Delhi, 26 February 2026:

India recently hosted the OECD’s 18th Global Forum Plenary in New Delhi, a gathering that marked a significant moment in global tax governance, particularly for crypto-assets. With 2027 just a year away, many jurisdictions are moving from political commitment to operational readiness, preparing to share tax-related information on crypto-transactions under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). A distant ambition of multilateral cooperation is now set to become a compliance reality.

As is well known, the rapid and widespread adoption of crypto-assets was accompanied by a rise in challenges for governments, particularly related to tax evasion. Governments struggled to preserve tax transparency in a system designed to operate beyond traditional financial intermediaries and borders. Consequently, they recognised that crypto-assets cannot remain outside the global tax transparency architecture. They responded by introducing and adopting CARF to ensure tax information related to crypto transactions is exchanged like information about traditional financial products.

Under CARF, crypto-asset service providers such as exchanges, brokers, platforms, and operators that facilitate crypto transactions at scale are identified as reporting entities. They are required to identify users, determine tax residence, and report a defined set of transactions to tax authorities, who then share this information with counterparts in other signatory countries. The framework ensures broad asset coverage, adopts an expansive definition of intermediaries, and introduces clear nexus rules to prevent firms from escaping reporting by relocating to non-signatory jurisdictions.

More than 70 jurisdictions have committed to implementing the framework, including major financial jurisdictions such as the US and EU. Such widespread coordination was unthinkable a few years ago when crypto regulations were fragmented and tentative.

However, the reality hidden under the broad global convergence is much more complex. Implementation is not uniform. It is strongly dependent on domestic political priorities, institutional capacity, and broader views on crypto-assets. While some jurisdictions have directly transposed CARF rules into domestic laws, many have opted to update existing laws.

The United Kingdom has embedded CARF into its tax framework through detailed regulations, backed by clear timelines and revenue projections. Germany and other EU member countries have implemented CARF via DAC8, the EU’s binding directive, which goes beyond CARF by imposing stricter penalties for non-compliance and tighter enforcement obligations. In these advanced economies, CARF is seen as an extension to an already mature compliance ecosystem.

In other jurisdictions such as Brazil and South Africa, CARF has provided a floor rather than a ceiling. Domestic rules in these countries expand reporting to a wider range of crypto transactions, mandate more granular disclosures, and impose stricter operational requirements. In emerging economies where dollarisation, cross-border capital flows, and high inflation pose macroeconomic and fiscal risks, stricter and wider reporting becomes key for effective domestic financial governance as much as global tax compliance.

Contrastingly, jurisdictions such as India and Nigeria highlight a different tension. Both countries initially banned crypto-assets completely but have since moved away from outright hostility. They are now focused on ensuring strict oversight while remaining cautious about formal recognition of the sector. India oversees the crypto sector through stringent taxation policy, including a 1% withholding tax and a flat 30% capital gains tax. In the Union Budget 2026, the Indian government introduced a crypto-asset reporting regime under Section 509 of the Income Tax Act, 2025 (corresponding to Section 285BAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961), which imposes reporting obligations on service providers. Nigeria has moved from bans to licensing to taxation, signalling similar pragmatism. For these countries, CARF can be viewed as a compliance necessity rather than a policy endorsement.

The United States approach stands apart. It has not formally transposed CARF but has pursued parallel domestic reporting through its broker regime. These rules are aligned conceptually with CARF but underscore the US approach of being broadly aligned with international standards filtered through domestic regulatory realities.

Overall, it is clear that CARF is not about regulating crypto-assets in the traditional sense. Instead, it is focused on a narrower but more fundamental objective: restoring visibility for tax authorities. The ability to track crypto holdings and exchanges is essential in a world of digital finance. This is not to say that CARF spells the end of crypto innovation, but it marks the end of crypto exceptionalism. Crypto-assets would be folded, decisively, into a rule-based international order. Policymakers will have to work effectively on executing such global standards. They will ensure data quality, safeguard confidentiality, and coordinate across borders to ensure the spirit of CARF is realised. For industry players, it is clear that participation in markets would be subject to obligations—not just to innovate, but also to account.