-commerce VAT fraud. 

• 

Fundamental rights 

The proposal under consideration will trigger new exchanges and processing of VAT-related 
personal information. 

The  General  Data  Protection  Regulation  gives  a  wide  definition  of  personal  data,  which 
includes any information on an identified or identifiable natural person who can be identified 
directly  or  indirectly.  For  this  reason,  payment  information  falls  under  its  scope  and  the 
principles  applicable  for  the  protection  of  personal  data  as  laid  down  in  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights. 

The  General  Data  Protection  Regulation  and  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1725  lay  down  very 
precise principles for how subjects’ rights must be complied with while processing personal 
data.  However,  the  Union  may  use  legislative  measures  to  restrict  these  principles  and  the 
rights of the data subject31 — as long as the restrictions respect the principles of necessity and 
proportionality  — to  safeguard important  objectives of general  public interest  of the Union, 
such as economic and financial interests, including taxation32. 

The  impact  assessment  supporting  this  initiative  showed  that  tax  authorities  have  no  other 
effective  alternative  way  of  collecting  the  necessary  information  to  fight  e-commerce  VAT 
fraud. Therefore, the exchange of payment information is a necessary measure. 

Furthermore,  only  payment  information  that  is  necessary  to  fight  e-commerce  VAT  fraud 
would be processed under this initiative. The information that would be processed only refers 
to  the  recipients  of  funds  (payees)  and  on  the  payment  transaction  itself  (amount,  currency, 
date), while information on the consumers paying for goods or services (payers) is not part of 
the  exchange  of  information.  Therefore,  that  information  would  not  be  used  for  other 
purposes,  such  as  controlling  purchase  habits  of  the  consumers.  Furthermore,  the  proposal 
includes a ceiling linked to the number of payments received by a given payee, excluding the 
payments  likely  executed  for  private  reasons.  Domestic  payments  would  also  be  excluded 
from the scope of the initiative. Finally, the payment information would only be available to 
the Eurofisc liaison officials of the Member States33 and only for the time necessary to fight e-
commerce VAT fraud. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

It is expected that the investment costs of the Commission and of the tax authorities will be 
outweighed by the increase in  VAT revenues collected. In fact,  B2C online sales accounted 

31 

32 
33 

Restrictions could be set on the right to be informed in a transparent way about: the processing of data 
(Articles 12, 13 and 14); access to data (Article 15); rectification of data (Article 16); erasure of data 
(Article 17); restriction of processing data (Article 18); being notified about any rectification or erasure 
of data (Article 19); receiving data in a structured and common format  - data portability (Article 20); 
the  right  to  object  (Article  21);  and  the  right  not  to  be  subject  to  automated  processing  and  profiling 
(Article 22). 
Article 23 GDPR and Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. 
The  Eurofisc  liaison  officials  are  anti-fraud  experts  of  the  tax  authorities  and  are  appointed  by  the 
Member States as the competent officials for the exchange of early warning signals to fight VAT fraud. 
Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, Chapter X.  

EN 

9 

  EN 

 
                                                 
for around EUR 600 billion in 201734. Therefore, assuming that tax authorities would be able 
to assess a VAT loss corresponding to 1% of that turnover, this would generate up to EUR 1.2 
billion  in  VAT  at  EU-28  level.  Even  accounting  for  incomplete  recovery  of  assessed  VAT, 
these amounts would far exceed the overall operational costs for the initiative. Furthermore, 
fraud  levels  account  for  several  percentage  points  of  e-commerce  sales.  As  a  result  of  the 
increased  collection  of  VAT,  it  is  expected  that  the  VAT  gap  will  be  reduced  in  the  e-
commerce sector. 

The costs of this initiative will be spread among several years starting in 2019. The first part 
of these costs (until 2020) will be covered by existing allocations in the current Fiscalis 2020 
programme.  The  majority  of  the  costs  will  nevertheless  take  place  after  the  year  2020,  as 
described in the Legislative Financial Statements.  

Taking  into  account  the  highest  possible  costs  incurred  by  the  Commission,  the  budgetary 
implications  have  been  estimated  to  a  one-off  cost  of  EUR  11.8  million  for  setting-up  the 
system, and an annual running cost of EUR 4,5 million once the system is fully operational. It 
was  estimated  that  these  running  costs  would  only  start  in  2022  once  the  system  is 
operational.  Their  impact  on  the  budget  was  calculated  over  a  five  year  period  for  a  total 
(including the one-off cost) of EUR 34,3 million to set-up and run the system until 2027. 

These  costs  are  consistent  with  the  MFF  proposal  and  the  Fiscalis  programme  for  the  next 
period. 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation  plans  and  arrangements  for  monitoring,  evaluation  and 
reporting 

The  Eurofisc  reports  and  the  annual  statistics  of  the  Member  States  are  presented  and 
discussed  in  the  Standing  Committee  on  Administrative  Cooperation35  in  accordance  with 
Article  49  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  904/2010.  The  Standing  Committee  is  chaired  by  the 
European Commission. In addition, the Commission will seek to obtain from Member States 
any relevant information on the functioning of the new system and on fraud. Where relevant, 
coordination will be ensured within the Fiscalis  Committee (this  committee has still not  yet 
been set up under the new Fiscalis programme36). 

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 and Directive 2006/112/EC already lay down rules for periodic 
Commission  evaluations  and  reporting.  Therefore,  in  line  with  these  existing  obligations, 
every 5 years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
functioning of the new administrative cooperation tool, pursuant to Article 59 of Regulation 
(EU) No 904/2010. 

Furthermore,  every  4  years  the  Commission  will  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council on the operation of the new VAT obligations imposed on payment service providers 

34 

35 

36 

E-commerce Europe estimated 2017 e-commerce turnover at EUR 602 billion for the North, East and 
South regions of Europe. 
The  Standing  Committee  on  Administrative  Cooperation  (SCAC)  is  composed  of  Member  States 
representatives  and  chaired  by  the  Commission.  The  SCAC  is  responsible  for  the  implementation  of 
Regulation (EU) No 904/2010. 
Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  'Fiscalis' 
programme for cooperation in the field of taxation (COM(2018) 443 final), Article 18. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

 
                                                 
pursuant to Article 404 of Directive 2006/112/EC. The Commission will ensure that the two 
reports are coordinated and built on the same findings. 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

• 
In Article 243a the definitions refer to the relevant provisions of Directive (EU) 2015/236637 
(PSD2) on payment services in the internal market. 

Article 243b of the  VAT Directive introduces a new record-keeping obligation for payment 
service providers. These payment services are set out in Annex 1 of PSD2. Not all payment 
services are relevant for the control of cross-border supplies of goods and services. The only 
payment services that are relevant are those that result in a cross-border transfer of funds to 
the  payees38  (or  to  the  payment  service  providers  acting  on  behalf  of  the  payees)  and  only 
when the payer39 is located in one of the Member States. This is because the Member State of 
origin  of  the  payment  gives  an  indication  to  the  tax  authorities  about  the  place  of 
consumption. Under this initiative, the ‘cross-border’ concept refers to transactions where the 
consumer  is  in  a  Member  State  and  the  supplier  is  in  another  Member  State  or  in  a  third 
country,  or  in  a  third  territory.  Domestic  payments  are  not  included  in  the  scope  of  this 
proposal. 

Article 243b does not refer to the place of establishment or to the permanent address or usual 
residence  of  the  payee  and  payer.  In  fact,  payment  service  providers  are  third  parties 
compared  to  the  contractual  relation  between  the  taxable  persons  supplying  goods  and 
services  and  their  consumers.  For  this  reason,  the  information  available  to  payment  service 
providers  when  they  execute  payment  services  does  not  necessarily  match  with  the 
information  taxable  persons  have  on  their  consumers  or  with  the  information  necessary  to 
establish  the  place  of  taxable  transaction.  The  location  only  triggers  the  record-keeping 
obligation of payment service providers pursuant to Article 243b. 

The  rules  to  determine  the  location  of  the  payees  and  of  the  payers  are  laid  down  in  the 
proposed article 243c (see infra).  

In order to capture only the payments that are potentially linked to an economic activity (thus 
excluding  cross-border  fund  transfers  executed  for  private  reasons)  a  ceiling  linked  to  the 
number  of  cross-border  payments  received  by  a  payee  is  provided  for.  Only  when  the  total 
amount  of  payments  received  by  a  given  payee  exceeds  the  ceiling  of  25  payments  in  a 
calendar  quarter  (that  is  also  the  reporting  period  for  payment  service  providers)  will  the 
payment service provider have to keep records on that payee available to tax authorities. The 
ceiling  was  decided  by  taking  into  account  an  average  value  of  online  shopping  orders  of 
EUR  9540.  100  payment  transactions  per  year  of  that  value  every  year  will  result  in  almost 
EUR 10 000 in sales, which can already give rise to VAT obligations in the Member States. 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Directive  (EU)  2015/2366  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  November  2015  on 
payment  services  in  the  internal  market,  amending  Directives  2002/65/EC,  2009/110/EC  and 
2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (Text with EEA 
relevance) (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35). 
‘Payee’  means  a  natural  or  legal  person  who  is  the  intended  recipient  of  funds  which  have  been  the 
subject of a payment transaction (Article 4(9) PSD2). 
‘Payer’ means a natural or legal person who holds a payment account and allows a payment order from 
that  payment  account  or,  where  there  is  no  payment  account,  a  natural  or  legal  person  who  gives  a 
payment order (Article 9(8) PSD2). 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/239247/global-online-shopping-order-values-by-device 

EN 

11 

  EN 

 
                                                 
This amount also matches the EUR 10 000 threshold on intra-EU supplies introduced by the 
VAT E-commerce Directive. 

The record-keeping period for the payment service providers would be 2 years. This record-
keeping period is  proportionate, considering the  massive volume of information  at  stake, its 
high sensitivity in terms of data protection and the time necessary for tax authorities to detect 
VAT fraud. 

Article 243c, refers to  the rules that payment service  providers must apply  to  determine the 
location of the payers and payees as mentioned before. Article 243c does not lay down rules 
to establish the place of taxation, but instead lays down rules to establish the location of the 
payee and payers so as to apply the record-keeping obligation pursuant to Article 243b of the 
VAT Directive. 

Furthermore,  Article  243c  does  not  imply  the  transmission  of  the  information  used  to 
determine the location of the payer to the tax authorities. This information will remain with 
the payment service provider. 

Pursuant to paragraph 1, the location of the payer will be considered as being in the Member 
State indicated by the identifier of the account of the payer. The Single Euro Payments Area 
Regulation41 establishes the IBAN (International Bank Account Number) as the identifier of 
an  individual  payment  account  in  a  Member  State.  If  a  payment  is  executed  through  a 
payment  service  not  falling  under  the  Single  Euro  Payments  Area  Regulation  (which  only 
applies to credit transfers and direct debits in euro), the location of the payer may be given by 
any other identifier of the payment account of the payer. 

There are also payment transactions (i.e. money remittance) where the funds are transferred to 
the payee without any payment account being created in the name of the payer. In this case, 
the  location  of  the  payer  will  be  considered  as  being  in  the  Member  State  indicated  by  the 
identifier of the payment service provider acting on behalf of the payer. 

Pursuant  to  paragraph  2,  the  location  of  the  payee  (the  beneficiary  of  the  funds)  will  be 
considered  as  being  in  the  Member  State  or  third  country  indicated  by  the  identifier  of  the 
payment  account  where  the  funds  are  credited.  Should  the  funds  not  be  credited  to  any 
payment  account,  then the location of the payee will be considered as  being in  the Member 
State,  third  country  or  third  territory  indicated  by  the  identifier  of  the  payment  service 
provider acting on behalf of the payee. 

Article  243d  provides  the  details  of  the  information  to  be  kept  by  the  payment  service 
providers referred to in Article 243b. The records contain information to identify the payment 
service  provider  keeping  the  records,  information  to  identify  the  payee,  and  information  on 
the  payments  received  by  the  payee.  The  identification  information  of  the  payers  is  not 
included  in  the  record-keeping  obligation  of  the  payment  service  providers  as  it  is  not 
necessary  to  detect  fraud.  Furthermore,  payment  service  providers  are  not  always  aware  of 
whether  the  payers  are  taxable  persons  or  merely  private  consumers.  Therefore,  when  the 
threshold of 25 payments in a quarter is exceeded, the payment service providers will have to 
keep information referring to all payments received by a given payee, without distinguishing 

41 

SEPA Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 
establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro (OJ L 94, 
30.3.2012, p. 22). 

EN 

12 

  EN 

 
                                                 
between payments received by consumers or taxable persons. This distinction will be a task of 
the Member State tax authorities when they analyse the information. 

The payment service providers must keep records of any VAT or tax identification number of 
the  payee  if  applicable.  VAT  identification  numbers  (national  or  Mini  One  Stop  Shop 
identification numbers) are necessary for the tax authorities of the Member States to identify 
VAT taxable persons and cross- check their payment information with the respective VAT or 
MOSS declarations and payments. The VAT identification of the payee may not be available 
to the payment service providers (either because the payee does not have a VAT identification 
number or because the payee has a VAT identification number but does not communicate it to 
the  payment  service  provider).  In  case  a  VAT  identification  number  is  not  available  to  the 
payment service providers, the tax authorities will have to activate the necessary procedures 
(domestic  or  using  administrative  cooperation)  to  find  out  whether  behind  the  given  payee 
there is a taxable person and to assess whether there are VAT liabilities. 

Finally,  the  payment  service  providers  must  keep  information  on  the  payment  transaction 
itself,  such  as  the  amount,  currency,  date,  origin  of  the  payment  and  indication  of  any 
payment refund.   

EN 

13 

  EN 

 
2018/0412 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 

amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards introducing certain requirements for payment 
service providers 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 113 
thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament42, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee43, 

Acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Council  Directive  2006/112/EC44  lays  down  the  general  value  added  tax  (VAT)  accounting 
obligations for taxable persons. 

The growth of electronic commerce (‘e-commerce’) facilitates the cross-border supply of goods 
and services to final consumers in Member States. In this context a cross-border supply refers 
to a situation where VAT is due in one Member State but the supplier is established in another 
Member State, or in a third country or third territory. However, fraudulent businesses exploit e-
commerce  opportunities  in  order  to  gain  unfair  market  advantages  by  evading  their  VAT 
obligations. Where the principle of taxation at destination applies, because consumers have no 
accounting obligations, the Member States of consumption need appropriate tools to detect and 
control these fraudulent businesses. 

In the vast majority of online purchases made by European consumers, payments are executed 
through  payment  service  providers.  In  order  to  execute  a  payment  transaction,  a  payment 
service provider holds specific information to identify the recipient, or payee, of that payment 
together with details on the amount and date of the payment transaction and the Member State 
of origin of the payment. This is particularly the case in the context of a cross-border payment 
transaction where the payer is located in one Member State and the payee is located in another  
Member  State  or  in  a  third  country  or  third  territory.  This  information  is  necessary  for  tax 
authorities to carry out their basic tasks of detecting fraudulent businesses and controlling VAT 
liabilities.  It  is  therefore  necessary  that  this  VAT-relevant  information,  which  is  held  by 
payment service providers, is made available to the tax authorities of the Member States to help 
them identify and combat cross-border e-commerce VAT fraud.  

42 
43 
44 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
Council  Directive  2006/112/EC  of  28  November  2006  on  the  common  system  of  value  added  tax  (OJ  L  347, 
11.12.2006, p. 1). 

EN 

14 

  EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

It  is  important  that  payment  service  providers  should  be  obliged  to  keep  sufficiently  detailed 
records of certain cross-border payment transactions triggered by the location of the payer and 
of  the  payee  as  part  of  this  new  measure  envisaged  to  fight  cross-border  e-commerce  VAT 
fraud. As a result, it is necessary to define the specific concept of the location of the payer and 
of  the  payee  and  also  the  means  for  their  identification.  The  location  of the  payer  and  of  the 
payee should only trigger the record keeping obligation of the payment service providers which 
is  established  in  the  Union  and  it  should  be  without  prejudice  to  the  rules  laid  down  in  this 
Directive and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/201145 as regards the place 
of a taxable transaction.  

From  information  already  held  by  payment  service  providers,  they  are  able  to  identify  the 
location of the payee and the payer in relation to the payment services they execute, based on 
an identifier of an individual payment account in a Member State used by that payer or payee.   

Alternatively,  the  location  of  the  payer  or  the  payee  should  be  determined  by  means  of  a 
business  identifier  of  the  payment  service  provider  where  it  has  been  acting  on  behalf  of  the 
payer  or  the  payee.  This  means  of  identification  should  also  be  used  where  the  funds  are 
transferred to  a payee  without  any payment account  being created in  the  name of a payer, or 
where the funds are not credited to any payment account.   
In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council46, 
it  is  important  that  the  obligation  on  a  payment  service  provider,  to  retain  and  provide 
information  in  relation  to  a  cross-border  payment  transaction,  should  be  proportionate  and 
should  only  be  what  is  necessary  for  Member  States  to  fight  e-commerce  VAT  fraud. 
Furthermore,  the  only  information  relating  to  the  payer  that  should  be  retained  is  where  the 
payer is located. With regard to information relating to the payee and the payment transaction 
itself,  payment  service  providers  should  only  be  required  to  retain  and  transmit  to  tax 
authorities information which is necessary for tax authorities to detect possible fraudsters and 
to  carry  out  VAT  controls.  Therefore,  payment  service  providers  should  only  be  required  to 
retain  records  on  cross-border  payment  transactions  which  are  likely  to  indicate  economic 
activities. The introduction of a ceiling based on the number of payments received by a payee 
over the course of a calendar quarter would give a reliable indication that those payments were 
received  as  part  of  an  economic  activity,  thereby  excluding  payments  for  non-commercial 
reasons.  Where  such  a  ceiling  is  reached,  the  accounting  obligation  of  the  payment  service 
provider would be triggered. 

(8) 

Due  to  the  significant  volume  of  information  and  its  sensitivity  in  terms  of  the  protection  of 
personal data, it is necessary and proportionate that payment service providers retain records of 
the information in relation to cross-border payment transactions for a two-year period in order 
to  assist  Member  States  fight  e-commerce  VAT  fraud  and  detect  fraudsters.  This  period 
constitutes the minimum necessary for Member States to carry out controls effectively and to 
investigate suspected VAT fraud or to detect VAT fraud. 

(9) 

The  information  to  be  retained  by  the  payment  service  providers  should  be  collected  by  and 
exchanged  between  the  Member  States  in  accordance  with  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No 

45 

46 

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for 
Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 77, 23.3.2011, p. 1). 
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of 
natural  persons  with  regard  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  and  on  the  free  movement  of  such  data,  and 
repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L119, 04.05.2016, p.1). 

EN 

15 

  EN 

 
                                                 
904/201047  which  lays  down  the  rules  for  administrative  cooperation  and  exchange  of 
information in order to combat VAT fraud. 

(10)  E-commerce VAT fraud is  a common problem for all Member States but  individual  Member 
States  do  not  necessarily  have  the  information  to  ensure  that  e-commerce  VAT  rules  are 
correctly applied and to tackle e-commerce VAT fraud. Since the objective of this Directive, — 
the  fight  against  e-commerce  VAT  fraud  —  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member 
States  individually  due  to  the  cross-border  nature  of  e-commerce  and  the  need  to  obtain 
information  from  other  Member  States,  but  can  be  better  achieved  at  Union  level,  the  Union 
may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of 
the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in 
that  Article,  this  Directive  does  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  in  order  to  achieve  that 
objective. 

(11)  This  Directive  respects  the  fundamental  rights  and  observes  the  principles  recognised  by  the 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union.  In  particular,  this  Directive  fully 
respects  the  right  of  protection  of  personal  data  laid  down  in  Article  8  of  the  Charter.  The 
payment  information  retained  and  disclosed  in  accordance  with  this  Directive  should  be 
processed  only  by  the  anti-fraud  experts  of  tax  authorities  within  the  limits  of  what  is 
proportionate and necessary to achieve the objective of fighting e-commerce VAT fraud. 

(12)  The  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  was  consulted  in  accordance  with  Article  42(1)  of 
Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council48 and delivered an 
opinion on […]…49 

(13)  Directive 2006/112/EC should therefore be amended accordingly, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 
Amendments to Directive 2006/112/EC 

Directive 2006/112/EC is amended as follows: 

(1)  Chapter 4 of Title XI is amended as follows: 

(a) 

the following Section 2a is inserted: 

‘Section 2a 

General obligations for payment service providers’; 

(b) 

the following Articles from 243a to 243d are inserted: 

For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions shall apply: 

‘Article 243a 

47 

48 

49 

Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in 
the field of value added tax (OJ L 268, 12.10.2010, p.1). 
 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection 
of  natural  persons  with  regard  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  by  the  Union  institutions,  bodies,  offices  and 
agencies  and  on  the  free  movement  of  such  data,  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  45/2001  and  Decision  No 
1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39). 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 

EN 

16 

  EN 

 
 
                                                 
(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

‘payment  service  provider’  means  a  body  listed  in  points  (a)  to  (f)  of  paragraph  1  of 
Article 1 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (*), or a natural or legal person benefiting from 
an exemption in accordance with Article 32 of that Directive; 

‘payment service’ means the business activities set out in points (3) to (6) of Annex 1 to 
Directive (EU) 2015/2366;  

’payment  transaction’  means  an  act  defined  in  point  5  of  Article  4  of  Directive  (EU) 
2015/2366; 

‘payer’ means a natural  or legal person as defined in point 8 of Article 4 of Directive 
(EU) 2015/2366; 

‘payee’ means a natural or legal person as defined in point 9 of Article 4 of Directive 
(EU) 2015/2366; 

'IBAN' means an international payment account number identifier as defined in point 15 
of  Article  2  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  260/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council (**); 

(7) 

‘BIC’ means a business identifier code as defined in point 16 of Article 2 of Regulation 
(EU) No 260/2012. 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

(*)   Directive  (EU)  2015/2366  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25 
November  2015  on  payment  services  in  the  internal  market,  amending  Directives 
2002/65/EC,  2009/110/EC  and  2013/36/EU  and  Regulation  (EU)  No  1093/2010,  and 
repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35). 

(**)  Regulation  (EU)  No  260/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14 
March  2012  establishing  technical  and  business  requirements  for  credit  transfers  and  direct 
debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 22). 

Article 243b 

1. 

2. 

Member States shall ensure that payment service providers keep sufficiently detailed records 
of the payees and of the payment transactions in relation to payment services they execute for 
each calendar quarter to  enable the competent authorities of the Member States to carry out 
controls of the supplies of goods and services which in accordance with the provisions of Title 
V are deemed to take place in a Member State.  

The  requirement  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  shall  apply  in  circumstances  where  both  of  the 
following conditions are met: 

(a)  where funds are transferred by a payment service provider from a payer located in one 
Member  State  to  a  payee  located  in  another  Member  State,  in  a  third  territory  or  in  a 
third country; 

(b) 

in  respect  of  the  transfer  of  funds  referred  to  in  point  (a),  where  a  payment  service 
provider executes more than 25 payment transactions to the same payee in the course of 
a calendar quarter. 

3. 

The records referred to in paragraph 1 shall: 

(a)  be kept by the payment service provider in electronic format for a period of two years 

from the end of the year during which the payment transaction was executed; 

EN 

17 

  EN 

 
 
(b)  be  made  available  to  the  Member  States  of  establishment  of  the  payment  service 

provider in accordance with Article 24b of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 (*).   

_____________________________________________________________________ 

Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation 

(*) 
and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (OJ L 268, 12.10.2010, p. 1). 

Article 243c 

1. 

For the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 243b and without prejudice to the dispositions of 
Title V of this Directive, the location of the payer shall be considered to be in a Member State 
corresponding to either: 

(a) 

(b) 

the IBAN of the payer’s payment account; 

the BIC or any other business identifier code that unambiguously identifies the payment 
service provider acting on behalf of the payer.  

2. 

For  the  application  of  paragraph  2  of  Article  243b,  the  location  of  the  payee  shall  be 
considered to be in a Member State, third country or third territory corresponding to either: 

(a) 

(b) 

the  IBAN  of  the  payee's  payment  account  or  any  other  payment  account  number 
identifier which unambiguously identifies an individual payment account; 

the BIC or any other business identifier code that unambiguously identifies the payment 
service provider acting on behalf of the payee. 

1. 

The  records  kept  by  the  payment  service  providers,  in  accordance  with  Article  243b,  shall 
contain the following information: 

Article 243d 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

the BIC or any other business identifier code that unambiguously identifies the payment 
service provider; 

the name of the payee or the business name, if appropriate; 

any VAT identification number of the payee, if available; 

the  IBAN  or  any  other  payment  account  number  identifier  which  unambiguously 
identifies the individual payment account of the payee; 

the BIC or any other business identifier code that unambiguously identifies the payment 
service provider acting on behalf of the payee where the payee receives funds without 
having any payment account; 

the address of the payee in the records of the payment services provider; 

any executed payment transactions referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 243b; 

any executed payment refunds for payment transactions referred to in point (g); 

2. 

The information referred to in points (g) and (h) of paragraph 1, shall contain the following 
details: 

(a) 

the date and time of the execution of the payment transaction or of the payment refund; 

EN 

18 

  EN 

 
 
 
(b) 

(c) 

the amount and the currency of the payment transaction or of the payment refund; 

 the  Member  State  of  origin  of  the  funds  received  by  the  payee  or  on  his  behalf,  the 
Member  State,  third  territory  or  third  country  of  destination  of  the  refund,  as 
appropriate,  and the information used to  determine the origin  or the destination of the 
payment transaction or of the payment refund in accordance with Article 243c.’ 

 Article 2 

1. 

Member  States  shall  adopt  and  publish,  by  31  December  2021  at  the  latest,  the  laws, 
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall 
forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. 

They shall apply those provisions from 1 January 2022. 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  provisions,  the  latter  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. 
Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

2. 

Member  States  shall  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  text  of  the  main  provisions  of 
national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

Article 3 

This  Directive  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  twentieth  day  following  that  of  its  publication  in  the 
Official Journal of the European Union. 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

Article 4 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

19 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE 

1.1.  Title of the proposal/initiative 

1.2.  Policy area(s) concerned (programme cluster) 

1.3.  Nature of the proposal/initiative 

1.4.  Grounds for the proposal/initiative 

1.5.  Duration and financial impact 

1.6.  Management mode(s) planned 

2. 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

2.1.  Monitoring and reporting rules 

2.2.  Management and control system 

2.3.  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities 

3. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE 

3.1.  Heading(s)  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  and  expenditure  budget  line(s) 
affected 

3.2.  Estimated impact on expenditure 

3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on expenditure 

3.2.2. Estimated impact on appropriations of an administrative nature 

3.2.3. Third-party contributions 

3.3.  Estimated impact on revenue

EN 

20 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE 

1.1. 

Title of the proposal/initiative 

Mandatory transmission and exchange of VAT-relevant payment data 

PLAN/2017/2023 — TAXUD 

1.2. 

Policy area(s) concerned (Programme cluster) 

Single Market, Innovation and Digital 

1.3. 

The proposal/initiative relates to: 

 a new action 
 a new action following a pilot project/preparatory action50 

 the extension of an existing action 

 a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action 

1.4. 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative 

1.4.1.  Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for 

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative 

The following milestones are set for the project: 

(1)  End of 2022 — The central system for collecting data from payment providers 

and for the risk analysis is operational; 

(2)  End of 2024 — Feedback on the use of the payment data, the risk criteria and 
the supplementary VAT assessed is provided to the Commission by at least 2/3 
of the active users (Member States). 

1.4.2.  Added  value  of  Union  involvement  (it  may  result  from  different  factors,  e.g. 
coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For 
the purposes of this point ‘added value of Union involvement’ is the value resulting 
from  Union  intervention,  which  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  been 
otherwise, created by Member States alone. 

Reasons  for  action  at  European  level  (ex-ante)  Member  States  alone  cannot 
effectively  fight  e-commerce  VAT  fraud.  Tax  authorities  do  not  have  access  to 
information on business to consumers’ cross-border supplies. 

From  another  perspective,  exchanging  information  between  Member  States  tax 
authorities  on  payment  data  is  not  always  possible  due  to  legal  limitations,  which 
makes the current administrative cooperation tools rather un-effective in respect to e-
commerce VAT fraud. 

Expected generated Union added value (ex-post) 

A higher VAT compliance level among remote sellers would generate an improved 
level  playing  field  for  all  companies  active  in  the  e-commerce  sector.  Equally,  the 
improved compliance level would lead to higher VAT revenues and to a lower VAT 
gap. 

50 

As referred to in Article 58(2)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation. 

EN 

21 

  EN 

 
                                                 
For  payment  providers,  the  adoption  of  a  single  centralised  EU-wide  system  of 
collecting VAT-relevant payment data would reduce the risks and costs of reporting 
the same information in multiple formats, in every EU Member State. 

1.4.3.  Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past 

This is a new initiative. However, based on the Mini One Stop Shop project (MOSS) 
which  developed  a  common  European  platform  for  declaring  and  paying  VAT  on 
electronic services across Europe, the following considerations can be drawn: 

(1)  The  implementation  of  the  technical  solution  has  to  be  planned  well  in 
advance, allowing a wide consultation of stakeholders and taking into account 
the necessary time and financial resources to develop the new system; 

(2)  The  requirements  to  store  information  on  long  term  should  be  carefully 

weighted in terms of costs and benefits; 

(3)  A good communication campaign should accompany the implementation of the 
initiative,  in  order  to  help  businesses  comply  with  the  new  reporting 
requirements. 

Lessons  learned  from  the  development  of  IT  systems  and  the  administrative 
cooperation under the Fiscalis and Customs programmes will be used. Most notably, 
the experience that will be gathered in developing the future Information System for 
Customs 2 may be useful in building the risk analysis tools for payment data. 

1.4.4.  Compatibility and possible synergy with other appropriate instruments 

The  funds  for  the  implementation  of  this  initiative  will  be  provided  by  the  Fiscalis 
programme. 

Finally, the initiative will be implemented in  conjunction  with  the new rules of the 
VAT Digital Single Market Package, notably the Council Directive (EU) 2017/2455 
of  5 December  2017  amending  Directive  2006/112/EC  and  Directive  2009/132/EC 
as  regards  certain  value  added  tax  obligations  for  supplies  of  services  and  distance 
sales  of  goods.  The  payment  data  would  allow  the  tax  authorities  to  crosscheck 
information declared by marketplaces, platforms or other remote sellers as well as to 
verify the application of the EUR 10 000 threshold for intra-EU supplies. 

1.5. 

Duration and financial impact 

 limited duration 

–    in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY 

–    Financial  impact  from  YYYY  to  YYYY  for  commitment  appropriations  and 

from YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations. 

 unlimited duration 

–  Implementation with a start-up period from 2020 to 2023, 

–  followed by full-scale operation. 

1.6.  Management mode(s) planned51 

 Direct management by the Commission 

51 

Details of management modes and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on DG BUDG 
Website: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/budgweb/EN/man/budgmanag/Pages/budgmanag.aspx 

EN 

22 

  EN 

 
                                                 
–   by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations; 

–    by the executive agencies 

 Shared management with the Member States 

 Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to: 

–   third countries or the bodies they have designated; 

–   international organisations and their agencies (to be specified); 

–  the EIB and the European Investment Fund; 

–   bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation; 

–   public law bodies; 

–   bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that 

they provide adequate financial guarantees; 

–   bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with 
the  implementation  of  a  public-private  partnership  and  that  provide  adequate 
financial guarantees; 

–    persons  entrusted  with  the  implementation  of  specific  actions  in  the  CFSP 

pursuant to Title V of the TEU, and identified in the relevant basic act. 

Comments 

The Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation, 
on the grounds of art. 58 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member 
States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. 

EN 

23 

  EN 

 
2. 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

2.1.  Monitoring and reporting rules 

TAXUD  will  submit  yearly  monitoring  reports  to  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Administrative Cooperation (SCAC). 

2.2.  Management and control system(s) 

2.2.1. 

Justification of the management mode(s), the funding implementation mechanism(s), 
the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed 

The  initiative  will  be  implemented  in  direct  management  mode.  This  management 
mode provides the most efficient allocation of financial resources and greatest impact 
possible.  It  offers  flexibility  and  sufficient  steering  control  to  the  Commission  for 
yearly allocation of resources. 

The initiative will be implemented via procurement by the Commission. 

For procurement, the payment modalities are fully aligned with corporate standards 
(no  pre-financing;  all  payments  are  linked  to  the  acceptance  of  pre-defined 
deliverables). 

The control system for procurement is based on a thorough ex-ante verification of all 
transactions, therefore excluding any error at payment time. 

2.2.2. 

Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up 
to mitigate them 

The general identified risks related to the implementation of this initiative refer to: 

1. 
Shortage  of  financial  and  human  resources  for  the  IT  solution  on  the  central 
repository and on the changes that each Member State has to operate into its national 
information systems; 

The  security  risks  related  to  the  storage  and  processing  of  sensitive  payment 

2. 
data; 

Risks  will  be  addressed  by  TAXUD  with  support  from  the  Member  States  by  the 
means  of  (i)  appropriate  financing  decisions,  (ii)  extensive  consultation  on  the 
technical  and  functional  requirements  of  the  new  IT  systems  as  well  as  by  the 
consultation  of  various  stakeholders  and  rigorous  analysis  by  the  Commission  and 
the  Standing  Committee  on  Administrative  Cooperation  of  performance  indicators 
and market trends. 

2.2.3.  Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio of ‘control 
costs ÷ value of the related funds managed’), and assessment of the expected levels 
of risk of error (at payment & at closure) 

As  the  financing  of  the  initiative  will  be  done  through  the  Fiscalis  programme,  the 
specific internal control system will apply. 

TAXUD will also regularly check on the implementation of the initiative, from both 
the business and IT perspectives and will set in place regular management check in 
its units in charge of tax administration and fight against fraud as well as in charge of 
taxation IT systems 

TAXUD has a good record and appropriate experience in implementing large-scale 
trans-European IT systems and complex business rules involving all the EU Member 

EN 

24 

  EN 

 
States. Most notably, the experience with both the Fiscalis and Customs programmes 
will minimise the risks of error (under 2 %). 

The applied control strategy has proven to be effective and efficient under the former 
similar initiatives for Customs and the cost of control has shown to be limited. 

Considering  that  similar  control  systems  will  be  used  for  this  initiative,  the 
anticipated cost of controls and expected level of risk of error at payment/closure can 
be considered cost-effective. 

2.3.  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities 

DG  TAXUD  implements  a  comprehensive  Anti-Fraud  Strategy  (AFS)  leading  to 
anti-fraud  culture  within  the  DG  through  awareness  raising  activities  on  potential 
fraud risks and ethical behaviour among DG TAXUD staff. 

Considering  that  the  programme  will  be  implemented  through  procurement,  the 
provision  of  the  AFS  apply  (Objective  3  of  AFS:  ‘Raising  awareness  on  possible 
conflict of interest in dealing with external stakeholders such as lobbyists, tenderers, 
contractors’).  The  preventing  measures  will  focus  on  1)  maintaining  records  of 
contacts  with  lobbyists,  2)  centralised  management  of  procurement  procedures  and 
contacts with tenderers, 3) dedicated training on contacts with lobbyists and will be 
particularly applicable to the implementation of the initiative. 

Mandatory  consultation  of  the  Early  Detection  and  Exclusion  System  before 
awarding  contracts  (and  any  financial  transaction)  will  also  further  discourage 
potential fraud and irregularity. 

EN 

25 

  EN 

 
3. 

3.1. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE 

Heading  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  and  new  expenditure  budget 
line(s) proposed 

Budget line 

Type of  
expenditure 

Contribution  

Heading of 
multiannual 
financial 
framework 

Number  
[Heading ……………………… ……………
…] 

Diff./Non-
diff52. 

from 
EFTA 
countries
53 

from 
candidate 
countries54 

from third 
countries 

within the 
meaning of Article 
[21(2)(b)] of the 
Financial 
Regulation  

1 

03.01 
Administrative line 

Single 

Market 

— 

03.04  Single  Market  —  Cooperation 
in the field of taxation (FISCALIS) 

Diff. 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

52 
53 
54 

Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations. 
EFTA: European Free Trade Association. 
Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans. 

EN 

26 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
3.2. 

Estimated impact on expenditure 

3.2.1. 

Summary of estimated impact on expenditure 

Heading of multiannual financial  
framework  

<…> 

‘Single Market, Innovation and Digital’ 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Post 
2027 

TOTAL 

Operational  appropriations  (split  according  to 
the budget lines listed under 3.1)   

Commitments 

Payments 

Appropriations of an administrative nature 
financed from the envelope of the programme55  

Commitments = 
Payments 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

5,400 

5,550 

5,235 

4,585 

4,585 

4,585 

4,585 

TOTAL appropriations for the envelope 
of the programme 

Commitments 

=1+3 

5,400 

5,550 

5,235 

4,585 

4,585 

4,585 

4,585 

Payments 

=2+3 

34,525 

34,525 

34,525 

34,525 

Heading of multiannual financial  
framework  

7 

‘Administrative expenditure’ 

55 

Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, 
direct research. 

EN 

27 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Post 
2027 

TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Human resources  
Other administrative expenditure  
TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 
7 of the multiannual financial framework 

2,244 

0,902 

0,225 

0,225 

0,225 

0,225 

0,225 

(Total  commitments  = 
Total payments) 

2,444 

0,952 

0,276 

0,276 

0,276 

0,276 

0,276 

4,274 

4,774 

TOTAL appropriations  
across HEADINGS  
of the multiannual financial framework  

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Post 
2027 

TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Commitments 

7,644 

6,452 

5,460 

4,810 

4,810 

4,810 

8,910 

38,798 

Payments 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.2. 

Summary of estimated impact on appropriations of an administrative nature 

–  The  proposal  requires  the  use  of  appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature,  as 

explained below: 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Years 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

TOTAL 

HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework 

Human resources  

2,244 

0,902 

0,225 

0,225 

0,225 

0,225 

0,225 

4,274 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Other administrative 
expenditure  

Subtotal HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

Outside HEADING 756 
of the multiannual 
financial framework 

Human resources  

Other expenditure  
of an administrative 
nature 

Subtotal  
outside HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework  

TOTAL 

2,244 

0,902 

0,225 

0,225 

0,225 

0,225 

0,225 

4,274 

The  appropriations  required  for  human  resources  and  other  expenditure  of  an  administrative  nature  will  be  met  by 
appropriations from the DG that are already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the 
DG,  together  if  necessary  with  any  additional  allocation  which  may  be  granted  to  the  managing  DG  under  the  annual 
allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints. 

56 

Technical  and/or  administrative  assistance  and  expenditure  in  support  of  the  implementation  of 
EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research. 

EN 

29 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.2.1.  Estimated requirements of human resources 

–  The proposal requires the use of human resources, as explained below: 

Years 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Estimate to be expressed in full time equivalent units 

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff) 

Headquarters and Commission’s 
Representation Offices 

Delegations 

Research 

6 

2 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

0,5 

 External staff (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE) — AC, AL, END, INT and JED 57 
Heading 7 

Financed from 
HEADING 7 of 
the multiannual 
financial 
framework  

- at Headquarters 

9 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

- in Delegations  

Financed from the 
envelope of the 
programme 58 

- at Headquarters 

- in Delegations  

Research 

Other (specify) 

TOTAL 

15 

6 

1,5 

1,5 

1,5 

1,5 

1,5 

The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the action and/or 
have  been  redeployed  within  the  DG,  together  if  necessary  with  any  additional  allocation  which  may  be  granted  to  the 
managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints. 

Description of tasks to be carried out: 

Officials and temporary staff 

External staff 

Figures  include  both  staff  working  on  the  direct  management  and 
implementation  of  the  initiative  and  staff  working  on  policy  areas 
supported by the initiative.  

Figures  include  both  staff  working  on  the  direct  management  and 
implementation  of  the  initiative  and  staff  working  on  policy  areas 
supported by the initiative. 

57 

58 

AC=  Contract  Staff;  AL  =  Local  Staff;  END  =  Seconded  National  Expert;  INT  =  agency  staff; 
JPD= Junior Professionals in Delegations. 
Sub-ceiling for external staff covered by operational appropriations (former ‘BA’ lines). 

EN 

30 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.3.  Third-party contributions 

The proposal/initiative: 

–  does not provide for co-financing by third parties 

3.3. 

Estimated impact on revenue 

–  The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact: 

(1) 

on VAT revenue 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Impact of the proposal/initiative59 

Budget revenue line: 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Article ………… 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

59 

As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net 
amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 20 % for collection costs. 

EN 

31 

  EN