11 Amendments of Danuta Maria HÜBNER related to 2015/2010(INL)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the revelations showed that tax advisors have helped multinational companies to obtain at least 548 tax rulings in Luxembourg between 2002 and 2010; whereas those secret deals feature complex financial structures designed to create substantial tax reductions; whereas the tax rulings provide written assurance that multinational companies’ tax-saving plans would be viewed favourably by Luxembourg authorities;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the investigations carried out under the TAXE Committee revealed that the practice of tax rulings does not exclusively take place in Luxembourg but is common across the Union; whereas the practice of tax rulings can be used legitimately to provide legal certainty for business, but is nevertheless open to potential abuse and reduce the financial risk for honest firms, but is nevertheless open to potential abuse and might, in providing legal certainty only to selected actors, create some degree of inequality between companies to which rulings have been granted and companies in the same sector to which they have not been granted; whereas regard is had to the report from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published on 12 February 2013 entitled ‘Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting’ proposed new international standards to combat base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS); whereas regard is also had to the Communiqué issued following the Meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G20 which took place on [to be inserted];
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas, in a context where investment and growth are lacking, it is important to retain or attract companies in Europe and whereas, therefore, it is crucial for Europe to foster its attractiveness to local and foreign businesses;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Recital F b (new)
Fb. whereas all tax planning should take place within the boundaries of the law and the applicable treaties;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas aggressive tax planning consists in taking advantage of the technicalities of a tax system, or of mismatches between two or more tax systems, for the purpose of reducing tax liability; whereas aggressive tax planning schemes often result in the use of a combination of international tax mismatches, very favourable specific national tax rules and the use of tax havens; whereas, unlike aggressive tax planning, tax fraud and tax evasion constitute an illegal activity of evading tax liabilities; whereas the most adequate response to aggressive tax planning appears to be good legislation and international coordination as to desired outcomes;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas multinational companies’ use of aggressive tax planning practices conflicts with the principle of fair competition and corporate responsibility since devising tax planning strategies requires resources which are only available to large firms and since this results in an absence of level playing field between SMEs and large corporations, which needs to be urgently addressed;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T – point i
Recital T – point i
(i) whereas increased transparency regarding the activities of large multinational companies, and in particular regarding profits made, taxes on profit paid, subsidies received and tax returns, is essential for ensuring that tax administrations tackle BEPS efficiently; whereas a right balance needs to be struck between the need for transparency, the necessity to protect the vital commercial interests of European businesses and the need to refrain from imposing additional adjustment costs that would be too burdensome; whereas one vital form for this transparency to take is country-by- country reporting; whereas any Union proposals for country-by-country reporting should in the first instance be based on the OECD guidelines; whereas it is possible for the Union to go further than the OECD guidelines, and the European Parliament voted in favour of full public country-by- country reporting in its amendments adopted on 8 July 20154 on the proposal for a revised Shareholder Rights Directive; whereas the European Commission conducted a consultation on this subject between 17 June and 9 September 2015 in order to explore different options for the implementation of country-by-country reporting5 ; __________________ 4 Texts adopted of 8.7.2015, P8_TA(2015)0257. 5 http://ec.europa.eu/finance/consultations/2 015/further-corporate-tax- transparency/index_en.htm.
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T – point vii
Recital T – point vii
(vii) whereas the current Union-wide legal framework to protect whistleblowers is insufficient, and there exists significant variation between the ways in which different Member States provide protection for whistleblowers; whereas in the absence of such protection, those employees who hold vital information will understandably be reluctant to come forward and therefore that information will not be made available; whereas since whistleblowers helped to mobilise public attention on the issue of unfair taxation, Member States should consider measures that will protect such activity; whereas it would therefore be appropriate to offer Union-wide protection for whistleblowers who report suspected misconduct, wrongdoing, fraud or illegal activity to national regulators or, in cases of persistently unaddressed illegal activity that could affect the public interest, to the public as a whole; whereas such protection should be coherent with the overall legal system;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – title 1 – subtitle 7 – indent 1
Annex – title 1 – subtitle 7 – indent 1
Protect whistleblowers who act in the public interest only (and not also for money or any other personal agenda) in order to expose misconduct, wrongdoing, fraud or illegal activity in relation to corporate taxation in any Member State in the European Union. Such whistleblowers should be protected if they report suspected misconduct, wrongdoing, fraud or illegal activity to their relevant competent authority, and should also be protected if, in cases of persistently unaddressed illegal activity in relation to corporate taxation that could affect the public interest, they report their concerns to the public as a whole;