All text 
Förfarande : 2020/2863(RSP)
Dokumentgång i plenum
Dokumentgång :

Ingivna texter :

O-000081/2020 (B9-0001/2021)

Debatter :

PV 20/01/2021 - 16
CRE 20/01/2021 - 16

Omröstningar :

Antagna texter :

XML 49k
Onsdagen den 20 januari 2021 - Bryssel Reviderad upplaga

16. Reformering av EU:s förteckning över skatteparadis (debatt)
Anföranden på video

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über

die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an den Rat über die Überarbeitung der EU-Liste der Steueroasen von Irene Tinagli und Paul Tang im Namen des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung (O-000081/2020 – B9-0001/21) (2020/2863(RSP)) und

die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über die Überarbeitung der EU-Liste der Steueroasen von Irene Tinagli und Paul Tang im Namen des Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung (O-000082/2020 – B9-0002/21) (2020/2863(RSP)).


  Paul Tang, author. – Mr President, let me mark this moment because it’s the first time — and I say this with pleasure and even pride —that the Subcommittee on Tax Matters (FISC) is participating in the plenary debate of the European Parliament.

I am convinced that FISC will manage to build broad majorities inside and outside this House, because what I have seen from discussions with the different political groups is that we have at least one notion of fairness in common — that is that everyone has to pay taxes.

That is the rule, and there are no exceptions to the rule. Not for billionaires, not for big polluters and not for big corporates.

This brings me to the blacklist of tax havens: the list of non—cooperative jurisdictions. It was long a deep wish of the European Parliament to have this list. Indeed, in 2017 we got our way when it was established for the first time. It was and is a good idea to name, to shame and, above all, to change. Change because being on the list should have, and must have, real consequences — both for the countries on the list and for the businesses that operate from those countries. But the Member States that ultimately decide on the list have forgotten just one thing: to include actual tax havens.

The Tax Justice Network has shown that the countries included on the list are responsible for only 2% of global tax avoidance. By comparison, the Netherlands alone — the country where I come from — is responsible for 8.5%, and the number one offender is the Cayman Islands, responsible for 16.5%. The list does not work yet.

And the nasty truth is that it’s not getting better; it’s getting worse. The Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Jersey. These are some of the world’s most renowned tax havens and they have been removed from the list.

Commissioner and Minister, imagine the shock I and others in the House felt when we learned that the Cayman Islands, the number one tax haven in the world, had been removed as well.

With the Member States failing to live up to their duty, it is for the Parliament to step up and tell it like it is. This list is confusing and ineffective. You have got to fix this. Give the list teeth with strict criteria and make it bite with defensive measures. No countries without a corporate tax system or with low effective corporate tax rates should go free.

Europe is suffering from Member States’ failure to live up to their duty. Our citizens are losing EUR 140 billion each year from corporate income tax losses. This is money that could have been spent on housing, on health, on care or, if you wish, on income taxes.

Our citizens want something different. They expect something different. 86% of them say that they want the EU to fight tax avoidance and tax evasion. Go fix it!

There is a democratic deficit. The citizen expects, yet the politicians do not deliver. A democratic deficit is not just that, but also the lack of transparency, because the discussions on taxation take place in the back rooms, although scrutiny and accountability are part and parcel of our democracy.

Taxation seems to be a debate for technocrats alone at this stage, and this should be changed. What you see in the resolution is that it calls for democratic standards to be obeyed. More specifically, it calls on the Council to disclose the participating members, the topics of discussion, the technical assessments, the summaries, the minutes and the conclusions of these meetings.

It also calls on the Chair of the Code of Conduct Group to visit the FISC committee regularly. It is part and parcel of our democratic process; scrutiny and accountability are part of that.

The resolution also calls for us to look in the mirror, because to fight tax avoidance through non-EU tax havens adds up to hypocrisy if we don’t look in the mirror. When we do, we will find that it’s not a pretty sight. The Netherlands, which I already mentioned, together with Luxembourg, Ireland, Hungary and other EU States are responsible for one third of global tax avoidance. This is why in the resolution Parliament commits itself to examine each and every policy [...]

(The President cut off the speaker)


  Ana Paula Zacarias, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, I’ve listened carefully to the honourable Mr Tang. Thank you for bringing this question to the plenary, as it is an important issue. The EU and its Member States are committed to strengthening good tax governance, fair taxation, global tax transparency and the fight against tax fraud and evasion, both at EU level and globally. The Ecofin Council produced a set of conclusions on 27 November 2020 on fair and effective taxation. This provided political guidance on further work on a modern EU tax environment. These conclusions also express the Council’s views on the Commission tax action plan, issued in July 2020, on good tax governance in the EU and beyond. The Council reiterated the importance of supporting the principles of good tax governance through the continuation of the successful work undertaken so far in the context of the Code of Conduct Group, including the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes, which should be further pursued and enhanced where necessary.

The Council therefore requested that the Code of Conduct Group continue its work. It also stressed the importance of fair treatment within the EU with respect to third countries and jurisdictions, while maintaining a continuous dialogue with third countries as well as with the OECD. The Code of Conduct Group will also pursue its discussions on ways and means to further improve the work on the code. This should take into account the successful lessons from other experience gained so far.

The EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes was revised most recently in October 2020 following an in-depth review of the implementation of the commitments made by third countries’ jurisdictions that are part of the process. The next revision of the EU list, which is scheduled for February at the Ecofin Council, is prepared by the Code of Conduct Group.

As regards defensive measures towards non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes, Member States and the Council adhere to a number of guiding principles. The defensive measures can have considerable consequences for the listed jurisdictions. The following aspects can be mentioned in this context. First, the key objective of the list is to ensure change, as Mr Tang said, and not punish the listed jurisdiction. Being listed entails reputational damage and we see that this aspect tangibly contributes to the efficiency of the EU list. More and more jurisdictions change their practice and adopt tax good governance; standards that are also applicable between the EU Member States.

So, on the second aspect, a number of EU-level defensive measures are being applied vis-à-vis the listed jurisdictions, and these can have financial consequences. The work in this area is also continuing with the assistance of the Commission.

And third, Member States are also free to apply national lists or defensive measures that go beyond what is agreed at the EU level or in the intergovernmental context of the Code of Conduct Group.

Finally, it is important to recall that the measures agreed in 2017 in the Council were reviewed in 2019 in the Code of Conduct Group, and Member States agreed to continue this work during this year. This reflects the fact that Member States have different legal systems, different laws and it takes time to design new measures. Work on defensive measures will not stop. Coordination will continue, and it’s likely to increase in the near future. Should the Commission choose to table a legislative proposal in this area, it will of course be examined by the Council in accordance with the treaty requirements and taking into account the limits of the EU’s competence in these matters.


  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable members, first of all let me thank the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Subcommittee on Tax Matters (FISC), and the rapporteur, Mr Tang, for putting the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance at the forefront of the agenda.

The EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions will continue to play an important role in the years to come. And, I think, especially at this moment in time, in order to help overcome the economic and social crisis also caused by the pandemic, we have to strengthen these tools.

The Commission announced a commitment to work to strengthen these tools in July 2020, and this commitment will continue. Of course, there is a need to improve tax good governance, not only globally, but also within the EU. Member States are subject to reviews under various tools, and these tools include the Code of Conduct for business taxation, whose reform is an absolute priority, and infringement procedures in the areas directly covered by EU law. I count on the European Parliament to continue pushing for an ambitious agenda. I am glad to hear the Council’s commitment in this direction.

The Commission actively engaged with Member States in the different Council groups to discuss the follow-up to the communication on tax good governance in Europe and beyond. As a result, the Council adopted conclusions, as it was reminded, which take note of the communication and reiterate the importance of the principles of tax good governance and the need to enhance the EU listing process.

This is an important step as it recognises that more work is needed. I have in mind, in particular, the revision of the Code of Conduct for business taxation. Any change in this respect will have a major impact on the EU listing process. The progress on the discussions of minimally effective taxation in the context of Pillar Two of the OECD’s report are accordingly crucial for the code and, consequently, also for the EU listing process, and will have an effect on our fair taxation criterion, including zero-tax jurisdictions.

The EU listing also requires improved administrative cooperation, in particular through the exchange of tax information. This is why the Commission will continue to work on extending the EU list criteria to cover effective exchanges of information under the Common Reporting Standard, country-by-country reporting between tax authorities and beneficial ownership information.

I believe that it is also necessary that we focus on the right jurisdictions, and consider whether any relevant jurisdiction is missing from our radar. This is the reason why the Commission is working on a revision of the scoreboard, and uses enhanced selection criteria for identifying jurisdictions and prioritising their screening under the EU listing process.

The Commission is also looking forward to assessing the actions undertaken by Member States towards enacting domestic defensive measures vis-à-vis listed jurisdictions. I reiterate on this occasion that we are ready to take any necessary initiatives in case the results are not in line with our expectations, including by way of legislative proposal.

Finally, I believe that the Council should report regularly to the Parliament regarding its work on non-cooperative jurisdictions. This would improve the mutual understanding of the process and would help to focus on improving the EU listing process.


  Lídia Pereira, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhor Presidente, num tempo de crise em que precisamos de todos os recursos que conseguimos mobilizar, a começar pelos financeiros, os nossos orçamentos nacionais não podem continuar a perder, todos os anos, 20% das receitas com o imposto sobre as sociedades em transferências para paraísos fiscais.

Cada cêntimo que deixamos de receber faz falta para ajudar a reconstruir e a relançar a economia e o emprego. Precisamos de empresas europeias competitivas. São as empresas, sobretudo as PME, o motor da nossa recuperação. Por isso, é importante continuar a contar com o mercado interno, com uma concorrência também fiscal, leal e justa.

É precisamente por acreditarmos nesta justiça e lealdade que não podemos transigir na utilização de paraísos fiscais para ocultação de rendimentos e para evitar o pagamento de impostos que são devidos.

A lista negra de paraísos fiscais é um instrumento imprescindível para sinalizar Estados ou regiões, promover reformas nestas jurisdições e desincentivar a sua utilização por parte de cidadãos e empresas. Mas precisamos de mais e melhores critérios para a identificação dos paraísos fiscais. Precisamos de transparência e precisamos de uma lista que contribua, eficazmente, para o combate à fuga, à evasão fiscal e ao branqueamento de capitais.

Precisamos de travar esta pandemia de fugas fiscais. Este Parlamento teve a ambição de apontar um caminho. Exige-se aos governos nacionais a coragem de o seguir!


  Pedro Marques, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Caro Comissário Gentiloni, Cara Secretária de Estado Ana Paula Zacarias, Colegas, as dificuldades que os cidadãos enfrentam na atual crise tornam ainda mais gritante a injustiça do nosso sistema fiscal. Os cidadãos estão a fazer muitos sacrifícios, as pequenas e médias empresas, mas, ao mesmo tempo, alguns milionários e muitas multinacionais aproveitam os paraísos fiscais para escaparem ao pagamento de impostos. Isto é apenas inaceitável e a União Europeia tem de fazer um muito melhor trabalho no combate aos paraísos fiscais.

A falta de ambição, de consistência e de transparência da lista negra dos paraísos fiscais tem que ser ultrapassada em definitivo. Como já referiu o nosso presidente da subcomissão e relator Paul Tang, as Ilhas Caimão foram recentemente retiradas da lista de paraísos fiscais. Os cidadãos veem, mas não acreditam.

Estima-se que esta jurisdição é responsável por mais de 16% das perdas fiscais a nível global, um valor assustador, superior ao PIB de muitos Estados-Membros. Não é admissível! Não podemos continuar assim e saudamos a determinação aqui revelada pela Presidência do Conselho.

Com esta resolução, propomos a revisão dos critérios dessa lista, com maior transparência e escrutínio democrático, com um critério que inclua na lista qualquer país que não cobre simplesmente impostos, bem como aqueles que têm impostos muito baixos, abaixo de uma taxa mínima definida pela União.

Mas a União também tem de dar o exemplo e não permitir práticas internas semelhantes numa concorrência desleal, que resulta sempre numa corrida para o fundo no financiamento da política pública. Esperamos, portanto, e estaremos atentos, que esta resolução mereça um consenso muito alargado aqui no Parlamento, revelador do compromisso de todos com estas propostas.


  Gilles Boyer, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame la Secrétaire d’État, merci pour vos mots. Évidemment la liste européenne des paradis fiscaux a été, en 2017, une première étape. Et nous sommes nombreux ici à regretter que son potentiel ne soit pas exploité, vous en avez aussi parlé. Les territoires mentionnés dans la liste ne représentent en effet que moins de 2 % des pertes de recettes fiscales au niveau mondial, ce qui évidemment pose des questions sur l’efficacité de cette liste. Cette liste doit donc être réformée pour doter l’Union européenne d’un véritable instrument juridique, coercitif. Il faudra pour cela renforcer ses critères et durcir et mieux coordonner les sanctions.

Enfin, si l’Europe veut être légitime au niveau international dans la lutte contre l’évasion fiscale et les pratiques fiscales dommageables, il faut évidemment qu’elle donne l’exemple et nous appelons donc à une cohérence entre les critères qui régissent l’inscription sur la liste et les critères relatifs aux pratiques fiscales dommageables à l’intérieur de l’Union européenne.

Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame la secrétaire d’État, nous serons, nous Parlement, vigilants pour que vous agissiez et merci de vos mots encourageants à cet égard. Vous savez que le Parlement est un interlocuteur exigeant et vigilant mais qu’il sait aussi reconnaître lorsque l’action est au rendez-vous et nous serons à vos côtés, si la réforme est à la hauteur de nos attentes.


  Sven Giegold, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! 360 Milliarden Euro kosten Steueroasen weltweit die ehrlichen Steuerzahlerinnen und Steuerzahler. Und von diesen 360 Milliarden Euro werden von den Ländern, die auf der EU-Liste der Steueroasen stehen, gerade mal 2 % erfasst. Deshalb ist es gut, dass wir hier eine breite parlamentarische Mehrheit haben, diese Liste der Steueroasen der EU gründlich zu überarbeiten.

Länder, die 0 % Unternehmenssteuern haben, Länder, die Schattenfirmen mit wenig ökonomischer Substanz erlauben, sollten in Zukunft automatisch auf dieser Liste landen. Und genauso muss die Liste europäischen Standards entsprechen, also transparent erarbeitet werden. Daher ist die Forderung an die Kommission: Seien Sie mutig, legen Sie einen mutigen Vorschlag vor und möglichst auch einen, der – anders als es manchem hier im Parlament bisher noch etwas schwerfällt – offen zugibt, dass wir auch in Europa, in der EU Steueroasen haben.


  Beata Kempa (ECR). – Szanowni Państwo! Kraje Unii Europejskiej co roku tracą 170 mld euro na rajach podatkowych oraz na transgranicznym przenoszeniu zysków. Trafia do nich średnio 13% rocznego budżetu poszczególnych krajów Unii Europejskiej. Jak szacuje Polski Instytut Ekonomiczny, sama likwidacja sztucznego transferowania zysków przez międzynarodowe korporacje między różnymi jurysdykacjami w ciągu siedmiu lat może doprowadzić do odzyskania 420 mld euro. To więcej niż kwota przeznaczana przez Unię na politykę spójności w najbliższych siedmiu latach.

Dzisiaj potrzebna jest solidarność w tej materii. Te środki finansowe są potrzebne, aby ratować nasze gospodarki, szczególnie w walce z COVID-19. Dlatego musimy wymagać stanowczych wspólnych działań całej Unii. Dość podwójnych standardów, dość milczenia. Na terenie Wspólnoty jest sześciu beneficjentów tych szemranych transakcji, żerujących na krzywdzie i zaciskaniu pasa przez innych. Największe zyski osiąga niewątpliwie przywołana tutaj przez autora Holandia.


  Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, aujourd’hui je vous propose de jouer à un petit jeu des sept erreurs très instructif. Voici le classement de l’ONG Oxfam des pires paradis fiscaux au monde pour les multinationales et je vous propose assez simplement de le comparer avec la liste européenne des paradis fiscaux.

En premier, on a les Bermudes, qui ne sont pas listées par l’Union européenne, en deuxième les Pays-Bas non plus, la Suisse non plus, les Îles Caïmans non plus, Singapour non plus, l’Irlande non plus, le Luxembourg non plus. Bon, je m’arrête là parce que j’aurais pu aller jusqu’au bout de la liste avec le même résultat: aucun des paradis fiscaux les plus notoires n’est listé par l’Union européenne.

Voici donc ce qu’il reste de votre liste européenne de paradis fiscaux: ça, une carte blanche à l’évasion fiscale. On nous dit que les caisses seraient vides pour venir en aide aux gens qui galèrent, alors commencez par appeler un chat un chat, en nommant véritablement les paradis fiscaux, y compris au sein de l’Union européenne et allons chercher l’argent là où il est: dans la poche des évadés fiscaux.


  Markus Ferber (PPE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, Frau Ratspräsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Der Rat hat im Mai 2016 die Einsetzung einer schwarzen Liste von Steueroasen beschlossen. Es sind inzwischen viereinhalb Jahre vergangen. Seitdem ist die Liste zwar mehrfach aktualisiert worden. Eine ganze Reihe von Jurisdiktionen wurden auf die Liste gesetzt und wieder heruntergenommen. Meist handelte es sich dabei um kleine Inselstaaten im Südpazifik, deren Nichtkooperation in Steuerfragen wohl am ehesten daran lag, dass sie keine leistungsfähige Steuerverwaltung haben. Es wäre nun einmal an der Zeit, über Sinn und Unsinn dieser Liste grundsätzlich nachzudenken und auch zu schauen, ob sie uns wirklich weiterhilft, wenn es darum geht, Steueroasen zu bekämpfen.

Ich glaube, wir haben drei Probleme, die ich auch kurz ansprechen will. Erstens: Mit wenigen Ausnahmen trifft die Liste nicht die richtigen Staaten. Der Rat war immer mutig, kleine Staaten, die sich irgendwo auf kleinen Inseln befinden, auf die Liste zu setzen, hat sie aber immer gescheut, große Brocken anzugehen. Warum ist der Bundesstaat Delaware – immerhin ist einer aus diesem Staat heute als Präsident vereidigt worden – nicht auf dieser Liste, um mal nur ein Beispiel zu nennen? Zweitens: Die sogenannten Abwehrmaßnahmen, die mit der Liste verknüpft sind, sind schlichtweg nicht ausreichend. Also sollten wir auch hier nachdenken, was es wirklich bedeutet, Sanktionen zu schaffen. Drittens: Die Liste ist nicht glaubwürdig, solange wir nicht selber in Europa anfangen, unsere Steueroasen zu bekämpfen.

Frau Ratspräsidentin, ich empfehle Ihnen, dem Ratschlag der Kommission zu folgen und sich Madeira mal anzuschauen. Ich glaube, das gehört zu Portugal – auch das ist eine Steueroase.


  Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señor presidente, yo creo que el Consejo debe empezar este debate reconociendo que la actual lista de paraísos fiscales no funciona. Y probablemente podríamos acordar dos grandes motivos. El primero de ellos es que no hay unos criterios claros, de tal manera que se introducen siempre cuestiones diplomáticas, o cuestiones de política exterior u otras consideraciones que nada tienen que ver con el seguimiento del control de los paraísos fiscales.

El segundo gran elemento es la ausencia absoluta de transparencia, de rendición de cuentas, de control por parte de este Parlamento, de tal manera que, si tenemos en cuenta que el Consejo incorpora valoraciones o criterios que nada tienen que ver con la lucha contra los paraísos fiscales y que, además, no hay una rendición de cuentas democrática, tenemos una lista que no es creíble. Y una lista que tiene que ser revisada a fondo, porque, en estos momentos, en esta dura crisis que está atravesando Europa, los ciudadanos necesitan ver una mayor ejemplaridad por parte de los responsables públicos.

Por lo tanto, confío y espero que la Comisión, comisario Gentiloni, presente próximamente nuevas iniciativas que mejoren la transparencia, que mejoren la predictibilidad sobre qué Estados pueden estar o no estar en esa lista y que no estemos al albur de países que entran y salen de esa lista sin ningún criterio, sin ningún control, sin ninguna trazabilidad democrática.

Y esperemos que en esa propuesta incorpore una mayor transparencia, un mayor control por este Parlamento Europeo y que el Consejo, por supuesto, lo acepte.


  Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Verts/ALE). – Hr. formand! Tak for ordet og tak til kollegerne for også at komme med rigtig mange gode kommentarer. Når det gælder EU's skatteliste, så ved jeg næsten ikke, hvor jeg skal starte. For hvad er EU's liste over såkaldte ikkesamarbejdsvillige jurisdiktioner egentlig? Ifølge Det Europæiske Råds hjemmeside er det en liste over lande uden for EU, der tilskynder til skadelig skattepraksis, som udhuler EU-landenes skatteindtægter fra virksomheder. Det lyder måske OK på papiret, men virkeligheden er jo, at kun to procent af de mistede skattely-milliarder mistes i lande på EU-listen.

Helt ærligt, hvad pokker nytter den liste så overhovedet? I efteråret røg yndlingsdestinationen Caymanøerne af listen, og i forvejen rummer listen kun ét af verdens 20 værste skattely.

Det er en dårlig vittighed, hvor elendige kriterierne for at komme på listen er, og en endnu dårligere vittighed, at EU's egne skattely ikke er på den. Det mest oplagte er, at et kriterie må være at sætte lande på listen, hvis de tilbyder en skat på nul procent. I kan høre, at Parlamentet er klart, og jeg håber derfor, at Kommissionen vil være sin opgave voksen, så de skattefiflende selskaber kommer til at betale deres pris.


  José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE). – Señor presidente, el 31 de diciembre, el Reino Unido y España cerraron un principio de acuerdo sobre Gibraltar.

No voy a hablar de soberanía, porque si al Gobierno español eso no le importa, no sé lo que les iba a importar a ustedes. Lo que sí les importa es evitar la competencia desleal. El preacuerdo quiere eliminar barreras físicas a la movilidad de personas y mercancías. Cosa nada fácil, porque son dos territorios con sistemas fiscales diferentes.

En Gibraltar no hay impuesto sobre el valor añadido ni impuestos sobre el tabaco, el alcohol y el petróleo. El impuesto sobre sociedades no grava en absoluto los beneficios obtenidos fuera del Peñón. Hoy hay en Gibraltar 80 000 sociedades, 25 000 de las cuales son entidades financieras. Y Gibraltar ha llegado a controlar el 60 % del juego mundial online. El preacuerdo consagra este régimen fiscal.

¿Qué empresa se va a establecer en el territorio europeo adyacente, si puede acceder al mercado interior europeo sin pagar impuestos? Nos preocupó que el Reino Unido se convirtiese en un Singapur y nos escandaliza Barbados. No tiene sentido que toleremos un paraíso fiscal en las puertas de casa, quitemos la cerradura o entreguemos las llaves.


  Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, la lista europea de paraísos fiscales es una gran idea muy mal aplicada. Decía Paul Tang que a alguien se le ha olvidado poner los paraísos fiscales en la lista. No puedo estar más de acuerdo.

Creo que hay tres cosas urgentes que hay que arreglar. La primera son los criterios que se usan para introducir los países. Son más políticos que técnicos y objetivos, y es necesario urgentemente corregirlo. Segundo, las sanciones. Las sanciones a sociedades que están en la lista son muy pocas. Los que están en la lista gris prácticamente salen de rositas, sin ningún tipo de sanción, y eso no puede ser. Y tercero, la transparencia. La lista no será jamás creíble si no somos capaces de explicársela a los ciudadanos y si este Parlamento no tiene capacidad de controlar cómo se hace ese mecanismo.

Finalmente, en toda esta cuestión lo más importante es que tenemos que atajar los paraísos fiscales dentro de la Unión Europea, cosa que esta lista no resuelve. Y la Resolución que votaremos propone una medida que ayudaría muchísimo, que es un tipo mínimo europeo del impuesto de sociedades. Por eso, lamento que haya grupos que hayan presentado enmiendas para quitar esa parte del texto, y yo lo que quiero es invitar a todos mis colegas a que mañana voten para que esa parte se mantenga.


  Claude Gruffat (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Secrétaire d’État, cher Commissaire Gentiloni, chers collègues, la crise actuelle a mis la finance publique de toute l’Union européenne dans le rouge et, en miroir à la misère croissante chez nous, il y a l’insolente santé de la finance et de l’évasion fiscale permise par les paradis fiscaux. Honte à eux! Notre réponse à ce fléau: une liste de pays mineurs représentant péniblement 2 % de l’évasion fiscale.

Où est le reste? Où sont les États de l’Union comme Malte, l’Irlande, les Pays-Bas, le Luxembourg, qui n’ont rien à envier aux Caïmans ou à Panama. D’ailleurs, faudra-t-il bientôt y ajouter le Royaume-Uni, puisqu’on dit qu’à l’occasion du Brexit, ce pays se verrait bien comme un Panama sur Tamise, à nos portes.

Chers collègues, il est grand temps d’en finir avec l’hypocrisie et la complaisance amorale concédée aux fraudeurs. Balayons devant notre porte et imposons nos standards à ceux qui veulent accéder au marché intérieur. Toute valeur créée dans l’Union doit contribuer à la solidarité de l’Union: c’est l’essence même du projet économique européen.


  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I think in this debate it was very clear, first of all, the awareness of the dimension of the tax avoidance. Mr Giegold mentioned EUR 360 billion. This enormous dimension also moves very fast and quickly, adapting to different situations, different countries, frequently with new methods.

It’s a challenge for us. What can we say, I think, first, we have a tool. I understand the limits, the difficulties, the criticism towards this tool; but indeed for a few years we have had this tool. I assure you from the short experience that I have here in the Commission, but also from previous experiences, that this blacklisting is in any case something effective for the countries involved.

This tool should be strengthened. We have to work on criteria to avoid the risk of formal decisions being inconsistent with substantial reality in tax havens.

Second, I think we have to control defensive measures taken in Member States against blacklisted countries. Because if these measures are not there, or not rightly there, I think the Commission should propose to intervene, as I said in my introduction, with a legislative proposal.

Then we have a different file from the one of the non-cooperative jurisdictions, which is the file of what happens within our club, and within our Member States. Is there a problem with aggressive tax planning, with a race to the bottom? Yes, there is a problem. We have repeated this in our semester surveillance process for years, and I want to seize this opportunity to stress the fact that we not only have the process going on with Pillar II in the OECD discussion, but we also have the recovery and resilience facility with the commitment to be consistent with country—specific recommendations, and in a few cases these country—specific recommendations give some importance to the issue of aggressive tax planning. I think we should work to make this commitment practical and solve these issues.

A final point: several Members asked for the Commission to be ambitious. I think we will try to do so. But quite frankly, to do so, we need your control and your support.


  Ana Paula Zacarias, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I’ve heard the honourable Members of Parliament and I’ve heard the Commission.

I want to thank you for this clear and open exchange of views and it’s good to see that the three institutions think that good tax governance is a priority. So, as the Commissioner said, we have a tool and the work of the Code of Conduct Group is carried on a continuous basis under the guidance of the Ecofin Council, so things can evolve.

The issues discussed in this context are both important and sensitive, and the working group will continue to generate concrete and positive changes in tax legislation both at the EU and international levels. The results of the work of the group are made public systematically in a transparent manner, and they will continue to do so.

So thank you very much once again for this debate, and thank you for your attention.


  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung über die Änderungsanträge findet heute, Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2021, statt.

Die Schlussabstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 21. Januar 2021, statt.

Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, mit Ihrem Einverständnis schlage ich vor, dass wir mit einer kleinen Abweichung von der Tagesorndung fortfahren. Um den Fraktionen zu erlauben, für die nächste Abstimmungsrunde die Stimmempfehlungen vorzubereiten, würde ich jetzt mit der Bekanntgabe der Ergebnisse nicht bis zum Abschluss der nächsten Debatte warten, sondern würde das jetzt tun. Das ist für 19.00 Uhr angesagt. Wir liegen da auch genau in der Zeit.

Ich sehe keine Widerspruch.

Wir kommen also zu den Ergebnissen der ersten Abstimmungsrunde.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)


  Marek Belka (S&D), in writing. – Isn’t it ironic that in this House we don’t get bored of taxes? However, more than 80% of EU citizens agree that tougher rules on tax avoidance and tax havens are needed. And yet around 20% of the EU’s corporate tax revenue is estimated to be lost annually due to profit shifting to tax havens. Something is still going wrong. Firstly, it is not proven that black lists hurt tax havens. Paradoxically, they might even serve as guiding maps for wrongdoers seeking secrecy, lack of transparency and low tax rates. We need sanctions now! Secondly, a very low or zero-tax rate should be a basic criterion for these jurisdictions to be blacklisted. Moreover, we need more transparency from the Code of Conduct. The list should be less political, while the methodology must be easily explainable to our citizens. Finally, we can’t preach what we don’t deliver. Our own usual suspects when it comes to tax deals in the EU have to reform – not undermine a fair internal market. When one thinks of tax havens, we imagine a luxurious club of tropical islands. In this Club Tropicana drinks might be free, but it is our citizens who pay for them. Let’s make that Club bear a fair share!


  Enikő Győri (PPE), írásban. – Mindannyian egyetértünk abban, hogy nagyon fontos az adócsalás és az adóelkerülés elleni küzdelem, és mindent meg kell tennünk annak érdekében, hogy szigorú átláthatósági szabályok betartására ösztönözzük azon harmadik országokat, melyek az adóparadicsomok listáján szerepelnek. Folytatnunk kell tehát a nyomásgyakorlást az adóügyi együttműködést visszautasító államokra. Ennyiben támogatni is lehetne ennek a jelentésnek az elfogadását, de sajnos a baloldal a szövegben adóparadicsomnak minősíti az alacsony adókkal operáló uniós tagállamokat. Az adóelkerülést nem szabad összekeverni az adóversennyel, az adócsökkentés tekintetében a tagállamok rendelkezésére álló legális eszközökkel. A COVID-19 válság rendkívül nehéz körülményei között is látnunk kell, hogy a vállalatokat sújtó adóterhek csökkentése ma a krízisből való kilábalás és a versenyképesség kulcsa : ezt természetesen felelős költségvetési gazdálkodás mentén kell, az adott ország teherbíró képességének függvényében, megtervezniük és végrehajtaniuk a tagállamoknak. E téren Magyarország élen jár, hiszen a válság kitörése óta tovább csökkentettük az adókat, így munkahelyek százezreit sikerült megmenteni. Az eredmény látható is, hiszen a foglalkoztatás szintje 2021 elején csak egy százalékkal marad el a válság kitörése előttitől. E rendkívüli eredmények fényében még inkább mondhatjuk, hogy a jelenleg fennálló körülmények között teljes felelőtlenség egy olyan határozatot elfogadni, amelynek javaslatai és következtetései teljesen ellentétesek a gazdasági válságkezelés szempontjaival és legfontosabb követelményeivel.


  Andżelika Anna Możdżanowska (ECR), na piśmie. – Sprawiedliwe podatki, nieuchylanie się od ich płacenia, przejrzystość i odpowiedzialność to nieodłączne cechy naszej demokracji. Według badań obywatele UE tracą co roku 140 miliardów euro z tytułu strat w podatku dochodowym od osób prawnych. Są to pieniądze, które można np. wydać, szczególnie w dobie pandemii, na zdrowie. 86% obywateli Unii Europejskiej chce, by UE walczyła z uchylaniem się od płacenia podatków.

Nie możemy dłużej przymykać oczu na skrajnie nieodpowiedzialne działania i hipokryzję! Jak można usunąć z listy rajów podatkowych Kajmany – raj podatkowy numer jeden na świecie, odpowiadające za 16,5% światowego unikania opodatkowania? Dlaczego przymykamy oczy na europejskie raje podatkowe, które są odpowiedzialne za jedną trzecią globalnego unikania opodatkowania? Szczególnie teraz, kiedy kryzys spowodowany przez COVID-19 pochłania tysiące przedsiębiorstw uczciwie płacących podatki, tysiące miejsc pracy naszych obywateli, jest to niedopuszczalne!

Nie pomożemy przedsiębiorstwom z sektora MŚP, pozwalając na unikanie opodatkowania gigantom. Nie przyspieszymy wychodzenia z tak poważnego kryzysu, stosując niejasne zasady, godzące w gospodarkę i każdego obywatela UE. Naszym obowiązkiem jest przygotowanie i wdrożenie przejrzystych i bezstronnych kryteriów umieszczania i usuwania kraju z listy. Rzetelność, uczciwość i współpraca pomiędzy krajami członkowskimi w tej materii są niezbędne!

Senaste uppdatering: 9 mars 2021Rättsligt meddelande - Integritetspolicy