Three rules, different reporting populations
Identify the reporting person first; then test the arrangement, required data and relevant deadline.
- DAC6: a cross-border arrangement with a relevant hallmark; the main benefit test applies only where required. Determine the intermediary’s or taxpayer’s role in the specific case.
- DAC8: reporting crypto-asset service provider, reportable users and transactions. Data collection starts in 2026; domestic reporting follows applicable 2027 deadlines and exchange for the first period occurs by 30 September 2027.
- DAC9: top-up tax information returns for groups within Pillar Two. It is neither an individual crypto-investor report nor a duty imposed on every cross-border SME.
The practical connection to AML
The DAC framework concerns tax cooperation and transparency, not a substitute for customer due diligence, transaction monitoring or AML reporting. The practical overlap lies in information quality: for complex structures and cross-border flows, parties, economic activity and evidence should form a coherent, verifiable account. A tax discrepancy is not automatically money laundering.
Scenario: overseas company, digital services, cross-border payments
A company buys services from suppliers across several countries and receives payments from customers in other jurisdictions. Before assessing any DAC reporting, the professional identifies the parties, actual services, contracts, beneficial ownership, payment rationale and the relevant tax rules. Separately, any AML obliged entity evaluates risk and evidence under its own obligations. The analyses may inform each other but must not be conflated.
Buying services abroad does not, by itself, establish a DAC6 hallmark, a DAC8 crypto-service reporting role or a DAC9 in-scope group. Identify the fact that triggers the specific tax analysis before connecting it to a separate AML review.
Three checks worth making
Start with the legal perimeter, not the acronym.
- Which DAC provision could apply, to which person or entity, and in which jurisdiction?
- Can the declared parties, business activity and money flows be reconciled with independent evidence?
- Which questions require tax advice and which need a separate AML assessment, without treating every discrepancy as suspicious activity?
Sources and references
Informational content. It does not replace an assessment of a specific case.
European Commission — DAC and DAC6European Commission — DAC8Council of the EU — DAC9Commission / Commissione europea — DAC6