22 Amendments of Esther DE LANGE related to 2016/0337(CNS)
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a directive
–
–
The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.
Amendment 75 #
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 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 82 #
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 sound, long-term legal clarity and certainty will always be an attractive location for companies to operate from.
Amendment 83 #
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 85 #
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 same cases even opposite results.
Amendment 88 #
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 97 #
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 104 #
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 enacted, 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 114 #
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 enacted, before addressing, at a second stage, the issue of consolidation.
Amendment 115 #
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 State's 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 126 #
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 common base should be mandatory only for companies which belong to a group 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, to ensure coherence between the two steps of the CCCTB initiative, the rules on a common base should be mandatory for companies which would be considered as a group should the full initiative materialise. In order to better serve the aim of facilitating trade and investment in the internal market, the rules on a common corporate tax base should also be available, as an option, to companies which do not meet those criteria. It is important, however, to realise that giving the ability to companies to choose between the harmonised rules or the rules of national tax laws can create new possibilities for tax avoidance.
Amendment 129 #
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 141 #
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 175 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) As far as specific anti-tax avoidance measures are concerned, it is often necessary to ascertain the level of taxation on the other side of the border, in order to determine whether the taxpayer is liable to pay tax on foreign generated income. This would create a level-playing field regarding the level of tax and competition within the internal market and also protect the market from base erosion vis-à-vis third countries. In this context, it is necessary to provide for a switch-over clause targeting some types of income earned in a third country, such as profit distributions and proceeds from the disposal of shares, in order to ensure that income be taxable in the Union if it has been taxed below a certain level in a third country. Controlled foreign company (‘CFC’) legislation is also an indispensable element of a corporate tax system and has the effect of re-attributing the income of a low-taxed controlled subsidiary to its parent company in an effort to discourage profit shifting. In that regard, it is necessary that CFC rules extend to the profits of permanent establishments where those profits are not subject to tax or are tax exempt in the Member State of the taxpayer.
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22 a (new)
Recital 22 a (new)
(22a) 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 253 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) proceeds from a disposal of shares, provided that the taxpayer has maintained a minimum holding of 10 % in the capital or 10 % of the voting rights of the company during the 12 months preceding the disposal, with the exception of proceeds resulting from a disposal of shares held for trading as referred to in Article 21(3) and of shares held by life insurance undertakings in accordance with point (b) of Article 28;
Amendment 261 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. The expenses referred to in paragraph 1 shall include all costs of sales and all expenses, net of deductible value added tax, that the taxpayer incurred with a view to obtaining or securing income, including costs for research and development - in accordance with the OECD's Modified Nexus Approach for IP regimes - and costs incurred in raising equity or debt for the purposes of the business.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 335 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 42
Article 42
Amendment 341 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 53
Article 53