Activities of Gunnar BECK related to 2020/2046(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Implementation of EU requirements for exchange of tax information (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the EU requirements for exchange of tax information: progress, lessons learnt and obstacles to overcome
Amendments (15)
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas 2015 estimates of the scale of EU tax revenues lost to corporate tax avoidance alone range from € 50 to € 70 billion per year. The figure rises to almost €190 billion if other factors, such as special tax arrangements and tax collection inefficiencies, are included;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the difficulties encounteredarticles 113-115 TFEU explicitly stipulate that tax matters require unanimity in Council; recalls that unanimity ins the Council in agreeing on the improvements put forward by the Commission demonstrabest tool to guarantee broad support across all Member States, since levying and collecting taxes is until further notice an exclusive competence of the Member States; warns that a shift to qualified majority voting in tax matters the need to move to awould require a Treaty change; underlines that qualified majority voting in tax matters would lead to taxation without representation in certain Member States;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes, however, that some types of income and assets are still excluded from the scope, which presents a risk of circumventing tax obligations; calls on the Commission to assess the need and the most appropriate way to include the following ownership information, items of income and non-financial assets in the automatic exchange of information (AEOI): (a) the beneficial owners of immovable property and companie, companies, trusts, foundations and non-profit organisations; (b) capital gains related to immovable property and capital gains related to financial assets, in particular to find ways for tax administrations to be better informed to identify realised capital gains; (c) non- custodial dividend income; (d) non- financial assets such as cash, art, gold or other valuables held at free ports, customs warehouses or safe deposit boxes; and (e) ownership of yachts and private jets; (f) wealth transfers to trusts, foundations and non-profit organisations such as NGOs, since these companies are explicitly exempt from most transparency requirements, including the AMLD framework, which effectively makes 'philantropy' a money-laundering loophole, especially for high net-worth individuals;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls for the inclusion of cross- border tax rulings issued for natural persons in the scope of DAC, such that a high net-worth individual obtaining such a ruling from a Member State with favourable tax rates, can't avoid paying a fair amount of taxes in his or her Member State of residence anymore; deplores the systematic preferential treatment of high net-worth individuals both at EU and Member State level due to their close ties to political elites;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the information exchanged is of limited quality; calls for stronger enforcement procedures at Member State level; calls on the Commission to include on the spot visits in Member States and to assess the effectiveness of their monitoring schemes; calls on the Member States to establish a system of quality and completeness checks of DAC data, as well as procedures for the audit of reporting obliged entities regarding the quality and completeness of data sent;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the information exchanged is large in volume, but of limited quality; calls for stronger enforcement procedures at Member State level; calls on the Commission to include on the spot visits in Member States and to assess the effectiveness of their monitoring schemes; calls on the Member States to establish a system of quality and completeness checks of DAC data, as well as procedures for the audit of reporting obliged entities regarding the quality and completeness of data sent;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Recalls that according to article 25a DAC, Member States should implement effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for reporting entities. Regrets that the Commission does not assess the size or the deterrent effect of the penalties in each Member State, and that the Commission hasn't offered any benchmarks for comparison or guidance in this respect;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the effectiveness of the DAC relies heavily on the anti-money laundering (AML) directives in place at Member State level; observes that the incorrect implementation of these directives, the lack of effective enforcement and the remaining weaknesses in the AML framework undermine the effectiveness of the DAC, including the explicit exemption of the non-profit sector from AML reporting requirements;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that the sharing of valid taxpayer identification numbers (TINs) is crucial for efficient EOI processes; regrets in this regard that Member States rarely link the information they send to a TIN issued by the taxpayer’s country of residence;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that the use of information under the DAC for non-tax matters requires prior authorisation from the sending Member State, which is not always granted; insists that the use of information exchanged under the DAC should always be authorised for purposes other than tax matters where this is allowed under the laws of both the receiving and the sending Member State;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Regrets that, in light of to the increasing complexity and the constant evolution of the DAC, the Commission has not produced further guidelines on the use of information, making it increasingly difficult for Member States to comply; looks forward to the findings of the new Fiscalis project group on the use of advanced analytics to measure data quality within a common framework;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17 b. Notes that Member States receive huge volumes of information, but that this information is generally underused, especially DAC 3 and DAC 4 information; notes that the submission of this data by undertakings and its processing and exchange by Member States is costly and time-consuming; points out that matching rates show that large quantities of information are not used, since they are not matched against relevant taxpayers, and that Member States aren't making further checks of unmatched data;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that there is no common EU framework for monitoring the system’s performance and achievementIs highly concerned about the fact that only one of the five Member States scrutinized by the ECA carried out checks of data quality, which took only the form of manual checks on a limited data sample and were not implemented as a systematic process; calls on the Member States to introduce thorough and systematic data quality checks;
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Deplores the lack of reciprocity under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act; calls on the Commission and the Member States to enter into new negotiations with the United States in the OECD framework in order to achieve full reciprocity in a commonly agreed and strengthened CRS framework; recalls that this law is a clear violation of the Convention of Establishment between the United States and France signed in 1959 which, in Article 1, provides for 'equitable treatment' and which, moreover, precedes the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 1977; calls for the notion of extraterritoriality of US law applied in a unilateral sense to be reconsidered, as this situation in itself constitutes a legal anomaly and an attack on the sovereignty of Member States where its citizens have economic interests;