CARF vs DAC8 XML: where the schemas diverge by jurisdiction

One framework, one baseline

CARF is the OECD's global standard. DAC8 is how the European Union writes that standard into its own law, so an EU member state's requirements start from the same CARF logic: the same due diligence, the same idea of a reportable user, largely the same data. If you've built for CARF, you've done most of the work for DAC8.

Where the EU adds its own shape

The divergence is in the envelope. The EU exchanges data among member states through its own systems, so a DAC8 submission can carry EU-specific fields and structural expectations that the OECD baseline doesn't. Report in one member state to cover all of them, which is convenient, but only if your file matches that state's exact expectations.

National formats are the real trap

Individual authorities go further and require their own national envelopes. Sweden's KU94 is the standard example: a file that is valid CARF at the OECD level and still gets rejected because Skatteverket expects its national format. A build that only produces the OECD baseline will pass a schema check and fail at the tax office. This is a big driver of the rejections in the CARF XML errors that get filings rejected.

Building for all of them at once

The answer isn't one file, it's the right file per authority, off one dataset. Our CARF and DAC8 reporting platform generates the OECD baseline, the DAC8 variant, and national envelopes like KU94 from the same reconciled data, and validates each against the schema its authority accepts. For where a user actually falls in scope across these regimes, see nexus under CARF, and the EU tax cooperation pages for the DAC8 baseline.