The alternative: targeted information requests

Short answer

French law already gives tax authorities a tool to obtain information from third parties: the right of communication (droit de communication), codified in Articles L. 81 and following of the Tax Procedure Code. It targets an identified taxpayer, within an open investigation, and does not require collecting the data of every crypto-asset user in advance. When a less intrusive measure achieves the same objective, the mass collection organized by DAC8 is, by construction, disproportionate.

Key facts

Item	Value
Legal basis	Articles L. 81 and following, Tax Procedure Code
Target (right of communication)	Identified taxpayers under investigation
Target (DAC8)	All reportable holders (~54 M)
DAC8 databases	27 (one per Member State), millions of entries each
Existing standard	Art, bullion, foreign real estate (form 3916), securities accounts
Method	Motivated request, never permanent access

A targeted tool, already available

Codified in Articles L. 81 and following of the Tax Procedure Code, the right of communication lets the administration ask third parties (banks, service providers, and now CASPs) for precise information about an identified taxpayer, within an open investigation.

The model is targeted: the administration has a concrete need and asks for the data relevant to that need. It does not require collecting the data of every crypto-asset user in advance. The data stays held by the third parties, rather than being multiplied and shared across centralized databases.

DAC8 reverses the logic

DAC8 reverses this reasoning: it collects broad datasets first, then makes them available for later use. For crypto, that creates a disproportionate security risk. The right of communication instead preserves the administration’s investigative capacity without creating a broad database that exposes millions of holders and their families.

The proportionality test: DAC8 fails all three conditions

Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires any limitation of fundamental rights to be necessary, adequate and proportionate. DAC8 fails all three:

Not necessary: a less intrusive mechanism, the right of communication, already exists in French law.
Not adequate: holders migrate off-perimeter, emptying the directive of its substance.
Not proportionate: physical exposure of tens of millions of people; data collection far exceeding the fiscal purpose.

The standard for every other asset

The right of communication is already the standard for nearly all assets held by European citizens: art, bullion, foreign real estate (form 3916), securities accounts. The administration obtains them on a motivated request, never through permanent access. Crypto-assets justify no exception.

A direct comparison

Criterion	DAC8 (automatic collection)	Right of communication (targeted)
People concerned	All reportable holders (~54 M)	Taxpayers under investigation
Data collected	Identity (incl. home address) + crypto transactions and transfers	Strictly necessary
Attack surface	27 databases × millions of entries	Dispersed, compartmentalized databases
Cost for CASPs	Massive annual reporting	Response to specific requests
Cost for the administration	Mass storage + processing	Marginal cost per investigation
User incentive	Leave the regulated perimeter	Stay within the compliant framework
Deterrent effect	Weak (easy circumvention)	Strong (targeted risk)
MiCA compatibility	Incentive to go off-perimeter	Strengthens regulated CASPs
Proportionality	Questionable	Native

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, art. 7, 8 and 52 · Tax Procedure Code, art. L. 81 and following · CJEU, FATCA and GDPR case law.