23 Amendments of Lídia PEREIRA related to 2023/0320(CNS)
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2 a) The 24 million SMEs established in the EU represent two thirds of private sector jobs and 99% of all businesses in the Union, being the backbone of European economy. It is therefore essential to support micro, small and medium enterprises in order to promote job creation, to enhance growth, to stand for a fair and transparent competition, to support competitiveness and to attract investment. To that end, the EU must tackle dimensions such as payment delays, access to finance, skills, digital transition, innovation, internationalisation or access to data. However, regulatory obstacles or administrative burden continues to be the key challenge for European SMEs. This Directive must be interpreted according to the principle of SME relief and support.
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 b (new)
Recital 2 b (new)
(2 b) SMEs spend approximately 2,5% of their turnover on compliance costs related to tax obligations. The situation of very small enterprises is particularly serious, as they represent 90% of the estimated yearly EUR 54 billion costs of EU businesses compliance costs related to their corporate income taxes. This scenario proves the need for the adoption of this Directive in order to significantly reduce tax compliance costs and free financial resources to allow SMEs to invest on their business.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The variety of ways for doing business in the internal market requires different solutions for different businesses when it comes to tackling the current challenges posed by their cross-border operations. For smaller businesses which are not part of a group, it is more difficult to expand cross-border than for larger businesses. It is thus more burdensome for those smaller businesses to grapple with complex procedures and high compliance costs, as well as the uncertainty involved in investing their own assets in an unknown market. It is therefore evident that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, at the initial stages of expansion, need a solution such as a simplified mechanism for the computation of their taxable result when they operate across the border exclusively by way of permanent establishments, as well as tax incentives to attract them.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The variety of ways for doing business in the internal market requires different solutions for different businesses when it comes to tackling the current challenges posed by their cross-border operations. For smaller businesses which are not part of a group, it is more difficult to expand cross-border than for larger businesses. It is thus more burdensome for those smaller businesses to grapple with complex and highly bureaucratic procedures and high compliance costs. It is therefore evident that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, at the initial stages of expansion, need a solution such as a simplified mechanism for the computation of their taxable result when they operate across the border exclusively by way of permanent establishments.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) To remedy tax uncertainty and the difficulty in complying with the rules of an unknown tax system when operating in (an)other Member State(s) (which is one of the key impeding factors for SMEs to expanding abroad), the taxable result of permanent establishments should be computed on the basis of the rules of the Member State where the Head Office (headquarters of the SME) is resident for tax purposes. This also means that the principles governing the attribution of income to a permanent establishment, set out in the applicable bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the Member State of the permanent establishment and the Member State of the Head Office, would also continue to apply. To ensure that any new rules constitute a source of simplification for SMEs, their application should be optional, and thus left to the choice of the taxpayer. Moreover, the application of these rules shall not, under any circumstances, lead to higher tax rates than the ones defined in the national tax legal frameworks.
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) To remedy tax uncertainty and the difficulty in complying with the rules of an unknown tax system when operating in (an)other Member State(s) (which is one of the key impeding factors for SMEs to expanding abroad), the taxable result of permanent establishments should be computed on the basis of the rules of the Member State where the Head Office (headquarters of the SME) is resident for tax purposes. This also means that the principles governing the attribution of income to a permanent establishment, set out in the applicable bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the Member State of the permanent establishment and the Member State of the Head Office, would also continue to apply. To ensure that any new rules constitute a source of simplification for SMEs, their application should be optional, and thus left to the choice of the taxpayer and enough leeway should be provided for their application and adaptation to the new rules.
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) International shipping is a specific sector of activity subject to special tax regimes in several Member States. Those regimes mostly consist of computing the tax base on the basis of the tonnage (i.e. the carrying capacity) of the operated ships rather than on the basis of actual profits or losses incurred by the company. On this premise, SMEs that derive income from shipping activities covered by a tonnage tax regime should be excluded from opting in the SME simplification rules in respect of such income attributed to a permanent establishment. This exclusion would avoid additional complication, which would be expected to arise from the interaction between the SME tax simplification framework and tonnage tax regimes. In addition, such a potential complication would appear disproportionate, considering the absence of such special tax regimes in some Member States. In any case, this exclusion shall be proper evaluated after 5 years of implementation of this Directive. No other sectors of activity would be excluded from the scope of the Directive.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The proposal aims to provide significant procedural simplification, thus a one-stop-shop should be put in place, whereby the tax filing, tax assessments and the collection of the tax due by the permanent establishment(s) would be dealt with through a single tax authority (‘filing authority’), i.e. the tax authority in the Member State of the head office. The one- stop-shop should provide all the features of simplification so it does not become another obstacle for businesses that wish to invest abroad. In full respect of Member States’ sovereignty in tax matters, audits, appeals and dispute resolution procedures would primarily be kept domestic and in accordance with the procedural rules of the respective Member State. To support the functioning of a one- stop-shop, it would be critical to provide for joint audits, which create an obligation tomean the Member State of the head office toshould cooperate if the tax authority of the permanent establishment requests an audit covering the computation of the taxable result of its taxpayer.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The proposal aims to provide significant procedural simplification, thus a one-stop-shop should be put in place, whereby the tax filing, tax assessments and the collection of the tax due by the permanent establishment(s) would be dealt with through a single tax authority (‘filing authority’), i.e. the tax authority in the Member State of the head office. In full respect of Member States’ sovereignty in tax matters, audits, appeals and dispute resolution procedures would primarily be kept domestic and in accordance with the procedural rules of the respective Member State. To support the functioning of a one- stop-shop, it would be critical to provide for joint audits, which create acreating a cooperation obligation tofor the Member State of the head office to cooperate if the tax authority of the permanent establishment requests an audit covering the computation of the taxable result of its taxpayers tax authorities.
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7 a) The One-Stop-Shop (OSS) solution is valued by European SMEs and its creation shall represent an optional facilitation tool for the tax-related procedures of SMEs. The good experience with the VAT return via the OSS, with 130.000 companies filling their VAT return via the OSS and more than EUR 17 billion collected in VAT revenue, in 2022, motivates the model replication in the context of this Directive.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 a (new)
Recital 13 a (new)
(13 a) The evaluation report shall assess all relevant aspects of the Directive implementation and shall focus on the advantages of a possible extension of the scope, the adequacy of the eligibility requirements, the appropriateness of the exclusion situations - namely the set up of subsidiaries - and the need for the exclusion of shipping activities. These dimensions must be also addressed in the possible proposal to amend this Directive, either with concrete legislative changes or a reasonable justification for the maintenance of the rules.
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 b (new)
Recital 13 b (new)
(13 b) As the potencial reduction of tax compliance costs by SMEs depends directly from their voluntary adoption of the rules set out in this Directive, an EU- wide information campaign towards SMEs must be envisaged by the Commission. Such information campaign shall be integrated in a wider communication strategy on the new tax- related EU legislation and its impact on EU businesses.
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Since the objective of this Directive, namely the simplification of tax rules for certain SMEs operating cross border in the internal market through permanent establishment(s), cannot sufficiently be achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the existing challenges which are caused by the interaction between 27 different national corporate tax systems, be better achieved at Union level, while respecting the national tax sovereignty of Member States, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective;
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. If the head office opts to apply the head office taxation rules in accordance with paragraph 1, it shallmay apply those rules to all its permanent establishments in other Member States. If it creates a new permanent establishment in another Member State, it shallmay apply head office taxation rules to such permanent establishment from the moment of its establishment.
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Where a host Member State concludes that the presence of an SME in its territory qualifies as a permanent establishment, it shall inform the filing authority. Upon that information, the filing authority shall inform the competent tax authority of the host Member State on whether the head office applies the head office taxation rules in respect of its permanent establishments. The Head Office must be duly informed about these procedures, without undue delay.
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. The filing authority shall inform the host Member States of the termination referred to in paragraph 1 as soon as possible and, in any case, before the end of the fiscal year in which the reasons for thate termination occurred.
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. If the SME referred in Article 2(1) transfers its tax residence to another Member State, it may opt to apply the head office taxation rules of its new Member State of tax residence in accordance with Articles 4 to 7. This shall be considered a new optionIn such situation, the criteria laid down in article 4 - paragraph 1 - point b) shall not apply.
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the SME set up one or more subsidiaries within or outside the Union;
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the criterion set out in Article 2(1), point (d) has not been met for twohree consecutive fiscal years.
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) assets and liabilities attributed to the permanent establishment(s);
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. The head office shall settle, through the filing authority, the income tax liabilities with regard to both its taxable result and the taxable result of its permanent establishment(s) in the host Member State(s). if it so wishes. It may instead settle them through its establishment(s) if it sees fit.
Amendment 158 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. The tax authorityies of the host Member State or the head office Member State may request that an audit be carried out jointly with the filing authority covering the computation of the taxable result of the permanent establishment in accordance with the head office taxation rules, the attribution of profits to the permanent establishment and/or the applicable tax rate. Joint audits shall be conducted in accordance with Council Directive 2011/16/EU18 . Notwithstanding the provisions in the aforementioned Directive, the requested competent authority shall accept such request by the authorities of the host Member State or the head office Member State. _________________ 18 Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ L 64, 11.3.2011, p. 1)
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The report referred in paragraph 1 shall evaluate, among other relevant aspects, the possible extension of the scope of the Directive, the appropriateness of the criteria laid down in article 10, namely the exclusion of SMEs that set one or more subsidiaries, and the adequacy of the exclusion of the shipping activities laid down in article 5.