REPORT on the proposal for a Council directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation
1.2.2010 - (COM(2009)0029 – C6‑0062/2009 – 2009/0004(CNS)) - *
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
Rapporteur: Alvarez
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a Council directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation
(COM(2009)0029 – C6‑0062/2009 – 2009/0004(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure – Consultation)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2009)0029),
– having regard to Articles 93 and 94 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6‑0062/2009),
– having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures’ (COM(2009)0665),
– having regard to Articles 113 and 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,
– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0006/2010),
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
2. Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 293(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU;
3. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;
4. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, to the Commission and to the national parliaments.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 9 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
(9a) In order correctly to apply and verify the Member States’ different tax regimes, adequate information is needed on taxable activities carried out in other Member States. Of the different options, the automatic exchange of data seems to be the most effective way of communicating the current information required for accurate taxation, in particular in cross-border cases. In order to ensure the effectiveness of such automatic exchange of information, it is necessary to determine the categories and define the fields to which its application is mandatory. In addition, there should be the possibility of establishing a double limit depending on the categories for which information is communicated and/or the amount that triggers the mechanism. |
Justification | |
With respect to the automatic exchange of information, the field of application is specified and defined by establishing a number of categories of income and capital to which this method of automatic exchange would have to apply. There is also the possibility of establishing a double limit, depending on the categories for which information is communicated and/or the amount that triggers the mechanism. | |
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 10 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(10) The Member States should exchange automatically any information where a Member State has grounds to believe that a failure of compliance with tax laws has been committed or is likely to have been committed in the other Member State, where there is a risk of inappropriate taxation in the other Member State, or where tax has been or may be evaded or avoided for any reason in the other Member State, and especially where there is an artificial transfer of profits between enterprises in different Member States or where such transactions are carried out between enterprises in two Member States through a third country in order to obtain tax advantages. |
(10) The Member States should exchange automatically any information, while ensuring the protection of customer privacy, where a Member State has grounds to believe that a failure of compliance with tax laws has been committed or is likely to have been committed in the other Member State, where there is a risk of inappropriate taxation in the other Member State, or where tax has been or may be evaded or avoided for any reason in the other Member State, and especially where there is an artificial transfer of profits between enterprises in different Member States or where such transactions are carried out between enterprises in two Member States through a third country in order to obtain tax advantages. |
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 11 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
(11a) Such information should also be protected under Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data1 and under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data2. The Member States and the Commission should respect the obligations relating to transparency and information with regard to the interested parties in cases involving retrieval of the personal data. An appropriate level of protection, limited storage period, and accountability of the data keeper institution or body should be ensured. |
|
|
_______________________________ |
|
|
1 OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31. |
|
|
2 OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1. |
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(12) It is important that officials of the tax administration of one Member State are allowed to be present in the territory of another Member State and may exercise the powers of inspection conferred on officials of the requested Member State. |
(12) In order to boost cooperation between Member States’ tax administrations, it is important that officials of the tax administration of one Member State are allowed to be present in the territory of another. |
Justification | |
In order to ensure that the presence of officials of the tax administration of one Member State in the territory of another Member State is not counter-productive and does not detract from the usefulness of cooperation, the proposal that their powers be equal to those of officials in that State is removed. | |
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 17 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
(17a) In order to enhance the applicability and effectiveness of this Directive, the same level of obligation should apply both to the communication of information already available by the requested authority and to conducting the administrative inquiries necessary to obtain such information. |
Justification | |
It is proposed that the procedure for conducting administrative inquiries be put on the same footing as the communication of information. The same level of obligation is therefore placed on the requested authority as regards communicating information already available and conducting the administrative inquiries necessary to obtain this information. | |
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 19 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(19) However, a Member States should not refuse to transmit the information because it has no domestic interest or because the information relating to a resident of the other Member State is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person. |
(19) However, a Member State should not refuse to transmit the information because it has no domestic interest or because the information is held by a bank or another financial institution, or a nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person. |
Justification | |
In relation to the lifting of banking secrecy, and in order to ensure that the effectiveness of this measure is not restricted by additional requirements, the reference to the residence in the requesting country of the person on whom the information is sought is removed. This is consistent with the standards followed within the OECD. | |
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 20 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(20) It should also be made clear that where a Member State provides a wider cooperation to a third country than is provided for under this Directive, it should not refuse to provide such wider cooperation to the other Member States. |
(20) It should also be made clear that where a Member State provides wider cooperation to a third country than is provided for under this Directive, it should not refuse to provide such wider cooperation to the other Member States. Any transfer of personal data to a third country should be made in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC. |
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Recital 22 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(22) An evaluation of the effectiveness of administrative cooperation should be made, especially on the basis of statistics. |
(22) In order to strengthen and deepen administrative cooperation, an evaluation should be made of the effectiveness of the implementation of this Directive, based especially on statistics. It is also necessary to monitor cases where the Member States have refused to communicate information or conduct an administrative inquiry. |
Justification | |
In order to improve the exchange of information between the different national authorities, it is proposed that cases where the Member States have refused to communicate information or conduct an administrative inquiry should be monitored. | |
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Recital 23 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
(23a) The Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of technical improvements to the categories of income and capital that are subject to the automatic exchange of information and to the thresholds of income above which the information exchange must be carried out. In view of the specific nature of the administrative cooperation, the empowerment should be for an indeterminate period of time. |
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – point 6 – point d | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
(d) any legal arrangement, including partnerships and trusts, whose income or capital are subject to any of the taxes covered by this Directive; |
(d) any other legal instrument or arrangement, regardless of its nature or form and whether or not it has legal personality, that may own and manage assets, including income therefrom, that are subject to any of the taxes covered by this Directive; |
Justification | |
With respect to the scope, a definition is needed which is broad enough to cover not just natural and legal persons but also any legal instruments and arrangements that may be created in the different Member States. | |
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – point 8 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
8. “by electronic means” means using electronic equipment for the processing, including digital compression, and storage of data, and employing wires, radio transmission, optical technologies or other electromagnetic means; |
8. “by electronic means” means using electronic equipment for the processing, including digital compression, and storage of data, and employing wires, radio transmission, optical technologies or other electromagnetic means, where such means can be conducted while guaranteeing secure protection of information; |
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Article 7 a (new) (in Section I ‘Exchange of information on request’) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
Article 7a |
|
|
Control systems |
|
|
Each Member State shall develop appropriate control systems for its single taxation liaison office, in the interests of transparency and cost-effectiveness, and shall draw up a publicly accessible report, in the context of an annual monitoring exercise, accordingly. |
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 1 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
1. The competent authority of each Member States shall, by automatic exchange, forward information on specific categories of income and capital to the other Member States. |
1. The competent authority of each Member State shall, by automatic exchange, communicate to the competent authority of the other Member State information relating to persons who are tax resident in that other Member State on the following specific categories of income and capital: |
|
|
(a) income from work; |
|
|
(b) directors’ emoluments; |
|
|
(c) dividends; |
|
|
(d) capital gains; |
|
|
(e) royalties; |
|
|
(f) life insurance products not covered by other Community legal instruments on the exchange of information and other similar measures; |
|
|
(g) pensions; |
|
|
(h) ownership of property and income derived therefrom. |
|
|
Such information shall be protected under Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. The Member States and the Commission shall respect the obligations relating to transparency and information with regard to the interested parties in cases involving retrieval of the personal data. An appropriate level of protection, limited storage period, and accountability of the data keeper institution or body shall be ensured. |
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
2. The Commission shall adopt, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 24(2), within two years of the entry into force of this Directive: |
2. With a view to improving the effectiveness of the assessment of the taxes referred to in Article 2 on the basis of the experience gathered by Member States, the Commission shall adopt, for the first time by ...*, delegated acts in accordance with Articles 22a, 22b and 22c, which:
|
|
(a) the categories of income and capital to be covered |
(a) clarify any specific condition or restriction within the categories referred to in paragraph 1; |
|
(b) the type of information to be exchanged; |
(b) specify for each category of income and capital the threshold above which the information exchange must be carried out. |
|
(c) any specific condition or restriction within the categories referred to in point (a); |
|
|
(d) the frequency of the exchanges; |
|
|
(e) the practical arrangements for the exchange of information. |
|
|
|
* OJ please insert date: 2 years after the entry into force of this Directive. |
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
2a. The Commission shall evaluate and report annually to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of the automatic exchange of information. On the basis of its evaluation, the Commission shall propose measures to improve the scope and quality of the automatic exchange requirement in order to enhance the smooth functioning of the internal market. |
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 3 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
3a. The competent authority in one Member State may notify the competent authority of another Member State that it does not wish to receive information on the categories of income and capital referred to in paragraph 1 or that it does not wish to receive information on such income and capital that is not above a certain threshold. In such a case, that competent authority shall also inform the Commission thereof. |
Justification | |
With respect to the automatic exchange of information, the field of application is specified and defined by establishing a number of categories of income and capital to which this method of automatic exchange would have to apply. There is also the possibility of establishing a double limit, depending on the categories for which information is communicated and/or the amount that triggers the mechanism. | |
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 3 b (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
3b. The information shall be communicated at least annually, and no later than six months after the end of the financial year in the Member State in which the information has been obtained. |
Justification | |
Proper enforcement of national taxation systems requires that information resulting from the automatic exchange be communicated on a regular basis within a fixed time limit allowing it to be processed and used within the periods laid down by law in each Member State. | |
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
4. Where Member States conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements with a view to the correct assessment of the taxes referred to in Article 2, they shall provide for automatic exchange of information relating to certain categories of income and capital. For that purpose, they shall specify in those agreements the following elements: |
4. Where Member States conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements with a view to the correct assessment of the taxes referred to in Article 2, they shall provide for automatic exchange of information relating to certain categories of income and capital, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001. For that purpose, they shall specify in those agreements the following elements: |
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Article 10 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
2. Where officials of the requesting authority are present during administrative enquiries pursuant to the paragraph 1, they may exercise the powers of inspection conferred on officials of the requested authority, under the condition that they exercise these powers in accordance with the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the requested Member State. |
2. Where officials of the requesting authority are present during administrative inquiries pursuant to paragraph 1, they may, in agreement with the requested authority and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the latter, take part in the inquiry. |
Justification | |
In order to ensure that the presence of officials of the tax administration of one Member State in the territory of another Member State is not counter-productive and does not detract from the usefulness of cooperation, the proposal that their powers be equal to those of officials in that State is removed. | |
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Article 17 – paragraph 2 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
2. In no case shall Article 16(2) and (4) be construed as permitting a requested authority of a Member State to decline to supply information concerning a person resident for tax purposes in the Member State of the requesting authority solely because this information is held by a bank, other financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person. |
2. In no case shall Article 16(2) and (4) be construed as permitting a requested authority of a Member State to decline to supply relevant information within the meaning of Article 5(1) solely because this information is held by a bank or another financial institution, or a nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or because it relates to ownership interests in a person. |
Justification | |
As regards the lifting of banking secrecy, and to prevent the effectiveness of that measure being blunted by additional requirements, the amendment removes the reference to the person on whom the information is sought as being resident in the requesting country. This is consistent with the standards observed within the OECD. | |
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
2a. Member States shall notify the Commission annually of any refusals to communicate information or to conduct an administrative inquiry, indicating the reasons for such refusal. The Commission shall assess the information so notified and shall make recommendations with a view to reducing the number of such cases in accordance with Article 24(3). |
Justification | |
In order to improve the exchange of information between the different national authorities, it is proposed to monitor cases where the Member States have refused to communicate information or conduct an administrative inquiry. | |
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive V a – title (new) | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
|
CHAPTER Va |
|
|
DELEGATED ACTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive Article 22 a (new) | |
|
|
Article 22a |
|
|
Exercise of the delegation |
|
|
1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 8(2) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time. |
|
|
2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. |
|
|
3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 22b and Article 22c. |
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive Article 22 b (new) | |
|
|
Article 22b |
|
|
Revocation of the delegation |
|
|
1. The delegation of power referred to Article 8(2) may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council. |
|
|
2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission, stating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation. |
|
|
3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive Article 22c (new) | |
|
|
Article 22c |
|
|
Objections to delegated acts |
|
|
1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of four months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council that period shall be extended by two months. |
|
|
2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force at the date stated therein. |
|
|
3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act. |
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
1. Where the competent authority of a Member State receives information with a view to the correct assessment of the taxes referred in Article 2 from a third country, that authority shall provide that information to the competent authorities of Member States for which that information might be useful and, in any event, to all those which request it, in so far as this is not excluded by international agreements with that third country. |
1. Where the competent authority of a Member State receives information with a view to the correct assessment of the taxes referred in Article 2 from a third country, that authority shall provide that information to the competent authorities of Member States for which that information is necessary for an accurate assessment of those taxes and, in any event, to all those which request it, in so far as this is not excluded by international agreements with that third country. |
Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive Article 23 – paragraph 2 – introductory part | |
|
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment |
|
2.Competent authorities may communicate, in accordance with their domestic provisions on the communication of personal data to third countries, information obtained in accordance with this Directive to a third country, provided that all of the following conditions are met: |
2.Competent authorities may communicate, in accordance with their domestic provisions on the communication of personal data to third countries. information obtained in accordance with this Directive to a third country. Any such transfer of information to a third country shall be made in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC and provided that all of the following conditions are met: |
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Background
Before the end of the previous parliamentary term, the European Commission adopted a number of legislative proposals in the field of combating fraud and tax evasion in the European Union. The proposal for a directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation is a key element of this common strategy.
The importance of this proposal is linked to the special significance of the impact of tax fraud in the EU. In the first instance, tax fraud has serious implications for national budgets from the point of view of public spending in the general interest, particularly on health, education and research. Secondly, it leads to violations of the principle of fair taxation with respect to the citizens and companies that do meet their obligations. And thirdly, it brings about distortions of competition, thereby affecting the operation of the internal market.
At times of economic crisis such as the present when all countries are more acutely affected by deficits, any reduction in resources has an even greater impact. In order to fully grasp the seriousness of this situation, we ought to bear in mind the scale of tax fraud in the European Union, which, according to some estimates, amounts to over €200 000 million a year, or over 2 % of GDP. If we compare this figure with that for the economic recovery plan proposed by the European Commission to tackle the consequences of the financial crisis, which amounts to 1% of GDP, we see that combating tax fraud poses a major economic challenge.
The crisis has also highlighted the full extent of fiscal engineering and the opaqueness of the market, as well as showing that actions taken in one country have major repercussions on the economy of others.
One of the other reasons that demonstrates the usefulness of this proposal is that citizens and leaders have now become aware of the need to put an end to the sort of scandalous situations that we have experienced recently. At this time of crisis, it is all the more obvious that we do not ignore any source of income for the European economies in order to cover the exceptional expenditure to mitigate the effects of this crisis and to reduce, where necessary, high budget deficits.
The Commission proposal and the rapporteur’s assessment
Even though the directive currently in force is undoubtedly a first step in this direction, as the general idea of administrative cooperation in the field of taxation has effectively been accepted by all the Member States, its implementation has obviously failed to give tangible results. The rapporteur therefore considers that the time has come to propose new improvements in the field of taxation so that developments go hand in hand with the integration of the market. In this respect, the directive proposed by the Commission represents both a quantitative and qualitative leap forward. Quantitative, because it sets new obligations; and qualitative because it extends and specifies the existing obligations. The main improvements proposed by the Commission can be summarised as follows:
In Chapter I, the scope of the directive has been extended by introducing a general clause that includes all taxes. It is established, for the first time, that administrative cooperation under the directive will apply to all direct and indirect taxes, including compulsory social security contributions, with the exception of VAT and excise duties, which have their own more advanced rules. This represents progress in comparison to the current directive, which only covers taxes on income and capital and on insurance premiums. The rapporteur is convinced that extending the scope will result in more effective fiscal management.
Chapter II is devoted to the automatic exchange of information and specifies this as the general rule when sharing current information between tax administrations. The proposal states that this is the reference method for exchanging information, which goes even further than the OECD standards. This is a genuine improvement on the current directive, since preference is currently given to exchange on request. In so saying, it is understood that efforts should continue to be made to refine all methods of information exchange in accordance with the circumstances and type of data specified in each case.
The most striking innovation introduced in Chapter III is a more comprehensive rule on the presence of officials from one Member State in the offices of another Member State’s administration and their involvement in administrative inquiries. The mere possibility that is mentioned in the current legislation thus becomes a more specific and detailed procedure in this proposal for a directive, which will probably make the presence and participation of officials from one Member State in another easier, when circumstances recommend such courses of action.
Chapter IV contains the most important legislative innovation in the proposal – the lifting of banking secrecy, which can be considered the main regulatory obstacle to administrative cooperation. The rapporteur thinks that Parliament should send the Council a clear message supporting this measure which transposes the intended provision in the OECD’s Model Tax Convention. Such legislation is undoubtedly welcome as there is currently a significant level of international consensus on the need to improve fiscal governance, as voiced in the firm statements made by the G20 on ending banking secrecy. The Commission proposal accurately reflects the sentiments of most citizens, who are always opposed to any possibility that there be areas in the field of tax cooperation that might encourage evasion and permit fraud, particularly in a crisis situation when a huge collective effort is required.
With respect to the international aspects of the proposal, the rapporteur considers the introduction of a most-favoured-nation clause to be a very positive step so that the Member States guarantee, between themselves, the same level of cooperation as they have with third countries. This will mean that the Member States conduct all their cooperation relations in the field of taxation in the Community register.
In the light of the above, the rapporteur is thus generally in favour of the Commission proposal. The amendments presented seek to reinforce some elements of the proposal in order to improve the effectiveness of administrative cooperation, with respect to the following aspects:
§ With respect to the scope, a definition is needed which is broad enough to cover not just natural and legal persons but also any legal instruments and arrangements that may be created in the different Member States.
§ With respect to the automatic exchange of information, the field of application is specified and defined by establishing a number of categories of income and capital to which this method of automatic exchange would have to apply. There is also the possibility of establishing a double limit, depending on the categories for which information is communicated and/or the amount that triggers the mechanism.
§ In order to ensure that the presence of officials of the tax administration of one Member State in the territory of another Member State is not counter-productive and does not detract from the usefulness of cooperation, the proposal that their powers be equal to those of officials in that State is removed.
§ It is proposed that the procedure for conducting administrative inquiries be put on the same footing as the communication of information. The same level of obligation is therefore placed on the requested authority as regards communicating information already available and conducting the administrative inquiries necessary to obtain this information.
§ In relation to the lifting of banking secrecy, and in order to ensure that the effectiveness of this measure is not restricted by additional requirements, the reference to the residence in the requesting country of the person on whom the information is sought is removed. This is consistent with the standards followed within the OECD.
§ In order to improve the exchange of information between the different national authorities, it is proposed to monitor cases where the Member States have refused to communicate information or conduct an administrative inquiry.
§ Finally, with respect to the need for the proposed directive, attention is drawn to the current economic crisis and the special importance of tax fraud in this context, as these factors reinforce the urgency of adopting this reform.
Conclusion
The proposal presented by the Commission is a step forward in meeting the need for more effective cooperation measures to combat fraud and tax evasion on a European scale.
The proposal reinforces the national fiscal sovereignty of the different Member States by offering new instruments to manage their own fiscal resources in a more tangible and effective way. At the same time, it helps to advance the process of European integration since it is clear that whenever progress is made in European integration it is all the more necessary to have adequate fiscal integration, from the political, economic and administrative perspectives, as without this integration the European project cannot be achieved.
PROCEDURE
|
Title |
Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation |
|||||||
|
References |
COM(2009)0029 – C6-0062/2009 – 2009/0004(CNS) |
|||||||
|
Date of consulting Parliament |
16.2.2009 |
|||||||
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ECON 19.10.2009 |
|||||||
|
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s) Date announced in plenary |
CONT 19.10.2009 |
JURI 19.10.2009 |
|
|
||||
|
Not delivering opinions Date of decision |
CONT 1.10.2009 |
JURI 5.10.2009 |
|
|
||||
|
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed |
Magdalena Alvarez 21.7.2009 |
|
|
|||||
|
Discussed in committee |
9.11.2009 |
1.12.2009 |
21.1.2010 |
|
||||
|
Date adopted |
27.1.2010 |
|
|
|
||||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
37 4 4 |
||||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Burkhard Balz, Sharon Bowles, Udo Bullmann, Pascal Canfin, Nikolaos Chountis, George Sabin Cutaş, Leonardo Domenici, Derk Jan Eppink, Markus Ferber, Elisa Ferreira, Vicky Ford, José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Sylvie Goulard, Enikő Győri, Liem Hoang Ngoc, Eva Joly, Othmar Karas, Wolf Klinz, Jürgen Klute, Werner Langen, Astrid Lulling, Arlene McCarthy, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Ivari Padar, Alfredo Pallone, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Olle Schmidt, Edward Scicluna, Peter Simon, Peter Skinner, Theodor Dumitru Stolojan, Ivo Strejček, Kay Swinburne, Marianne Thyssen, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells |
|||||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Magdalena Alvarez, Marta Andreasen, Sophie Briard Auconie, David Casa, Danuta Jazłowiecka, Arturs Krišjānis Kariņš, Philippe Lamberts, Thomas Mann, Andreas Schwab |
|||||||
|
Date tabled |
1.2.2010 |
|||||||