On February 17, 2026, the ECOFIN Council (the EU’s Economic and Financial Affairs Council) formally adopted an updated list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes. In this revision, Vietnam and the Turks & Caicos Islands were added to Annex I - the so-called “blacklist” - while Fiji, Samoa, and Trinidad & Tobago were removed after meeting their compliance commitments.

The updated blacklist now comprises 10 jurisdictions: American Samoa, Anguilla, Guam, Palau, Panama, the Russian Federation, the Turks & Caicos Islands, the US Virgin Islands, Vanuatu, and Vietnam.

The EU also updated the grey list (Annex II), which now includes 9 jurisdictions that have made commitments but are not yet fully compliant: Belize, the British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darussalam, Eswatini, Greenland, Jordan, Montenegro, Morocco, and Türkiye.

Vietnam’s journey on the EU’s tax governance radar has spanned many years. The country has been under scrutiny since the very first version of the list was published in December 2017, when it initially appeared in Annex II — the grey list for jurisdictions that had committed to reform.

The specific reason for the escalation from Annex II to Annex I was the outcome of a peer review by the OECD Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, which concluded that Vietnam does not meet the required standards for the exchange of tax information on request (EOIR). A detailed analysis of the Global Forum and the EOIR standard is provided in the sections below.

Notably, just four months earlier, in October 2025, Vietnam had been removed from Annex II entirely after fulfilling its commitment to implement Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) standards. At that point, Vietnam appeared to be on a positive trajectory. However, the OECD Global Forum’s separate EOIR peer review produced a different outcome, resulting in Vietnam’s addition to Annex I on an entirely different criterion.

VIETNAM’S TIMELINE ON THE EU TAX LIST

To understand why Vietnam was blacklisted, it is essential to understand the body that produced the assessment: the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes.

What Is the Global Forum?

The Global Forum is the world’s leading multilateral body in the field of international tax transparency. Originally established in 2000 and restructured in 2009 after the G20 declared the end of bank secrecy for tax purposes, the Forum now comprises 172 members — including all G20 countries, all OECD members, major financial centres, and a growing number of developing countries. All members participate on an equal footing.

The Global Forum is hosted at the OECD headquarters in Paris but operates with an independent secretariat and its own budget. Its core mission is to ensure that jurisdictions worldwide effectively implement two complementary international standards for tax transparency:

1.     Exchange of Information on Request (EOIR) — the older standard, allowing one tax authority to request specific information from another to progress a tax investigation.

2.     Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) — the newer standard (adopted in 2014), requiring financial institutions to automatically report information on financial accounts held by non-residents, which is then exchanged annually between tax authorities under the Common Reporting Standard (CRS).

The Forum also oversees the implementation of the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), developed in response to the growth of digital asset markets, with first exchanges expected from 2027.

How Does the Peer Review Process Work?

At the heart of the Global Forum’s work is a rigorous peer review process. This is not a unilateral assessment - it is a peer-driven process where members review each other’s compliance with the standards. Review teams typically consist of two expert assessors from other member jurisdictions and one administrator from the Forum Secretariat.

For EOIR, peer reviews are conducted in two phases, although since the second round (launched in 2016), most reviews combine both phases into a single assessment:

•       Phase 1: examines whether the jurisdiction has an adequate legal and regulatory framework in place to enable effective exchange of information.

•       Phase 2: evaluates how that framework is actually implemented in practice - whether information requests are being answered effectively, promptly, and completely.

The Exchange of Information on Request is the foundational standard of international tax transparency. It is codified in Article 26 of both the OECD Model Tax Convention and the United Nations Model Tax Convention, as well as the 2002 OECD Model Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA).

How Does EOIR Work in Practice?

Under the EOIR standard, when a tax authority in one country is investigating a taxpayer’s affairs and needs information held in another jurisdiction, it can send a formal request to the competent authority in that jurisdiction. The types of information that may be requested include:

•       Accounting records and financial statements

•       Bank statements and financial account information

•       Ownership and identity information for companies, partnerships, and trusts

•       Information on ultimate beneficial ownership

•       Transaction records and contracts

For this system to work, the requested jurisdiction must be able to do three things: ensure the information is available, provide access to it for the competent authority, and exchange it in a timely and effective manner.

The 10 Essential Elements of the EOIR Peer Review

The EOIR peer review assesses jurisdictions across three pillars, broken down into 10 essential elements:

Each of the 10 elements receives an individual rating, and the jurisdiction receives an overall compliance rating. The four possible ratings are:

As of the latest data, 129 jurisdictions have been fully reviewed in the second round. Approximately 88% received satisfactory ratings (Compliant or Largely Compliant), while around 9% were rated Partially Compliant and only about 2–3% received the lowest rating of Non-Compliant.

Vietnam joined the Global Forum in 2020, relatively late compared to most jurisdictions. Its first EOIR peer review was a combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 assessment, published in 2025. The findings were stark.

The OECD Global Forum rated Vietnam “Non-Compliant”, the lowest possible rating, placing it among only 2–3% of reviewed jurisdictions. The review identified several fundamental deficiencies:

•       Confidentiality gaps: Vietnam’s organisational processes and procedures for preserving the confidentiality of information received from partner jurisdictions required improvements.

•       Substantial response delays: Significant delays were observed in providing information to partner jurisdictions, failing the 90-day timeliness standard.

•       Limited access powers for EOI purposes: While Vietnam’s tax authorities have broad access powers for domestic tax purposes, these powers cannot be fully utilised for exchange of information with foreign partners.

•       Supervision weaknesses: Deficiencies in the supervision of compliance with legal requirements relating to ownership, accounting, and banking information.

•       Nascent ultimate beneficial ownership framework: Vietnam had only very recently introduced requirements for legal persons to maintain and report ultimate beneficial ownership information, meaning the framework had not yet been effectively implemented.

This “Non-Compliant” rating on EOIR was the specific trigger the EU used to move Vietnam from Annex II (grey list) to Annex I (blacklist) in February 2026. Criterion 1.2 of the EU’s screening framework directly references the OECD Global Forum’s EOIR peer review results.

What the EU Blacklist Is (and What It Is Not)

It is important to understand the scope and limitations of this designation. The EU blacklist is a compliance classification within the EU’s tax governance framework. It is part of the EU’s broader strategy to promote tax transparency and fair taxation globally, established in 2016 and first published in 2017.

Jurisdictions are screened against three principal criteria:

1.     Tax transparency: compliance with automatic exchange of information (AEOI), exchange of information on request (EOIR), and related standards.

2.     Fair taxation: absence of harmful preferential tax regimes that facilitate offshore structures without real economic activity.

3.     Implementation of OECD BEPS minimum standards: including country-by-country reporting and anti-base erosion measures.

The effects of the blacklist designation are felt primarily at the EU Member State level, not within Vietnam itself. Individual EU countries are encouraged to apply “defensive measures” against blacklisted jurisdictions, though the specific measures and their scope vary across Member States.

Potential Defensive Measures by EU Member States

Who Should Be Concerned?

The businesses most likely to feel the impact include:

•       EU-headquartered groups with Vietnamese subsidiaries: particularly those with significant intercompany payment flows (management fees, royalties, interest).

•       Vietnamese companies with EU investors or financing arrangements: where dividend or interest payments flow to EU entities.

•       Cross-border e-commerce sellers with corporate structures spanning both EU Member States and Vietnam: especially those using entities in the Netherlands, Ireland, or Luxembourg as intermediary companies.

•       Vietnamese businesses receiving EU development funds or investment flows: as EU regulations may restrict certain financial flows to blacklisted jurisdictions.

Impact on Cross-Border E-Commerce Sellers from Vietnam

For Vietnamese cross-border e-commerce sellers operating through platforms such as Amazon, the direct impact may be limited in the short term. Most individual sellers operating as household businesses or through simple company structures with no EU-based entities will not face immediate consequences from the blacklist designation itself.

However, sellers who have established corporate structures involving EU jurisdictions, for example, using a Dutch or Irish entity to hold intellectual property or manage European marketplace operations, should review their arrangements. Payment flows between these EU entities and Vietnamese operations could face increased scrutiny and potential tax cost increases.

More broadly, the blacklist designation adds to the growing international compliance landscape that cross-border sellers must navigate, alongside Vietnam’s own 2026 domestic tax reforms for household businesses.

What Businesses Should Do Now

1.     Assess EU exposure: Map all payment flows, corporate structures, and contractual arrangements involving both EU Member States and Vietnam. Identify which specific EU jurisdictions are involved, as defensive measures vary by country.

2.     Review documentation: Ensure that all cross-border transactions have robust transfer pricing documentation and can demonstrate valid business substance. The key defence against non-deductibility measures is showing legitimate business reasons that reflect economic reality.

3.     Check DAC 6 reporting obligations: If your business has deductible cross-border payments between associated enterprises involving Vietnam and any EU country, these arrangements likely require mandatory disclosure under Hallmark C1(b)(ii).

4.     Monitor Member State responses: Each EU country implements defensive measures differently. Track developments in the specific EU jurisdictions where your business has operations or counterparties.

5.     Watch the October 2026 review: The EU list is updated twice a year. If Vietnam takes steps to address the OECD Global Forum’s findings on information exchange, delisting could occur as early as October 2026.

6.     Recognise the role of global business structuring: Beyond this specific event, global business operations require architects with a strategic vision for international business structuring to prepare enterprises in advance for similar disruptions and ensure stable, sustainable growth. Businesses should reassess their current corporate structures. For new ventures, designing a properly structured global business framework from the outset is critically important.

The EU list is dynamic, not permanent. Jurisdictions can be removed once they address the identified deficiencies. Vietnam has demonstrated a willingness to engage with international standards. Its successful implementation of CbCR standards, which led to its removal from Annex II in October 2025, is evidence of that.

The path to delisting requires Vietnam to address the OECD Global Forum’s findings on the exchange of tax information on request. This is a matter of institutional capacity and procedural frameworks rather than fundamental tax policy. There are reasonable grounds to expect Vietnam will engage constructively with the EU’s Code of Conduct Group and the OECD Global Forum to resolve these issues.

The next scheduled revision of the EU list is October 2026. Businesses should continue to monitor developments and adjust their compliance posture accordingly.

As a premium strategic advisory firm for global businesses, Sliner Consulting helps enterprises build robust corporate governance frameworks and sustainable business legal structures that minimise the impact of global policy changes, particularly in the current environment. Our expertise enables global businesses to anticipate and navigate disruptions, ensuring long-term stability and sustainable growth.

•       Council of the EU - Press release, February 17, 2026

•       European Commission - Common EU list of third country jurisdictions for tax purposes

•       OECD Global Forum - Peer Review: Viet Nam 2025 (Second Round, Combined Review)

•       OECD Global Forum - EOIR Peer Review Process & Methodology

•       OECD Global Forum - EOIR Ratings (All Jurisdictions)

•       Arendt & Medernach - Newsflash, February 18, 2026

Sliner Tax Advisory Team Tax & Financial Advisory for Cross-Border Enterprises