Which objective(s) does the Commission pursue?

The Fiscalis Programme has the general objectives to support tax authorities and taxation to enhance the functioning of the internal market, to foster the competitiveness of the Union and fair competition in the Union, to protect the financial and economic interests of the Union and its Member States, including protecting those interests from tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance, and to improve tax collection.

Its specific objectives are to support tax policy and the implementation of Union law relating to taxation, to foster cooperation between tax authorities, including exchange of tax information, and to support administrative capacity building including human competency and the development and operation of European electronic systems.

Estimated savings and benefits

Given the continuity in terms of content, structure and size of the budget of the new Fiscalis programme in comparison with the Fiscalis 2020 programme, an impact assessment was deemed unnecessary. An ex-ante evaluation was considered as more adequate. The Fiscalis 2020 programme was already streamlined with a strong focus on outputs and results. It implemented all simplifications identified in past evaluations, which were taken on board in the new proposal and subsequently in the new programme regulation.

The main additional simplification identified consists in an extended use of lump sums / unit costs and the possibility to adopt multi-annual work programmes to avoid the annual administrative burden of comitology.

The final evaluation of Fiscalis 2013 and preliminary results and draft recommendations from the mid-term evaluation of Fiscalis 2020 . The evaluations found that the programme is providing strong EU added value, building trust and fostering strong cooperation between Member States and with other participating countries. The programme facilitates the implementation of EU legislation, while allowing efficiency gains, e.g. through pooling of resources especially regarding electronic systems where EU intervention is resulting in economies of scale and reduced development costs.

The quantified impact of the programme has not been measured as this is a very complex and resource consuming exercice both for the Member States, which would have to provide the necessary data, and for the Commission, which would have to process and consolidate it. Moreover, this is also very challenging in practice as many of the benefits of the programme are not easily quantified, and even more difficult, monetised. 

From a qualitative point of view, the predecessors of the Fiscalis programme have been specifically effective in providing solutions for challenges with a clear EU dimension by providing a forum for targetted discussions, exchange of experiences and best practices with the objective to support finding the most efficient solutions for a harmonised implementation of EU level policies at national level, as well as networking among the Member States that would not have been possible without this support. They have also supported the development and maintenance of EU IT systems which have brought significant benefits and improved coordination. The same results would have been difficult or impossible to achieve without the programme support, in particular as regards EU IT Systems.  

It could thus be concluded that none of the programme’s outputs would likely continue beyond the short term if the programme were to be discontinued. Fiscalis funding is thus indispensable regarding EU added value.

The final evaluation of Fiscalis 2020 confirmed the aforementioned findings, confirming the programme’s contribution to the functioning of the internal market.

Outcome of legislative procedure

The Commission proposed that the programme should be implemented through multiannual work programmes, in view of the mid to long-term nature of the objectives pursued and building on experience gained over time. This approach was supported by co-legislators, with the Council adding a limitation to three years (Recital 14, Article 13). Additionally, the co-legislators proposed that the interim and final evaluations should also address the remaining obstacles to the achievement of the Programme's objectives and make suggestions for best practices. With regard to the performance reporting system, the co-legislators proposed for annual progress reports to include a summary of the lessons learnt and, where appropriate, of the obstacles encountered, in the context of the activities of the programme that have taken place in the year in question (Recital 16).

The delays in the adoption of the MFF and subsequent late adoption of the Fiscalis regulation led the Commission to proceed with a cautious approach. This included notably giving priority to the maintenance of the existing taxation IT systems in order to guarantee business continuity, instead of funding new IT developments. The inevitable negative impact of the unavailability of the new Fiscalis budget on the IT related investments was nevertheless alleviated by the reallocation of the Fiscalis 2020 collaborative activities budget to the IT budget line. 2021 was then a year of transition where both the Fiscalis 2020 and the new Fiscalis programme were applicable. Due to the restrictions on travel and physical meetings still in place in the Covid-19 context, collaborative activities mainly took place in an online format with no or rather limited financial costs. Despite these challenges, the Commission was able to ensure that the Programme transitioned smoothly, ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of the European Electronic Systems for taxation, a key element of the Programme. The first years of implementation of the programme highlighted the need to reinforce the commitment of Member States particularly when it comes to leading collaborative activities, such as expert teams. Moreover, efficient uptake and deployment of the outputs once they are delivered should be guaranteed to ensure that they are properly employed and remain relevant. In addition, late dissemination of the outputs hamper continuity and consistency. This potentially limits the impact of the programme activities and could result in reduced relevance of the outcomes of the activities, in particular when they concern tax fraud investigations. Finally, the programme has not been used to its full potential to support key initiatives such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and the revision of the Energy Tax Directive (ETD), which contribute to the objective of carbon neutrality.