19 Amendments of Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER related to 2016/0338(CNS)
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Situations, in which different Member States tax the same income or capital twice can create serious tax obstacles for businesses operating cross border. They create an excessive tax burden for businesses and are likely to cause economic distortions and inefficiencies, as well as to have a negative impact on cross border investment and growthEven though double taxation is overshadowed by problems created by double non-taxation, both create an excessive tax burden for businesses and are likely to cause economic distortions.
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The current global tax governance is based on a patchy network of bilateral tax treaties. Among other built-in problems of this system, the currently existing mechanisms provided for in bilateral taxthese treaties do not achieve the provision of a full relief from double taxation in a timely manner in all cases. The existing Convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustments of profits of associated enterprises (90/436/EEC)7 ('the Union Arbitration Convention') has a limited scope as it is only applicable to transfer pricing disputes and attribution of profits to permanent establishments. The monitoring exercise carried out as part of the implementation of the Union Arbitration Convention has revealed some important shortcomings, in particular as regards access to the procedure and the length and the effective conclusion of the procedure. _________________ 7 OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 10. OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 10.
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) With a view to create a fairer tax environment, rules on transparency need to be enhanced, and anti-avoidance measures need to be strengthened nationally, at the Union level and globally. At the same time in the spirit of a fair taxation system, it is necessary to ensure that taxpayers are not taxed twice on the same income and that mechanisms on dispute resolution are comprehensive, effective and sustainable. Improvements to double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms are also necessary to respond to a risk of increased number of double or multiple taxation disputes with potentially high amounts being at stake due to more regular and focused audit practices established by tax administrations.
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The introduction of an effective and efficient framework for resolution of tax disputes which ensures legal certainty and a business friendly environment forsupports investments is therefore a crucial action in order to achieve a fair and efficient corporate tax system in the Union. The double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms should also create a harmonised and transparent framework for solving double taxation issues in a timely manner and as such provide benefits to all taxpayers.
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The elimination of double taxation should be achieved through an objective procedure under which, as a first step, the case is submitted to the tax authorities of the Member States concerned with a view to settling the dispute by Mutual Agreement Procedure. In the absence of such agreement within a certain time frame, the case should be submitted to an Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission, consisting both of representatives of the tax authorities concerned and of independent persons of standing. The tax authorities should take a final binding decision by reference to the opinion of an Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission.
Amendment 99 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. The complaint is admissible ifwhen the taxpayer provides the competent authorities of each of the Member States concerned with the following information.
Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. The competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall take a decision on the acceptance and admissibility of the complaint of a taxpayer as soon as possible within six months of the receipt thereof. The competent authorities shall inform the taxpayers and the competent authorities of the other Member States of their decision.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
2. Where the competent authorities of the Member States concerned have not taken a decision on the complaint as soon as possible within six months following receipt of a complaint by a taxpayer, the complaint shall be deemed to be rejected.
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
The Advisory Commission shall adopt a decision on the admissibility and acceptance of the complaint as soon as possible within six months from the date of notification of the last decision rejecting the complaint under Article 5(1) by the competent authorities of the Member States concerned. By default of any decision notified within the six month period, the complaint is deemed to be rejected.
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) where that person or someone in that person's family has, or has had, a large holding in or is or has been an employee of or adviser to one or each of the taxpayers;
Amendment 158 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Independent persons of standing must be nationals of a Member State and resident within the Union. They must be competent, objective and independent.
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. For the purposes of the procedure referred to in Article 6, the taxpayer(s) concerned mayshall provide the Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission with any information, evidence or documents that may be relevant for the decision. The taxpayer(s) and the competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall provide any information, evidence or documents upon request by the Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission. However, the competent authorities of any such Member State may refuse to provide information to the Advisory Commission in any of the following cases:
Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) information concerns trade, business, industrial or professional secret or trade process, in which case the legal reasons for this have to be stated very clearly;
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. The Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission shall deliver its opinion as soon as possible and no later than six months after the date it was set up to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned.
Amendment 182 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. The Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission when drawing up its opinion shall take into account the applicable national rules and double taxation treaties. In the absence of a double taxation treaty or agreement between the Member States concerned, the Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission, when drawing up its opinion, may refer to international practice in matters of taxation such as the latest OECD Model Tax Convention and the latest United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention.
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authorities shall agree as soon as possible within six months of the notification of the opinion of the Advisory Commission or Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission on the elimination of the double taxation.
Amendment 193 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. The competent authorities shall publish the final decision referred to in Article 14, subject to consent of each of the taxpayers concerned entirely. However, in case either of the taxpayers argue that some specific points in the decision are sensitive trade, industrial or professional information, the competent authorities should consider these arguments and publish as much information of the decision as possible whilst deleting the sensitive parts. The goal should always be the greatest extent of transparency possible whilst protecting information, the publication of which would clearly and evidently reveal commercially sensitive information to competitors.
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Where a taxpayer concerned does not consent to publishing the final decision in its entirety, the competent authorities shall publish an abstract of the final decision with description of the issue and subject matter, date, tax periods involved, legal basis, industry sector, short description of the final outcomein accordance with paragraph 2.
Amendment 205 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall make available online in an open data format and keep up to date the list of the independent persons of standing referred to in Article 8(4), indicating which of those persons can be appointed as chair. That list shall contain only the names and affiliations and curriculum vitae of those persons.