CARF builds on CRS foundations while addressing crypto-specific requirements. Understanding the relationship between these frameworks is essential for compliance planning.

Overview

CRS

Adopted in 2014 for automatic exchange of financial account information between jurisdictions. Over 100 jurisdictions participate.

CARF

Adopted in 2022 specifically for crypto-asset transactions. Designed to complement CRS.

Covered Assets

CRS

  • Bank accounts
  • Custodial accounts
  • Investment entity equity/debt interests
  • Cash value insurance contracts

CARF

  • Cryptocurrencies
  • Stablecoins
  • Certain NFTs
  • Other crypto-assets

Reporting Entities

CRS

Financial Institutions: banks, custodians, investment entities, insurance companies.

CARF

Crypto-Asset Service Providers: exchanges, brokers, ATM operators, certain wallet providers.

Information Reported

CRS

Account-level: balances, interest, dividends, gross proceeds.

CARF

Transaction-level: aggregated by type, crypto-asset classification, unit counts.

Key Differences

  • Reporting granularity: CARF more transaction-focused
  • Transfer tracking: CARF covers outbound transfers
  • Asset valuation: CARF requires fair market value at transaction time
  • Entity focus: Different reporting entity definitions
Complementary Frameworks

CARF and CRS work together. Traditional financial accounts fall under CRS while crypto-assets are reported under CARF.

Conclusion

CARF and CRS are complementary. Organizations subject to both should coordinate compliance programs for efficiency.

Automate CARF Compliance

Self-certification, TIN validation, transaction reporting, and XML generation for 76 jurisdictions.

Expert Consulting