CARF vs DAC8 XML: where the schemas diverge by jurisdiction

People talk about CARF and DAC8 as if they're one thing. For data collection, they nearly are. But the file you actually submit is where the differences surface, and they bite hardest at the national level, where a generic build falls short.

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 notion of a reportable user, mostly the same data. Build for CARF and you've already done most of the DAC8 work.

Where the EU adds its own shape

The divergence lives in the envelope. The EU moves data between member states through its own systems, so a DAC8 submission can carry EU-specific fields and structural expectations the OECD baseline never asks for. File in one member state and you cover all of them. Convenient, yes, but only when your file matches that state's exact expectations.

National formats are the real trap

Some authorities go further and demand their own national envelopes. Sweden's KU94 is the classic case. The file can be valid CARF at the OECD level and still bounce, because Skatteverket wants its national format. A build that only emits the OECD baseline passes the schema check, then fails at the tax office. That's a big share of the rejections in the CARF XML errors that get filings rejected.

Building for all of them at once

One file won't do it. What you want is the right file per authority, all off one dataset. Our CARF and DAC8 reporting platform builds the OECD baseline, the DAC8 variant, and national envelopes like KU94 from the same reconciled data, then validates each against the schema its authority will accept. To see where a user falls in scope across these regimes, check nexus under CARF, and the EU tax cooperation pages for the DAC8 baseline.

About the author

Sukesh Tedla

Founder & CEO