Enhanced Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the Standard on Transparency and Exchange of Information on Request 2025

Belgium

Belgium joined the Global Forum in 2009. Belgium underwent its Second Round of EOIR Peer Review in 2018 (Belgium’s 2018 Report),1 which assessed its legal and regulatory framework in force as at January 2018 and its practical implementation, including in respect of EOI requests received and sent, during the review period from 1 October 2013 to 31 September 2016. Belgium received an overall rating of Largely Compliant and the individual Elements were rated as follows:

 

	A.1	A.2	A.3	B.1	B.2	C.1	C.2	C.3	C.4	C.5	Overall
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

Status of implementation of recommendations issued in the peer review report

Belgium received seven in-box recommendations in relation to Elements A.1, B.1, B.2, C.1 and C.3.

This monitoring report assesses the actions taken by Belgium to address the recommendations issued in its EOIR Peer Review Report and the peer input received for the monitoring period 2023-2024.

The report concludes that five recommendations are “considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation”, one recommendation is “in the process of being addressed” and one is “no longer sufficiently material”. Nevertheless, it notes a legal gap in relation to the recommendation on Element B.1 on the practice of the access to information related to years older than the three previous years. Accordingly, the report adds a new recommendation. It also advises on actions required.

Element A.1: Availability of ownership and identity information

1. Implementation of the requirements to keep a beneficial ownership register

 

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.

Element B.1: Access to information

2. Enforcement powers to compel the production of information

 

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.

3. Access to information held by AML-obliged persons

 

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.

4. Access to information related to years older than the three previous years

 

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.

Element B.2: Right and safeguards

5. Interpretation of the exception for post-exchange notification

 

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.

Element C.1: EOIR Mechanisms

6. Timeliness of ratification of the EOIR instruments

 

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.

Element C.3: Confidentiality

7. Implementation of the right of access to the information held by the tax administration

 

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.

EOIR experience

Over the monitoring period, Belgium received 1 566 requests and sent 777 requests. France, the Netherlands and Poland were the top three EOI partners in respect of incoming requests. The Netherlands, Luxembourg and France were the key partners in respect of outgoing requests. Belgium reported having provided full and final responses in 93% of all the received requests and indicated 7% as pending requests.

A total of 21 members provided peer input on Belgium. Peers have reported a good level of satisfaction in respect of their EOIR experience with Belgium, for both the answers provided and the requests sent.

New developments having a bearing on the EOIR standard

No recent developments that could have a bearing on the EOIR standard (other than those reported to address recommendations) have been reported by Belgium or have otherwise come to light.

Next steps

Belgium should continue taking actions towards implementing the standard effectively.

Under the first round of the enhanced monitoring, a new recommendation has been issued to Belgium.

8. Access to all available information regardless of the year to which it pertains

 

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.

The following next steps are expected from Belgium:

• Submit the next self-assessment report in 2028 under the second round of enhanced monitoring, including on the new recommendation issued.

• See also Chapter 1 (Scope and methodology), section on “PRMG decisions – Statuses determined and actions required”, which explains the next steps expected on recommendations that are “Considered provisionally addressed in the context of the monitoring process, subject to detailed validation” and the next steps expected on recommendations that are “no longer sufficiently material”.

Views/response of the monitored jurisdiction

Belgium would like to thank the PRMG delegates and peers for their contributions. Belgium will take the conclusions of this 2025 enhanced monitoring report into account in order to continuously improve the collaboration it has with all its exchange partners, with a constant focus on transparency and efficiency. Belgium will permanently monitor the situation and submit its next self-assessment report in 2028, as requested, under the second round of enhanced monitoring.

Note

← 1.  OECD (2018), Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: Belgium 2018 (Second Round): Peer Review Report on the Exchange of Information on Request, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264290839-en.