International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

EU DAC6 mandatory disclosure rules – why should Swiss intermediaries care?

zurich-switzerland_600 x 375

Swiss entities must carefully consider the impact of DAC6 now, which requires the disclosure of certain cross-border tax planning arrangements to local tax authorities.

On June 25 2018, an amendment to Directive 2011/16/EU (DAC6), came into force, which may have a significant impact on Swiss entities. DAC6 requires the disclosure of certain cross-border tax planning arrangements to the local tax authorities. While the rules do not apply in Switzerland directly, Swiss intermediaries may be affected if they have operations or otherwise provide services in any EU country. Even purely Swiss intermediaries that serve EU clients should carefully consider the impact of DAC6.

Any person who designs, markets, organises, makes available for implementation or manages the implementation of a reportable cross-border arrangement (or who has provided aid, assistance or advice on such an arrangement) is considered to be an intermediary. If the intermediary also meets one of the following criteria, they are captured by the mandatory disclosure rules set out in DAC6:

  • Resident in an EU member state;

  • Provides the above services through a permanent establishment in an EU member state;

  • Incorporated or governed by the laws of an EU member state;

  • Registered with a professional association related to legal, taxation or consultancy services in an EU member state.

For example, a Swiss bank which maintains branches in one or more EU countries will be directly affected and will be considered an EU intermediary under the new rules. Likewise, a Swiss consultancy firm registered with an EU-based professional services association falls within the scope of DAC6. Additionally, any EU-incorporated entity with a place of effective management in Switzerland will still be affected, even though the entity is considered a Swiss tax resident. In all these cases, Swiss entities are considered intermediaries and will be required to report certain cross-border arrangements to the respective EU tax authorities.

One further requirement will impact Swiss entities, even if they have no presence in the EU. DAC6 contains provisions that require a tax resident of any EU member state to report the arrangement if no intermediary does. This means that any Swiss entity advising on cross-border arrangements involving an EU resident client should understand the client service impact and consider informing its clients of their reporting obligations. Practically speaking, any intermediary that serves EU clients should be familiar with the mandatory disclosure rules imposed by the EU.

Next steps for Swiss entities

Swiss-headquartered groups should identify entities directly affected, including assessing whether a Swiss entity is active in an EU country. Next, a potential intermediary should perform an impact assessment to identify whether the services provided fall within the scope of DAC6.

In our discussions in the Swiss market, local intermediaries are struggling to articulate the impact and next steps to internal stakeholders. We recommend that, for internal stakeholder discussions, Swiss intermediaries consider the end-client impact of cross-border arrangements involving EU tax residents.

Given that all relevant cross-border arrangements that entered into force after June 25 2018 are in-scope, the time to act is now.

grebe.jpg
kippersluis.jpg

Michael Grebe (mgrebe@deloitte.ch) and Marnix Kippersluis (mkippersluis@deloitte.ch)

Deloitte

Tel: +41 58 279 6248 and +41 58 279 6881

Website: www.deloitte.ch

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Bartosz Doroszuk of MDDP offers insights on Poland’s new tax legislation on shifted profits, as the implementation deadline looms nearer.
Four tax specialists preview the UK’s transfer pricing requirements, which come into effect on April 1.
The rise of the QDMTT will likely change how countries compete on tax and transfer pricing policy, but it may not reverse decades of falling corporate tax rates.
ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the EU’s BEFIT initiative and wider tax reforms in the bloc.
COVID-19 and an overworked HMRC may have created the ‘perfect storm’ for reduced prosecutions, according to tax professionals.
Participants in the consultation on the UN secretary-general’s report into international tax cooperation are divided – some believe UN-led structures are the way forward, while others want to improve existing ones. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.
Karl Berlin talks to Josh White about meeting the Fair Tax standard, the changing burden of country-by-country reporting, and how windfall taxes may hit renewable energy.