{"id":21298,"date":"2026-01-24T14:40:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-24T13:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/penalties-non-compliance-and-legal-defense-against-dac8\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T03:22:52","modified_gmt":"2026-08-12T01:22:52","slug":"penalties-non-compliance-and-legal-defense-against-dac8","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/en\/penalties-non-compliance-and-legal-defense-against-dac8\/","title":{"rendered":"Penalties, Non-Compliance, and Legal Defense Against DAC8"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

IMPORTANT:<\/strong> This article was drafted in accordance with the regulatory framework and the status of implementation of the DAC8 Directive in effect at the time of its publication. The taxation of cryptoassets, the reporting obligations of crypto service providers, the applicable tax models, the penalty regime, surcharges, interest, and potential criminal risks must now be reviewed in accordance with current regulations in Spain and the European Union, as well as the national transposition and applicable administrative criteria at any given time. <\/em><\/p>\n\n

The entry into force of the DAC8 Directive marks <\/strong>a turning point in the tax regulation of cryptocurrencies in Europe. And with it comes a new landscape of penalty risks<\/strong> for those who fail to bring their tax compliance up to standard in a timely manner. <\/p>\n\n

This article analyzes the legal and economic consequences of the most common non-compliance issues<\/strong>, the applicable penalty regime<\/strong>, and the legal defense strategies<\/strong> available to taxpayers and crypto sector companies.<\/p>\n\n

The Most Frequent Non-Compliance Issues Under DAC8<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

Experience in tax advisory shows that certain errors are systematically repeated<\/strong> when taxpayers operate with crypto-assets. With DAC8, these errors acquire a new dimension of risk. <\/p>\n\n

\u2714 Failure to correctly declare crypto-assets<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

The most common error<\/strong> remains the absence of declaration or the partial declaration of cryptocurrency operations. Many taxpayers believe that, since there is no conversion to euros, there is no tax obligation. This interpretation is incorrect. <\/p>\n\n

Swaps between cryptoassets, transactions involving stablecoins, and trades on DeFi platforms give rise to tax obligations even if they do not result in traditional currency. As we explained in our article on which cryptocurrency transactions are subject to tax oversight under DAC8<\/strong>, each type of transaction has specific tax implications. <\/p>\n\n

\u2714<\/strong> Errors in the tax classification of operations<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

Another common non-compliance issue<\/strong> is the incorrect classification of the nature of income. Staking is not the same as lending, nor is a donation the same as a sale. Each operation has its specific tax regime. <\/p>\n\n

DAC8 obliges intermediaries to report detailed information on each type of operation. The Tax Agency<\/a> will have precise data to cross-reference the classification declared by the taxpayer.<\/p>\n\n

\u2714<\/strong> The myth of foreign platforms<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

There is a widespread belief that operating with exchanges located outside the European Union guarantees tax opacity. The DAC8 regulation completely dismantles this idea. <\/p>\n\n

Crypto intermediaries with activity in the EU, regardless of their headquarters, are obliged to report. <\/strong>Furthermore, the directive provides for information exchange mechanisms with third jurisdictions.<\/p>\n\n

Discrepancies between declared and reported data to the Tax Agency<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

One of the most serious risks<\/strong> arises when there is a discrepancy between the information the taxpayer submits in their declarations and the data that the Tax Agency<\/a> receives from intermediaries through DAC8.<\/p>\n\n

This discrepancy automatically triggers verification procedures and puts the taxpayer in a defensive position from the outset. As we analyze in detail in our article<\/strong> on how the Tax Agency will use DAC8 data<\/a><\/strong>, these information cross-checks are increasingly sophisticated. <\/p>\n\n

\u2714<\/strong> Poorly planned corporate structures<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

Some taxpayers have established instrumental companies to channel crypto-asset operations, without adequately considering the tax implications of these structures.<\/p>\n\n

A holding company without real economic substance, or a structure designed solely to defer taxation, may be classified by the Tax Agency as simulation or fraud of law.<\/p>\n\n

\u2714<\/strong> Confusion between ownership, custody, and beneficial owner<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

DAC8 requires reporting not only the formal owner of an account but also the beneficial owner of the crypto-assets. <\/strong>This distinction creates problems when there are shared custody structures, multi-signature wallets, or collective investment schemes.<\/p>\n\n

The Tax Agency<\/a> may consider that the taxpayer has concealed their status as beneficial owner if the reported data does not match the economic reality of the operation.<\/p>\n\n

Applicable Penalty Regime<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

Non-compliance with tax obligations related to crypto-assets can lead to consequences at different regulatory levels.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Sanctioning regulatory framework<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n

Penalties for non-compliance related to DAC8 are based on:<\/p>\n\n