2023/0320(CNS) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4

If the filing authority concludes that the eligibility requirements are not met, it shall inform the head office within two months of the notification referred to in paragraph 1 and the head office may appeal against it in accordance with the national law and in turn the head office taxation rules shall continue to apply.

Amendment 101 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4

If the filing authority concludes that the eligibility requirements are not met, it shall inform the head office within ~~two~~one months of the notification referred to in paragraph 1 and the head office may appeal against it in accordance with the national law.

Amendment 102 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 4

Amendment 103 #

Proposal for a directive
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 104 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
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 or a subsidiairy, 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 or the subsidiary.

Amendment 105 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1

1. The head office that has opted to apply head office taxation rules to its permanent establishments in one or more host Member States shall apply those rules for a period ~~of five fiscal years~~it deems appropriate and shall always notify the competent authority of its decision.

Amendment 106 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1

1. The head office that has opted to apply head office taxation rules to its permanent establishments and/or the subsidiairy in one or more host Member States shall apply those rules for a period of five fiscal years, renewable once.

Amendment 107 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1

1. The head office that has opted to apply head office taxation rules to its permanent establishments in one or more host Member States shall apply those rules ~~for a period of five fiscal years~~indefinitely.

Amendment 108 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. At the end of the period referred to in paragraph 1, the head office taxation rules shall cease to apply in respect of the permanent establishments situated in the host Member States, unless the head office notifies to the filing authority its option to renew the application of the head office taxation rules, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 9.deleted

Amendment 109 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. At the end of the period ~~referred to in paragraph 1~~it deems appropriate, the head office taxation rules shall cease to apply in respect of the permanent establishments situated in the host Member States, after notifying the competent authority, unless the head office notifies to the filing authority its option to renew the application of the head office taxation rules, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 9.

Amendment 110 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

Amendment 111 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. The option to apply the hHead oOffice tTaxation rules shall be terminated ~~before the end of the five-year period referred to in Article 7(1) for any of the following reasons~~when:

Amendment 112 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. The option to apply the head office taxation rules shall be terminated ~~before the end of the five-year period referred to in Article 7(1)~~ for any of the following reasons:

Amendment 113 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the SME referred to in Article 2(1) transfers its tax residence out of the head office Member State, if the SME wishes to stop applying the taxation rules;

Amendment 114 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) ~~for the last two fiscal years, the joint turnover of its permanent establishments exceeded an amount which is equal to triple the turnover of the head office~~the SME is no longer considered an SME.

Amendment 115 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) for the last two fiscal years, the joint turnover of its permanent establishments exceeded an amount which is equal to triple the turnover of the head office in the head office Member State.

Amendment 116 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) for the last two fiscal years, the joint turnover of its permanent establishments and/or the subsidiary exceeded an amount which is equal to ~~trip~~double the turnover of the head office.

Amendment 117 #

(b a) the SMEs referred to in Article 2(1) set up one or more subsidiaries;

Amendment 118 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)

(b b) the undertaking does not anymore qualify as micro, small and medium-sized undertakings pursuant to Article 2(1)(b).

Amendment 119 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. ~~In any of the cases referred to in paragraph 1, t~~The head office taxation rules shall cease to apply as of the fiscal year that follows the one in which the reasons referred to in paragraph 1 occur.

Amendment 120 #

Eva-Maria Alexandrova POPTCHEVA

Proposal for a directive
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 121 #

Proposal for a directive
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 option. The requirement set out in Article 4(2), point be, shall not apply if the transfer of the tax residence of the SME has been carried out for valid commercial reasons.

Amendment 122 #

Proposal for a directive
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 option~~In such situation, the criteria laid down in article 4 - paragraph 1 - point b) shall not apply.

Amendment 123 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9

Renewal of the option to apply the head 1. If the head office wishes to renew its option, it shall notify the filing authority thereof at least six months before the end of the period referred to in Article 7(1) and shall list the names of the host Member States. The filing authority shall verify whether the SME continues to meet the eligibility requirements set out in Article 4. 2. The filing authority shall confirm the renewal of the option within two months of the receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 1 after it has verified that the eligibility requirements set out in Article 4 are met. It shall communicate its decision to the head office, together with the information that the grounds for exclusion laid down in Article 10 do not apply. The filing authority shall also inform the tax authorities of the host Member States of the renewal within four months of the receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 1.Article 9 deleted office taxation rules

Amendment 124 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. If the head office wishes to renew its option, it shall notify the filing authority thereof ~~at least six months before the end of the period referred to in Article 7(1) and shall list the names of the host Member States~~. The filing authority shall verify whether the SME continues to meet the eligibility requirements set out in Article 4.

Amendment 125 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. If the head office wishes to renew its option for another 5 years, it shall notify the filing authority thereof at least six months before the end of the period referred to in Article 7(1) and shall list the names of the host Member States. The filing authority shall verify whether the SME continues to meet the eligibility requirements set out in Article 4.

Amendment 126 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1

1. If the head office wishes to renew its option, it shall notify the filing authority thereof at least ~~six~~three months before the end of the period referred to in Article 7(1) and shall list the names of the host Member States. The filing authority shall verify whether the SME continues to meet the eligibility requirements set out in Article 4.

Amendment 127 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2

2. The filing authority shall confirm the renewal of the option within ~~two~~one months of the receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 1 after it has verified that the eligibility requirements set out in Article 4 are met. It shall communicate its decision to the head office, together with the information that the grounds for exclusion laid down in Article 10 do not apply. The filing authority shall also inform the tax authorities of the host Member States of the renewal within four months of the receipt of the notification referred to in paragraph 1.

Amendment 128 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10

Exclusion from the renewal to apply the The head office shall not be entitled to renew the option for applying the head office taxation rules if during the five- year period when head office taxation rules initially applied, any of the following situations occurred: (a) for any two fiscal years taken separately, the joint turnover of the permanent establishments exceeded an amount which is equal to double the turnover of the Head Office; (b) the SME set up one or more subsidiaries within or outside the Union; (c) the criterion set out in Article 2(1), point (d) has not been met for two consecutive fiscal years.Article 10 deleted head office taxation rules

Amendment 129 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

The head office shall not be entitled to renew the option for applying the head office taxation rules if ~~during the five-year period when head office taxation rules initially applied, any of the following situations occurred:~~the requirements for doing so set out in Article 4 are not met.

Amendment 130 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) for any two fiscal years taken separately, the joint turnover of the permanent establishments exceeded an amount which is equal to double the turnover of the Head Office;~~deleted

Amendment 131 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) for any two fiscal years taken separately, the joint turnover of the permanent establishments exceeded an amount which is equal to double the turnover of the Head Office;~~deleted

Amendment 132 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) for any two fiscal years taken separately, the joint turnover of the permanent establishments and/or the subsidiairy exceeded an amount which is equal to double the turnover of the Head Office;

Amendment 133 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) the SME set up one or more subsidiaries within or outside the Union;~~deleted

Amendment 134 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the SME set up ~~one or mor~~more that one subsidiar~~ies~~y within or outside the Union;

Amendment 135 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the SME set up one or more subsidiaries within ~~or outside~~ the Union;

Amendment 136 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c

~~(c) the criterion set out in Article 2(1), point (d) has not been met for two consecutive fiscal years.~~deleted

Amendment 137 #

Eva-Maria Alexandrova POPTCHEVA

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c

Amendment 138 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1

1. The head office shall file the Head office taxation tax return with the filing authority. The head office Member State shall assist the SME in the elaboration of the tax return, in particular regarding the attribution of taxable result to each permanent establishment in other Member States.

Amendment 139 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) the tax liability of the SME with regard to the taxable result of each permanent establishment and/or the subsidiairy in other Member States. The tax liability shall be computed by applying the national tax rate of the respective host Member State to the taxable result, as it was computed in accordance with the head office taxation rules.

Amendment 140 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. Where one or more permanent establishment of the SME are not required to prepare separate financial accounting statements under the law of the host Member State, the HOTead Office Taxation tax return shall include the following information:

Amendment 141 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – point a

(a) assets and liabilities attributed to the permanent establishment(s) and/or the subsidiairy;

Amendment 142 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – point a

(a) ~~assets and~~ liabilities attributed to the permanent establishment(s);

Amendment 143 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) profits attributable to the permanent establishment(s) and/or the subsidiairy in other Member States.

Amendment 144 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4 – point b

(b) a draft tax assessment notice for each permanent establishment and/or the subsidiairy.

Amendment 145 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b

(b) a draft tax assessment notice for the relevant permanent establishment(s) and/or the subsidiairy;

Amendment 146 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 8

8. If the tax authority of the host Member State rejects the draft tax assessment notice, it shall revise this draft tax assessment in connection with the attribution of profits to the permanent establishment and/or the subsidiairy in accordance with the provisions laid down in the applicable bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the host and head office Member States. After the attribution of profits to the permanent establishment and/or the subsidiairy has been revised and communicated to the filing authority in accordance with Article 8ae of Directive 2011/16/EU, the filing authority shall re- compute the taxable result in accordance with the taxation rules of the head office Member State, and a revised tax assessment shall be issued by this Member State. The taxpayer shall be entitled to appeal against this revised tax assessment before the courts of the head office Member State. Any dispute concerning the amount of profits attributable to the permanent establishment and/or the subsidiairy shall be settled in accordance with the applicable bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation, or the provisions set out in Council Directive (EU) 2017/1852 of 10 October 2017 17 . _________________ 17 Council Directive (EU) 2017/1852 of 10 October 2017 on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union (OJ L 265, 14.10.2017, p. 1–14).

Amendment 147 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 9

9. Where, under the tax rules of the host Member State, certain expenses associated with the employees of the permanent establishment and/or the subsidiairy are deductible for tax purposes insofar as the respective amounts are taxed at the level of the employee or are subject to social security charges, and there is no similar tax treatment in the head office Member State allowing for such deduction, the head office and host Member States shall -,with the guidance of the Commission, take appropriate measures to prevent possible mismatches.

Amendment 148 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down guidance on appropriate measures regarding mismatches as referred to paragraph 8. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 15.

Amendment 149 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – title

Collection of tax due by the permanent establishment(s)and/or the subsidiary in the host Member State(s)

Amendment 150 #

Proposal for a directive
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 151 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1

Amendment 152 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2

2. The filing authority shall collect the tax corresponding to the tax liability of each permanent establishment and/or the subsidiary of the head office in the Union, apply the tax rate the respective host Member State and transfer the relevant amount to the competent authority of the respective host Member State.

Amendment 153 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2

2. The filing authority shall collect the tax corresponding to the tax liability of each permanent establishment of the head office in the Union, apply the tax rate the respective host Member State and transfer the relevant amount to the competent authority of the respective host Member State without any delay.

Amendment 154 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, lay down the practical arrangements necessary to ensure the collection and transfer of the tax corresponding to the tax liability of the permanent establishment(s) and/or the subsidiary from the head office Member State to the host Member State. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 15.

Amendment 155 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 12 a (new)

Article 12a Retention of collected tax by head office Member State Concerning the tax liability to be transferred to the host Member State in accordance with article 12, the head office Member State shall be entitled to retain 15% of the collected tax corresponding to the tax liability of the permanent establishment(s) or subsidiary(ies) to compensate for the administrative burden incurred.

Amendment 156 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. Unless specified otherwise, the rules of this Directive shall not affect the national rules of Member States that govern local tax audits, legal remedies and proceedings, or the dispute resolution mechanisms available at the level of the Union or provided for in the applicable bilateral tax conventions on the avoidance of double taxation. The commercial, accounting and fiscal obligations of a permanent establishment pursuant to the national rules of the host Member State shall not be affected by this Directive.

Amendment 157 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. The tax authority of the host 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. If an audit is carried out at the initative of the head office member state, the head office Member State shall invite the host Member State to carry out such audit jointly. _________________ 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 158 #

Proposal for a directive
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 159 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. The tax authority of the host 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 or the subsidiairy in accordance with the head office taxation rules, the attribution of profits to the permanent establishment and/or the profits to the subsidiary 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. _________________ 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 160 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2

2. The tax authority of the host 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 request for a joint audit may be also raised by the tax authority of the head office Member State towards the tax authorit~~ies~~y of the host Member State of each permanent establishment. _________________ 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 161 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 8ae

1. If a head office as defined in Article 3, point (2), of Directive on establishing a Head Office taxation rules for micro, small and medium sized enterprises20 , which opts to apply the head office taxation rules to its permanent establishment(s) and/or its subsidiary in accordance with Article 6 of that, meets the eligibility requirements for applying such rules, the competent authority of the Member State of the head office shall by means of automatic exchange of information communicate to the competent authority of the Member State of the permanent establishment or the subsidiary that the taxable result of the relevant permanent establishment or subsidiary is to be computed in accordance with the head office taxation rules. Such communication shall take place within two months from the notification by the Head Office of its option to apply head office taxation rules. _________________ 20 Directive…[OJ: Please insert the number, date, title and OJ reference of that Directive].

Amendment 162 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 8ae

2. The competent authority of the Member State of the permanent establishment or the subsidiary shall communicate to the competent authority of the Member State of the head office the tax rate applicable for the purpose of determining the tax liability of the permanent establishment(s) or the subsidiary situated on its territory, within three months from the notification by the competent authority of the Member State of the head office of the decision on the application of the head office taxation rules.

Amendment 163 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 8ae

3. The competent authority of the Member State of the head office shall by means of automatic exchange of information communicate the information specified in paragraph 2 of this Article to the competent authority(ies) of the Member State(s) of the permanent establishment(s) or the subsidiary in accordance with the practical arrangements adopted pursuant to Article 21.

Amendment 164 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 8ae

(iii) a draft tax assessment notice for the relevant permanent establishment(s)/subsidiary;

Amendment 165 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Directive 2011/16/EU
Article 8ae

6. Where the tax authority of the Member State of the permanent establishment(s) or subsidiary revises the draft tax assessment notice in connection with the attribution of profits to the permanent establishment or subsidiaryin accordance with the provisions laid down in the applicable bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the host and head office Member States, after rejection of the draft tax assessment notice issued by the head office Member State, the competent authority of the Member State of the permanent establishment(s) or subsidiairy shall communicate such revised tax assessment notice to the competent authority of the Member State of the head office, within one month from its issuance, for the purpose of re-computing the taxable result of the permanent establishment or subsidiairy, issuance of a revised tax assessment and collecting the tax.

Amendment 166 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2

2. Information, including personal data, processed in accordance with this Directive shall be retained only as long as necessary to achieve the purposes of this Directive, in particular, verification of eligibility requirements and determination of the tax liability of the taxpayers, in accordance with each data controller’s domestic rules on the statute of limitations, but in any case no longer than tfifteen years.

Amendment 167 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1

1. Five years after this Directive starts to apply, the Commission shall examine and evaluate its functioning and report to the European Parliament and the Council to that effect. In the evaluation report, the Commission shall, among others., examine whether the head office taxation rules should be also applied to one or more subsidiaries of the SMEs. The report shall, where appropriate, be accompanied by a proposal to amend this Directive.

Amendment 168 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall in particular assess: (a) whether an extension of the scope of this Directive is justified; (b) if and how the procedures in this Directive can be further streamlined to reduce compliance costs; (c) if there are lessons to be learnt from the application of this Directive for corporate taxation in general;

Amendment 169 #

Proposal for a directive
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.

Amendment 170 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission relevant information for the evaluation of the Directive, in accordance with paragraph 3, including aggregated data regarding the number of eligible SMEs compared to SMEs that opted in, their turnover and compliance costs relative to turnover; data on the number of SMEs that expanded cross- border by setting up a permanent establishment ~~and the number of SMEs that disqualified due to creating a subsidiary~~, or the compliance costs for SMEs that apply the option.

Amendment 171 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission relevant information for the evaluation of the Directive, in accordance with paragraph 3, including aggregated data regarding the number of eligible SMEs compared to SMEs that opted in, their turnover and compliance costs relative to turnover; data on the number of SMEs that expanded cross- border by setting up a permanent establishment and the number of SMEs that disqualified due to creating a/owning more than one subsidiary, or the compliance costs for SMEs that apply the option.

Amendment 172 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. The Commission shall evaluate potential legal hurdles in applying this directive such as the lack of a common and harmonised definition of permanent establishments in the EU.

Amendment 34 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) In the Union, there is currently no common approach to the computation of the taxable base for businesses. EU businesses are therefore obliged to comply with the rules of different corporate tax systems, depending on the Member State in which they operate, which constitutes a significant obstacles for small and medium-sized enterprises when accessing the Single Market.

Amendment 35 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) In the Union, there is currently no common approach to the computation of the taxable base for businesses that operate in two or more Member States. EU businesses are therefore obliged to comply with the rules of different corporate tax systems, depending on the Member State in which they operate.

Amendment 36 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

(2) The co-existence and interaction of 27 different corporate income tax systems in the Union gives rise to complexity in tax compliance and leads to a~~n uneven level~~ playing field for businesses that discourages cross-border investments, hampering the development of our single market compared to our main competitors. This state of play has a higher impact on SMEs ~~than on larger taxpaye~~and small investors and has become more evident as globalisation and digitalisation of the economy have significantly altered the perception of borders and business models, particularly the further development of our single market, which requires us to take measures to further that development. The attempts by ~~government~~states to adapt to this new reality have sometimes resulted in a fragmented response among Member States, leading to ~~further~~ distortions in the internal market. Furthermore, the various legal frameworks ~~inevitably~~ lead to different tax administration practices across Member States. This often entails lengthy procedures characterised by unpredictability and inconsistency along with high compliance costs which largely affect SMEs, discouraging them from investing in more than one Member State. Mutual trust and good faith among states are required in order to achieve cooperation on tax decisions and complete, improve and further develop our single market.

Amendment 37 #

Sirpa PIETIKÄINEN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

(2) The co-existence and interaction of 27 different corporate income tax systems in the Union gives rise to complexity in tax compliance and leads to an uneven level playing field for businesses. This state of play has a higher impact on SMEs than on larger taxpayers and has become more evident as globalisation and digitalisation of the economy have significantly altered the perception of borders and business models. The attempts by governments to adapt to this new reality have resulted in a fragmented response among Member States, leading to further distortions in the internal market. Furthermore, the various legal frameworks inevitably lead to different tax administration practices across Member States. This often entails lengthy procedures characterised by unpredictability and inconsistency along with high compliance costs. Creating a common, hamonized framework on taxation for SMEs would ensure that the SMEs can use the full potential and that the consumers are able to enjoy the possibilities of the internal market.

Amendment 38 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

(2) The co-existence and interaction of 27 different corporate income tax systems in the Union gives rise to complexity in tax compliance, disproportionate compliance costs and leads to an uneven level playing field for businesses. This state of play has a higher impact on SMEs than on larger taxpayers and has become more evident as globalisation and digitalisation of the economy have significantly altered the perception of borders and business models. The attempts by governments to adapt to this new reality have resulted in a fragmented response among Member States, leading to further distortions in the internal market. Furthermore, the various legal frameworks inevitably lead to different tax administration practices across Member States. This often entails lengthy procedures characterised by unpredictability and inconsistency along with high compliance costs.

Amendment 39 #

Proposal for a directive
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)

(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

(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 42 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
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. 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 or a maximum of one subsidiary. Transparency is essential for the smooth functioning of the Single Market.

Amendment 43 #

Proposal for a directive
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 44 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)

(3 a) Combatting fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance are overriding political priorities, as aggressive tax planning practices are unacceptable from the point of view of the integrity of the internal market and social justice.

Amendment 45 #

Proposal for a directive
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

(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 47 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)

(4 a) Equality of tax treatment for all, and in particular for all undertakings, is a sine qua non for the single market. A coordinated and harmonised approach to the implementation of national tax systems is vital for the proper functioning of the single market, and would contribute to preventing tax avoidance and profit shifting

Amendment 48 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 b (new)

(4 b) A fair and effective corporate tax system should respond to the urgent need for a progressive and fair global tax policy, promote the redistribution of wealth and combat inequalities.

Amendment 49 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) To prevent abusive tax practices, specific anti-tax abuse rules are designed, for example to address the tax avoidance risks associated with transferring the tax residence of an SME, and thus to avoid that the location of the head office is determined on the basis of tax motives. Accordingly, it would be necessary to monitor the evolution of the turnover attributed to the permanent establishment(s) in order to maintain their operations as secondary to the main activity which should be carried out by the head office. In this way, the rules would not risk being misused by setting up empty head offices while the bulk of business activities takes place abroad. In the same vein, the eligibility to the tax simplification system as well as the termination and renewal of the option should be subject to strict conditions. Such conditions should be coupled with requirements relating to the turnover of the head office as compared to that of the permanent establishment(s). The aim would be to further underline that the business operated through the permanent establishment(s) can merely be an extension of the main activity of the head office. Additionally, once the option is made to apply the tax simplification framework, it should have an obligatory duration, to prevent situations where the residence of the head office is frequently moved to take advantage of occasional and short-term tax beneficial situations.

Amendment 50 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) To prevent abusive tax practices, robust and specific anti-tax abuse rules are designed, for example to address the tax avoidance risks associated with transferring the tax residence of an SME, and thus to avoid that the location of the head office is determined on the basis of tax motives. Such anti abuse measures are based on quantitative requirements to avoid artificial transfers of profits. Accordingly, it would be necessary to monitor the evolution of the turnover attributed to the permanent establishment(s) and/or the subsidiary in order to maintain their operations as secondary to the main activity which should be carried out by the head office. In this way, the rules would not risk being misused by setting up empty head offices while the bulk of business activities takes place abroad. In the same vein, the eligibility to the tax simplification system as well as the termination and renewal of the option should be subject to strict conditions. Such conditions should be coupled with requirements relating to the turnover of the head office as compared to that of the permanent establishment(s) and/or the subsidiary. The aim would be to further underline that the business operated through the permanent establishment(s) and/or the subsidiary can merely be an extension of the main activity of the head office. Additionally, once the option is made to apply the tax simplification framework, it should have an obligatory duration, to prevent situations where the residence of the head office is frequently moved to take advantage of occasional and short-term tax beneficial situations.

Amendment 51 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)

(5 a) Considering that the Head Office Tax system is meant to facilitate the expansion and development of the activity of firms in other Member States, such system should be made available for a limited period of time and the renewal to opt in should be limited to once. After a period of 10 years, firms would have the possibility to rely on other paneuropean tools such as the Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation, which provides for a common rulebook for corporate income tax across Member States.

Amendment 52 #

Proposal for a directive
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 53 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
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 or the subsidiary. 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. No other ~~sectors of activity~~activity than the one covered by the tonnage tax regime would be excluded from the scope of the Directive.

Amendment 54 #

Proposal for a directive
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 to~~mean 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 55 #

Proposal for a directive
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 an obligation to 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 taxpayer. In that sense, if the head office Member State conducts an audit at its own initiative, it shall invite the host Member State to carry out such audit jointly.

Amendment 56 #

Proposal for a directive
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 a~~creating 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 taxpayer~~s tax authorities.

Amendment 57 #

Proposal for a directive
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 58 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)

(7 a) To avoid a too large of a burden on the head office tax authority in applying the rules the proposal ensures that the head office Member State should be entitled to retain 15% of the collected tax corresponding to the tax liability of the permanent establishment(s) or subsidiary(ies) in the host Member State.

Amendment 59 #

Proposal for a directive
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 60 #

Sirpa PIETIKÄINEN

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13 a (new)

(13 a) The Commission shall set up a thorough and comprehensive way of communicating about the Head Office Taxation System to the SMEs. The information will be provided in all EU languages. For the SMEs to benefit and enjoy the full potential of the Head Office Taxation System, the Commission shall start an information campaign targeted to the SMEs.

Amendment 61 #

Proposal for a directive
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 62 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15

(15) A reasonable retention period is provided to allow Member States to comply with most of the statute of limitation rules, thus following closely such domestic rules in respect of its starting point or suspension. The retention period should not however go further than what is necessary to ensure that the competent tax authorities are able to determine the tax liabilities, thus striking a balance between the ability of the tax authority to ensure proper assessment and collection of taxes and taxpayers’ right to legal certainty.

Amendment 63 #

Proposal for a directive
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 64 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) Since the objective of this Directive, namely the simplification of tax rules for certain SMEs operating in the internal market through permanent establishment(s), cannot sufficiently be achieved by the Member States individually but can rather, by reason of the existing challenges which are caused by the interaction between 27 different corporate tax systems, be better achieved at Union level through mutual cooperation between 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 65 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1

This Directive lays down rules for computing the taxable result of permanent establishments and subsidiaries of SMEs which fulfil the criteria set out in Article 2(1) (“Head Office Taxation” rules). (This Amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)

Amendment 66 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) they qualify as micro, small and medium-sized (SMEs), as defined in Directive 2013/34/EU16 ;. For the purpose of this directive and notwithtanding to the Directive 2013/34/EU, the micro- undertakings shall be defined as undertakings which do not have more than 25 employees as average number during the financial year, the small undertakings shall be defined as undertakings which do not have more than 100 employees as average number during the financial year, and the medium-sized undertakings shall be defined as undertakings which do not have more than 350 employees as average number during the financial year. _________________ 16 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC

Amendment 67 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) they operate in other Member States exclusively through one or more permanent establishments and/or one subsidiary;

Amendment 68 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e

(e) they operate in other Member States ~~exclusively~~ through one or more permanent establishments; or up to two subsidiaries; (This Amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout.)

Amendment 69 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16 to amend Annexes I to IV, in order to take account of changes to the laws of the Member States and based on the information provided by the relevant Member State concerning:

Amendment 70 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3

3. This Directive shall not affect the right of the Member State where a permanent establishment or the subsidiary is situated to determine the applicable tax rate, nor the applicability of bilateral conventions for the avoidance of double taxation, or the rules on the social protection of workers in the Member State of the permanent establishment.

Amendment 71 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1

(1) ‘permanent establishment’ means a fixed place of business situated in another Member State, as defined under the relevant bilateral convention on the avoidance of double taxation or, in absence thereof, in national law;Does not affect the English version.)

Amendment 72 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

(1 a) ‘subsidiary’ means an undertaking in another Member State which is wholly- owned and controlled by the head office of an SME;

Amendment 73 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

(1 a) ‘subsidiary’ means an undertaking in another Member States which is wholly-owned and controlled by the head office of an SME;

Amendment 74 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2

(2) ‘head office’ means an SME, as referred to in Article 2(1), which operates in (an)other Member State(s) ~~exclusively~~ through one or more permanent establishment or up to two subsidiaries;

Amendment 75 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2

(2) ‘head office’ means an SME, as referred to in Article 2(1), which operates in (an)other Member State(s) ~~exclusively~~ through one or more permanent establishment;

Amendment 76 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 6

(6) ‘taxable result of the permanent establishment’ means the taxable income or loss attributed to the permanent establishment and computed in accordance with the Head Office Taxation rules;

Amendment 77 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) the joint turnover of its permanent establishments did not exceed, for the last two fiscal years, an amount equal to double the turnover generated by the head office;~~deleted

Amendment 78 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) the joint turnover of its permanent establishments did not exceed, for the last two fiscal years, an amount equal to double the turnover generated by the head office;~~deleted

Amendment 79 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the joint turnover of its permanent establishments did not exceed, for the last two fiscal years, an amount equal to double the turnover generated by the head office; for the last year the joint turnover of its permanent establishments is calculated based on the date available until the 30th September of that year;

Amendment 80 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the joint turnover of its permanent establishments did not exceed, for the last two fiscal years, an amount equal to double the turnover generated by the head office in the head office Member State;

Amendment 81 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) it has been resident for tax purposes in the head office Member State during the last ~~two~~five fiscal years;

Amendment 82 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) it has been resident for tax purposes in the head office Member State during the last two fiscal years; for newly created SMEs the minimum lenght of tax residency is not taken into account;

Amendment 83 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) it has been resident for tax purposes in the head office Member State during the last two fiscal years or, if more recently, since the establishment of the head office;

Amendment 84 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) it has been resident for tax purposes in the head office Member State during the last two fiscal years or since the creation of the head office;

Amendment 85 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) it has been resident for tax purposes in the head office Member State during the last ~~two~~ fiscal years;

Amendment 86 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) it has met the conditions laid down in Article 2(1), point d) for the last two fiscal years or, if more recently, since the establishment of the head office.

Amendment 87 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c

Amendment 88 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. If the head office opts to apply the head office taxation rules in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall apply those rules to all its permanent establishments and/or subsidiairy in other Member States. If it creates a new permanent establishment in another Member State, it shall apply head office taxation rules to such permanent establishment from the moment of its establishment. If it creates a first subsidiary, in another Member State, it shall apply head office taxation rules to such subsidiary from the moment of its establishment

Amendment 89 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. If the head office opts to apply the head office taxation rules in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall apply those rules to all its permanent establishments in other Member States. If it creates a new permanent establishment in another Member State, it shall apply head office taxation rules to such permanent establishment from the moment of its establishment. In that case the head office should inform the host Member State that it has opted to apply the head office taxation rules in accordance with paragraph 1;

Amendment 90 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. If the head office opts to apply the head office taxation rules in accordance with paragraph 1, it ~~shall~~may apply those rules to all its permanent establishments in other Member States. If it creates a new permanent establishment in another Member State, it ~~shall~~may apply head office taxation rules to such permanent establishment from the moment of its establishment.

Amendment 91 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

Where the head office derives income from shipping activities and this income is subject in the head office Member State to a tonnage tax regime, such head office shall be excluded from applying the head office taxation rules in respect of its permanent establishment(s) and/or the subsidiary in other Member States to the extent that these derive income from shipping activities.

Amendment 92 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. The head office which opts to apply the head office taxation rules to its permanent establishment(s) shall notify its choice to the filing authority, together with the name of the host Member State(s). The notification shall be made at least three months before the end of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which that SME wishes to start applying the head office taxation rules. For the establishment of its first permanent establishment or subsidiary in another Member State, an SME may apply the head office taxation rules from the year in which the permanent establishment or subsidiary is established, without having to notify the filing authority three months before the end of the previous tax year.

Amendment 93 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. The head office which opts to apply the head office taxation rules to its permanent establishment(s) and/or the subsidiary shall notify its choice to the filing authority, together with the name of the host Member State(s). The notification shall be made at least three months before the end of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which that SME wishes to start applying the head office taxation rules.

Amendment 94 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2

2. The filing authority shall verify whether the eligibility requirements set out in Article 4 are met and shall inform the head office of its findings within two months of the notification referred to in paragraph 1. The filing authority shall obtain confirmation from the host Member State that the establishment in the host Member State constitutes a permanent establishment for treaty purposes.

Amendment 95 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2

2. The filing authority shall verify whether the eligibility requirements set out in Article 4 are met and shall inform the head office of its findings within ~~two~~one months of the notification referred to in paragraph 1.

Amendment 96 #

Aurore LALUCQ, Evelyn REGNER, Joachim SCHUSTER, Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Paul TANG

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

If the eligibility requirements are met, the filing authority shall inform the tax authorities of the host Member States within two months of the notification referred to in paragraph 1 that the taxable result of the relevant permanent establishments and/or the relevant subsidiary shall be computed in accordance with the head office taxation rules as of the following fiscal year, as applied in the head office Member State. The tax authority of the host Member State(s) shall communicate to the filing Authority the applicable tax rate.

Amendment 97 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

If the eligibility requirements are met, the filing authority shall inform the tax authorities of the host Member States within ~~two~~one months of the notification referred to in paragraph 1 that the taxable result of the relevant permanent establishments shall be computed in accordance with the head office taxation rules as of the following fiscal year, as applied in the head office Member State. The tax authority of the host Member State(s) shall communicate to the filing Authority the applicable tax rate.

Amendment 98 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3

The host Member State may challenge the decision of the filing authority regarding the fulfilment of the eligibility requirements in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 13. In that case, the national rules of the head office Member State are applied. Notwithstanding such proceedings, the SMEs may start applying the head office taxation rules.

Amendment 99 #