Enhanced Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Standard on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request 2026 Update (June)

Determinations

i.p.

i.p.

i.p.

i.p.b.

i.p.b.

i.p.

i.p.

i.p.

i.p.

n.a.

LC

Ratings

LC

C

C

LC

LC

C

C

LC

C

C

Recommendation (A.1, practice)

The Belgian authorities should ensure the effective implementation of the obligation for companies and partnerships to keep an updated register of beneficial owners.

Underlying factor

The obligation for companies and partnerships to keep a register of their beneficial owners entered into force in October 2017, so it has not been possible to assess its practical implementation.

(see paragraphs 68 to 73 of the Belgium’s 2018 Report for more information.)

Summary of actions reported

Belgium has focused on the operationalisation of the central BO Register to address this recommendation. The BO Register provides for adequate, accurate and up-to-date beneficial ownership information and public guidance on the BO obligations is available. As of February 2025, the rate of submission in the BO Register was 98%. To reach this rate, enforcement measures have been carried out since 2021 with the massive sending of reminder emails and application of administrative fines. In addition, the striking off of entities for failure to comply with the obligations to submit information to the BO Register started in January 2024. Since then, 55 747 entities (6.5% of entities registered in the BO Register), mainly non-profit entities, have been struck off. Then, 6 211 of these struck-off entities have complied with their obligation and have been reinstated in the BO Register.

The discrepancy reporting mechanism, which requires that the AML professionals and authorities report any errors that they detect, is effectively implemented in practice to ensure the accuracy of information contained in the BO Register. Since 2024, targeted checks have been carried out on some entities following a thorough risk analysis.

Conclusion

Belgium has made progress to address the recommendation. It should report further progress in the next self-assessment.

The BO Register has been operationalised at an appropriate level and a monitoring supervision program has been implemented and enforced. Nevertheless, the checks on accuracy, adequacy and update of the beneficial ownership information contained in the register have started only recently and more information should be provided on the outcome of these checks.

Status determined

In the process of being addressed

Actions required

In the next self-assessment, Belgium should continue to report on actions and supporting implementation details to ensure that the information contained in the BO Register is adequate, accurate and up to date.

Recommendation (B.1, framework)

Belgium should provide the competent authority with effective enforcement powers to compel the production of information.

Underlying factor

The Belgian authorities do not have effective enforcement provisions to compel the production of information; sanctions are not proportionate and sufficiently dissuasive. Exchange of information was impeded in practice in the rare cases when information holders refused to provide information to the Belgian authorities.

(see paragraphs 200 to 205 of the Belgium’s 2018 Report for more information.)

Summary of actions reported

Belgium enacted a legal provision applicable from 1 January 2023 allowing the tax administration to request the judicial authority to apply a monetary sanction (either a single sum or a fixed sum per unit of time or per contravention, subject to maximum amounts determined by the judge) on the information holder until the provision of the information. The legal provision ensures that such sanction is imposed without causing undue delays for EOI (being an urgent judicial procedure). Since 1 January 2023, this procedure has not been used since the Belgian competent authority has not faced any refusal to provide the information requested.

Conclusion

Belgium appears to have taken appropriate actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. The legal change is appropriate to address the recommendation and, although it has not been needed to use the new provision in practice since the information holders always provided the requested information in a timely manner, Belgium has monitored whether a case would have required the implementation of this compulsory power.

Status determined

Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation

Actions required

No immediate action required.

Recommendation (B.1, framework)

Belgium is recommended to monitor the implementation of the new provisions on access to information concerning registers of beneficial owners of Belgian entities, and to ensure access for the tax authorities to information on beneficial owners available with the entities subject to the AML Law.

Underlying factor

Prior to legislative change in October 2017 inserting the requirement for companies to create and keep a register of their beneficial owners, the Belgian competent authorities and local tax offices had no access to information on beneficial owners in the event that the ownership chain extended beyond Belgium. This information was available with entities subject to the anti-money laundering law, but the tax authorities do not have access to it. Information is now available with companies and partnerships.

(see paragraph 173 of the Belgium’s 2018 Report for more information.)

Summary of actions reported

Since the 2018 Report, the BO Register has been operationalised. Belgium enacted in August 2018 the possibility for the tax authorities to access the BO Register. In addition, Belgium reported that under its current interpretation of the access powers of the tax administration, there is no conflict with the provisions of its AML Law, and the Competent Authority did not encounter difficulties in practice to obtain the information held by AML-obliged persons. Belgium has answered all requests for beneficial ownership information received during the monitoring period, including where such information had to be obtained from AML-obliged persons.

Conclusion

Belgium appears to have taken appropriate actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. The changes, either in the legal framework or in the interpretation of this framework, are appropriate to address the recommendation and Belgium has monitored their effective implementation in practice.

Status determined

Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation

Actions required

No immediate action required.

Recommendation (B.1, practice)

Belgium is recommended to monitor implementation of the new provisions on access to information concerning tax years going back more than three years.

Underlying factor

Prior to legislative reform in July 2017, when a request for information related to a tax year going back more than three years, the requesting authority was asked to confirm the existence of fraud indications to enable the collection of information. This condition impeded the exchange of information.

(see paragraphs 190 to 199 of the Belgium’s 2018 Report for more information.)

Summary of actions reported

Belgium reported having used the new legal provision each time it was necessary to gather information from more than three years ago. The legal provision introduced in 2017 allowed the Belgian competent authority to obtain information from taxpayers for a period of up to seven previous years for EOI purposes, without confirmation of the existence of fraud indications. Statistics have been provided on the implementation of this provision. No adverse peer input has been received in this respect.

In addition, Belgium clarified that no time limitation applies when the information requested is available with the tax administration or other public authority and that it can obtain any information as far as that information is pertinent for one of the previous seven tax years preceding the year in which the request is received. This would be the case, for instance, for Know Your Customers documentation, beneficial ownership information, opening document of bank accounts, contracts, etc. Finally, the seven-year period is aligned with most of the retention periods.

Conclusion

Belgium appears to have taken appropriate actions to address the recommendation. It has monitored the effective implementation on the 2017 reform in practice and it has used this provision each time it was necessary.

However, a legal gap which was not identified in the 2018 Report has come to notice. While the standard requires that the competent authorities have the power to obtain and provide all available requested information under an EOI arrangement, without any specific time limit, the powers of the Belgian Competent Authority are limited to the access to the information pertaining to a period of the previous seven years, except if the information is already available with the tax administration.

This legal issue is mitigated to some extent by some factors: the alignment of the seven-year period with most of the applicable retention periods for the relevant information, the ability of the Belgian competent authority to obtain the relevant information, whatever the year to which it relates, as far as this information could be useful for at least one tax year covered by the request which is within the seven years period, and the absence of adverse consequence of the legal gap for the EOIR effectiveness during the monitored period.

Nevertheless, considering that the Belgian legal framework does not fully ensure that the competent authority is able to obtain all available foreseeably relevant information for cases where the tax period covered by the EOI request relates only to periods older that the seven previous years, Belgium is recommended to ensure that all available foreseeably relevant information be accessible for EOIR purposes.

Status determined

Existing recommendation: Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation

New recommendation issued.

Actions required

Existing recommendation: No immediate action required.

New recommendation: In its next self-assessment, Belgium should:

• Provide an update on the actions taken to ensure that all available foreseeably relevant information can be accessed for EOIR purposes.

• Report on the results of the implementation of any legal change in this matter that would come into force before the next self-assessment and on the implementation of the existing provision. This should include information on any situation where the legal gap identified in the conclusion above posed any difficulties in practice in accessing all available foreseeably relevant information from more than seven years ago and practical steps taken in such situations.

Recommendation (B.2, practice)

The Belgian authorities should ensure that the implementation of the concept of “serious indications of tax fraud” is compatible with an effective exchange of information.

Underlying factor

During the review period, exceptions to the requirement of prior notification or post-exchange notification were not applicable to all the cases in which the notification was likely to undermine the chances of success of the foreign investigation. Since the legislative reform of July 2017, waiver of notification is subject to “serious indications of tax fraud”; the interpretation of this concept is not yet established.

(see paragraphs 214 to 221 of the Belgium’s 2018 Report for more information.)

Summary of actions reported

Belgium communicated to all its partners information about the legal changes on the exception of the post-exchange notification and its impact on EOIR. When requested, the exception has been granted in almost all cases, sometimes after clarification sought from the requesting jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Belgium appears to have taken appropriate actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. Belgium has monitored the implementation of the exception to the post-exchange notification. It applies this exception and interprets the concept of serious indication of tax fraud in a manner compatible with an effective EOIR.

Status determined

Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation

Actions required

No immediate action required.

Recommendation (C.1, framework)

Belgium should ensure the swift ratification of all the treaties signed, in particular when the Multilateral Convention is not applicable.

Underlying factor

Belgium needs more than two years to ratify treaties.

(see paragraphs 254 to 258 of the Belgium’s 2018 Report for more information.)

Summary of actions reported

All EOI relationships of Belgium are now in force.

Conclusion

Belgium is no longer required to report, in application of paragraph 61 of the enhanced monitoring methodology. Belgium has taken measures to ensure that an EOI relationship in line with the standard be in force with all its relevant partners. Therefore, although a swift ratification of all the treaties signed has not been ensured, this recommendation can be considered as no longer sufficiently material.

Status determined

No longer sufficiently material

Actions required

No immediate action required.

Recommendation (C.3, practice)

Belgium is recommended to monitor the application of the Law of 1994 to guarantee that treaty provisions on confidentiality are respected.

Underlying factor

Law of 11 April 1994 on disclosure of information by the administration includes an exception when documents are covered by secrecy. A new provision in the Income Tax Code introduces an explicit exception for exchange of information when disclosure of information would prejudice an ongoing investigation, based on explicit refusal of the foreign authority. The exception has not yet been tested in practice or another exception in the Law of 1994 on the protection of international relations.

(see paragraphs 271 to 274 of the Belgium’s 2018 Report for more information.)

Summary of actions reported

Belgium reported, with supporting statistics, having applied the exceptions, when requested, to the right to access the EOI request, although in most cases, the partners authorised the consultation.

Conclusion

Belgium appears to have taken appropriate actions to address the recommendation and is no longer required to report. Belgium has monitored and effectively implemented the provision on the exception to the right of access to the EOI file.

Status determined

Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation

Actions required

No immediate action required.

Recommendation

(B.1, framework)

Belgium is recommended to ensure that all available foreseeably relevant information be accessible for EOIR purposes.

Underlying factor

The Belgian legal and regulatory framework enables the tax administration to access information for EOIR purposes if the information pertains to a year covered by the seven-year period preceding the EOI request. However, for the other information available in Belgium that would not be covered by this seven-year period, the tax administration cannot obtain it and exchange it if not already available with, or directly accessible by, the tax administration. In those cases, the competent authority does not have the powers to enquire from the information holders if the requested information is available and, if available, access and exchange it.