InfoCourier

The eighth amendment of the EU Directive on Administrative Cooperation, known as DAC 8, entered into force in January 2026, and is the basis on which the Tax and Customs Board will start collecting more detailed information on crypto assets. Under the directive, a new reporting obligation will apply from 2026 for Crypto Service Providers that provide a range of crypto related services to customers, including custody, exchange and various platform services.

Crypto Asset Service Providers (CASPs) will be obliged to collect data on users, including their identity, purchase and sale transactions and transfers from 2026. The data of natural and legal persons must be collected, and the tax residence of the user is thereby not significant – data will be collected on both residents and non-residents. The Estonian Tax and Customs Board will send information on foreign residents to the tax authorities of the country of residence, and the same principle applies when an Estonian resident uses a foreign platform.

The service provider will start sending the data to the Estonian Tax and Customs Board after it has been granted the respective authorisation and the first annual data report for 2026 must be submitted by June 2027. The amendment of the directive does not cover holders of crypto assets who are natural persons and does not release them from the existing reporting obligation.

More information: here

The Republic of Estonia has entered into treaties on the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of tax evasion with both the Sultanate of Oman and the Principality of Liechtenstein. The treaties entered into force on 14 November 2025 and 26 December 2025, respectively, and will apply from 1 January 2026. 

Double taxation occurs when several countries (the source state and the state of domicile) tax the same income of a taxpayer. In order to avoid double taxation, a tax treaty sets lower tax rates to be withheld, gives the right to tax certain income to only one state or imposes a tax deduction obligation. A tax treaty also lays down rules to deal with double tax residence. 

The applicant received the one-room apartment from his  mother in 2015 by way of a gratuitous contract and sold it in 2019. According to the applicant, the apartment was his place of residence, so the sale should have been exempt from income tax. However, the Tax and Customs Board found that the applicant did not use the apartment as his main place of residence and the exemption could therefore not be applied. 

In the tax dispute, the applicant presented various pieces of evidence, such as attendance at the meetings of the apartment association; use of his loyalty card at a nearby shop; photos of his car parked near the apartment; entry in the population register and statements from friends and family. 

However, the Tax and Customs Board considered the evidence provided insufficient, pointing out that the applicant had acquired the apartment under a gratuitous contract, but at the same time had another two-room apartment in the same area, which the Board believed was the applicant’s actual place of residence. In addition, the applicant’s mother continued to pay the costs of the apartment, the explanations of the neighbours did not confirm that the applicant lived in the disputed apartment, and several pieces of evidence were not convincing or verifiable.

The Tallinn Circuit Court agreed with the Board’s position, stressing that in order to obtain an income tax exemption on the sale of real estate, the taxpayer must convincingly prove that the sold apartment was his or her actual place of residence. An entry in the population register, the use of the applicant’s loyalty card in a shop, photos of his car parked near the house, attendance at apartment association meetings or testimonies by friends and family may not be enough.

The court decision is available here.