Powrót na stronę Europarl

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (wybrano)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Pełny tekst 
Procedura : 2016/0107(COD)
Przebieg prac nad dokumentem podczas sesji
Dokument w ramach procedury : A8-0227/2017

Teksty złożone :


Debaty :

PV 04/07/2017 - 3
CRE 04/07/2017 - 3

Głosowanie :

PV 04/07/2017 - 6.10
CRE 04/07/2017 - 6.10

Teksty przyjęte :


Wtorek, 4 lipca 2017 r. - Strasburg Wersja poprawiona

3. Ujawnianie informacji o podatku dochodowym przez niektóre jednostki i oddziały (debata)
zapis wideo wystąpień

  Dariusz Rosati, on behalf of the PPE Group . – Madam President, the draft directive on public country—by—country reporting requires multinationals to publicly disclose all tax information. The idea behind this initiative is to increase tax transparency and to put multinationals under pressure from public opinion, to make sure that large companies pay their fair share of taxes in countries where they create value.

This is yet another piece of European legislation aimed at eliminating the harmful practices of tax avoidance and tax evasion in Europe. The PPE Group has supported the Commission’s proposal from the very beginning. We are in favour of more transparency in corporate taxation, but we also want the EU legislation to be consistent with international standards for tax information exchange established by the OECD under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, and adopted by almost 100 countries all over the world.

With those considerations in mind, we have worked hard to find a compromise that would be supported by all major political groups in Parliament. We have made important concessions. We agreed on the disaggregation information, we agreed on an extension of the list of information required, and we finally agreed on the review clause for the threshold. However, we have not come to a common position on the safeguard clause.

The left side of this House insisted on much more radical proposals that would go far beyond the Commission’s draft and would undermine the OECD BEPS Agreement. Accepting these proposals would establish an uneven playing field, with EU companies subject to more demanding requirements for public disclosure than their competitors from third countries. We do not want to discriminate against EU companies and that is why we oppose some of the rapporteur’s amendments that simply put EU companies at a competitive disadvantage vis—à—vis their third country competitors, and which would also make the business climate in the European Union less friendly for investors.

Our objective is to strike a balance between the legitimate demand for more transparency, on the one hand, and the need to protect EU companies in order to guarantee more jobs and growth in Europe.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

Ostatnia aktualizacja: 7 grudnia 2017Informacja prawna