COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1286/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing an action programme to improve the operation of taxation systems in the European Union for the period 2014-2020 (Fiscalis 2020) and repealing Decision No 1482/2007/EC Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Mid-term evaluation of the Fiscalis 2020 programme
Date: 2019-02-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European tax cooperation, administrative cooperation, exchange of information, fraud, information system, tax authorities, tax avoidance, tax evasion, tax law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.2.2019  SWD(2019) 15 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1286/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing an action programme to improve the operation of taxation systems in the European Union for the period 2014-2020 (Fiscalis 2020) and repealing Decision No 1482/2007/EC Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Mid-term evaluation of the Fiscalis 2020 programme {COM(2019) 59 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 2 

Context ..................................................................................................................................... 2 
Purpose and scope .................................................................................................................... 2 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ....................................................................... 3 

Description of the intervention and its objectives .................................................................... 3 
Baseline and points of comparison........................................................................................... 4 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ............................................................................ 4 

Description of the current situation .......................................................................................... 4 
Awareness of the programme ................................................................................................... 6 

4.  METHOD ................................................................................................................................ 6 

Short description of methodology ............................................................................................ 6 
Limitations and robustness of findings .................................................................................... 7 
Changes to the original design ................................................................................................. 8 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .............................. 8 

Relevance  of  the  programme  (evaluation  question  1):  do  the  different  objectives  of  the 
programme (in the Regulation and in its work programmes) correspond to the needs of the 
national tax administrations, economic operators and citizens? .............................................. 8 
Effectiveness of the programme (evaluation question 2): to what extent has the programme 
reinforced  cooperation  and  improved  information-sharing  between  tax  authorities  of 
participating countries? .......................................................................................................... 13 
Effectiveness  of  the  programme  (evaluation  question  3):  To  what  extent  have  economic 
operators used and benefited from the programme? .............................................................. 19 
Effectiveness of the programme (evaluation question 4): To what extent has the programme 
contributed to the achievement of its specific objectives? ..................................................... 20 
Efficiency (evaluation question 5): To what extent have the design and management of the 
programme been conducive to achieving the desired results? ............................................... 21 
Efficiency  (evaluation  question  6):  To  what  extent  have  the  programme's  resources 
produced best possible results at the lowest possible costs? .................................................. 25 
Coherence  (evaluation  question  7):  To  what  extent  does  the  programme  demonstrate 
internal and external coherence? ............................................................................................ 29 
EU-added value (evaluation question 8): To what extent does the programme provide EU 
added value? ........................................................................................................................... 32 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 35 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................. 38 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................................ 42 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ........................................................... 47 

ANNEX 4: KEY FEATURES OF THE PROGRAMME AND SELECTED STATISTICS ........ 51 

1 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Context 

The Fiscalis 2020 multiannual action programme is one of the principal measures to support the 
implementation  of  European  Union  taxation  policy.  It  provides  a  framework  to  improve  the 
proper functioning of the taxation systems in the single market through enhanced cooperation 
between  participating  countries,  their  tax  authorities  and  officials.  The  34  participating 
countries  are  made  up  of  the  28  EU  Member  States  and  6  candidate  and  potential  candidate 
countries1. Building on prior initiatives entitled Matthaeus-Tax (established in 1993) there have 
been  successive  editions  of  the  programme:  the  first  Fiscalis  programme  (1998-2002),  the 
second  Fiscalis  programme  (2003-2007),  the  third  Fiscalis  programme  (2008-2013)  and  the 
current  Fiscalis  programme  (2014-2020).  The  ensuing  sub-sections  briefly  describe  the 
underlying context and the programme itself. 

The Fiscalis 2020 programme was set up by Regulation  (EU) No 1286/2013 of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 December  2013  establishing  an  action  programme  to 
improve the operation of taxation systems in the European Union2. In compliance with Article 
17(1)(2)  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission,  assisted  by  an  independent  external  evaluator, 
carried out the mid-term evaluation of the programme.  

Purpose and scope 

The purpose of the mid-term evaluation was to assess the programme’s performance since its 
start  on  1st  of  January  2014  up  to  the  half-way  of  the  programme’s  implementation.  The 
temporal  scope  of  the  evaluation  runs  from  the  programme’s  establishment  until  the  end  of 
2017, depending on the availability of relevant data. 

In  compliance  with  Article  17(2)  of  the  Regulation,  the  mid-term  evaluation  sought  to  shed 
light  on  the  (1)  achievement  of  the  objectives  and  programme's  performance  so  far;  (2) 
strengths, weaknesses and value for money of the different activities supported;  (3) continued 
relevance of the programme for the tax administrations; (4) coherence and synergies with other 
EU policies and priorities and; (5) value added thanks to acting at the EU level. Moreover, the 
evaluation examined (6) how well the Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) that was 
put  in  place  to  monitor  the  programme  in  2014  has  delivered  on  its  objectives,  and  (7)  the 
implementation  and  follow-up  of  recommendations  made  for  previous  evaluations.  For 
accountability  and  learning  purposes,  the  evaluation  provided  recommendations  for  future 
improvement of the programme’s functioning.  

The  evaluation  took  into  account  the  programme’s  full  range  of  funded  and  management 
activities, all the relevant stakeholders (national administrations, the Commission services and 
economic operators) and covered all participating countries (including candidate and potential 
candidate countries).  

The  present  evaluation  staff  working  document  is  based  on  the  findings  and  conclusions 
presented  in  the  supporting  external  study  (see:  Annex  1  for  organisational  details).  The 
Commission  appreciates  the  overall  quality  of  the  external  study  and  acknowledges  the 

1  Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  The  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Montenegro,  Serbia  and 

Turkey  

2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0025:0032:EN:PDF  

2 

 
                                                           
methodological  difficulties and  efforts  undertaken to  mitigate them.  The  findings are deemed 
robust and the conclusions accurately drawn.   

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

Figure 1 presents the main features of the Fiscalis 2020 programme in terms of its objectives, 
supported  activities,  beneficiaries  and  overall  financial  envelope.  The  intervention  logic 
underpinning the evaluation is presented in Annex 3.      

Figure 1. Key features of the Fiscalis 2020 programme 

 Source: European Commission;  

Altogether,  34  national  tax  administrations  take  part  in  the  programme’s  activities.  The 
Commission manages the Fiscalis 2020 programme centrally through direct management with 
assistance  from  the  Programme  Coordination  Group  (responsible  for  Commission  internal 
coordination) and the Fiscalis 2020 Committee (responsible for the external coordination with 

3 

 
 
 
the  national  administrations).  The  Fiscalis  2020  Committee3    is  composed  of  delegates  from 
each  participating  country.  The  Programme  Coordination  Group  assists  among  others  in 
identifying policy priorities for the Annual Work Programmes, reinforcing coherence between 
the  programme  objectives  and  priorities  of  the  European  Commission,  monitoring  of  the 
programme’s  performance  and  increasing  the  overall  transparency  and  dissemination  of 
information.  

Baseline and points of comparison  

The Fiscalis 2020 programme builds upon previous versions of the programme and as such has 
been in place for over 25 years. It allows for a coherent implementation of EU law in the field 
of  taxation  in  light  of  current  challenges  by  securing  the  exchange  of  information  and 
supporting  administrative  cooperation  and  enhancing  the  administrative  capacity  of  tax 
authorities.  In  fact,  the  programme  has  been  around  too  long  for  most  stakeholders  to 
meaningfully  consider 
it  started.  The  IT  systems,  constituting 
approximately  75%  of  the  programme’s  available  funds,  have  long  been  engrained  in  the 
national and EU taxation landscapes.  

the  situation  before 

In  line  with  the  Commission’s  commitment  to  monitor  the  EU  budget  and  ensure  the 
accountability  for  value  for  money,  to  facilitate  this  task  the  European  Commission  has 
developed  a  framework  for  monitoring  the  outputs  and  results  of  the  programme  –  the 
Performance  Measurement  Framework.  It  is  a  results-based  monitoring  system  containing  an 
intervention  logic,  adjustable  indicators,  data  collection  schemes  and  reporting  arrangements. 
This framework became operational in 2014, following recommendations of earlier evaluations 
to  provide  more  and  better  data  to  assess  programme  implementation  and  performance. 
Whereas it does already facilitate performance management, the framework is still too fresh to 
provide  insightful  benchmarks  for  the  programme’s  performance  or  establish  and  examine 
trends.  Nevertheless,  whatever  comparisons  could  have  been  drawn  across  the  years  of  the 
programme's operations are included in the analysis.   

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Description of the current situation  

The Commission reports on the implementation and performance of the programme annually, 
through  the  Annual  Progress  Reports.  To  date,  reports  for  2014  to  2017  are  available.  The 
overview  of  the  programme’s  implementation  presented  here  is  based  on  the  latest  available 
report4.   

Due  to  the  programme’s  design  and  objectives,  the  vast  majority  of  funding  goes  into  the 
development and operation of the IT systems, followed by the organisation of the joint actions, 
studies and training activities.  

3   Established  according  to  the  Comitology  rules  set  up  in  Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning 
mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers; 

4   Fiscalis 2020 programme – Progress Report 2017 

4 

 
                                                           
Table 1: Committed expenses per year and by main action categories of activities 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

Total 2014-2017 

€ 4 630 000 

€ 4 300 000 

€ 5 358 040 

€ 4 850 000 

€ 19 138 040 (15.3%) 

Action 
category 
Joint 
actions 
(including 
expert 
teams) 

Training 

€ 908 585 

€ 600 003 

€ 1 205 600 

€1 242 000 

€ 3 956 188  (3.2%) 

IT 

€ 23 053 875 

€ 24 691 255 

€ 23 244 422  € 22 347 000 

€ 93 336 552 (74.7%) 

Studies 

€ 2 184 539 

€ 1 375 690 

€ 1 640 917 

€ 3 300 000 

€ 8 501 146 (6.8%) 

Total 

€ 30 776 999 

€ 30 966 948 

€ 31 448 979  € 31 739 000 

€ 124 931 926 (100%) 

Source: Fiscalis 2020 - Progress Report 2017 

The numbers of participants in the Fiscalis 2020 programme’s joint actions remains at a high 
constant level, above 4200 participations/year, as demonstrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3 below. 
The small dip in 2014 is due to the programming as Fiscalis 2020 became operational only in 
April 2014 following a transition from the previous version of the programme. 

Figure 2: Evolution of the number of participations in joint actions under the 
Fiscalis 2013 and Fiscalis 2020 programmes 

4882 

4101 

3719 

3400 

4433 

4465 

4284 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Source: Fiscalis 2020 – Annual Progress Reports 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Total instances of participation in joint actions according to action type, 
2014-2017 

Project group
Workshop
Multilateral Control
Working visit
Administrative cooperation
Seminar
PAOE
Communication
Capacity building

1002 

640 

228 
219 
104 
90 

3410 

3108 

7721 

Source: Fiscalis Progress Reports 2014-20175. Note that data on participation in expert teams was not available. 

When  it  comes  to  how  the  participants  in  the  programme  are  distributed  along  the  different 
types of joint action Figure 3 illustrates the total number of instances of participation according 
to the joint action type (number of times someone participated in an action, meaning a single 
person may register many instances of participation), cumulative for 2014-2017  

Project  groups  represent  by  far  the  largest  number  of  instances  of  participation  of  taxation 
officials  in  the  programme.  This  is  mainly  due  to  the  repeated  nature  of  these  types  of  joint 
actions, where individuals who participate often attend several meetings over time, sometimes 
lasting for the whole funding period. In comparison, the nature of other joint actions, such as 
working  visits,  is  that  they  typically  involve  just  a  few  officials.  Workshops  and  multilateral 
controls also register a high number of instances of participation, due to both a high number of 
actions (especially for multilateral controls) and many instances of participation per action. 

Awareness of the programme 

The  Commission  monitors  regularly  the  awareness  levels  of  the  programme  and  its  potential 
amongst tax officials. Raising this awareness is  considered vital in fulfilling the programme's 
objectives. Every 18 months the Commission runs the Programme Poll measuring the extent of 
familiarity with the programme and networking levels. It is distributed in all tax administrations 
of  the  participating  countries,  inviting  both  participants  and  non-participants  to  the 
programme's  activities  to  take  part.  The  second  measurement  conducted  in  January  2017 
registered  an  increase  in  the  levels  of  awareness  of  the  programme  among  tax  officials  from 
54%  in  2014  to  59%  in  2016.    Despite  the  increase,  the  results  are  below  the  2011  baseline 
(66%) and the target (>75%). The launch of a new communication strategy for the programme 
in 2016 is expected to positively impact the level of awareness. 

4.  METHOD 

Short description of methodology 

The overall approach to the mid-term evaluation can be classified as theory-based evaluation. It 
implies  examination  of  the  causal  mechanisms  in  which  the  programme  was  expected  to 
generate the desired results and impacts through collection of evidence to test the initial theory. 
Such approach allows to confirm (or not) the supposed causality and understand how and why 

5  The  figures  reflect  total  instances  of  participation,  that  is,  the  amount  of  times  someone  from  a 
participating country participated in an action.  

6 

 
 
                                                           
these  mechanisms  led  to  expected  or  observed  results.  In  doing  so,  the  evaluation  seeks  to 
identify and assess the extent to  which external  factors might  have hindered or supported the 
process.  

The evaluation work built on three distinct pillars: (1) overall programme assessment focusing 
on  the  programme  as  a  whole  in  terms  of  its  implementation  and  performance,  (2)  thematic 
case  studies  probing  into  specific  agreed  topics  for  in-depth  qualitative  research,  and  (3) 
engagement with the economic operators to gather views from the stakeholders who, although 
not  direct  beneficiaries  of  the  programme,  are  impacted  by  some  of  its  outputs,  notably  IT 
systems  or  eLearning  modules.  Taken  together,  these  allowed  the  external  evaluators  to 
examine  the  Fiscalis  2020  programme  from  different  angles  and  levels  of  detail,  as  well  as 
engaging  with  different  groups  of  stakeholders.  The  pillars  have  been  sequenced  so  that  the 
earlier parts could shape, inform and validate the later data collection and analysis.  

In  the  context  of  a  cooperation  programme  such  as  Fiscalis  2020,  which  often  plays  a 
supportive  role  in  implementation  of  EU  policies  and  priorities,  this  approach  seemed 
particularly suited. Not least due to inherent difficulties of attributing measurable results to the 
functioning of the programme. 

The intervention logic for the Fiscalis 2020 programme and details behind the data collection 
tools and techniques behind each pillar, are presented in Annex 3.  

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  evaluators  laid  down  the  challenges  and  limitations  at  the  start  of  the  assignment  and 
suggested mitigating measures where relevant. The proposed approach and methodology were 
chosen in such a way as to counterbalance some of the challenges.  

The evaluators classified the key challenges, which the evaluation had to cope with, as follows:  

  Nature of  the programme:  the programme supports a range of processes  and systems. 
These  in  turn  contribute  to  objectives  at  various  levels,  but  often  in  indirect  ways, 
alongside  other  factors  such  as  the  administrative  capacity  and  priorities  of  national 
administrations, and prevailing economic and trading conditions. This made it difficult 
at  outcome  level  and  close  to  impossible  at  impact  levels  to  attribute  change  to  the 
programmes in any quantifiable way. In-depth qualitative research, especially from the 
case studies, allowed the evaluators to mitigate this to a certain extent by examining the 
likely contribution of the programme’s activities across a wide range of areas. 

  Data  availability  and  timing:  the  Performance  Measurement  Framework  used  for 
monitoring  and  reporting,  helped  to  alleviate  some  of  the  monitoring  weaknesses 
identified  during  previous  evaluations,  providing  more  and  better  data  to  assess 
programme implementation and performance (especially at activity and output levels). 
However, this data was  also  patchy in  places, and was of limited usefulness  at  results 
and impact levels. The evaluators made some changes to the indicators and sources to 
deal with this issue.  

  Reliance on samples: the large number of funded activities, the timeframe and limited 
resources meant the evaluators could not cover every aspect of the programme in detail. 
Instead,  they  had  to  rely  on  a  relatively  high-level  assessment  of  the  programme’s 
general  features  and  achievements,  combined  with  more  in-depth  examination  of 
samples  of  Annual  Work  Programme  projects,  funded  actions  and  stakeholders.  By 
conducting fieldwork in a fairly large and diverse sample of countries and triangulating 

7 

 
from several research methods, they were able to broaden the evidence base enough to 
make generalizable inferences with confidence.  

  Stakeholder  response  rates:  much  of  the  methodology  depended  on  stakeholder 
feedback,  including  written  questionnaires,  surveys,  and  interviews.  While  response 
rates  for  the  general  questionnaire  for  national  authorities  and  interview  requests  in 
most fieldwork countries were very good, the evaluators had trouble getting responses 
to the IT-focused questionnaire and economic operator survey,  

  Stakeholder and researcher bias: the stakeholders who engaged with the evaluation all 
had their own priorities, leading to potential biases in the opinions and views. In-depth 
stakeholder  analyses  early  in  the  evaluation  process,  a  diverse  evaluation  team 
(including  an  expert  board  and  with  a  leadership  split  across  two  companies)  and  a 
robust process for triangulating the findings served to identify such biases early in the 
research process and mitigate their risks.  

Changes to the original design 

In line with the requirements of the Better Regulation Guidelines, the evaluators were to assist 
the Commission service in  conducting a public consultation  on the programme’s functioning. 
The original methodology was designed in such a way as to use the public consultation to elicit 
views and perceptions of these stakeholders who would have not been otherwise reached under 
the  key  evaluation  tools,  notably  the  economic  operators,  citizens  and  various  organisations. 
During  the  preparations  for  the  launch  of  the  public  consultation,  the  Commission  issued 
central  instructions  to  group  all  public  consultations  relating  to  mid-term  reviews  and  future 
proposals  of  all  of  the  Commission’s  spending  programmes  and  funds  into  one  public 
consultation,  divided  in  cluster  of  themes.  As  the  general  objective  of  the  Fiscalis  2020 
programme is to improve the proper functioning of taxation systems in the single market, the 
programme  was  included  in  the  cluster  on  investment,  research  and  innovation,  SMEs  and 
single  market.  The  original  public  consultation  questionnaire  prepared  for  the  mid-term 
evaluation  of  the  Fiscalis  2020  was  subsequently  transformed  into  a  targeted  survey  to 
economic operators. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The following sub-sections sum up the main findings of the study prepared by the independent 
external evaluator and seek to provide an answer to the evaluation questions which have been 
included in the terms of reference designed by the European Commission.  

Relevance  of  the  programme  (evaluation  question  1):  do  the  different  objectives  of  the 
programme  (in  the  Regulation  and  in  its  work  programmes)  correspond  to  the  needs  of  the 
national tax administrations, economic operators and citizens?   

At root, relevance refers to the need for an initiative. In other words, if there was no Fiscalis 
programme,  would  someone  need  to  invent  it?    Examining  relevance  is  critical  because  if  a 
programme is not relevant (not doing the right thing) then evaluating how well (effectively) or 
efficiently this is being implemented has no real value.  

The relevance of the programme was addressed by examining the needs of tax administrations, 
economic operators and citizens.  

►  Fiscalis  2020  addresses  the  needs  of  national  tax  administrations  of  the 

participating countries 

8 

 
Fiscalis  is,  at  the  general  level,  both  necessary  and  relevant.  There  is  a  consensus  among 
national administrations that the programme corresponds to real needs with regard both to the 
application  of  tax  legislation,  and  to  further  convergence  in  areas  such  as  VAT  and  excise 
duties.  The  major  issues  dealt  with  within  the  scope  of  the  programme  reflect  the  work  and 
priorities of participating countries. In fact, the programme is  – in some areas – so integrated 
and important that imagining a “world without Fiscalis” seems very difficult. 

Most interview respondents, with varying experience of the programme, also pointed out that 
Fiscalis  corresponds  to  current  issues  within  taxation  and  helps  them  keep  up  to  date  and 
informed  of  European  developments.  This  corresponds  to  both  promoting  the  more  uniform 
application of EU law and to modernising working methods. Exchange of experience on a wide 
variety  of  working  practices  is,  at  the  general  level,  highlighted  by  national  coordinators  and 
case  study  interview  respondents.  This  exchange  between  tax  officials,  enabled  by  the 
programme,  is  seen  as  essential  to  support  the  uniform  understanding  and  implementation  of 
legislation, which is seen as a core aspect of the programme. 

As  for  the  need  to  exchange  information,  it  was  hard  for  many  respondents  to  consider  an 
alternate  scenario  where  Fiscalis  did  not  support  such  exchange,  as  programme  and  national 
efforts  are  closely  interwoven  within  several  fields,  e.g.  excise.  This  can  be  interpreted  as 
evidencing  close  alignment  between  national  priorities  and  programme  efforts.  Looking 
towards the underlying  need for systems  for  exchange of information, systems  like the Mini-
One-Stop-Shop can be seen to address both the necessity of efficient exchange of information 
for the proper functioning of the single market, and the need to create systems which reduce the 
resources required by administrations and the administrative burden on taxpayers. For example, 
case  study  interviews  point  out  that  the  Mini-One-Stop-Shop  was  developed  specifically  to 
enable  the  implementation  of  new  VAT  legislation  without  creating  further  administrative 
burdens.  

Without  such  Fiscalis  activity,  which  enabled  major  channels  for  exchange  of  information, 
including  the  European  Information  Systems,  there  would  most  certainly  be  a  need  to  find 
corresponding  solutions  to  address  underlying  needs  and  problems.  Further,  it  is  uncertain  if 
such systems could in fact be implemented without a common arena for coordination, as well 
as a source for funding, like Fiscalis. 

►  The  Annual  Work  Programmes  are  relevant  for  the  needs  of  participating 

countries 

The Annual Work Programmes covered the needs of the national administrations and allowed 
them  to  engage  in  relevant  actions  and  activities.  Considering  the  actual  projects  addressed, 
these cover a broad scope of activities and interventions. While earlier years (2014 and 2015) 
had more projects  in  total,  and more projects  specifically  addressing concrete issues, in  2016 
and 2017 actions were to a greater extent organised in broader projects covering themes rather 
than  specific  interventions.  Content-wise,  the  projects  are  usually  multi-annual  rather  than 
annual,  as  the  actions  and  processes  they  cover  stretch  over  more  than  one  year.  This  is 
reflected in recurring projects year to year. 

At  the  same  time,  interviews  show  that  the  broad  scope  and  flexibility  of  the  Annual  Work 
Programmes  allows  administrations  to  fit  the  priorities  and  activities  which  they  consider 
necessary  into  the  programme.  Following  this,  the  interviewees  were  positive  of  the  Annual 
Work Programmes and programme priorities. In fact, it is noteworthy that it is not the setting of 
correct  priorities  per  se,  but  the  possibility  to  pick  and  choose  within  the  framework  of  the 
Annual  Work  Programmes,  based  on  more  specific  national  needs,  which  is  highlighted  as  a 
strength by several national administrations. 

9 

 
►  The  activities  supported  by  Fiscalis  2020  are  relevant  for  the  participating 

countries 

The evaluation has explored the relevance of programme activities within the three major types 
funded:  joint  actions,  European  Information  Systems  and  training.  The  different  types  of 
activities  are  all  potentially  relevant  depending  on  the  circumstances  and  needs  in  particular 
cases. 

Overall,  the  relevance  of  programme  activities  is  high,  and  it  is  evident  that  activities  have 
developed in tandem with participating countries’ priorities and over a series of versions of the 
programme.  The  questionnaire  to  national  administrations  shows  that,  in  general,  actions  for 
networking and exchange of ideas were valued highly due to providing opportunities to meet, 
discuss, learn from each other, and exchange ideas on concrete problems.  

Firstly,  as  for  joint  actions,  case  studies  concerning  risk  management,  participation  in 
administrative  enquiries,  multilateral  controls  and  IT  collaboration  give  evidence  of  the 
differing needs these address, and the variety of intervention mechanisms. A general point from 
many  sources  is  the  importance  of  common  problems  among  participating  countries,  focused 
exchanges on concrete practices and solutions, and the active participation of expert officials, 
in order for joint actions to be relevant and provide value. 

Secondly, regarding the work to develop and manage the European Information Systems, these 
are  considered  core  to  the  Fiscalis  programme  among  key  interview  respondents  such  as 
national coordinators and case study interviewees. Their relevance is often self-evident, as they 
usually provide a new solution to a perceived problem otherwise inadequately addressed or that 
would have to be addressed at a national level in each of the participating countries. 

For the third major activity type, training, the reviewed activities show differing relevance for 
differing  participating  countries,  as  well  as  depending  on  the  specific  intervention.  The 
development  of  eLearning  modules  has  not  been  embraced  by  all  countries,  as  some  show  a 
lack  of  interest  in  new  training  material  within  the  field,  and  some  are  sceptical  about  the 
eLearning  format  as  such.  While  training  activities  are  highly  relevant  to  a  sub-set  of 
participating countries, some also noted a need to intensify the needs-uptake from both national 
and local administrations, as well as from other stakeholders. The uptake of, and coordination 
with,  participating  countries’  needs  and  priorities  may  be  an  area  for  improvement  for  the 
training activities in general. 

If taking sheer participation in the programme’s joint actions as an indication of its relevance to 
the national administrations, the numbers speak for themselves. As mentioned in section 3 on 
the state the play there have been 7721 participations in project groups, 3410 participations in 
workshops,  3108  participations  in  multilateral  controls,  1002  participations  in  working  visits, 
640 participations in administrative cooperation activities, 228 participations in seminars, 219 
participations  in  administrative  enquiries,  104  participations  in  joint  communication  actions 
and  90  participations  in  capacity  building  and  supporting  actions  organized  across  all 
participating countries within the programme’s first 4 years in operation6.  

►  Perceived  needs  that  are  not  addressed  in  the  programme  objectives,  Annual 

Work Programmes and activities  

6   ART data, excluding data on participation in the expert teams not yet available for the report; 

10 

 
                                                           
Overall, the programme covers the needs of national administrations in general terms, and the 
objectives, priorities and activities are relevant in relation to the administrations’ requirements. 
Possible adjustments were mentioned by respondents within a variety of actions, e.g. increasing 
and  /  or  reviewing  the  grants  for  expert  teams,  setting  up  webinars  or  online  training  on 
emerging tax topics, providing further support for joint collaboration on developing IT systems, 
and other such operational improvements.  

On a more strategic level, the possibility to further engage high-level national tax officials is an 
important  area for  consideration, through increased activities such as high-level  seminars and 
meetings  (e.g.  further  meetings  for  national  Directors  /  Director-Generals).  This  would  serve 
the  double  function  of  (a)  increasing  visibility  and  awareness  of  the  programme,  and  (b) 
allowing  for  discussions  which  can  serve  both  to  focus  and  to  anchor  programme  priorities, 
leading to  an even better match between programme and national efforts.  The engagement of 
high-level  officials  is  at  its  core  an  issue  for  national  administrations  to  address,  but  the 
programme may also play a role by supporting and prioritising initiatives and actions relevant 
for such officials in dialogue with national administrations. 

While  not  an  unaddressed  need  as  such,  the  expansion  and  further  development  of  major 
European Information Systems is an important issue to continue to explore. Both the European 
Information Systems reviewed in the case studies – the Excise Movement and Control System 
and  the  Mini-One-Stop-Shop  –  were  seen  by  many  respondents  as  having  further  untapped 
potential. Especially the widening of the scope of these European Information Systems (already 
comprehensive  solutions  for  their  respective  focus  areas)  was  highlighted,  e.g.  extending  the 
systems to cover additional product types. At the same time, the complexity of such continued 
development was acknowledged, as well as differing Member State priorities within common 
IT systems. 

There  is  also  the  possibility  for  further  participation  in  the  programme  of  candidate  and 
potential candidate countries, and for actions addressing their particular needs. Candidate and 
potential  candidate  countries,  while  recognising  and  understanding  that  the  focus  of  the 
programme is  on the collaboration of Member States, emphasised the relevance and need for 
deepening and adapting the possibilities for their participation in the programme, and the value 
of this for both themselves and the EU community. 

►  Fiscalis 2020 addresses some of the needs of economic operators  

While  national  administrations  are  the  main  beneficiaries  of  the  Fiscalis  programme,  many 
economic operators are also  involved as users of some  IT systems  and training modules, and 
sometimes  as  participants  in  specific  joint  actions.  As  simplified  procedures  as  well  as  equal 
and predictable application of EU law can be assumed to be important for economic operators 
(as  well  as  for  tax  administrations),  there  are  many  activities  within  the  programme  which 
address the underlying needs of these. 

Overall,  the  Fiscalis  programme  is  relevant  for  economic  operators  because  its  priorities  and 
activities  match  the  underlying  needs  of  businesses  and  address  the  concrete  problems  they 
face.  

Importantly,  this  is  because  the  programme  addresses  some  of  the  issues  economic  operators 
face  related  to  cross-border  trade,  in  terms  of  the  need  for  smooth  and  efficient  systems  for 
exchange  and  relay  of  information,  clear  and  accessible  information  on  regulations  etc.,  and 
administrative procedures and processes which do not result in unnecessary compliance costs 
due to complexity or lack of coordination. 

11 

 
Despite  the  efforts  of  Fiscalis  to  simplify  tax  matters  involving  more  than  one  EU  Member 
State,  respondents  to  the  economic  operator's  survey  considered  this  to  be  less  simple  than 
when  only  one  country  is  involved,  with  a  slight  majority  (24  of  43  respondents)  thinking  it 
“much less simple”. Only a few respondents thought it is as simple. Language issues, difficulty 
in  finding  the  right  information  or  different  legal  requirements  were  mentioned  as  factors 
complicating  tax  matters  involving  more  than  one  EU  Member  State.  This  points  to  a  need 
according to economic operators for action within the scope of Fiscalis. 

Economic operators have in turn shown interest in the tools, solutions and services supported 
by the programme, especially the European Information Systems, which are the natural conduit 
through which programme efforts come to benefit businesses. 

The  main  channel  to  further  address  the  needs  of  economic  operators  thus  seems  to  be  the 
continued expansion and refinement of coordinated taxation schemes and systems for exchange 
of information. 

►  Fiscalis 2020 addresses issues of general concern for European citizens  

Among  the  general  public,  there  is  little  evidence  on  the  direct  awareness  or  impact  of  the 
programme.  Indirectly,  the  programme  addresses  problems  which  are  highly  relevant  to 
citizens, and where EU action is considered necessary. 

Recent  revelations  in  the  form  of  the  so  called  “Panama  papers”  have  influenced  the 
perceptions  of  citizens  with  regard  to  tax  matters  and  have  brought  the  topic  high  on  the 
agenda.  This  and  similar  global  stories  of  tax  evasion,  fraud,  and  aggressive  tax  planning 
(among  businesses  and  private  individuals),  are  a  further  indication  of  citizens’  views  of  the 
continued relevance for further international and European coordination in the field of taxation. 

Although they are not direct beneficiaries of programme activities, they are concerned by and 
have a right to be informed about the programme. In particular, the programme contributes to 
the lives of citizens by supporting correct and effective understanding and enforcement of tax 
legislation  across  the  participating  countries.  Themes  such  as  the  combat  of  tax  fraud,  tax 
evasion  and  aggressive  tax  planning  as  well  as  ensuring  the  fair  and  equal  application  of  tax 
legislation have increased in relevance in the eyes of citizens and communities.  

The underlying relevance of Fiscalis efforts is evidenced from a Special Eurobarometer Report 
of the European Parliament, on EU citizens’ perceptions and expectations regarding EU action, 
conducted in April 20167. This shows that fighting tax fraud is a high priority in which citizens 
feel the EU should take further action. The issue of fighting tax fraud was ranked third among 
EU  actions  for  both  insufficiency  of  action  today  and  desire  for  more  intervention.  66%  of 
respondents considered action insufficient at the time of the survey, and 75% wanted the EU to 
intervene more to fight tax fraud, with only 5% wanting the EU to intervene less. 

7  Special  Eurobarometer  of  the  European  Parliament,  Europeans  in  2016:  Perceptions  and  expectations,  fight 
against  terrorism  and  radicalisation,  Public  Opinion  Monitoring  Unit,  European  Parliamentary  Research 
Service, 2016 (PE 570423 – June 2016) 

12 

 
                                                           
Effectiveness of the programme (evaluation question 2): to what extent has the programme 
tax  authorities  of 
reinforced  cooperation  and 
participating countries?  

information-sharing  between 

improved 

The Fiscalis 2020 programme is essentially about making it easier for participating countries’ 
tax authorities to work and share information with each other. 

►  IT  systems  help  Member  States  to  communicate  with  each  other  securely  and 
efficiently and increase collaboration especially in areas with a strong legal base 

To operate effectively  within  the single market,  Member State tax administrations need to  be 
able  to  work  together,  and  to  do  this  they  need  to  be  able  to  communicate  with  each  other 
efficiently and securely. 

The  IT  systems,  of  which  25  are  currently  in  operation  (see  Annex  4  for  the  full  list  of  IT 
systems  financed  by  Fiscalis),  cover  a  range  of  cross-border  issues  relating  to  direct  taxation 
and indirect taxation, as well as supporting architecture and applications. Rather than forming a 
coherent package, the systems have typically followed policy developments, either being set up 
to  fit  the  needs  of  specific  EU  policies  (often  the  case  in  indirect  taxation)  or  to  facilitate 
information-sharing in areas where this is required by EU legislation (often the case in direct 
taxation).  The  technical  functions  and  EU  role  in  developing  and  implementing  the  systems 
also vary, with some systems being centralised and others having EU and national components.  

About  75%  of  the  Fiscalis  2020  programme  goes  into  the  operation,  maintenance  and 
development of the IT systems8. The Fiscalis programme supports the production of common 
system  specifications,  co-ordination  of  the  deployment,  conformance  testing,  monitoring  of 
service quality, etc.  

The Common Communication Network/Common System Interface which is the backbone for 
trans-European  IT  systems  and  thus  a  crucial  tool  for  administrations  to  be  able  to  share 
information securely, was available 99.8% of the time, beating its target of 98% and showing 
improvement from previous years. 

The best indicator for the utility of the IT systems for cooperation and exchange of information 
is the sheer number and volume of messages exchanged.  

The total number of messages exchanged on the Common Communication Network/Common 
System Interface network in 2017 was 4.32 billion with an application traffic volume of 5.57 
Terabytes in comparison to the total number of messages of 4.54 billion with a traffic volume 
of  5.54  Terabytes  in  2016.  Various  tax  departments  use  the  systems  relevant  to  their  work 
routinely in performing their tasks and appreciate the swiftness and access to various data.    

The supporting architecture and applications were very favourably reviewed by the respondents 
contacted for the evaluation. Interviews with programme managers helped shed more light on 
the favourable opinion towards the Common Communication Network in particular. Given the 
sensitive nature of tax administrations’ work, concerns about security have traditionally acted 
as  an  important  barrier  on  sharing  information  between  countries.  According  to  national 
coordinators,  the  Common  Communication  Network  has  helped  to  take  down  this  barrier  by 
dissipating such concerns and allowing Member State officials to communicate more freely and 

8    The  IT  systems  comprise  the  EU  and  non-EU  (national)  components.  Union  components  are  owned  or 
acquired by the Commission  and funded by the Fiscalis 2020 programme. national components are  funded, 
developed, installed and operated by the Member States;   

13 

 
                                                           
quickly  with  each  other.  Since  communication  would  previously  have  required  slower  and 
more bureaucratic processes, often exchanges simply did not take place.  

Responses  were  similarly  positive  for  a  number  of  the  systems  related  to  indirect  taxation. 
These  included  the  VAT  Information  Exchange  System  (VIES),  which  allows  the  Member 
States to exchange information within the frame of EU VAT legislation, VIES-on-the-Web, a 
public  system  for  verifying  VAT  numbers,  the  Mini  One-Stop-Shop,  a  new  system  for 
processing  VAT  for  certain  services,  the  Excise  Movement  and  Control  System  (EMCS), 
which  facilitates  the  monitoring  of  excisable  goods  under  duty  suspension,  VAT  Refund  and 
the System  for Exchange of Excise Data (SEED). The eForms system, which assists national 
administration in  their daily  effort to  exchange information  electronically9 with  each other as 
well as the central depository in a secure and fast manner, was also perceived as very useful. A 
few other systems in this area, mostly either new, minor or superseded by other systems, were 
in less use or not widely known. 

The  case  studies  allowed  for  a  more  in  depth  view  of  some  of  the  IT  systems  financed  by 
Fiscalis  and  thereby  shed  more  light  on  success  factors  and  ways  in  which  they  can  increase 
collaboration and information sharing between the Member States.  

►  The Excise Movement and Control System case study 

For example, the Excise Movement and Control System was developed during the previous 
Fiscalis  programme  and  is  excise's  main  operation  application,  in  direct  use  in  all  Member 
States and accessed by over 100,000 economic operators. The evaluation case study focused on 
recent improvements to the system realised through the current Fiscalis programme, as well as 
the processes for continued support and development of additional modules. 

Member  States  unanimously  viewed  the  system  as  a  highly  necessary  and  appreciated 
improvement compared to the previous paper-based system. Development and implementation 
costs  of  the  system  have  been  significant  in  several  Member  States,  but  the  system  was 
expected to  lead to  substantial  long-term cost  efficiency for national  tax administrations. The 
value of the system for economic operators is not fully known, but generally a positive impact 
can be assumed as it simplifies excise dealings.  

Overall, the Excise Movement and Control System must be viewed as a continued success in 
terms  of  improving  the  excise  environment  in  Europe.  Creating  a  computerised  solution  to 
excise control was and is essential, and it is highly doubtful if this system could have existed 
(or been as successful) without EU action. 

►  The Mini One-Stop-Shop case study 

The  Mini-One-Stop-Shop  allows  companies  to  supply  telecommunications,  broadcasting  and 
electronically supplied services within the EU without the need to be VAT registered in each 
country, and can be considered a flagship initiative of the Fiscalis programme. As a new system 
that addresses highly prioritised issues within the field of VAT information, the evaluation case 
study  provided  a  chance  to  assess  the  system’s  development  and  implementation  as  well  as 
related joint actions. 

9 It should be noted that prior to the introduction of eForms, the exchanges between national administrations were 

done on paper, via post. 

14 

 
                                                           
The  specific  need  for  such  a  system  was  apparent  and  undeniable  as  well  as  highly  topical. 
Without  a  system  like  the  Mini-One-Stop-Shop,  there  would  be  a  significantly  higher 
administrative  burden  placed  on  cross-border  suppliers  of  services,  especially  small  and 
medium  enterprises.  While  already  showing  positive  results,  the  vital  benefits  of  the  VAT 
cooperation of which this system is a “pilot” are expected to be further increased later, when its 
scope  is  widened  to  encompass  all  business-to-consumer  transactions  (especially  physical 
goods,  creating  a  broader  One-Stop-Shop).  For  example,  a  previous  study  done  in  201510 
calculated that the administrative burden for businesses engaging in  cross-border business-to-
consumer  supplies  of  telecommunications,  broadcasting  or  electronic  services  would  amount, 
on average, to an extra EUR 5 200 per each Member State to which the cross-border supplies 
were made. This cost is avoided when the Mini-One-Stop-Shop is used. 

Results for national tax administrations are overall positive, with easier access to information, 
possible  reductions  in  VAT  fraud,  and  incoming  (and  outgoing)  VAT  through  the  system 
shows  it  is  working.  There  have  been  costs  incurred  by  both  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  to  implement  the  system,  which  are  balanced  through  economic  benefits,  as  the 
revenues collected and redistributed through it are significant and increasing on a yearly basis 
(more  than  3  billion  EUR  each  year,  increasing  so  far  with  approximately  12%  to  15%  per 
year).  

The  perceptions  of  economic  operators  are  not  monitored  by  national  administrations.  A 
previous study evaluating the impact of , , the Mini-One-Stop-Shop estimated the objective of 
the  system  to  achieve  reduced  administrative  burdens  and  reduced  costs,  making  it  easier  to 
operate  across  borders  was  positively  assessed  a.  Without  EU  involvement,  it  seems  highly 
unlikely this could have happened. 

►  joint actions are beneficial, appreciated and mutually reinforcing 

Joint  actions  provide  national  officials  with  a  platform  and  funding  for  physical  meetings  on 
issues  of  common  interest  and  are  thus  at  their  core  about  fostering  collaboration.  A  pre-
requisite for the joint actions to be able to boost collaboration among national administrations is 
for  officials  to  actually  take  part  in  them.  Available  data  for  the  first  four  years  of  the 
programme’s operation show that a large number of individuals (the vast majority of whom are 
tax officials) participate in the programme each year, at levels that are fairly stable and in line 
with  historical  trends.  As  with  the  previous  funding  period,  there  have  been  around  4,000 
individual participations11 per year during the current programme (lower numbers in 2014 are 
explained by administrative issues which mean that only April-December are counted for that 
year).  

10 Deloitte 2015 study on VAT aspects of cross-border e-commerce 
11 Since the data count individuals who participated in more than one joint action event (e.g. two meetings of a 
project group) separately, reference will be made to ‘participations’ rather than the number of individuals who 
have participated in the joint actions.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 4: Joint actions participations for the current Fiscalis Programme 2014-2017  

4433 

4465 

4284 

3400 

2014

2015

2016

2017

Source: Fiscalis 2020 Annual Progress Reports 

The monitoring data and national authorities’ questionnaire both make clear that perceptions of 
the  joint  actions  are  generally  very  favourable.  For  example,  the  monitoring  data  shows  that 
regardless of the type of joint action and operational objective, action participants have in over 
90% of cases  claimed that  actions met their expectations, achieved intended results and were 
useful. Programme coordinators were also very positive. 

The  Performance  Monitoring  Framework  data  suggest  as  well  that  the  outputs  of  the  joint 
actions  (e.g.  recommendations,  guidelines,  studies,  best  practice,  working  documents, 
administrative procedures, etc.) are broadly shared. 95% of participants declared disseminating 
the outputs within their administration while 80% use them actively in their day-to-day work. 
Defining  specific  outputs  can  sometimes  be  difficult  due  to  the  sheer  divergence  of  them. 
Moreover, some of them are not easily captured in any monitoring framework as they concern 
less  tangible  and  more  difficult  to  measure  networking.  It  seems  however  that  whatever 
knowledge was gained through the joint actions was broadly used and shared.   

There  were  also  some  points  of  criticism  mainly  concerning  details  that,  if  tweaked,  could 
make  the  system  work  a  little  better.  Low  participation  among  some  (particularly  large) 
countries,  combined  with  limited  engagement  in  areas  where  the  connection  to  EU  policy  is 
relatively weak. Given the importance of network effects for the success of many actions, this 
shows that the case for collaboration needs to be made more strongly in these areas, alongside 
efforts to secure enough buy-in from relevant officials and administrations. For the newer types 
of actions (such as expert teams), there is a need for better communication and promotion so 
that  officials  become  aware  of  these  actions  and  their  possible  benefits.  Monitoring  activities 
could also be adapted to take into account the specificities of certain kinds of action (such as 
platform-like project groups) whose outputs are not easily captured with the current set of tools. 
Very  low  participation  among  a  few  Member  States  and  a  few  candidate  and  potential 
candidate countries points a need for special efforts to involve them more.  

16 

 
 
 
 
Some examples of different ways in which joint actions have been used include the following 
activities and groups:     

The  IT  catalyst  project  group  grew  out  of  an  IT  collaboration  group  in  the  previous 
programme  and  a  workshop  from  2014  to  provide  the  Member  States  with  a  platform  to 
discuss,  initiate  and  coordinate  IT  projects  and  activities  in  a  structured  way.  Interviewees 
explained  that  a  crucial  benefit  of  the  catalyst  group  was  that  it  brought  together  key  IT  and 
policy  officials  from  different  countries  and  gave  them  a  chance  to  learn  about  each  other’s 
perspectives, current projects and longer-term aims. This reportedly built trust, paving the way 
for gradual convergence and the launch of specific IT projects. Interviewees felt the confidence 
and knowledge of each other’s ways of working needed to pursue such projects would not have 
been possible without the catalyst group.  

The  Mini-one-stop-shop  technical  workshops  represented  a  major  step  forward  in 
collaboration  between  the  Member  States  on  VAT  issues  and  came  with  the  commensurate 
need for tax administrations and economic operators to get used to new systems and processes. 
A series of instructional workshops accompanied the launch of the mini-one-stop-shop in order 
to  explain  its  features,  answer  questions  and  ensure  that  the  system  would  be  rolled  out 
smoothly.  Feedback  indicates  that  the  workshops  were  largely  successful,  based  on  their 
obvious  relevance,  instruction  by  knowledgeable  experts  and  suitable  practical  format.  The 
workshops  can  be  seen  to  have  contributed  to  the  successful  launch  of  the  system  in  the 
Member States and its high level of uptake so far.  

The 2016 workshop on country-by-country reporting in relation to transfer pricing reports 
brought  together  participants  from  six  Member  States  and  experts  from  Australia,  the  United 
States  and  South  Africa,  as  well  as  experts  from  the  private  sector.  The  purpose  of  the 
workshop  was  to  reinforce  the  skills  and  competence  of  tax  officials  and  to  let  participants 
share  examples  of  country-by-country  reports  and  best  practices  to  guarantee  the  appropriate 
and  effective  use  of  report  data.  As  Australia  and  South  Africa  had  already  developed  their 
national  legislation  to  require  country-by-country  reports,  the  idea  was  for  EU  countries  to 
learn and discuss with these experts. Participants expressed positive views about the usefulness 
of  the  workshop  for  its  networking  and  learning  components  and  claimed  that  it  helped  to 
implement country-by-country reporting in the Member States involved. However, it is difficult 
to gauge the wider impact of this exercise in terms of the extent to which the results were taken 
up in practice. 

To sum up, the joint actions are highly utilised and appreciated tools that between them offer 
the Member States and other participating countries a mix of formats that meet their practical 
needs.  Criticism  focused  on  making  incremental  improvements  rather  than  fundamental 
changes,  while  the  introduction  of  two  new  action  types  (i.e.  expert  teams  and  presence  in 
administrative offices / participation in administrative enquiries) has boosted the programme’s 
potential.  

►  there exist generalizable factors determining success of joint actions  

The evaluation revealed several factors that seem general enough to consider them as essential 
in determining the success of the most used joint actions:  

  clear EU policy drive fosters senior level buy-in, engagement and commitment to results; 
  participation  of  people  with  the  right  knowledge,  practical  experience  and  language 

capacity affects active participation and productivity of discussions; 

17 

 
  good  choice  of  the  type,  scope,  format,  frequency  of  meetings  and  balanced  number  of 
participants  of  the  joint  actions  determines  active  participation,  constructive  discussion 
and outputs; 

  coordination  between  projects  that  have  broad  agendas  and  cover  a  wide  spectrum  of 
topics  is  necessary  to  avoid  duplication  and  create  synergies  between  projects  of 
comparable objectives; 

  sense of ownership and engagement depends sometimes on pragmatic issues such as style 

 

of chairing meetings or level of interaction; 
‘bottlenecks’ or uncertainties around and beyond the domain of actions have detrimental 
effects on achieving the sought-for results; 

  perceived administrative burdens related to organisation of joint actions, such as working 

visits or expert teams, risk resulting in lower uptake of and engagement in joint actions.       

►  training activities fill an important role 

Although the relative weight in the Fiscalis 2020 programme’s funding dedicated to training is 
small  (around  3%  of  all  budget),  it  has  an  important  and  unique  role,  supporting  also  the 
performance of joint  actions and  IT systems.  At the same time, its benefits  may indeed seem 
less palpable, not easily measurable and less wide-reaching. 

While the amount of resources at stake are not insignificant, the training activities would not be 
expected to generate as wide-reaching and profound benefits as the joint actions and European 
Information systems described in the previous sections. 

Incorporating  common  training  material  across  administrations  with  different  cultures, 
priorities  and  existing  curricula  is  inherently  difficult.  The  eLearning  modules  developed 
through the programme have to a certain extent surmounted these barriers, adding real value to 
the  knowledge  base  of  officials  in  some  Member  States  (especially  those  with  relatively  few 
resources  for  such  matters)  and  being  used  to  complement  (but  not  replace)  existing  courses 
and  training.  This  has  contributed  above  all  to  the  use  of  European  Information  Systems  and 
understanding and application of EU law.  

This can be judged as adequate given the relatively small proportion of the programme budget 
dedicated  to  training.  Training  sessions  on  specific  European  Information  Systems  are  also 
widely appreciated. For  example, the case study  fieldwork showed that the countries covered 
see  added  value  from  the  VAT  training  modules  and  have  been  willing  to  invest  substantial 
resources into translations and making them available to officials. Most of the seven fieldwork 
countries were using the modules to some extent, whereas two were using them more intensely. 
Countries using the modules lauded them for providing concise and user-friendly introductions 
to EU VAT legislation, mainly for new staff. They also appreciated the modules for being short 
and easy for officials to digest. The ability to look at English and national versions side-by-side 
was seen as useful for getting up to speed with key terms. 

The  case  study  interviews  show  that  decisions  to  use  the  modules  relate  not  to  their  quality, 
which was universally reviewed positively, but rather to perceived needs (or lack thereof) and 
the  fit  of  the  modules  alongside  existing  material.  Countries  opting  not  to  use  the  modules 
pointed mainly to the existing offer of national training material, but also to courses offered by 
the  Intra-European  Organization  of  Tax  Administrations  and  the  Organisation  for  Economic 
Co-operation and Development. Interestingly, some Member States did not use the modules or 
only did so to a limited extent despite not offering corresponding training on the EU aspects of 

18 

 
VAT legislation. This reveals discrepancies in the level of priority given to these aspects within 
national hierarchies that are unrelated to the training modules provided through Fiscalis.  

Effectiveness  of  the  programme  (evaluation  question  3):  To  what  extent  have  economic 
operators used and benefited from the programme? 

►  economic operators benefit from some of the Fiscalis 2020 outputs on a daily basis  

While  administrations  are  the  main  beneficiaries  of  the  programme,  economic  operators  are 
also  involved,  as  participants  in  specific  joint  actions  and  users  of  some  IT  systems  (most 
importantly databases related to VAT and excise, in addition to the Mini-One-Stop-Shop) and 
training modules (most importantly on the VAT Directive).  

The  latest  Fiscalis  progress  report  shows  that  use  of  the  main  systems  available  to  economic 
operators has been steadily increasing. This includes registrations for the Mini-One-Stop-Shop, 
number of VAT refund messages, number of VIES-on-the-web messages and consultations of 
System for Exchange of Excise Data. An exception was the number of consultations of Taxes 
in Europe Database, where a recent decrease has been attributed to the system’s obsolescence; 
however a new version is in preparation.  

Similarly,  the  number  of  downloads  of  the  publicly  available  eLearning  modules  has  seen  a 
sharp increase in line with the publication of the new VAT package. Economic operators such 
as  trade  associations  are  also  invited  to  participate  in  joint  actions  where  their  input  is 
particularly relevant. Monitoring data show that 187 external participants have been financed to 
take  part  in  joint  actions  through  2018,  although  it  is  not  possible  to  ascertain  precisely  how 
many of these are economic operators. 

Case  study  interviewees  reported  considerable  reductions  in  reporting  obligations  and  trade 
delays  for economic operators since the release of the  Excise Movement and Control  System 
during the last programme. The Mini-One-Stop-Shop has also been reportedly well received by 
economic operators, according to interviewees responsible for dealing with queries at national 
level.  More  importantly,  the  benefits  of  this  system  for  traders,  especially  small  and  medium 
enterprises,  are  expected  to  increase  exponentially  during  the  next  programme,  when  it  is 
expanded to cover physical (rather than only electronic) goods.  

As  already  stated,  economic  operators  are  also  users  of  the  eLearning  modules  supported  by 
Fiscalis  2020,  mostly  the  VAT  eLearning  package  consisting  of  12  courses,  which  were 
downloaded  from  the  EUROPA  site  over  26.000  times  between  2014  and  2017.  Most  of  the 
users are professional associations or multinationals who then make the eLearning available to 
their staff. Other popular courses concerned the Excise Movement and Control System and the 
VAT Fraud module which were broadly found useful.  

In general, however, the uptake of eLearning by economic operators seems to be low, looking 
purely  at  the  size  of  this  group  of  stakeholders.  Lack  of  awareness,  time  to  prioritise  the 
modules  or  incentives  as  well  as  linguistic  or  technical  barriers  (in  particular  for  smaller 
businesses) were amongst the factors impeding a broader use. 

19 

 
 
Effectiveness of the programme (evaluation question 4): To what extent has the programme 
contributed to the achievement of its specific objectives?  

►  Fiscalis    2020’s  activities  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  programme’s 

specific objectives  

To  recall,  the  specific  objectives  of  Fiscalis  2020  relate  to  supporting  the  fight  against  tax 
fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning and the implementation of Union law in the field 
of  taxation.  This  is  to  be  done  by  ensuring  exchange  of  information,  by  supporting 
administrative  cooperation  and  by  enhancing  the  administrative  capacity  of  participating 
countries with a view to assisting in reducing the administrative burden on tax authorities and 
the compliance costs for taxpayers.  

With regard to supporting the fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning, 
the available evidence shows that the existing information-sharing tools and collaboration fora 
can make a big contribution to the objective. The 2015 Annual Progress Report also describes 
notable  progress  in  the  coordination  of  excise  and  customs  procedures,  which  were  achieved 
through a joint Fiscalis and Customs programme project group on the subject, which continued 
its activities during 2016. Over time, more harmonised procedures and raised awareness among 
administrations are expected to help combat fraud. Based on the assessment of working visits 
more  generally,  it  can  be  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  many  working  visits  funded  in  the 
project of VAT fraud have increased collaboration, information-sharing and trust. 

By  supporting  the  implementation  of  Union  law  in  the  field  of  taxation  by  securing  the 
exchange  of  information,  the  programme  has  played  a  crucial  role  in  helping  Member  States 
communicate with each other securely and efficiently in areas of mutual interest and thereby to 
enhance collaboration between them. The evidence reveals not only growing use of the systems 
as  a  whole,  but  powerful  stories  to  explain  how  they  facilitate  administrations’  day-to-day 
work. Contributions  were most  pronounced in  the areas of  fighting tax fraud /  evasion  in  the 
areas  of  VAT  and  excise  (for  IT  systems  such  as  the  Mini-One-Stop-Shop,  VAT  Refund, 
eForms or Vies-on-Web). The contribution was seen as less pronounced for the smaller number 
of  IT systems  dealing with direct  taxation (such as  the Tax  Identification Number on Europa 
portal  or  the  Data  Dissemination  System),  which  had  a  smaller  scope,  with  correspondingly 
lower awareness, participation or use levels.  

It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  role  of  the  IT  systems  is  cross-cutting.  Since  information-
sharing  is  a  means  for  achieving  the  other  objectives,  most  importantly  related  to  the  fight 
against tax fraud, evasion and aggressive tax planning, and the implementation of EU law, the 
systems have also contributed strongly to these objectives. Moreover, many of the systems are 
also  available  to  economic  operators,  allowing  them  to  submit  and  obtain  information  more 
easily and thereby lighten their burden from reporting obligations.   

With  regard  to  support  to  the  implementation  of  Union  law  by  supporting  administrative 
cooperation this has mostly taken the form of joint actions, though in a diverse array of topics 
and action types. Many of these have consisted of project groups and workshops to discuss the 
details for implementing specific pieces of legislation, in particular the Savings Directive, and 
Mutual  Assistance  for  the  Recovery  of  Claims  Directive  and  recent  Directives  on 
Administrative Cooperation in the area of direct taxation. 

Direct  administrative  cooperation,  in  the  form  of  multilateral  controls  and  participation  in 
administrative  enquiries,  is  also  categorised  under  this  objective.  In-depth  case  studies  were 
conducted on both of these types of actions, and for the former reached very positive results. As 

20 

 
one of the most popular types of actions (over 3,000 officials had taken part during 2014-2017), 
multilateral controls provide ample evidence that practical administrative cooperation not only 
takes place, but that it is also effective. Combined with a coordination group, which helped to 
align working practices and build trust, multilateral controls were found to lead consistently to 
recovered  revenue  and  increased  compliance.  Moreover,  despite  the  potential  incentive  for 
Member  States  to  collaborate  without  the  Fiscalis  funding,  this  was  seen  to  provide  a 
framework  to  smooth  the  process  and  convince  administrative  hierarchies  that  cross-border 
cases were worth pursuing.  

The only caveat was that participation was somewhat uneven across countries, with some that 
are more active and more involved compared to others. This indicates that the contribution to 
administrative  cooperation  is  similarly  uneven,  creating  a  need  to  inform  more  the 
administrations  about  the  potential  benefits.  Actions  related  to  participation  in  administrative 
enquiries,  which  were  only  introduced  for  the  current  programme,  have  also  led  to  increased 
cooperation among the administrations that have taken part in them. However, awareness and 
participation in this new type of action is still relatively limited.  

Discrepancies  across  countries  and  gaps  in  knowledge,  in  addition  to  the  constantly  evolving 
tax  policy  context,  create  a  need  for  the  programme  to  support  capacity  building  among  the 
national administrations. This has taken place through several types of joint actions, as well as 
dedicated  technical  assistance  actions  provided  by  the  European  Commission.  The  eLearning 
modules developed through the programme are also aimed primarily at building the capacity of 
participating officials.  

Efficiency  (evaluation  question  5):  To  what  extent  have  the  design  and  management  of  the 
programme been conducive to achieving the desired results? 

►  Fiscalis  2020  strikes  a  good  balance  between  a  centralised  management  and  a 

consultative and transparent annual programming process  

Fiscalis is a directly managed programme, which means that the Commission is responsible for 
its  management  and  coordination.  The  programme  management  team  also  is  responsible  for 
adopting Annual Work Programmes that set out the details of the activities to be pursued each 
year.  

Each year, through the Annual Work Programmes, the Commission sets the key priority areas 
for  the  given  year,  in  which  process  the  national  tax  administrations  are  involved.  This 
approach  is  well  appreciated  by  the  Commission  services,  particularly  for  components 
developed at EU level but implemented at the national level, while tax administrations see it as 
an  opportunity  to  have  their  specific  needs  addressed,  which  in  turn  creates  a  feeling  of 
ownership.   

The Fiscalis 2020 committee, made up of representatives of the Member States and chaired by 
the Commission, is  heavily involved in  decision-making through regular formal and informal 
consultation.  

Activities  are  financed  mostly  through  grants  (especially  the  joint  actions)  and  procurement 
(especially  the  European  Information  Systems  and  technical  development  of  the  eLearning 
modules).  Applications  for  joint  actions  are  done  by  the  participating  countries  or  the 
Commission. The median time for processing joint action applications is 13 days for working 
visits  and  39  days  for  other  types  of  joint  actions.  That  is  regarded  as  broadly  efficient  and 

21 

 
allowing  the  funding  decision  and  payments,  based  on  pre-financing  instalments,  to  be 
delivered on time.   

The programme’s overall structure and processes for taking decisions and setting priorities are 
time-tested  and  broadly  appropriate  in  the  eyes  of  stakeholders  both  in  the  European 
Commission  and  in  participating  country  administrations.  While  the  Commission  drives  the 
process,  national  administrations  appreciated  and  described  benefiting  from  formal  and 
informal  consultation.  Combined  with  the  flexibility  and  breadth  of  the  programme,  this 
ensured  that  annual  priorities  matched  perceived  needs  and  allowed  desired  activities  to  be 
financed.  The  broadly  positive  findings  under  relevance  and  effectiveness  also  testify  to  the 
suitability of the overall programme design.  

►  the majority of recommendations from the previous evaluation12 have been acted 

on and used to make notable improvements to the programme 

The Commission broadly accepted the recommendations by setting up an Action Plan outlining 
the  extent  to  and  ways  in  which  the  recommendations  would  be  implemented13.  In  2016,  the 
Commission reported on progress in implementing the Action Plan according to which a large 
majority  of  recommendations  were  achieved  with  the  remaining  actions  −  mainly  IT  related, 
which naturally demand more time− still under implementation.  

Appreciated changes were introduced to the management of the joint actions, structuring of the 
Annual Work Programmes and monitoring performance of the programme. In order to bring in 
more  coherence  and  practical  connections  between  related  activities,  the  Commission 
restructured the work programmes by reducing the number of projects and providing expected 
actions and results in each case in order to create a more systematic mechanism to monitoring 
and  communicating  outcomes.  Additionally,  to  support  the  latter,  the  Commission  drafted  a 
communication strategy, which included the use of new communication tools and channels, as 
well  as  a  joint  effort  between  the  EU  and  national  programme  teams  to  raise  awareness. 
Following  up  on  recommendations  to  streamline  the  platforms  for  sharing  documents  and 
facilitating  communication,  the  Commission  produced  strategy  plans  to  improve  the 
Programme  Information  and  Collaboration  Space  and 
the  Activity  Reporting  Tool, 
implementation of which is still ongoing.  

There  have  also  been  recommendations  addressing  technical  issues  of  specific  IT  systems, 
enhancing  the  integration  of  EU  and  national  IT  systems,  and  promoting  efficiency  gains  to 
encourage further harmonisation. While most of the recommendations were followed up, there 
remain a few, which are still underway but are more resource intensive and systemic in nature, 
involving  large-scale  changes  relating  to  integration,  harmonisation  and  development  of  IT 
systems. 

►  the development and implementation of the Performance Monitoring Framework 

facilitated monitoring of the Fiscalis 2020's performance 

To  address  long-standing  problems  with  a  lack  of  monitoring  data  acknowledged  in  all 
previous evaluations, the European Commission developed and implemented the Performance 
Measurement Framework. It was arguably the biggest  single improvement to the programme, 
installing  a  more  evidence-based  mind-set  to  programme  management.  In  addition  to 
facilitating  performance  management  and  ongoing  improvement,  the  monitoring  framework 

Final 

evaluation 

12 
Fiscalis 
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/docs/body/fiscalis2013_final_evaluation.pdf  
13   Action Follow-up Plan: Final Evaluation of Fiscalis 2013, 2016-10-20, DG TAXUD; 

Programme, 

Ramboll,, 

2013 

the 

of 

2014. 

Url: 

22 

 
                                                           
increases  transparency  by  making  the  achievements  of  the  programme  more  visible  and 
accessible.  

The  framework  is  ambitious.  For  the  Fiscalis  programme,  there  are  71  output  and  results 
indicators  and  20  impact  indicators.  Progress  is  reported  on  annually  through  the  Annual 
Progress  Reports.  Data  used  to  inform  the  framework  comes  from  proposal  forms,  action 
follow-up forms, event assessment forms, Programme Polls and other evaluations. The progress 
reports  present  data  at  activity  level  and  for  the  indicators  at  output  and  result  levels.  These 
cover  the  broad  majority  of  expected  issues  and  are  vastly  more  comprehensive  than  any 
monitoring  conducted  of  previous  iterations  of  the  programme.  Raw  data  confirms  that  at 
activity level the data is available, factually correct and very useful. 

However, at  output  and  result levels  the framework relies mainly  on self-reporting data from 
stakeholders,  especially  regarding  the  joint  actions,  which  has  its  drawbacks.  Firstly,  the 
questionnaire  forms  put  together  to  inform  the  framework  need  to  be  universal,  covering  a 
myriad of joint actions. This proved difficult, since asking standardised questions about outputs 
and results of actions that are highly diverse in terms of timeframe, objectives, scope and other 
issues  necessarily  simplifies  reality  and  renders  the  data  less  meaningful.  Secondly,  the 
questionnaires  are  answered  by  action  managers  and  participants,  and  are  related  mainly  to 
subjective  issues  on  the  level  of  agreement  with  certain  statements,  such  as  whether  given 
actions  helped  increase  understanding,  provided  good  networking  opportunities,  or  were 
considered useful. Finally, the frequency and length of the feedback and reporting exercises are 
turning  stakeholders  off,  leading  to  superficial  completion  and  ultimately  diminishing  returns 
for the time and resources needed to collect data, analyse them and report are dear.  

The  impact  indicators  seem  to  be  equally  problematic.  As  explained  in  the  data  limitation 
section,  the  causal  chains  between  activities  and  high-level  objectives  in  the  Fiscalis  2020 
programme are long. The longer the casual chains are, the higher the number of other factors 
impacting the high-level objectives is. This makes it very difficult to make any strong claims on 
the causality between the activities carried out and the high-level changes observed. Combined 
with  practical  difficulties  to  obtain  the  data,  a  majority  of  the  indicators  appear  individually 
unsuitable for the following main reasons: they are either really result-level indicators relating 
to  perceptions  rather  than  observable  changes  and  already  captured  in  other  parts  of  the 
framework, are not easily obtainable, or are only remotely relevant, particularly when coming 
from  sources  external  to  the  programme.  Only  for  a  handful  of  indicators  the  programme 
management can perform relevant analyses but these with uncertain timeframes and at irregular 
intervals. That results in a situation whereby little of the output or results data appears to feed 
into continuous improvement or decision-making. 

►  taking  part  in  joint  actions  is  proportionate  to  incurred  costs  but  some 

administrative burdens are present 

The national administrations are overwhelmingly of the opinion that taking part in an existing 
joint  action  is  proportionate  to  the  costs  incurred  in  participating  (27  out  of  30  national 
administrations  agreed).    However,  as  it  was  stated  in  the  previous  section,  there  are  some 
concerns  with  the  new  process  of  applying  to  a  joint  action  and  related  reporting  obligations 
(particularly  for  the  working  visits),  which  seem  due  to  the  perceived  administrative 
paperwork,  short  deadlines  for  nomination  of  representatives  and  logistics  behind  their 
participation 
in  general.  Some  national 
administrations  expressed  concern  that  administrative  resources  could  impose  a  barrier  to 
participation  but  overall  they  do  not  contest  the  need  to  coordinate  and  justify  relevance  of 
actions, which warrants the Commission’s approach. 

joint  actions  and  diminishing  resources 

in 

23 

 
Organisation of expert teams can serve as an example of administrative burdens although due 
to the young age of that type of joint actions, it cannot represent all other types. The Activity 
Reporting  Tool  (ART)  currently  does  not  support  financial  reporting  of  expert  teams.  This 
resulted  in  time-consuming  collection  and  manual  calculation  of  financial  data  such  as  daily 
allowances or travel costs in different currencies. 

►  communication,  information  flow  and  coordination  are  essential  for  smooth 

implementation of the programme   

Communication  around  the  Fiscalis  2020  programme  falls  under  the  responsibility  of  the 
Commission Programme Management Team. This team creates the main communication tools 
and  runs  some  of  the  communication  channels  ensuring  and  coordinating  information  flow 
between all the coordinating bodies behind the programme. At national level, communication is 
tasked to national programme coordinators and delegates of the Fiscalis 2020 Committee.  

Effective  communication,  dissemination  of  harmonised  messages  and  availability  of 
information-sharing  channels  are  important  as  their  recipients  are  seen  as  multipliers  of  the 
programme at various levels.   

In  terms  of  IT  platforms  and  databases  that  support  the  programme  in  terms  of  information 
sharing and communication, the views of the users were in general positive, with specific ideas 
for  improvements  mentioned.  Most  national  administrations  consulted  felt  very  strongly  that 
the  Activity  Reporting  Tool  (ART)  is  a  user-friendly  platform  and  an  efficient  system  for 
monitoring participants’ expenses and providing general feedback on the joint actions.  

In  terms  of  sharing  information  easily  and  quickly,  the  Programme  Information  and 
Collaboration Space (PICS) is the main global information and communication tool, aiming at 
improving  the  collaboration  between  Member  States  and  the  Commission  thanks  to  features 
that  complement  and  enhance  the  collaboration  organised  in  the  framework  of  programme 
activities  (which  mainly  takes  place  through  meetings,  calls  or  e-mails).  However,  it  is  also 
useful  to  enhance  internal  collaboration  and  for  sharing  relevant  expertise,  experience  and 
coordination  between  programme  management  team,  national  programme  coordinators  and 
other  stakeholders  involved  in  the  management  of  programme  activities.  Despite  general 
appreciation  of  the  improvements  to  the  collaboration  space  overtime,  there  still  seems  to  be 
room to improve further the user-friendliness of that tool as well as its broader use.  

User-friendliness aspects was also raised in the context of the Communication and Information 
Resource  Centre  for  Administrations,  Businesses  and  Citizens  platform  (CIRCABC)  14,  a 
document management system to exchange information between the Commission and national 
administrations,  even  though  there  too  continued  to  be  an  overall  positive  perception  of  the 
tool. The recent update to the platform (September 2018) has addressed some of the concerns 
related to this criticism. 

►  synergies  between  Fiscalis  2020  and  Customs  2020  programmes  are  present  but 

can be better exploited  

Customs  2020  is  the  ‘sister’  spending  programme  in  the  field  of  customs.  It  is  important  to 
discuss it under the efficiency question due to its alignment, at least at the central programme 
management  level,  with  the  Fiscalis  2020  programme.  While  the  policy  areas  for  the  two 

14  CIRCABC  is  an  open-source,  web-based  application  used  to  create  collaborative  workspaces  where 

communities of users can work together and share information and resources.  

24 

 
                                                           
programmes  are  different,  they  have  a  similar  focus  on  enabling  cooperation  and  exchange 
between  administrations.  These  similarities  offer  many  opportunities  for  synergies  with  the 
Customs programme in  terms  of both  administrative arrangements and joint  works, including 
cross-fertilisation  and  joint  funding  of  shared  components  such  as  IT  systems  and  similar 
approaches for human capacity building and training.  

The  synergies  are  strongest  at  the  programme  management  level,  which  is  provided  by  the 
same  team  of  Commission  staff.  Both  programmes  are  fully  aligned,  based  on  identical 
procurement  rules  and  grant  models,  common  management  guides  and  supported  by 
Programme Coordination Groups.   

In  terms  of  the  IT  systems,  the  two  programmes  share  the  backbone  for  trans-European  IT 
systems,  notably  the  Common  Communication  Network.  The  joint  platform  facilitates 
coordination  of  approaches  and  processes,  which  ensure  coherence  and  create  economies  of 
scale by reducing duplication of efforts. Often taken for granted, that synergy is important from 
the  point  of  view  of  technical  arrangements  at  the  programme  management  level  as  well  as 
from the users’ perspective.  

When it comes to more content-related activities, synergies are more difficult to be established. 
However, two joint Fiscalis/Customs workshops were organised in 2016 and most recently in 
March 2018 on VAT and customs aspects of e-commerce.  Another notable exception related 
to excise duties, which are anyway related and the administrative responsibility for them at the 
national  level  falls  either  on  customs  or  tax  administrations.  Fiscalis  2020  provides  explicit 
support to this cooperation in terms of identification of fields that are of common interest and 
where it is particularly important to cooperate for the proper implementation of the legislation.  

As  an  example,  the  project  group  on  Coordination  of  Excise  and  Customs  Procedures  was  a 
cross-programme  action  that  brought  together  stakeholders  from  both  authorities.  It  was 
originally  set  up  (still  under  the  Customs  2013  programme)  because  of  the  lack  of 
interoperability  between  IT  systems  supporting  customs  (the  Export  Control  System)  and 
excise  procedures  (the  Excise  Movement  and  Control  System).  Their  synchronisation  was 
necessary  to  avoid  legal  uncertainties,  inconsistencies  and  loopholes,  which  ultimately 
increased risk of fraud. It was perceived as a valuable way to build relationships and increase 
understanding  between  taxation  and  customs  colleagues  regarding  common  problems,  both 
within  and  between  national  administrations.  Still,  some  stakeholders  still  felt  that  more 
coordination  and  cross-fertilisation  was  needed  and  possible,  for  example  in  developing 
common IT systems or working closer on excise-related fraud. It was also felt that in the past 
there was more flexibility to use funds across programmes, allowing for more shared actions, 
which  will  no  longer  be  possible  in  the  future.  This  could  reinforce  working  in  silos  and 
undermine some of the synergies described above if a practical solution is not found. 

There  are  also  opportunities  for  shared  approaches  to  human  capacity  building  and  training.  
The  Training  Support  Group  for  the  Customs  and  Fiscalis  programmes  supports  the 
development  and  implementation  of  the  EU  Common  Training  Programmes,  using  strategies 
from both sides.  

Efficiency (evaluation question 6): To what extent have the programme's resources produced 
best possible results at the lowest possible costs? 

This  question  focuses  on  figuring  out  whether  the  costs  of  the  Fiscalis  programme  are 
proportionate to the benefits it has provided to tax administrations and society. Conceptually, 
this would mainly involve holding up the benefits identified through the effectiveness questions 

25 

 
in light of various costs and other possible ways of spending equivalent time and money. Not 
many  of  the  benefits  were  quantifiable,  let  alone  monetised.  The  evaluation  approaches  this 
question by trying to identify savings and/or increased tax revenue as an effect of programme 
activities as well as the long-term and/or intangible benefits of programme activities.   

►  the benefits of joint actions justify the costs  

Joint action activities under Fiscalis 2020 programme totalled 15.3% of the budget with about 
19 million EUR committed over the programme’s first 4 years  

Between  2014-2017  project  groups  as  a  type  of  joint  action  hosted  the  highest  number  of 
participants  (7.721  in  total  for  73  project  groups  keeping  in  mind  that  some  project  groups 
include more than one action). Working visits in turn saw the largest number of events (1346) 
but  a  substantially  lower  number  of  participants  (1002).  There  were  also  149  workshops  and 
seminars (3.638 participants), 410 multilateral controls  (3.108 participants) and 158 activities 
of  presence  in  administrative  offices  /  participation  in  administrative  enquiries  capacity 
building actions (219 participants) supported by the programme.    

Most  of  the  expenses  are  participation-driven  as  they  include  transport,  accommodation  and 
daily  allowance  costs.  A  much  smaller  part  of  the  costs  covers  organisation  of  events,  with 
slight  variations  depending  on  the  type  of  event.  Consequently,  the  absolute  costs  are 
necessarily  proportionate  to  participation  levels  and  vary  slightly  between  different  types  of 
actions.  

As  project  groups  attract  the  highest  participation,  their  share  in  the  total  budget  for  joint 
actions is relatively high at nearly 45% of all spending. However, thanks to economies of scale, 
it  appears  to  be  also  one  of  the  most  cost-efficient  methods  with  an  average  cost  per 
participant15  in  the  range  of  EUR  844.  Project  groups  are  perceived  as  needed  and  useful, 
providing opportunity to exchange on ideas, new technological trends, business solutions and 
IT  approaches  and  align  understanding  of  legislation  and  practices.  It  is  arguably  the  main 
mechanism for achieving broader and inclusive continuous collaboration. Many project groups 
are quasi-permanent and serve standing cooperation platforms creating professional bonds and 
acting as catalysts.  

Workshops come second in line when it comes to participation and budget share and have a 
similar  cost  structure  to  seminars.  Both  of  them,  in  particular  the  seminars,  involve  higher 
organisation costs covering such aspects as hiring of the venue, interpretations or refreshments. 
As  they  tend  to  group  participants  in  the  same  venue,  the  accommodation  costs  are  slightly 
higher.  Average  cost  per  participants  comes  at  EUR  1  137.  In  many  ways  they  bring  similar 
benefits  as  the  project  groups.  Tax  officials  appreciated  those  best  for  providing  a  quick  and 
efficient  platform  for  exploring  difficult  topics.  Although  the  questionnaire  with  national 
authorities  showed  that  some  seminars  and  workshops  were  perceived  to  lack  clear 
conclusions, qualitative interviews showed that seminars and workshops can have unexpected 
positive outcomes going beyond the main objectives of sharing best practices and encouraging 
shifts in national policies. 

The data highlights the cost-effectiveness of multilateral controls and, as they continue to gain 
momentum, the presence in administrative offices actions. Both types of action were praised 

15 This is the cost per activity, not for the event, which covers the whole duration of the project group. This is valid 

for the other type of joint actions as well.  

26 

 
                                                           
for their direct links to recovered tax revenue as well as improved administrative cooperation. 
That  they  are  relatively  inexpensive  is  a  further  testament  to  their  importance  for  the 
programme.  For  example,  a  single  multilateral  control  action  between  Latvia,  Belgium, 
Germany  and  Lithuania  targeting  trade  in  used  cars  and  zinc  led  to  extra  revenues  of 
€2.931.763  in  VAT  receipts  and  the  collection  of  €200.000  in  direct  taxes.  If  one  compares 
these  benefits  to  the  total  costs  of  all  multilateral  controls  supported  by  the  programme 
(€2.061.271  for  the  period  2014-2017),  it  becomes  evident  that  the  value  for  money  of  the 
activities supported is outstanding.  

In terms of average cost per participants, working visits are slightly less costly than workshops 
and seminars with a cost of EUR 1 032. The relatively high costs compared to project groups 
are driven by higher accommodation costs and daily allowances, with travel costs in line with 
other actions, which are most likely explained by the fact that working visits tend to last longer. 
They  are  highly  valuable  for  the  involved  tax  officials  as  they  provide  practical  experiences 
through on-the-ground observation that might not be possible otherwise. At the same time, due 
to  their  intimate  nature,  they  encourage  further  bilateral  cooperation.  This  activity  type  is 
among the most highly rated for its usefulness and would have been even more appreciated if 
not for the associated administrative burden they are associated with.  

The  average  cost  per  participant  for  all  types  of  joint  actions  is  around  EUR  875,  which  is 
lower than the one under the previous version of the programme, Fiscalis 2013 (EUR 999).  

A  further  remark  to  be  made  is  that  an  analysis  of  committed  and  actual  expenses  for  joint 
actions  shows  that  around  14%  of  committed  funds  go  unused.  This  is  roughly  half  of  the 
disparity reported in the Fiscalis 2013 evaluation final report16 (31.3%), which can be seen as 
an indication of a more efficient and accurate allocation of funds for joint actions compared to 
the Fiscalis 2013 programme.  

►  benefits of the taxation IT systems outweigh any costs  

The largest part of the Fiscalis budget supports the development, operation and maintenance of 
the IT systems accounting for 74.7% of expenditure with nearly 91.4 million EUR committed 
over the programme’s first 4 years. This has been directed towards a number of development 
projects, the large architectural Common Communication Network 2 development project, and 
the support for existing systems within the field of taxation. The latter forms by far the single 
biggest budget line in the programme, accounting for nearly half of expenditure. These figures 
are summarised in the table below. 

Table 2: Committed expenses on IT systems 2014 - 2017 

IT action 
category 

CCN/CSI (incl. 
CCN2) 
Development of 
taxation 
systems 
Support for 

2014  

2015  

2016  

2017  

Cumulative 
2014-2017 

€ 5 600 000 

€ 5 040 000 

€ 3 500 000 

€ 4 037 000 

€ 18 177 000 

€ 4 500 000 

€ 5 892 000 

€ 4 540 000 

€ 4 320 000 

€ 19 252 000 

€ 10 577 000  € 10 518 000 

€ 12 000 000 

€ 10 990 000 

€ 44 085 000 

16 Final evaluation of the Fiscalis 2013 programme, p. 103 

27 

 
                                                           
€ 2 800 000 

taxation 
systems 
Quality control 
for taxation 
systems  
Total (EUR) 
Source: ART data. Please note that due to methodological differences in calculating IT expenditure, the figures for 
ART data are slightly different from the Progress Report data mentioned in table 1.  

€ 23 477 000  € 23 450 000 

€ 22 347 000 

€ 91 414 000 

€ 22 140 000 

€ 3 000 000 

€ 9 900 000 

€ 2 000 000 

€ 2 100 000 

Concrete benefits brought by the IT systems  are difficult to quantify, let alone monetise. The 
data do not allow for distinguishing between most of the different systems in order to compare 
costs with demonstrated effectiveness. 

One  of  the  main  findings  of  the  evaluation  is  that  the  horizontal  architecture  and  systems 
associated with  indirect  taxation, such as the VAT  Information  Exchange System, the Excise 
Movement and Control System and the Mini-One-Stop-Shop were the most positively assessed 
and  often  lead  to  substantial  savings  for  tax  administrations  and  economic  operators.  As  an 
example, one national interview respondent made a rough estimate that the implementation of 
the  excise  system  had  reduced  the  burden  on  excise  officials  by  a  factor  of  ten,  due  to  the 
digitalised environment allowing for much more efficient monitoring.  

In  terms  of  functionality,  major  European  Information  Systems  like  Excise  Movement  and 
Control System and the Mini-One-Stop-Shop have also been referred to by several interviewees 
as  “revolutionary”  in  their  fields,  leading  to  completely  new  possibilities  for  monitoring, 
sharing of information, and prevention of fraud. Secondary benefits include new opportunities 
for  big  data  analysis  for  e.g.  compliance  risk  management.  The  expansion  of  the  Mini-One-
Stop-Shop  in  the  next  programme  (to  cover  physical  products)  is  expected  to  generate 
especially big benefits for tax collection and the facilitation of trade.  

Most of those interviewed as part of the  evaluation have seen little or no overlap/redundancy 
between efforts to develop European Information Systems and existing national systems. While 
some IT systems have replaced existing systems and functions, they have done so in order to 
also add new functionalities. Some of the direct taxation-related databases are less widely used, 
sometimes redundant and hence harder to justify investing in. While it was acknowledged that 
such  systems  are  in  the  minority,  measures  could  be  taken  to  either  increase  their  use  or 
allocate the funding to other priorities, especially given some of the ambitious projects (such as 
the full One-Stop-Shop) foreseen for the next funding period. 

IT collaboration offers the potential to generate significant economies of scale by reducing the 
need for Member States to develop systems individually. While the small number of Member 
States using the modules for the automatic exchange of information did not achieve the critical 
mass17  needed  to  provide  such  value  in  this  way,  more  uptake  and  better  results  would  be 
expected  in  future,  especially  if  teething  problems  related  to  project  management  and  timing 
are addressed. 

►   Fiscalis 2020 training modules are the most cost-efficient activity 

17 The definition of critical mass would depend on the specific case and could be determined using a cost-benefit 

analysis.  

28 

 
                                                           
Training  activities  under  Fiscalis  2020  programme  totalled  3.2%  of  the  budget  with  nearly  4 
million EUR committed over the programme’s first 4 years. Whilst this may seem insignificant 
training  activities  are  arguably  relatively  the  most  cost-efficient  activities  and  have  a  unique 
role to play. Because development costs of training modules is largely a one-off investment, its 
efficiency and value for money increases with every additional participant as this broader reach 
takes  places  at  little  additional  cost,  if  any.  The  steady  growth  of  national  tax  officials  who 
participated in the trainings, and downloads from the public domain show that the need is there 
and  Fiscalis  2020  training  material  fills  that  gap  (see  Annex  4  for  more  detailed  figures  on 
training).  

The  flagship  product  under  this  programme  component  is  the  VAT  eLearning  package 
consisting of 12 courses. Overall, for the period 2014 to 2017 around 46.700 tax officials have 
been  trained  through  Fiscalis  2020.  In  addition  to  this,  the  eLearning  modules  have  been 
downloaded  34.950  times  from  the  EUROPA  website  mostly  by  professional  associations  or 
multinationals.  Based on the estimations provided by those who have downloaded the modules 
through the EUROPA site, a potential group of 420.000 trainees have been reached through the 
Fiscalis-sponsored training modules.  

Coherence (evaluation question 7): To what extent does the programme demonstrate internal 
and external coherence? 

►  there is strong internal coherence between the different levels and components of 

the programme and its design 

The evidence assessed confirms that the programme is internally coherent. There is a high level 
of  consistency  between  the  intervention  logic,  programme  objectives,  Annual  Work 
Programme priorities and projects. The programme’s design is objective-driven, which means 
that all actions under the programme must refer to the objectives outlined in Regulation (EU) 
No 1286/2013. The programme actions are determined in accordance with the general, specific 
and operational objectives, and the most appropriate method of implementation.  

National  interviewees  pointed  to  the  flexibility  and  comprehensiveness  of  the  Annual  Work 
Programmes as key strengths, being able to fit a wide range of concrete actions. These reflect 
national priorities within the over-arching priorities of the programme. 

►  Continuity, design and management of Fiscalis 2020 are instrumental for creating 

synergies and avoiding duplications at different programme levels  

The  continuity  of  the  programme,  in  particular  the  fact  that  it  is  the  fourth  Union  action 
programme  for  taxation,  is  a  crucial  element  to  understand  how  its  different  components  fit 
together.  An  example  of  the  value  of  the  gradual  refinement  (based  in  part  on  periodic 
evaluations  to  assess  implementation)  of  the  programme  in  terms  of  synergies  and 
complementarity is the introduction of expert teams in the current programme. These are able 
to play a concentrated supporting role for a variety of projects, as evidenced by their relevance 
according to many interviewees, and ability to feed other platforms with needed expertise and 
capacity. 

The programme's design and its implementation through agreed joint actions create possibilities 
to enhance synergies between the programme's components and the way it is actually used. The 
coordinated central approach to the programme's implementation, through a single Commission 
Programme  Management  Team  supported  by  various  groups,  has  the  objective  to  ensure 
coherence, reap benefits of best practice and common approaches.  

29 

 
At  the  practical  level,  the  programme  management  is  supported  by  the  national  programme 
coordinators  from  the  tax  administrations  in  participating  countries,  and  the  Commission 
internal  Programme  Coordination  Group.  Participation  of  programme  coordinators  in  the 
management  of  the  programme  guarantees  the  smooth  exchange  of  information  and 
coordination at national  level. The coordination group in turn has an advisory and supporting 
role in  relation  to  programming, implementation  and performance measurement. Specifically, 
the  group  ensures  coherence  between  objectives  and  policy  priorities  of  the  programme  and 
those  of  the  Commission  as  stated  in  the  Management  Plan,  helps  to  identify  synergies  and 
joint initiatives with the view to preventing overlaps and optimising the use of resources (both 
human  and  financial),  and  seeks  to  optimise  the  use  of  the  programme  through  an  increased 
involvement of all policy units to ensure ownership and improve dissemination and sharing of 
information. 

In  addition  to  the  programme  management  team  and  the  central  bodies  for  advising  and 
steering  the  programme  (e.g.  the  Fiscalis  2020  Committee),  there  are  also  a  number  of 
coordinating activities and fora for different projects and activities. These include Commission 
expert groups and the programme’s project groups with a coordinating function. As an example 
of the former, the “EMCS Computerisation Working Party” is  instrumental in  the continuous 
management  and  improvement  of  the  Excise  Movement  and  Control  System.  An  example  of 
the  latter,  the  “IT  Collaboration  Catalyst  Group”  (partly  reviewed  in  the  case  study  on  IT 
collaboration)  works  for  Member  States  to  get  a  more  coherent  view  of  IT  solutions  and  IT 
projects.  

Given  the  number  of  groups  involved  in  the  management  of  the  programme,  including  the 
management and coordinating bodies presented in the section above, and the numerous projects 
and activities carried out, the Programme Implementation Guidance recognises the importance 
of  efficient  coordination  and  communication  mechanisms  and  channels  between  the 
programme management bodies and with other coordinating bodies. At EU level, coordination 
and information flow are the responsibility of the programme management team, supported by 
Commission  officials  and  senior  management,  who  are  in  frequent  contact  with  national  tax 
administrations and other relevant stakeholders. At national level, communication is tasked to 
national programme coordinators and delegates of the Fiscalis 2020 Committee.  

In this context of multiple programme multipliers (both within the Commission and at national 
level), internal communication and information-sharing practices are important to disseminate 
harmonised  messages  and  to  make  use  of  available  communication  tools  and  channels.  One 
example aimed at strengthening internal synergies and interlinks are the programme’s activity 
schemes,  which  have  been  developed  to  support  the  transparency,  management  and 
coordination of the activities carried out under the programme.  The schemes provide a visual 
overview of activities, with clear steering and reporting links to other fora.  

Synergies  and  complementarities,  to  keep  them  up  and  increasing,  require  in  practice  a 
information  sharing  features  between  different  programme 
successful  exploitation  of 
stakeholders,  as  well  as  effective  communication  and  dissemination  of  key  programme  tools 
and  messages.  The  evaluation  demonstrated  an  overall  contentment  with  the  communication 
and  information-sharing  tools  and  platforms.  However,  an  ongoing  emphasis  on  their  better 
design  and  exploitation,  adhering  to  the  needs  of  their  users  and  audiences,  should  be  a 
continuous effort behind the programme's management. 

►  Fiscalis 2020 is complementary to other EU instruments and services 

The Fiscalis 2020 programme is inscribed in the 2020 Strategy, where it is to contribute to the 
realisation  of  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  by 

30 

 
strengthening  the  functioning  of  the  single  market18.  The  Fiscalis  2020  programme  is  funded 
under  the  multiannual  financial  framework  heading  of  “Smart  and  inclusive  Growth”.  As 
mentioned  in  the  Strategic  Plan  for  2016-202019,  a  coherent  tax  strategy  and  uniform 
implementation of EU law are needed to limit the distortions to competition and disruptions to 
the single market which can arise from the interaction of the 28 Member State tax systems.   

There  was  broad  consensus  among  national  administrations  consulted  that  the  networking 
component of the programme is extremely beneficial for their administrations, and the systems 
for  information-sharing  range  from  useful  to  outright  defining  administrative  procedures  in 
their respective areas. Thus, programme action in general highly corresponds to the envisaged 
contribution to the Europe 2020 Strategy. 

Recital (14) of the Fiscalis 2020 programme Regulation states that ʺresources should be shared 
with other Union funding instruments if the envisaged activities under the Programme pursue 
objectives  which  are  common  to  various  funding  instruments,  excluding  however  double 
financing”.  One concrete case of active coordination with another EU programme was with the 
Structural Reform Support Programme. 

This  programme,  run  by  the  European  Commission's  Structural  Reform  Support  Service 
provides tailor-made support to EU countries for their institutional, administrative and growth-
enhancing reform processes. The programme is complementary with Fiscalis, helping to ensure 
that  EU  tax  policy  is  implemented  consistently  across  all  EU  countries.    The  support  service 
focuses  on  providing  specialised  technical  support.  This  led  to  the  establishment  of 
coordination and regular communication to prevent duplication, exchange information, support 
national coordinators and provide feedback on finalised projects. Coordination between the two 
programmes has reportedly increased the effectiveness of both of their actions in the countries 
concerned.  

Findings  from  the  ex-ante  evaluation  on  a  potential  successor  programme  to  Fiscalis20  and 
further  desk  research  also  identified  a  number  of  other  programmes  with  potential 
complementarities with Fiscalis. These included the Single Market programme, Justice, Rights 
and  Values  programme,  EU  anti-fraud  programme  for  the  protection  of  financial  interests, 
Horizon  2020  programme  and  Hercule,  as  well  as  all  programmes  which  run  significant 
electronic systems.  

►  Fiscalis 2020 supports the involvement of third countries in actions that are aimed 
at  fighting  against  tax  fraud  and  tax  evasion,  and  addressing  aggressive  tax 
planning 

There  are  six  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries  participating  in  Fiscalis  2020: 
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, 
Serbia and Turkey. 

18 Recital 3 of the Regulation EU No 1286/2013 establishing an action programme to improve the operation of 
taxation  systems  in  the  European  Union  for  the  period  2014-2020  (Fiscalis  2020)  as  well  as  DG  TAXUD 
Strategic Plan for the period 2016-2020;  

19  The Strategic Plan for 2016-2020 can be found here. 
20 Commission staff  working document,  Ex-ante evaluation  accompanying the proposal for a  Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council establishing the ‘Fiscalis’ programme for cooperation in the field of 
taxation.  

31 

 
                                                           
In  general,  the  level  of  participation  varies  over  countries  and  years,  but  there  is  a  definite 
interest  to  participate.  These  countries  have  also  expressed  their  wish  to  deepen  their 
participation in the programme. 

Adding up data from the Progress Reports for 2014-2017 there was a total of 1020 proposals 
(reported  per  initiating  country),  of  which  59  came  from  candidate  and  potential  candidate 
countries.  While  this  figure  might  seem  low,  it  is  comparable  with  the  number  of  proposals 
received from some of the less active Member States in the programme.  

Concerning  specific  activities  where  third  countries  have  engaged  with  the  programme,  for 
joint actions the working visits are one of the main tools for candidate and potential candidate 
countries to participate, as they are able to arrange these of their own account. Outside these, 
they also receive direct invitations to certain other activities such as workshops, seminars, etc. 

Concerning IT systems, one example of an IT system providing functionality for non-Member 
States  is  the  Mini-One-Stop-Shop,  through  its  Non-Union  Scheme.  Out  of  14 099  registered 
traders on the Mini-One-Stop-Shop platform as of 2017, 962 were registered for the Non-Union 
Scheme.  In  addition,  communication  activities  were  organised  for  the  benefit  of  non-EU 
countries in order to share information on the new regime. 

Training  activities  are  available  to  all  countries  through  publicly  available  modules  on  the 
EUROPA  website.  Candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries  can  also  deepen  their 
participation  through  engagement  with  the  training  platform  and  various  activities,  though 
language barriers and limited resources seem to have restricted such participation for many. 

EU-added  value  (evaluation  question  8):  To  what  extent  does  the  programme  provide  EU 
added value? 

►  EU added value of the Fiscalis 2020 programme manifests itself in efficiency gains, 

economies of scale and reductions in administrative burden  

The programme and the different types of activities funded were perceived to have added value 
to  the  work  of  national  tax  administrations  and  economic  operators  by  generating  clear 
efficiency  gains  and  economies  of  scale.  For  joint  actions  the  main  positive  elements 
highlighted  by  respondents  were  the  exchange  of  best  practice,  knowledge  and  information; 
opportunities  for  networking,  cooperation  and  continuous  communication;  the  possibility  to 
enhance the understanding of EU tax legislation and corresponding issues, along with common 
problems  and  options  for  solutions;  and,  for  multilateral  controls,  the  operative  results  and 
impacts generated from collaboration. 

The  European  Information  Systems  supported  by  the  Fiscalis  programme  have  led  to 
substantial, if hard to quantify, cost savings for national administrations in the form of reduced 
IT  spending  and  human  resources.  Centrally  developed  systems  are  cheaper  to  develop  and 
implement  than  28  individual  national  systems,  also  avoid  costs  relating  to  interoperability 
between  countries.  Where  systems  are  split  between  EU  and  national  components,  the 
programme  ensures  interconnectivity  and  efficient  coexistence  between  countries.    Table  3 
presents examples of cost savings brought by the IT tax systems for national administrations.  

32 

 
 
 
 
Table 3. Examples of cost savings brought by the EU IT systems  

System type 

Cost savings 

IT collaboration*  

Information 
architecture  

exchange 

Indirect taxation systems 

Other  

of 

Information  modules: 

Automatic  Exchange 
IT 
collaboration  used  in  connection  with  automatic  exchange  of 
information  and  statistics  resulting  in  saved  resources  for  the 
countries  using  the  modules  that  were  developed.  While  these 
only include a few Member States, there is a potential for much 
more significant gains through additional IT collaboration in the 
future. 
Common  Communication  Network  and  eForms:  contributes 
to a simplification of procedures, and thus to a reduction in time 
needed to process a request. Results in reduced postal charges as 
well as faster communication time. 
Excise  Movement  and  Control  System:  Has  reduced  work 
intensity  and  personnel  needed  to  monitor  excise  goods 
movements. 
IT 
and 
practice/training in regard to new processes and procedures lead 
to a more efficient execution of tasks and exchange of required 
data, implementation of new functionalities, etc. All in all, this 
helps 
the  national 
time 
administrations.  

capacity  building: 

reduce  costs  and 

understanding 

spent  by 

Improved 

Source:  Evaluation  questionnaire  with  national  authorities  –  part  2  (IT  systems)  and  interviews.  *While  not  IT 
systems  per  se,  cost  savings  for  Member  State  IT  collaboration  have  been  included  to  further  illustrate  the  EU 
added value of taxation IT collaboration. 

The  programme’s  common  training  activities,  particularly  the  eLearning  modules  that  were 
assessed in depth, were found to save time and money, but only for the Member States which 
so far use them. Respondents were divided, with some indicating that they were not dependent 
on these training modules. Others, however, underlined that it was a good complement to their 
national training and that these modules could be more easily shared. The modules were also 
said to cover some areas (VAT-fraud) not covered by national curricula in some cases, and to 
contribute to the national administration’s obligation of providing training to its officials. 

►  Fiscalis 2020 complements initiatives at national level by focusing on EU solutions 

for EU problems 

There  was  consensus  among  national  programme  coordinators  consulted  that  Fiscalis  2020 
provides the possibility for action above and beyond what participating countries could achieve 
on their own. Overall, the programme has been effective at attempting to provide solutions for 
problems and issues for which there is a clear EU dimension. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Interviewees  mentioned  that,  without  the  programme,  administrations  would  not  be  able  to 
collaborate  in  the  way  that  they  do  today.  It  was  highlighted  that  without  the  programme, 
countries would diverge to a greater extent. The sharing of knowledge was also pointed out as a 
structurally significant benefit of the programme, providing added value no matter the specific 
national priorities and needs. 

In relation to different actions taken by the programme, investigated as part of the case studies, 
most  of  these  pointed  towards  synergies  and  complementarity  of  efforts  vis-à-vis  national 
activities. As an example, the multilateral controls and presence in administrative enquiries are 
indispensable  tools  to  realise  the  type  of  administrative  cooperation  and  information-sharing 
they  support.  They  complement  and  tap  into  action  at  the  national  level,  leading  to  results 
which would otherwise not be achievable. 

►  International fora for collaboration cannot substitute Fiscalis 2020  

Evidence collected for the evaluation confirms that there is wide consensus among national tax 
administrations  that  Fiscalis  2020  activities  add  value  compared  to  other  options  for 
collaboration  and  policy  implementation.  In  general,  interviewees  within  a  number  of  fields 
mentioned  the  Intra-European  Organisation  of  Tax  Administrations  (IOTA),  the  Organisation 
for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  (OECD)  (and  to  some  extent  the  International 
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank) as other arenas for cooperation. Especially IOTA 
was  brought  up  as  a  collaboration  platform  which  touches  upon  many  of  the  same  areas  as 
Fiscalis 2020. 

The general view was that these other international platforms by no means substitute Fiscalis or 
provide  the  same  type  of  concrete  and  close  cooperation.  However,  there  were  mentions  of 
overlap  within  specific  intervention  areas.  This  mainly  concerned  activities  relating  to 
knowledge-sharing within current international taxation issues, such as emerging practices for 
risk management. Within such areas, there is an opportunity for higher degrees of coordinating 
priorities and activities with the work conducted within other platforms. 

►  Fiscalis 2020 adds unique intangible value of human networks and trust  

Findings  from  the  evaluation  questionnaire  with  national  authorities  showed  broad  levels  of 
agreement  regarding  how  the  Fiscalis  2020  programme  complements  (rather  than  duplicates) 
Fiscalis initiatives at national level, with 25 out of 29 respondents who agreed to a great extent 
or to some extent with the statement. Specifically, consultation and networking with colleagues 
from other countries through the joint actions were considered as complementary to initiatives 
at  national  level,  helping  to  build  relationships  and  trust  as  well  as  supporting  the  sharing  of 
experience and knowledge. 

Specifically,  as  to  the  building  of  trust,  respondents  mentioned  that  in  many  cases  personal 
contacts  are  formed  between  officials  following  joint  action  activities,  and  participants  often 
continue to work together on a bilateral or multilateral level following the end of an activity. 
This  view  was  supported  by  interview  data,  where  several  interviewees  in  different  positions 
and working through different activities highlighted the sustaining contacts created in different 
programme  activities.  This  is  an  important  benefit  of  the  programme,  though  less  visible 
compared to the activities themselves. 

Concerning  the  implementation  of  EU  legislation,  joint  actions  were  said  to  support  both  the 
pre-legislation  work,  and  the  following  actual  implementation  of  EU  legal  acts.  The 
opportunity to meet with colleagues from other Member States and discuss legislative changes 
was  highlighted.  Furthermore,  the  involvement  of  the  business  side  in  such  meetings  was 

34 

 
mentioned  as  valuable  as  they  are  aware  of  other  problems  that  also  need  to  be  taken  into 
account  in  the  implementing  process.  The  dialogue  and  discussions  seem  to  enable  a  more 
harmonised  transposition  of  the  legislation.  It  was  also  mentioned  that  the  joint  actions  are 
useful  for  the  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries  regarding  alignment  of  national 
legislation with the EU acquis. 

►  outputs and results of Fiscalis 2020 would remain in the short-term but diminish 

rapidly in case the programme would be discontinued  

National authorities believe that the programme led to concrete outputs and results that would 
be  useful  in  the  future  even  if  the  programme  were  discontinued.  Some  examples  include  an 
effective  application  and  understanding  of  excise  legislation,  increased  competence  of  the 
national  administrations,  advanced  administrative  cooperation,  IT  systems,  capacity  building 
activities,  an  exchange  of  views,  knowledge  and  expertise,  and  a  creation  of  networks,  tools 
and methods. The Compliance Risk Management Platform was mentioned as valuable, as well 
as the outcomes resulting from its activities. 

Moreover,  improved  capacity,  implementation  of  projects,  as  well  as  working  visits,  were 
mentioned as activities with long-lasting impact. Furthermore, the programme has contributed 
to an enhancement of administrative cooperation overall. Various activities have had an impact 
on  enhancing  and  improving  functions  within  the  administrations  through  exchange  and 
gathering of knowledge, procedures, methods, and legislative solutions.  Respondents  seem  to 
believe  that  these  impacts  are  long-lasting.  Contacts  made  with  other  tax  officials  in  EU 
Member  States  were  also  mentioned  as  a  sustainable  impact  as  networks  have  been  created 
enabling and facilitating a dialogue in the coming years as well. 

However, for the outputs and results to be maintained and improved, the high importance of the 
programme’s continuation was emphasized. In particular, it was highlighted that a majority of 
the present funding of the European Information Systems is covered by the programme budget. 
Therefore, an interruption would cause immediate serious problems. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

Relevance:  at  the  general  level,  the  findings  validate  the  relevance  of  the  Fiscalis  specific 
objective by identifying clear needs for secure and rapid exchange of information, cooperation 
between  tax  administrations,  and  enhancement  of  administrative  capacity.  There  has  been 
universal  agreement  among  stakeholders  that  the  programme  is  needed  to  facilitate  this 
exchange  and  cooperation,  and  that  ambitious  policies  would  not  be  possible  without  such 
support.  Thus,  the  programme’s  role  in  fostering  convergence  of  approaches,  administrative 
procedures and rules is highly relevant. 

Effectiveness:  through  its  three  main  types  of  activities  (joint  actions,  European  Information 
Systems and training), Fiscalis has played an integral role in reinforcing cooperation between 
tax authorities in the EU Member States and other participating countries. The programme has 
provided  the  framework  and  technological  means  necessary  to  work  together  and  share 
information  in  the  service  of  implementing  EU  tax  law  and  fighting  tax  evasion,  fraud  and 
aggressive  tax  planning  in  an  increasingly  mobile  Europe.  Evidence  of  this  was  most 
compelling  in  the  field  of  indirect  taxation  (particularly  VAT  and  excise)  where  the  EU 
competence is strongest, and the level of programme activity is correspondingly high.  

35 

 
The evaluation finds that the programme has made strong contributions in all five aspects of its 
specific objective. These contributions have taken many forms and flow from the diversity of 
both the programme’s activities and aims and the policies they support. 

Each  type  of  activity  also  contributed  in  unique  ways  to  increased  cooperation.  The  joint 
actions  provide  a  menu  of  options  which  can  be  adapted  to  fit  a  wide  range  of  collaboration 
needs, ranging across the policy cycle from early brainstorming and reflection through practical 
implementation  and  concrete  operations,  such  as  the  carrying  out  of  multilateral  controls  and 
administrative  enquiries.  The  IT  systems  have  played  a  crucial  role  in  helping  the  Member 
States  to  communicate  with  each  other  securely  and  efficiently  across  many  areas  of  mutual 
interest, facilitating the day-to-day work of administrations and contributing to the fight against 
tax fraud and evasion. While the eLearning modules are  only in  use in some Member States, 
they have shown to  contribute meaningfully to  the knowledge base, especially in  places with 
relatively limited resources.  

Efficiency:  while  the  programme’s  benefits  cannot  be  monetised,  holding  up  the  findings  on 
effectiveness alongside spending data and the positive findings on operational efficiency makes 
a  strong  case  that  the  programme  overall  is  cost  effective.  In  their  different  ways,  the  joint 
actions, European Information Systems and training activities clearly generate value for the EU 
and  administrations,  by  helping  them  to  pool  resources,  generate  economies  of  scale  and 
increase revenue collection and compliance and function more effectively. Economic operators 
have also benefited indirectly (through better administration of tax policy), as well as from the 
direct use of certain IT systems and eLearning modules.  

Coherence:  there  is  strong  internal  coherence  between  the  various  levels  and  components  of 
the  Fiscalis  programme.  This  is  the  result  of  several  factors,  including  an  objective-driven 
design  which  ensures  the  alignment  of  the  various  levels  of  the  intervention  logic,  from  the 
general,  specific  and  operational  objectives,  to  the  priorities  and  activities.  Continued 
refinement  and  awareness  raising  of  the  introduced  project  structure  should  enhance  this 
further.  At  an  operational  level,  the  coordination  of  the  programme  as  well  as  its  continuous 
duration have contributed to enhancing synergies and avoiding duplications. With regard to the 
programme’s  external  coherence,  there  is  strong  alignment  between  the  programme  and  the 
Europe  2020  strategy,  both  on  paper  and  in  reality,  as  evidenced  by  relevant  actions  and 
activities.  The  involvement  of  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries  is  overall  positive, 
with robust evidence of active participation, and possibilities to engage these even further (as 
detailed in other sections of this report). 

EU added value: the programme has been effective in providing solutions for problems with a 
clear  EU  dimension.  In  particular,  the  programme  adds  value  by  providing  a  forum  for 
discussion, exchange of experiences and networking between Member States that would not be 
possible  without  Commission  support,  as  well  as  providing  an  otherwise  highly  unlikely 
framework and systems for exchange of information through a variety of systems and activities. 
These  lead  to  both  tangible  and  intangible  benefits  of  scale  and  coordination.  The  clear  EU 
component,  and  the  fact  that  the  same  results  would  be  difficult  or  impossible  to  achieve 
without  the  programme  to  support  them,  in  particular  in  terms  of  necessary  maintenance  of 
European  Information  Systems,  also  leads  the  evaluation  to  conclude  that  continued  support 
through  funding  of  the  programme  is  relevant  and  advantageous  from  the  perspective  of  EU 
added value. 

36 

 
 
 
37 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

The  mid-term  evaluation  is  a  non-major  initiative  (PLAN/2017/933)  organised  in  accordance 
with  Article  17(1)(2)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1286/2013  of  11  December  2013  establishing  an 
action programme to  improve the operation of taxation systems  in  the European Union for the 
period 2014-2020 (Fiscalis 2020).  

The  lead  Directorate  General  for  the  evaluation  was  the  Directorate  General  for  Taxation  and 
Customs Union (DG TAXUD).  

2.  Organisation and timing 

The Commission carried out the present evaluation with the help of an external consultant. The 
evaluation  study  was  commissioned  from  Oxford  Research,  Coffey,  Economisti  Associati  and 
wedoIT, through a framework contract with a consortium led by Economisti Associati Srl21. The 
specific contract was signed on the 14 August 2017 for a period of 13 months.  

The evaluation was supported by an inter-service steering group with the following Commission 
services who expressed their wish to participate in the group:  

DG Secretariat General (SG) 

DG for Informatics (DIGIT) 

DG Economic and Financial Affairs (ECFIN) 

DG Structural Reform Support Service (SRSS) 

DG Justice and Consumers (JUST) 

The  inter-service  steering  group  met  five  times  on  12th  of  September  2017,  15th  of  November 
2017, 8th of March 2018, 30th of May 2018 and 29th of June 2018. The last meeting was a joint 
validation workshop for Customs 2020 and Fiscalis 2020 programmes during which the external 
consultants  presented  their  findings,  conclusions  and  recommendations.  These  were  further  on 
discussed with the group, their validity and credibility confirmed.  

3.  Evidence, sources and quality 

The present evaluation SWD is based on the works carried out by the external consultant. The 
material  informing  this  evaluation  consisted  of  (1)  programming  documentation,  (2)  previous 
studies,  reports  and  evaluations,  and  (3)  the  Performance  Measurement  Framework  (PMF),  as 
detailed in Table 4, which presents as well the intended purpose of use.  

The  evaluation  gathered  also  primary  data  on  the  programme’s  implementation,  functioning, 
results  and  use  directly  from  the  best-placed  stakeholders:  the  tax  administrations  of  the 

21  Framework Contract TAXUD/2015/CC/132; 

38 

 
 
                                                           
participating  countries  and,  albeit  to  a  smaller  extent,  from  economic  operators.  That  evidence 
was collected through targeted questionnaires and a series of 7 thematic cases studies, which are 
described in a greater level of detail in Annex 3.  

Finally,  the  Commission  organised  a  public  consultation  on  the  Commission’s  spending 
programmes  and  funds.  This  public  consultation  was  launched  within  the  context  of  the 
Commission’s  proposals  for  the  next  generation  of  financial  programmes  for  the  post-2020 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF).  The  Fiscalis  2020  programme  was  included  in  the 
public consultation on investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market. Details of 
the organisation and results of the public consultation are included in Annex 2.     

Table 4.  Sources of information used for mid-term evaluation of Fiscalis 2020 programme 
Source 

Purpose  

1. Programming documentation 

1.1 Programme Regulation 

Regulation (EU) No 1286/2013  

underlying rationale, history and context 
main features of the programme 
key stakeholders and beneficiaries  
specific and operational objectives 
headline budget figures 
overview of activities and priorities 

1.2 Annual Work Programmes (AWP) 

structuring and selection of case studies 

The  Fiscalis  2020  AWPs  are  annexed  to 
each yearly financing decision 

priorities in terms of resource allocation 

continuing  relevance  and  policy  issues  of  interest 
for the programme 

expected results and annually updated goals 

2. Studies, reports and evaluations 

2.1 Annual Progress Reports (APR) 

Published  yearly,  available  for  2014, 
2015, 2016 and 2017 

2.2  Evaluations,  impact  assessments  and 
reports 

Final evaluation of Fiscalis 2013 

Action  Follow-up  Plan:  Final  Evaluation 
of Fiscalis 2013 

intervention logic 
programme performance/effectiveness in terms of 
outputs and results 
insight into how the PMF is used and reported 
structuring  and  topicality  for  the  evaluation  case 
studies 
perceived 
further 
development – early warnings and learning within 
the programme 

strengths  and  areas 

for 

findings, 

conclusions 

previous 
recommendations 
background  for  recent  developments 
programme 
ideas for other sources of data:  
ideas for issues to explore / build on 

and 

in 

the 

39 

 
 
Impact assessment (IA) for Fiscalis 2020 

past and envisaged policy context going 

Study  for  ex-ante  evaluation  for  Fiscalis 
post-2020  

3. Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) 

3.1  PMF  management  and  design 
documentation 

reasoning  which 

Background  documentation  detailing  the 
structuring  of  the  PMF,  considerations 
and 
its 
instigation,  the  purpose  of  each  data-
collection  tool,  indicators  and  their  use, 
etc.  

lead 

to 

3.2 Activity reporting tool (ART) 

tool 

that  provides 

the 
Management 
framework  for  collecting  and  storing 
basic  data  about  all  activities,  with  input 
beginning from grant requests 

impetus  and  rationale  for  the  current  design  of 
PMF 
evaluation  design,  mapping  PMF  indicators  to 
evaluation questions 
limits of PMF indicators 
purpose and design of different indicators 
practicalities  of  PMF  data  collection  and  their 
consequences 

in-depth activity descriptions 
context  of  activities  in  terms  of  motivation  and 
needs 
context  of  activities  in  terms  of  relation  to  other 
activities and AWP projects 

3.3 Action Follow-up Form (AFF) 

Form  providing  a  self-reported  rating  of 
the  degree  of  achievement  of  expected 
results,  to  be  completed  for  all  activities 
of the previous year 

participant satisfaction 
programme  effectiveness  in  terms  of  perceived 
achievement of results 
programme  reach  in  terms  of  spread  of  results  in 
national administrations  

3.4 Event Assessment Form (EAF) 

Form  providing  a  rating  by  participants 
of  the  extent  to  which  their  expectations 
were met and expected result(s) achieved, 
completed  three  months  after  the  end  of 
an  event  or  yearly  in  the  case  of  project 
groups  

3.5 Programme Poll 

that  measures 

A  questionnaire 
the 
awareness  and  wider  perceptions  of  the 
programmes  in  terms  of  networking  and 
dissemination 

3.6 Training activity monitoring 

have 

activities 

Training 
separate 
monitoring  and  data  collection,  which 
feeds into the PMF (eLearning statistics + 
eLearning survey) 

participant satisfaction 
programme  effectiveness  in  terms  of  perceived 
achievement of results 
programme  reach  in  terms  of  spread  of  results  in 
national administrations 

conducted  every  18  months  (Jul-Sept  2015  +  Jan 
2017) 

demand for and reach of eLearning modules 
satisfaction and results of eLearning modules 
training and competency building for EOs 

40 

 
 
3.7 IT statistics 

Data  on  results  within  IT  collaboration 
and 
IT 
implementation  of  common 
for  officials  and  economic 
systems 
operators 

3.8 Impact indicators 

Indicator data not  gathered as part of the 
PMF  reporting  tools,  but  collected  from 
various  sources 
in  connection  with 
evaluation reports. 

budget allocation for EIS 
development and continued operation of EIS 
effectiveness and reach of EIS 
demand  and  use  of  programme  outputs  by 
economic operators 

development  within  overarching  policy  goals 
addressed by Fiscalis 2020 

programme  impact  and  effectiveness  in  terms  of 
degree  of 
implementation  and  ratio/level  of 
participants/participation 

programme impact in terms of perceived extent to 
which results have been achieved 

Source: Economisti Associati - Mid-term evaluation of Fiscalis 2020 progress report  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Consultation strategy  

To ensure transparency and the validity of results, the evaluation used complementary methods to 
collect data from a large number of stakeholders. These included participants in the programme 
from  EU  and  candidate  and  potential  candidate  country  tax  administrations  and  economic 
operators  benefiting  from  certain  programme  activities,  as  well  as  European  Commission 
officials  responsible  for  managing  and  using  the  programme.  In  addition,  the  evaluation  drew 
heavily  on  monitoring  data  that  consisted  in  large  part  on  feedback  from  relevant  national 
officials as well as economic operators completing the publicly available eLearning modules.  

More specifically, the consultation activities consisted of the following:  

  Questionnaires  for  national  authorities  (part  of  the  programme  assessment):  two 
written  questionnaires  (one  general  questionnaire  on  joint  actions,  training  and 
programme management, the other on funded IT systems) were distributed to the relevant 
authorities  from  participating  countries.  The  questionnaires  were  sent  to  national 
coordinators, who were asked to elicit feedback from their administrations and provide a 
single  response  for  each  questionnaire  and  country.  Response  rates  for  the  general 
questionnaire  were  very  good,  with  completed  questionnaires  returned  by  30  of  34 
participating  countries.  Likely  owing  to  consultation  fatigue,  only  14  of  a  possible  2822 
responses  were  provided  for  the  IT-focused  questionnaire,  despite  mitigating  measures 
such  as  extending 
individual  follow-up  messages.  This  was 
supplemented  with  feedback  received  through  the  other  consultation  tools  as  well  as 
satisfaction figures on given IT systems from the monitoring data. 

the  deadline  and 

  Programme  manager  interviews  (part  of  the  programme  assessment):  a  set  of 
interviews  with  managers  and  users  from  the  Commission  (21  interviews)  and  national 
administrations (eight national coordinators) allowed us to collect experiences, opinions, 
perceptions  and  suggestions  regarding  a  range  issues  that  would  be  difficult  to  obtain 
using  other  means.  These  included  matters  such  as  responsiveness  of  the  programme  to 
emerging  needs  and  priorities,  organisational  and  governance  structures  and  processes, 
practical  implementation, change in  programme  performance over time and any barriers 
to the success of the programme. There was also a special focus on the IT systems used 
for programme and financial management. 

  Thematic  case  studies  of  Annual  Work  Programme  projects:  these  consisted  of  in-
depth  qualitative  research  in  the  form  of  seven  case  studies,  each  focused  on  a  theme 
linked  to  the  Annual  Work  Programme  projects  that  were  defined  as  priorities  in  given 
years. For each of seven particularly salient themes, the evaluation examined the actions 
involved based most importantly on fieldwork comprised of 87 interviews with relevant 

22 Since only EU Member States can use the majority of IT systems, it was only distributed to the 28 Member States 

rather than all Fiscalis 2020 participating countries.  

42 

 
 
                                                           
officials 
Commission.23.  

in  seven  countries  as  well  as  responsible  officials  at 

the  European 

  Survey of economic operators: while economic operators are not the programme’s main 
beneficiaries, their views are important as taxpayers and users of certain IT systems and 
eLearning  modules.  A  public  consultation  was  initially  foreseen  to  gather  the  opinions 
from  economic  operators  and  citizens  more  broadly.  However,  a  decision  was  taken 
within the Commission to group together questions relating to a wide range of spending 
programmes  into  a  single  public  consultation.  Since  this  did  not  include  any  questions 
related  to  Fiscalis,  a  short  online  survey  of  economic  operators  was  carried  out  instead. 
The survey included a range of questions on the relevance of the programme’s objectives 
and activities and respondents’ experiences with several publicly available IT systems and 
eLearning  modules.  The  survey  was  promoted  through  DG  TAXUD’s  newsletter  and 
direct mailings to trade organisations in all Member States. However, it was not possible 
to post links to the survey directly on the websites of the services that were being asked 
about.  Given  the  niche  users  of  many  of  these  services  and  a  general  feeling  of 
consultation  fatigue,  the  survey  only  received  43  responses.  While  not  ideal,  the  survey 
still provided some useful insight from an otherwise difficult-to-reach group, which was 
supplemented using more substantial survey data on the eLearning modules collected on 
an ongoing basis by DG TAXUD. 

  An  open  public  consultation  on  "EU  funds  in  the  area  of  investment,  research  & 
innovation,  SMEs  and  single  market"  was  launched  within  the  context  of  the 
Commission’s  proposals  for  the  next  generation  of  financial  programmes  for  the  post-
2020  Multiannual  Financial  Framework,  which  is  the  EU’s  long-term  budget.  This 
consultation covered both the retrospective and prospective elements of the Commission’s 
spending  programmes.  It  aimed  at  gathering  the  views  of  citizens  on  policy  challenges 
and  needs  for  EU  intervention  as  regards  taxation.  The  4052  respondents  provided 
feedback out of which only 6 reported that they  have  experience with  the Fiscalis 2020 
programme,  representing  0.15  %  of  the  total  number  of  respondents.  Also,  only  47 
comments referred to taxation. This very limited number of instances relating to Fiscalis 
confirms  the  limited  overall  interest  of  the  public  at  large  and  the  relevance  of  the 
programme objectives – and focus of stakeholders’ consultations – on tax administrations. 

Overall,  the  coverage  of  the  consultation  activities  is  deemed  satisfactory.  Nearly  all  of  the 
national  administrations  which  make  up  the  programme’s  main  target  audience  provided 
feedback through questionnaires. While programme manager and case study interviews cannot be 
described  as  representative  in  a  statistical  sense,  broad  consistency  between  the  findings  from 
different  sources  testifies  to  their  validity  and  robustness.  Nonetheless,  it  should  be  noted  that 
insight from economic operators and citizens was limited by the lack of a public consultation and 
low response rates to the economic operator survey.  

Consultation with economic operators 

Consultation with economic operators was initially to be organised with the  public consultation 
and  was  later  on  replaced  by  a  targeted  survey.  The  survey  was  promoted  through  the 

23 Note that some individuals provided feedback for more than one case study and are thus counted more than once. 

43 

 
                                                           
Commission's  newsletter  and  direct  mailings  to  trade  organisations  in  all  Member  States  and 
participating  countries.  43  economic  operators  took  part  in  it.  While  not  ideal,  the  survey  still 
provided some useful insight from an otherwise difficult-to-reach group. 

The  majority  of  survey  respondents  were  businesses  (27  out  of  43),  while  the  second  largest 
group represented professional services providers (16 out of 42). The remaining respondents are 
trade/business/professional associations and one public authority (“other”). 

 More than half (22 out of 43) were from large companies of over 250 employees. 27 out of 43 
were from organisations that were active in several countries, while only a small share operated 
in one country only.  

As regards the country of origin, the majority of the respondents were based in northern Europe, 
including  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Netherlands,  and  Germany,  while  there  were  fewer 
respondents from southern and Eastern Europe, as can be seen from the figure below: 

Figure 6: Countries in which respondents are based (number of respondents) 

Source: Economic operator survey carried out as part of the Fiscalis 2020 mid-term evaluation  

Summary of consultation results 

Given the numbers of responses involved, the consultation results were analysed using qualitative 
analysis  techniques  and  reported  on  in  narrative  form.  The  rest  of  this  report  gives  a  brief 
synopsis of the results obtained, which along with evidence from documentary sources were used 
to inform the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation.  

General questionnaire for national authorities 

As mentioned above, 30 of 34 participating-country tax administrations responded to the general 
questionnaire.  Respondents  painted  positive  assessment  of  the  programme  in  terms  of  the  joint 
actions and training activities supported, as well as management and EU added value.  

44 

 
 
 
 
Regarding  the  joint  actions  (which  can  be  classified  into  different  types),  most  of  them  are 
indicated to be very useful to the work of the national administrations. Exchange of best practice, 
networking and cooperation, as well as implementation of EU legislation were some of the main 
strengths  that  were  reported  to  be  highly  appreciated  by  respondents.  Concerning  the  specific 
objectives  of  the  programme,  most  respondents  believed  that  the  joint  actions  contribute  to  the 
achievement of these objectives, either to a great extent or to some extent. In terms of areas of 
improvement, the suggestions provided were mostly of a practical and administrative nature.  

While training activities (most importantly eLearning modules) were reported as in use to varying 
degrees,  those  respondents  that  did  use  them  reported  that  they  successfully  complemented 
related  initiatives  at  national  level.  Training  activities  also  helped  national  administrations  use 
and benefit from European Information Systems, as well as to take a more uniform approach to 
the application of EU tax law. Criticisms related mainly to  language issues (such as translation 
costs) and the need to keep eLearning modules updated and bug-free.  

Respondents were generally positive about the programme’s management structure and processes 
and considered them broadly appropriate given the nature of the programme. However, in some 
cases  it  was  felt  that  reducing  administrative  burdens  would  increase  participation  in  the 
programme, or that IT tools for reporting and sharing information could be improved  

Finally, administrations showed very positive perceptions of the programme’s EU added value. It 
was  considered  to  provide  a  unique  platform  to  tackle  common  problems  with  officials  from 
other  participating  countries  and  build  networks  and  trust,  leading  to  a  better  and  more 
harmonised implementation of EU legislation.  

IT-focused questionnaire for national authorities  

While the 28 Member State administrations have access to and use the IT systems under review, 
only 14 of them responded to the questionnaire due to the consultation fatigue issues mentioned 
above. Although this limits the generalisability of the results, they are broadly consistent with the 
findings from other evaluation tools.  

The  questionnaire  responses  indicated  an  overall  satisfaction  with  the  IT  systems  supported  by 
the  Programme,  their  usefulness  and  appropriateness  for  the  work  of  the  national  tax 
administrations.  Very  few  respondents  expressed  a  lack  of  satisfaction  with  the  IT  systems, 
though there were some systems that several respondents were less familiar with or did not have 
an opinion about.  

The systems were judged as making it easier to share information quickly and safely, facilitating 
cooperation and thereby helping to implement EU legislation and fight tax fraud, tax evasion and 
aggressive tax planning. Regarding whether the systems complement or duplicate other systems 
developed by the national administrations or other organisations, there was an overall agreement 
among  the  respondents  that  this  is  not  the  case.  The  systems  were  rather  said  to  rather 
complement each other, adding value and leading to improvements in existing systems. Despite 
some  costs  associated  with  the  implementation  of  new  systems,  respondents  also  felt  that  the 
supported  IT  systems  helped  reduce  costs  for  national  administrations  overall  by  simplifying 
processes and making it easier to share information. Ideas for potential improvements focused on 
interoperability, reusability, efficiency and simplification.  

Programme manager interviews  

45 

 
The evaluation included interviews with 29 programme managers, mostly representing European 
Commission  services  involved  with  the  programme  but  also  national  coordinators  in  seven 
countries (making for eight interviewees, since responsibility for the programme is split in some 
countries).  The  interviews  fed  into  the  broader  assessment  of  the  efficiency  of  programme 
management.  This  found  that  the  design  and  management  of  the  programme  reflect  its  long-
standing  success  and  ability  to  get  better  over  time,  with  key  features  that  are  appropriate  and 
being gradually improved, leading to a high degree of efficiency. While there was some criticism, 
this  was  minor  and  related  to  such  aspects  as  making  the  programme’s  monitoring  system  less 
complicated  and  burdensome  and  making  IT  tools  for  reporting  and  information-sharing  more 
user-friendly. 

A  major  part  of  the  evaluation  consisted  of  case  studies  on  seven  of  the  projects  defined  as 
priorities  in  the  Annual  Work  Programmes.  These  covered  a  range  of  the  IT  systems  which 
receive  the  lion’s  share  of  programme  funding  as  well  as  collaboration  fora  for  different  tax 
policy  areas,  training  activities  and  more  practical  cooperation  between  tax  officials.  The  case 
studies  were  based  on  fieldwork  in  seven  participating  countries  (i.e.  the  Czech  Republic, 
Germany,  Italy,  Latvia,  Portugal,  Serbia  and  Sweden)  and  informed  by  87  interviews  within 
national tax administrations as well as responsible officials from the European Commission. Each 
case  study  led  to  the  production  of  an  individual  case  study  report,  which  in  turn  fed  into  the 
assessment of all five evaluation criteria.  

The case studies accounted for a large proportion of the research and as such their findings are 
reflected  strongly  in  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  as  a  whole.  These  were  very  positive, 
confirming the programme’s relevance, describing its effectiveness both in operational terms and 
contributions to higher-level objectives and demonstrating efficiency and coherence. By allowing 
participating countries to pool resources, offer solutions for problems with an EU dimension and 
exchange information, the programme was also found to provide clear EU added value. Within 
this  overall  picture  of  success,  criticism  focused  mainly  on  gradual  improvements  that  would 
ensure all activities are relevant and improve operational efficiency.  

Survey of economic operators 

As  mentioned  above,  despite  ample  promotion  it  was  only  possible  to  elicit  responses  from  43 
economic operators, of which 27 described themselves as businesses, 16 as professional services 
providers, two as trade / business / professional association and one ticking an ‘other’ box. The 
majority  of  responses  came  from  the  UK,  the  Netherlands,  Germany  and  Spain.  The  responses 
are thus not in any way representative of economic operators in general or participants / users in 
the programme, but rather give a snapshot of the views of some individual stakeholders.  

While only half of respondents were aware of the Fiscalis 2020 programme, all felt that tax fraud, 
tax evasion and aggressive tax planning to be important issues facing society, along with double 
taxation  and  distortions  to  competition.  Collaboration  at  EU  level  between  national  tax 
administrations  was  also  considered  vital.  Most  respondents  also  expressed  a  need  to  make  it 
easier to deal with tax matters involving more than one EU Member State.  

Much of the survey focused on the publicly available IT systems and eLearning modules. Though 
many respondents had not heard of specific systems or modules, when views were provided there 
were  generally  positive  and  indicated  that  the  programme  helps  economic  operators  save  time 
and find important information on e.g. VAT rules. Indeed, suggestions for improvements centred 
on providing more detailed information on VAT and how it differs across Member States.  

46 

 
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

Approach and method 

The  overall  approach  to  the  mid-term  evaluation  can  be  classified  as  theory-based 
evaluation.  That  means  using  the  intervention  logic  defined  for  the  Fiscalis  2020 
programme  in  the  Performance  Monitoring  Framework  (PMF)  documentation  (see 
Figure 7 below). Theory-based approach implies examination of the causal mechanisms 
in  which  the  programme  was  expected  to  generate  the  desired  results  and  impacts 
through collection of evidence to test the initial theory. Such approach allows to confirm 
(or  not)  the  supposed  causality  and  understand  how  and  why  these  mechanisms  led  to 
expected or observed results. In doing so, the evaluation seeks to identify and assess the 
extent  to  which  external  factors  might  have  hindered  or  supported  the  process.  In  the 
context  of  a  cooperation  programme  such  as  Fiscalis  2020,  which  often  plays  a 
supportive  role  in  implementation  of  EU  policies  and  priorities,  this  approach  seemed 
particularly suited. Not least due to inherent difficulties of attributing measurable results 
to the functioning of the programme. 

Figure 7 : Intervention logic for Fiscalis 2020 programme 

Source: Performance Measurement Framework monitoring Fiscalis 2020/Customs 2020 , report 2014 

The evaluation followed a mixed-methods approach, featuring a range of tailored and 
targeted techniques and tools. They have been designed and deployed in a way that was 
deemed to bring the most value to the analysis. The target-and-tailor principle applied to 
not only choosing which stakeholders to engage with, but how to reach them, what to ask 
them,  how 
to  make 
recommendations that fit with the room for manoeuvre of the Commission and other key 

the  resultant  data  robustly  as  well  as  how 

to  analyse 

47 

 
 
 
stakeholders.  The  data  collection  tools  sought  to  probe  views  and  experiences  of 
stakeholders and key audiences, including tax administrations in general, participants in 
joint  actions,  economic  operators  and  the  European  Commission.  The  information  thus 
collected was cross-referenced with the rich – if not always complete - dataset from the 
performance measurement framework.  

Analytical pillars 

The  approach  built  on  three  distinct  pillars  allowing  to  examine  the  programme  from 
different  angles  and  levels  of  detail,  as  well  as  engaging  with  different  groups  of 
stakeholders.  The  diagram  below  depicts  the  pillars  and  conceptualises  how  they  fit 
together.  

Figure 8 : Analytical pillars of the mid-term evaluation of Fiscalis 2020 programme 

Overall 
evaluation results 

Online survey sent to 
economic operators 

3. Engagement with 
economic operators 

1.Mini One Stop Shop 

2. Multilateral 
controls 

3. Presence in 
administrative offices 

4. VAT eLearning 
package 

5. IT collaboration for 
automatic exchange 
of information  

6. Compliance risk 
management  

7. Excise Movement and 
Control System 

 2. Thematic case studies of 7 annual work 
programme projects 

In-depth review of 
monitoring framework 
and other data 

National authorities’ 
questionnaires 

Programme 
manager interviews  

1. Programme assessment 

Source: Economisti Associati - Mid-term evaluation of Fiscalis 2020 inception report  

The  programme  assessment  served  to  collect  and  analyse  data  on  the  Fiscalis  2020 
programme  as  a  whole.  It  focused  on  what  the  programme  was  doing  in  terms  of 
implementation  and  performance  towards  objectives.  It  also  helped  to  refine  the 
methodology for the case studies that took place later. This assessment was comprised of 
three main methods as shown:  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

in-depth  review  of  performance  measurement  framework  data  which  relieved 
some  burden  and  fatigue  from  data  collection  and  allowed  to  devote  more 
resources to primary data collection exploring issues higher up the causal chain;  

  national authorities’ questionnaire composed of two written questionnaires (one 
general  on  joint  actions,  training  and  programme  management,  the  other  on  IT 
systems) distributed to the relevant authorities from participating countries. They 
intended  to  gather  quantitative  and  qualitative  information  that  was  available 
neither  from  the  framework  and  tools  used  to  feed  into  it  nor  other  evaluation 
include  user  experiences  with  specific  IT  systems, 
methods.  Examples 
contribution of programme to the work of administrations, views on new types of 
joint  actions,  perceived  costs  and  benefits  of  participating  in  the  programme, 
management  practices,  the  framework  and  its  processes,  management  and 
knowledge-sharing of IT tools and implementation of recommendations from the 
previous evaluation. 

The  questionnaires  were  sent  to  national  coordinators,  who  were  asked  to  elicit 
feedback  from  their  administrations  and  provide  a  single  response  for  each 
questionnaire and country. Completed questionnaires were  returned by 31 of 34 
participating  countries  for  the  general  questionnaire,  and  14  of  28  for  the  IT-
focused one; 

  programme  manager  interviews  consistent  of  a  set  of  20  interviews  with 
managers from the Commission and national administrations, allowing to collect 
experiences,  opinions,  perceptions  and  suggestions  regarding  a  range  of  issues 
that would be difficult to obtain using other means. These included matters such 
as  responsiveness  of  the  programmes  to  emerging  needs  and  priorities, 
organisational  and  governance  structures  and  processes,  the  implementation  of 
the  performance  measurement  framework,  and  such  issues  as  change  in 
programme  performance  over  time,  and  barriers  to  the  success  of  the 
programmes.  

Thematic  case  studies  are  in-depth  qualitative  research  around  agreed  topics  (Annual 
Work  Programme  projects)  stemming  from  the  need  to  complement  quantifiable  data 
with  method  better  suited  to  capture  benefits  linked  to  support  provided  for 
administrations  in  carrying  out  functions  required  by  EU  and  national  legislation  and 
boosting capacity. The purpose of the case studies was to examine in  detail  how  given 
programme  outputs  were  used  in  practice  by  administrations  and,  where  applicable, 
economic operators. The themes were selected upon a review of AWP projects, deemed 
particularly salient within the programme’s timeframe. Each theme included a series of 
two or three specific programme actions in seven case study countries (Czech Republic, 
Germany  Italy,  Latvia,  Portugal,  Serbia  and  Sweden).  The  joint  actions  selected  were 
then complemented by information on the main relevant IT systems. The research drew 
on  a  review  of  relevant  documentation  and  face-to-face  interviews  with  10-12  relevant 
stakeholders  within  national  administrations  in  the  selected  countries  (in  total  87 
stakeholders  within  national  administrations  were  interviewed  as  part  of  the  evaluation 
exercise).  

Engagement  with  economic  operators  took  form  of  short  targeted  survey.  The 
economic operators are  not  the programme’s main  beneficiaries but  it was deemed that 
their views were important  as taxpayers and users of certain  IT systems  and eLearning 

49 

 
modules. The survey included a range of questions on the relevance of the programme’s 
objectives and activities and respondents’ experiences with several publicly available IT 
systems  and  eLearning  modules.  The  survey  was  promoted  through  the  Commission's 
newsletter  and  direct  mailings  to  trade  organisations  in  all  Member  States.  The  survey 
received 43 responses, providing some useful insight from an otherwise difficult-to-reach 
group. 

50 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4: KEY FEATURES OF THE PROGRAMME AND SELECTED STATISTICS 

Table 6. Key features of the Fiscalis 2020 joint actions  
Action type 
Seminars  and 
workshops 

Strengths 
  Create  unique  opportunities  for 
exchange in a group setting and 
compare 
and 
methodologies 
between 
countries 

strategies 

Areas for improvement  
  Workshops  on  more  theoretical 
or  general  matters  were  not 
viewed  as  favourably  as  ones 
with concrete, practical themes. 
potential 
and 
candidate  countries  consistently 
asked  to  be  invited  to  more 
seminars and workshops. 

  Candidate 

  Provide  space  for  networking, 
building 
and 
reinforcing  relationships  with 
other MS administrations 

contacts 

more 

  Gather 

expertise 
(including 
external 
from 
stakeholders  such  as  the  OECD 
and 
than  would  be 
possible in a national setting 
  Ensure  common  understanding 

IOTA) 

of EU legislation 

Project 
groups 

  Allow for in-depth  and  ongoing 
group  work  on  specific  issues 
and policy areas 

  Develop  concrete  solutions  to 
common  problems  across  range 
of policy and practical areas (for 
which there are many examples) 
and 
working  relationships  through 
continuous communication 

  Strengthen 

networks 

Multilateral 
controls  

  Pool  knowledge  and  experience 
between Member States and the 
European Commission 

  Practical  framework  that  makes 
collaboration  on  cross-border 
(officials 
tax  cases  possible 
pointed  out 
it  would 
otherwise  be  difficult  to  get 
support for such work) 

that 

  Focus  on  achieving  concrete, 
often  measurable 
in 
terms  of  recovered  tax  revenue 
and improved compliance 

results 

  Forum  for  staying  updated  on 
fraud  trends  and  practices  and 
ways of fighting them  

  The usefulness of project groups 
relies  on 
the  expertise  and 
participants. 
of 
engagement 
Some  project  groups  were 
undermined because MS did not 
appropriate 
send 
officials,  or  allow  for  enough 
time 
to  engage  outside  of 
official meetings. 

the  most 

  Short  summary  reports  at  the 
end  of  project  groups  could 
avoid  the  risk  of  knowledge 
getting lost.  

  Language 

issues 

(particularly 
low levels of English) were seen 
as a barrier for some officials to 
conducting  multilateral  controls 
beyond  neighbouring  countries 
where links are already strong. 

Working 

  Provide opportunity  for  focused    The  usefulness  of  visits  was 

51 

 
related to the level  of effort  put 
topic  and 
into  defining  a 
engaging  with  the  work.  Some 
visits  were 
too 
unfocussed,  thereby  failing  to 
add much value. 

seen 

as 

  Awareness  and  use  of  PAOEs 
still  low  despite  satisfaction  of 
countries  that  have  used  them, 
indicating  a  need  for  more 
communication efforts. 

  Only  a  third  of  Member  States 
have taken part so far, due both 
to  limited  awareness  and  the 
time  needed  for  the  new  model 
to gain traction  

  Co-funding  model  and  format 
are  still  new,  leading  to  some 
teething  problems 
that  have 
undermined performance so far 

visits 

exploration  of  (ideally  narrowly 
of  mutual 
defined) 
interest 

topics 

  Gain 

  Useful 

inspiration 

from  host 
country  that  can  be  adapted  to 
national circumstances 
for 

and 
potential  candidate  countries  to 
learn  about  EU  legislation  and 
implementation  and 
national 
Member 
working 
practices  

candidate 

States 

PAOEs 

for 
from 
for 

  Quick  and  unique  way 

information 

gathering 
another  Member  States 
ongoing cases or audits  
with 
relationships 
counterparts from other Member 
States for future collaboration  

  Build 

Expert teams 

  Unique  forum  for  bottom-up 
topics  of 

collaboration  on 
mutual interest. 

  Limited  size  could  potentially 
make  group  work  quicker  and 
more efficient  

Source: Mid-term evaluation of the Fiscalis 2020 programme  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7. IT system in operation financed by Fiscalis 2020  

Direct Taxation systems and applications  
Taxation On Savings – EUSD1  

AEOI – DAC1 Automatic Exchange Of Information – Directive on Administrative Cooperation 1 

AEOI – DAC2 Automatic Exchange Of Information – Directive on Administrative Cooperation 2 

AEOI – DAC3 Automatic Exchange Of Information – Directive on Administrative Cooperation 3 

AEOI – EU CTS  Automatic Exchange Of Information – Common Transmission System 

AEOI – EU FATCA  Automatic Exchange Of Information - Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act 

TIN on the Web  - Tax Identification Number on Europa 

eForms – Direct Taxation  

Taxes in Europe database – TEDBv3  
Indirect Taxation systems and applications  
VIES - VAT Information Exchange System 

VIES-on-the-Web  

MOSS - Mini One-Stop Shop   

VoeS - VAT on e-Services 

VAT refund   

eForms – VAT  

Taxation Information and Communication – TIC  

Recovery systems and applications  
eForms – Recovery   
Excise systems and applications  
EMCS Core business  - Excise Movement and Control System 

EMCS Administrative cooperation   

SEED - System for Exchange of Excise Data 

CS/MISE - Central Services / Management Information System Excise 

EMCS converter   

EMCS Test application  
Common systems and applications  
SSTS - Self-Service Testing System   

TSS - Taxation Statistical System  

Source: European Commission - C5 Yearly activity report 2017 

53 

 
 
 
Figure 9: eLearning number of trainees compared with number of downloads 

Source:  EU eLearning Survey Report 2017 

Figure  10:  Number  of  participants  per  action  type  in  2017  and  the  number  of 
operational joint actions under Fiscalis 2020 in 201724 

Number of participants per action type 
in 2017 

Joint Actions operational in 2017  

Adm. Coop.
Capacity building
Communication
MLCs
PAOE
Project Groups
Seminars
Working Visits
Workshops

196 

13 
15 

77 

80 

181 

528 

1015 

2179 

Adm. Coop.
Capacity building
Communication
MLCs
PAOE
Project group
Seminar
Working visit
Workshop

23 
7 
1 

60 
54 

2 

39 

165 

309 

Source: Fiscalis 2020 – Annual Progress Report 2017 

24  Administrative  cooperation  actions  included  in  the  charts  refer  to  selection  meetings  in  which  the 
participating countries meet  to explore the usefulness of initiating PAOE / MLC actions in a  certain 
area. 

54