Agefi Luxembourg - juillet août 2026

AGEFI Luxembourg 4 Juillet / Août 2026 Économie Continuedpage 1 Recalibration ofDAC6 Overview TheRecastProposalalsoaimstoreduceexces­ sive reporting and refocus DAC6 on arrangements presenting a genuine tax risk, addressing the current mis­ match between reporting volume and analytical value. Refinement of scope and deadlines The proposal introduces a series of targetedadjustments aimedat clar­ ifying the scope of DAC6 and sim­ plifying its practical application. In particular,reportingobligationsareexpresslylimited to arrangements that are effectively implemented, thereby excluding purely theoretical or preparatory structures that have not materialised in practice. Under the existing regime, reporting obligations may arise simply from the fact that an arrangement is deemed reportable in a piece of advice. At the same time, the definition of the “relevant tax­ payer”isnarrowedtotheentitythatinitiatesandcar­ ries out the implementation of the arrangement, whichreducestheriskofduplicativereportingacross multiple parties involved in the same structure. Under the current regime there exist overlapping re­ porting obligations of all parties involved in a cross­ border arrangement and their “intermediaries”. The proposal further removes the distinction be­ tween “marketable” and “bespoke” arrange­ ments, a concept that has proven difficult to apply consistently and has contributed to interpretative uncertainty. Its elimination simplifies the classifi­ cation of arrangements and reduces administra­ tive complexity. Finally, the reporting deadline is extended from thirty to ninety days, calculated from the first step in the implementation of the arrangement. This ex­ tension is intended to provide intermediaries and taxpayers with sufficient time to assess reporting obligations and to ensure the completeness and ac­ curacy of the information submitted. Overall, these measures are designed to enhance legal certainty, reduce unnecessary reporting, and improve the quality and consistency of DAC6 disclosures. Exclusion of Pillar 2 groups Under the Recast Proposal, multinational groups subject to the global minimum tax (15%) are ex­ cluded from DAC6 reporting where no arrange­ ment reduces taxationbelowthat level. This reflects the reduced incentive for aggressive tax planning andavoids duplicationwith existingPillar 2 report­ ing obligations. Removal of Category A hallmarks CategoryAhallmarks constitute generic indicators of potential tax avoidance, which apply onlywhere the Main Benefit Test (“MBT”) is satisfied. They were designed to capture broadly defined features of arrangements that may signal a taxmotivated purpose, irrespective of their specific legal or eco­ nomic context. In particular, these hallmarks cover: arrangements subject to confidentiality conditions restricting disclosure of the tax advantage (in this case, the taxpayer would owe confidentiality to their tax or financial adviser in order to maintain the value of the arrangement); arrangements involving successbased or contin­ gent remuneration linked to the tax benefit ob­ tained; and arrangements basedon standardiseddocumenta­ tion or structures made available to multiple tax­ payers without substantial customisation. Due to their inherently broad formulation and lim­ ited targeting, Category A hallmarks have been identified as a significant source of defensive and lowvalue reporting. TheRecast Proposal therefore provides for their complete removal, with a view to refocusing DAC6 on more specific indicators of tax risk and improving the proportionality of the disclosure regime. The removal of CategoryAhallmarks is awelcome step– but it is also a tacit admission that the original scope was overbroad, a problem that could have been addressed years ago. Reform of Hallmark D2 Under the current framework, Hallmark D2 is broadly formulated and closely linked to trans­ parency concerns – particularly in relation to CRS/FATCA (Common Reporting Standard/ Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) obligations and beneficial ownership identification. The DAC Recast proposes to clarify Hallmark D2 (circum­ vention of reporting and beneficial ownership transparency) through the introduction of har­ monised substance criteria. This aims to: reduce uncertainty and inconsistent application; introduce more objective indicators of economic substance; increase scrutiny of structures lacking operational substance. The proposed reformdoes not change thewording of the hallmark itself, but introduces a structural change to how it is applied by allowing the adop­ tion of harmonised “substance criteria” through a Council implementing act. This approach effec­ tively circumvents the normal legislative process by delegating substancerelated decisions to a fu­ ture implementing act, which could take up to five years to come into effect. Unlike EUCommission implementing acts, which are subject to comitology procedures involving member state representatives, EU Council imple­ menting acts involve direct decisionmaking by the member states themselves.According to the Recast Proposal, the EU Council shall, within five years fromthe date of entry into force of the recast, adopt an implementing act establishing the applicable criteria, on the basis of a proposal from the EU Commission. In order to be consistent with EU law as inter­ preted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the substance requirements shouldalignwith theCourt’s “whollyartificial arrangement”doctrine (as established in Cad­ burySchweppes andsubsequent case law). The absence of any detail in the proposal is itself telling. The EUCommission is askingmem­ ber states to agree to a framework without knowing the content of the key provi­ sions—a remarkable request for legisla­ tion that aims to provide legal certainty. From a broader policy standpoint, this development represents a striking con­ vergence with the substancebased ap­ proach previously envisaged under the Unshell (“ATAD III”) proposal which was formally abandoned in June 2025. Although DAC6 remains a disclosure regime, rather than a substantive antiabuse rule, the intro­ duction of substance criteria effectively embeds within it a similar analytical framework. This is a remarkable development, given that the Council explicitly rejecteda similar approachwhen it abandonedATAD III. The tools differ, but the un­ derlying objective is aligned: ensuring that cross­ border structures reflect genuine economic reality and transparency. Yet the Commission’s chosen method, a future implementing act with unspeci­ fied content, raises serious questions about timing and legal certainty. Finally, it is worth noting that the substance re­ quirements set out in the Unshell proposal far ex­ ceeded what is necessary for an entity to avoid being classified as a “wholly artificial arrange­ ment” under CJEU case law. This raises the ques­ tion of whether the Commission will propose proportionate substance criteria or whether there will be another instance of overreach. The Main Benefit Test and substance Many hallmarks operate in conjunction with the MBT, which serves as a threshold requirement. The MBT aims to filter out irrelevant reporting that would otherwise diminish the quality of the infor­ mation provided to the tax authorities. TheMBT is fulfilled if “it can be established that the main ben­ efit or one of the main benefits which, having re­ gard to all relevant facts and circumstances, a person may reasonably expect to derive from an arrangement is the obtaining of a tax advantage.” However, the MBT should not be analysed in iso­ lation fromother antiabuse frameworks. TheGen­ eral AntiAbuse Rule (“GAAR”), implemented by EU member states under the AntiTax Avoidance Directive (“ATAD”), and the Principal Purposes Test (“PPT”), implemented in bilateral tax treaties through theMultilateral Instrument (“MLI”), serve similar functions. While the GAAR and PPT focus on the main or principal purpose of an arrange­ ment, theMBT focuses on its outcome – i.e.whether the main benefit is a tax advantage. Purpose and outcome are two sides of the same coin, and guid­ ance developed for theGAARandPPTmay there­ fore be helpful in interpreting the MBT. When assessing whether the MBT is met, it is also necessary to analyse the substance of the entities in­ volved. If a crossborder arrangement involves shell entities lacking genuine economic activity, the MBT should be met because the main benefit of the arrangement would be the tax advantage, not any genuine commercial purpose. This raises a logical question: If theMBT is the appropriate filter for dis­ tinguishinggenuinearrangementsfromthosedriven primarily by tax avoidance, whydoes it not apply to all hallmarks? A uniform application of the MBT would ensure that every reportable arrangement is subject to a substance review, achieving the objective oftheproposed“substancecriteria”withouttheneed for additional implementing acts or carveouts. Targeted Adjustments to Other DAC Regimes The proposal also introduces targeted simplifica­ tions beyond DAC6: DAC7 (digital platforms): removal of the 30trans­ action threshold and increase of the reporting threshold to EUR 3,000; DAC4 and DAC9: introduction of a single notifi­ cation and centralised filing for multinational groups. These measures reduce duplication and simplify compliance obligations to some extent. Critical summary DAC6was adopted inmid2018 andbecame appli­ cable on 1 July 2020. Crucially, DAC6 had retroac­ tive effect. Crossborder arrangements entered into between 25 June 2018 (the date of entry into force) and 30 June 2020 had to be reviewed and, where applicable, reported by 31August 2020. The implementation of DAC6 and the interpreta­ tionof its broadly formulatedhallmarks andvague concepts required a significant effort from tax ad­ visers and business associations, who struggled to determine the exact scope of these provisions and reach reasonable conclusions. The implementation of DAC6 and the review of crossborder arrange­ ments have imposed, and continue to impose, a sig­ nificant burden in terms of time and cost. From the outset, itwas questionablewhether some hallmarks were relevant in practice – a concern that the Com­ mission’s own consultation has now confirmed. In its consultation on DAC6, the EU Commission asked stakeholders to answer abstract questions, rather than providing concrete data on the costs of DAC6, the number of arrangements challenged, or the additional tax revenue generated. This informa­ tion is essential for any serious assessment of the di­ rective’s effectiveness, and it is conspicuously absent. It would also be useful to understand how often tax authorities actually use DAC6 reporting. Anecdotal evidence suggests that few actively re­ view it, raising further questions about the direc­ tive’s practical value. The proposed abolition of some hallmarks is wel­ come. But it does not go far enough tomakeDAC6 a useful and targeted regime. The Commission is backtracking—and it is doing so eight years too late, without acknowledgment of the costs im­ posed, the time wasted, or the uncertainty created. Ultimately, this proposal is too little, too late. What’s next? The proposal is currently under discussion at Council level, where it will require unanimous ap­ proval. Implementation is expected to take place in stages, with key simplification measures planned from 2028 onwards. * Oliver R. HOOR is a Tax Partner and Marie Bentley is the Chief KnowledgeOfficerwithATOZTaxAdvisers. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do notnecessarilyreflecttheofficialpositionofATOZTaxAdvisers. Theauthormaybecontactedat: oliver.hoor@atoz.lu marie.bentley@atoz.lu The Proposed DAC Recast: Too Little, Too Late L eministre luxembourgeois des Finances, Gilles Roth, a effectué une visite de travail à Londres les 1 er et 2 juillet dans le cadre dʹunemission financière or­ ganisée avec Luxembourg for Fi­ nance (LFF). Ce déplacement avait pour objectif de consolider les re­ lations entre les places financières luxembourgeoise et britannique et dʹexplorer de nouvelles pers­ pectives de coopération. Au cours de son séjour, Gilles Roth sʹest entretenu avec la ministre britannique des Finances, Rachel Reeves, au 11 Downing Street. Les deux responsables ont salué la solidité des liens entre leurs centres financiers respectifs et ont évo­ qué les moyens de renforcer les inves­ tissements transfrontaliers. Les discussions ont également porté sur les défis communs auxquels sont confrontés lʹUnion européenne et le RoyaumeUni, notamment le finance­ ment des transitions numérique et éco­ logique ainsi que le renforcement des capacités de défense. Les deux ministres ont souligné le rôle clé que peuvent jouer Londres et le Luxembourg dans la mobilisation des capitaux privés nécessaires pour répon­ dre à ces enjeux. Le ministre luxembourgeois a par ail­ leurs pris la parole lors de la conférence de lʹAssociation of the Luxembourg Fund Industry (ALFI), qui a réuni près dʹunmillier deprofessionnels de lʹindus­ trie des fonds dʹinvestissement. Il a également participé à un déjeuner de travail organisé par Luxembourg for Finance avec des représentants des sec­ teurs de lʹassurance et de la réassurance. Enfin, Gilles Roth a rencontré plusieurs dirigeants du secteur financier britan­ nique afin dʹéchanger sur les perspec­ tives de développement de leurs activi­ tés au Luxembourg et sur les évolutions des marchés financiers internationaux. Àlʹissue de cette visite, le ministre a rap­ pelé que le Luxembourg et le Royaume­ Uni entretiennent des relationsde longue date dans le domaine de la finance. Il a souligné que le GrandDuché est aujourdʹhui lepremiermarché européen du RoyaumeUni pour lʹexportation de services financiers et a plaidé pour un renforcement dupartenariat stratégique entre les deuxpays, dix ans après le réfé­ rendum sur le Brexit. Source : ministère des Finances Le Luxembourg renforce ses liens financiers avec le Royaume-Uni (de g. à dr.) Rachel Reeves, ministre des Finances duRoyaumeUni ; Gilles Roth, ministre des Finances ©MFIN