DAC6 lesson: what may seem a formality … actually it isn’t! Six weeks ago, the proposed 3+3 month deferral seemed almost a sure thing, due to the latest Corona restrictions. After all, it was the European Commission that initially wanted this directive, so if the Commission was fine with such a minor (?) change, why not go with it? Alas, with no final resolution in sight re the aforementioned deferral of the aforementioned Directive, we are left wondering: what really is at stake here?
In short, the latest developments are as follows.
On June 19th, the European Parliament voted in favor of the deferral, as per the Commission’s proposal. However, since the EP role is consultative only, the version subject to EU Council’s approval (with which the decision power stays) was later published on Eur-lex page and revealed that in order to reach the required unanimity, the deferral needs to be optional at national level. This version is also confirmed on the Austrian parliament website.
What the states member unilaterally said
Deferral? No, thank you.
Finland ("there is no need to postpone, the administration and notifiers are able to meet the original deadlines”) - https://vm.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_publisher/suomessa-verotietojen-ilmoittamisen-ja-vaihtamisen-maaraajat-pysyvat-ennallaan
Deferral? Yes, please.
Belgium (6 months) https://finances.belgium.be/fr/Actualites/report-des-d%c3%a9lais-de-d%c3%a9claration-en-mati%c3%a8re-de-dispositifs-transfronti%c3%a8res-devant-faire-l
Hungary https://www.parlament.hu/irom41/10856/10856.pdf
UK https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/stories/eu-commission-proposes-dac-6-deferral/
Despite all these variations, one thing is sure – 1 July 2020 remains a key date, and the arrangements are still to be considered “before” and “after”. So, pay attention - DAC6 is on the go!