41 Amendments of Niels FUGLSANG related to 2021/2010(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1
Citation 1
— having regard to Articles 113, 115 and 1156 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
Citation 18 a (new)
— having regard to the ongoing work of the United Nations Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters on Tax Consequences of the Digitalized Economy,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas current international corporate tax rules are based on principles which were developed in the early 20th century and are no longer suited to an increasingly globalised and digitalised economy, thus enabling several harmful tax practices that undermine public finances and fair competition;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the BEPS Action Plan succeedmanaged into establishing a global consensus on many issues in order to fight tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance; whereas, however, there was no agreement on addressing the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy, which led to the adoption of the separate BEPS Action 1 – 2015 Final Report;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the Commission put forward two proposals on the taxation of the digital economy in 2018, including a temporary short-term solution introducing a digital services tax (DST), and a long- term solution defining a significant digital presence (SDP) as a nexus for corporate taxation which should replace the DST; whereas Parliament supported these proposals, but they were not adopted in the Council because Member States could not reach the unanimous agreement needed in the realm of taxation at EU level;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, in accordance with a mandate given by G20 Finance Ministers in March 2017 and following the adoption of a Programme of Work (PoW) in May 2019, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (IF), through its Task Force on the Digital Economy, has been working on a consensus-based global solution based on two pillars: Pillar One on the allocation of taxing rights through new profit allocation and nexus rules and Pillar Two on addressing the remaining BEPS issues and introducing measures to ensure a minimum effective level of tax;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
H a. whereas the revenues of digital companies have skyrocketed over the last years while any potential revenue increases due to Pillar 1 are likely to be limited; whereas for a more equitable distribution of tax burdens the OECD process is therefore a good first step;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas adequate international tax laws are a key forto prevent tax evasion and tax avoidance practices, and to design a fair and efficient taxation system addressing inequality and ensuring certainty and stability, which are prerequisites for competitiveness, as well as for a level playing field between companies, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary cooperation of 16 December 2020 (IIA) refers to a legally binding commitment towards the introduction of an EU digital levy as an own resource by 1 January 2023;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
Recital I b (new)
I b. whereas the Council Conclusions of 27 November state that the European Council will ‘assess the situation regarding the work on the important issue of digital taxation’ in March 2021;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I c (new)
Recital I c (new)
I c. whereas G20 Finance Ministers will meet on 7-8 April 2021 and 9-10 July 2021 and take stock of the negotiations of the Inclusive Framework on both Pillars of the international negotiations;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the current international tax rules date back to the early 20th century, and that taxing rights are mainly based on the physical presence of companies; points out that digitalised companies as well as companies relying heavily on intangible assets can engage in significant business activities in a jurisdiction without physical presence there, and therefore taxes paid in one jurisdiction no longer reflect the value and profits created there; regrets that the traditional concept of permanent establishment fails to cover the new aspects of digital businesses, and underlines the need to define, which can lead to Base Erosion and Profit Shifting; in that context, calls for new and fairer allocation of taxing rights for large multinationals and the revision of the traditional concept of permanent establishment, and recalls the Parliament’s position on the C(C)CTB to create a virtual permanent establishment; stresses that users of online platforms and consumers of digital services cannot be shifted outside a jurisdiction in the same way as capital and labour, and should therefore be the basis for taken into account when definition ofng a new tax nexus in order to provideing an effective remedy against aggressive tax planning;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights the need to address the under-taxation of the digitalised economy, while ensuring a fair distribution of taxing rights among all countries where the value creation of multinational digital companies takes place;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, on average, digital business models face significantly lower effective tax rates than traditional business models which rely on physical presence; regrets that tax avoidance linked to aggressive tax planning is not only detrimental to the collection of public revenues but also puts businesses, especially SMEs, at a disadvantage, while creating barriers for new local entrant, which hampers public services and shifs the tax burden towards the average citizen, thus creating more inequalities, but also puts businesses, especially SMEs, at a disadvantage, while creating barriers for new local entrants; highlights that in the meantime, the demand for digitalised services has exploded due to the obligation to operate many tasks remotely in the COVID-19 context; therefore observes that providers of such digitalised services will be among the economic winners of the pandemic crisis;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that on average digital business models face significantly lower effective tax rates than traditional business models which rely on physical presence; regrets that tax avoidance linked to aggressive tax planning is not only detrimental to the collection of public revenues but, which contributes to reducing income inequality and financing public services, and also puts businesses, especially SMEs, at a disadvantage, while creating barriers for new local entrants; highlights that in the meantime, the demand for digitalised services has exploded due to the obligation to operate many tasks remotely in the COVID-19 context; therefore observes that providers of such digitalised services will be among the economic winners of the pandemic crisis;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WCalls for an international agreement aiming for a fair and effective tax system; welcomes the efforts in the G20/OECD IF to reach a global consensus on a multilateral reform of the international tax system to address the challenges of the digitalised economy; acknowledges the progress of discussions on the proposals at technical level, despite the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and calls for a swift agreement by mid-2021; highlights the value of the G20/OECD IF for guaranteeing multilateral solutions and finding support at the global and EU level;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the fact that the two pillar approach suggested in the G20/OECD IF does not ring fence the digitalised economy but seeks a comprehensive solution to the new challenges of the digital economy; acknowledges that both pillars are complementary, and highlights that Pillar II aims at addressing remaining BEPS challenges notably by ensuring that large multinationals, including digitalised ones, pay a minimum level of tax regardless of where they are located; reminds that an effective Pillar II can be introduced without the participation of all states as participating countries will still be granted the right to tax profits of companies registered elsewhere in low-taxation countries; however supports a holistic solution in which oneboth pillar is not adopted without the other; s are adopted by mid-2021; recommends that any minimum effective rate should be set at a fair and sufficient level to discourage profit shifting of large multinationals, including highly digitalised ones, and prevent damaging tax competition; therefore suggests a minimum effective rate of 18 %, noting that the current EU average of statutory corporate income tax rates is 21.71 % and that some policy challenges, such as climate change, will necessitate space and tools for fiscal policy; 1P.110, Tax policies in the European Union 2020 survey, DG Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the proposal under Pillar One of a new tax nexus and new taxing rights which would create the possibility of taxing multinational enterprises (MNEs) in market jurisdictions, even where they have no physical presence based on their economic activity; underlines that the interaction with users and consumers significantly contributes to value creation in digital business models, and should therefore be taken into account when allocating taxing rights; stresses that the scope of these new taxing rights should cnotes that some policy options remain to be determined at global level; acknowledges, in particular, that the so-called Amount A would create a new taxing right for market jurisdictions over all l sharge MNEs which could engage in BEPS practices, while not creating further and unnecessary burdens on SMEsof residual profit calculated at an MNE level and, in this context, invites Members States to support the following;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. A scope that cover all large MNEs which could engage in BEPS practices and that should include a review clause with phase-in rules concerning the global revenue threshold; recalls that the EU definition of a large multinational group consists of consolidated parent and subsidiary undertakings exceeding the limits of at least two of the three following criteria: a balance sheet of at least EUR 20 000 000, a net turnover of at least EUR 40 000 000 and an average number of employees during the financial year superior to 250;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Reminds that pillar 1 is at risk of becoming highly complex and calls on the OECD and negotiating Member States to work towards a simple and workable solution;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. A scope covering at least automated digital services and consumer facing businesses, while not creating further and unnecessary burdens on SMEs;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7 c. An agreement ensuring sufficient amounts of profits are reallocated to market jurisdictions and that should go beyond the distinction between routine and non-routine profits, which could lead to artificial distinction only. Should the distinction between routine and non- routine prevail in the negotiations, it is to be noted that only a profitability threshold of 8 % would allow for the reallocation of a substantial amount of profits, up to €150 billions;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7 d. An allocation percentage of minimum 20 % of profits that would allow for a fair portion to be reallocated to market jurisdictions, which would ensure a meaningful reform and deter aggressive tax planning strategies;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 e (new)
Paragraph 7 e (new)
7 e. A limited recourse to carry forward regimes for losses, as those could undermine the impact of the reform;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 f (new)
Paragraph 7 f (new)
7 f. Recommends that policy options defended by Member States in the negotiations should reduce complexity, therefore supports simplified administrative processes for MNEs subject to the new taxing rights, also in view of lightening the burden of implementation for Member States, taking into account Member States not involved in tax arrangements distorting competition such as so-called 'sweetheart deals'; believes that a more complete overhaul of the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP) would be appropriate; is concerned that maintaining the ALP in the reform’s context could add opportunities to circumvent the newly agreed rules;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 g (new)
Paragraph 7 g (new)
7 g. Highlights that the implementation of an efficient and comprehensive international reform will be eased by the access to country-by-country reporting information; notes that, to date, many countries do not have access to such information; welcomes the recent efforts of the Council Presidency on the Proposal for public country-by-country reporting;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission and the Council to intensify the dialogue with the new US administration on digital tax policy with the aim of finding a common approach in the framework of the G20/OECD IF negotiations before June 2021; calls on the CouncilMember States to oppose the ‘safe harbour’ clause, proposed by the US administration, which risks undermining the reform efforts; calls on the Commission to pursue with an EU own proposal on addressing the challenges of a digitalised economy should a ‘safe harbour’ clause be included in the reform’s first Pillar; recalls in that regard the Commission’s long term proposal for a Significant Digital Presence;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. WelcomNotes the proposal of a dispute prevention and resolution mechanism but underlines that tax certainty is best achieved by establishing simple, clear and harmonised rules that prevent disputes in the first place; highlights that any dispute prevention and resolution mechanism should not put developing countries at a disadvantage;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets that the failure of the G20/OECD IF to find a solution in October 2020 willhas prolonged the under-taxation of the digital economy; stresses that the COVID 19 pandemic has largely benefited digital businesses and accelerated the transition to a digitalised economy, thereby re-emphasising the need to reform the current tax system in order to ensure a fair contribution from the digitalised economy;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Insists therefore that, regardless of the progress of the negotiations at the G20/OECD IF, the EU should stand ready to roll out its own solutions for taxing the digitalised economy by the end of 2021; calls on the Commission to present proposals by June 2021, while anticipating their compatibility with the reform by the G20/OECD IF to be agreed on; stresses the need to create a level playing field for providers of traditional services and automated digitalised services and consumer facing businesses in the EU by ensuring that the latter are taxed at an adequatewhere they make profits and at a fair rate; invites the Commission to consider in particular introducing a temporary European Digital Services Tax as a necessary first step; calls for the EU to implement the future outcome of the international negotiations in a harmonised way and invites the Commission to issue any relevant Proposal to that effect;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Insists therefore that, regardless of the progress of the negotiations at the G20/OECD IF, the EU should stand ready to roll out its own solutions for taxing the digitalised economy by the end of 2021; calls on the Commission to present proposals by June 2021, while anticipating their compatibility with the reform by the G20/OECD IF to be agreed on; stresses the need to create a level playing field for providers of traditional services and digital services in the EU by ensuring that the latterautomated digitalised services and consumer facing businesses are taxed at an adequate and fair rate; invites the Commission to consider in particular introducing a temporary European Digital Services Tax as a necessary first step; calls for the EU to implement the future outcome of the international negotiations in a harmonised way and invites the Commission to issue any relevant Proposal to that effect;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Understands that some Member States consider the taxation of digital economy an urgent issue and have therefore introduced digital services taxes at national level; recalls that these national measures should be phased out once a multilateral solution is found; calls on Member States to refrain from introducing national solutions unilaterally, as they create a risk of fragmentation of the single market; recalls that although taxation is primarily a Member State competence, they must exercise it in coherence with the common principles of EU law in order to ensure coherence between national frameworks, thereby allowing for fair competition and avoiding a negative impact on the overall coherence of EU taxation principles; notes that the procedure laid down in Article 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, under which Parliament and the Council act in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may be applied if lack of regulatory harmonisation leads to market distortion within the Union;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Understands that some Member States consider the taxation of large digital economybusinesses an urgent issue and have therefore introduced digital services taxes at national level; recalls that these national measures should be phased out once a multilateral solution is found; calls on Member States to refrain from introducing national solutionsfor a swift agreement and implementation of the international solution in order to prevent the introduction of further unilaterally solutions, as they create a risk of fragmentation of the single market; recalls minds that although taxation is primarily a Member State competence, they must exercise it in coherence with the common principles of EU law in order to ensure coherence between national frameworks, thereby allowing for fair competition and avoiding a negative impact on the overall coherence of EU taxation principles;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Understands that some Member States consider the taxation of large digital economybusinesses an urgent issue and have therefore introduced digital services taxes at national level; recalls that these national measures should be phased out once a multilateral solution is found; recalls on Member States to refrain fromthat introducing national solutions unilaterally, as they can create a risk of fragmentation of the single market; recallminds that although taxation is primarily a Member State competence, they must exercise it in coherence with the common principles of EU law in order to ensure coherence between national frameworks, thereby allowing for fair competition and avoiding a negative impact on the overall coherence of EU taxation principles;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Highlights that national DSTs can be useful short term measures and a way to increase the incentives for finding a global solution;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Regrets that the Council did not agree on any of the Commission’s related proposals, i.e. the digital services tax, the significant digital presence or the CCTB and CCCTB; calls on the Member States to reconsider their position on these proposals or to integrate them into a potential future implementation of Pillar I, and to consider all options provided for by the Treaties if no unanimous agreement can be reached;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. NotWelcomes the Commission inception impact assessment on a Digital Levy of 14 January 2021; notes that digitalisation can increase productivity and consumer welfare, but it is also of paramount importance to ensure that digital multinationals contribute their fair share to society, taking into account that the average annual revenue growth of top digital firms is 14 % compared to between 0.2 % and 3 % for other multinationals; calls on the Commission to carefully assess how the scope, definition and segmentation of digital activities, transactions, services or companies will be in line with international efforts to find a global solution;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Notes that the Commission intends to assess three baseline scenarios and is of the opinion that: (a) A corporate income tax (CIT) top-up to be applied to all companies conducting certain digital activities in the EU is an interesting option worth exploring as it would remain compatible with the ongoing international negotiations, would respect the various bilateral tax agreements and would allow CIT to take into account the significant higher profit margins of large digitalised multinationals; (b) A solution aiming at taxing profits rather than revenues would limit trade tensions, work towards a level playing field and have less negative impact on investments;notes however that, in the absence of an internationally agreed solution, taxing revenues remains an approach ensuring a minimum fair tax contribution is made; (c) A tax on digital transactions conducted business-to-business in the EU risk shifting the burden of the tax payment from large digitalised businesses to smaller companies relying on those services, therefore missing the initial objective making those firms pay a fair share of taxes;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for a stronger role for Parliament in legislative procedures in the area of taxation; takes note of the Commission’s proposed roadmap to qualified majority voting in its communication entitled ‘Toward a more efficient and democratic decision-making in EU tax policy’; recognises at the same time that the Parliament has a co-decision role in areas indirectly strongly linked to a more fair taxation, like the statutory audit regulation. Underlines the important role various audit companies have played in tax scandals over the years. Calls therefore upon the EC to come forward with a reform of the statutory audit regulation EU 537/2014, introducing a strict legal and operational separation of audit from consulting services, as well as the setting up of mandatory ‘joint audit’ to enable firms outside the Big Four to develop the capacity needed to review the biggest companies;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Welcomes the conclusions of the European Council of 21 July 2021, which task the Commission with putting forward proposals for additional own resources including a digital levy. Before proposing a digital tax,the Commission must conduct a thorough impact assessment to assesses the impact on each Member State to ensure fairness in Member Statecontributions to the EU budget;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Welcomes the conclusions of the European Council of 21 July 2021, which task the Commission with putting forward proposals for additional own resources including a digital levy; recalls that the collection of such additional own resources should be compatible with existing bilateral tax treaties and complementary to the ongoing international negotiations;