COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of the EU framework for VAT administrative cooperation
Date: 2025-11-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: European tax cooperation, VAT, administrative cooperation, digital economy, exchange of information, fraud, information system, intra-EU trade, tax offence

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.11.2025  SWD(2025) 350 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of the EU framework for VAT administrative cooperation {COM(2025) 686 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 
Purpose and scope of the evaluation .......................................................................................... 1 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 3 
2.1  Description of the intervention and its objectives ............................................................... 3 

2.2  Points of comparison ........................................................................................................... 7 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ........... 9 
EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ......................................................... 12 
4. 
4.1 Preliminary remarks ........................................................................................................... 12 

4.2 To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ................................................. 12 

4.3. How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ........................................ 36 

4.4 Is the intervention still relevant? ........................................................................................ 37 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 39 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION............................................................................... 43 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 44 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS 
TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................... 47 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ............................................................. 57 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................... 60 
ANNEX VII. TARGETED CONSULTATION ............................................................................. 63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CESOP 

CLO 

eFCA 

EPPO 

Eurofisc 

Central  Electronic System of Payment information is 
an  electronic  system  that,  as  from  2024,  stores  and 
analyses  data  on  cross-border  payments  to  identify 
unreported  eCommerce  transactions.  All  information 
in  CESOP  is  available  to  Member  States’  anti-fraud 
experts via Eurofisc. 

Central Liaison Office means the office which has been 
designated  pursuant  to  Article  4(1)  of  the  Council 
(EU)  Nr  904/2010  with  principal 
Regulation 
responsibility for contacts with other Member States in 
the field of administrative cooperation. 

Central application for the exchange of standard forms 
is  an  electronic  system  for  the  preparation  and 
tax 
exchange  of  predefined 
administrations.  It  is  common  for  VAT  and  direct 
taxation. 

forms  between 

European Public Prosecutor’s Office 

Eurofisc is a network of anti-VAT fraud experts from 
all  Member  States  that,  based  on  the  Regulation 
904/2010 can cooperate closely to jointly analyse VAT 
data to detect fraud, issue fraud signals and coordinate 
follow-up actions. 

Europol 

European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement 
Cooperation 

Exchange of information 

Is  a  way  of  cooperation  between  tax  administrations 
through predefined electronic forms. These forms are 
designed  to  allow  requesting  authority  to  select  the 
type of information  requested from  a drop-down  list. 
This ensures standardisation of exchanges and reduce 
is 
delays 

in  understanding  which 

information 

 
 
IOSS 

OLAF 

OSS 

requested.  The  use  of  free  text  is  limited  to  some 
specific  fields  for  example:  the  name  of  the  taxable 
person. 

Import-One-Stop-Shop  for  distance  sales  of  goods 
imported  from  third  countries  and  third  territories  in 
consignments of an intrinsic value not exceeding EUR 
150.   

Anti-fraud office of the European Union.  

Special VAT schemes pursuant to Art. 358 to 369x of 
Directive  2006/112/EC,  so  called  one  stop  shop, 
containing a simplification offered to taxable persons 
for  distance  sales  of  goods  and  supply  of  electronic 
services. It allows to declare and pay VAT due for all 
EU in one MS. 

Presence  of  officials  in  the 
territory  of  another  Member 
administrative 
State 
enquiries, 

for 

Is a way of cooperation that allows a tax auditor to be 
present  during  the  control  of  a  taxable  person  in 
another Member State. 

SCAC 

Simultaneous controls 

committee 

responsible 

Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation is 
the 
the 
Commission  in  the  implementation  of  the  Council 
Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 on VAT administrative 
cooperation.  

assisting 

for 

It is a coordinated control of a multinational company 
in several Member States. Tax administrations control 
the  part  of  the  multinational  company  registered  for 
VAT in their country and share the results with other 
Member States to reconstruct the VAT treatment of all 
the  transactions  between  the  different  parts  of  the 
multinational company.  

 
 
The  Tax  Administration  EU 
Summit (TADEUS). 

TNA  (Transaction  Network 
Analysis) 

VAT 

VIES 

Forum for the heads and deputy heads of EU countries’ 
tax  administrations.  Together  with  the  Commission, 
they  meet 
improve  administrative 
to 
cooperation  within  the  EU  and  to  meet  common 
challenges. 

regularly 

Custom-built  software  financed  by  the  Commission 
and  used  by  Eurofisc  that  interconnects  Member 
States’ tax digital platforms, allowing quick and easy 
access,  exchange  and  joint  analysis  of  cross-border 
transaction  information.  TNA  enables  Eurofisc  to 
detect suspicious fraudulent networks earlier and more 
efficiently. It is also a platform that helps national tax 
officials  to  exchange  information  among  them  and 
other stakeholders involved in  the  fight against  cross 
border VAT fraud. 

Value  Added  Tax  as  provided  in  the  COUNCIL 
DIRECTIVE 2006/112/EC on the common system of 
value added tax 

VAT  Information  Exchange  System  –  is  the  main 
electronic system for exchange of information between 
Member States in the field of VAT. 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

This  evaluation  assesses  the  functioning  of  the  EU  framework  for  administrative 
cooperation and combating fraud in the field of VAT. It focuses on the EU law governing 
it,  namely  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  904/2010(1)  of  7  October  2010  on 
administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value-added tax (hereinafter 
‘Regulation (EU) 904/2010’, or “the Regulation”).  

VAT revenues in the European Union are over EUR 1 trillion per year (2). They account 
for  more  than  7%  of  gross  domestic  product  (GDP) (3),  representing  the  third  largest 
revenue source for EU Member States (4). Moreover, each Member State contributes to the 
EU budget with a uniform share of 0.3% of its VAT base. The EU own resource based on 
VAT is estimated at EUR 23 billion, 16.5% of the total EU budgetary revenue in 2024 (5). 
VAT is an EU harmonised tax that is also applied on intra-EU cross-border transactions. 
For  goods,  intra-EU  trade  amounted  to  EUR  4.135  billion  in  2023(6).  With  this  much 
revenue at stakes, it is important that Member States have the necessary means to secure 
that  revenue,  and  administrative  cooperation  is  a  major  asset  in  fighting  fraud  and 
identifying non-compliance. 

To  monitor  the  collection  VAT  in  the  EU,  the  Commission  publishes  yearly  a  report 
quantifying and analysing the VAT gap (7). According  to  the 2024 edition, in  2022, the 
VAT  compliance  gap,  the  difference  between  potential  VAT  revenue  under  full 
compliance and the actual amount collected by tax authorities, was estimated at EUR 89 
billion or 7.0% of the VAT total tax liability (VTTL), an increase of 0.4 percentage points 
compared  to  2021.  Between  2018  and  2022,  the  VAT  compliance  gap  decreased  from 
11.2% to 7.0%. As pointed out in that report, the value of the VAT gap includes national 

(1)  OJ L 268, 12.10.2010, p. 1 

(2)  VAT gap in the EU – Report 2024. Table 114 “VAT revenues (EUR million)”. EU 27 in 2021, 2022 

and 2023 are, respectively, EUR Million 1 077 907, 1 187 318 and 1 223 554).  

(3)  Annual Report on Taxation 2024. VAT revenues have further increased in 2022 to 7.5% of GDP (from 

7.4% of GDP in 2021). 

(4)  Annual Report on Taxation 2024. For example, in 2022, Social contributions (SC) 32%, Personal 

income tax (PIT) 23.9% and VAT 18.6%.  

(5)  DRAFT The Union’s annual budget for the 2024 financial year. GenRev.pdf (europa.eu) 

(6)   https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Intra-EU_trade_in_goods_-

_main_features 

(7)  https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/vat/fight-against-vat-fraud/vat-gap_en The VAT 

compliance gap estimates for each Member State the difference between the expected VAT revenue -
VTTL- and the amount actually collected. 

1 

 
 
 
and  cross-border  fraud,  evasion,  administrative  (statistical  or  reporting)  errors  (e.g.  in 
national accounts statistics) as well as financial insolvencies and payment problems.  

Figure 1: Evolution of the VAT compliance gap in the EU27 and EU28 (as % of the VTTL and in 
billions of EUR, 2017-2022) (8). 

While most of the components of the VAT gap are influenced primarily by Member States, 
cross-border VAT fraud is an EU issue. To narrow down the estimation of the VAT gap to 
this  kind  of  fraud,  a  study  on  the  Missing  trader  intra-Community  (MTIC)  fraud,  a 
prominent form of VAT non-compliance, was prepared in 2024. Although the study used 
a novel econometric approach which will need further testing and finetuning in the coming 
years  (9), it is the first of its kind to provide an indicative estimate of the scale of MTIC 
fraud  in  the  EU.  The  study  estimates  that  between  2010  and  2023,  the  VAT  revenue 
foregone from MTIC fraud at the EU level amounted to between EUR 12.5 and EUR 32.8 
billion  annually  (lower  and  upper  estimate,  respectively),  i.e.,  1.2-3.1%  of  actual  VAT 
revenue. This reinforces the need for the EU framework for administrative cooperation to 
combat cross-border VAT fraud effectively.  

The  purpose  of  the  present  evaluation  is  to  assess  the  functioning  of  the  current  EU 
framework for administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of VAT for the 
period  2018-2024.  This  includes  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  904/2010  and  its 
amendments,  the  most  relevant  being  Regulation  2018/1541  which  focussed  on  the 
enhancement  of  Eurofisc  (the  cross-border  VAT  anti-fraud  network)  and 
the 
implementation of the “e-commerce package” that introduced as from 1 July 2021 the VAT 
One Stop Shop (OSS) and Import One Stop Shop (IOSS). The previous evaluation included 
in  the  annex  6  of  the  “Impact  Assessment  Accompanying  the  Amended  proposal  for  a 

(8) VAT gap study of 2024. See https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/298d43e2-bd28-

11ef-91ed-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

(9) European Commission, CASE, VAT compliance gap due to MTIC fraud, Publications Office of the 

European Union, Luxembourg, 2024. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/1dcdad55-e0f2-11ee-8b2b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

2 

 
 
 
Council  Regulation  Amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  904/2010  as  regards  measures  to 
strengthen administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax”(10) covered the period 
up to 2017. This evaluation does not cover national measures taken by individual Member 
States to combat cross-border VAT fraud(11). 

Furthermore,  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  will  be  used  to  identify  potential  areas  of 
improvement in the area of VAT administrative cooperation. In particular, Annex VII on 
targeted consultation summarises the results of the consultation on potential weaknesses 
and  addresses  specific  room  for  improvements  in  three  fields:  (1)  new  sources  of 
information;  (2)  engagement  of  national  tax  administrations  and  (3)  multidisciplinary 
cooperation among stakeholders involved in fighting VAT fraud, namely tax and customs 
authorities, European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the EU Agency for Law Enforcement 
Cooperation (Europol) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO).  

The Regulation  is  evaluated against the five criteria set  out in  the Commission’s better 
regulation guidelines to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU 
value added of the legal framework for VAT cooperation. The evaluation is based on the 
results of different stakeholders’ consultations including Member State tax administrations 
and  business  representatives.  Other  sources  of  information  come  from  statistics  on  the 
number of exchanges, on the outcomes of Eurofisc, and the discussions in the context of 
the Standing Committee of Administrative Cooperation (the SCAC) and various Fiscalis 
groups dedicated to tax cooperation. The findings of a study (12) prepared by an external 
consultancy company has also been considered and discussed in a Fiscalis Workshop in 
November 2023. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The abolition of physical borders within the EU in 1992 raised the necessity to introduce 
a transitional(13) Value Added Tax (VAT) system for intra-EU trade aligned with the idea 

(10)  

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52017SC0428 

(11) Article 273 of the VAT Directive allows Member States to impose other obligations which they deem 
necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion, subject to the requirement of 
equal treatment as between domestic transactions and transactions carried out between Member States 
by taxable persons and provided that such obligations do not, in trade between Member States, give 
rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers. 

(12) Study supporting the evaluation of administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of 
value-added tax. This report provides the Commission with inputs to work in its evaluation of the 
Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and 
combating fraud in the field of value-added tax (VAT). The study was commissioned by DG TAXUD 
and was implemented in the period July 2022 to April 2023 by Ecorys. https://taxation-
customs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2025-01/Final-report-VAT-fraud-evaluation-clean.pdf 

(13) Article 402 of the VAT directive stated that “The arrangements provided for in this Directive for the 

taxation of trade between Member States are transitional and shall be replaced by definitive 
arrangements based in principle on the taxation in the Member State of origin of the supply of goods 

3 

 
 
 
of a genuine internal market without trade barriers. The transitional VAT system(14) for 
cross-border transactions between Member States, still in place today, was designed in a 
way that intra-EU supplies of goods(15) are VAT exempted for the supplier and VAT is 
self-accounted by the acquirer in  its Member State. These cross-border transactions are 
subject to harmonised reporting obligations listed in the VAT Directive (16) while Council 
Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  provides  the  legal  framework  for  the  exchange  of  these 
reports and the cooperation between Member States to verify their validity.  

The transitional VAT system for cross-border transactions is vulnerable to fraud: fraudsters 
set up chains of transactions where the acquirers in the Member State of destination charge 
VAT on the domestic supplies and disappear (Missing Trader fraud) without paying to the 
treasury the output VAT. To counter this type of fraud, dedicated anti-VAT fraud measures 
are laid down in Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010. These are considered as flanking 
measures for the inherent flaw of the transitional VAT system. The control of VAT being 
primarily the responsibility of the Member States, these EU measures are only enablers for 
national actions. 

In  addition,  the  VAT  administrative  cooperation  legal  framework  aims  at  enabling  the 
smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  In  fact,  when  performing  cross-border 
transactions,  traders  must  have  sufficient  information  about  their  counterparts  in  other 
Member  States  to  correctly  apply  the  VAT  exemption.  In  case  of  errors  or  abuse  in 
applying this exemption, tax administrations can apply fines or even refuse the exemption. 
This is an important financial risk and Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 foresees that 
traders are provided with the necessary information for the application of the exemption to 
mitigate this risk.  

The intervention logic of Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 was established starting 
from the Commission Proposal for the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010(17) as well as 
from its subsequent amendments, as shown here below. 

or services”. The Commission has consequently launched the proposal of replacing the transitional 
VAT arrangements system by a definitive regime on 4 October 2017 and 25 May 2018. 

Having concluded, upon examination of the report referred to in Article 404, that the conditions for 
transition to the definitive arrangements are met, the Council shall, acting in accordance with Article 
93 of the Treaty, adopt the provisions necessary for the entry into force and for the operation of the 
definitive arrangements. 

(14) The basic principle of a VAT system is that the tax is collected at each stage of the supply chain. Since 
Member States could not agree on taxing intra-EU supplies, a transitional VAT system was introduced 
with an exemption for such transactions breaking the tax collection chain. More information in the 
SWD (2014) 338, 29.10.2014, on the implementation of the definitive VAT regime for intra-EU trade. 

(15) Intra-EU supply of goods is a transaction in which goods are dispatched or transported by (or on behalf 

of) the supplier or the customer from one EU country to a destination in another EU country. 

(16) Taxable persons supplying to another taxable persons located in another Member States must report 
monthly or quarterly the total amounts of these supplies for the given period in a recapitulative 
statement.  

(17) The recast of the VAT administrative cooperation legal framework in 2009 (proposal 

COM/2009/0427) was not subject to a formal impact assessment. Subsequent proposals, in particular 
proposal COM/2017/0706 final - 2017/0248 (CNS) had a more complete impact assessment.  

4 

 
 
The  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  aims  to  achieve  the  following  general 
objectives: 

•  provide  necessary  means  for  cooperation  between  tax  authorities  in  the  field  of 

VAT;  

•  provide necessary means to fight cross-border VAT fraud; 

•  provide  necessary  means  for  the  control  of  VAT  payment  on  cross-border 

transactions; 

• 

facilitate the fulfilment of taxpayers’ VAT obligations on cross-border transactions. 

Stemming from these general objectives, there are three specific objectives:  

• 

• 

• 

(SO1) to improve the use of the existing administrative cooperation instruments in 
the field of fighting VAT-related fraud and to improve the exchange of information 
between Member States;  

(SO2)  to  contribute  to  fighting  VAT  fraud  through  rapid  and  more  effective 
identification and dismantling of fraudulent networks related to VAT;  

(SO3) to improve the multidisciplinary approach to fighting and preventing VAT-
related  fraud  through  swifter  and  more  coordinated  reaction  capacity  between 
different authorities (tax administrations, customs and law enforcement bodies). 

5 

 
Figure 2: Intervention logic for Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 

6 

 
 
2.2 Points of comparison 

Before  2010,  based  on  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1798/2003(18),  administrative 
cooperation  between  Member  States  was  limited  to  the  exchange  of  information  with 
rudimentary interactions between tax administrations. Tax administrations had no means 
to quickly verify that the information exchanged was correct and no way to rapidly inform 
other  EU  countries  of  potential  fraud.  In  2010,  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010 
repealed Regulation (EC) Nr 1798/2023, and introduced the first big switch in paradigm 
with  Eurofisc(19):  from  the  exchange  of  information  toward  automatic  sharing  of 
information via the Eurofisc network with an EU central risk analysis. The main purpose 
of this intervention was to address the need, expressed by the Council in 2007(20), for a 
common approach to combat tax fraud, and in particular VAT fraud, to supplement and 
support national efforts.  

At  that  time,  cross-border  VAT  fraud  (mainly  carousel  fraud)  was  well  known  to  tax 
administrations, and they could not cope with it in isolation. An informal network of anti-
fraud experts already existed before 2009(21) but without a clear legal base. Moreover, 2010 
was the year when monthly recapitulative statements became the rule rather than quarterly 
ones (22) to address VAT fraud. With quarterly reporting, the time that elapsed between a 
transaction and the  corresponding exchange  of information  under the VAT information 
exchange system (VIES) was an obstacle to the effective use of that information to tackle 
fraud. Without these interventions, Member States would not be equipped to tackle cross-
border VAT fraud. This was reinforced by the fact that the definitive VAT system, that 
was  meant  to  address  the  main  weakness  of  the  transitional  VAT  system,  was  still  not 
approved  in  2010.  Therefore,  the  means  for  VAT  administrative  cooperation  had  to  be 
continuously  improved  as  they  compensate  for  the  weakness  of  the  transitional  VAT 
system that remains in force. 

Administrative cooperation instruments in the field of VAT have been strengthened since 
then:  Eurofisc  on  its  initiative  can  now  cooperate  and  exchange  information  with  the 
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and Europol; new IT tools for central risk analysis 
have been introduced (such as the Transaction Network Analysis and Central Electronic 
System);  tax  authorities  can  exchange  information  with  customs  authorities  on 
importations subject to VAT and customs fraud and organise joint audits with the active 

(18) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 1. 

(19) A network of Member States anti-fraud officials fighting against VAT fraud 

(20) https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12886-2009-INIT/en/pdf  

(21) Rapport d'activité annuel AED 2009  

(22) Council Directive 2008//117/EC of 16 December 2008 which amend Council Directive 2006/112/EC 

7 

 
 
participation of foreign tax officials in administrative enquiries(23) (more details in Section 
4.2 on the effectiveness of cross-border audits). 

In  2017,  cross-border  VAT  fraud  was  estimated  at  around  EUR  137.5  billion  (24). 
Therefore, on 15 July 2020, the Commission adopted the Action Plan for fair and simple 
taxation supporting  the  recovery  (25) (hereinafter ‘Action Plan’) setting  out initiatives to 
make taxation fairer, simpler and more adapted to modern technologies. In this context, 
the Commission announced its intention to amend Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 
in order to streamline the verification procedure and improve controls as well as to improve 
the capabilities of Member States’ tax authorities to enforce existing tax rules in the field 
of VAT. 

The VIES databases, requests for information and multilateral controls do not constitute 
the  best  instruments  to  combat  VAT  fraud,  that  needs  to  be  quickly  detected.  These 
communication channels do not allow Member States to get all necessary information to 
be able to prevent or put an end to VAT fraud. This is precisely why Eurofisc, designed as 
a  multilateral  early  warning  mechanism  to  improve  Member  States’  administrative 
capacity in combating organised cross-border VAT fraud and especially MTIC/carousel 
fraud, was set up in 2010 under Regulation (EU) 904/2010. Thanks to Eurofisc and by way 
of  risk  analysis  tools,  Member  States  can  exchange  multilaterally  early  warnings  on 
businesses  suspected  to  be  involved  in  VAT  fraud.  Eurofisc  is  a  Member  State-driven 
network, composed of national risk analysts working in different Working Fields per fraud 
risk area. 

(23) Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1541 of 2 October 2018 amending Regulations (EU) No 904/2010 and 
(EU) No 2017/2454 as regards measures to strengthen administrative cooperation in the field of value 
added tax, OJ L 259, 16.10.2018, p. 1–11. 

(24) VAT Gap study of 2024 - European Commission https://taxation-

customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/vat/fight-against-vat-fraud/vat-gap_en 

(25) Action Plan for fair and simple taxation supporting the recovery 

8 

 
 
3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 applies from 1 January 2012, except for Croatia that 
joined the European Union on 1 July 2013. During the period covered by the evaluation 
(2018-2023) the situation evolved significantly on two fronts: the value of cross-border 
trade  has  increased  significantly  and  new  rules  for  cross-border  transactions  were 
introduced with VAT Directive amendments. 

Figure 3: Intra-EU trade of goods, January 2002 – December 2023(26) (EUR billions, seasonally 
adjusted data) 

The value of trade in goods between Member States continued to increase during the period 
covered by the evaluation from EUR 3 018 billion in 2018 to EUR 4 134 billion in 2023. 
This represents a 37% increase. The value of trade in cross-border services amounted to 
EUR 507 billion in 2023(27).  

During  the  same  period,  the  number  of  operators  that  supplied  or  purchased  goods  or 
services to or from another Member State remained stable at around 2.5 million purchasing 
and 6.5 million supplying. This suggest that the increase in the value of cross-border trade 
is due to the increase of turnover of existing economic operators rather than the appearance 
of new ones.  

(26) Eurostat data on intra-EU trade https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Intra-

EU_trade_in_goods_-_main_features  

(27) This statistic about cross-border services reported in VIES was introduced solely in 2023 and no 

figures are available for previous years. 

9 

 
 
 
Figure 4: Number of taxable persons, in millions, supplying or purchasing goods and services from 
another Member States (28). 

Nr of VAT numbers performing intra-Community:

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

8

6

4

2

0

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Supplies

Acquisitions

In  parallel,  the  rules  for  cross-border  transactions  foreseen  in  the  VAT  Directive  have 
evolved to abolish further trade barriers and ensure a level playing field across the internal 
market(29). This created the need for additional exchange of information and cooperation 
between tax administrations. 

As a consequence, Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 was amended several times to 
provide  the  Member  States  authorities  with  a  proper  set  of  tools  for  enhanced 
administrative cooperation and to support the fight against VAT fraud: 

•  COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2017/2454 of 5 December 2017 accompanied the 
change  of  the  VAT  Directive  that  extended  the  scope  of  the  special  schemes  to 
distance sales of goods and all services - the so-called eCommerce package. This 
amendment entered into force on 1 July 2021. 

•  COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EU)  2018/1541  of  2  October  2018  aimed  at 
preventing widespread forms of cross-border VAT fraud. The key features were 
the following: 

o  Mandatory audits and joint audits; 
o  Strengthening Eurofisc by allowing it to jointly process data and perform 
risk analysis on data from  all EU  Member States. It  was also  allowed to 
coordinate follow-up audit and cooperate with OLAF and Europol in the 
disclosure of serious VAT fraud cases; 

(28) SCAC-EG No 96, TAXUD.C.4(2019) 6958242, Brussels, 11 October 2019; SCAC-EG No 114, 

TAXUD.C.4(2020)4855812, Brussels, 18 September 2020; SCAC-EG No 135, 
TAXUD.C.4(2021)6246486, Brussels, 8 September 2021; SCAC-EG No 150, 
TAXUD.C.4(2022)8269795, Brussels, 4 November 2022; SCAC-EG No 165, 
TAXUD.C.4(2023)8668333 FINAL, Brussels, 27 November 2023. 

TAXUD.C.4(2024)6999042, Brussels, 21 November   2024; SCAC-EG No 181 

(29) In particular, the eCommerce package that entered into force in July 2021 changed the VAT rules for 
business-to-consumer transactions in the EU by applying the principle of taxation at destination. The 
new eCommerce framework also simplified VAT compliance in relation to cross-border e-commerce 
supplies and introduces greater transparency for EU shoppers when it comes to pricing and consumer 
choice. It also contributed to a fairer and simpler system of taxation in the EU, and to the 
modernisation of VAT in line with the realities of the e-commerce market. 

10 

 
 
 
 
o  Tackling  fraud  involving  the  dual  VAT  regime  applicable  to  cars  by 

improving access to vehicle registration data; 

o  Fighting  fraud  involving  VAT  exempt  importations  under  customs 

procedures 42 and 63. 

•  COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EU)  2018/1909  of  4  December  2018  is  part  of  the 
VAT “2020 Quick Fixes” that rendered, amongst others, the verification of VAT 
number of the customer in another Member States mandatory for intra-EU supplies.  
•  COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EU)  2020/283  of  18  February  2020  provides  the 
detailed  rules  for  the  Central  Electronic  System  of  Payment  information  that 
entered  into  force  on  1  January  2024.  CESOP  receives  data  on  cross-border 
payments and analyse them to detect VAT fraud in eCommerce. CESOP is used by 
Eurofisc.  

Finally, the Commission published at the end of 2024 the first estimation of the MTIC gap. 
While the MTIC fraud seems to have increased in terms of value, it has decreased in terms 
of  percentage  of  total  VAT  revenues.  As  outlined  above,  the  methodology  for  this 
estimation must be further tested and improved.  

Figure 5: Estimated forgone revenue from MTIC fraud in the EU (% of VAT revenue, 2010–2023) 
(30) 

(30) VAT compliance gap due to Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud 

(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/dd40080c-bd27-11ef-91ed-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en ) 

11 

 
 
 
4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1 Preliminary remarks 

This section assesses whether and to what extent Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 
has  been  successful  in  achieving  or  progressing  towards  its  objectives.  There  are  two 
limitations to consider:  

•  Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 provides Member States with the tools to 
cooperate to fight against VAT fraud. However, as also indicated in section 1 of 
this  document,  administrative  cooperation  is  only  one  of  several  measures  that 
Member States put in place to fight VAT fraud and collect VAT. VAT collection 
is the result of a number of national measures (such as domestic compliance and 
anti-fraud policies, efficiency and effectiveness of the tax administrations etc.(31)) 
and neither Member States nor the Commission are able to quantify the amount of 
VAT  assessed  or  collected  solely  based  on  VAT  administrative  cooperation. 
Therefore, it is not possible to draw a direct link between the use of administrative 
cooperation tools and the VAT collected through administrative cooperation. 
•  The VAT gap(32) trend in  the EU and Member States cannot be used either – as 
such – as an indicator for the evaluation  of the VAT administrative cooperation 
framework. The VAT gap can be caused by a variety of factors other than fraud, 
such as non-compliance, errors, and mistakes. Therefore, a rise of VAT revenues 
could be related not only to the effectiveness of the  fight against VAT fraud (at 
national  and  EU  level),  but  to  other  factors  as  well,  such  as  compliance, 
enforcement, collection procedures, the level of consumption in the economy etc. 

•  The evaluation followed the Better Regulation Guidelines and addressed the five 
evaluation  criteria:  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  relevance,  EU  added 
value. The evaluation matrix is provided in Annex III. 

4.2 To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 

To assess the effectiveness of the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 it must be first 
stated that all the means of cooperation foreseen in the legal base are at a disposal of the 
Member States meaning they were implemented through a dedicated electronic system, or 
a procedure was agreed for their use. Member States provide to the Commission annual 
statistics on the use of these means of cooperation, these statistics are used to substantiate 
the feedback from stakeholders. The cooperation tools laid down in Council Regulation 
(EU) Nr 904/2010 are the following, grouped into categories listed below. 

(31) The Commission periodically adopts a report on VAT collection measures in the Member States, 
based on Article 12 of the Own Resources Regulation Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) 
No 1553/89 of 29 May 1989 on the definitive uniform arrangements for the collection of own 
resources accruing from value added tax 

(32) The difference between the VAT collected by a government and what should be collected 

12 

 
 
1.  Exchange of information through Standard Forms: 

o  Exchange of information on request – is the way to request additional VAT 
information from another Member States on a cross-border transaction or on a 
taxable person. These exchanges are done through eFCA (central application 
for electronic forms). 

o  Request  for  a  mandatory  enquiry  –  can  be  launched  when  at  least  two 
Member States  consider  that  an  administrative  enquiry  is  necessary  in  the 
Member State of establishment of the supplier. It is a form of a cross-border 
audit  implemented  through  a  procedure  and  a  simple  standard  form  that 
Member States exchange through e-mail. 

o  Automatic exchange of information, when Member States send each other 
periodically and automatically information on non-established taxable persons 
and  on  means  of  transport  –  is  implemented  through  a  dedicated  electronic 
system.  

o  Spontaneous exchange of information – is a way of sending information that 
could  be  of  relevance  for  other  Member  States.  These  exchanges  are  done 
through eFCA (central application for electronic forms). 

o  Exchange of information in the context of the OSS – is a way for requesting 
additional  information  in  the  context  of  the  One  Stop  Shop  that  are  not 
available in the OSS system. These exchanges are done through eFCA (central 
application for electronic forms). 

o  Request for feedback on the quality and usefulness of the information provide 
to  another Member State. These exchanges  are done through eFCA (central 
application for electronic forms). 

o  Request  for  administrative  notification  –  is  a  way  to  request  that  an 
addressee is notified about a procedure open in another Member State. These 
exchanges are done through a standard form exchanged by mail. 

2.  Eurofisc network: 

o  Eurofisc – is a network of anti-VAT fraud experts allowed to cooperate closely 

to analyse VAT data to detect fraud.  

3.  Cross-border audits: 

o  Presence  in  administrative  offices,  presence  during  administrative 
enquiries, administrative enquiries carried out jointly - are forms of cross-
border  audits.  They  are  implemented  through  a  special  procedure  and 
exchanges through mail.  

o  Simultaneous controls – is a form of cross-border audit where tax authorities 
from different Member States agree to control simultaneously within their tax 
jurisdiction  the  correct  application  of  VAT  in  a  multinational  company  or 
related companies. Once the national controls are finished, tax authorities share 
their findings to have a comprehensive view on all the transactions performed 
by that company in the EU. 

4.  Automated access to information: 

o  Special schemes (One Stop Shop and Import One Stop Shop) – those are the 
electronic systems to exchange OSS and IOSS reports and registration data.  

13 

 
o  VIES and recapitulative statements – it is the electronic system to exchange 

information on intra-Community supplies of goods and services.  

o  VAT cross-border refund – is a way to exchange invoices eligible for a VAT 

refund in another Member State. 

5.  Providing information to taxable persons: 

o  VIES ON THE WEB and validation of VAT number – it is a web service 
connected to VIES to obtain the confirmation of the validity of a VAT number 
in another Member State. 

6.  Cooperation with other authorities: 

o  Cooperation with national customs authorities – is a way to allow customs 
authorities access to VAT data that they need to control the correct application 
of VAT on specific importations: VAT exempt  importations and  imports of 
small consignments under the IOSS scheme. 

o  Cooperation with OLAF is a way to send the European Anti-Fraud Office 

information about VAT fraud. 

o  Europol  can  be  requested  by  Eurofisc  to  provide  them  with  information  on 

criminals involved in VAT fraud. 

These means of cooperation combined provide a comprehensive and flexible toolbox, that 
allows Member States to effectively monitor the reporting of cross-border transactions and 
to  react  quickly  to  the  risk  of  VAT  fraud  in  intra-EU  trade.  Electronic  systems  for 
automated access to information exists to give Member States access to crucial VAT data 
whenever required. Other tools complement this by allowing for the request of additional 
information, coordinating national audits or performing joint risk analysis. Member States 
can  use  different  tools  at  different  points  of  the  investigation  process.  For  instance, 
Eurofisc is  used for  early warning and early detection, followed by the  use of  standard 
forms, which might ultimately result in a cross-border audit. This way they address any 
need for cooperation in the field of VAT that Member States may have.  

Effectiveness of Exchange of information through Standard Forms 

One  of  the  fundamental  ways  of  cooperation  in  the  field  of  VAT  is  the  exchange  of 
standard forms. These standard forms are agreed with experts from tax authorities to ensure 
that they contain all types of information they need in their daily work of controlling cross-
border transactions. These standard forms are then added to the electronic system called 
central  application  for  electronic  forms  (eFCA).  The  Central  Liaison  Office  of  each 
Member State, that is overseeing all the VAT exchanges with other countries, can access 
eFCA, complete the necessary form and send it to  another country.  As these forms  are 
translated in all languages and contain minimum free text, they are immediately understood 
by the receiving country and can be replied to without the need for additional steps. 

The most widely used standard form is the one used for exchange of information on request 
for which the statistics are shown below. It allows to request a wide range of information 
for various scenarios (confirm reporting of cross-border transactions, confirm suspicion of 
fraud, etc.). Other standard forms exist for example for the spontaneous exchanges or for 

14 

 
requesting feedback on the quality of information provided, but they have a very narrow 
scope that is not illustrative of the effectiveness of this kind of cooperation. 

Table 1: Number of exchanges of information on request sent per year (33). 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

2023 

39 191 

34 371 

31 221 

30 223 

29 498 

30 151 

The requests for information constitute a very effective way of  cooperation  and is  well 
established with the users in the Member States. Every year around 30 thousand of such 
forms are exchanged between Member States. Since experts participate in the design of 
these  forms,  they  cover  all  types  of  information  they  could  need  that  are  not  already 
accessible through other means of cooperation (especially VIES, OSS or Eurofisc). In this 
sense, the exchange of information on request is complementing all other exchanges. 

However,  an  important  aspect  hinders  its  effectiveness:  the  timeliness  of  the  replies. 
Around 30% of the time the information is received after 30 days. 

Figure 6: % of late replies – trending over the last years (34). 

These  late  replies  are  due  to  the  fact  that  the  information  requested  must  be  collected 
manually from another national electronic system or requested from a taxable person. This 
can take time especially if the taxable person does not cooperate. Even if Member States 
are  getting  better  at  reducing  the  delays,  the  number  of  late  replies  remains  high.  This 

(33) Statistical information provided by the Member States on the basis of Article 49(3) of Council 

Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 and Article 11 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 
79/2012 and its Annex IV: 

SCAC-EG No 96, TAXUD.C.4(2019) 6958242, Brussels, 11 October 2019; SCAC-EG No 114, 
TAXUD.C.4(2020)4855812, Brussels, 18 September 2020; SCAC-EG No 135, 
TAXUD.C.4(2021)6246486, Brussels, 8 September 2021; SCAC-EG No 150, 
TAXUD.C.4(2022)8269795, Brussels, 4 November 2022; SCAC-EG No 165, 
TAXUD.C.4(2023)8668333 FINAL, Brussels, 27 November 2023. 

TAXUD.C.4(2024)6999042,   Brussels, 21 November 2024; SCAC-EG No 181 final 

(34) SCAC-EG No 96, TAXUD.C.4(2019) 6958242, Brussels, 11 October 2019; SCAC-EG No 114, 

TAXUD.C.4(2020)4855812, Brussels, 18 September 2020; SCAC-EG No 135, 
TAXUD.C.4(2021)6246486, Brussels, 8 September 2021; SCAC-EG No 150, 
TAXUD.C.4(2022)8269795, Brussels, 4 November 2022; SCAC-EG No 165, 
TAXUD.C.4(2023)8668333 FINAL, Brussels, 27 November 2023. 

15 

 
 
 
hinders  the  effectiveness  of  this  way  of  cooperation  as  the  information  is  received  late 
reducing the capacity of the requesting country to utilise that information. However, tax 
experts appreciate this way of cooperation as it allows to request information that are not 
accessible with other means. 

Eurofisc effectiveness 

Another  key  means  of  cooperation  in  the  field  of  VAT  is  the  Eurofisc  network.  This 
network of anti-VAT fraud experts was created to counter VAT fraud by allowing them to 
cooperate very closely and in a flexible way. Members of the network can directly inform 
each other about suspected fraud and continue exchanging until the fraud is confirmed or 
refuted.  As  the  VAT  fraud  remains  high  as  shown  in  the  VAT  Gap  study,  there  is  a 
particular  interest  in  monitoring  the  effectiveness  of  Eurofisc.  To  illustrate  the 
effectiveness of the Eurofisc network, below are the key statistics about its impact on VAT 
fraud. 

Table 2: Amounts of VAT fraudulent transactions detected by Eurofisc (35) 

Amount of fraudulent or suspicious 
transactions uncovered (in millions 
EUR) related to Missing Traders in 
Intra-Community transactions (WF1) 

Amount of fraudulent or suspicious 
transactions uncovered (in millions 
EUR) related to vehicles (WF2) 

2020 

2021 

2022 

2023 

3,300 

8,100 

10,874 

12,735 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

1,899 

This  form  of  cooperation is  well appreciated by  Member States  as  substantiated by the 
replies  received  to  the  targeted  consultation  found  in  Annex  VII.  It  appears  clear  that 
Eurofisc  is  the  most  effective  tool  at  disposal  of  national  authorities  under  Council 
Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010. Overall, Eurofisc(36) is seen as an effective early warning 

(35) The statistics reported by the Eurofisc network and published on the Commission website 

https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/vat/vat-and-administrative-cooperation/eurofisc_en 

(36) Eurofisc was created in 2010 by the Regulation 904/2010 as a network without legal personality 

composed of experts from national tax administrations of all the Member States, i.e., Eurofisc Liaison 
Officials (ELOs). Eurofisc promotes and facilitates multilateral cooperation through the swift 
exchange of targeted information with the aim of identifying VAT fraud networks at an early stage. At 
operational level, this multilateral early warning mechanism is organised in working fields (WFs) that 
deal with specific types of fraud in which ELOs participate on a voluntary basis. Once potential 
fraudsters are identified, national tax administrations launch control actions against them, including the 
invalidation of the VAT number to difficult the continuity of the fraudulent activities, and, in the most 
serious cases reporting to the judiciary and public prosecution authorities. There are currently three 
WFs: 

•  WF1 deals with the most common VAT fraud on cross-border transactions: Missing Trader in 
Intra-Community transactions (MTIC or carousel). This type of fraud takes advantage of the 
transitional  VAT  system  for  cross-border  transactions:  exemption  for  supplies  to  another 
Member States. 

16 

 
  
 
 
tool  that  improves  the  collection  of  VAT  on  intra-EU  transactions  within  the  different 
working fields. It is the only cooperation tool where Member States must present annual 
reports(37) in terms of combating VAT fraud, beside the traditional annual statistics on the 
number of exchanges. 

Particularly,  Working  Field  (WF1)  on  missing  trader  intra-community  (MTIC)  fraud  is 
considered highly effective by 21 MS (see figure 6 below).  

As regards WF 5, which concerns eCommerce, Member States authorities have a positive 
view – 90% of them “strongly agree” or “agree” that the working field is an effective early 
warning tool that improves the collection of VAT on intra-EU transactions. However, the 
European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  in  its  Special  Report  on  e-commerce  (38)  (2019) 
concluded that the signals exchanged through Eurofisc WF 5 are either not well targeted, 
not useful, or not successful. The ECA report covered the period of beginning of 2015 until 
the end of 2018. 2018 was the first year of functioning of WF5 where experts were still 
learning how to cooperate in this new working field. In 2018, some Member States shared 
a list of 480 fraud signals with their counterparts and there was only one feedback provided. 
The ECA’s report does not analyse the reasons why there was not more feedback. As a 
comparison,  in  2021,  Working  Field  5  provided  131  responses  to  the  22  early 
warnings/requests for information and 79% of the feedback was provided within 2 months 
which shows that its functioning improved over time.  

Furthermore, it should be noted that eCommerce VAT fraud is a relatively new type of 
fraud and tax administrations are not always well equipped to tackle it. To address this 
weakness as from 1 January 2024 Member States collect and analyse data on cross-border 
payments via the Central Electronic System of Payment information (CESOP). This new 
information gives tax administrations and Eurofisc much needed way for identifying fraud 
in  eCommerce  transactions.  The  first  results  of  this  new  approach  should  be  visible  in 
2025. 

•  WF2 deals with fraud related sales of vehicles between Member States. This type of goods is 

of very high value creating a high incentive for fraud. 

•  WF5  deals  with  cross-border  supplies  to  end  consumers  (e-commerce).  Supplies  to  end 
consumers are more difficult for tax administrations to control as there is no reporting by the 
customer  of  the  purchase  (contrary  for  business-to-business  transactions).  However,  tax 
administrations started to collect data on payment to compensate for that information gap and 
better control this kind of transactions. 

(37) Eurofisc annual reports are prepared and presented by Eurofisc to the Standing Committee on 

Administrative Cooperation. They are not publicly available as it was the wish of Member States given 
their sensitive nature. However, the key information from these reports is published annually by the 
Commission following Eurofisc consent. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/vat/vat-and-
administrative-cooperation/eurofisc_en  

(38) E-commerce: many of the challenges of collecting VAT and customs duties remain to be resolved 

(europa.eu) paragraph 68. 

17 

 
 
Figure 7: Q30 on the effectiveness of Eurofisc (n=21) 

Working Field 5 e-commerce

Working Field 4 - Observatory

Working Field 3 - Customs Procedure No 42 (CP42)

Working Field 2 - Boats and planes

5

Working Field 2 - Cars

Working Field 1 - Missing Trader Intra-Community…

11

11

9

9

6

17

8

10

7

5

10

2

2

2

3

5

4

Eurofisc (in general)

13

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

We do not participate in this Working Field

Another key aspect of Eurofisc is the Transaction Network Analysis (TNA) (39). The survey 
of Member States authorities confirmed that it is an effective electronic tool to enhance the 
cooperation  between  authorities.  The  results  show  that  TNA  had  a  great  impact  on  the 
improvement of Eurofisc capacity to detect VAT fraud. This is confirmed by the annual 
reporting  of  Eurofisc  where  the  amounts  of  detected  VAT  fraud  have  significantly 
improved  since  TNA  was  introduced.  Before  TNA,  Working  Field  1  was  detecting 
suspicious transactions for an amount of EUR 4.7 billion in 2017 and EUR 1.5 billion in 
2018. In 2023, with TNA use the amount was EUR 14.6 billion. 

Beside these statistics, the feedback from Member States shows that the introduction of 
automation with TNA in Eurofisc is seen as very positive. It increased the cooperation in 
the network by automating data collection that was done manually before. Experts believe 
that the capacity of Eurofisc to perform its tasks has increased.  

Figure 8: Q30 on the effectiveness of TNA to improve Eurofisc capacity (n=23) 

TNA helped boost cooperation and information
exchange between national tax officials

The TNA access to data on cross-border supplies
exchanged through VIES works well.

I see the added value of participating in exchange of
information through TNA.

The Transaction Network Analysis (TNA) tool helped
to improve Eurofisc capacity.

13

10

16

17

8

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

6

5

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

(39) Transaction Network Analysis is an electronic system developed by the Commission for Eurofisc to 

automate the collection of data from different databases and automated analysis based on Eurofisc 
input to identify suspicious VAT transactions. 

18 

 
 
 
 
This is a very positive evolution in effectiveness of Eurofisc as its early detection of VAT 
fraud  strongly  depends  on  the  quality  and  quantity  of  information  available.  With 
automated processes, Eurofisc can focus on exploitation of relevant information sources 
and joint analysis at EU level.  

However,  the  targeted  consultation  launched  in  the  summer  of  2023  (see  Annex  V.8) 
identified room for improvement in new sources of information to: 

•  provide Eurofisc with a more comprehensive view of cross border VAT tax fraud, 

and; 

•  properly detect the links between the operators that appear to be independent but 

are actually parts of fraudulent networks.  

Most of the respondent Member States are of the opinion that Eurofisc would increase its 
effectiveness if TNA and CESOP were complemented with information on the managers 
and  owners  of  the  fraudulent  companies,  on  the  ownership  and  rights  to  their  bank 
accounts, and on information held by anti-money laundering authorities. This information 
would also improve Eurofisc effectiveness in following the money illegally obtained by 
the real perpetrators of the fraud. 

Effectiveness of cross-border audits 

Beside exchanging information, Member States can also cooperate within the framework 
of cross-border controls. Such way of cooperation is particularly suitable for multinational 
companies when auditors from different countries work together to collect information, 
invoices, contracts, etc. to confirm that VAT is correctly applied on transactions between 
branches  of  the  same  company  in  different  countries.  In  such  cases  mere  exchange  of 
information is not sufficient. With cross-border controls tax auditors can exchange views 
and discuss cases as if they were working within the same tax authority.  

These cross-border controls take different ways foreseen in the legislation: 

•  Simultaneous controls occurs when two or more Member States decide to control 
a  multinational  company  in  a  coordinated  way.  The  officials  remain  in  their 
Member  States,  but  exchange  closely  the  findings  of  their  national  control  with 
other Member States participating in the simultaneous control. 

•  Presence of officials in administrative offices and participation in administrative 
enquiries  occurs  when  foreign  auditors  are  present  during  an  audit  of  a  taxable 
person  in  another  Member  State.  This  allows  to  gain  time  and  avoid  organising 
multiple meetings with the taxable persons as the main auditor is present during the 
audit. 

•  Joint audit is a way of conducting cross-border audits designed at OECD(40) level 
to provide taxable persons with more tax certainty. As joint audit ends with a single 

(40) Joint Audit 2019 – Enhancing Tax Co-operation and Improving Tax Certainty 

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/joint-audit-2019-enhancing-tax-co-operation-and-improving-
tax-certainty_17bfa30d-en.html 

19 

 
 
report  for  all  the  countries  involved  there  is  no  possibility  of  double  taxation 
contrary to other means where Member States issue their own assessment. 

To illustrate the effectiveness of these controls, below are few statistics about their use.  

Table 3: Number of  presences  of  officials in administrative offices  and participation  in 
administrative enquiries(41).  

2018 

124 

2019 

147 

2020 

2021 

2022 

2023 

32 

39 

44 

20 

Table 4: Number of simultaneous controls which the Member State / Northern Ireland have 
initiated over the last years (42).  

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

2022 

2023 

34 

46 

7 

9 

9 

9 

The  impact  of  the  COVID  pandemic  is  clearly  visible  as  from  2020  most  control 
procedures  were suspended to  respect  lockdown restrictions. Member States  struggle to 
regain the level of cooperation this field as before the Covid Pandemic. There are ongoing 
discussions in different fora to address this question, but no clear explanation was provided 
by Member States. 

Nevertheless, these controls generate millions of euros each year even if they are lengthy 
with a simultaneous control lasting between 2 and 3 years. In 2022, simultaneous controls 
led to  EUR  6 million of VAT assessment across the EU(43). However, these figures  are 
difficult to compare year-to-year as each of these audits is specific and no clear trends can 
be identified. 

Effectiveness of automated access to information 

The automated access to information encompasses a series of electronic systems that allow 
tax officials to access specific information from another Member State without the need to 
interact with a tax officials from that Member State. The system covered in this category 
are: 

-  VAT  Information  Exchange  System  –  allows  to  access  information  on  intra-
Community supplies of goods and services and to VAT registration information of 
taxable persons. 

-  One-Stop-Shop allows to access information on distance sales of goods and supply 

of electronic services as well as the registration data of OSS operators. 

(41) Annual statistics provided by Member States as listed in footnote nr 33 

(42) Ibid. 

(43) Ibid. 

20 

 
 
- 

Import-One-Stop-Shop allows to access information on for distance sales of goods 
imported from third countries and third territories in consignments of an intrinsic 
value  of  not  exceeding  EUR  150  as  well  as  to  the  registration  data  of  IOSS 
operators. 

-  VAT refund system allows to share invoices submitted for refund procedure. 

The  VAT  refund  system  allows  taxpayers  established  in  one  Member  State  to  submit 
electronic refund requests for input VAT incurred in another Member State,  via the tax 
administration of their own Member State. The VAT refund system allows Member States 
tax authorities to exchange information necessary to execute or reject the refund claim. 
Without the scheme for VAT refunds, taxpayers would have to individually submit their 
VAT claims to every single Member State where they incur input VAT.  

The number and the value of VAT refunds across the European Union is relatively stable.  

Figure 7: Number of VAT refunds claims received and rejected across the EU (44). 

(44) Annex I: Summary overview – VAT Refund statistics (Council Directive 2008/9/EC) – Ref. Ares 
(2019)3854257 - 17/06/2019; Ref. Ares (2020)4589380 – 03/09/2020; Ref. Ares (2021)4395820 – 
06/07/2021; Ref. Ares (2022)4892759 – 05/07/2022; Ref. Ares (2023)4542667 – 30/06/2023. 

21 

 
 
 
Figure 9: Value of VAT refunds claims received and rejected across the EU (45) (EUR millions). 

The One Stop Shop for the special schemes follows the same principle: VAT registration, 
declaration, and payments in one single Member State for all the supplies of services and 
goods to final consumers in the EU. The Member States of Identification and the Member 
States of Consumption exchange information on identification, declarations and payments, 
through the OSS portal. Without the One Stop Shop, taxpayers should fulfil their VAT 
obligations in every single Member State of consumption.  

Figure 10: VAT revenue declared during January - December 2023 in OSS/IOSS(46) 

(45) Annex I: Summary overview - VAT Refund statistics (Council Directive 2008/9/EC) - Ref. Ares 

(2019)3854257 - 17/06/2019; Ref. Ares (2020)4589380 – 03/09/2020; Ref. Ares (2021)4395820 – 
06/07/2021; Ref. Ares (2022)4892759 – 05/07/2022; Ref. Ares (2023)4542667 – 30/06/2023. 

(46) Annual statistics provided by Member States as listed in footnote nr 33 

22 

 
 
 
 
Figure 11: VAT declared in different OSS schemes (47) 

Figure 12: Total VAT declared in the OSS schemes in 2023(48) 

The 2023 figures show that the trend in increasing VAT figures continues. In 2023, the 
total amount of VAT declared in the 3 schemes increased by a further EUR 6.8 billion 
from  EUR  19.5  billion  to  EUR  26.3  billion,  which  represents  approximately  a  35% 
increase  in  the  total  value  of  VAT  declared  across  all  the  three  schemes  in  2023  when 
compared with the 2022 figures. 

The  year-on-year  increase  in  the  total  amount  of  VAT  declared  in  the  OSS  schemes  is 
testament to the ongoing success of these new schemes. It also shows cases of the good 
collaboration that must exist between Member States in order to have a system that is fit 
for  purposes.  Taking  into  account  a  future  extension  of  these  schemes  within  the 
framework of the VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) package, a revamp of this collaboration 
is currently undertaken in order to further streamline and enhance the processes. 

Effectiveness of providing information to taxable persons 

Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 also foresees the obligation to provide VAT number 
verification to taxable persons. Taxable persons are required to verify that the VAT number 

(47) Annual statistics provided by Member States as listed in footnote nr 33 

(48) Annual statistics provided by Member States as listed in footnote nr 33 

23 

 
 
 
 
of their customer in another Member State is valid before supplying goods or services. To 
allow taxable persons to  fulfil this obligation, the Commission provides  them access  to 
VIES  through  ‘VIES  on-the-web’.  The  annual  number  of  requests  from  taxpayers  for 
validating  VAT  numbers  has  grown  from  approximately  2.8  billion  in  2018  to 
approximately  6.3  billion  in  2022.  VIES  on-the-web  is  becoming  an  essential  tool  for 
taxpayers as its fully automated interface allows to minimise administrative burden.  

Effectiveness of cooperation with other authorities 

Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 foresees several instances where other authorities 
can  access  information  exchanged  based  on  that  legal  base.  For  example,  customs 
authorities have access to VIES and IOSS electronic systems to allow them to effectively 
control  importations  that  require  access  to  VAT  or  IOSS  registration  numbers.  These 
exchanges are happening mostly at the national level between tax and customs authorities 
through national electronic systems. The Commission does not collect statistics on how 
this possibility is used. Since 2018, as part of the multidisciplinary approach to fight VAT 
fraud, OLAF and Europol are entitled to exchange information with Eurofisc. However, 
while some “testing” exchanges occurred in  the first  year, in 2023, there was no such 
exchange. This suggest that this mean of cooperation is not effectively used. 

Consultation  of  stakeholders  about  the  effectiveness  of  VAT  administrative 
cooperation 

One of the key strengths of the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 is the flexibility in 
using  the  tools.  Member  States  can  choose  the  different  tools  and  the  most  convenient 
depending on the stage of the investigation process. This interaction between tools is highly 
appreciated  by  Member  States  and  increases  their  usefulness  and,  as  a  result,  their 
relevance. 

To  further  assess  the  extent  of  success  of  the  Regulation,  the  users  of  these  means  of 
cooperation, tax administrations and customs authorities of  Member States, were  asked 
targeted questions. Almost all Member States that replied to the targeted consultation (24 
out  of  25  Member  States)  consider  that  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  has 
contributed to a very large extent (18 Member States) or to a large extent (6 Member States) 
to improving the cooperation between authorities. Member States feedback confirmed 
that the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 strengthens cooperation through electronic 
systems (e.g. through VIES, TNA, and other IT tools) but also in-person cooperation (e.g. 
through  the  presence  of  officials  or  activities  funded  by  Fiscalis  like  presence  or 
simultaneous controls). 

Tax  administrations  also  consider  that  the  cooperation  tools  provided  by  Council 
Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  have  contributed  considerably  to  the  fight  against  VAT 
fraud. Almost all survey respondents (24 of 25) find that the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 
904/2010  contributes  to  a  large  or  very  large  extent  to  the  fight  against  VAT  fraud. 
However, only 10 of them consider the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 contributed 
to fighting VAT fraud to a very large extent. This is probably due to the multiple factors 
influencing the VAT fraud phenomenon such as national reporting obligations, capacity of 

24 

 
tax  administrations  to  tackle  fraud,  the  amount  of  cross-border  transactions,  etc. 
Nevertheless, Member States made it clear that without the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 
904/2010 there would be fewer ways of tackling cross-border VAT fraud as they would be 
missing  necessary  information  on  cross-border  transactions  to  make  even  a  basic  risk 
analysis. 

Although interviewed stakeholders could not determine quantitatively the extent to which 
Council Regulation  (EU) Nr 904/2010  contributes  to fiscal  consolidation by ensuring 
that taxes are collected  within the EU,  16  respondents  find that the  Council Regulation 
(EU) Nr 904/2010 contributes to this objective to a large (12) or very large extent (4).  

VAT cooperation between Member States not only contributes to fighting VAT fraud but 
also  to  facilitating  the  fulfilment  of  VAT  taxpayers’  obligations(49)  One  of  the  main 
tools focused on this objective is ‘VIES on-the-web’, which allows taxable persons to verify 
the validity of the VAT number of the customer in another Member State which is one of 
the conditions to apply VAT exemption for intra-EU trade. VIES on-the-web centralises 
the access to the 27 national databases, simplifying compliance for taxable persons across 
the EU. Furthermore, the procedure for refund of VAT, to taxable persons not established 
in the MS of refund but in another MS, is greatly facilitated with the use the “VAT refund 
system”. Finally, the One-Stop-Shop for special schemes is an essential simplification in 
fulfilling VAT compliance for economic operators' performing eCommerce transactions. 
Without One-Stop-Shop economic operators would need to register in every Member State 
they perform supplies to consumers as with the new rules for eCommerce VAT is due at 
the place of the consumer. With OSS all these compliance costs are minimised. 

Extent  to  which  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  has  achieved  its  specific 
objectives 

Overall, the evaluation confirmed that the tools established in the Council Regulation (EU) 
Nr 904/2010 contribute to achieving its specific objectives: 

(SO1):  Better  exploitation  of  the  existing  administrative  cooperation  instruments  and 
information exchange. 

(SO2):  Fighting  VAT  fraud  through  rapid  and  more  effective  identification  and 
dismantling of fraudulent networks related to VAT. 

(SO3): To improve the multidisciplinary approach to fighting and preventing VAT-related 
fraud. 

49 External study made by Ecorys included also a survey to business associations focusing on the fulfilment 
of taxpayer’s obligations. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2025-01/Final-report-
VAT-fraud-evaluation-clean.pdf 

25 

 
 
SO1:  Better  exploitation  of  the  existing  administrative  cooperation  instruments  and 
information exchange. 

According to Member States, Eurofisc, followed by VIES and the exchange of information 
on request, is the most effective tool in terms of enabling the exploitation of the existing 
administrative cooperation instruments and information exchange. 

National authorities repeatedly point out that Eurofisc is a key hub within the ecosystem 
of VAT administrative cooperation. It is a crossroads where Member States come together 
and improve cooperation in  the fight  against VAT fraud.  Before the entry into force of 
Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010, Member States were investigating fraud only based 
on national risk analysis. With Eurofisc, they are now able to run joint risk analysis based 
on information shared at EU level. The annual statistics published by Eurofisc show the 
effectiveness  of  the  system  (EUR  14.6  billions  of  identified  fraudulent  transactions  in 
2023). VIES and standard forms (eFCA) are also perceived as highly effective tools.  In 
fact,  VIES  allows  direct  access  to  VAT  information  stored  in  other  national  databases, 
necessary to run VAT investigations and analysis. On the other hand, the eFCA makes the 
exchange of information easier and effective: they are translated in all the EU languages, 
they have standard box, and they allow encryption of the information (safety of information 
exchanged). The crucial role of exchange of information (EoI) was also highlighted by the 
Member States, in particular, information exchanged on request, that is key as evidence to 
prove the VAT assessment. Finally, simultaneous controls are also considered effective 
since they allow several Member States to run a VAT control to the same taxpayer or to 
several taxpayers involved in the same chain of transactions. This would not be possible 
without the current VAT administrative cooperation legal framework.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  less  effective  tool  is  the  cooperation  mechanism  with  OLAF 
stipulated in Article 49 of the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010. Most of the Member 
States  do  not  know  the  extent  to  which  this  tool  contributes  to  the  specific  objective 
because  they  do  not  use  it.  According  to  the  feedback  received  there  is  a  lack  of 
understanding of what OLAF can provide to Member States in the fight against VAT fraud. 

Finally, it should be mentioned that VIES on-the-web, VAT refunds and the Chapter XI 
schemes  (OSS)  are  mostly  tools  aiming  at  simplifying  compliance  for  taxpayers 
exchanging between authorities only a minimum amount of information. Therefore, the 
way the effectiveness is perceived by the authorities is slightly different. 

SO2:  Fighting  VAT  fraud  through  rapid  and  more  effective  identification  and 
dismantling of fraudulent networks related to VAT 

Eurofisc is again seen as the most effective tool to achieve rapid and effective identification 
and dismantling of fraudulent networks, followed again by VIES (50) (9 million of VAT 
number identifications per day), in line with the high use of these tools by Member States.  

(50) VIES is a network of interconnected national databases. The Commission does not track the number 

of times this system was used by Member States except for the validations of VAT numbers that is 

26 

 
 
 
Exchanges  of  information  are  not  seen  as  effective  as  for  contributing  to  the  previous 
specific objective. While exchange of information is important to collect the evidence for 
the VAT assessment, the repression of fraudulent networks highly depends on the timely 
delivery of information, leading to investigation of fraud. Simultaneous controls are seen 
as  particularly  effective  in  rapidly  investigating  and  dismantling  fraudulent  networks 
(because the information is shared directly between the Member States involved during 
the  simultaneous  controls).  On  the  other  hand,  Member  States  do  not  see  effective 
outcomes in fighting fraud based on the cooperation mechanism with OLAF. In fact, the 
cooperation mechanism between Eurofisc and OLAF as laid down in Council Regulation 
(EU)  Nr  904/2010  is  not  based  on  “sharing  available  information  in  automated  way”. 
Eurofisc and OLAF cooperation is built on exchange of information in specific cases, thus 
slowing  down  the  whole  investigation  process.  Furthermore,  Member  States  perceive 
OLAF’s role in fighting VAT fraud more oriented toward customs investigations. and only 
10 Member States considered that cooperation between national tax administrations and 
national customs authorities contributes at a large or very large extent to fight VAT fraud. 

Eurofisc is showing concrete results in terms of fighting VAT fraud (see above the annual 
report) as an early warning system. Member States take immediate actions based on the 
Eurofisc risk analysis. This shows how important the trend is of administrative cooperation 
tools moving from the traditional exchange of information toward information sharing. As 
such,  the  “traditional”  tools,  such  as  exchange  of  information  on  request,  or  automatic 
exchange,  are  considered  less  effective  in  terms  of  rapid  identification  of  fraudulent 
transactions.  However,  the  EU  framework  for  administrative  cooperation  as  a  whole 
remains effective as the same information is obtained, but through a new cooperation tool 
that is judged by the tax administration as the best one for the given purpose. The flexibility 
embedded in the Regulation is thus considered a key strength, allowing Member States to 
fine-tune their responses to cross-border VAT fraud patterns.  

SO3: To improve the multidisciplinary approach to fighting and preventing VAT-related 
fraud. 

The third specific object aims to improve the multidisciplinary approach to fighting and 
preventing  VAT  fraud  by  strengthening  administrative  cooperation  between  Member 
States and other relevant EU bodies. 

Considering a tool as effective when it has been rated contributing to an objective to a large 
or very large extent, Eurofisc is again seen as the most effective tool followed again by 
VIES. On the other hand, the results show again that only a small number of Member States 
consider  that  cooperation  with  OLAF,  Europol  and  with  national  customs  authorities 
contributes to this objective. This should be interpreted in the sense that Member States 
use multidisciplinary approach also at national level and information from Eurofisc and 
VIES can be easily shared this way. The multidisciplinary tools foreseen in EU framework 
for VAT administrative cooperation are not seen as effective by Member States.  

done through a website provided by the Commission. ViDA introduced the Central VIES that will be 
hosted by the Commission and very detailed statistics on its use will be available.  

27 

 
 
This should be nuanced in comparison with the targeted consultations of OLAF, Europol 
and the EPPO. Indeed, OLAF, Europol and the EPPO answered the targeted consultation 
complaining about the lack or limited cooperation with Eurofisc as it could be mutually 
beneficial. There is no clear legal framework concerning Eurofisc cooperation with OLAF 
and Europol, there is no mention of cooperation with the EPPO, and should be improved 
concerning the customs authorities. These problems concerning legal basis are particularly 
relevant  as  tax  competences  belong  primarily  to  the  Member  States  and  are  highly 
politically sensitive while Eurofisc has neither legal personality nor hierarchical structure.  

The need for multidisciplinary cooperation was recognised by the European Council that 
in 2018 amended the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 to provide the possibility of 
Eurofisc  to  request  relevant  information  to  Europol  and  OLAF.  Unfortunately,  the 
amendment did not include the EPPO which started its operations in 2021. The amendment 
only  set  cooperation  with  OLAF  and  Europol  on  Eurofisc  working  fields  coordinator’s 
initiative.  

However,  Eurofisc  data  shows  that  Member  States  have  very  little  used  this  kind  of 
cooperation tool. Even though Member States have not indicated specific reasons and did 
not disclose information on domestic anti-fraud strategies, the limited cooperation between 
Eurofisc and OLAF, Europol and customs might depend on the fact that already at national 
level, most of the tax administrations might need to improve cooperation with the customs 
counterpart and other enforcement bodies. Some Member State might not have procedures 
in place to frame this kind of cooperation with other enforcement bodies at national level. 
As such, even though there is an EU legal basis in Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010, 
in practice such a cooperation with OLAF and Europol might need to be better streamlined. 

The  Eurofisc  annual  report  of  2022  shows  that  during  this  year  there  was  only  one 
cooperation case between Eurofisc and Europol, in 2023 there was none. Finally, as regards 
EPPO, cooperation with Eurofisc could not be assessed within the framework of the current 
evaluation, since Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 does not provide an explicit legal 
ground for such a direct cooperation.  

Based on these stakeholders’ opinions and the statistics at hand, it can be considered that 
the EU framework for VAT administrative cooperation failed regarding the 3rd specific 
objective:  to  improve  the  multidisciplinary  approach  to  fighting  and  preventing  VAT-
related  fraud.  Member  States  tend  to  use  national  channels  to  share  information  with 
customs, OLAF, Europol and the EPPO. While this is understandable for the cooperation 
with customs as they rely on national procedures, for the EU bodies such as the EPPO, 
Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 should be their mean to access VAT data at EU 
level. 

Efficiency 

The  cost-benefit  assessment  is  mainly  focused  on  public  administrations  since  the 
provisions  of  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  are  mostly  meant  for  Member 
States being the main actor as regards administrative cooperation. These costs are mainly 
for human resources and for IT investments and maintenance, 

28 

 
When  asked  about  the  human  resources  allocated  to  VAT  administrative  cooperation, 
Member States were able to provide insights and an estimate on the number of full-time 
equivalents (FTE) allocated to these tasks.  

Figure  13:  Human  resources  allocated  to  tackling  cross-border  VAT  fraud  compared  to  the 
population size of a country(51) 

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Country
1

Country
2

Country
3

Country
4

Country
5

Country
6

Country
7

Country
8

Country
9

Country
10

Country
11

Country
12

Country
13

Size country (in millions)

Number of FTE

Feedback from Member States suggests that it is very difficult to delimit accurately the 
real number of human resources allocated to administrative cooperation in the field of VAT 
fraud.  It  was  emphasised  that  VAT  responsibilities  are  spread  around  the  public 
administration,  within  tax  authorities  and  customs,  and  within  different  departments  or 
governmental levels, making it hard to estimate how many human resources are dedicated 
to the specific tasks. Moreover, within tax authorities, workers from different departments 
may  be  partially  involved  in  relation  to  a  specific  case:  anti-fraud;  international 
cooperation; operational  management; audit and compliance; strategy and management. 
Additionally, Member States pointed out that usually staff is not exclusively allocated to 
VAT. For example, staff might be dedicated to dealing with exchange of information on 
tax generally, including VAT. The same situation could happen with those specialised in 
auditing. 

The same applies to IT systems. Member States repeatedly emphasised that estimating the 
cost per tool is difficult. In fact, the tools under the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 
often support national actions and are not accounted for separately. An exception is the 
VIES  system  for  which  11  Member  States  (44%  of  the  total)  were  able  to  provide  an 
estimate that, however, ranges from EUR 50 000 to EUR 100 000 and even up to EUR 
250 000 for the set-up investment costs. One Member State noted that through an external 
contractor  on  a yearly  basis,  an  estimated  EUR  10 000  is  spent  on  maintaining  the 
application. This cost is expected to increase in the upcoming years, due to inflation and 
higher  costs  from  external  providers,  and  does  not  include  costs  to  run  the  platform  or 

(51) Study supporting the evaluation of administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of 

value-added tax. 

29 

 
 
 
make any additional developments to it. Although there is some quantification of the costs 
to maintain national VIES it could not be provided by most of the Member States.  

Figure 14: Q2 on the quantification of annual costs to maintain national VIES application (52) 

€ 300.000 

€ 250.000 

€ 200.000 

€ 150.000 

€ 100.000 

€ 50.000 

€ -

Country
1

Country
2

Country
3

Country
4

Country
5

Country
6

Country
7

Country
8

Country
9

Country
10

Country
11

When looking at benefits from the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010, Member States 
mostly  point  to  the  economic  impact  of  fighting  VAT  fraud.  For  example,  Eurofisc 
achievements  in  2023(53)  shows  that  cooperation  within  the  network  resulted  in  the 
identification of 5.171 fraudsters, including 3.492 missing trader fraud cases, and a total 
of  EUR  14.7  billion  in  fraudulent  or  suspicious  transactions  uncovered.  However, 
quantitative benefits are mostly difficult to measure. Member States authorities were asked 
whether they monitored the quantitative effect of the fight against VAT fraud and only 
eight (32%) confirmed that they collected some information. In addition, the way in which 
information  is  collected,  monitored,  and  assessed  differs  from  one  Member  State  to 
another. Therefore, the VAT Gap study published on a yearly basis by the Commission 
remains  the  sole  approximation  of  the  VAT  fraud  in  the  EU  with  all  its  limitations 
described previously.  

When Member States are asked about the extent to which the benefits of the tools under 
the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  outweigh  the  costs,  most  replied  positively. 
They  agree  that  costs  associated  with  participating  in  administrative  cooperation  are 
proportionate to the benefits (54). At the same time, Member States have not been able to 
provide quantitative data and monetary estimations precisely detailing the costs incurred 
by  their  participation  in  administrative  cooperation  and  the  balance  with  the  benefits 
achieved. It should be noted that one-quarter of responses indicated that Member States 
find it difficult to judge whether benefits outweigh the costs.  

During stakeholders’ consultation, taxpayers were consulted on the assessment of cost and 
benefit  of  EU  framework.  Taxpayers  perceive  they  face  some  costs  derived  from  VAT 

(52) Study supporting the evaluation of administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of 

value-added tax. 

(53) VAT and Administrative Cooperation (europa.eu) 

(54) Contractor’s study data analysis: aggregate of all individual responses for the tools shows 33%/155 to 

a large extent and 28%/132 to a very large extent. 

30 

 
 
 
legislation.  However,  it  should  be  taken  into  account  that  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr 
904/2010  does  not  create  any  reporting  obligation  for  economic  operators.  The  costs 
perceived by taxpayers are indirectly linked to the exchange of information between tax 
authorities. For instance, national authorities may perform administrative enquires or ask 
for additional information to taxpayers when the tax authorities themselves do not have the 
requested information in their own databases.  It should also be noted that taxpayers are 
positively  impacted  by  the  fight  against  VAT  fraud.  Considering  only  Eurofisc  that 
managed to stop fraud for an amount of around EUR 14.7 billion, this is the corresponding 
turnover that legitimate businesses had lost due to fraud. Hence, anti-fraud activities have 
a positive re-distribution impact on commercial turnover for legitimate businesses in the 
internal  market.  In  addition,  thanks  to  VIES  on  the  web,  taxpayers  can  check  all  VAT 
numbers from other Member States free of charge. 

While it is true that VIES on-the-web require companies to use a specific communication 
standard to automate the verification of VAT numbers, this standard is well known on the 
market and the Commission provides all the technical specifications. Therefore, it is safe 
to assume that the costs for using VIES on-the-web are minimal. 

Coherence 

This  section assesses the coherence of the  Council  Regulation  (EU) Nr 904/2010 in  its 
internal and external dimensions. Checking internal coherence means looking at how the 
different tools within the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 work together. External 
coherence  looks  instead  at  the  consistency  between  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr 
904/2010 and other EU policies, priorities, and interventions. The key finding is that the 
intervention presents no major problems as far as its coherence, internal and external, is 
concerned. 

Internal coherence: The extent to which the different tools of the Council Regulation 
(EU) Nr 904/2010 are consistent among each other. 

To assess internal coherence, the focus is put on the different tools provided by the Council 
Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010, the way they interact and how Member States perceived 
this interaction. 

First of all, it should be remarked that although the cooperation tools under the Council 
Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 share similar characteristics, not all of them have the same 
purpose of combating fraud. In fact, as specified in the above section 4.1., some of them, 
such  as  VIES  on  the  web,  the  VAT  refund  system,  and  the  One-Stop-Shop  for  special 
schemes, address the objectives of ensuring tax collection and facilitating tax compliance 
for taxpayers. In contrast, all the other tools involving exchange or share of information 
have  the  purpose  of  fostering  cooperation.  Additionally,  one  specific  tool  could  have 
various  objectives  (for  instance  the  VAT  refund  scheme  facilitates  taxpayers  refund 
claims, but it is also used to control the legitimacy of the VAT claim thus helping with 
fighting fraud).  

Furthermore,  the  different  tools  are  also  complementary  to  each  other.  For  instance, 
Member States can start an investigation starting from VIES data in the framework of the 

31 

 
Eurofisc network. This can lead to simultaneous controls, or joint audits in order to collect 
evidence, or further exchange of information through the e-forms. Therefore, the different 
cooperation tools might be seen as a toolbox where some may be more suitable than others 
depending on the stage of the investigation. This characteristic is highly appreciated by 
Member States. For instance, the ease and timeliness of exchange of information through 
Eurofisc  led  to  a  decline  of  the  exchanges  of  information  under  Article  7.  Consulted 
Member States do not view this negatively, as they can use requests for information after 
having explored with other Member States through Eurofisc. Eurofisc is generally used as 
a first step for exchange of information and improves the quality of bilateral exchange of 
information  on  request  through  eFCA.  This  highlights  the  complementarity  of  Eurofisc 
with other cooperation tools. 

In particular, regarding fighting against VAT fraud Member States consider to a large or 
very  large  extent  Eurofisc,  VIES  and  exchange  of  information  on  request  as  tools  that 
complement each other. Requests for administrative notification appears to be the tool that 
interacts least well with the other cooperation mechanisms when it comes to fighting VAT 
fraud.  This  result  must  not  be  interpreted  as  a  lack  of  coherence  between  requests  for 
administrative notification and the other tools since the question posed to Member States 
was  only  to  focus  on  the  consistency  to  fight  against  fraud.  Still,  a  request  for 
administrative notification is a tool aimed at helping administrative cooperation between 
tax administration and facilitating communication with taxpayers rather than fighting tax 
fraud. As regards cooperation with OLAF, once again most of the surveyed Member States 
do not know how well it works together with other tools. This inability to assess is in line 
with the answers provided by Member States when assessing efficiency and relevance.  

Hence,  in  general,  Member  States  do  not  consider  that  the  different  administrative 
cooperation tools are overlapping, but – as mentioned above – they see them as part of a 
toolbox. The choice on using different means of cooperation is left to the appreciation of 
tax experts depending on their needs. 

Still, one tax administration noted that, within Eurofisc, there could be some overlapping 
between simultaneous controls and follow-up actions55. For instance, a follow-up action in 
Eurofisc  could  also  end  up  in  simultaneous  controls  showing  that  the  two  tools  have 
different purposes and can be combined. It should be noted that follow-up actions have 
been only introduced in 2018 by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1541. As such, Member 
States are still learning, also considering the impact on the Covid 19 pandemic that slowed 
down the applications of those tools until 2021. 

External coherence: The extent to which the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 is 
coherent with EU policies and other EU legal acts with similar objectives.  

External  coherence  is  checked  from  two  perspectives:  first,  by  the  assessment  of  the 
consistency  with  EU  policies;  second,  by  looking  at  coherence  between  the  Council 

(55) Follow up actions under Eurofisc is any administrative actions taken after fraud as detected. 

Previously, Member States took actions at national level independently from Eurofisc. With follow up 
actions, these activities are coordinated and feed Eurofisc with new information.  

32 

 
 
Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 and other EU interventions, mainly within the same policy 
field of administrative cooperation in direct taxation and for the recovery of taxes, but also 
with interventions in other policy areas. 

Coherence with EU framework of administrative cooperation between Member States 

When it comes to other EU interventions it should be noted that administrative cooperation 
in the field of VAT is part of a more global administrative cooperation framework between 
Member States for taxation matters. The other legal instruments that constitute the global 
EU framework of administrative cooperation are: 

•  Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation 

in the field of taxation (DAC), and its subsequent amendments. 

•  Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for 

the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures. 

•  Council  Regulation  (EU)  No  389/2012  of  2  May  2012  on  administrative 

cooperation in the field of excise duties. 

The assessment of the external  coherence of the  Council Regulation  (EU) Nr 904/2010 
mainly  focuses  on  Directive  2011/16/EU  on  administrative  cooperation  in  the  field  of 
taxation, which covers all taxes except for VAT, customs and excise duties, although in 
the  recapitulative  table  below  there  is  a summarised  comparison  of  all  three  legal  acts 
concerned. Despite some differences, the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 is overall 
coherent with Directive 2011/16/EU. The two legal acts share the same objectives (smooth 
functioning of the internal market, protection of tax revenues and fight against tax fraud, 
contribution  to  the  fairness  of  the  tax  system),  the  institutional  framework  (in  some 
Member States the central liaison office is responsible for administrative cooperation in 
both direct taxation and VAT) and the information communication system (CCN network). 
The tools at the disposal of national tax authorities by the two legal acts are also similar 
(exchange  on  request,  without  prior  request,  automatic  exchange,  etc.).  However, 
differences between both legal texts can be found. Directive 2011/16/EU provides for an 
automatic exchange of information on various fields to tackle tax evasion and aggressive 
tax planning (e.g., different categories of income and assets, financial accounts, rulings, 
country-to-country  reports  of  multinational  enterprises,  cross-border  arrangements, 
income  derived  from  platform  operators).  Secondly,  Directive  2011/16/EU  does  not 
establish a mechanism similar to the Eurofisc network. Moreover, administrative enquiries 
carried  out  jointly  in  the  field  of  VAT  are  in  some  cases  mandatory  (in  other  words, 
Member  States  must  take  part  in  them);  this  is  not  the  case  for  presences  abroad  or 
simultaneous controls under the Directive. Differences in the wording of both legal texts 
regarding cross-border audits result in differences on what tax experts can do in the frame 
of these audits  depending on which  tax is  being  audited. Other differences concern the 
choice of the legal instrument (Regulation vs. Directive). These differences stem from the 
fact that VAT is a harmonized tax at EU level, whereas direct taxation has been subject to 
little harmonisation at EU level. Nevertheless, the information exchanged under the EU 

33 

 
framework for VAT administrative cooperation can be used for the assessment of other 
taxes56 which recognises the possibility for synergies.  

To conclude, the two acts  are coherent overall, and only  a limited number of problems 
emerge  in  their  daily  operation  (differences  in  cross-border  audits,  differences  in  the 
deadline  for  exchanges  on  request,  forwarding  information  to  another  MS)  where  the 
coherence should be improved. 

According to the assessment by Member States, the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 
is aligned with Directive 2011/16/EU and does not overlap with other EU Regulations in 
the field of the fight against fraud and information exchange.  

The Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 is overall coherent with the Recovery Directive 
2010/24, despite the different choice of the legal instrument (Regulation vs Directive) and 
some differences in scope. While the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 is focused on 
the administrative cooperation in the field of VAT, the Recovery Directive applies also to 
a)  other  taxes  than  VAT;  b)  duties;  c)  certain  funds  granted  in  the  context  of  the  EU 
agricultural policies; d) penalties, fees, interests, and other costs relating to the claims for 
which  mutual  assistance  is  requested.  However,  both  legal  acts  are  based  on  a similar 
approach: they share the same objectives (preservation of Member States’ revenues; proper 
functioning of the Single Market; fairness of the tax systems); both interventions rely on a 
number of similar tools such as the possibility to submit requests for information and carry 
out presences abroad, and to require assistance in notification of documents; and both of 
them  rely  on  the  same  IT  resources  (eFCA  and  CCN).  Additionally,  in  terms  of  the 
applicable institutional framework, both legal instruments provide for the establishment of 
a  central  liaison  office.  As  a  whole,  there  is  no  issue  of  coherence  between  the  two 
interventions. The difference in the scope does not seem to be a cause of concern. To the 
contrary, synergies arise, since recovery and VAT administrative cooperation benefit each 
other, especially in the field of VAT recovery. 

Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 is also coherent with Council Regulation (EU) No 
389/2012 on administrative cooperation in the field of excise duties. The latter establishes 
conditions  for  cooperation  between  national  authorities  and  the  European  Commission 
when  applying  excise  duty  legislation.  Rules  and  procedures  on  cooperation  and 
information  exchange,  electronically  or  otherwise,  between  national  authorities  are 
regulated. It sets up an electronic database containing registers with detailed information 
on economic operators and premises authorised as tax warehouses. Both legal frameworks 
(for VAT and excise duties cooperation) share the same objective of helping tax authorities 
collect and share the information necessary for the assessment and collection of taxes. 

(56) Art 55(1) The information may also be used for the assessment of other levies, duties, and taxes 

covered by Article 2 of Council Directive on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to 
certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures. 

34 

 
 
Coherence with Interventions on the functioning of other investigative bodies/agencies 
- in particular the EPPO. 

Council  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1939  of  12  October  2017  implementing  enhanced 
cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) 
stipulates that, as the independent EU public prosecutor’s office, the EPPO is equipped 
with  the power to  investigate and prosecute criminal  offences affecting the EU budget, 
such as corruption or fraud with EU funds, including cross-border VAT fraud. The EPPO 
is competent to investigate and prosecute VAT fraud if the offence is linked to the territory 
of two or more Member States and involves a total damage of at least EUR 10 million. 
Since the EPPO started operations in June 2021, it has become a strong and efficient body 
specialised in fighting financial crime across the EU.  

Given that the EPPO became operational in June 2021, after the last amendment of Council 
Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010,  there  is  no  provision  on  how  the  EPPO  interacts, 
coordinates, and shares information with national public administrations to detect and fight 
VAT fraud at the EU level. There is no explicit legal basis either for interaction between 
the EPPO and Eurofisc, since the latter is only a network between national authorities to 
react  quickly  to  fraudsters,  not  an  institution,  body,  office,  or  agency  of  the  Union. 
Therefore, for the moment, the only link with the EPPO is done through competent national 
authorities,  despite  the  fact  that  the  cooperation  tools  included  in  the  Regulation  to 
exchange information, assess risks, and carry out control actions could be useful not only 
to fighting VAT fraud from a financial perspective, but also to dismantling the fraudulent 
networks behind the VAT fraud schemes. As can be seen from the EPPO Annual Reports, 
the  profitability  of  VAT  fraud  schemes  attracts  interest  from  serious  organised  crime 
networks,  which  use  such  schemes  to  enhance  their  profits,  to  launder  and  reinvest 
proceeds from other crimes (drugs, weapon trafficking, custom fraud, etc). Therefore, a 
direct  cooperation  between  Eurofisc  and  the  EPPO  would  strengthen  EU’s  internal 
security, as well as the EPPO’s operations and its direct access to VIES. 

Both  legal  acts  have  in  common  the  aim  of  preventing  VAT  revenue  loses  insofar  as 
Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 is the legal basis for administrative cooperation in 
the  field  of  VAT  and  the  EPPO  Regulation’s  objective  is  to  enhance  the  fight  against 
offences  affecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union,  among  them  cross-border  VAT 
fraud, through criminal investigations and prosecution. 

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 is governing the work of the European Anti-Fraud 
Office (OLAF) in fighting fraud, corruption and any illegal activity which could harm the 
EU’s financial interests. It is only applicable to VAT when the Union’s financial interests 
are harmed. While it does not set out Member States’ cooperation, streamlines the rules 
for cooperation with the EPPO at EU level (which Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 
does not provide for). 

35 

 
Finally,  Directive  (EU)  2019/1153(57),  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  515/97(58)  and 
Directive (EU) 2023/977(59) provide national authorities with the legal basis to cooperate 
and exchange information in the field respectively of anti-money laundering and terrorist 
financing, and customs fraud. The first regulate the cooperation between law enforcement, 
financial intelligence units and Europol, while the second the cooperation between customs 
authorities.  It  results  from  the  above  that  there  are  different  legal  acts  regulating 
cooperation between different authorities at national and EU level, all involved in fraud or 
criminal offences that are interconnected (VAT fraud, customs fraud, money laundering 
and terrorist financing). As such, tax and customs authorities, financial investigation units, 
Europol, OLAF, the EPPO, all have access to different information at different level (EU 
or national), they all share the same goal of fighting frauds which are interconnected, but 
a coherent cooperation framework pulling together resources is still missing to fight the 
most serious VAT threats to the internal market. 

In the field of international cooperation, the EU has bilateral agreements with UK and NO 
for VAT administrative cooperation. Those agreements are replicating to large extent the 
cooperation rules applying to Member States. At the moment, there are no other bilateral 
agreements with the same scope. However, an anti-fraud agreement – applicable also to 
VAT – exists with Switzerland. Another tool that allows VAT cooperation at international 
level is the OECD convention on mutual administrative assistance in tax matters (60). The 
latter allow exchange of information in the field of indirect taxes, including VAT, but it 
relies on national ratification procedures 

Finally,  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  is  coherent  with  Regulation  (EU) 
2016/679(61) on the protection of personal data. Tax authorities exchange the information 
necessary to assess VAT and combating fraud. The limitations to data subject rights are 
defined  in  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  as  well  as  the  scope  of  that 
limitations. 

4.3. How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

This  section  investigates  whether  and  to  what  extent  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr 
904/2010 has produced an EU added value and for whom. It needs to be assessed whether 
the outcomes and the impacts achieved would have occurred also in case of no intervention 
at EU level. 

As explained in Section 1, the peculiarity of the internal market with EU VAT harmonised 
rules implies that Member States where the VAT is due must collect information from the 
Member States where the supplier is established to assess the VAT on intra-Community 

(57) OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 122–137 

(58) OJ L 82, 22.3.1997, p. 1–16 

(59) OJ L 134, 22.5.2023, p. 1–24 

(60) https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-

matters.html 

(61) OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88 

36 

 
 
transactions.  If  VAT  administrative  cooperation  would  not  be  organised  at  EU  level, 
Member States would need bilateral or multilateral agreements to obtain this information. 
Moreover,  all  the  IT  developments  would  need  to  be  shared  between  Member  States 
requiring additional level of coordination that is provided by the Commission based on the 
Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010.  

In  fact,  Several  Member States pointed out  that national  or regional  (group of Member 
States in the same geographical area) would not solve the issue of VAT fraud. Indeed, most 
of the Member States reported that the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 contributes 
to a large extent to delivering results that otherwise could not be achieved at the national 
level. There is a need to cooperate, and the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 provides 
the right framework for this. However, one Member State noted that results achieved with 
the help of the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 could also be achieved at the national 
level but at higher cost. Overall, Member States are convinced that the problems of the 
fight  against  cross-border  VAT  fraud  are  better  solved  through  cooperation  among 
Member States, as well as cooperating with OLAF and Europol. 

Consequences of terminating or withdrawing the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 

The most likely consequence of terminating or withdrawing the Council Regulation (EU) 
Nr  904/2010  would  be  a  lack  of  information  within  Member  States  about  cross-border 
fraud. This would likely end up in a large decrease in tax revenue for Member States and 
higher costs for tax administrations to receive information on VAT and investigate cross-
border VAT fraud. Furthermore, legitimate business would be exposed to more and more 
unloyal  competition  of  VAT  fraudsters  (that  obtain  market  shares  thanks  to  more 
competitive prices thanks to VAT fraud). Member States administrations would need to 
find  contact  points  in  other  Member  States  and  agree  on  a  case-by-case  basis  on  how 
information is shared, which could be costly. It should be also mentioned that cost could 
rise not only for tax administrations but also for taxpayers – especially business conducting 
cross-border  transactions  –  since  in  case  of  absence  of  cooperation  tools  and  sharing 
information between Member States, they could be contacted by different tax authorities 
controlling potential VAT fraud with regard to the same transaction. 

The evaluation shows that the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010  provides essential 
tools  for  cooperation,  as  well  as  networking  and  experience-sharing  opportunities.  It  is 
likely that a voluntary network would be founded to replace activities in Eurofisc, given 
that the network is highly valued by Member States and establishes a clear contact among 
them. It is questionable if a voluntary network with the possible exclusion of some Member 
States while missing the legal obligations and tools provided in the Council Regulation 
(EU) Nr 904/2010 would be effective in fighting VAT fraud in the EU. When it comes to 
cross-border  VAT  fraud,  a  lack  of  information  would  give  an  additional  advantage  to 
criminals engaging in VAT fraud. 

37 

 
4.4 Is the intervention still relevant? 

 Extent to which the initial objectives are aligned with the current identified needs. 

While the VAT gap continues to decline since 2014 when it was first calculated, Member 
States continue to perceive VAT fraud as a problem both at the national and EU level. The 
results  of  the  survey  showed  that  the  majority  of  respondents  consider  VAT  fraud  as  a 
problem in Member States to a large or very large extent. Given the cross-border aspect of 
some well-known VAT fraud schemes, the problem was perceived even larger at the EU 
level than at the national level. 

Figure 15: Extent to which respondents consider VAT fraud a problem(62) 

In EU Member States

3

11

In your country

2

5

9

9

8

2

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

To a limited extent

To some extent

To a large extent

To a very large extent

Do not know

With  the  introduction  of  the  internal  market,  tax  administrations  lost  partially  the 
possibility  to  control  all  transactions  performed  on  their  territory.  The  controls  at  the 
borders were replaced by reporting by taxpayers located abroad. Therefore, cross-border 
transactions will be perceived as a weakness as long as there is no integrated solution for 
their control. The VAT in the Digital Age (ViDA) package will provide tax administrations 
with  almost  real-time  and  digital  information  on  intra-Community  transactions.  This 
information will be shared in the central VIES. This will represent a qualitative leap for 
the Member States. However, the new measures introduced by  ViDA  as such can only 
produce the desired effect as long as Member States will use them to their full potential. 
This means that in order to exploit the real time information, Member States must be able 
to process it, by using the administrative cooperation tools at their disposal (central VIES, 
TNA, Eurofisc etc..).  

After its creation in 2010, Eurofisc has been provided with new tools (TNA and CESOP) 
and sources of information (vehicle registrations, cross-border payments and, with digital 
reporting requirements that will enter into force in 2032, each intra-Community transaction 
on real-time). The vast majority of Member States agrees that those IT tools are key to deal 
with  the  massive  volume  of  information  required  to  effectively  combat  VAT  fraud. 
However, as also indicated in section 1.1 under effectiveness, tax authorities consider that 
the enrichment of Eurofisc capabilities through the new sources of information would be 
the logical and most coherent step forward in enhancing Eurofisc functioning.  

Surveyed  tax  authorities  believe  there  are  no  parts  of  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr 
904/2010 that are no longer relevant for the control of the intra-EU transactions and the 

(62) Study supporting the evaluation of administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of 

value-added tax. 

38 

 
 
 
efficient collection of VAT. The majority of Member States stressed that the objectives of 
the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 help to a large or very large extent control intra-
EU transactions, collect VAT, and address VAT problems, at the EU and national levels 
well.  According  to  the  respondent  Member  States,  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr 
904/2010  helps  to  identify  and  address  evolving  types  of  VAT  fraud.  Nevertheless, 
Member  States  indicated  that  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  could  also 
contribute to fighting other types of fraud, such as excise duties fraud or trade-based money 
laundering resulting from VAT fraud. This indicates that tax administrations perceive VAT 
fraud as a complex issue that requires a multi-disciplinary approach.  

The  use  of  VIES  and  VIES  on-the-web  is  correlated  with  the  number  of  cross-border 
transactions on the internal market. The use of Eurofisc has continued to grow significantly 
over  the  past  years  as  it  is  the  most  direct,  less  bureaucratic,  and  flexible  way  for 
cooperation. The decrease in number of Exchange of Information can be explained by the 
preference  to  use  Eurofisc  channel  that  is  less  procedural.  However,  this  kind  of 
cooperation  crucial  for  final  confirmation  of  fraudulent  behaviour  to  present  in  judicial 
proceedings.  Means  like  feedback  or  VAT  refunds  are  stable  over  the  last  years.  This 
shows that even though statistics show clearly that Member States are using more the tools 
allowing  sharing  information,  less  used  tools  such  as  Exchange  of  information  are  still 
relevant for providing the evidence of fraud. 

Within Eurofisc Member States have the possibility to create new working fields without 
the need to change the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 or introduce new cooperation 
tools. This happened in 2020, because of the raise of eCommerce, Member States decided 
to establish a new working field dealing with e-commerce VAT fraud. However, creating 
a new Working Field is relatively rare as new VAT fraud trends are usually absorbed by 
already existing ones. 

Also, electronic forms can be easily changed depending on Member States needs, without 
the need to change the legal basis (as long as no substantial amendments are involved) as 
the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 provides the Commission with implementing 
powers for that purpose.  

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

In conclusion, this evaluation shows that Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 has been 
effective in reaching its  general  and specific objectives except for improving the multi-
disciplinary approach in the fight against VAT fraud. It provides a flexible framework of 
complementary cooperation tools that allows Member States to jointly prevent and detect 
cross-border VAT fraud. As regards efficiency, the stakeholder consultations with Member 
States have shown that tax authorities increasingly resort to electronic systems that replace 
human exchanges given the sheer number of cross-border transactions. As concerns the 
EU added value of the Regulation, central electronic systems provided for in the Council 
Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 replace systems that would otherwise need to de developed 
in each Member State separately sharing more efficiently the financial burden. Overall, the 

39 

 
Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 remains relevant and appears coherent with other 
interventions.  

Member  States’  opinion  is  overall  positive  on  the  legal  and  practical  framework 
implemented  with  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010.  The  vast  majority  of  them 
consider that it has contributed to improve the administrative cooperation between Member 
States. Nevertheless, the needs of Member States continue to change and new trends in 
VAT  fraud  appear.  The  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  succeeded  to  create  an 
effective and efficient platform for cooperation, but this success can be further exploited 
so  as  to  remain  relevant  for  these  evolving  needs.  This  is  particularly  pertinent  for  the 
multidisciplinary approach. 

Below are specific conclusions for each criterion under assessment derived from the 
evaluation. 

Regarding effectiveness, there is evidence that the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 
has  been  effective  in  achieving  almost  all  its  general  and  specific  objectives.  When  it 
comes  to  the  specific  objective  about  of  improving  the  multidisciplinary  approach  to 
fighting and preventing VAT fraud through, it seems that the Regulation has failed, or the 
objective have been achieved to a lesser degree. Stakeholders find it difficult to identify 
and  attribute  specific  tools  to  this  objective  or  find  that  a  multi-disciplinary  procedure 
already exists at national level. However, Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 is an EU 
framework, and  it  should improve the fight against VAT fraud  using multi-disciplinary 
approach at EU level. Therefore, the Regulation has failed in this regard as the links with 
EU bodies such as the EPPO, Europol and OLAF are not effectively used.  

It could be also concluded that, amongst the instrument provided by the Council Regulation 
(EU) Nr 904/2010, the most effective tool that allows reach its aims is Eurofisc, especially 
when  using  automated  tools  like  TNA  for  data  analysis.  This  combination  has  already 
proven  very  effective  to  identify  VAT  fraud  at  EU  level  and  has  an  important  growth 
potential as not all data are yet included in the automated data analysis. Hence, it seems 
reasonable to concentrate resources and efforts on the enhancement of Eurofisc capability 
to  tackle  cross-border  VAT  fraud.  Focus  should  be  made  on  exploring  new  sources  of 
information at the disposal of the automated tools to better identify the real perpetrators 
and follow the money derived from the illegal benefits, and on the active engagement of 
all national tax administrations in making such tools work. 

Regarding efficiency, the Member States expressed a high level of satisfaction about the 
efficiency of the administrative cooperation instruments. The burden of complying with 
the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 mostly lies with the tax authorities to implement 
cooperation mechanisms and coordinating their activities. The Council Regulation (EU) 
Nr 904/2010 does not create any cost for taxpayers or citizens, on the contrary, it aims at 
simplifying access to information and reducing compliance costs. 

For the cost-benefit analysis not many Member States could provide accurate estimation 
of these costs, but the few estimations provided did not exceed EUR 250.000 per year for 
a system like VIES that is used 9 million times by taxpayers every day for their invoicing. 

40 

 
Without such a system, taxpayers would face increased compliance costs and face financial 
risk  when  supplying  on  the  Internal  Market.  Moreover,  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr 
904/2010 provides economies of scale for most of its cooperation means. Central electronic 
systems  such  as  TNA  or  CESOP  are  developed  by  the  Commission  using  Fiscalis 
programme avoiding the need to develop similar systems in all 27 Member States. TNA 
allowed to identify EUR 14.6 billion of suspicious transactions in 2023 saving billions of 
euros of VAT revenues. For other systems the Commission ensures that systems developed 
at national level are interoperable saving costs for all Member States. In this respect, the 
benefits outweigh significantly the costs.  

Nevertheless, the evaluation also points out that there are overlaps between the cooperation 
tools. Some reporting obligations could be lifted to alleviate administrative burden for tax 
administrations  and  taxpayers  as  the  information  is  no  longer  relevant  or  available 
somewhere  else  such  as  the  standard  form  for  feedback  or  the  reporting  by  Payment 
Service Providers to CESOP from multiple countries. 

Finally, the Fiscalis63 program is seen as an effective support in combatting VAT fraud. 
Indeed, Member States confirm that the programme helps to enhance the cooperation in 
general.  

On the coherence of Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 no issues of coherence have 
emerged from the assessment. As regards internal coherence it seems that there is no doubt 
about the consistency of the provisions within the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 
and  the  interaction  of  the  different  cooperation  tools,  given  that  it  has  been  subject  to 
repeated and frequent amendments. Member States appreciate the variety of tools, and the 
majority do not report any overlaps between them.  

When it comes to external coherence there is no overlap between the Council Regulation 
(EU)  Nr  904/2010,  and  other  EU  legislation  as  related  directives  and  legislations  are 
complementary. Indeed, improving administrative cooperation in the field of VAT is fully 
coherent with other EU policies in the field of VAT. However, the lack of legal provision 
within  the  Council  Regulation  (EU)  Nr  904/2010  to  ensure  real  and  effective  VAT 
cooperation  at  EU  level  between  tax  authorities  participating  in  Eurofisc  and  other 
investigative bodies/agencies such as the EPPO, OLAF and Europol could be perceived as 
an inconsistency. While the need for cooperation between all these authorities is widely 
recognised, the exchanges are inexistent in practice or do not have an explicit legal base. 
In  particular,  the  missing  link  to  the  EPPO  and  lack  of  use  of  OLAF,  as  well  as 
impracticalities  related  to  Europol  collaboration,  lead  to  legal  uncertainty  regarding  the 
cooperation between Member States and these bodies on VAT issues. 

Moreover, it is crucial to keep and in some limited parts to improve, the external coherence 
of the Council Regulation (EU) Nr 904/2010 with the Council Directive 2011/16/EU on 

(63) The Commission is conducting a separate evaluation of the Fiscalis program. The final report should 

be available in 2025. 

41 

 
 
administrative cooperation in the field of taxation. These two EU frameworks are closely 
interlinked and serve very similar general objective.  

For the EU added value, without the EU framework for VAT administrative cooperation, 
Member States would need to rely on bilateral or multilateral agreements as cross-border 
transactions  would  still  require  join  control  by  tax  administrations.  Absence  of  an  EU 
framework  would  mean  additional  costs  to  build  national  electronic  systems  and  make 
them interoperable with other countries. Currently, the Commission plays the coordination 
role ensuring interoperability of all systems and that all Member States have access to the 
same  categories  of  data  on  cross-border  transactions.  The  Commission  also  provide  a 
secured  network  that  ensure  the  security  of  the  information.  Bilateral  or  multilateral 
approaches could not provide such a uniform level of security. 

Moreover,  the  fight  against  VAT  fraud  on  cross-border  transactions  requires  a  close 
cooperation  of  all  Member  States  to  have  a  lasting  impact.  National  or  even  regional 
approaches  would  not  be  effective.  Fraudsters  would  exploit  the  weakness  of  such  a 
network by positioning themselves in the country that cooperates the least. 

Finally,  the  costs  of  conducting  business  in  the  EU  would  also  increase  if  the  EU 
framework would not exist. It is an advantage for taxpayers to be able to check the validity 
of all the EU VAT numbers through one website than having to build 27 interfaces with 
national databases. 

The  EU  framework  for  VAT  administrative  cooperation  remains  relevant  as  the  rules 
governing cross-border transactions remain unchanged and fraudsters continue to exploit 
the weakness of these rules. The MTIC gap study mentioned in the introduction estimate 
that  fraudsters  continue  to  exploit  the  transitional  VAT  system  for  cross-border 
transactions and deprive Member States from significant amounts of revenues. The VAT 
gap  continues  to  decline  showing  that  national  VAT  fraud  is  decreasing.  However, 
Member States continue to perceive more threat from cross-border VAT fraud schemes. 
Eurofisc remain the most effective administrative mean to tackle this kind of fraud, making 
the EU framework more relevant.  

42 

 
 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1)  Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references  

Lead DG: DG TAXUD 
Decide Planning reference: PLAN/2021/12439 
Unit responsible for draft: DG TAXUD Unit Tax Administration and Fight against 
Tax Fraud 

2)  Organisation and timing  

Creation of Decide entry: PLAN/2021/12439 
Public consultation: No 
ISG meetings (from the most recent):  

o  21 March 2025 
o  26 January 2025 
o  8 November 2024  

3)  Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines  

Not applicable.  

4)  Consultation of the RSB  

Not applicable.  

5)  Evidence, sources and quality.  

−  Most  of  the  evidence  used  in  this  document  comes  from  the  Member  States  tax 
authorities,  the  administrative  bodies  responsible  for  putting  into  practice  the 
Regulation.  Data  and information received  from  the  Member States are  assumed as 
valid  and  reliable  to  the best  of  the  Member  States’  knowledge.  Other  stakeholders 
have also been consulted such as Eurofisc, OLAF, Europol and EPPO. 

43 

 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

This evaluation is based on the external study performed by an external consultancy64. The 
external study consisted of three phases, namely:  

(1)  An inception phase during which the methodology was finetuned, data collection 

activities started, and stakeholder consultations were prepared.  

(2)  During the fieldwork phase, various data collection activities were conducted (i.e. 
desk research, interviews, surveys), and initial findings from these activities were 
drawn up.  

(3)  In  the  final  analysis,  drafting  and  reporting  phase,  conclusions  were  drawn  and 

written in the final report. 

The study started with an understanding of the objectives the Regulation aims to achieve. 
These are based on the following needs (problems): 

➢  N1 The need for MSs to react quickly to VAT fraud. 
➢  N2 The need for improved administrative cooperation. 
➢  N3 The need for MSs to act in the most efficient manner before fraud is perpetrated. 

These problems form the basis of the Regulation’s general objectives (GO), namely: 

➢  GO1 To ensure closer collaboration between tax authorities. 
➢  GO2 To contribute to fighting VAT administrative fraud. 
➢  GO3 To ensure that VAT taxes due are collected to feed national and EU budgets 

and contribute to fiscal consolidation. 

➢  GO4 To facilitate the fulfilment of taxpayers’ VAT obligations. 

More specifically, the objectives are (SO): 

➢  SO1 To utilise the existing administrative cooperation instruments in the field of 
fighting VAT related fraud more effectively and to improve EoI between MSs. 
➢  SO2  To  contribute  to  fighting  VAT  fraud  through  rapid  and  more  effective 

identification and dismantling of fraudulent networks related to VAT. 

➢  SO3 To improve the multidisciplinary approach to fighting and preventing VAT-

related fraud through swifter and more coordinated reaction capacity. 

These are operationalised through the following objectives (OO): 

➢  OO1 To speed up information exchange and joint processing of data related to VAT 

by Eurofisc. 

➢  OO2 To improve the identification and targeting of potential fraudsters. 
➢  OO3 To provide  for new/improved channels  for access  to  and sharing of VAT-

related information. 

➢  OO4  To  improve  the  effectiveness  of  checks  and  the  sharing  of  VAT-related 

information in the context of imports. 

➢  OO5 To facilitate joint VAT fraud administrative enquiries. 

64 https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2025-01/Final-report-VAT-fraud-evaluation-clean.pdf 

44 

 
 
In order to achieve these objectives, stakeholders deploy resources (input) which translate 
into  activities  (e.g.  the  different  cooperation  tools).  This  is  the  EU  intervention  which 
results in outputs, results, and impacts. Outputs are direct results. They are closely aligned 
with the intervention’s operational objectives. Outcomes (or results) are intermediate to 
short-term  changes that  can be attributed to the  Regulation.  They can  also  be linked to 
specific objectives of the intervention. Impacts are the effects over a longer period of time 
and can be matched with the general objectives of the Regulation. They are, in general, 
also closest to the core needs which triggered the intervention. 

The  following  figure  presents  an  elaboration  of  the  intervention  logic  underpinning  the 
Regulation.  The  intervention  logic  is  built  around  five  core  elements  of  the  evaluation: 
effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU-added value.  

Figure 16: Intervention logic  

On the basis of the intervention logic, this study answered a list of evaluation questions 
concerning  the  following  criteria:  effectiveness;  efficiency;  relevance;  coherence;  EU 
added value.  

The evaluation criteria have been used to build an evaluation framework, which contains: 

•  evaluation questions; 
• 
judgement criteria;  
• 
indicators; data sources;  
•  data collection, and  
•  analysis methods.  

The  questions  are  organised  per  evaluation  criterion.  Each  question  is  subsequently 
operationalised  through  the  judgement  criteria,  which  make  the  phenomenon  for 
observation explicit. Measurement was done through indicators. Data sources, collection 

45 

 
 
 
and  analysis  methods  point  to  the  sources  and  means  by  which  indicators  have  been 
measured. To increase the reliability of the information, methods have been triangulated.  

The evaluation questions per evaluation criteria were as follows:  

•  To  what  extend  have  the  cooperation  tools  contributed  to  general  objectives? 
(effectiveness).  
•  To  what  extent  have  the  cooperation  tools  contributed  to  specific  objectives? 
(effectiveness).  
•  What  are  the  costs  and  benefits  for  the  different  stakeholders  concerned? 
(efficiency).  
•  Are these benefits achieved at a reasonable cost? (efficiency).  
•  To what extend did the financing provided under the Fiscalis programme limit the 
compliance costs for Member States and hence contribute to the achievement of the 
objectives? (efficiency).  
•  To  what  extent  do  the  initial  objectives  still  correspond  to  current  needs/issues? 
(relevance).  
•  To what extent are there adaptation mechanisms in place to follow technological, 
scientific, social, and legal developments? In particular, regarding the developments in 
the juridical framework of bodies in charge of preventing and fighting fraud, such as 
for instance, EPPO and the anti-money laundering authorities? (relevance).  
•  To what extent are the different tools of the Regulation coherent among each other 
(internal)? (coherence).  
•  To  what  extent  is  the  Regulation  coherent  with  other  EU  legal  acts  with  similar 
objectives (external)? (coherence).  
• 
achieved at the national level? (EU added value).  
•  To what extent do the issues addressed by the Regulation continue to require action 
at the EU level? (EU added value).  
•  What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequences  of  terminating  or  withdrawing  the 
Regulation? (EU added value).  

Is there additional value resulting from the Regulation compared to what could be 

Data collection tools 

In  the  implementation  of  this  study,  various  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  collection 
tools and methods were used: desk research, stakeholder consultation (including interviews 
and targeted consultation through online surveys), and case studies. 

46 

 
 
ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON  ANSWERS  TO 
THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Table 7: Elaborated evaluation matrix – Effectiveness  

General question   Specific questions    Judgement criteria  

Indicators  

Data sources   

EQ1.1: To what 
extent have the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to 
(general objectives) 
the facilitation of 
fulfilment of VAT 
tax obligation by 
taxpayers  

EQ1.1: Improved fiscal 
consolidation within the 
Union  

EQ1: To what 
extent have the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to 
(general 
objectives)?  

EQ1.2: Strengthened 
fight against VAT fraud 
(in VAT fraud).   

EQ1.2: Decreased 
involvement of 
organised crime in VAT 
fraud.   

EQ1.2: To what 
extent have the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to 
(general objectives) 
the fighting of VAT 
fraud?  

EQ1.2: Faster 
identification and 
dismantling of crime 
networks in VAT fraud.   

EQ1.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews 
and survey)  

EQ1.1: Impact Assessment 
accompanying the 
document Amended 
proposal for a Council 
Regulation Amending 
Regulation (EU) No 
904/2010   

EQ1.1: DG TAXUD, VAT 
Gap in the EU (annual 
publication)  

EQ1.1: DG TAXUD 
Webpage  

EQ1.2: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews 
and survey)  

EQ1.2: Annual report by 
Eurofisc (MS)  

EQ1.1: Share of 
stakeholders 
indicating the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to fiscal 
consolidation within 
the Union  

EQ1.1: Evolution of 
VAT Gap (2015 – 
2019)  

EQ1.1: VAT Tax 
Revenues as % of 
GDP (2012-2020)  

EQ1.2: Estimated 
amount of VAT fraud 
detected (or 
prevented).  

EQ1.2 – 1.3: New 
modus operandi for 
committing VAT 
fraud and networks 
are identified.  

EQ1.2: Share of 
stakeholders 
indicating the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to the 
fight against VAT 
fraud.   

EQ1.2: Reduced time 
required to identify 
and dismantle VAT 
fraud networks  

See indicators EQ2.1  

EQ1.3: To what 
extent have the 
cooperation tools 

EQ1.3: Improved 
cooperation between 

47 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
contributed to 
(general objectives) 
the close cooperation 
between Member 
States in the EU VAT 
area?  

Member States in the EU 
VAT area.   

See indicators EQ2.2  

See indicators EQ2.3  

EQ1.3: Enhanced 
information exchange 
between Member States 
in the EU VAT area.   

Part of this question 
is exploratory. Hence 
no judgement criteria 
or indicators are 
required.  

EQ1.3: Increased 
number of joint 
activities/investigations 
undertaken in the VAT 
area.  

EQ2: To what 
extent have the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to 
(specific 
objectives) to better 
exploit the existing 
administrative 
cooperation 
instruments in the 
field of fighting 
VAT-related fraud, 
to contribute to 
fighting VAT fraud 
through rapid and 
more effective 
identification and 
dismantling of 
fraudulent networks 
related to VAT and 
to improve the 
multidisciplinary 
approach to fighting 
and preventing 
VAT-related fraud 
through swifter and 
more coordinated 
reaction capacity?  

EQ2.1: To what 
extent have the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to better 
exploit the existing 
administrative 
cooperation 
instruments in the 
field of fighting 
VAT-related fraud? 

EQ2.1: Annual statistics of 
the SCAC Expert Group  

EQ2.1: Annual statistics of 
the SCAC Expert Group  

EQ2.1: Annual statistics by 
DG TAXUD  

EQ2.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (interview)  

EQ2.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews 
and survey)  

EQ2.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews 
and survey)  

EQ2.1: Improved 
exploitation of existing 
cooperation instruments 
in the field of fighting 
VAT-related fraud  

(Bilateral) 
Information sharing  

EQ2.1: Evolution of 
the total number of 
information requests 
(2012 – 2020)  

EQ2.1: Evolution of 
% late replies on 
information requests 
(2012 -2014)  

EQ2.1: Evolution of 
% notifications 
specifying why the 
reply was late (2017- 
2020)  

EQ2.1: Evolution of 
the total number of 
spontaneous 
exchanges of 
information (2012 – 
2020)  

EQ2.1: Evolution of 
the AEOI (2012 – 
2020)  

EQ2.1: Number of 
times feedback is 
requested (EU level)  

Joint administrative 
enquiries  

48 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
EQ2.1: Evolution of 
presence of officials in 
other Member States 
for administrative 
enquiries (2012 – 
2020)  

EQ2.1: Evolution of 
MLCs (2012 – 2020)  

Electronic systems  

EQ2.1: Nr. Of VIES 
consultations  

EQ2.1: Measures were 
taken by Member 
States to ensure VIES 
information is 
accurate and up to 
date  

EQ2.1: Share of 
stakeholders 
confirming the 
effectiveness of 
electronic systems  

Eurofisc  

EQ2.1: Nr. of planned 
vs implemented 
Eurofisc activities.  

Cooperation with 
national customs 
authorities  

EQ2.1: Share of 
stakeholders 
confirming the 
effectiveness of 
cooperation with 
national customs 
authorities  

EQ2.1: Share of 
stakeholders 
indicating the 
effectiveness of the 
particular tool  

49 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
EQ2.2: To what 
extent have the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to 
fighting VAT fraud 
through rapid and 
more effective 
identification and 
dismantling of 
fraudulent networks 
related to VAT?  

EQ2.3: To what 
extent have the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to 
improving the 
multidisciplinary 
approach to fighting 
and preventing VAT-
related fraud through 
swifter and more 
coordinated reaction 
capacity?  

EQ2.2: More effective 
identification and 
dismantling of 
fraudulent networks 
related to VAT.  

EQ2.2: Share of 
stakeholders 
indicating that the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to more 
effective identification 
and dismantling of 
fraudulent networks 
related to VAT  

EQ2.2: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews 
and survey)  

EQ2.3: An improved 
multidisciplinary 
approach to fighting and 
preventing VAT-related 
fraud through swifter 
and more coordinated 
reaction capacity  

EQ2.3: Share of 
stakeholders 
indicating that the 
cooperation tools 
contributed to an 
improved 
multidisciplinary 
approach to fighting 
and preventing VAT-
related fraud  

EQ2.3: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews 
and survey)  

Source: Contractor’s Study  

Table 8: Elaborated evaluation matrix – Efficiency  

General 
question  

Specific questions    Judgement 

criteria  

Indicators  

Data sources   

EQ4: What are 
the costs and 
benefits for the 
different 
stakeholders 
concerned?   

EQ4.1: What are the 
regulatory and 
administrative costs 
and benefits for 
Member States?   

EQ4.2: What are the 
regulatory and 
administrative costs 
for the European 
Commission?   

EQ4.3: What are the 
regulatory and 
administrative costs 
for business / 
economic operators?  

Part of this 
question is 
exploratory. 
Hence no 
judgement criteria 
or indicators are 
required.  

EQ4.4: What are 
regulatory and 
administrative costs 
for other relevant 
stakeholders? (i.e. 
EPPO, OLAF)   

50 

EQ4.1 – 4.4: Stakeholder 
consultation  

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
EQ5: Are the 
benefits 
achieved at a 
reasonable cost?  

EQ5.1: To what 
extent have the 
desired effects been 
achieved at 
reasonable costs on 
the basis of a 
cost/benefits 
analysis?  

EQ5.1: Positive 
cost/benefit ratio 
(higher benefits 
than costs)  

EQ5.1: 
Stakeholders have 
a positive 
perception of the 
efficiency of the 
activities of the 
tools   

EQ5.1: MS level funding for 
tax authorities   

EQ5.1: EC funding for 
Eurofisc  

EQ5.1: EC funding for tools   

EQ5.1: Stakeholder (expert) 
estimations  

EQ5.1: Fiscalis programme  

EQ5.1: Funds for relevant DG 
TAXUD staff   

EQ5.1: Funds for staff at MS 
competent authorities dealing 
with VAT fraud/cooperation 
issues  

EQ5.1: Maintenance costs 
VIES, OSS, information 
exchange portal  

EQ5.1: Evolution of VAT gap  

EQ5.1: Share of stakeholders 
confirming that the costs of 
participating in the cooperation 
tools are proportionate to the 
benefits achieved (on the 
Regulation level and/or on the 
level of cooperation tools)  

Also, see relevant effectiveness 
questions and indicators  

EQ5.2: Suggestions by 
stakeholders of 
simplifications/improvements 
reducing the costs while 
maintaining the benefits  

EQ5.1: DG TAXUD 
documentation  

EQ5.1: Stakeholder (expert) 
estimations  

DG TAXUD, VAT Gap in 
the EU (annual publication)  

EQ5.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (survey and 
interviews)  

EQ5.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews)  

EQ5.2: 
Stakeholders 
indicate that the 
same degree of 
effects could have 
been achieved 
with lower costs.   

EQ5.2: Could the 
same degree of 
effects have been 
achieved with lower 
costs or with simpler 
procedures involving 
less administrative 
burden and/or with 
different 
implementation 
mechanisms?  

EQ5.2: Indications 
for significant 
differences 
between 

EQ5.2: Share of stakeholders 
that indicate that the same 
degree of effects could have 
been achieved with lower 
costs.  

51 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
EQ6: To what 
extent did the 
financing 
provided under 
the Fiscalis 
programme limit 
the compliance 
costs for 
Member States 
and hence 
contribute to the 
achievement of 
the objectives?  

costs/benefits for 
stakeholders.    

EQ5: Financing 
under the Fiscalis 
programme 
reduced 
compliance costs 
for Member 
States.   

EQ5: Financing 
under the Fiscalis 
programme 
contributed to the 
achievement of the 
objectives of the 
Regulation.   

EQ5: Volume and examples of 
Fiscalis programme reducing 
compliance costs.   

EQ5: Perception of 
stakeholders on the degree to 
which the Fiscalis programme 
reduced compliance costs.   

EQ5: Perception of 
stakeholders on the degree to 
which the Fiscalis programme 
contributed to the achievement 
of the objectives of the 
Regulation.   

EQ: Reports on Fiscalis 
programme (i.e. annual 
reports and work 
programmes)  

EQ5: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews)  

Source: Contractor’s Study  

Table 9: Elaborated evaluation matrix – Relevance  

General question   Specific questions    Judgement criteria  Indicators  

Data sources   

EQ6: To what 
extent do the initial 
objectives still 
correspond to 
current 
needs/issues? 

EQ6.1: To what extent 
have the specific and 
operational objectives 
of the Regulation 
proven to be and 
remain relevant for the 
general objectives?  

EQ6.1 Alignment 
between general, 
specific and 
operational 
objectives of the 
Regulation to the 
needs  

EQ6.1 Alignment 
between 
stakeholders’ 
perception of needs 
and problems and 
the objectives of the 
Regulation.  

EQ6.1: Share of 
stakeholders 
confirming the 
alignment of general, 
specific and 
operational objectives 
of the Regulation to 
the needs  

Also, see relevant 
effectiveness 
indicators.   

EQ6.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews)  

EQ6.2: Share of 
stakeholders 
confirming the 
alignment of 
activities/tools with 
needs and problems in 
the field of VAT fraud 
and the objectives of 
the Regulation  

EQ6.2: To what extent 
have the tools of the 
Regulation proven to 
be and remain relevant 
for achieving 
operational and 
specific objectives?  

EQ6.2: Alignment 
between tools of the 
Regulation and the 
general, specific and 
operational 
objectives of the 
Regulation.  

EQ6.2: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews  

Also, see relevant 
effectiveness 
indicators.  

52 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
EQ7.1: Which 
adaptation 
mechanisms are in 
place to follow 
technological, 
scientific, social and 
legal developments?  

EQ7.1: Presence of 
adaptation 
mechanisms in 
place to follow 
technological, 
scientific, social and 
legal developments  

EQ7.1: Adaptation 
mechanisms in place 
to follow 
technological, 
scientific, social 
and/or developments  

EQ7.1: Stakeholder 
consultation  

EQ7.2: Adaptation 
mechanisms in place 
to follow 
developments at 
EPPO.  

EQ7.2: Adaptation 
mechanisms in place 
to follow 
developments at 
OLAF.   

EQ7.2: Adaptation 
mechanisms in place 
to follow 
developments at 
Europol.  

EQ7.3: Share of 
stakeholders 
confirming positive 
opinions on future 
amendments to 
address changing 
needs.  

EQ7.3: Stakeholder 
consultation  

EQ7.3: amendments by 
Regulation (EU) 2020/283 and 
Directive (EU) 2020/285  

EQ7.3: Stakeholder 
consultation  

EQ7.1-7.3: see the 
Effectiveness indicators 
sources  

EQ7.2: Which 
adaptation 
mechanisms are in 
place to follow the 
developments in the 
juridical framework of 
bodies in charge of 
preventing and 
fighting fraud?  

EQ7.2: Presence of 
adaptation 
mechanisms to 
follow the 
developments in the 
juridical framework 
of bodies in charge 
of preventing and 
fighting fraud?  

EQ7: To what 
extent are there 
adaptation 
mechanisms in 
place to follow 
technological, 
scientific, social 
and legal 
developments? In 
particular, regarding 
the developments in 
the juridical 
framework of 
bodies in charge of 
preventing and 
fighting fraud, such 
as, for instance, the 
European Public 
Prosecutor's Office 
and the anti-money 
laundering 
authorities?  

EQ7.3: To what extent 
are needs and 
problems already 
addressed in the 
amendments 
introduced by 
Regulation (EU) 
2020/283 and 
Directive (EU) 
2020/285 that will 
come into force in 
2024 and 2025 or by 
the initiatives that the 
European Commission 
is envisaging in the 
Action Plan for fair 
and simple taxation 
and in the “VAT in 
the digital age 
package”.  

EQ7.3: 
Amendments are 
addressing evolving 
needs/problems to a 
significant extent  

EQ7.1-7.3: The 
broad trends in VAT 
gap, VAT fraud, and 
AML are addressed 
via the existing 
mechanisms  

EQ7.1-7.3: 
Effectiveness 
indicators related to 
the evolution of the 
VAT gap, VAT tax 
revenues, related VAT 
fraud trends  

Source: Contractor’s Study  

Table 10: Elaborated evaluation matrix – Coherence  

General 
question  

Specific questions    Judgement criteria  

Indicators  

Data sources   

EQ8: To what 
extent are the 
different tools 

EQ8.1: To what extent 
are the tools of the 
Regulation coherent 

EQ8.1: The tools of the 
Regulation are coherent and 
consistent with one another  

EQ8.1: Alignment of 
the tools (articles) of 
the Regulation in 

EQ8.1: Regulation 
940/2010  

53 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
and consistent with 
one another?  

of the 
Regulation 
coherent among 
each other 
(internal)?  

terms of objective and 
scope  

EQ8.1: Impact Assessment 
accompanying the 
document Amended 
proposal for a Council 
Regulation Amending 
Regulation (EU) No 
904/2010  

EQ8.2: Regulation 
940/2010  

EQ8.2. Are there any 
overlaps, 
contradictions or 
inconsistencies among 
the tools of the 
Regulation?  

EQ8.2: There are no 
overlaps, contradictions or 
inconsistencies among the 
tools of the Regulation.  

EQ9.1. To what extent 
are there 
complementarities 
/synergies between the 
Regulation and EU 
legislation in the 
combat against fraud 
(i.e. Regulation 
2017/1939, Regulation 
(EU) 2021/785, 
Regulation (EU, 
Euratom) No 
883/2013)  

EQ9.1. There are 
complementarities/synergies 
between the Regulation and 
EU legislation in the combat 
against fraud  

EQ9: To what 
extent is the 
Regulation 
coherent with 
other EU 
Regulation with 
similar 
objectives 
(external)?  

EQ9.2. To what extent 
are there 
complementarities 
/synergies between the 
Regulation and other 
EU legislation in 
Member States 
information exchange 
(i.e. Regulation 
2016/679)  

EQ9.2. There are 
complementarities/synergies 
between the Regulation and 
the exchange and Member 
States cooperation to a high 
extent/some extent/no 
extent.  

54 

EQ8.2. Assessment 
(and evidence) of 
tools (articles) in the 
Regulation that 
overlaps/ contradict or 
are inconsistent with 
one another (e.g., 
synergies, in terms of 
key concepts, 
terminology, in their 
implementation)  

EQ8.2: Impact Assessment 
accompanying the 
document Amended 
proposal for a Council 
Regulation Amending 
Regulation (EU) No 
904/2010  

EQ8.2: Stakeholder 
consultation  

EQ9.1. Assessment of 
the coherence of the 
articles of the 
Regulation with 
Regulation 
2017/1939, 
Regulation (EU) 
2021/785, Regulation 
(EU, Euratom) No 
883/2013.  

EQ9.1: Regulation 
940/2010  

EQ9.1: Regulation 
2017/1939, Regulation 
(EU) 2021/785, 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) 
No 883/2013.  

EQ9.1: Share of 
stakeholders 
confirming synergies 
between the tools and 
other initiatives on the 
EU level in the 
combat against tax 
fraud.   

EQ9.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (survey and 
interviews)  

EQ9.2. Assessment of 
the coherence of the 
articles of the 
Regulation with 
Regulation 2016/679  

EQ9.2: Regulation 
940/2010  

EQ9.2: Regulation 
2016/679  

EQ9.2: Stakeholder 
consultation (survey and 
interviews)  

EQ9.2: Share of 
stakeholders 
confirming synergies 
between the tools and 
other initiatives on the 
EU level in Member 
States cooperation  

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source: Contractor’s Study  

Table 11: Elaborated evaluation matrix - EU added value  

General question  Specific questions   Judgement criteria   Indicators  

Data sources   

EQ10.1. To what 
extent has the 
intervention at the 
EU level 
contributed to 
reaching the general 
and specific 
objectives of the 
Regulation as 
compared to any 
potential 
intervention of 
Member States at 
the regional, 
national or 
international level?  

EQ10.1. The 
intervention at the 
EU level has 
contributed to 
reaching the general 
and specific 
objectives of the 
Regulation to a 
greater extent than 
any potential 
intervention of 
Member States at the 
regional, national or 
international level.  

EQ10.1: Share of 
stakeholders confirming 
the importance of the 
support of the tools in 
reaching the general and 
specific objectives  

EQ10.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews)  

EQ10: Is there 
additional value 
resulting from the 
Regulation 
compared to what 
could  

be achieved at the 
national level?  

EQ10.2: To what 
extent has the 
intervention at the 
EU level 
contributed to 
achieving 
efficiencies that 
could not have been 
achieved on the MS 
level alone?  

EQ11: To what 
extent do the issues 
addressed by the 
Regulation 
continue to require  

action at the EU 
level?  

EQ10.2: Intervention 
on the EU level was 
most cost-effective 
compared to possible 
interventions on the 
national level.  

EQ10.1-10.2: The 
number/volume of 
similar existing 
mechanisms at the 
national level is 
insufficient to 
address the 
objectives of the 
Regulation  

EQ11.1: 
Stakeholders agree 
that issues addressed 
by the Regulation 
continue to require  

action at the EU 
level  

EQ10.2: Share of 
stakeholders confirming 
that there was an 
increase in financial 
efficiency due to the 
intervention on the EU 
level as compared to 
possible national 
interventions.  

EQ10.1-10.2: 
Number/volume of 
similar existing 
mechanisms at the 
national level  

EQ11.1: Share of 
stakeholders confirming 
issues addressed by the 
Regulation continue to 
require action at the EU 
level  

EQ11.1: Foresight 
reports and studies 
confirming that issues 
addressed by the 
Regulation continue to 
be relevant to achieve 
general objectives   

EQ10.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews)  

EQ10.1-10.2: Data from 
national authorities  

EQ10.1: Stakeholder 
consultation (interviews)  

EQ11.1: DG TAXUD, VAT 
Gap in the EU (annual 
publication)  

EQ12: What would 
be the most likely 

For the exploratory 
question, no 

55 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
consequences of 
terminating or 
withdrawing the  
Regulation?  

judgement criteria or 
indicators are 
required.   

56 

 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 

57 

 
Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation65 

Citizens/Consu
mers  

Businesses 

Administratio
ns 

[Other…] _ 
specify 

Quanti
tative  

Comm
ent 

Quantit
ative  

Comme
nt 

Comm
ent  

Quant
itativ
e 

Quan
titati
ve 

Com
ment 

[Cost or Benefit description]: 

Mark the type 
of 
cost/benefit, 
each 
a 
separate line: 

on 

No 
costs 
for 
citizen
s 

Costs: 

Typ
e: 
Cho
ose 
one-
off 
or 
recu
rren
t 

Direct 
compliance 
costs 
costs, 
costs, 
charges) 

administrative 
regulatory 

(adjustment 

(costs 

Enforcement 
costs: 
associated 
with 
activities  linked  to  the 
implementation  of  an 
as 
initiative 
monitoring, 
inspections 
and 
adjudication/litigation) 

such 

Indirect  costs 
(indirect 
compliance 
costs  or  other  indirect 
costs 
as 
transaction costs) 

such 

Benefits: 

Direct 
benefits  (such  as 
improved  well  being: 
changes    in  pollution 
levels,  safety,  health, 

No 
costs 
for 
busines
ses.  

Busine
sses 

The 
Regula
tion 
is 
primari
ly 
address
ing 
compet
ent 
authori
ties 
in 
the  MS 
such  as 
tax 
authori
ties  or 
custom
s 

Provi
de 
the 
mone
tary 
value 

Wher
e  no 
quant
ificati
on 
is 
possi
ble, 
pleas
e 
provi
de 
range
s 
or 
explai
n  the 
reaso
ns 
why 

Not 
avail
able 

benefit 
from 
simplifi
ed VAT 
complia
nce 
achieve
d 
through 
automat
ed VAT 
number 
verifica
tion  or 
through 
simplifi
cation 
offered 
by 
the 
Special 
Scheme
s. 

No 
quantifi
cation 
the 
of 
benefits 
is 

Costs 
related 
to 
develo
ping 
and 
operati
ng 
nation
al 
databa
ses  for 
the 
exchan
ge  of 
VAT 
data. 
The 
survey 
did not 
provid
e exact 
figures
but 
, 
they 
do  not 
exceed 
hundre
d 
of 
thousa
nds 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
availabl
e. 

employment;  market 
efficiency) 

Indirect 
benefits  (such  as 
wider 
economic 
benefits, 
macroeconomic 
benefits, 
impacts, 
environmental 
impacts)  

social 

per 
year 
per 
MS. 

The 
benefit 
is to be 
able  to 
control 
cross-
border 
transac
tions 
for  an 
amoun
t 
of 
EUR 
700 
billion
s. 
Moreo
ver, 
identif
ied 
VAT 
fraud 
of 
EUR 
14.6 
billion
s  per 
year. 

65 Where there is a prior impact assessment, the table should contain as a minimum the costs/benefits 

identified in the IA with the information gathered on the actual cost/benefit. As available, the table 
should include the monetisation (EUR) of the costs/benefits based on any quantitative translation of 
the data (time taken, person days, number of records/equipment/staff etc. affected or involved 
represented in monetary value  – see Standard cost model, for example). For all information presented, 
it should be included in the comments section whether it relates to all Member States or is drawn from 
a subset. An indication of the robustness of the data should be provided in Annex II on Methodology 
and analytical models used. 

59 

 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

Background  

The consultation activities aimed to collect stakeholders’ views and opinions to provide evidence 
for the evaluation of the EU framework for VAT administrative cooperation by considering the 
evaluation criteria:  

•  Effectiveness ‒ the extent to which the EU framework for VAT administrative cooperation 

has achieved its objectives;  

•  Efficiency ‒ the extent to which these objectives are achieved at a reasonable cost;  
•  Coherence  ‒  the  alignment  between  all  the  cooperation  means  foreseen  in  the  EU 
framework  for  VAT  administrative  cooperation  as  well  as  the  overall  EU  policy 
framework related to fighting VAT fraud;  

•  Relevance  ‒  the  alignment  between  the  objectives  of  the  EU  framework  for  VAT 
administrative  cooperation  and  the  current  needs  and  problems  experienced  by 
stakeholders; 

•  EU added value - the additional impacts generated as opposed to leaving the subject matter 

in the hands of Member States. 

Types of consultation activities conducted 

Targeted consultations 

A  distinction  was  made  between  EU  and  national  stakeholders  and  public  and  private  sector 
stakeholders. The main target audiences for data collection have been national tax authorities in 
charge of the implementation and use of the Regulation: ‘central liaison office (CLO)’ which are 
principal responsibility for contacts with other MSs in the field of VAT administrative cooperation. 
Moreover, from the public sector the following EU bodies were consulted: 

•  European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) 
•  European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) 
•  European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). 

Besides  the  surveys  targeting  the  public  sector,  another  survey  was  launched  targeting  traders, 
business associations, and professional associations. This concerns economic operators carrying 
out  cross-border  transactions.  It  focused  on  the  general  perception  of  economic  operators 
concerning the effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, coherence, and added value of the Regulation. 
This  survey  was  launched  in  January  2023,  and  a  total  of  eight  organisations  participated. 
Regarding the sample of economic operators that submitted replies to the survey, it appears that 
the respondents primarily represent sizeable economic operators that operate in B2B sales. 

Workshop  

Workshop with Member State tax authorities was organised on 20 and 21 February 2023. European 
Commission, OLAF and the EPPO representatives, as well as tax authorities from most EU MSs, 
participated in a series of sessions where the preliminary findings of the evaluation were presented. 
Stakeholders were given a chance to respond to the draft findings in writing and verbally. On this 
basis, the preliminary findings were tested, further contextualised, and (re)drafted into the final 
report. 

60 

 
Results of the consultation 

Effectiveness 

Concerning the general objectives of the Regulation, this evaluation finds that the toolbox offered 
to tax authorities leads to closer collaboration between tax authorities, which contributes to fighting 
VAT administrative fraud, ultimately ensuring that VAT taxes feed into national and EU budgets 
and thus contribute to fiscal consolidation. While various tools, e.g. VAT Information Exchange 
System  (VIES)  on  the  Web  and  the  One  Stop  Shop  (OSS),  facilitate  the  fulfilment  of  VAT 
obligations by taxpayers, the overall focus of the Regulation is creating an unfriendly environment 
for fraudsters. 

Concerning the specific objectives of the Regulation, this evaluation concludes that the cooperation 
tools mainly contribute to 1) better exploiting the existing administrative cooperation instruments 
and information exchange. Overall, stakeholders find it difficult to attribute the contribution of the 
tools to the objectives, particularly for the goal to 3) improve the multidisciplinary approach to 
fighting and preventing VAT-related fraud. The specific objective related to 2) more effective and 
rapid identification and dismantling of fraudulent networks is mostly linked to the ability of the 
Regulation to speed up the identification and investigation of cases which leads to faster responses. 
An in-depth review of the cooperation tools under the Regulation shows that MSs use the tools and 
attribute effectiveness to varying degrees. The most effective tools are 1) EoI; 2) eFCA; 3) VIES; 
and 4) Eurofisc. It is not always possible for MSs to make a clear distinction between the tools, 
and often these are used in combination. Most MSs use all tools within an ‘ecosystem’ of EU and 
national tools at their disposal to fight VAT fraud. 

Efficiency 

This evaluation concludes that determining the efficiency of the Regulation is difficult due to the 
lack of sufficient data to determine whether available resources and inputs are used in an optimal 
manner.  Tools  within  the  Regulation  focus  on  increasing  compliance  by  businesses,  as  well  as 
giving (tax) authorities the instruments to increase VAT revenue by tackling fraud. Quantifying 
this impact is not easy. While one-third of the consulted MSs (n=8) attempt to quantify the effect 
of the fight against VAT fraud, different ways of measurements are used, which make a comparison 
or estimating the EU-wide impact difficult. 

Further, this evaluation finds that the majority of interviewed and surveyed authorities confirm that 
the  benefits  of  the  tools  available  under  the  Regulation  outweigh  the  costs.  Tools  that  are 
particularly perceived as being cost-efficient are Eurofisc, eFCA, VIES on the Web, VIES, and 
spontaneous EoI and EoIR. Noticeable are the reviews on the EoI feedback for requests, where 
stakeholders are more withholding on the cost-benefit ratio. 

Relevance 

Overall, the initial objectives of the Regulation and tools identified within still correspond to the 
needs of MSs in addressing the root causes of VAT fraud. Tax authorities (n=25) believe there are 
no parts of the Regulation that are no longer relevant for the control of the intra-EU transactions 
and efficient collection of VAT. MSs consider that all administrative cooperation instruments are 
relevant  in  addressing  the  needs,  although  some  are  to  a  larger  extent  than  others.  While 
information exchanges and Eurofisc seem to be the most frequently used cooperation tools in all 
MSs, the presence of officials in territories of other MSs and VAT cross-border refunds are used 
to a lesser extent to respond to Member State needs in combatting VAT fraud. As mentioned in the 
analysis of Effectiveness, there is a lack of awareness of OLAF as a tool and tools introduced in 

61 

 
with the 2018 amendments - most notably EoI in the context of OSS (Art 47(i) and 47(j)) and EoI 
on  request  as  reflected  in  Art  7(4a).  While  the  2018  amendments  are  seen  favourably,  their 
implementation remains challenged as there is sufficient knowledge and awareness at the central 
level in MSs, which has not fully reached local authorities (mainly due to language barriers). Larger 
MSs claim some time is needed before this knowledge will be shared effectively with officials in 
tax authorities at the local levels 

Coherence 

MSs appreciate the variety of tools, and the majority do not report any overlaps between them. In 
particular, VIES, Eurofisc, the eFCA and EoIR work well together. AEOI, without prior request, 
has  been  identified  as  the  least  coherent  tool  as  such  information  can  maybe  more  easily  be 
exchanged through Eurofisc. There is no overlap between the Regulation and other EU legislation 
as  related  directives  and  legislations  are  complementary.  Rather  than  overlaps,  missing  or 
insufficient links to other authorities involved in the fight against VAT fraud can be observed. In 
particular, the missing reference of the EPPO in the Regulation to provide an explicit legal base 
for its direct access to VAT data on cross-border transactions at EU level, as well as the lack of use 
of  OLAF,  as  well  as  impracticalities  related  to  Europol  collaboration,  lead  to  legal  uncertainty 
regarding the cooperation between MSs and these bodies on VAT issues. 

EU added value 

MSs reported that the timeliness of information is crucial. It is important to improve and increase 
the  ability  to  react  to  VAT  fraud.  Speed  is  important  to  collaborate  more  closely  with  the 
prosecution to ensure cases are followed up on by the judiciary. In addition, there are upcoming 
issues that are not yet addressed by the Regulation, which require continued action at the EU level. 
The  Regulation is  not  equipped  to address  new  forms  of  fraud, and  fraud is rapidly moving  to 
services and forms of intangible goods such as cryptocurrencies and NFTs. 

62 

 
ANNEX VII. TARGETED CONSULTATION   

1.  Exchange of Information  

Exchange of information  

•  Most Member States use articles 7.1, 7.2 and 7.4 on EoI to tackle VAT fraud. Article 7.4(a) 
seems to be less used by Member States, amongst others, affected by its recent introduction to the 
toolbox. 

•  The number of information requests has been declining since 2016, and there is an uneven use 
of this tool across the EU. The explanations are the increased access to databases which reduced 
the need to make specific requests, and that informal bilateral contact (often with neighbouring 
countries) is frequent and is likely not registered as exchanged under the remit of the Regulation. 

•  There is a declining trend of late replies between 2012 and 2016 that stabilised in the period 
after 2016. Overall, this suggests an improved response rate. 

•  Automatic information exchanges under article 14 occur, but the extent of its use varies across 
the EU Member States. 

•  Spontaneous information exchanges (article 15) show a declining trend from 2015 onwards. 
Amongst others, this is explained by a better understanding of what information is accurate, 
relevant, and/or timely for other countries. 

• 
It is unclear to which extent Member States make use of the opportunity to ask for feedback 
(article 16); however, this option is used, which confirms that there is a feedback loop in order to 
better the quality of information exchange. 

Source: Contractor’s Study – Key take-aways usability EOI 

1.  Exchange of Information on Request  

Figure Annex VII 1: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities   

Survey feedback on articles 7.1, 7.2 and 7.4 shows that most Member States use the EoI44 
to tackle VAT fraud. 76%(n=19) of the respondents say that EoI is used to a large and very 
large extent. At the same time, article 7.4(a) seems to be less used by Member States. In 
fact, 44% of respondents (n=11) state that the 2018 amendment had not been used at all, 
do not know (16%/n=4) or to a limited extent (16%/n=4).  

63 

 
 
Figure Annex VII  2: Number of information requests sent out by one Member State to another 
(2012 – 2020)  

Source: Contractor’s Study: 2012 – 2014: IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Amended 
proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, 2015 – 2020: Annual 
statistics of the SCAC EXPERT GROUP (on behalf of the European Commission).  

After a detailed analysis the Contractor pointed out that in 2020 the five Member States 
that sent the most requests are collectively responsible for roughly 50% of the total number: 
Germany  (5,444),  Poland  (3,704),  Hungary  (2,202),  Czech  Republic  (2,169)  and  Italy 
(1,962). Importantly, there is a moderate mismatch between the requests sent and received 
(which theoretically should be the same). The disparity ranged for the period 2015 - 2020 
between 340 (in 2016) to 39 (in 2018).45 The data shows that only  a limited number of 
Member States are responsible for a large share of requests (5 Member States for 50% of 
requests). This suggests that, in addition to using the tool less often, there is also an uneven 
use of this tool across the EU. Various factors explain this when Member States are asked 
about this. The main reason provided is the increased access to databases which reduced 
the need to make specific requests. Further, feedback from Member States suggests that 
informal bilateral contact (often with neighbouring countries) is frequent and is likely not 
registered as exchanged under the remit of the Regulation. 

Figure Annex VII 3: Percentage of late answers46 on information requests (2012 – 2020)  

Source: Source: Contractor’s Study: 2012 – 2014: IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document 
Amended proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, 2015 – 2020: 
Annual statistics of the SCAC EXPERT GROUP (on behalf of the European Commission).  

64 

 
 
Figure Annex VII 4: Percentage of notifications47 specifying why a reply is late relative to the 
total number of late replies (2017 -2020)  

Source: Contractor’s Study: 2017 – 2020: Annual statistics of the SCAC EXPERT GROUP (on behalf of 
the European Commission).  

The declining trend of late answers shows that Member States are faster in responding to 
the  requests.  Therefore,  the  response  rate  of  the  use  of  Article  7  has  improved.  The 
notifications on why authorities respond late remain at a steady level (approximately one 
out of four) over the years.  

2.  Exchange of Information without prior request: automatic and spontaneous  

Figure Annex VII 5: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities   

Survey feedback suggests that automatic information exchanges under Article 14 occur, 
but the extent of its use varies across  Member States. 20% of respondents use this to a 
limited extent, 24% (n=5) to some extent, and 28% (n=6) to a large extend (n=7). Article 
15 is more frequently used, with 52% to a very large extent (n=13) and 40% (n=10) to 
some extent.  

Figure Annex VII 6: Number of spontaneous exchanges of information (2012 - 2020)  

65 

 
 
  
Source: Contractor’s Study – Source: 2012 – 2014, IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document 
Amended proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, 2015 – 2020: 
Annual statistics of the SCAC EXPERT GROUP (on behalf of the European Commission).  

Stakeholder consultation carried out by the Contractor suggests that a possible explanation 
of a decreasing trend in spontaneous EoI is that Member States, after years of collaboration, 
better understand which information is of value to other countries and are thus less likely 
to  share  information  that  is  not  accurate,  relevant,  and/or  timely.  Another  possible 
explanation is that Member States pay less attention to information that does not contribute 
to their own work in terms of correctly assessing and monitoring the application of VAT. 
Against a background of limited resources available to tackle VAT fraud, Member States 
might prioritise the information directly related to their own tax revenue. If a tax authority 
does not see a direct benefit from spontaneous EoI, there is a likelihood that they will not 
share, and thus the trend decreases. However, stakeholder feedback does not indicate this 
is actually the case. In fact, it is mentioned that spontaneous EoI might not directly benefit 
the MS sending the information but indirectly benefit the EU as a whole.  

3.  Feedback for requests  

Figure Annex VII 7: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities   

The requested Member State has, in the case of information exchanges upon request or 
spontaneous exchanges, the right to ask for feedback on the use of the information and 
quality of information it provided (art. 16). From the interview feedback conducted by the 
Contractor, it is unclear to which extent Member States make use of this opportunity to ask 
for feedback. However, the survey sheds light on this and suggests most Member States 
use this possibility to some extent (48%/n=12), followed by a large and very large extent 
(respectively 24%/n=6 and 12%/n=3). This confirms that there is a feedback loop but that 
this possibility can be improved in order to better the quality of information exchange.  

4.  Request for administrative notification 

Figure Annex VII 8: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities   

66 

 
 
 
5.  Presence  of  officials  in  the  territory  of  another  Member  State  for 
administrative enquiries  

Presence of officials in the territory of another Member State  

•  MS tax authorities use article 28 to a limited and some extent. A significant share of Member States does 
not at all use this tool. Apart from COVID, language barriers play a role in the usability of this tool.  It is 
also perceived as labour-intensive, which plays a role when deciding to conduct these enquiries against a 
background of limited resources.  

•  Article 28.2(a) is hardly used, which is linked to the recent changes which take time to enter into force in 
practice.  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Key take-aways usability PAOE   

Figure Annex VII 9: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities   

Figure Annex VII 10: Presence of officials in offices of other Member States (2012 – 2020), article 
28 of Regulation 904/2010  

Source: Contractor’s Study: Source: 2012 – 2014: IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document 
Amended proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, 2015 – 2020: 
Annual statistics of the SCAC EXPERT GROUP (on behalf of the European Commission).  

6.  Simultaneous Controls  

Simultaneous controls   

•  Between 2015 and 2017, there was an increase in the number of simultaneous checks being initiated, to 
be offset in the years after bringing the number of initiated simultaneous checks in 2019 back to the level of 
2014. Nonetheless, most Member States used this tool (article 29) in the past and confirmed its usability.   

•  Member States see this as a flexible tool as it is not explained in a detailed manner in the Regulation. At 
the same time, against a background of limited (human) capacity to fight VAT fraud on the national level 
and the need for a fast response to deter fraudsters, this tool is perceived as less user-friendly for Member 
States due to the time and effort needed.  

67 

 
 
   
•  From the perspective of cooperation and information sharing, the TNA is faster and more efficient. 
Simultaneous checks are more useful for tackling complex cases and thus complement other tools under the 
Regulation.  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Key take-aways usability SC  

Figure Annex VII 11: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study –  Survey of Member State authorities   

The answers to the survey are very balanced. Therefore, to understand the usability of this 
tool, it is necessary to take into account the interviewed feedback from  Member States. 
According  to  the  interviews  the  Contractor  stated  that  Member  States  confirms  the 
usefulness of this tool. In particular, the fact that it is not explained in a detailed manner in 
the Regulation also makes it a flexible tool in terms of how Member States can use it. At 
the  same  time,  the  tool  is  seen  as  burdensome  and  time-consuming.  This,  against  a 
background of limited (human) capacity to fight VAT fraud on the national level and the 
need for a fast response to deter fraudsters, makes the tool less user-friendly for Member 
States.  Stakeholder  feedback  suggests  that  from  the  perspective  of  cooperation  and 
information sharing, the TNA is faster and more efficient. On the other hand, simultaneous 
checks are more useful for tackling complex cases. In fact, the tools complement rather 
than oppose each other. They aim to leverage the expertise and resources of multiple tax 
authorities to identify and investigate cross-border tax fraud and evasion more effectively.  

Figure Annex VII 12: Number of initiated simultaneous checks (2012 – 2020), articles 29 and 30 
of Regulation (EU) 904/2010    

Source: Contractor’s Study: 2012 – 2014: IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Amended 
proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, 2015 – 2020: Annual 
statistics of the SCAC EXPERT GROUP (on behalf of the European Commission).  

68 

 
 
  
  
Figure Annex VII 13: Total number of simultaneous controls (2012 – 2020), articles 29 and 30 of 
Regulation (EU) 904/2010(combined statistics of individual Member States)  

Source: Contractor’s Study: Source: 2012 – 2014: IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document 
Amended proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, 2015 – 2020: 
Annual statistics of the SCAC EXPERT GROUP (on behalf of the European Commission).   

7.  VIES and recapitulative statements  

VIES on the web, VIES and Recapitulative Statements   

•  VIES on the Web requests have grown from approximately 2.8 billions in 2018 to more or less 6.3 
billions in 2022. 36% of the requests resulted in a valid response; 64% yielded output that did not help in 
addressing VAT fraud. This is mainly due to bad hits and invalid responses.  

•  Member States overwhelmingly use VIES. If data collected from VIES is not complete, Member States 
make additional data requests.   

•  Recapitulative statements are regarded as rather ineffective by the majority of Member States. Lack of 
data granularity, time reporting differences across Member States, and the poor quality of the data reported 
are reported shortcomings.  

•  The extended right granted to Eurofisc officials to access VIES is considered useful.  

•  Most Member States have not received complaints from traders in relation to data communicated 
through VIES on the Web.  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Key take-aways usability VIES  

Figure Annex VII 14: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities   

69 

 
  
  
Surveys  and  interviews  feedback  carried  out  by  the  Contractor  also  shed  light  on  two 
additional relevant points as regard VIES: (1) the fact that the extended right granted to 
Eurofisc  officials  to  access  VIES  is  considered  useful  (Q31  86%/n=19)  and  (2)  most 
Member States have not received complaints from traders in relation to data communicated 
through VIES on the WEB (Q32 83%/n=19).  

Figure Annex VII 15: Number of VIES requests (in Millions, period: 2018 – 2022)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – VIES on the Web data (received from DG TAXUD)  

Figure Annex VII 16: Average output on VIES requests (period: 2018-2022)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – VIES on the Web data (received from DG TAXUD)  

8.  Eurofisc  

Eurofisc  

•  This tool is extensively used by Member States.  

•  The participation of Member States in Eurofisc networks increased over time.   

70 

 
  
  
•  The TNA tool developed under Eurofisc is seen as a useful tool, currently being the main tool used for 
information exchanges.  

•  Eurofisc makes for an effective early warning tool that improves the collection of VAT on intra-EU 
transactions within the different working fields. Particularly WF 1 on MTIC fraud is considered highly 
effective, followed by e-commerce and customs.  

•  Out of the 480 e-commerce fraud signals shared under WF 5, the Member States only provided feedback 
in response to one signal, suggesting the risk database is either not well targeted, not useful or not successful. 
Nevertheless, most Member States consider this working field to be an effective early warning tool that 
improves the collection of VAT on intra-EU transactions.  

•  TNA is particularly high valued in terms of improving Eurofisc’s capacity. The tool is also perceived as 
highly effective for the exchange of information and has the potential to improve risk analysis.  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Key take-aways usability Eurofisc  

Figure Annex VII 17: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities   

Eurofisc is one of the most, if not the most, used tool by tax authorities from those foreseen 
in  Regulation  to  fight against VAT fraud. The two main pillars within Eurofisc are the 
different Working Fields and the Transaction Network Analysis tool. During the period 
2014 to 2020 all Member States (n=28) – including the United Kingdom and Norway – 
participated in WF 1. For the rest of WF the participation increased during the period. In 
WF 2, from 23 in 2014 to 25 Member States in 2020; in WF 348, from 22 in 2014 to 26 
Member States, and Norway, in 2020; and in WF 5, from 22 in 2016 to 27 Member States, 
and Norway, in 202049. Since two years all Member States participate in each WF. As far 
as  TNA  is  concerned,  the  Contractor  highlighted  that  according  to  the  insights  from 
interviews the information exchanges through the TNA tool is the main tool being used for 
information  exchanges.  This  can  explain  the  development  of  the  number  of  traditional 
information exchanges in the WF 1, 2, and 3 for the period 2017 - 2020. Primarily in WF 
1, the number of information exchanges has been declining sharply. As the detected overall 
information  exchange in WF 1 has been relatively  steady, this can be explained by the 
gradual  transition  from  using  traditional  information  exchanges  to  the  adoption  of  the 
automated TNA tool.  

71 

 
Figure Annex VII 18: Information exchanges in Working Fields 1, 2, and 3 (period 2017-2020)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Eurofisc Annual Report 2020  

The use of Transaction Network Analysis allowed to streamline the work of Eurofisc and 
automate  its  work  on  data  collection.  This  greatly  improved  the  amount  of  identified 
suspicious transactions as shown in the Figure below.  

Figure Annex VII 19: Total amount, in billions of euros, of fraudulent or suspicious transactions 
detected in Eurofisc50 working field 1.  

Beside the amount of suspicious transactions, the number of fraudsters identified, and VAT 
number deregistration has also increased in the last years.  

Table Annex VII 1: Number of fraudsters identified and VAT number deregistration  

2020 

2021 

2022 

2023 

Amount of detected fraudulent or suspicious transactions 
(Million EUR ) 

3 300 

8 100 

10 874 

14 634 

Number of detected fraudsters 

2 093 

2 161 

2 907 

5 171 

Number of VAT number deregistration 

Fraudsters qualified as missing traders 

Active networks (at least 5 fraudsters) 

Companies linked to fraudulent cases in the EU 

495 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

775 

1 942 

2 995 

N/A 

1 953 

3 382 

N/A 

N/A 

116 

632 

200 

691 

72 

 
  
  
 
 
9.  Cooperation with national customs authorities  

Cooperation with national customs authorities  

•  While cooperation with national customs authorities is broadly used, the automatic exchange of 
information is difficult due to the different systems used by customs.  

•  Cooperation with national customs authorities is not homogenous and consists of different actions. It is 
unclear whether Member States use these actions differently.  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Key take-aways usability Cooperation with Customs  

Figure Annex VII 20: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities  

From  the  survey  conducted  by  the  Contractor  it  could  be  noted  that  most  respondents 
cooperate with customs only to some extent. Additionally, the Contractor’s study details 
that  cooperation  with  national  customs  authorities  under  articles  17  and  21  is  not 
homogenous and can be broken down into various actions, such as access of tax authorities 
to CP42 transactions (art. 17.1(f) and 21.2(a)), access of tax authorities to IOSS monthly 
amounts (art. 17.1 (e)), and access of customs authorities to VIES information (art 21.1(a)). 
It is not clear from the collected data whether Member States use these differently.  

10.  OLAF  

OLAF  

•  Member States rarely share relevant information with OLAF spontaneously. The main factor seems to 
be the lack of awareness of why it is potentially important to share information with the EU’s anti-fraud 
office.  

•  Another barrier to using this tool is the fact that interaction between tax and customs authorities is 
organised differently in each country. Also, the voluntary nature of the Regulation makes Member States 
less likely to share information.  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Key take-aways usability OLAF  

Figure Annex VII 21: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used to tackle VAT fraud (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities   

73 

 
  
11. 

Schemes included in Chapter XI  

Schemes included in Chapter XI  

•  Member States confirm the usability of the OSS and IOSS for taxpayers but less directly link this to the 
fight against VAT fraud or administrative cooperation.  

•  EoI in the context of the OSS (articles 47(i) and 47(j)) does not occur very frequently. However, the 
centralisation of data through the schemes facilitates exchange.  

•  The OSS and IOSS tools improve VAT compliance as they make compliance with VAT rules easier.  

Identified barriers to the tools are that, at times, the OSS faces IT problems and CCN limitations in 

• 
terms of file transferring.  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Key take-aways usability Schemes Chapter XI  

Figure Annex VII 22: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities   

It should be remarked that the evidence gathered by the Contractor as regard the usability 
of Schemes included in Chapter XI is manly focus on the survey of Member States. Some 
interviews took  place but  without specifying who were the stakeholders targeted, but  it 
seems the main interviewees were authorities from Member States since it is stated that 
Member States confirm the usability of the tool for taxpayers but less directly link this to 
the fight against VAT fraud or administrative cooperation. Feedback collected during the 
validation workshop suggests that the recent introduction of OSS (July 2022) also plays an 
important role in the relatively limited use of the tools. Apart from the EoI on request in 
the  context  of  the  OSS  (Art.  47i  and  47j)  which  is  a  specific  tool  to  be  used  by  tax 
authorities, the usability of these Schemes depends on the willingness of taxpayers to apply 
them. Therefore, it could have been also interested to have specific feedback from private 
stakeholder which could be potential user of these schemes since their main objective is to 
facilitating the fulfilment of VAT obligations to taxpayers as they make compliance with 
VAT rules easier.  

To substantiate the opinion of the stakeholders, below are some figures on the amount of 
VAT collected through these schemes.  

74 

 
Figure Annex VII 23: VAT revenue declared during January - December 2022 in OSS/IOSS 

Figure Annex VII 24: Total VAT revenues from MOSS 2015-2020. 

12.  VAT cross-border refund  

VAT cross-border refund  

•  This tool is perceived as less relevant for fighting VAT fraud, illustrated by the limited use by MS 
authorities.   

•  The tool’s usability is more linked to facilitating cooperation between tax authorities and to facilitating 
taxpayers’ VAT obligations.  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Key take-aways usability VAT cross-border refund  

The  VAT  refunds  under  Articles  5  and  18  of  the  Council  Directive  2008/9/EC  of  12 
February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for 
in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund 
but established in another Member State are transmitted between Member States using the 
VAT refund electronic system. The number of such refund claims amounted to 706 808 
claims across the EU in 2022. Between 10 and 15% of these claims are rejected.   

75 

 
 
Figure Annex VII 25: Q5 on the extent to which tools are used (n=25)  

Source: Contractor’s Study – Survey of Member State authorities 

As regard this tool it should be noted that the findings reached by the Contractor are based 
on the survey to the Member States. Nevertheless, the key information would have been 
the one that private stakeholders could have provided since the main objective of this tool 
is to facilitate the fulfilment of obligations to taxpayers.  

Figure Annex VII 26: Number of VAT refunds claims received and rejected across the EU66 

Figure Annex VII 27: Value of VAT refunds claims received and rejected across the EU67 

66 Annual SCAC statistics 

67 Annual SCAC statistics 

76 

 
 
  
  
 
The  number  and  the  amount  of  VAT  refunds  fluctuated  over  the  last  five  years,  but  in 
general stayed within a certain range. 

77