CARF / DAC8 Reporting – Overview (Scope, Data & XML Output)

CARF reporting requires Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs) to identify reportable users and transactions and submit standardized CARF data outputs (typically XML-based), aligned to local implementation requirements and validation rules (including DAC8 alignment in the EU).

Competent Authority

OECD (framework owner); implemented locally via national competent authorities (e.g., EU DAC8 implementations)

Submission Method

Electronic submission via the relevant national competent authority reporting channels, based on local CARF/DAC8 implementation and portal/gateway requirements.

Reporting Format / Schema

OECD CARF XML (CARF schema / standardized exchange format)

Deadlines & Timelines

- CARF/DAC8 reporting is typically submitted on a recurring reporting cycle (commonly annual), for the relevant reporting period.
- Submission dates and correction windows depend on local implementation rules.
- Controlled corrections/resubmissions are important due to the volume of transaction-level data and the risk of duplicates.

Common Pitfalls

  • In-scope / out-of-scope determination for CASP activities

    Misidentifying which services and transactions fall under CARF/DAC8 can lead to under-reporting or over-reporting, especially where business models include custody, brokerage, exchange, or transfer services.

  • Customer identification and tax residence data gaps

    Missing or inconsistent customer identity attributes (name, address, date of birth for individuals, entity identifiers) and incomplete tax residence/TIN data frequently break validation and create remediation cycles.

  • Wallet address and transaction linkage issues

    Difficulty linking on-chain addresses, custody accounts, and off-chain identifiers can result in incomplete transaction reporting, mismatched parties, or unclear beneficial ownership contexts.

  • Asset classification and instrument mapping errors

    Misclassifying crypto-assets (or mis-mapping product types) leads to incorrect reportable event tagging, wrong valuation handling, and inconsistent outputs across reporting periods.

  • Valuation methodology inconsistencies

    Inconsistent valuation sources, timestamps, FX conversion rules, or rounding logic can create large reconciliation gaps and trigger rework, particularly for high-volume trading activity.

  • Duplicate transactions and correction logic

    Without a stable transaction identifier strategy and controlled correction workflow, resubmissions can create duplicates and break reconciliation against internal ledgers and customer statements.

  • High-volume data quality failures

    Transaction-level reporting creates scale challenges: missing mandatory fields, invalid codes, inconsistent timestamps, and “schema-pass but business-rule-fail” outputs.

How REGREP supports this

REGREP supports CARF/DAC8 reporting by structuring CASP customer and transaction data into a consistent reporting model, applying validation checks to improve data quality, generating standardized CARF XML outputs aligned to local implementation requirements, and supporting controlled corrections/resubmissions with audit-friendly traceability.

Last Reviewed: 2026-01-31

This page provides high-level regulatory reporting information for operational and technical context only and does not constitute legal, tax, or compliance advice.