[ParlTrack]

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Joachim SCHUSTER, Niels FUGLSANG, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the CoC Group was efficient in deterring preferential tax regimes; whereas it has nonetheless failed to prevent aggressive tax competition between Member States; whereas the CoC Group has further failed to eradicate unfairly advantageous tax arrangements offered by some Member States to large companies and the consequential unfair competitive advantage created, such as harmful advance pricing arrangement (‘tax rulings’); whereas the CoC Group remains of purely intergovernmental nature;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Evelyn REGNER, Marek BELKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that tax evasion and tax avoidance result in an unacceptable loss of substantial revenue for Member States, currently needed to address the devastating consequences of the pandemic; recalls the conservative estimates by the OECD on BEPS which costs around 4-10 % of global corporate income tax revenues, or USD 100-240 (EUR 84-202) billion annually26 ; recalls that Parliament’s estimates of corporate tax avoidance range from EUR 160 to 190 billion when both BEPS and other tax regimes are considered27 ; deplores that no other study quantifying the scale of tax evasion and avoidance has been made available since 2016 and calls on the Commission to undertake such assessment as it does for the VAT Gap annually; _________________ 26 https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/ 27 Drover, R., Ferrett, B., Gravino, D., Jones, E. and Merler, S., Bringing transparency, coordination and convergence to corporate tax policies in the European Union, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research, European Added Value Unit, 24 November 2015. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/et udes/STUD/2015/558773/EPRS_STU(201 5)558773_EN.pdf

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Marek BELKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the internal and external dimension of the work conducted by the CoC Group on HTP; notes that the external dimension of HTP is mainly dealt with by the CoC Group with the application of the ‘Fair Taxation’ criterion; deplores the lack of coherence between the criteria on HTP applied to Member States and the tougher criteria, in particular on economic substance, applied to third-country jurisdictions in the listing process; recalls that the initial listing process was proposed by the Commission in both its communication on an external strategy for effective taxation and its communication on further measures to enhance transparency and the fight against tax evasion;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Joachim SCHUSTER, Niels FUGLSANG, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the internal and external dimension of the work conducted by the CoC Group on HTP; notes that the external dimension of HTP is mainly dealt with by the CoC Group with the application of the ‘Fair Taxation’ criterion; considers that the EU list needs to be reformed at EU level; recommends that its process be formalised, notably via a legally binding instrument; deplores the lack of coherence between the criteria on HTP applied to Member States and the tougher criteria, in particular on economic substance, applied to third-country jurisdictions in the listing process;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Niels FUGLSANG, Paul TANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Csaba MOLNÁR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Welcomes the Commission's "Communication on Business Taxation for the 21st century" of 18th May 2021; urges the Commission to adjust its timeline of BEFIT legislative proposals similar to their commitment of reaching a global and consensus-based solution by mid-2021;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES, Niels FUGLSANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Marek BELKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the fact that the proposal put forward by the US Administration for ‘The Made in America Tax Plan’ could facilitate a deal on Pillar II by mid-2021 and gathering more than 130 countries; highlights the US tax plan includes a minimum effective tax rate of 21% for Global intangible low-taxed income(GILTI) and a minimum effective tax rate of 15% for booked income, including US domestic income;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Pedro MARQUES, Paul TANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Niels FUGLSANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the fact that the proposal put forward by the US Administration for ‘The Made in America Tax Plan’ could facilitate a deal on Pillar II by mid-2021; encourages Member States to reach a common European approach towards the implementation of the final agreement at the OECD level; regrets the negative reaction of some key European decision- makers;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Pedro MARQUES, Paul TANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Niels FUGLSANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Welcomes the Commission’s Communication on Business Taxation for the 21st century; notes the importance of developing a single corporate taxation framework for the EU that does not enable base erosion and profit shifting; highlights that reducing the friction of cross-border economic activity and ensuring a level playing field improves the conditions for businesses, in particular SMEs, to thrive in the single market; notes that failing to fix the dramatic loopholes in corporate taxation can lead to a scenario where national defensive measures proliferate, thus negatively impacting economic activity within the internal market;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Pedro MARQUES, Paul TANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Niels FUGLSANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Points out that all Member States and the European Union must review their standards according to the OECD agreement and the Commission’s previously mentioned communication; Stresses that, even if both initiatives are not fruitful, said standards should be updated, notably to include a minimum effective level of corporate taxation;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Pedro MARQUES, Paul TANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Niels FUGLSANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Highlights that taxes on capital gains and wealth will keep being subject to a downwards pressure as long as concerns of base erosion remain; encourages Member States to engage in further cooperation in the field of taxation in order to tackle these and other challenges;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES, Niels FUGLSANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Marek BELKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls for the adoption of a definition of ‘minimum level of economic substance’, preferably based on a formulaic approach, and which would evolve progressively as reported income increases, which could be used to assess whether a tax regime is potentially harmful; highlights the economic substance requirement already included in the EU list’s ‘Fair Taxation’ criterion; recalls the current minimum requirement on economic substance as existing in the EU list allows notorious tax havens to be delisted after de minimis reforms;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Joachim SCHUSTER, Niels FUGLSANG, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Commission to produce guidelines on how to design tax incentives with fewer risks of distorting the Single Market, notably by looking at the type(profit based or costs based), the temporal nature (temporary or permanent),the geographical limitation (economic zones) and the intensity (full or partial exemptions) of such incentives;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Pedro MARQUES, Paul TANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Niels FUGLSANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Recalls that the procedure laid down in Article 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), under which Parliament and the Council act in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, should be applied when harmful tax practices lead to market distortion within the Union;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES, Niels FUGLSANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Marek BELKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Notes that the Commission recognises that a future minimum global taxation standard would have to be integrated into the EU actions on fair tax competition, and that if no consensus is found at global level on such a standard, it should nonetheless be included in the CoC29 ; calls on the Commission to already assess the legislative proposals that will be necessary to implement Pillar II at Union level, including a revision of ATAD and of the Interest and Royalties Directive, and the reform of the CoC and of the criteria in the EU listing of non-cooperative jurisdictions; considers that the definition of a minimum effective level of tax would not prevent Member States to propose legitimate tax incentives at a lower rate, as long as the income qualifying for such regimes relies on minimum economic substance requirements; understands that, overall, the national average effective rate of a large undertaking should not fall below the minimum rate, following the logic of the current Pillar II proposal; _________________ 29 COM(2020)0313.

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Niels FUGLSANG, Paul TANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Notes that many of the cases in the recent so-called OpenLux scandal was to a high extent made possible by the lack of a national withholding tax on outbound interest and royalties; regrets that the Interest and Royalties Directive has been blocked in Council since 2012; calls on the Council and Presidency to reopen negotiations in this regard;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES, Niels FUGLSANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Evelyn REGNER, Marek BELKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Highlights the growing increasingly important role played by the European Semester in monitoring and making recommendations on tax policies in the EU; believes the European Semester should be used as a tool to curb aggressive tax planning within the EU by making recommendations on adopting robust rules to prevent tax avoidance, repealing rules that can be misused and lead to aggressive tax planning, and by exposing national tax practices that can be deemed as harmful;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Marek BELKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the fact that the CoC has assessed 480 regimes since its creation, deeming around 13030 harmful31 ; recognises the positive effect of the Union’s work on HTP, which has led to a quasi-disappearance of preferential tax regimes within the Union; anticipates a possible similar impact at global stage via the EU listing process; considers therefore the current criteria defining HTP in the CoC as partially outdated given its focus on preferential regimes; _________________ 30Exchange of views of the Subcommittee on Tax Matters (FISC) with Lyudmila Petkova, Chair of the Code of Conduct Group, held on 19 April 2021. 31 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/docu ment/ST-9639-2018-REV-4/en/pdf

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES, Niels FUGLSANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Evelyn REGNER, Marek BELKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Highlights the non-binding nature of the CoC; deplores the fact that Member States could maintain a harmful regime without facing any repercussions; leading to unsatisfactory results ; deplores the fact that some Member States have not repealed tax regimes labelled ‘harmful’ before a long period of time and have not exchanged the relevant information regarding their potentially harmful regimes, such as tax rulings, prior to scandals revelations; is of the opinion that the Union should develop tools to enforce its policy against HTP;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Joachim SCHUSTER, Niels FUGLSANG, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Considers the reform of the criteria of the CoC to be a matter of urgency and that it should assess, all regimes proposing a tax rate below the future internationally agreed minimum effective tax rate in the framework of Pillar II of the Inclusive Framework as being potentially harmful, unless the revenues qualifying for a deduction or a reduced tax rate comply with robust and progressive economic substance requirements; advises a minimum effective rate of 21 %, following the recommendations of the US Administration in the Made in America Tax Plan;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES, Niels FUGLSANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Marek BELKA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Urges an enlargement of the scope of the CoC, notably by including preferential personal income or capital tax regimes, or personal income and wealth tax regimes that could lead to significant Single Market distortions, so the CoC scope captures regimes aimed at attracting high net worth and high level of income not created in the Member State proposing the tax regime;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Aurore LALUCQ, Paul TANG, Pedro MARQUES, Niels FUGLSANG, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Invites the Commission and Member States to consider a ‘Framework on Aggressive Tax Arrangements and Low-rates’ (FATAL) that would replace the current CoC: A.Without prejudice to the respective spheres of competence of the Member States and the Community, this framework, concerns those measures which affect, or may affect, in a significant way the location of business activity in the Community and the relocation of high net worth or high level of income (individual taxation regimes). Business activity in this respect also includes all activities carried out within a group of companies. The tax measures covered by the framework include both laws or regulations and administrative practices. B.Within the scope specified in paragraph A, tax measures which provide for a significantly lower effective level of taxation, including zero taxation, than those levels which generally apply in the Member State in question or below any minimum effective level of tax agreed at the Inclusive Framework on BEPS or in international forum where the EU is represented, are to be regarded as potentially harmful and therefore covered by this code (Gateway criterion). Such a level of taxation may operate by virtue of the nominal tax rate, and/or the tax base or any other relevant factor determining the effective tax rate. When assessing whether such measures are harmful, account should be taken of, inter alia: 1. whether advantages are accorded only to non-residents or in respect of transactions carried out with non- residents, or 2. whether advantages are ring-fenced from the domestic market, so they do not affect the national tax base, or 3. whether advantages are granted even without any real economic activity and substantial economic presence within the Member State offering such tax advantages, as defined by the European Commission and based on a proportionate substance requirement evolving progressively as reported income increases within the Member State concerned.Particular attention will be given to Intellectual Property regimes in this regard; 4. whether the rules for profit determination in respect of activities within a multinational group of companies departs from internationally accepted principles, notably the rules agreed upon within the OECD, or 5. whether the tax measures lack transparency, including where legal provisions are relaxed at administrative level in a non-transparent way. C.Within the scope specified in paragraph A, preferential personal tax regimes resulting in significantly lower effective level of taxation, including zero taxation, than those levels which generally apply in the Member State in question are to be regarded as potentially harmful and therefore covered by this code.Similarly general personal income and wealth tax regimes that would lead to great Single Market distortion may be covered by the scope and assessed. Standstill and Rollback Standstill D.Member States commit themselves not to introduce new tax measures which are harmful within the meaning of this framework.Member States will therefore respect the principles underlying the framework when determining future policy and will have due regard for the review process referred to in paragraphs E to I in assessing whether any new tax measure is harmful. Rollback E.Member States commit themselves to re-examining their existing laws and established practices, having regard to the principles underlying the framework and to the review process outlined in paragraphs E to I.Member States will amend such laws and practices as necessary with a view to eliminating any harmful measures as soon as possible taking into account the Council's and Commission’s discussions following the review process. Review process Provision of relevant information F.In accordance with the principles of transparency and openness Member States will inform each other and the Commission of existing and proposed tax measures which may fall within the scope of the framework.In particular, Member States are called upon to provide at the request of another Member State information on any tax measure which appears to fall within the scope of the framework.Where envisaged tax measures need parliamentary approval, such information need not be given until after their announcement to Parliament.The regimes that will be evaluated in the scope of the framework should be notified for information to the European Parliament. Assessment of harmful measures G.Any Member State may request the opportunity to discuss and comment on a tax measure of another Member State that may fall within the scope of the framework.This will permit an assessment to be made of whether the tax measures in question are harmful, in the light of the effects that they may have within the Community.That assessment will take into account all the factors identified in paragraph B and C. H.The Council also emphasizes the need to evaluate carefully in that assessment the effects that the tax measures have on other Member States, inter alia in the light of how the activities concerned are effectively taxed throughout the Community. Insofar as the tax measures are used to support the economic development of particular regions, an assessment will be made of whether the measures are in proportion to, and targeted at, the aims sought.In assessing this, particular attention will be paid to special features and constraints in the case of the outermost regions and small islands, without undermining the integrity and coherence of the Community legal order, including the internal market and common policies.Such assessment would consider the progressive minimum substantial economic presence requirements as defined in paragraph B. Procedure I.A group will be set up jointly by the Council and the Commission to assess the tax measures that may fall within the scope of this framework and to oversee the provision of information on those measures.The Council invites each Member State and the Commission to appoint a high-level representative and a deputy to this group, which will be chaired by are presentative of a Member State.The group, which will meet regularly, will select and review the tax measures for assessment in accordance with the provisions laid down in paragraphs E to G.The group will report regularly on the measures assessed.These reports will be forwarded to the Council for deliberation and, if the Council so decides, published.The documents should be communicated to the Parliament upon request and disclosed once the evaluation process is over. Enforcement J.Member States are entitled to implement counter measures that would reduce tax avoidance incentives should a Member State refrain to roll back a regime that had been assessed as harmful in the context of this framework within 2 years, and in particular: a) Non-deductibility of costs; b) Withholding tax measures; c) Limitation of participation exemption; d) Special documentation requirements, especially regarding transfer pricing;Geographical extension K.The Council considers it advisable that principles aimed at abolishing harmful tax measures should be adopted on as broad a geographical basis as possible.To this end, Member States commit themselves to promoting their adoption in third countries;they also commit themselves to promoting their adoption in territories to which the Treaty does not apply. In this context, the Council and the Commission should rely on criteria on tax transparency, fair taxation and implementation of anti-BEPS measures to establish an EU List of non cooperative jurisdictions.The Fair taxation criteria should be based on factors identified in paragraph Band C of this framework. L.Member States with dependent or associated territories or which have special responsibilities or taxation prerogatives in respect of other territories commit themselves, within the framework of their constitutional arrangements, to ensuring that these principles are applied in those territories.In this connection, those Member States will take stock of the situation in the form of reports to the group referred to in paragraph H, which will assess them under the review procedure described above. Monitoring and revision M. In order to ensure the even and effective implementation of the framework, the Council invites the Commission to report to it annually on the implementation thereof and on the application of fiscal State aid. The report should be made publically available. The Council and the Member States will review the provisions of the framework two years after its adoption.

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

21 Amendments of Jonás FERNÁNDEZ related to 2020/2258(INI)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024