Abstract:A press release was issued by the Council of the European Union on October 17, announcing the adoption of a directive that modifies the EU regulations pertaining to administrative cooperation in the field of taxation. The directive primarily focuses on enhancing the reporting and automated exchange of information concerning income generated from transactions involving cryptocurrency assets, as well as advance tax rulings specific to high-net-worth individuals.

A press release was issued by the Council of the European Union on October 17, announcing the adoption of a directive that modifies the EU regulations pertaining to administrative cooperation in the field of taxation. The directive primarily focuses on enhancing the reporting and automated exchange of information concerning income generated from transactions involving cryptocurrency assets, as well as advance tax rulings specific to high-net-worth individuals.
They want to enhance cooperation between national taxation authorities (DAC8), as well as strengthen the existing legislative framework. The authorities want to expand the scope for registration and reporting obligations and overall administrative cooperation of tax administrations.
“Additional categories of assets and income, such as crypto-assets, will now be covered. There will be a mandatory automatic exchange between tax authorities of information which will have to be provided by reporting crypto-asset service providers,” reads the press release.
They want to build on the definitions established in the MiCA regulations and cover a wide scope of cryptocurrency assets, including stablecoins, e-money tokens, as well as certain non-fungible tokens (NFTs).
DAC8 is interested in granting tax collectors jurisdiction for monitoring and evaluating crypto transactions carried out by individuals or entities within any other member state of the EU. DAC8 currently complies with the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) and the regulations specified in MiCA.


Savexa, a Comoros-based brokerage firm, reportedly received mixed reviews from users across India. While some hailed its competitive spread and trade order execution capability, others report fake profit and constant deposit pressure. The negative Savexa reviews reportedly had more insights and depth, which called for an investigation. In this article, we have examined these reviews thoroughly and disclosed whether Savexa is regulated.

SEBI's board on September 24 approved a sweeping overhaul of portfolio management rules, opening PMS to foreign securities, IPOs and a new mutual-fund-only route called PRIM. But one X user with 101,000 followers flagged a structural change that could reshape how PMS products are sold: a 'platform PMS' can now host independent fund managers (IFMs), each running their own strategy on the PMS's licence. Under the new SEBI (Portfolio Managers) Regulations, 2026, replacing the 2020 framework, existing PMS can invest in foreign securities under both discretionary and non-discretionary mandates, according to multiple media reports. The allowed list includes listed equity, debt, REITs, overseas mutual funds, ETFs, index funds and foreign government debt. All of it stays bound by FEMA and RBI's Liberalized Remittance Scheme — so you still can't buy foreign ETFs in rupees. The PMS just becomes a wrapper.

INZO, a Saint Vincent and the Grenadines-based brokerage entity, is facing numerous allegations from users worldwide. These allegations question the broker's credibility on withdrawal processing, bonus activation, and customer support. Allegations have circulated across several independent platforms such as WikiFX. This INZO review 2026 takes a close look at these complaints and reveals its regulatory status.

A public FBS complaint describes more than USD2,000 in trading profit followed by rejected withdrawal attempts. That is a user's allegation, not a verified loss figure or a finding against every company using the brand. For South Asian readers, especially those in India, the useful next step is to identify the account provider and the missing transaction evidence.