What changed

Recital 4 a (new): (4a) The European Court of Auditors has repeatedly identified weaknesses regarding the accessibility and interoperability of VAT-related information systems across Member States and Union bodies,bodies as a significant obstacle to effective cross-border VAT fraud investigations, most recently in its Special Report 8/2025 on VAT fraud on imports. That report identified, in addition, significant disparities in the levels of administrative sanctions applied by Member States in respect of VAT fraud withon imports, which create conditions enabling operators to exploit the jurisdiction with the lowest penalties. The access to VAT data granted by this Regulation to the EPPO and OLAF enhances the detection and prosecution capacity but does not constitute a deterrent remedy for penalty divergence. In thisthat context, and in line with the Commission’s commitment to revise the anti-fraud architecture as part of the measures included in the post-2027 MFF, the possibility of further action to address thesethose disparities may be considered, such as a legislative proposal based on the appropriate legal basis, aimed at achieving a minimum level of harmonisation or consistency of administrative penalties applicable to the most serious VAT and customs-related infringements, taking into account the need to effectively protect the Union’s financial interests. Any such proposal should be accompanied by a comprehensive impact assessment and should demonstrate compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and p…prop…

Recital 4 b (new): (4b) The White Paper of the Commission of July 2025 on the review of the EU anti-fraud architecture identified the fragmentation of information flows between Eurofisc, the EPPO, OLAF, Europol and Eurojust as a systemic structural weakness undermining the effectiveness of the Union’s response to cross-border VAT fraud. This amending Regulation constitutes the legislative implementation of the data-sharing pillar of a revised anti-fraud architecture and is to be read in conjunction with the further measures announced in that White Paper, including the strengthening of Eurofisc’s operational capacity, the harmonisation of the conditions and liability rules for fiscal representatives appointed by non-Union taxable persons under the IOSS and other import VAT schemes, and the extension of the data governance framework of CESOP to ensure coherence with the customs data access established by this Regulation.

Recital 8 a (new): (8a) While Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 already requires the competent VAT authorities of Member States to spontaneously exchange information likely to be useful for combating VAT fraud, that obligation applies to VAT authorities and does not extend to the competent customs authorities of Member States, which are not VAT competent authorities within the meaning of that Regulation. Furthermore, neither the existing mechanism set out in Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 nor the Eurofisc network provides for the direct spontaneous communication of customs-derived fraud intelligence to the EPPO and OLAF. VAT-fraud schemes linked to import procedures are characterised by systematic discrepancies between the information declared to customs authorities at the point of importation and the VAT declarations subsequently filed in the Member State of destination. Customs authorities are often the first to detect such anomalies through their risk management analysis. In order to close thisthat gap and to ensure that upstream customs intelligence identified by customs authorities is transmitted without delay to the bodies responsible for investigating and prosecuting cross-border VAT fraud, and given that the effective exercise of the access rights provided for in Articles 49a and 49b of Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 depends on the EPPO and OLAF being informed of the existence of potential cases of fraud, it is necessary to require competent customs authorities to transmit spont…s…

Recital 8 b (new): (8b) The effectiveness of the spontaneous transmission mechanism provided for in this amending Regulation depends on adequate coordination at national level between the competent customs authorities and the competent VAT authorities of Member States. Those bodies are in many Member States separate administrative entities with distinct supervisory chains and information systems. Member States should therefore ensure that their competent customs and VAT authorities establish regular coordination mechanisms, including through the Eurofisc framework, to facilitate the identification of discrepancies indicative of VAT fraud and the timely transmission of relevant customs data to Eurofisc, the EPPO and OLAF. Such coordination is a procedural and organisational measure and does not entail additional information technology obligations for national authorities.

Recital 10 a (new): (10a) The EPPO’s and OLAF’s access to the VIES, the Surveillance System and the CESOP as well as to any other systems and databases should concern the following main data categories: information on VAT identification numbers and VAT intra-Community transactions, relevant information on VAT-exempt importations related to the Import One-Stop-Shop (IOSS) and customs procedure 42/63 importations and aggregated payment information. Such access should only be granted to the EPPO and OLAF for the purpose of carrying out their duties under Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 and Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013. Powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt implementing acts specifying the exact data categories available to the EPPO and OLAF for the purposes of exercising their duties under those articles. The drafts of those implementing acts should be submitted to the European Parliament for information, in order to enable the exercise of its rights.

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new), Article 2 a (new): (-1) the following Articlearticle is inserted: / ‘Article 2a / Follow-up proposal on minimum harmonisation of penalties / By … [18 months afterfrom the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation] and in line with the objectives of the revision of the anti-fraud architecture as a complementary set of measures included in the post-2027 MFF package and for the purpose of enhancing the protection of the Union’s financial interests, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a legislative proposal for the minimum harmonisation of administrative penalties applicable to the most serious infringements in the field of VAT and related customs duties, in particular as regards Missing Trader Intra-Community fraud and the abuse of simplified import procedures under Customs Procedure 42 and the Import One-Stop Shop. The proposal shall be without prejudice to the substantive customs procedures established under Regulation (EU) No 952/2013.’

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new), Article 13 a (new): (-1a) the following Articlearticle is inserted: / ‘Article 13a / Spontaneous transmission of customs data indicating VAT fraud / 1. The competent authorities of the Member States shall spontaneously communicate to the Eurofisc working field coordinators referred to in Article 36(1), and, within their respective mandates, to the EPPO and OLAF, any information stored pursuant to Article 17(1), point (f), that indicates patterns consistent with VAT fraud, in particular: / (a) systematic discrepancies between the declared destination Member State in an import declaration and the Member State in which VAT was subsequently declared or paid; / (b) systematic discrepancies between the consignee identified in an import declaration under the IOSS scheme and the taxable person that declared the corresponding VAT in the Member State of destination; / (c) declared customs values that diverge significantly from market value where that divergence is consistent with undervaluation for VAT purposes; and / (d) any other indicator specified by the Commission’s implementing act as a customs-based VAT fraud risk indicator. / 2. The communication referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made without delay and shall include at least the data elements listed in Article 17(1), point (f), for the importation or series of importations concerned. / 3. Member States shall ensure that their competent customs authorities and competent VAT authorities coordinate onas regards the identification of discrepancies referred tothe indiscrepancies par…referr…

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 a (new), Article 59 – paragraph 1: (5a) in Article 59, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: / ‘1. Every three years starting from … [entry[date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], the Commission shall, on the basis of reports provided by EPPO, OLAF and Eurofisc, submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Court of Auditors on the application of this Regulation. The report shall assess in particular: / (a) the operational effectiveness of direct EPPO and OLAF access to VIES, the SURVEILLANCE system and CESOP, including average time-to-access, the number of investigations materially advanced, and the outcomes of prosecutions or administrative actions; / (b) the coherence of the access and transmission framework with other instruments adopted as part of the revised anti-fraud architecture, including measures relating to Eurofisc’s capacity, CESOP governance, fiscal representative harmonisation and penalty convergence; / (c) the functioning and timeliness of the spontaneous transmission mechanism under Article 13a, including national coordination arrangements between customs and VAT authorities; / (d) the enforcement outcomes achieved in Member States not participating in the EPPO and whether equivalent mechanisms have been established pursuant to the anti-fraud architecture revision; / (e) the estimated amounts of Union VAT and related customs revenue recovered or preserved as a direct result of the data exchanges and access rights established by this Regulation, and; / (f) the c…(…