Italy
This report analyses the implementation of the AEOI Standard in Italy with respect to the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference. It assesses both the legal frameworks put in place to implement the AEOI Standard and the effectiveness of the implementation of the AEOI Standard in practice.
The methodology used for the peer reviews and that therefore underpins this report is outlined in Chapter 2.
Overall findings
AEOI legal framework
Italy’s legal framework implementing the AEOI Standard is in place and is consistent with the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference. This includes Italy’s domestic legislative framework requiring Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (CR1) and its international legal framework to exchange the information with all of Italy’s Interested Appropriate Partners (CR2).
Effectiveness of AEOI in practice
Italy’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is on track with respect to the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference to ensure the effectiveness of the AEOI Standard in practice. This includes ensuring Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (CR1) and exchanging the information in an effective and timely manner (CR2). Italy is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
Overall rating in relation to the effectiveness in practice: On Track
General context
Italy commenced exchanges under the AEOI Standard in 2017.
In order to provide for Reporting Financial Institutions to collect and report the information to be exchanged, Italy:
enacted the Law of 18 June 2015, n. 95 (Legge 18 giugno 2015, n. 95);
introduced the Ministerial Decree of 28 December 2015 (DM 28-12-2015); and
Under this framework Reporting Financial Institutions were required to commence the due diligence procedures in relation to New Accounts from 1 January 2016. With respect to Preexisting Accounts, Reporting Financial Institutions were required to complete the due diligence procedures on High Value Individual Accounts by 31 December 2016 and on Lower Value Individual Accounts and Entity Accounts by 31 December 2017.
With respect to the exchange of information under the AEOI Standard, Italy:
is a Party to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters and activated the associated CRS Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement in time for exchanges in 2017;
has in place European Directive 2011/16/EU on Administrative Cooperation in the Field of Taxation as amended by Directive 2014/107/EU;
has in place European Union agreements with five European third countries1; and
has in place two bilateral agreements.2
Table 1 sets out the number of Financial Institutions in Italy that reported information on Financial Accounts in 2021 as defined in the AEOI Standard (essentially because they maintained Financial Accounts for Account Holders, or that were related to Controlling Persons, resident in a Reportable Jurisdiction). It also sets out the number of Financial Accounts that they reported in 2021. In this regard, it should be noted that Italy requires the reporting of Financial Accounts held by non-residents based on a prescribed list of exchange partners and some accounts may be required to be reported more than once (e.g. jointly held accounts or accounts with multiple related Controlling Persons), which is reflected in the figures below. These figures provide key contextual information to the development and implementation of Italy’s administrative compliance strategy, which is analysed in the subsequent sections of this report.
Table 2 sets out the number of exchange partners to which information was successfully sent by Italy in the past few years (including where the necessary frameworks were in place, containing an obligation on Reporting Financial Institutions to report information, but no relevant Reportable Accounts were identified). These figures provide key contextual information in relation to Italy’s exchanges in practice, which is also analysed in subsequent sections of this report.
In order to provide for the effective implementation of the AEOI Standard, in Italy:
the Italian Revenue Agency (the tax authority) has the responsibility to ensure the effective implementation of the due diligence and reporting obligations by Reporting Financial Institutions and for exchanging the information with Italy’s exchange partners;
technical solutions necessary to receive and validate the information reported by Reporting Financial Institutions were put in place through the Data Interchange System (IT Acr. SID); and
the Common Transmission System (CTS), and in the European Union (EU) the Common Communication Network (CCN), are used for the exchange of the information, along with the associated file preparation and encryption requirements.
It should be noted that the review of Italy’s legal frameworks implementing the AEOI Standard concluded with the determination that Italy’s domestic legal and international frameworks are In Place. This has been taken into account when reviewing the effectiveness of Italy’s implementation of the AEOI Standard in practice.
Findings and conclusions on the legal frameworks
The detailed findings and conclusions on the AEOI legal frameworks for Italy are below, organised per Core Requirement (CR) and then per sub-requirement (SR) as extracted from the AEOI Terms of Reference (see Annex C).
CR1 Domestic legal framework: Jurisdictions should have a domestic legislative framework in place that requires all Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures in the CRS, and that provides for the effective implementation of the CRS as set out therein.
Italy’s domestic legislative framework is in place and contains all of the key aspects of the CRS and its Commentary requiring Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (SRs 1.1 – 1.3). It also provides for a framework to enforce the requirements (SR 1.4).
SR 1.1 Jurisdictions should define the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions consistently with the CRS.
Italy has defined the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions in its domestic legislative framework in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.
SR 1.2 Jurisdictions should define the scope of Financial Accounts and Reportable Accounts consistently with the CRS and incorporate the due diligence procedures to identify them.
Italy has defined the scope of the Financial Accounts that are required to be reported in its domestic legislative framework and incorporated the due diligence procedures that must be applied to identify them in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.
SR 1.3 Jurisdictions should incorporate the reporting requirements contained in Section I of the CRS into their domestic legislative framework.
Italy has incorporated the reporting requirements in its domestic legislative framework in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.
SR 1.4 Jurisdictions should have a legislative framework in place that allows for the enforcement of the requirements of the CRS in practice.
Italy has a legislative framework in place to enforce the requirements in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.
CR2 International legal framework: Jurisdictions should have exchange relationships in effect with all Interested Appropriate Partners as committed to and that provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the Model CAA.
Italy’s international legal framework to exchange the information is in place, is consistent with the Model CAA and its Commentary and provides for exchange with all of Italy’s Interested Appropriate Partners (i.e. all jurisdictions that are interested in receiving information from Italy and that meet the required standard in relation to confidentiality and data safeguards) (SRs 2.1 – 2.3).
SR 2.1 Jurisdictions should have exchange agreements in effect with all Interested Appropriate Partners that permit the automatic exchange of CRS information.
Italy has exchange agreements that permit the automatic exchange of CRS information in effect with all its Interested Appropriate Partners.
SR 2.2 Such an exchange agreement should be put in place without undue delay, following the receipt of an expression of interest from an Interested Appropriate Partner.
Italy put in place its exchange agreements without undue delay.
SR 2.3 Jurisdictions should ensure that the exchange agreements in effect provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the requirements of the Model CAA.
Italy’s exchange agreements provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the requirements of the Model CAA.
Findings and conclusions in relation to effectiveness in practice
The detailed findings and conclusions in relation to effectiveness in practice of AEOI for Italy are below, organised per Core Requirement (CR) and then per sub-requirement (SR) as extracted from the AEOI Terms of Reference (see Annex C).
CR1 Effectiveness in practice: Jurisdictions should ensure that in practice Reporting Financial Institutions correctly implement the due diligence and reporting procedures, which includes a requirement for jurisdictions to have in place an administrative framework to ensure the effective implementation of the CRS.
Italy’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is on track with respect to ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions are correctly conducting the due diligence and reporting procedures and are therefore reporting complete and accurate information. This includes ensuring effectiveness in a domestic context, such as through having an effective administrative compliance framework and related procedures (SR 1.5), and collaborating with exchange partners to ensure effectiveness (SR 1.6). Italy is encouraged to continue its implementation process to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
SR 1.5 Jurisdictions should ensure that in practice Reporting Financial Institutions identify the Financial Accounts they maintain, identify the Reportable Accounts among those Financial Accounts, as well as their Account Holders, and where relevant Controlling Persons, by correctly conducting the due diligence procedures and collect and report the required information with respect to each Reportable Account. This includes having in place:
an effective administrative compliance framework to ensure the effective implementation of, and compliance with, the CRS. This framework should:
be based on a strategy that facilitates compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions and which is informed by a risk assessment in respect of the effective implementation of the CRS that takes into account relevant information sources (including third party sources);
include procedures to ensure that Financial Institutions correctly apply the definitions of Reporting Financial Institutions and Non-Reporting Financial Institutions;
include procedures to periodically verify Reporting Financial Institutions’ compliance, conducted by authorities that have adequate powers with respect to the reviewed Reporting Financial Institutions, with procedures to access the records they maintain; and
effective procedures to ensure that Financial Institutions, persons or intermediaries do not circumvent the due diligence and reporting procedures;
effective enforcement mechanisms to address non-compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions;
strong measures to ensure that valid self-certifications are always obtained for New Accounts;
effective procedures to ensure that each, or each type of, jurisdiction-specific Non-Reporting Financial Institution and Excluded Account continue to present a low risk of being used to evade tax; and
effective procedures to follow up with a Reporting Financial Institution when undocumented accounts are reported in order to establish the reasons why such information is being reported.
In order to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, Italy implemented all of the requirements in accordance with expectations. The key findings were as follows:
Italy implemented an overarching strategy to ensure compliance with the AEOI Standard developed after conducting a risk assessment that took into account a range of relevant information sources, including information from financial regulators, the profile of the compliance activities carried out for other regulatory purposes and feedback from the business sector. Italy’s compliance strategy facilitates compliance and incorporates a credible approach to enforcement. Italy intends to keep its compliance strategy and risk assessment under review to ensure its effectiveness on an ongoing basis.
Italy has worked effectively to understand its population of Financial Institutions, including relevant non-regulated entities, utilising various relevant information sources, such as lists provided by other regulatory bodies and the Foreign Financial Institution list for FATCA purposes, and requiring nil returns to be filed. It has taken action to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions are classifying themselves correctly under its domestic rules and reporting information as required. Italy intends to keep its understanding of its Financial Institution population up to date on a routine basis.
The institution responsible for implementing Italy’s compliance strategy appears to have the necessary powers to discharge its functions. With respect to resourcing, Italy has assigned the equivalent of six full time staff to monitor and ensure compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions, which have access to IT systems and tools to conduct risk assessments. Overall, they appear to have effectively implemented an operational plan to verify compliance with the requirements, incorporating appropriate compliance activities.
Italy has taken action to enforce the requirements, including through the inspection of records of Reporting Financial Institutions through a “Cooperative Compliance Programme” covering the large Financial Institutions that reported over 60% of the Reportable Accounts in Italy, and the number of Reporting Financial Institutions selected for the Programme has increased over time. Penalties and sanctions have not yet been applied for non-compliance identified through the Programme, but Italy confirmed that there is a plan to apply penalties and sanctions following the forthcoming compliance activities.
Italy appears ready to take effective action to address circumvention of the requirements if such circumvention is detected, to ensure self-certifications are obtained as required and to follow up on undocumented accounts.
Italy will also keep its jurisdiction-specific lists of Non-Reporting Financial Institutions and Excluded Accounts under review to ensure they continue to pose a low risk of being used for tax evasion purposes.
Table 3 provides a summary of the specific activities undertaken, or that are planned to be undertaken, in relation to each of the key parts of the framework described above.
In terms of the Financial Account information collected and sent by Italy, it was found to include a lower proportion of Tax Identification Numbers with respect to the individuals associated with the accounts when compared to most other jurisdictions. This is a key data point for exchange partners to effectively utilise the information. Information provided by Italy also showed a higher number of undocumented accounts reported by its Reporting Financial Institutions, when compared to other jurisdictions, which should only occur when it is not possible for the Reporting Financial Institutions to identify whether the accounts are held by Reportable Persons. Follow-up discussions confirmed that Italy is aware of this issue and is taking steps including audits to relevant Reporting Financial Institutions to address it.
Ten exchange partners highlighted issues with respect to the information received, such as missing Tax Identification Numbers. Follow-up discussions confirmed that Italy is aware of these issues and is seeking to improve the situation. More generally, many of the exchange partners that received a significant number of records from Italy indicated that they achieved a success rate when matching the information received from Italy with their taxpayer database that was broadly equivalent to, or better than, what they usually achieve.
Based on these findings it was concluded that, overall, Italy is meeting expectations in ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, including by having in place the required administrative compliance framework and related procedures. It was also noted that there is room for improvement with respect to the application of enforcement mechanisms and addressing the issues raised by Italy’s exchange partners. Italy is therefore encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, including by addressing recommendations made.
Italy should routinely apply its enforcement mechanisms where non-compliance is identified, including the application of dissuasive penalties and sanctions as appropriate.
Italy should continue to address the issues raised by its exchange partners.
SR 1.6 Jurisdictions should collaborate on compliance and enforcement. This requires jurisdictions to:
use all appropriate measures available under the jurisdiction’s domestic law to address errors or non-compliance notified to the jurisdiction by an exchange partner; and
have in place effective procedures to notify an exchange partner of errors that may have led to incomplete or incorrect information reporting or non-compliance with the due diligence or reporting procedures by a Reporting Financial Institution in the jurisdiction of the exchange partner.
In order to collaborate on compliance and enforcement, it appears that Italy implemented all of the requirements in relation to issues notified to them (i.e. under Section 4 of the MCAA or equivalent) in accordance with expectations. While no such notifications have yet been received, Italy has the necessary systems and procedures to process them as required. It also appears that Italy will notify its partners effectively of errors or suspected non-compliance it identifies when utilising the information received.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Italy is fully meeting expectations in relation to collaborating with its exchange partners to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures. Italy is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
CR2 Effectiveness in practice: Jurisdictions should exchange the information effectively in practice, in a timely manner, including by sorting, preparing, validating and transmitting it in accordance with the AEOI Standard.
Italy’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is on track with respect to exchanging the information effectively in practice, including in relation to sorting, preparing and validating the information (SR 2.4), correctly transmitting the information in a timely manner (SRs 2.5 – 2.8) and providing corrections, amendments or additions to the information (SR 2.9). Italy is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
SR 2.4 Jurisdictions should sort, prepare and validate the information in accordance with the CRS XML Schema and the associated requirements in the CRS XML Schema User Guide and the File Error and Correction-related validations in the Status Message User Guide (i.e. the 50000 and 80000 range).
Three exchange partners highlighted particular issues with respect to preparation and format of the information sent by Italy (representing 4% of its partners). These generally related to file errors. More generally, nine (or 12%) of Italy’s exchange partners reported rejecting more than 25% of the files received, of which three reported rejecting more than 50% of files received, due to the technical requirements not being met. This is a very high amount when compared to other jurisdictions, and it has increased over time. It was noted that Italy is still in the process of addressing some of the issues identified, including some that arose some time ago.
Based on these findings it was concluded that, overall, Italy is meeting expectations in relation to sorting, preparing and validating the information. It was also noted that there is room for improvement with respect to file errors that caused rejections. Italy is therefore encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, including in relation to the areas highlighted.
Italy should review its systems and procedures to sort, prepare and validate the information to ensure they meet the requirements of the AEOI Standard.
Italy should continue to work with its exchange partners to address the issues raised.
SR 2.5 Jurisdictions should agree and use, with each exchange partner, transmission methods that meet appropriate minimum standards to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of the data throughout the transmission, including its encryption to a minimum secure standard.
In order to put in place an agreed transmission method that meets appropriate minimum standards in confidentiality, integrity of the data and encryption for use with each of its exchange partners, Italy linked to the CTS and the CCN, which is used for exchanges within the EU.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Italy is fully meeting expectations in relation to agreeing and using appropriate transmission methods with each of its partners. Italy is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.6 Jurisdictions should carry out all exchanges annually within nine months of the end of the calendar year to which the information relates.
One exchange partner highlighted delays in the sending of information by Italy. It was noted that Italy successfully addressed this issue and sent the information as soon as possible thereafter.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Italy is fully meeting expectations in relation to exchanging the information in a timely manner. Italy is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.7 Jurisdictions should send the information in accordance with the agreed transmission methods and encryption standards.
Feedback from Italy’s exchange partners did not raise any concerns with respect to Italy’s use of the agreed transmission methods and therefore with Italy’s implementation of this requirement.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Italy is fully meeting expectations in relation to sending the information in accordance with the agreed transmission methods and encryption standards. Italy is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.8 Jurisdictions should have the systems in place to receive information and, once it has been received, should send a status message to the sending jurisdictions in accordance with the CRS Status Message XML Schema and the related User Guide.
Four exchange partners highlighted delays in the sending of status messages by Italy, representing 4% of its partners. It was noted that Italy appears to have successfully addressed the issues to ensure that status messages are sent in accordance with the requirements.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Italy is fully meeting expectations in relation to the receipt of the information. Italy is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.9 Jurisdictions should respond to a notification from an exchange partner as referred to in Section 4 of the Model CAA (which may include Status Messages) in accordance with the timelines set out in the Commentary to Section 4 of the Model CAA. In all other cases, jurisdictions should send corrected, amended or additional information received from a Reporting Financial Institution as soon as possible after it has been received.
Italy appears ready to respond to notifications and to provide corrected, amended or additional information in a timely manner and no such concerns were raised by Italy’s exchange partners and therefore with respect to Italy’s implementation of these requirements.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Italy appears to be meeting expectations in relation to responding to notifications from exchange partners and the sending of corrected, amended or additional information. Italy is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.