Activities of Lieve WIERINCK related to 2016/0337(CNS)
Plenary speeches (2)
Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base - Common Corporate Tax Base (debate) NL
Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base - Common Corporate Tax Base (debate) NL
Amendments (8)
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) Companies which seek to do business across frontiers within the Union encounter serious obstacles and market distortions owing to the existence and interaction of 28 disparate corporate tax systems. Furthermore, tax planning structures have become ever-more sophisticated over time, as they develop across various jurisdictions and effectively take advantage of the technicalities of a tax system or of mismatches between two or more tax systems for the purpose of reducing the tax liability of companies. Although those situations highlight shortcomings that are completely different in nature, they both create obstacles which impede the proper functioning of the internal market. Action to rectify those problems should therefore address both types of market deficiencies while respecting the principle of tax neutrality but also the free movement of services in the European single market.
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) This directive is not about harmonisation of the corporate tax rates of the Member States and thus, should not affect the discretion of Member States with regards to their national corporate taxation rates.
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) One of the main shortcomings of the current international tax rules is that the taxing right of a jurisdiction only arises when the business has a physical presence in that jurisdiction. It is necessary to redefine the concept of a permanent establishment situated in the Union and belonging to a taxpayer who is resident for tax purposes within the Union to also include a digital presence, without hampering the potential of the digital sector. The aim would be to ensure that all concerned taxpayers share a common understanding and to exclude the possibility of a mismatch due to divergent definitions. On the contrary, it should not be seen as essential to have a common definition of permanent establishments situated in a third country, or in the Union but belonging to a taxpayer who is resident for tax purposes in a third country. This dimension should better be left to bilateral tax treaties and national law due to its complicated interaction with international agreements.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) It is crucial to provide for appropriate anti-tax avoidance measures in order to reinforce the resilience of the rules on a common base against aggressive tax planning practices. Specifically, the system should include a strong and effective general anti-abuse rule (‘GAAR’), supplemented by measures designed to curb specific types of avoidance. Given that GAARs have the function of tackling abusive tax practices that have not yet been dealt with through specifically targeted provisions, they fill in gaps, which should not affect the applicability of specific anti- avoidance rules. Within the Union, GAARs should be applied to arrangements that are not genuine. It is furthermore important to ensure that the GAAR apply in a uniform manner to domestic situations, cross-border situations within the Union and cross- border situations involving companies established in third countries, so that their scope and results of application do not differ.
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Since consolidation is only part of the second phase of the new approach to CCCTB, there will be a need for effective dispute resolution mechanisms. Furthermore, taking into account the fact that not all companies will be within the mandatory scope of the upcoming CCCTB, it can be expected that even after the implementation of this directive, a number of double taxation disputes will continue to arise, for which the mechanisms laid down by the Council Directive on Double Taxation Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the EU shall apply.
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) TSince this directive contains an important change to corporate taxation rules, the Commission should be required to conduct a thorough assessment and review the application of the Directive five years after its entry into force and report to the Council on its operation. This assessment should include at least the following points: the optional character for SMEs and the impact on tax revenues of the Member States. Member States should be required to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive,
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3. A company that meets the conditions of points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, but does not meet the conditions of points (c) or (d) of that paragraph, may opt, including for its permanent establishments situated in other Member States, to apply the rules of this Directive for a period of five tax years. That period shall automatically be extended for successive terms of five tax years, unless there is a notice of termination as referred to in Article 65(3). The conditions under points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 shall be met each time the extension takes place. The commission should develop a tool that mitigates the administrative burden and costs for SMEs that voluntary opt-in the new system.
Amendment 405 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 69 – paragraph 3
Article 69 – paragraph 3
The Commission shall communicate its findings in a report to Member States and the European Parliament with the aim to take those findings into account for the design and implementation of national corporate tax systems. The report shall include an analysis of the following elements : The impact of this system on Member States tax revenues, the practicability and advantages and disadvantages of making the system mandatory for SMEs, the impact on a fair tax collection between member States and the impact on the internal market as a whole, with particular regard to possible distortion of competition between companies subject to the new rules laid down in this directive;