Volume 8 No 2 / Read Article

By Paul R.C. Kraan (Guest Author)

D.A.C.6 introduced reporting obligations for “intermediaries” and taxpayers in respect of cross-border tax planning structures containing possible risks of tax avoidance within the spirit of the directive. The information goes into a database and is automatically exchanged with other E.U. Member States. The underlying idea is that the information gathered should enable the tax authorities to identify undesirable planning in advance – and potentially take action against these practices.

In the Netherlands, D.A.C.6 has been implemented through the Act Implementing the E.U. Directive on Reportable Cross-Border Arrangements. The act is essentially a transposition of the provisions of D.A.C. 6 and subsequent guidelines issued in the Netherlands fails to provide the clear and concrete guidance sought by Dutch tax advisers.

In his Article entitled “Implementation of the Mandatory Disclosure Directive in the Netherlands – D.A.C.6,” Paul Kraan of Van Campen Liem in Amsterdam, zooms in on a number of aspects and features of D.A.C.6 that are addressed in the Guideline, noting that there may be differences in interpretation between the various Member States with respect to the same provisions of the directive. Some are generic, others focus on specific Categories of Hallmarks such as B, C and E and the main benefit test. The article serves as a guide through a maze of troubling issues for which firm answers may not exist at this time.

The article is part of a nine-country survey of D.A.C.6 implementation published in the March edition of Insights, the international tax journal of Ruchelman P.L.L.C. See more →