13 Amendments of Caroline NAGTEGAAL related to 2021/2010(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4
Citation 4
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
— having regard the conclusions of the European Council of 21 July 2020,
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) final report from 2015 concludes that the digital economy increasingly is becoming the economy itself, why it would be difficult, if not impossible, to ring-fence the digital economy from the rest of the economy for tax purposes;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Notes that sale and consumption are not considered to be a part of the value creation of a product; notes that value creation is linked to production and R&D; notes that consumption is taxed with VAT or consumption taxes; highlights that if the concept of value creation is widened out, small exporting countries risk losing tax revenue to larger consumer facing markets creating a fundamental shift in taxation between various EU member countries;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Highlights that the assumption of digital companies not paying their fair share of tax is contested1a; urges in this regard to have a factual approach to the issue and potential need for a digital tax; regrets the biased approach to digital companies; _________________ 1aSee European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE): Digital Companies and Their Fair Share of Taxes: Myths and Misconceptions.https://ecipe.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/02/ECI_18_Occasio nalPaper_Taxing_3_2018_LY08.pdf
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Highlights that the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) final report from 2015 concludes that the digital economy increasingly is becoming the economy itself, why it would be difficult, if not impossible, to ring-fence the digital economy from the rest of the economy for tax purposes;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that on average digital business models face significantly lower effective tax rates than traditional business models which rely on physical presence; regrets that tax avoidance linked to aggressive tax planning is not only detrimental to the collection of public revenues but also puts businesses, especially SMEs, at a disadvantage, while creating barriers for new local entrants; highlights the need to consider potential SME entry-barriers when proposing regulation in the digital area in order to avoid creating a sector with only a few big actors;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Insists therefore that, regardless of the progress of the negotiations at the G20/OECD IF, the EU should stand ready to roll out its own solutions for taxing the digital economy by the end of 2021; calls on the Commission to present proposals by June 2021, while anticipating their compatibility with the reform by the G20/OECD IF to be agreed onat a global agreement must be reached at the G20/OECD IF; strongly advocates the European Commission to monitor the international level playing field, the EU’s competitiveness and compatibility with future G20/OECD reforms when, as a second best option, the EU rolls out its own solution for taxing the digital economy; stresses the need to also create a level playing field for providers of traditional services and digital services in the EU by ensuring that the latter are taxed at an adequate rate; invites the Commission to consider in particular introducing a European Digital Services Tax as a necessary first step;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. UnderstandNotes that some Member States consider the taxation of digital economy an urgent issue and have therefore introduced digital services taxes at national level; recalls that these national measures should be phased out once a multilateral solution is found; calls on Member States to refrain from introducing national solutions unilaterally, as they create a risk of fragmentation of the single market; recalls that although taxation is primarily a Member State competence, they must exercise it in coherence with the common principles of EU law in order to ensure coherence between national frameworks, thereby allowing for fair competition and avoiding a negative impact on the overall coherence of EU taxation principles;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. RegretNotes that the Council did not agree on any of the Commission’s related proposals, i.e. the digital services tax, the significant digital presence or the CCTB and CCCTB; recalls on the Member States to reconsider their position on these proposals, and to consider all options provided for by the Treaties if no unanimous agreement can be reachedimportance of reaching an agreement at OECD-level in order to avoid potential trade wars; highlights that taxation is a member state competence;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for a stronger role for Parliament in legislative procedures in the area of taxation; takes note of the Commission’s proposed roadmap to qualified majority voting in its communication entitled ‘Toward a more efficient and democratic decision-making in EU tax policy’Recalls that taxation is a member state competence;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16