DAC8: How Do Platforms Serving Users in Multiple Countries Determine Where to Report?
Explains DAC8 reporting jurisdictions for cross-border crypto-asset service providers, including RCASP identification, MiCA authorization, and information exchange.
On this page
Key Takeaways
- The DAC8 reporting jurisdiction must be assessed for each legal entity that actually qualifies as a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider (RCASP). If separate entities within a group participate in relevant transactions, each must identify its own reporting obligations and applicable jurisdiction.
- For an RCASP authorised under MiCA, or permitted to provide services following a notification under Article 60, the Member State of authorisation or notification is the first reporting nexus to consider. Where that nexus does not exist, examine, in order, tax residence, place of incorporation or organisation, place of management, and regular place of business.
- Where one RCASP has nexuses with several Member States, the hierarchy of nexuses determines the allocation of reporting obligations. Relief from duplicate reporting in other Member States also depends on the applicable exemption conditions, notification requirements, and branch rules.
- The platform reports to the tax authority of the Member State with reporting jurisdiction. That authority then exchanges information with the relevant Member States under DAC8 based on users’ tax residence. The platform’s filing jurisdiction may therefore differ from the countries ultimately receiving user information.
DAC8 has applied in the EU since 2026. A crypto-asset platform serving users in several Member States must first determine which legal entities qualify as Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers (RCASPs), then identify the Member State tax authority to which each entity must fulfil its due diligence and reporting obligations. A user’s tax residence affects the information to be reported and where it is subsequently exchanged, but does not itself determine where the platform files.
In a cross-border operating structure, a MiCA-authorised entity, a non-EU operating company, and a branch in a Member State may perform different functions. Even when users transact through one platform, different legal entities may provide the relevant services. The jurisdictional analysis must therefore establish how each entity relates to the users and transactions before identifying its reporting nexuses with Member States.
MiCA authorisation and the DAC8 reporting nexus are related but distinct assessments. Under Article 65 of MiCA, a crypto-asset service provider authorised in one Member State may, after notifying its home competent authority, provide the relevant services in other Member States in accordance with the rules. DAC8 then determines the Member State in which that entity must meet its tax information reporting obligations. Cross-border operating rights do not displace the need to apply DAC8’s reporting nexus rules.
Identify the Reporting Entity Before the Reporting Jurisdiction
DAC8 identifies the reporting entity by reference to its actual business functions. For a trading platform, the question is which entity, as a business, effects relevant crypto-asset transactions for or on behalf of customers. The group’s licensed entity, the party to the user agreement, the entity executing trades, and the settlement entity may differ; different legal entities may also provide services through the same platform. Each entity that qualifies as an RCASP should therefore be identified separately before its reporting nexus and jurisdiction are assessed.
For example, a group’s Irish company may hold MiCA authorisation and conduct its EU trading business, while a German company provides only technical support. The German company does not assume the Irish company’s reporting obligations merely because it has staff and systems in Germany. If it also effects relevant transactions for customers in its own name, its RCASP status and reporting nexuses must be assessed independently. Rules that prevent duplicate reporting address multiple nexuses of the same RCASP; they do not combine the separate obligations of different entities.
MiCA Authorisation and Other Reporting Nexuses
One RCASP may have reporting nexuses with several EU Member States. DAC8 coordinates that entity’s due diligence and reporting obligations through a hierarchy of nexuses and provisions designed to prevent duplicate reporting. Under Annex VI to the DAC8 Directive, the sequence can be summarised as follows:
- A Member State in which the RCASP is authorised under MiCA or permitted to provide services following a notification under Article 60 of MiCA;
- The RCASP’s tax residence;
- A Member State under whose law the RCASP is incorporated or organised, where it has legal personality or is required to file tax returns there;
- The RCASP’s place of management;
- A Member State in which the RCASP has a regular place of business.
Where the same entity has nexuses at different levels, the hierarchy above should be applied first to determine the relevant reporting jurisdiction. If it has nexuses at the same level in several Member States, the conditions for avoiding duplicate reporting and any required notifications to other Member States must also be checked against how its obligations are actually fulfilled. These rules coordinate multiple nexuses of one RCASP; they do not alter the separate obligations of different RCASPs.
Branches are subject to specific rules. If an RCASP effects relevant transactions through a branch in a Member State, it may have obligations there for those transactions. A branch may also create a regular-place-of-business nexus in that Member State. The triggers and reporting scope of these two rules differ. The analysis should separately consider which establishment effects the transactions, the entity’s other nexuses, and the conditions for avoiding duplicate reporting.
When a Non-EU Platform Serves EU Users
DAC8 reporting is not confined to providers established in the EU. For a crypto-asset operator that serves EU tax-resident users but is not authorised under MiCA, the Directive provides a mechanism for registration in one Member State as the entry point for EU due diligence and reporting obligations. Whether that mechanism applies requires an initial assessment of the operator’s business and transactions, followed by a check of the Directive’s registration and exemption conditions.
For a platform also subject to reporting in a non-EU jurisdiction that has implemented the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), reporting abroad does not automatically remove its DAC8 obligations. Any exemption depends on whether that jurisdiction meets DAC8’s requirements for a qualifying non-EU jurisdiction and effective information exchange arrangements, and whether the corresponding due diligence and reporting obligations have been fulfilled. The platform should establish both the facts of its foreign reporting and the legal basis for an EU exemption; its place of registration or a foreign filing alone is insufficient.
Users’ Tax Residence Determines Where Information Is Exchanged
DAC8 treats the platform’s filing and exchange between Member States as successive steps. An RCASP submits information to the tax authority of the Member State determined by its reporting nexus. That authority then exchanges information concerning users who are tax residents of other Member States with those States. The country where the platform files may therefore differ from the country that ultimately receives a user’s information.
A platform must identify users’ tax residence accurately while determining its filing jurisdiction, and link that status to the entity providing the service and the relevant transactions. User self-certifications, customer records, contractual relationships, and transaction records should be reconcilable to support identification of reportable users, transaction attribution, and subsequent corrections. Account-opening location or traffic source cannot substitute for the tax-residence assessment required by DAC8.
First Reporting Year and Local Requirements
DAC8 applies from 1 January 2026, making 2026 the first reporting year. Under the European Commission’s published timetable, the first exchange of information between Member States concerning that year must take place by 30 September 2027.
The deadline for a platform’s filing, registration procedures, file format, and correction process are specified in the domestic implementing rules of the Member State in which it has a reporting obligation. Once the reporting jurisdiction is established, the platform should check that Member State’s requirements for the relevant year and assign registration, due diligence, data preparation, and filing to the appropriate entity.
Conclusion
Serving users in multiple EU Member States does not, by itself, create a duty to file separately in each country. A platform should first identify the entities that actually qualify as RCASPs, then determine each entity’s reporting jurisdiction under the MiCA authorisation nexus, other reporting nexuses, and branch rules. Users’ tax residence determines the reportable information and its subsequent exchange destination.
For a cross-border platform, reporting nexuses are closely tied to its legal entities, authorisations, customer relationships, and transaction execution chain. Changes to entity structure, authorisation, branches, or execution arrangements may affect a previous conclusion. The platform should therefore reassess its reporting jurisdiction for each reporting year and keep that conclusion aligned with the attribution of users and transactions in its data.
To map entities and transaction data across jurisdictions, platforms may refer to the CARF/DAC8 compliance workflow presented in FinTax Tax Solution, while confirming the specific approach against the formal implementing rules of the relevant Member States.
Official Sources
Council Directive (EU) 2023/2226 (DAC8)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/2226/oj/eng/pdf
Consolidated Directive on Administrative Cooperation (Annex VI)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02011L0016-20260101
European Commission DAC8 page
Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), Article 59
Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), Article 65
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Must a platform serving users in several EU Member States file separately in each Member State?
The presence of users in several Member States does not, on its own, require a filing in each one. The platform should identify the RCASP with the reporting obligation and determine its filing jurisdiction from that entity’s reporting nexuses. Other Member States receive information about their tax-resident users through DAC8’s exchange mechanism.
2. Once authorised under MiCA in one Member State, can a provider operate across the EU and report in the authorising State?
After completing the cross-border services notification procedure, a MiCA-authorised entity may provide the relevant services in other Member States in accordance with the rules. For that entity, the authorising Member State is the first DAC8 reporting nexus to consider. It must still check whether transactions are effected through a branch in another Member State and whether the specific branch rules apply. Other group entities must be assessed separately.
3. Can an RCASP with reporting nexuses in several Member States choose one country in which to file?
No. The obligation must be determined under DAC8’s hierarchy of nexuses. If nexuses of the same level exist in several Member States, the conditions for avoiding duplicate reporting and any notification requirement in the other Member States must also be checked.
4. If a non-EU platform reports in a CARF-implementing jurisdiction, must it still comply with DAC8?
A foreign filing does not automatically confer an exemption. The platform must check whether that jurisdiction meets DAC8’s conditions for a qualifying non-EU jurisdiction and effective information exchange arrangements, and whether the corresponding due diligence and reporting obligations have been fulfilled as required.
5. Is 30 September 2027 the deadline for a platform’s first DAC8 filing?
No. That date is the deadline for the first exchange of information between Member States concerning the first reporting year. The deadline for a platform to file with a tax authority is governed by the domestic implementing rules of its reporting Member State.
Send this FinTax note to your team.
Talk with our team
Book a call