20 Amendments of Esther DE LANGE related to 2016/0336(CNS)
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a directive
–
–
Amendment 40 #
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 these problems should therefore address both these types of market deficiencies without foregoing the fact that taxation is a national competence and without leading to de facto automatic transfers of tax revenues between Member States.
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Companies, both big and small, which seek to do business irrespective of their location in the Union need first and foremost long-term legal clarity and certainty in order to stimulate (long-term) investments. Member States who are able to provide legally sound, long-term legal clarity and certainty will always be an attractive location for companies to operate from.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Tax policy and the ability to set corporate tax rates remains a national competence. While administrative simplification of corporate taxation systems may lead to greater efficiencies, the likely impact of a common consolidated tax base is an intrusion into Member States' tax policy and their ability to set corporate tax rates into the future.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 b (new)
Recital 1 b (new)
(1b) Corporate tax rates within the Union paint a very diffuse picture of the different levels of tax burdens on companies. Effective tax rates, however, show different and in some cases even opposite results.
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) To support the proper functioning of the internal market, the corporate tax environment in the Union should be shaped in accordance with the principle that companies pay their fair share of tax in the jurisdiction(s) where their profits are generated. It is therefore necessary to provide for mechanisms that discourage companies from taking advantage of mismatches amongst national tax systems in order to lower their tax liability. It is equally important to also stimulate growth and economic development in the internal market by facilitating cross-border trade and corporate investment. At the same time, a corporate tax environment in the Union must be competitive and allow Member States to define their own national corporate tax system in order to attract and keep investment in the Union. To this end, it is necessary to eliminate both double taxation and double non- taxation risks in the Union through eradicating disparities in the interaction of national corporate tax systems. At the same time, companies need an easily workable tax and legal framework for developing their commercial activity and expanding it across borders in the Union. In that context, remaining cases of discrimination should also be removed.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) As pointed out in the proposal of 16 March 2011 for a Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB)7 , a corporate tax system which treats the Union as a single market for the purpose of computing the corporate tax base of companies would facilitate cross-border activity for companies resident in the Union and promote the objective of making it a more competitive location for investment internationally. The proposal of 2011 for a CCCTB focussed on the objective of facilitating the expansion of commercial activity for businesses within the Union. In addition to that objective, it should also be taken into account that a CCCTB can be highly effective in improving the functioning of the internal market through countering tax avoidance schemes, albeit only if and when the formula for consolidation is able to encompass all forms of tangible and intangible economic activity. In this light, the initiative for a CCCTB should be re- launched in order to address, on an equal footing, both the aspect of business facilitation and the initiative's function in countering tax avoidance. Such an approach would best serve the aim of eradicating distortions in the functioning of the internal market. __________________ 7 Proposal for a Council Directive COM (2011) 121 final/2 of 3.10.2011 on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base.
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Considering the need to act swiftly in order to ensure a proper functioning of the internal market by making it, on the one hand, friendlier to trade and investment and, on the other hand, more resilient to tax avoidance schemes, it is necessary to divide the ambitious CCCTB initiative into two separate proposals. At a first stage, rules on a common corporate tax base should be agreed, before addressing, at a second stage, the issue of consolidation. Whereas (partial) harmonisation of the corporate tax base across the Union could be beneficial to businesses and also help in the fight against tax avoidance by dealing with (hybrid) mismatches between two or more corporate tax regimes, it also has the potential to put more emphasis on competition between Member States based solely on the corporate tax rate, leading to an intensified 'race to the bottom'.
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Considering the need to act swiftly in order to ensuresupport a proper functioning of the internal market by making it, on the one hand, friendlier to trade and investment and, on the other hand, more resilient to tax avoidance schemes, it is necessary to divide the ambitious CCCTB initiative into two separate proposals. At a first stage, rules on a common corporate tax base should be agreed, before addressing, at a second stage, the issue of consolidation.
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) It should be considered that no sufficiently detailed impact assessment has been conducted on either the CCTB or CCCTB proposals. To understand the true impact of the proposals, particularly in terms of the impact on Member States' corporate tax revenue, it is necessary for a detailed impact assessment to be conducted on a country-by-country basis, which considers all different national systems of corporate tax collection.
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Many aggressive tax planning structures tend to feature in a cross-border context, which implies that the participating groups of companies possess a minimum of resources. On this premise, for reasons of proportionality, the rules on a CCCTB should be mandatory only for groups of companies of a substantial size. For that purpose, a size-related threshold should be fixed on the basis of the total consolidated revenue of a group which files consolidated financial statements. In addition, in order to better serve the aim of facilitating trade and investment in the internal market, the rules on a CCCTB should also be available, as an option, to those groups that fall short of the size- related threshold. It is important, however, to realise that giving the ability to companies to choose between the harmonised rules and the rules of national tax laws can create new possibilities for tax avoidance.
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) Aggressive tax planning by multinational companies is a global problem that requires a global solution. The ideal way to tackle this problem is on an internationally agreed basis through the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative.
Amendment 99 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) Taxing the digital economy at a global level has been a number one priority in the OECD BEPS Action Plan. Therefore, any attempt made to impose a new tax on the digital economy at EU level could put Europe at a mismatch to the rest of the world given that the digital economy is global in nature. As part of the OECD BEPS Action Plan, a report with recommendations on taxing the digital economy at a global level will be published in Spring 2018; any decision to plan for a tax on the digital economy at an EU level in advance of this report would be unnecessary and premature.
Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The formula apportionment for the consolidated tax base should comprise three equallyof weighted factors, namely labour, assets and sales by destination. Those equally weighted factors, but not limited to, labour, (tangible and intangible) assets and sales by destination and with a maximum total weighting of labour of 25%. Those weighted factors should encompass all forms of tangible and intangible economic activity, should reflect a balanced approach to distributing taxable profits amongst the relevant Member States and should ensure that profits are taxed where they are actually earned. Labour and assets should therefore be allocated to the Member State where the labour is performed or the assets are located, and would thereby give appropriate weight to the interests of the Member State of origin, whilst sales should be allocated to the Member State of destination of the goods or services. To account for differences in the levels of wages across the Union and thus allow for a fair distribution of the consolidated tax base, the labour factor should comprise both payroll and the number of employees (i.e. each item counting for half). The asset factor, on the other hand, should comprise all fixed tangible assets, but not intangible and financial assets because of their mobile nature and the resulting risk that the rules of this Directive could be circumvented. Where, due to exceptional circumstances, the outcome of the apportionment does not fairly represent the extent of business activity, a safeguard clause should provide for an alternative method of income allocation.
Amendment 130 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) It should be acknowledged that seven Member State national parliaments have issued reasoned opinions to state that this legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity as defined in Article 5(3) TEU.
Amendment 211 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
The consolidated tax base shall be shared between the group members in each tax year on the basis of a formula for apportionment. In determining the apportioned share of a group member A, the formula shall take the following form, giving equal weight to at least, but not limited to, the factors of sales, labour and assets:(tangible and intangible) assets and with a maximum total weighting of labour of 25%.
Amendment 215 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – formula
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – formula
Amendment 230 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 34 – paragraph 1
Article 34 – paragraph 1
1. The asset factor shall consist of the average value of all fixed tangible and intangible assets owned, rented or leased by a group member as its numerator and the average value of all fixed tangible and intangible assets owned, rented or leased by the group as its denominator.
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 72
Article 72