Finland

It seems that in Finland they have followed the Directive’s wording very closely for article 21. However, there is a slight difference in the wording of d) section where they have added “organization” in addition to already existing “association”. However, so far it is not clear why this was added and what are the practical consequences.Also, the term “intermediary” has been changed to “service provider”, but the legislator's documents do not state why this change has been made.

According to main rule individuals (natural persons) will not be qualified intermediaries, unless they are independent entrepeneurs. Intermediary does not need to be legal person, but every kind of "juridical arrangement" will be within the definition.

The corporate tax department would be within "relevant taxpayer" definition. As a main rule, individuals will not be intermediaries so far they are employees.

Designing: Arrangement includes at least one of the "Hallmark".Marketing: Person who recommends, proposes, or encourages others to join in an activity in which at least one of the hallmark is included. It does not matter who has designed this activity or whether this activity was designed at all to be used in this way.Organizing: Person who takes actions to make this activity available / supervises the execution of this activity.Making available for implementation: When a service provider has planned/designed the arrangement for "relevant taxpayer". It does not matter whether the taxpayer will use it or if minor details are missing. Making available will also be fulfilled if the arrangement has been marketed even to a restricted amount of people. Therefore, in the case of "marketable arrangements" no actual end-users will be needed.

There are no deviations from the directive.

In Finland, the obligation for reporting is given only for Finnish "relevant taxpayers" and "service providers". No additional conditions are given compared to the ones given in the directive. Slight wording differences also, but in any case no broader scope than in the directive.

Only if no service provider is obliged to do it. Possible situations are:1) service provider is entitled to not report (e.g. advocates / Legal professional secrets);2) The taxpayer uses service provider outside EU;3) No service provider is used (in-house tax team).However, if the relevant taxpayer gives his permission to the service provider to reveal legal professional secrets, the reporting obligation transfers back to the service provider.

Finnish tax administration has defined "Assisting service provider" which basically "means any person that, having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances and based on available information and the relevant expertise and understanding required to provide such services, knows or could be reasonably expected to know that they have undertaken to provide, directly or by means of other persons, aid, assistance or advice with respect to designing, marketing, organizing, making available for implementation or managing the implementation of a reportable cross-border arrangement."

There are no deviations from the directive.

No deviations from the directive.

All intermediaries are jointly responsible unless they can prove that relevant information is already given by other intermediaries.

No deviations from the Directive.

All Finnish Service Providers are collectively responsible for reporting.If asked information is already provided in other member states by other intermediaries the respective intermediary shall provide sufficient proof of that to the asking tax administration.

Mainly with the reference number given by other tax authorities.

National tax arrangements are not subject to report.

Everything else than VAT, Customs, Excise tax, and social security payments.

There are no deviations from the directive.

There are no deviations from the directive.

The main benefit test is fulfilled if with regard to all relevant facts and circumstances a person can reasonably expect the main benefit or one of the main benefits of the arrangement to be the obtaining of a tax advantage(no official English translation available, but it is defined in Finnish).

There is no explicit definition in the local legislation.

There are no deviations from the directive.

No.

There are no deviations from the directive.

There is no specific guidance.

Tax administration does not differ a lot between "ready for implementation" from "available for implementation". The only named difference is, that "ready for implementation" will cover situations where no marketing is used (in-house arrangements).

Whatever action which has been taken if that could simplify that arrangement has begun.

In addition to the directive, the report should include reference numbers if such has been given by other tax authorities.

After the first report, the service provider must update the report between every 3 months in case of marketable arrangements. Also, there is no option to seek deferral from reporting obligation.

The entire report must be provided by a service provider unless he can prove that certain information has already been submitted. The relevant taxpayer must file the report only in cases mentioned below:1) service provider is entitled to not report (e.g. advocates / Legal professional secrets);2) The taxpayer uses service provider outside the EU;3) No service provider is used (in-house tax team).

There are no deviations from the Directive.

Application number (for application corrections) and reference number (this one is used with co-operation with another EU state).

31.08.2020.

Within 30 days.

Within 30 days.

Neglecting the duties given in the Act on the Reporting Obligation for Cross-Border Tax Planning Structures / Act on Tax Assessment Procedure.There are three stages of sanctions:1. Minor incorrection/misleading information = 2,000 EUR2. Substantial incorrection/misleading information or late delivery = 5,000 EUR3. Intentional incorrections/misleading information or no reporting at all = 15,000 EURAccording to tax authorities, the third one will be the main sanction if no report delivered.

Neglecting the duties given in the Act on the Reporting Obligation for Cross-Border Tax Planning Structures / Act on Tax Assessment Procedure.There are three stages of sanctions:1) Minor incorrection/misleading information = 2,000 EUR2) Substantial incorrection/misleading information or late delivery = 5,000 EUR3) Intentional incorrections/misleading information or no reporting at all = 15,000 EURAccording to tax authorities, the third one will be the main sanction if no report delivered.

No distinction is made between intermediaries and relevant taxpayers.

There are no penalties for redundant reports.

Neglecting the duties given in Act on the Reporting Obligation for Cross-Border Tax Planning Structures / Act on Tax Assessment ProcedureThere is three stages of sanctions:1) Minor incorrection/misleading information = 2000 EUR2) Substantial incorrection/misleading information or late delivery = 5000 EUR3) Intentional incorrections/misleading information or no reporting at all = 15 000 EURAccording to tax authorities the third 3) one will be the main sanction if no report delivered

Penalties do not differ.

No other disclosure regimes exist.

In cases of legal professional secrets, it is voluntary for relevant taxpayer / secondary service providers to include a reference number to the report. This concerns situations where the legal professional has reported "anonymously" and therefore reference number has already been given for this specific arrangement.

'Vero / Verohallinto.

There are no other obligations.

The service provider(s) (=intermediary) are always under primary reporting obligation unless the following conditions are met:1) service provider is entitled to not report (e.g. advocates / Legal professional secrets);2) The taxpayer uses service provider outside EU;3) No service provider is used (in-house tax team).However, if the relevant taxpayer gives his permission to the service provider to reveal legal professional secrets, the reporting obligation transfers back to the service provider.

No.

There is no reference.

There is no reference.

Advocates, public legal aid counsels and licenced legal counsels, each of which are defined in lex specialis.

Such persons are exempted from reporting obligation (i.e. only articles defining this obligation, not from the whole DAC6) with regard to information under professional privilege / professional secrecy obtained during the client-advisor relationship.

In case professional privilege applies, the following information must still be given in "anonymous" form:1) service providers info2) which hallmarks are triggered3) date of the first day of the arrangement4) which domestic legislation is applied5) value of this arrangement6) which other countries this arrangement is potentially touching.In addition, usually, the following info can be given without breaching professional privilege: anonymous general description and in which EU state taxpayer has his tax residence.If somehow some/none of the above information cannot be given to tax administration, there is still the obligation to reach tax administration free-form way.

Yes, in cases where judgement may lead to over 6 years of time in prison or if there are other "significant reasons". The decision is made by a court.