Peer Review of the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information 2025 Update

Sweden

Overall findings

Sweden’s legal framework implementing the AEOI Standard is in place but needs improvement in order to be fully consistent with the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference. While Sweden’s international legal framework to exchange the information with all of Sweden’s Interested Appropriate Partners (CR2) is consistent with the requirements, its domestic legislative framework requiring Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (CR1) has a deficiency significant to the proper functioning of an element of the AEOI Standard. More specifically, a deficiency has been identified in relation to the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions required to report information.

The methodology used for the peer reviews and that therefore underpins this report is outlined in Annex A.

Overall determination on the legal framework: In Place But Needs Improvement

Conclusions on the legal framework

General context

Sweden 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, Sweden:

• amended its Tax Procedure Code (2011:1244) and the Tax Procedure Ordinance (2011:1261), each as further amended in 2019 and 2025;

• enacted Act (2015:911) on the identification of reportable accounts with regard to automatic exchange of information on financial accounts, as amended in 2019;

• enacted Act (2015:912) on the automatic exchange of information on financial accounts, as amended in 2019 and 2025; and

• introduced Ordinance (2015:921) on the identification of reportable accounts with regard to automatic exchange of information on financial accounts and Ordinance (2015:922) on the automatic exchange of information on financial accounts, each as amended in 2019 and 2025.

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.

Following the initial Global Forum peer review, Sweden made various amendments to its legislative framework to address issues identified, the last of which were effective from 1 January 2025.

With respect to the exchange of information under the AEOI Standard, Sweden:

• 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; and

• has in place European Union agreements with five European third countries.1

Detailed findings

The detailed findings for Sweden are below, organised per Core Requirement (CR) and sub-requirement (SR), as extracted from the AEOI Terms of Reference (see Annex B).

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.

Determination: In Place But Needs Improvement

Sweden’s domestic legislative framework is in place and contains most of the key aspects of the CRS and its Commentary requiring Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, but it needs improvement in relation to the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions required to report information (SR 1.1). More specifically, Sweden’s legislative framework does not fully incorporate the definition of Reporting Financial Institution in line with the requirements.

SR 1.1 Jurisdictions should define the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions consistently with the CRS.

Sweden has defined the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions in its domestic legislative framework in a manner that is largely consistent with the CRS and its Commentary. However, a deficiency has been identified. More specifically, Sweden has excluded securities funds and alternative investment funds from the definition of Reporting Financial Institution and instead requires the fund manager to report as the Reporting Financial Institution.

Recommendations:

Sweden should amend its legislative framework to define Reporting Financial Institutions in accordance with the AEOI Standard.

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.

Sweden 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.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

SR 1.3 Jurisdictions should incorporate the reporting requirements contained in Section I of the CRS into their domestic legislative framework.

Sweden has incorporated the reporting requirements in its domestic legislative framework in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

SR 1.4 Jurisdictions should have a legislative framework in place that allows for the enforcement of the requirements of the CRS in practice.

Sweden has a legislative framework in place to enforce the requirements in a manner that is in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

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.

Determination: In Place

Sweden’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 Sweden’s Interested Appropriate Partners (i.e. all jurisdictions that are interested in receiving information from Sweden 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.

Sweden has exchange agreements that permit the automatic exchange of CRS information in effect with all its Interested Appropriate Partners.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

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.

Sweden put in place its exchange agreements without undue delay.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

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.

Sweden’s exchange agreements provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the requirements of the Model CAA.

Recommendations:

No recommendations made.

Comments by the assessed jurisdiction

On 5 September 2024 the Swedish government decided to submit a bill to the Parliament, containing all the amendments to the legislation that have been deemed necessary to address the recommendations made. The parliamentary process is on-going, and it is likely that the bill will be adopted by the end of October. We do not foresee any political or other impediments.

Note

← 1.  Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Switzerland.