A 50-Year workaround: Why the VAT exemption for Financial Services has run Its course

The VAT exemption for financial services was never intended to become permanent. When it was introduced in 1977, taxing the sector was technically unfeasible. It was a practical compromise, not a policy choice. Nearly five decades later, that compromise remains largely unchanged, not because the original logic still holds, but because no one has found the political will to address what comes next.

‍

The hidden cost of doing nothing

There is a common assumption that the VAT exemption benefits financial institutions. In practice, it does the opposite. Because financial services are exempt, firms cannot recover VAT on their inputs. This creates what is known as the irrecoverable VAT problem, a hidden cost that distorts commercial decisions, discourages outsourcing and, in many cases, makes it more expensive to innovate.

The consequences extend beyond individual balance sheets. The exemption has contributed to a fragmented landscape of ninety-one sector-specific taxes across EU Member States, each one an attempt to compensate for a structural gap that was never properly addressed. This patchwork increases compliance costs, creates legal uncertainty and, according to recent analysis, effectively imposes a near one hundred per cent tariff on cross-border financial services within the single market.

For firms operating across multiple jurisdictions, the result is a regulatory environment that inhibits scale, encourages tax-driven corporate structures and opens avenues for arbitrage. It is, in short, a framework that works against the very integration the EU has spent years trying to achieve.

‍

What the latest Parliamentary report acknowledges

The European Parliament's draft report on a coherent tax framework for the EU's financial sector, published in early February 2026, does not break new ground in identifying these problems. What it does, however, is state plainly what practitioners have long observed: the status quo is no longer tenable.

The report notes that technological progress has rendered the original technical justification for the exemption obsolete. It acknowledges that repeated reform efforts, including Commission proposals in 2007 and an impact assessment in 202, have failed to deliver meaningful change. And it recognises that the absence of an EU-wide approach has created uneven and short-term fiscal outcomes, with Member States pursuing divergent national solutions in the absence of coordination.

Perhaps most significantly, the report calls for the Commission to bring forward a proposal to reform the VAT rules for the financial sector, with particular attention to clearly identifiable charges such as fees and commissions areas where taxation can reduce distortions without creating disproportionate administrative complexity.

‍

The withdrawal of the FTT Proposal

The timing of this report is notable. In its 2026 work programme, the Commission announced the withdrawal of its Financial Transaction Tax proposal, a measure that had been under discussion, in various forms, since 2011. At its most ambitious, an EU-wide FTT could have generated between thirty-one and seventy-five billion euros annually. Its withdrawal leaves a clear policy gap.

The report urges the Commission to ensure that any forthcoming framework presents a concrete plan to address this shortfall. It also calls for common EU minimum standards for temporary windfall taxation, a measure designed to capture exceptional profits in periods of macroeconomic disruption, while avoiding the market instability that uncoordinated national levies can create.

‍

Where this leaves us

The EU faces an annual investment gap of between seven hundred fifty and eight hundred billion euros to meet its climate, digital and strategic autonomy objectives. At the same time, a significant share of European household savings continues to flow outside the Union, a reflection, in part, of the continued fragmentation of its capital markets.

A coherent tax framework for the financial sector would not solve all of these problems. But it would remove one of the structural barriers that has quietly held the single market back for decades. It would reduce compliance costs, improve legal certainty for cross-border capital flows and create the conditions for EU financial services to compete more effectively on the global stage.

What happens next will depend less on technical arguments and more on political will. The case for reform has been made repeatedly. The question now is whether this moment, with the Savings and Investments Union agenda gaining momentum and the limitations of the current framework increasingly visible, will be different from those that came before.

History suggests caution. But the cost of continued inaction is becoming harder to ignore.