7 Amendments of Nils TORVALDS related to 2016/0339(CNS)
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Directive (EU) 2016/1164 provides for a first framework to tackle hybrid mismatch arrangements.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is necessaryof absolute importance to establish rules that neutralise hybrid mismatches in a comprehensive manner. Considering that Directive (EU) 2016/1164 only covers hybrid mismatch arrangements that arise in the interaction between the corporate tax systems of Member States, the ECOFIN Council issued a statement on 20 June 2016 requesting the Commission to put forward by October 2016 a proposal on hybrid mismatches involving third countries in order to provide for rules consistent with and no less effective than the rules recommended by the OECD BEPS report on Action 2, with a view to reaching an agreement by the end of 2016.
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) RIt is essential that rules on hybrid mismatches should address mismatch situations which are the result of conflicting tax rules of two (or more) jurisdictions. However, those rules should not affect the general features of the tax system of a jurisdiction.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) As hybrid entity mismatches involving third countries mayin several cases lead to a double deduction or to a deduction without inclusion, it is necessary to lay down rules whereby the Member State concerned either denies the deduction of a payment, expenses or losses or requires the taxpayer to include the payment in its taxable income, as the case may be.
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive (EU) 2016/1164
Article 2 – point 9 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 2 – point 9 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
(9) ‘hybrid mismatch’ means a situation between a taxpayer and an associated enterprise or a structured arrangement between parties in different tax jurisdictionsother entity where any of the following outcomes is attributable to differences in the legal characterisation of a financial instrument or entity, or in the treatmenta payment made under it or is the result of differences in the recognition of payments made to, or payments, expenses or losses incurred by, a hybrid entity, or permanent establishment or the result of differences in the recognition of a deemed payment made between two parts of the same taxpayer or in the recognition of a commercial presence as a permanent establishment:
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2016/1164
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
To the extent that a hybrid mismatch between Member States results in a double deduction of the same payment, expenses or losses, the deduction shall be given only denied in the Member State where such payment has its source, the expenses are incurred or the losses are sufferedthat is the investor jurisdiction.
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2016/1164
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Article 9 – paragraph 4
4. To the extent that a payment by a taxpayer to an associated enterpriseentity in a third country is set off directly or indirectly against a payment, expenses or losses which due to a hybrid mismatch are deductible in two different jurisdictions outside the Union, the Member State of the taxpayer shall deny the deduction of the payment by the taxpayer to an associated enterpriseentity in a third country from the taxable base, unless one of the third countries involved has already denied the deduction of the payment, expenses or losses that would be deductible in two different jurisdictions.