If your business touches digital assets, you may have seen discussions on new information reporting frameworks the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) and the amended Common Reporting Standard (CRS 2.0) referred to interchangeably, often as if they were the same thing. But each of these regimes covers different assets, applies to businesses according to a separate analysis, and requires different reporting outcomes. Working out whether only one or both frameworks applies to your business will tell you what you need to collect from your users and what you need to file.
The CARF is the global standard for reporting customer information and digital asset transactions. What matters for scope is what your business actually does. If your company helps customers exchange digital assets, whether into fiat or into other digital assets, you will likely have reporting obligations. That includes exchanges, brokers, ATM operators, traditional financial institutions, and other actors offering covered exchange services.
CARF and CRS 2.0 data collection requirements went live on 1 January 2026 in the EU, UK, Korea, Japan, and Brazil: data collection needs to run throughout the year and the first reports must be filed in 2027. In total, over 75 jurisdictions have committed to implementing CARF in time for first reporting in either 2027 or 2028.
The Common Reporting Standard already governs how financial institutions exchange account information between tax authorities. The CRS 2.0 update expands the scope to cover certain digital assets and financial products: electronic money (i.e. e-money), central bank digital currencies, regulated stablecoins, and indirect crypto exposure such as derivatives and funds deriving investment income from digital assets.
This expanded scope will likely pull in businesses that were not previously subject to a reporting obligation. A payment platform or neobank holding customer balances can be in scope even with no digital assets on the books.
CARF and CRS 2.0 divide the work between them, asset by asset. For example, a regulated stablecoin is reported under CRS 2.0; an unregulated one falls under CARF. If you offer a reasonably broad product set, you will likely need to assess your customers for reporting obligations under both regimes. It’s important to realise the differences in the reporting under each regime: CARF requires transaction-level data aggregated by type, which means potentially processing and consistently valuing millions of transactions, while CRS 2.0 reports account balances and income. In sum, complying with one cannot necessarily be leveraged to support the other.
Many digital asset customers will fall into both regimes, especially where stablecoins or tokenised products are offered on the same platform alongside core digital assets. While these frameworks are intended to serve the same objective of achieving information reporting of digital assets, there are important differences in the scope of data collection and the reporting requirements under each framework. Each of those steps varies by jurisdiction. What counts as a regulated stablecoin, for example, is decided country by country.
Taxbit runs that pipeline in one place, across CARF, CRS 2.0, DAC8, and US rules. When the next framework lands, you extend what you already run instead of adding another system.
Book a demo to see how it maps to your business.