BRUSSELS | 22 SEPTEMBER 2025
Pillar Two Developments, DAC Recast & Use of AI in the Profession: Insights from the 2025 CFE Tax Symposium
CFE were delighted to co-host the CFE Tax Symposium 2025: “Taxation in Transition: Compliance, Rights & Innovation in a High-Data World” in Ghent, with our Belgian Member Organisation, the Belgian Institute for Tax Advisors and Accountants (ITAA) last week on 18 September 2025. The Symposium gathered tax professionals, policymakers, academics and business representatives to discuss the impact of recent policy shifts, digitalisation and data-driven processes on compliance, taxpayers’ rights, and innovation in tax administration. The conference was opened by the Presidents of CFE and ITAA, Piergiorgio Valente and Bart van Coile, respectively.
Panel 1 — Pillars One and Two, Side-by-Side System, and Competitiveness Rsks for the EU
Prof. Georg Kofler (Professor of International Tax Law, WU Vienna; Chair, CFE ECJ Task Force) set the scene with a legal and geopolitical overview of the current state of Pillar 2. He highlighted pending legal questions around the EU Minimum Tax Directive—especially property-rights concerns where UTPR might load very large top-ups onto small EU entities of low-taxed foreign-headed groups—and flagged unresolved issues of extraterritoriality, treaty compatibility and the still-shifting interaction between QDMTTs, CFC rules and safe harbours. He cautioned that depending on how “side-by-side” coexistence is drawn up, Pillar Two could either catalyse simplification or trigger a new wave of complexity.
Félicie Bonnet (Head of Global Minimum Tax, OECD) underlined that more than sixty jurisdictions have now legislated Pillar Two—most with QDMTTs, which are fast becoming the cornerstone of the regime. She stressed three near-term priorities at the Inclusive Framework: (1) workable side-by-side parameters that maintain a level playing field; (2) simplifications that let groups rely much more on consolidated accounts and jurisdictional computations as transitional reliefs expire; and (3) proportionate information and filing requirements so administrations get what they need without unnecessary burden on taxpayers. She reminded attendees that Pillar Two is a common approach: even non-adopters agree others may apply it to their groups.
Benjamin Angel (Director, DG TAXUD, European Commission) clarified the EU perspective: that recognition of the U.S. system as “equivalent” under Article 52 is not a viable consideration given design differences (jurisdictional vs global blending, rates, substance carve-outs). Instead, the Commission’s working solution is a safe-harbour-based approach that can fit into the Directive’s dynamic co-existence mechanism. He warned that allowing GILTI push-down would erode Pillar Two’s core achievement—establishing a global minimum as a floor to tax competition—and he counselled against overstating tax as the determinant of FDI, pointing to EU-wide variations in statutory rates that have not dictated investment flows. Aleksandar Ivanovski, Director of CFE, moderator of the panel, highlighted that tax policy is now part of a wider transatlantic discussion on trade policy, competition and enforcement of EU antitrust/State aid law.
Jorge Ferreras Gutiérrez (Deputy Director General of the Spanish Ministry of Finance) explained how Spain legislated Pillar Two under considerable time pressure, reflecting the EU’s commitment to early adoption. Once enacted, such taxes are politically and legally difficult to amend, which complicates adaptation to new OECD/EU guidance. Spain’s position is clear: the EU cannot afford to fall into a less competitive position vis-à-vis the U.S. after significant domestic investment in implementation.
Helen Pahapill (Estonian Ministry of Finance) set out Estonia’s contrasting stance. Estonia opted to delay, citing the Directive’s complexity and the limited relevance to its distribution-based corporate tax system. She described the Directive as a “door” through which OECD rules enter domestic law, raising sovereignty and transparency concerns. With high compliance costs and little expected revenue benefit, Estonia continues to push for simplification as a priority.
In Q&A, Prof. Kofler returned to underline unresolved technical and legal issues: whether QDMTTs could be prioritised over CFC rules, how to treat conditional QDMTTs, the risks of distortions from industrial subsidies and tax credits, and the broader concern that Pillar Two may complicate rather than simplify tax systems. Aleksandar Ivanovski raised the issue of the tax treatment of refundable and non-refundable tax credits, as well as the ability of EU Member states to provide such incentives, which raises not only transatlantic issues, but also issues of different fiscal capacity of Member states in providing such incentives and credits.
Panel 2 — DAC evaluation and the Planned DAC10 Recast: Simplification Without Deregulation
During this panel, Reinhard Biebel (Head of Unit, Direct Tax Policy, DG TAXUD, European Commission) discussed the findings of the evaluation of DAC1–6: the framework is a success, but fragmentation in transposition/implementation, uneven penalties, persistent IT and data-quality challenges (notably taxpayer identification/matching), and limited transparency about how exchanged data are actually used all create avoidable burden.
The Commission’s goal for DAC10 is a single recast that consolidates the nine existing DACs into one coherent instrument, streamlines overlapping obligations (e.g., DAC3/DAC6; DAC4/DAC9 with Pillar Two data; elements touching real-estate income), strengthens guidance to drive consistent application, and explores practical fixes (e.g., standardisation/verification of TINs). Biebel stressed the motto: simplify, not de-regulate.
Raluca Enache (Head of the EU Tax Centre, KPMG) and Philippe Vanclooster (Board Member, ITAA, former Chair of the CFE Professional Affairs Committee) discussed practical compliance issues: duplications between DACs (private/public CbCR, DAC6 vs rulings, and now Pillar Two information returns), divergent XML/reporting schemas by obligation, and especially DAC6 hallmarks without the MBT (e.g., TP-related hallmarks) that pull in many low-risk cases. They argued for clarifying that unimplemented options do not trigger reporting, introducing a de minimis threshold, creating a whitelist of routinely low-risk transactions, and ensuring sequencing so that DAC6 deadlines don’t front-run rulings that will be reported anyway.
The panel also explored the implications of digitalisation and AI. Moderator, Eduardo Gracia Espinar, (Partner, EMEA Ashurst) framed how digitalisation and pre-populated returns are shifting the taxpayer–administration relationship. Speakers cautioned that pre-filled returns should not invert the burden of proof and that GDPR issues in non-EU exchanges remain live.
Panel 3 — Technology, AI and Professional Standards in Tax Practice
This panel explored issues surrounding use of AI by the tax advisory profession. The common thread was that digitalisation can cut cost and improve accuracy, if framed by clear guidance, proportionate expectations, and enforceable human-in-the-loop safeguards.
Nicolas Devillers (Partner, BDO Luxembourg) showed how automation now handles large parts of VAT and indirect tax workflows (data ingestion, anomaly detection, exception-focused review), with “AI as a supervised junior” rather than a black box. Petra Pospíšilová (President, Czech Chamber of Tax Advisers) described the surge in structured reporting (control statements, CESOP, CbCR, soon Pillar Two), arguing tax authorities should provide robust tooling and clear specifications to avoid shifting pure IT burdens to taxpayers.
Jane Mellor (Head of Professional Standards, CIOT, UK) focused on ethics and professional standards: using AI within the PCRT principles (integrity, due care, explainability, confidentiality), updating engagement terms to disclose tooling, and ensuring human oversight—especially where automated systems feed compliance or penalty decisions.
Key Takeaways
The conference was closed by CFE Treasurer Branislav Kováč. Across all three panels, a theme emerged: coordination first, then simplification. Pillar Two will only deliver a level playing field if coexistence respects its core architecture. The DAC10 recast is the right moment to remove overlaps and restore clarity without weakening cooperation. And as AI-driven compliance accelerates, we must balance efficiency with taxpayer rights, transparency and professional judgment.
CFE wishes to thank our excellent moderators and panellists — Georg Kofler, Félicie Bonnet, Benjamin Angel, Jorge Ferreras Gutiérrez, Helen Pahapill, Aleksandar Ivanovski, Reinhard Biebel, Raluca Enache, Philippe Vanclooster, Eduardo Gracia Espinar, Nicolas Devillers, Petra Pospíšilová, Jane Mellor & Jeremy Woolf—as well as our co-organisers at ITAA and everyone who joined us in Ghent.
OECD to Publish 2025 Peer Review Compilation on Country-by-Country Reporting