Tax transparency reporting covers the obligations that require financial institutions, digital platform operators and payment service providers to identify certain account holders, sellers or payees and report them to a tax authority, which then exchanges the data with other jurisdictions. The frameworks differ in population, schema and cadence, but they share a shape: work out who is in scope, collect a defined record set, validate it against a published schema, and file it with the local authority by a fixed date.
This pillar collects what the REGREP Regulatory Team publishes on CRS and DAC2, FATCA, DAC7 and CESOP — practitioner guides, the questions we are asked repeatedly, and reference datasets such as taxpayer identification number structures. Every record cites at least one official source, the directive, regulation, schema or authority guidance it rests on, and carries the date it was last reviewed. When an authority revises a schema or moves a date, the record is updated and the change is summarised rather than quietly overwritten.
Most of the difficulty in these frameworks is not conceptual. It is record-level: a missing or malformed taxpayer identification number, a residence country that contradicts the account holder’s documented status, an undocumented account coded incorrectly, a correction message that fails because it does not reference the original submission. The material here is written at that level, because that is where filings are rejected.
None of it is tax or legal advice, and dates vary by jurisdiction even where the underlying standard does not. Confirm the current due date and schema version with your national competent authority before you file. When you are ready to produce the file rather than read about it, each framework maps to a REGREP module with a free tier you can prove on your own data.
