REPORT on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation
20.10.2015 - (COM(2015)0135 – C8‑0085/2015 – 2015/0068(CNS)) - *
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
Rapporteur: Markus Ferber
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation
(COM(2015)0135 – C8‑0085/2015 – 2015/0068(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure – consultation)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2015)0135),
– having regard to Article 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8‑0085/2015),
– having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0306/2015),
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
2. Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, in accordance with Article 293(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
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 substantially amend the Commission proposal;
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Citation 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the respect for the right to the protection of personal data and the freedom to conduct a business, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(1) The challenge posed by cross-border tax avoidance, aggressive tax planning and harmful tax competition has increased considerably and has become a major focus of concern within the Union and at global level. Tax base erosion is considerably reducing national tax revenues, which hinders Member States in applying growth-friendly tax policies. In particular, rulings concerning tax-driven structures lead to a low level of taxation of artificially high amounts of income in the country giving the advance ruling and may leave artificially low amounts of income to be taxed in any other countries involved. An increase in transparency is therefore urgently required. The tools and mechanisms established by Council Directive 2011/16/EU13 need to be enhanced in order to achieve this. |
(1) The challenge posed by cross-border tax avoidance, aggressive tax planning and harmful tax competition has increased considerably and has become a major focus of concern within the Union and at global level. Tax base erosion is considerably reducing national tax revenues, which hinders Member States in applying growth-friendly tax policies, causes distortions of competition to the detriment of undertakings – particularly SMEs – which pay the correct amounts of tax and shifts taxation towards less mobile factors such as labour and consumption. However, in specific cases, rulings concerning tax-driven structures have led to a low level of taxation of artificially high amounts of income in the country giving the advance ruling and have left artificially low amounts of income to be taxed in any other countries involved, thereby reducing the tax base in these Member States. An increase in targeted transparency and exchange of information is therefore urgently required at least in accordance with OECD standards. The tools and mechanisms established by Council Directive 2011/16/EU13 need to be enhanced in order to achieve this. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________________ |
__________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 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 of 11.3.2011, p. 1). |
13 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 of 11.3.2011, p. 1). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(1a) Following the LuxLeaks scandal and by means of this report, the European Parliament expresses its strong determination not to tolerate tax fraud and tax avoidance as well as to advocate for a fair distribution of the tax burden between citizens and companies. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(2) The European Council, in its conclusions of 18 December 2014, underlined the urgent need to advance efforts in the fight against tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, both at the global and Union levels. Stressing the importance of transparency, the European Council welcomed the Commission’s intention to submit a proposal on the automatic exchange of information on tax rulings in the Union. |
(2) The European Council, in its conclusions of 18 December 2014, underlined the urgent need to advance efforts in the fight against tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, both at the global and European levels. Stressing the importance of transparency and corresponding information exchange, the European Council welcomed the Commission’s intention to submit a proposal on the automatic exchange of information on tax rulings in the Union. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(4) However, the efficient spontaneous exchange of information in respect of advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements is hindered by several important practical difficulties such as the discretion permitted to the issuing Member State to decide which other Member States should be informed. |
(4) However, the efficient spontaneous exchange of information in respect of advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements is hindered by several important practical difficulties such as the discretion permitted to the issuing Member State to decide which other Member States should be informed and the weak monitoring system which makes it difficult for the Commission to identify any violation of the requirement to exchange information. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(4a) An efficient exchange and processing of tax information and the resulting peer pressure would have a strong deterrent effect against the introduction of harmful tax practices and would allow Member States and the Commission to have all the relevant information at their disposal in order to take action against such practices. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5b) In order to avoid arbitrary distinctions between tax arrangements that arise in the context of different national administrative practices, the definitions of advance rulings and advance pricing arrangements should cover tax arrangements regardless of the formal or informal manner in which they were issued, and irrespective of their binding or non-binding nature. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 c (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5c) Advanced tax rulings facilitate the consistent and transparent application of the law. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 d (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(5d) Transparent tax rules provide legal certainty for taxpayers and businesses and generate investment. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Recital 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Recital 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Recital 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(8) Member States should exchange the basic information to be communicated also with the Commission. This would enable the Commission at any point in time to monitor and evaluate the effective application of the automatic exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements. Such communication will not discharge a Member State from its obligations to notify any state aid to the Commission. |
(8) Member States should exchange the basic information to be communicated also with the Commission, since the Commission should be able to assess independently if such information is relevant for detecting illegal state aid. This basic information should enable the Commission at any point in time to efficiently monitor and evaluate the effective application of the automatic exchange of information on advance rulings and advance pricing arrangements and to ensure that rulings do not have a negative impact on the internal market. Such communication will not discharge a Member State from its obligations to notify any state aid to the Commission. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Recital 8 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(8a) Before 1 October 2018 Member States should provide the Commission with an ex-post analysis of the effectiveness of this Directive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Recital 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(9) Feedback by the receiving Member State to the Member State sending the information is a necessary element of the operation of an effective system of automatic information exchange. It is therefore appropriate to provide for measures enabling the provision of feedback in cases where the information has been used and where no feedback can be provided under other provisions of Directive 2011/16/EU. |
(9) Feedback by the receiving Member State to the Member State sending the information is a necessary element of the operation of an effective system of automatic information exchange, as it encourages administrative cooperation between Member States. It is therefore appropriate to provide for measures enabling the provision of feedback in cases where the information has been used and where no feedback can be provided under other provisions of Directive 2011/16/EU. This would make it more difficult to circumvent the information for purposes of fraud. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Recital 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(10) A Member State should be able to rely on Article 5 of Directive 2011/16/EU as regards the exchange of information on request to obtain additional information, including the full text of advance cross-border rulings or advance pricing arrangements, from the Member State having issued such rulings or arrangements. |
(10) A Member State should be able to rely on Article 5 of Directive 2011/16/EU as regards the exchange of information on request to obtain additional information, including the full text of advance rulings or advance pricing arrangements, from the Member State having issued such rulings or arrangements and any texts which effect subsequent changes. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Recital 10 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(10a) The expression ‘information that is foreseeably relevant’ as referred to in Article 1(1) of Directive 2011/16/EU should be clarified in order to prevent interpretations whose purpose is avoidance. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Recital 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(12b) It is desirable that the Member States ask their competent authorities to allocate human resources from among their existing staff to gather and analyse such information. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 c (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(12c) By 26 June 2017, an EU-wide register for beneficial ownership should be operational, which will aid in tracking down possible tax avoidance and profit shifting. The creation of a central register for automatic exchange of advanced tax rulings or price arrangements between Member States, which would be accessible to tax authorities and responsible administrations in the Member States and the Commission would be significant. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive Recital 15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive Recital 15 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(15a) It is essential that the fundamental principle of the Member States’ sovereignty in tax matters is upheld where direct taxes are concerned and that the current proposal does not jeopardise the subsidiarity principle. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(16) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Directive seeks to ensure full respect for the right to the protection of personal data and the freedom to conduct a business. |
(16) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Directive seeks to ensure full respect for the right to the protection of personal data and the freedom to conduct a business. The personal data should be processed for specific, explicit and legitimate purposes and only if adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes. Any restriction of those rights should only be imposed provided that the conditions set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights are complied with. Subject to the principle of proportionality, restrictions may be imposed provided that they comply with the necessary and true objectives of general interest recognised by the law, or satisfy the need to protect the rights and liberties of others. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive Recital 17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(17) Since the objective of this Directive, namely the efficient administrative cooperation between Member States under conditions compatible with the proper functioning of the Internal Market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the uniformity and effectiveness required, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on 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. |
(17) Since the objective of this Directive, namely the efficient administrative cooperation between Member States under conditions compatible with the proper functioning of the Internal Market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the uniformity and effectiveness required, be better achieved at European level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on 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 27 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point a Directive 2011/16/EU Article 3 – point 9 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/16/EU Article 3 – point 14 – introductory part | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/16/EU Article 3 – point 14 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/16/EU Article 3 – point 14 – point c | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/16/EU Article 3 – point 14 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/16/EU Article 3 – point 15 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 1 – point b Directive 2011/16/EU Article 3 – point 16 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 3 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 4 – point a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 4 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 40 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point b | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 41 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point b a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point d | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point e | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point e a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point e b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 46 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point e c (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 5 – point e d (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8 a – paragraph 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 50 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 9 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 9 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justification | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Code of Conduct Group was designed for such notifications but it has proven its limits. So the Commission should establish a mechanism via which member states can notify the Commission and other member states about any relevant change in their corporate tax law if this can have an impact on its own tax rates and/or on another member state's tax revenue. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8b – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 54 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8b – paragraph 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 55 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 14 – paragraph 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 56 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 5 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 20 – paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 57 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 6 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 21 – paragraph 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 58 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 23 a – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 59 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 23a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 60 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 23a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 61 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new) Directive 2011/16/EU Article 23 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 62 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1– point 9 a (new) Directive 2011/16/EU Article 25 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 63 Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 1– point 9 b (new) Directive 2011/16/EU Article 25 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 64 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 c (new) Directive 2011/16/EU Article 27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Introduction
The challenge posed by cross-border tax avoidance, aggressive tax planning and harmful tax competition has increased considerably and has become a major focus of concern within the Union and at global level.
In its resolution of 21 May 2013, the European Parliament emphasised that the EU should take a leading role in global discussions on the fight against tax fraud, tax avoidance and tax havens, in particular in relation to promoting the exchange of information.
Under the current legal framework (Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation), Member States share very little information with one another about their tax rulings.
A tax ruling is a confirmation or assurance that tax authorities give to tax-payers on how their tax will be calculated. Tax rulings are typically issued to provide legal certainty for taxpayers, often by confirming the tax treatment of a large or complex commercial transaction. Tax rulings are mostly given in advance of the transaction taking place or a tax return being filed.
Member States have discretion to decide whether a tax ruling might be relevant to another EU country. As a result, Member States do not spontaneously exchange their tax rulings and are often unaware of cross-border tax rulings issued elsewhere in the EU which may impact their own tax bases. The lack of transparency on tax rulings is being exploited by certain companies in order to artificially reduce their tax contribution.
An increase in transparency is therefore urgently required. The tools and mechanisms established by Council Directive 2011/16/EU need to be enhanced in order to achieve this.
The Commission proposal
The draft directive amends Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation, as amended by Directive 2014/107/EU. It introduces a new Article into the existing Directive, setting out the scope and conditions for the mandatory automatic exchange of information on types of cross-border tax rulings and transfer pricing arrangements. This obligation is extended to rulings issued in the ten years before the date on which the proposed Directive takes effect that are still valid on the date of entry into force of the Directive.
Specific aspects of the proposal
Scope of the exchange of information
The Commission proposes to limit the scope of mandatory exchange of information to cross-border tax rulings and transfer pricing arrangements.
Timeline to exchange information
The Commission proposes to set a strict timeline: every three months, national tax authorities will have to send a report, via a secure email system, to all other Member States on all cross-border tax rulings that they have issued. Member States will then be able to ask for more detailed information on a particular ruling.
Information to be provided
The proposal outlines the standard information that Member States would have to include in the quarterly reports on their tax rulings. This covers:
- Name of taxpayer and group (where this applies);
- A description of the issues addressed in the tax ruling;
- A description of the criteria used to determine an advance pricing arrangement;
- Identification of the Member State(s) most likely to be affected;
- Identification of any other taxpayer likely to be affected (apart from natural persons)
The Commission proposes that the way this information is presented is standardised via a delegated act.
Secure central directory
The proposed Directive also enables the possible creation by the Commission of a secure central directory where information to be communicated in the framework of the Directive may be recorded. The Commission will have access to the information recorded in this directory.
Some issues for discussion
Your rapporteur has a global positive assessment of the proposal, notably on the obligation to exchange rulings issued in the ten years before the date on which the proposed Directive takes effect and that are still valid on the date of entry into force of the Directive. Your rapporteur does not consider necessary to extend this period beyond the ten years since data might not be available anymore.
On the scope of the mandatory exchange of information, your rapporteur has doubts as regards limiting the mandatory exchange of information to cross-border tax rulings and price arrangements. Indeed, he considers that advance tax rulings and price arrangements may have a cross-border dimension even though they relate to purely national transactions, notably in the case of cascade transactions where the advance tax ruling or price arrangement concerns the first national transactions, without consideration of the next (cross-border) transactions.
Furthermore, your rapporteur considers that in order to reap the benefits of the mandatory automatic exchange of advance rulings and advance pricing arrangements, the information should be communicated promptly after they are issued.
In order to enhance transparency for citizens, the Commission should on the basis of the content of the secure central directory publish an annual report summarizing the main cases while respecting the confidentiality provisions outlined in the Directive.
Conclusion
The rapporteur welcomes the Commission's proposal as a positive step towards more transparency. He however considers that the proposal would gain in clarity and efficiency with the proposed amendments.
14.10.2015
OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs
for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation
(COM(2015)0135 – C8‑0085/2015 – 2015/0068(CNS))
Rapporteur: Angel Dzhambazki
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:
Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Citation 2 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the respect for the right to the protection of personal data and the freedom to conduct a business, | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(1) The challenge posed by cross-border tax avoidance, aggressive tax planning and harmful tax competition has increased considerably and has become a major focus of concern within the Union and at global level. Tax base erosion is considerably reducing national tax revenues, which hinders Member States in applying growth-friendly tax policies. In particular, rulings concerning tax-driven structures lead to a low level of taxation of artificially high amounts of income in the country giving the advance ruling and may leave artificially low amounts of income to be taxed in any other countries involved. An increase in transparency is therefore urgently required. The tools and mechanisms established by Council Directive 2011/16/EU13 need to be enhanced in order to achieve this. |
(1) The challenge posed by cross-border tax avoidance, aggressive tax planning and harmful tax practices has increased considerably and has become a major focus of concern within the Union and at global level. Tax base erosion is considerably reducing national tax revenues, which hinders Member States in applying growth-friendly tax policies. However, some rulings concerning tax-driven structures led to a low level of taxation of artificially high amounts of income in the country issuing, amending or reviewing the advance ruling and left artificially low amounts of income to be taxed in any other countries involved. An increase in transparency and further action at EU level is therefore urgently required. Illegitimate tax avoidance models should be abolished. The tools and mechanisms established by Council Directive 2011/16/EU13 need to be enhanced in order to achieve this. | ||||||||||||||||||
________________ |
________________ | ||||||||||||||||||
13 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 of 11.3.2011, p. 1). |
13 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 of 11.3.2011, p. 1). | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(2) The European Council, in its conclusions of 18 December 2014, underlined the urgent need to advance efforts in the fight against tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning both at the global and Union levels. Stressing the importance of transparency, the European Council welcomed the Commission’s intention to submit a proposal on the automatic exchange of information on tax rulings in the Union. |
(2) The European Council, in its conclusions of 18 December 2014, underlined the urgent need to advance efforts in the fight against tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning both at the global and European levels. Stressing the importance of transparency, the European Council welcomed the Commission’s intention to submit a proposal on the automatic exchange of information on tax rulings in the Union. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(3) Directive 2011/16/EU provides for mandatory spontaneous exchange of information between Member States in five specific cases and within certain deadlines. The spontaneous exchange of information in cases where the competent authority of one Member State has grounds for supposing that there may be a loss of tax in another Member State already applies to tax rulings that a Member State gives to a specific taxpayer regarding the interpretation or application of tax provisions in the future and that have a cross-border dimension. |
(3) Directive 2011/16/EU provides for mandatory spontaneous exchange of information between Member States in five specific cases and within certain deadlines and clarifies that Member States are not at liberty to engage in ‘fishing expeditions’ or to request information that is unlikely to be relevant to the tax affairs of a given taxpayer. The spontaneous exchange of information in cases where the competent authority of one Member State has grounds for supposing that there may be a loss of tax in another Member State already applies to tax rulings that a Member State gives to a specific taxpayer regarding the interpretation or application of tax provisions in the future and that have a cross-border dimension. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(5) The possibility that the provision of information may be refused where it would lead to the disclosure of a commercial, industrial or professional secret of a commercial process, or of information whose disclosure would be contrary to public policy should not apply to provisions of mandatory automatic exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements in order not to reduce the effectiveness of these exchanges. The limited nature of the information that is required to be shared with all Member States should ensure sufficient protection of those commercial interests. |
(5) The possibility that the provision of information may be refused where it would lead to the disclosure of a commercial, industrial or professional secret of a commercial process, or of information whose disclosure would be contrary to public policy should not apply to provisions of mandatory automatic exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements in order not to reduce the effectiveness, role and proper functioning of these exchanges. The limited nature of the information that is required to be shared with all Member States should ensure a minimum level of sufficient protection of those commercial interests. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(5a) Advanced tax rulings ensure the consistent and transparent application of the law. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(5b) Transparent tax rules provide legal certainty for taxpayers and businesses and generate investment. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Recital 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(6) In order to reap the benefits of the mandatory automatic exchange of advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements, the information should be communicated promptly after they are issued and therefore regular intervals for the communication of the information should be established. |
(6) In order to reap the benefits of the mandatory automatic exchange of advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements, the information should be communicated without delay after they are issued. Efficient and effective penalties can be developed in cases of non-compliance. . | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Recital 8 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(8) Member States should exchange the basic information to be communicated also with the Commission. This would enable the Commission at any point in time to monitor and evaluate the effective application of the automatic exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements. Such communication will not discharge a Member State from its obligations to notify any state aid to the Commission. |
(8) Member States should exchange the basic information with the new central transparent security register for tax matters. The role of the Commission, according to the Treaties, is to seek to ensure the proper application of Union law in the interest of the citizens. In this regard, the Commission should take the necessary steps to monitor compliance with the law to tackle tax avoidance, while respecting tax sovereignty. The fundamental principle of the Member States’ sovereignty in tax matters must be upheld where direct taxes are concerned and the subsidiarity principle must not be jeopardised. The Commission should apply EU state aid rules effectively and stringently to combat aggressive tax planning. It is of the utmost importance that companies pay taxes in the countries in which they generate their profits. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Recital 9 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(9) Feedback by the receiving Member State to the Member State sending the information is a necessary element of the operation of an effective system of automatic information exchange. It is therefore appropriate to provide for measures enabling the provision of feedback in cases where the information has been used and where no feedback can be provided under other provisions of Directive 2011/16/EU. |
(9) Feedback by the receiving Member State to the Member State sending the information is a necessary element of the operation of an effective system of automatic information exchange, as it encourages administrative cooperation between Member States. It is therefore appropriate to provide for measures enabling the provision of feedback in cases where the information has been used and where no feedback can be provided under other provisions of Directive 2011/16/EU. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Recital 11 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(11) Member States should take all measures necessary to remove any obstacle that might hinder the effective and widest possible mandatory automatic exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements. |
(11) Member States should take all measures necessary to remove any obstacle that might hinder the effective and widest possible mandatory automatic exchange of information on advance cross-border rulings and advance pricing arrangements in order to enhance cooperation and transparency, taking the global OECD standard for standard automatic exchange of information into consideration as a minimum standard and also the fact that Member States have committed to measures to prevent tax avoidance by implementing and considering going beyond G20-OECD models for country by country reporting. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Recital 15 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(15a) Account should also be taken of the reasoned opinion of the Swedish Parliament on the principle of subsidiarity sent under Article 6 of Protocol No 2, where it confirms that the current proposal is within the limits of what is necessary for achieving an effective exchange of information, while, on the other hand, considers that the broad manner of the requirement to provide information may generate such a large quantity of information that could impede the attainment of the aim; and where the Swedish Parliament also raises concerns that the present proposal goes beyond what is necessary in some respects, including the long period of retroactivity.; | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Recital 15 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
|
(15b) It is essential that the fundamental principle of the Member sStates’ 'sovereignty in tax matters must be upheld where direct taxes are concerned and that the current proposal must does not jeopardise the subsidiarity principle. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(16) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Directive seeks to ensure full respect for the right to the protection of personal data and the freedom to conduct a business. |
(16) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Directive seeks to ensure full respect for the right to the protection of personal data and the freedom to conduct a business. The personal data must be processed for specific, explicit and legitimate purposes and only if adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes. Any restriction of those rights should only be imposed provided that the conditions set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are complied with. Subject to the principle of proportionality, restrictions may be imposed provided that they comply with the necessary and true objectives of general interest recognised by the law, or satisfy the need to protect the rights and liberties of others. | ||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Recital 17 | |||||||||||||||||||
Text proposed by the Commission |
Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||
(17) Since the objective of this Directive, namely the efficient administrative cooperation between Member States under conditions compatible with the proper functioning of the Internal Market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the uniformity and effectiveness required, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on 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. |
(17) Since the objective of this Directive, namely the efficient administrative cooperation between Member States under conditions compatible with the proper functioning of the Internal Market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the uniformity and effectiveness required, be better achieved at European level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on 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 16 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a Directive 2011/16/EU Article 3 – point 9 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8a – paragraph 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 8 a – paragraph 7 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 Directive 2011/16/EU Article 23 a – paragraph 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1– point 9 a (new) Directive 2011/16/EU Article 25 a (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive Article 4 – paragraph 1– point 9 b (new) Directive 2011/16/EU Article 25 b (new) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Title |
Mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation |
||||
References |
COM(2015)0135 – C8-0085/2015 – 2015/0068(CNS) |
||||
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ECON 15.4.2015 |
|
|
|
|
Opinion by Date announced in plenary |
JURI 15.4.2015 |
||||
Rapporteur Date appointed |
Angel Dzhambazki 31.8.2015 |
||||
Discussed in committee |
15.9.2015 |
|
|
|
|
Date adopted |
13.10.2015 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
13 9 1 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Max Andersson, Joëlle Bergeron, Marie-Christine Boutonnet, Kostas Chrysogonos, Therese Comodini Cachia, Mady Delvaux, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Laura Ferrara, Enrico Gasbarra, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Mary Honeyball, Sajjad Karim, Dietmar Köster, Gilles Lebreton, António Marinho e Pinto, Julia Reda, Evelyn Regner, Pavel Svoboda, József Szájer, Axel Voss, Tadeusz Zwiefka |
||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Stefano Maullu |
||||
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote |
Andrew Lewer |
||||
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
Title |
Mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation |
||||
References |
COM(2015)0135 – C8-0085/2015 – 2015/0068(CNS) |
||||
Date of consulting Parliament |
31.3.2015 |
|
|
|
|
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary |
ECON 15.4.2015 |
|
|
|
|
Committees asked for opinions Date announced in plenary |
CONT 15.4.2015 |
IMCO 15.4.2015 |
JURI 15.4.2015 |
LIBE 15.4.2015 |
|
Not delivering opinions Date of decision |
CONT 16.6.2015 |
IMCO 20.4.2015 |
LIBE 31.3.2015 |
|
|
Rapporteurs Date appointed |
Markus Ferber 28.4.2015 |
|
|
|
|
Discussed in committee |
15.9.2015 |
13.10.2015 |
|
|
|
Date adopted |
13.10.2015 |
|
|
|
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
49 6 0 |
|||
Members present for the final vote |
Gerolf Annemans, Burkhard Balz, Hugues Bayet, Udo Bullmann, Esther de Lange, Fabio De Masi, Anneliese Dodds, Markus Ferber, Jonás Fernández, Elisa Ferreira, Sven Giegold, Sylvie Goulard, Roberto Gualtieri, Brian Hayes, Gunnar Hökmark, Danuta Maria Hübner, Cătălin Sorin Ivan, Petr Ježek, Georgios Kyrtsos, Philippe Lamberts, Bernd Lucke, Olle Ludvigsson, Fulvio Martusciello, Marisa Matias, Costas Mavrides, Bernard Monot, Luděk Niedermayer, Stanisław Ożóg, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Dariusz Rosati, Alfred Sant, Molly Scott Cato, Peter Simon, Renato Soru, Theodor Dumitru Stolojan, Kay Swinburne, Paul Tang, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Marco Valli, Tom Vandenkendelaere, Cora van Nieuwenhuizen, Miguel Viegas, Pablo Zalba Bidegain, Marco Zanni |
||||
Substitutes present for the final vote |
Bas Eickhout, Doru-Claudian Frunzulică, Danuta Jazłowiecka, Eva Kaili, Thomas Mann, Emmanuel Maurel, Siegfried Mureşan, Andreas Schwab, Nils Torvalds, Beatrix von Storch |
||||
Substitutes under Rule 200(2) present for the final vote |
Mark Demesmaeker |
||||
Date tabled |
20.10.2015 |
||||