Vollständiger Text 
Verfahren : 2020/2046(INI)
Werdegang im Plenum
Entwicklungsstadium in Bezug auf das Dokument : A9-0193/2021

Eingereichte Texte :


Aussprachen :

PV 15/09/2021 - 8
CRE 15/09/2021 - 8

Abstimmungen :

PV 16/09/2021 - 8
PV 16/09/2021 - 15

Angenommene Texte :


Ausführliche Sitzungsberichte
XML 62k
Mittwoch, 15. September 2021 - Straßburg Überprüfte Ausgabe

8. Umsetzung der EU-Anforderungen für den Austausch von Steuerinformationen (Aussprache)
Video der Beiträge

  Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Svena Giegolda w imieniu Komisji Gospodarczej i Monetarnej w sprawie wdrożenia wymogów UE dotyczących wymiany informacji podatkowych (2020/2046(INI)) (A9-0193/2021).


  Sven Giegold, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear Commissioner Gentiloni and dear colleagues, first of all we are discussing today the first implementation report of the European Parliament ever done in the area of economic and monetary policy.

Our implementation report deals with the important implementation of EU rules when it comes to the exchange of tax information between Member States. Faced with hundreds of billions of taxes lost through international tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax fraud, this is a topic of high interest to the citizens, who of course would like to see tax justice and fair competition in our common market.

I would like to thank warmly all the colleagues from the different political groups who have been contributing to that important work over much more than a year. However, our work to assess the effectiveness of the first four directives on administrative cooperation and tax matters was hampered by the refusal of the Member States, with the notable exception of Sweden and Finland, to provide access to the documents needed for our work.

The European Commission, too, interpreted EU law in a very narrow way, which is unfriendly to Parliament’s work and refused also access to information available to the Commission, which would have been available very likely to citizens if they went to court.

I would therefore like to recall that according to the European Treaties, the European Parliament has the right and the responsibility to control the Commission in its work, and therefore needs the respective information. Nevertheless, we were able to gain significant insights based on publicly available information, studies and accounts provided by several whistle-blowers.

I would also like to highlight the report by the European Court of Auditors and the study commissioned by the European Parliament’s research service, which significantly helped us to identify areas for improvement. Thank you to all those who contributed.

Eleven years ago, the first Directive on administrative cooperation in tax matters laid the groundwork for tax administrations to support each other in the fight against tax avoidance, tax evasion and tax fraud across Europe. With each of six extensions, important categories of tax-relevant data were included step by step under the Directive. This is great progress, however still unfinished, but this progress in European tax law has not been matched with equal ambition when it comes to the effective implementation of these rules in the Member States.

While 16 Member States have implemented the rules for the automatic exchange of tax information within the EU sufficiently, we found shortcomings in 10 Member States, namely Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland and the Slovak Republic. Most worryingly, Romania does not have the legal framework in place, which is a prerequisite for the automatic exchange of tax information.

Similarly, reviews of the measures taken by the Member States to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing reveal worrying deficiencies with direct effect on the effective information exchange on tax matters. Of the 18 Member States reviewed, none of them received a rating indicating a high level of effectiveness. This indicates a clear lack of effective implementation of the measures needed to prevent financial crime.

Despite these internationally documented shortcomings in the implementation of EU law, the Commission has not opened a single case of Treaty violation because of the lack of effective implementation of tax information exchange. Equally, we found a lack of access to tax-relevant information when it comes to assets and incomes from real estate companies and other types of assets. These asset classes should be included as soon as possible in the upcoming revision of Directive No 8.

In her State of the Union address earlier today, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen committed to fighting tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax fraud. Therefore, I’m asking Commissioner Gentiloni: you have previously confirmed to us you may open infringement proceedings in the area of tax cooperation whenever needed.

Considering the deficiencies identified in many Member States in my report, when will the Commission take action? And will you strengthen the Directive on Tax Administration as Parliament proposes in your eighth revision? Thank you very much to all of you who contributed and for listening to me.


  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, first of all, we would like to thank the European Parliament and the rapporteur, Sven Giegold, for the report on the implementation of the DAC. The report contains a number of recommendations on relevant points relating to the scope of the directive, the monitoring of its implementation, the quality of the data exchange and the actual use of it by Member States.

On most of the points raised, the Commission can agree that, in principle, they would improve the existing framework. Some of the points will, most likely, be covered in the next amendment to the directive, the so-called DAC 8, for which a proposal is expected in the first quarter of next year.

DAC 8 is intended to cover the reporting and exchange of information on crypto assets and e-money. It will take into account the progress made on the regulation of the market for crypto assets in the EU, as well as the parallel work on reporting and exchange of information.

DAC 8 will also seek to ensure more coherence across the EU, as regards penalties and other compliance measures. Our intention is also to include further amendments to the scope of the Directive close to those recommended in your report, in order to strengthen the fight against tax avoidance and tax evasion.

We agree on the importance of improving the relevance and comprehensiveness of the scope. Over the years, the number of categories of income covered by the Directive has been gradually increased. At the same time, we need to consider the availability of information and allow Member States to adjust to new requirements.

We also agree that it would be useful to consider expanding the scope of the exchange of information on rulings and advance pricing agreements to include, for instance, rulings concerning individuals. The proposal to add additional reporting obligation for financial institutions to report information on the ultimate beneficial owner of the account would be useful. Such a significant amendment requires, of course, a wider analysis of the due diligence and reporting rules for financial institutions.

The Commission is also working intensively on transposition control of Anti-Money Laundering Directives four and five, and on ensuring timely creation of national beneficial ownership registers and their crossborder interconnection. The report also highlights the need to improve the monitoring of the implementation of the directive. We agree that this is an important point.

Apart from the monitoring of legislative transposition, the Commission is checking the application in an annual survey. The survey is constantly adapted to the evolving needs and serves as a basis for decisions on which further actions to take. And this is, of course, following also the call of honourable Giegold before.

On a more general point, the Commission very much agrees that the access to the requested documents on the implementation of the directive would have been important for the Parliament’s work. As you know, my services have done their utmost, within the legal constraints imposed by the framework agreement on relations between the Parliament and Commission, to support your request in this context.

We were bound by the framework agreement – the interpretation we gave of the framework agreement – to ask for the Member States’ consent for those documents that belong to them. That being said, we will certainly continue as we have done until now to entirely support the European Parliament in its work and to reiterate the request. We are very grateful to you for all your support to the Commission in the fight against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance.


  Lídia Pereira, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, os impostos são um dos pilares da soberania nacional dos Estados. Não devemos colocar em causa este princípio de soberania fiscal, tal como não podemos fechar os olhos aos desafios de uma economia globalizada e de um mercado interno tão integrado como é o nosso. A cooperação administrativa em matéria fiscal é essencial para o esforço de combate à fraude e evasão fiscal e ao branqueamento de capitais.

A troca de informações entre os Estados-Membros é um instrumento fundamental para que a União seja um espaço de justiça fiscal, em que cada um paga aquilo que deve e apenas aquilo que deve. Esta troca de informações tem de ser reforçada no aumento progressivo da informação, mas sobretudo na sua qualidade.

O que descobrimos com este relatório é que todos os Estados-Membros, todos, estão a falhar neste trabalho e esse é o principal alerta que devemos deixar. Precisamos de trocar mais informação e melhor informação, mas primeiro temos de ser competentes a cumprir aquilo que a lei já determina. Que fique bem claro: não queremos que este reforço da troca de informações seja apenas uma questão administrativa, não pode ser indiferente aos cidadãos europeus. Com mais e melhor informação queremos reduzir burocracias, poupar nos encargos administrativos e libertar recursos para as autoridades tributárias melhor cumprirem a sua missão, sempre com o máximo de respeito pelos direitos dos contribuintes, da proteção de dados à privacidade.

Mais informação significa mais responsabilidade, melhor informação tem de significar melhores práticas e cooperação reforçada terá de significar resultados. É isso que este Parlamento deve fazer e aquilo que os cidadãos europeus merecem.


  Evelyn Regner, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Vorweg ein Dank an den Berichterstatter, es war viel Arbeit. Das Konzept der Zusammenarbeit der Verwaltungsbehörden im Bereich der direkten Besteuerung, der automatische Informationsaustausch, das ist ein Papier, okay. Aber praktisch hapert es gewaltig. Viel zu oft umgehen Menschen oder Unternehmen ihre Steuerpflicht oder betreiben sogar Geldwäsche. Und das schadet unserer Wirtschaft und unserer Gesellschaft enorm. Besonders jetzt, wo die Europäische Union Milliarden in die Hand nimmt, damit Staaten massiv investieren, brauchen wir auch wieder Einnahmen, sprich: Steuern. Und diese müssen wir uns von den reichen Individuen und Unternehmen holen, die eben keine Steuern zahlen – tax the rich.

Und wie? Aktuell ist die Steuerumgehung relativ einfach, weil wir in unserer Union keine einheitliche EU-weite direkte Besteuerung haben, und hier kommt die Zusammenarbeit der Verwaltungsbehörden ins Spiel. Die Richtlinie zur Zusammenarbeit der Verwaltungsbehörden im Bereich der direkten Besteuerung ist das zentrale Fundament, um Steuerflucht zu bekämpfen. In unserem Bericht haben wir die Wichtigkeit dieser Richtlinie bestätigt, aber auch festgestellt: 18 Mitgliedstaaten haben sie nur unzureichend umgesetzt – 18! Also genau zwei Drittel. Das ist eine Bloßstellung der Mitgliedstaaten.

Was fehlt? Die Richtlinie ist ein Puzzle aus mehreren Teilen, aber es fehlen Puzzleteile, nämlich Daten. Und ohne Daten kann Steuerbetrug nicht verfolgt werden. Und daher muss die Kommission sicherstellen, dass der Austausch und die Qualität der Daten garantiert werden. Und das ginge relativ einfach. Denn wir im Europäischen Parlament haben festgestellt, dass die Mängel der Datenqualität auf veraltete Technologien oder zu wenig Personal in den nationalen Behörden zurückzuführen sind. Und das können wir nicht hinnehmen.

Die Europäische Union muss als gutes Beispiel weltweit vorangehen. Ich bin fest davon überzeugt, dass wir das können. Dafür braucht es nur politischen Willen. Und im Übrigen, Steuerwettbewerb zwischen Staaten ist immer schädlich. Wir müssen zusammenarbeiten, damit wir der massiven Steuerflucht endlich Einhalt gebieten.


  Monica Semedo, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, tax authorities in the EU have agreed to cooperate closely together in order to apply tax correctly and prevent tax evasion and tax fraud. This is to prevent dirty money being washed through the EU and to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax, so this report assesses how well Member States have applied regulations to exchange information. The feedback has generally been positive, but improvements can be made.

However, in order for an implementation report to be accurate, we need facts and figures. Accordingly, my colleagues and I requested relevant information from the European Commission, and I am sad to inform you that several Member States objected to our request. Again, the Council seemingly does not want to cooperate with the European Parliament. Previously, I highlighted that the Council prematurely made decisions before we as Parliament had adopted our position, and now they are denying access to pertinent documents needed for us to exercise our function of political control.

My message to the Council is clear: stop trying to bypass procedures enshrined in our Treaties. Stop trying to hinder our work. We need greater transparency in the Council.


  Gunnar Beck, im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Vorsitzende! Steuerumgehung und —hinterziehung sind reale Probleme, die bekämpft werden sollen. Dieses Ziel unterstützen wir, doch nicht ohne Einwände.

Erstens: Wir haben nicht nur ein Steuerumgehungs-, sondern ein Steuervermeidungsproblem. Multinationals zahlen teils unter einem Prozent Steuern auf ihre EU-Gewinne, und internationale Banken verlagern ihre Milliardengewinne allzu gern offshore.

Wir haben ein Steuergerechtigkeits- und ein Steuerverschwendungsproblem und daher viel zu hohe Steuern. Hunderte Milliarden Steuern werden verschwendet für Weltrettungsprojekte wie unqualifizierte Masseneinwanderung am Arbeitsmarkt vorbei direkt ins soziale Netz und eine Klimapolitik, die scheitern muss, weil der EU-Beitrag zu den weltweiten CO2—Emissionen von unter 8 Prozent gleichsam bedeutungslos ist.

Zweitens: Steuerbefreit und ausgenommen von der Geldwäsche-Regulierung bleiben NGOs, obwohl MONEYVAL, der Europäische Rechnungshof und die Financial Action Task Force alle warnen, milliardenschwere Pro-Migrations- und Klimarettungs-NGOs, —Trusts und —Stiftungen fungierten eben auch als Vehikel für Geldwäsche, Terrorismusfinanzierung und Steuerhinterziehung. Schluss also mit der EU-Ausnahme für politisch willfährige NGOs!

Und drittens: Begraben Sie bitte schleunigst Ihre Pläne für ein allumfassendes EU—Vermögensregister. Denn Steuerpolitik ist eben nicht Befugnis der EU, sondern der Mitgliedstaaten. Wenn Sie also Steuerhinterziehung bekämpfen wollen, machen Sie das doch bitte rechtskonform und nicht rechtswidrig. Im Rechtsstaat, so denke ich, heiligt der Zweck eben nicht jedes Mittel.


  Eugen Jurzyca, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I fully support the exchange of tax information and I am against tax evasion. However, we are to some extent again in a situation where the report turned into a political fight over the questions of tax harmonisation in the European Union. I believe national tax sovereignty should be maintained.

Tax harmonisation in the Union might result in the limitation of tax competition. I believe healthy tax competition has benefits compared to full tax harmonisation, as it enables Member States to compare and apply best practices of the other Member States.

Cuts on inefficient spending can allow governments to buy more for the same money or to use the savings to reduce the tax burden to attract international investment and stimulate economic growth and innovation. We should not limit this option yet.


  José Gusmão, em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhora Presidente, a troca de informação e a cooperação administrativa entre autoridades tributárias é fundamental para combater a fraude e a evasão fiscal e a lavagem de dinheiro. Estes objetivos são aparentemente consensuais, mas cada vez que debatemos um destes relatórios constatamos que há forças políticas, países e até instituições europeias, que não só não estão disponíveis para fazer o que é preciso como fazem tudo o que podem para impedir que estes objetivos sejam alcançados com um mínimo de eficácia.

O facto de termos procurado recolher informação sobre a troca de informação e de os mesmos Estados que se comprometeram a prosseguir e a cumprir com essas exigências de troca de informação se recusarem a trocar informação sobre o assunto é bastante preocupante, tal como a interpretação altamente restritiva que a Comissão Europeia fez dos seus próprios constrangimentos, o que permitiu que essa informação não chegasse ao Parlamento.

Se é assim, e se é essa a interpretação da Comissão Europeia, espero que, numa futura revisão da DAC, a Comissão Europeia se dê a si própria esses poderes e dê ao Parlamento o acesso à informação que permita vigiar a implementação da DAC. Aliás, uma área em que, como já foi dito, a Comissão Europeia tem estado muito pouco atenta. Espero também que a Comissão Europeia acolha os pedidos que são feitos neste relatório para alargar a informação que é trocada entre autoridades tributárias, nomeadamente ao nível do imobiliário e dos dividendos, ao nível do grau de discriminação da informação e ao nível da informação de instituições financeiras sobre beneficiários últimos.


  Mislav Kolakušić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovane kolege, dragi građani, porezi služe da bi se ostvario napredak društva i smanjile socijalne razlike.

Ovo što, o čemu mi danas raspravljamo, bojim se da će kao puno puta u prošlosti pasti na leđa malog čovjeka, građanina koji je u potrazi, trbuhom za kruhom otišao raditi nekoliko mjeseci u neku drugu državu da bi konobario ili bio spremačica. Njih će se goniti, njih će se ovršavati a s druge strane divovi poput Facebooka i Amazona konstantno uspješno izbjegavaju platiti porez koji bi morali platiti, to je jednostavno nevjerojatno. Facebook se uvijek izvlači, gospodin Zuckerberg je bio u ovom domu, tražili smo od njega da udovoljava propisima Europske unije. Što se dogodilo? On je rekao da će se povući s tržišta Europske unije.

Udarimo tamo gdje treba a ne po malim građanima.


  Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, I guess our colleague has made a very good report about quite a bad situation. Why do I think the situation is bad? I can use just one example: to effectively use the data, we should have high—quality data. The quality of data depends also on the implementation of the Anti—Money Laundering (AML) Directives, and we know how poorly Europe does in the area of the AML Directives.

In the current situation, when the Member States have refused the Commission initiative that would tackle the problem of tax evasion and tax avoidance via a definitive VAT regime, Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) or other measures, administrative cooperation is one of the most efficient ways to tackle cross—border, intra—EU tax fraud. Unfortunately, this report says that the opportunity given by this directive is by far not used enough.

We need improvement in the quality of data, as well as improvement in how we use the data. We have now a lot of proposals by the Commission on the table in the area of taxation, and I guess these are good proposals, but they will not be sufficient unless we will see changes to the Member States’ tax administrations’ approach in dealing with tax evasion, and recognise the importance of cross—border cooperation. We are not there.

So unless there is a substantial change, the proposals will not deliver the expected improvement. These days, the governments need every cent to help the budget, which is hurt by the pandemic. That is now one of the available options to improve the situation, and it’s sad to see that we are not using that effectively.


  Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, señorías, quería iniciar esta breve intervención felicitando, por supuesto, a Sven Giegold por este informe, al conjunto de ponentes y, especialmente, también a mi colega Evelyn Regner.

Ciertamente estamos ante una situación típica en las instituciones comunitarias, en las cuales, en aquellas áreas donde no tenemos competencias directas, empujamos, pedimos y, además, regulamos en el ámbito de la cooperación fiscal entre los Estados miembros, y los Estados no responden.

Yo creo que este informe señala los problemas actuales. Pone el dedo donde debe situarlo: encima de aquellos Gobiernos de los Estados que ni siquiera comparten información.

Me gustaría también terminar pidiendo a los diputados del Grupo del Partido Popular y del Grupo Renew que mantengamos el acuerdo alcanzado en relación con este informe en comisión —en la Comisión de Asuntos Económicos y Monetarios— y que, de alguna manera, evitemos considerandos iniciales, que van en contra, por otra parte, del trabajo de las propias instituciones en esa negociación tan importante que estamos teniendo en la OCDE para marcar unos mínimos impositivos globales.


  Martin Hlaváček (Renew). – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for all the work they have invested in this important report.

It’s my deep conviction that the idea of this report was quite excellent: to assess and analyse how we have progressed a decade after DAC1. What did we learn? That we still have some difficulty in collecting information for tariff and comprehensive analysis. I believe this is a key finding, to some extent, of course, because some of the elements are evolving through time and have entered into force relatively recently so could not be taken into consideration. I think that this is also a question about the timing of this report. I do not think this is a discouragement at all. Quite the contrary. We should continue our work and go forward making gradual progress.

On a more positive note, a lot has changed since 2011 in terms of scope and in terms of the quality of the exchange of information achieved. However, technological development is going even faster and it is more than necessary to progress farther. I think the DAC revision 8 on crypto assets is more than needed and the same goes for the information for EU and non-EU located businesses.


  Hélène Laporte (ID). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, les scandales à répétition relatifs à l’évasion et à la fraude fiscale au sein de l’Union européenne plaident pour une meilleure application des directives DAC et une réflexion d’ensemble sur le sujet. L’évasion fiscale se déroule depuis plusieurs années maintenant dans un contexte transnational, la fraude organisée ignorant les frontières terrestres.

Le talon d’Achille du dispositif tient dans les échanges peu satisfaisants entre les États membres et plusieurs pays tiers, dont la Suisse, ce qui affaiblit considérablement son efficacité, car les organisations frauduleuses connaissent les failles du système et logent leurs sociétés écrans dans les pays tiers. La seconde faiblesse concerne l’identification des bénéficiaires effectifs des sociétés, malgré l’ouverture des données des registres mise en place depuis quelques années.

L’exemple du Luxembourg et le scandale Open Lux ont montré les limites du système en révélant qu’un nombre important d’entreprises ne remplissaient pas leurs obligations de déclaration. Étant un membre fondateur de l’Union, le Luxembourg devrait être exemplaire dans son comportement face à l’évitement fiscal. Ce pays de 600 000 habitants ne compte pas moins de 150 000 sociétés. Rappelons que les pratiques fiscales agressives, notamment celles des multinationales, créent une perte annuelle de 160 à 190 milliards d’euros pour l’Union européenne. Nous ne sommes pas loin de la fourchette du budget total de l’Union.

En France, deux tiers des sociétés du CAC 40 sont aussi présentes au Luxembourg par le biais d’au moins 166 filiales. Une partie d’entre elles correspondent à des implantations réelles d’activités sur le sol luxembourgeois, mais pour une grande majorité, ces filiales sont le fruit d’une optimisation fiscale agressive. La Commission doit s’attaquer aux sociétés-boîtes aux lettres et mettre en place une publicité sans restriction des registres sur les bénéficiaires réels de sociétés accompagnée d’un contrôle des déclarations réalisées.

D’autre part, à l’heure où les déficits publics se creusent, la protection de nos finances publiques doit être une priorité. Les fonds recouvrés remplissent une double fonction: accroître les recettes fiscales, mais également affirmer l’autorité de l’État dans l’efficacité de la perception des impôts.

De plus, s’agissant d’échanges de données sensibles, il faut veiller au strict respect de la confidentialité, car les risques de fuite ne sont pas écartés. Même si le texte semble, à ce sujet, équilibré entre la garantie de la protection des données et la recherche d’informations nécessaires afin de détecter les montages frauduleux, la Commission doit veiller à un degré de protection maximal.


  Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, vandaag spreken we over de verbetering van het uitwisselen van belastinginformatie in de gemeenschappelijke markt. Uiteraard moedigen wij aan om samen te werken om belastingfraude en belastingontduiking te bestrijden zolang er geen onnodige bureaucratie voor het bedrijfsleven ontstaat.

Dit debat is echter weer een typisch voorbeeld waarbij Europafederalistische types met hun amendementen hun boekje te buiten gaan. Zo betreuren zij belastingregimes in bepaalde lidstaten, vragen zij zelfs om een inbreukprocedure en willen zij het principe schrappen waarbij het Parlement erkent dat belastingen een nationale bevoegdheid zijn.

Ik zal deze collega's helpen. Volgens de Verdragen is belastingheffing een bevoegdheid van de lidstaten, dus wat u oppert in uw amendementen kan helemaal niet. Dus schoenmaker, blijf bij uw leest en concentreert u zich op de zaken die wel mogelijk zijn. Directe belastingen zijn kerncompetenties van en tussen lidstaten. Laten wij dat zo houden.


  Manon Aubry (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, dans la course contre l’évasion fiscale, les fraudeurs ont toujours une longueur d’avance, surtout quand les États refusent de mettre le turbo et de collaborer. Dès qu’une nouvelle règle est mise en place, ces délinquants en col blanc inventent toujours un montage pour la contourner. Dernier exemple en date, le scandale LuxLetters, qui démontre comment de grands cabinets de conseil se sont entendus avec le Luxembourg pour cacher à leurs voisins leurs cadeaux aux multinationales.

Pour prévenir de tels scandales, la transparence est un élément clé, et pas seulement entre États, comme le montrent les limites de ces directives DAC. Car les évadés fiscaux sont comme les vampires: ils détestent la lumière. Mais sous la pression des lobbies patronaux et avec la complicité du gouvernement français, le texte sur la transparence fiscale a été largement affaibli.

Alors, vous qui êtes d’habitude si prompts à demander des comptes aux États quand il s’agit de couper dans les budgets de nos services publics ou de les privatiser, vous feriez mieux d’utiliser la même fermeté avec ceux qui nous volent au quotidien. Attaquez-vous enfin aux évadés fiscaux. Leur impunité n’a que trop duré.


  Isabel Benjumea Benjumea (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, que la Comisión Europea tenga entre sus prioridades la lucha contra la evasión y el fraude fiscal, sin duda, es un acierto.

Primero, porque quien la hace siempre debe pagarla, venga de donde venga; y que las instituciones públicas colaboren para perseguir el delito y para lograr que desaparezca la sensación de impunidad es una muy buena noticia.

En segundo lugar, porque el regulador no debe existir para generar problemas, sino para controlar los posibles desequilibrios en el mercado, como la existencia de este tipo de prácticas fiscales dañinas que impiden competir a todos en igualdad de oportunidades.

Y, en tercer lugar, porque no podemos permitirnos continuar perdiendo más de 150 000 millones de euros anuales de las arcas públicas por estas prácticas tan dañinas.

No podemos mirar hacia otro lado. Ahora bien, no solo se construye la Unión Europea endeudándonos unidos para gastar más. El espíritu de la Unión se construye trabajando para ser cada día más competitivos, más eficientes, más especializados y más libres, y el programa Fiscalis 2020, que se menciona en el informe, es una buena muestra de ello.

La política económica, en general, y la fiscal, en particular, de la Unión Europea no pueden limitarse a poner encima de la mesa nuevas figuras tributarias que se puedan crear o a estar constantemente hablando de la armonización de impuestos. Debemos centrar todos nuestros esfuerzos en combatir el fraude fiscal y en generar el ambiente para la verdadera competitividad de las empresas.


  Paul Tang (S&D). – Madam President, what is it that they are hiding? That’s what I think when I hear the rapporteur and the shadows say that they didn’t get from the Council the relevant documents and data; and that is needed to fulfil our democratic duty to assess the implementation of the EU rules on administrative cooperation and on taxation.

The stance of the Council is unacceptable. It underlines a fundamental democratic deficit in a fundamental part of government taxation. Behind closed doors decisions are being taken that affect all of us and no parliament, national or European, is able to exercise democratic scrutiny.

Transparency and accountability are part of the democratic process, and it’s only admirable that the rapporteur Sven Giegold and his team of shadows still have drafted an insightful report. Its conclusions – lack of exchange of information, auditing tools and control mechanisms – are shared by the European Court of Auditors and I trust that the Council will take good note of this report and that the Commissioner will push for the implementation of its recommendations.


  Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, I welcome the overall content of the report, and trust the report in highlighting the deficiencies that are still clearly there in terms of oversight and information sharing between tax administrations across the European Union. We do need to have that flow of information, either be it publicly or confidentially between the various administrations, to root out tax evasion, tax avoidance and money laundering.

But unfortunately, again, these reports are being used to go to the very heart of what the European Union is about in terms of Member State competences, and the issue of taxation is one that I feel very strongly about. There seems to be a continuous effort in this Parliament – and by the Commission as well at this stage – to undermine that sovereign concept of Member States having unanimity and competency in the areas of taxation.

I am for cooperation and for ensuring that we have a free flow of information, but at the same time, we have to insist that the Treaties and the functioning of the European Union are upheld and vindicated on a regular basis, and that is the obligation of the Commission as well.

But overall, I welcomed the overall trust in this report. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, efforts are being made to put amendments to it to undermine the concept of unanimity and sovereignty in the areas of taxation.


  Angelo Ciocca (ID). – Signora Presidente, signori Commissari, onorevoli colleghi, è un dato di fatto, sul tema delle tasse europee assistiamo a un'ingiustizia.

Esistono questi due filoni di tasse: le tasse che devono pagare i cittadini – e quelle le devono pagare – e le tasse che dovrebbero pagare, o meglio che non pagano i grandi colossi del web.

Oggi, se pensiamo che nel 2018 i ricavi dei colossi del web sono stati di tre miliardi e mezzo e hanno pagato tasse per 70 milioni, se fossero tassati secondo l'imposizione italiana avrebbero dovuto pagare 30 volte di più di quanto hanno versato, cioè versano coriandoli rispetto a profitti estremamente lussuosi. Questa elusione e questa evasione fiscale dei giganti del web pesa 50 miliardi di euro negli ultimi cinque anni.

Questa è la vera sfida che devono avere il coraggio la Commissione e il Parlamento di vincere. Non si può pensare di far pagare le tasse ai cittadini e di non riuscire a far pagare le tasse, invece, ai grandi colossi del web.


  Andżelika Anna Możdżanowska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Co roku w Unii Europejskiej tracimy około 140 miliardów euro z tytułu strat w podatku dochodowym od osób prawnych, które można przeznaczyć na zdrowie, walkę z klęskami żywiołowymi czy edukację. Wymiana informacji podatkowych przy zachowaniu poszanowania kompetencji właściwych dla krajów członkowskich ma nieoceniony wpływ na walkę z oszustwami podatkowymi. Gdy skutecznie z nimi zwyciężamy, widzimy z jak potężnych sum okradane są nasze budżety i nasze społeczeństwa.

Nie możemy jednak stosować kolejnych regulacji z pominięciem dialogu z przedsiębiorcami, dla których jeszcze bardziej szczegółowy system raportowania będzie obciążeniem kosztownym i czasowym. Przedsiębiorcy powinni zajmować się biznesem, bo to gwarancja naszego wspólnego dobrobytu i europejskiego sukcesu.

Mamy sześć wdrożonych dyrektyw dotyczących wymiany informacji podatkowej. Kolejne dwie przed nami, a nie jesteśmy w stanie skutecznie zająć się europejskimi rajami podatkowymi czy złotymi paszportami. Czy wiecie Państwo, że tylko 4% z 50 pozycji danych przekazywanych zgodnie z dyrektywą DAC3 zostało wykorzystanych? Nie posiadamy danych na temat efektywności wdrożonych dyrektyw. Czy wobec tego kolejne planowanie zmian w kwestiach raportowania przez przedsiębiorców szczegółowej listy dochodów i aktywów jest niezbędne? Czy przekazywanie informacji dotyczące u poprzednich porozumień cenowych, w których najistotniejsza jest ochrona wskaźników finansowych przedsiębiorstwa, nie naruszy zasady konkurencyjności na jednolitym rynku?

Wykorzystajmy należycie narzędzia, które już mamy, udoskonalmy i monitorujmy współpracę. Nie pozwólmy, by niektóre państwa członkowskie stosowały wymogi w tak w minimalnym stopniu.


  Othmar Karas (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Steuerflucht, Steuerbetrug und Steuervermeidung schaffen Ungerechtigkeiten, verzerren den Wettbewerb und schwächen die Europäische Union. Ohne mehr Zusammenarbeit und eine lückenlose Informationstätigkeit können wir unseren Kampf gegen Missbrauch, Betrug und organisierte Kriminalität nicht gewinnen. Der Bericht zeigt deutlich: Wir sind schon ein Stück weitergekommen, haben aber noch sehr, sehr viel Luft nach oben, vor allem beim Austausch von Steuerinformationen in Europa und bei der Umsetzung vorhandener Regeln.

In den letzten Jahren wurden die gemeinsamen Regeln schon sechs Mal verbessert, aber trotzdem nicht umgesetzt. Jüngst haben wir sie auf Steuerdaten von digitalen Verkaufsplattformen erweitert. Die Kommission arbeitet bereits an einem neuen Vorschlag, also eine achte Version. Die gemeinsamen Regeln können nur in volle Wirkung kommen, wenn wir und die Mitgliedstaaten alle auch lückenlos umsetzen und durchsetzen.

Ich halte es für unentschuldbar, dass noch immer zu wenig Informationen ausgetauscht werden, noch immer die ausgetauschten Daten nicht genutzt werden, noch immer die Datenqualität zu wenig kontrolliert wird und noch immer die Wirksamkeit durch die mangelnde Umsetzung der vierten und fünften Anti-Geldwäsche-Richtlinie untergraben wird. Handeln wir! Beschlüsse allein reichen anscheinend nicht aus.


  Aurore Lalucq (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Monsieur le commissaire, Sven Giegold, bravo, bravo pour ton rapport, bravo au rapporteur et pour tout le travail qui a pu être fait en matière d’échange d’informations et de transparence. Mais, mon Dieu, que le chemin est long et qu’il est semé d’embûches!

On a pu voir en juillet dernier, par voie de presse, un consortium de journalistes nous parler d’un scandale, les LuxLetters, et nous montrer comment un pays – ce n’est pas forcément pour le pointer du doigt, parce que le mien n’est pas non plus toujours exemplaire – contournait allègrement certaines réglementations européennes. C’est intolérable.

C’est intolérable en premier lieu pour les citoyens, pour les Européens. C’est intolérable dans un contexte de crise sociale, sanitaire et démocratique, car notre continent ne va pas très bien de ce point de vue là. C’est intolérable aussi pour tout le travail que nous pouvons faire au Parlement – et j’ai parlé de Sven, mais je pourrais parler de Paul Tang, je pourrais parler d’Evelyn Regner et de bien d’autres. C’est intolérable vis-à-vis de la Commission.

Le 15 juillet, nous vous avons envoyé, Monsieur le Commissaire – et je vous sais ouvert sur ce sujet-là – une lettre pour vous demander que toute la lumière soit faite sur ce dossier; on attend votre réponse avec hâte. On sait la Commission progressiste et allante, mais c’est important pour nous. C’est important pour les citoyens et juste pour un truc tout bête: que la règle soit la même pour tout le monde.


  Gilles Boyer (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, ce rapport nous permet de mesurer les progrès, bien sûr, mais aussi les marges d’amélioration en matière de coopération fiscale entre les États membres, qui est aujourd’hui devenue, on peut le dire, une arme majeure dans la lutte contre la fraude fiscale et contre le blanchiment.

Évidemment, avant d’exiger l’exemplarité des pays tiers, ce que nous faisons, nous devons tenter de l’incarner nous-mêmes. Depuis 2011, avec la première directive DAC, le partage d’informations fiscales entre États membres a connu de réelles avancées sous la forme d’un élargissement continu. Cet approfondissement doit se poursuivre.

Les scandales fiscaux de ces dernières années, qui ternissent la crédibilité de l’Union européenne, nous rappellent régulièrement le chemin à parcourir: assurer une pleine mise en œuvre des législations adoptées et étendre le dispositif de coopération à de nouveaux aspects, notamment dans le domaine des crypto monnaies. Et notre Parlement, Monsieur le Commissaire, y prendra toute sa part.


  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Mimo coraz bardziej pogłębianej współpracy w zakresie wymiany informacji podatkowych realizowanej od 2013 r. między krajami członkowskimi, a także krajami trzecimi, wartość utraconych dochodów podatkowych przez budżety krajów unijnych wcale nie maleje. Jak podaje sprawozdawca, jest to kwota od 160 do nawet 190 mld EUR rocznie, jeżeli chodzi o unikanie opodatkowania przez przedsiębiorstwa, natomiast 50 mld EUR, jeżeli chodzi o unikanie opodatkowania przez osoby fizyczne. Nie kwestionując sensu tej współpracy i wymiany informacji podatkowych przez służby podatkowe krajów członkowskich, być może warto byłoby zaproponować na poziomie krajów członkowskich wprowadzenie dodatkowego opodatkowania dużych firm, które wykazują dochody poniżej jednego procenta swoich obrotów. W moim kraju, w Polsce, taki dodatkowy podatek rząd chce wprowadzić od przyszłego roku. Mam nadzieję, Panie Komisarzu, że Komisja Europejska tego rozwiązania nie będzie kwestionować, tak jak było w przypadku podatku handlowego. Przypominam, że Komisja, kwestionując to polskie rozwiązanie, ostatecznie przegrała je w Trybunale Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej.


  Marek Belka (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, let me stress what this discussion is about. It is about what 75% of our citizens expect of the EU: to intervene more against tax fraud.

In times of an economic, social and health crisis, we cannot afford to lose more funds from taxes. But we are failing. Member States don’t exchange relevant information amongst each other, don’t implement EU legislation on tax cooperation, and seem not to trust other Member States and institutions on tax matters.

Here’re some news for the Member States: it will be impossible to fight tax fraud of many big corporations and rich individuals without help from you. What will you give up if you don’t have funds from taxes due to your lack of cooperation: schools, social support, or health?

Trust is key. And as the Parliament, we’ll be pushing you to put your pride aside and join forces in this cooperative fight.


  Paolo Gentiloni, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I think the interventions by honourable Members confirm, first of all, the importance of the tool we are using. So I reiterate my appreciation for this report on implementation, thanking Mr Giegold and the shadow rapporteurs.

It’s a form of scrutiny, also of Commission activity, and we will cover some of the recommendations in your report in what we call DAC8 at the beginning of next year. We all know, of course, that there is a long way to go. We need to strike a balance between the national dimension and European cooperation, and global cooperation, because we know that many of these issues are also at the centre of decisions taken at OECD and global level. What is important, I think, along this rather long way, is that we make progress and we work together.

So let me just conclude by saying that we continue to count on your pressure and your support to make this way shorter, if possible, and to make progress in this common fight against tax fraud and evasion.


  Sven Giegold, rapporteur. – Madam President, thank you colleagues for this exchange and many welcoming words. Thanks a lot to the Commission, in particular to the commitment in the opening speech to include most of our ideas in the DAC8 revision.

Now, in the closing speech, some we will see and hope that it will be rather most than some. We are looking forward to what will be coming, but thanks for this commitment. We would welcome also a clear commitment to start immediately on infringement proceedings when it comes to the lack of effective implementation, which is actually the key issue of our report.

I would like to say on the access to documents that we regarded as highly doubtful that Parliament can be treated less welcoming by the Commission and the Member States than an individual citizen. You referred to the framework agreement and therefore the part in my report, and nobody has questioned that.

We are calling on Parliament to use all legal means at its disposal in order to get the needed documents. This is actually what we now have to do up to a court proceeding if this is in the end needed, because this infringement, this report on effective implementation, we couldn’t do it properly. We say this also clearly: it is an incomplete report and we have to complete that work but for this, we need the documents from the Member States and, if needed, we have to go to court for this.

Then we have the debate on tax sovereignty. I only would like to say that the Treaty doesn’t give all the competences over direct taxation to the Member States. This is an incorrect reading of the Treaty. It only puts a unanimity requirement for this, and this has led to the unfortunate situation that for this directive, we are now working on the eighth version in only 15 years. So this unanimity requirement leads to a lack of good lawmaking and excessive bureaucracy to companies and obliges taxpayers in order to deal with these ever changing rules. Therefore, I will welcome if you could support my amendment to a move towards a majority voting.

Equally, tax competition. The amendment of the ECR, which, by the way, unfortunately did not contribute to the work unlike all the other groups, the amendment to support tax competition and see the welcoming and positive aspects. It has fallen out of time in a period when at OECD level, on global level, at European level, we move from a tax-competition model to a tax-cooperation model and therefore, colleagues, please do not support such damaging wording.

Last point, when it comes to naming problems, this Parliament must be courageous. It is not good that some groups have asked for deleting Romania from the findings, and it’s equally not good not to speak clearly about new revelations on Luxembourg.

Let us be courageous and don’t do party politics on this. Let us name and shame where things are not working well, and therefore I appeal to your support to my report and also refuting all the weakening amendments. Thanks for your work and we will continue together on this.


  Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 16 września 2021 r.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 171)


  Enikő Győri (NI), írásban. – A koronavírus okozta gazdasági válságból történő kilábaláshoz és helyreállításhoz kiemelkedően fontosnak tartom az adóelkerülés és adócsalás elleni fokozottabb küzdelmet. Épp ezért támogatom a jelentés azon kezdeményezéseit, amelyek a tagállamok közötti adóügyi információk cseréjének javítását szorgalmazzák. Elengedhetetlen, hogy minőségi információ álljon rendelkezésre a tagállamokban az adóelkerülés és adócsalás elleni hatékony fellépéshez. Adót mindenkinek fizetnie kell. A multiknak, a nagy cégeknek és azoknak is, akik adóparadicsomokba igyekeznek menekíteni a pénzüket. Ezért a szabályokat úgy kell kialakítani, hogy az adócsalók ne élvezhessék az egységes piacból és a határok átjárhatóságából fakadó előnyöket.

Emellett, a fenntartható gazdasági növekedéshez és a felvett hitelek visszafizetéséhez az is fontos, hogy a tagállami kormányok kiegyensúlyozott és versenyképes adórendszereket alakítsanak ki és tartsanak fenn. Olyat, amely legjobban szolgálja a saját gazdasági érdekeiket. Olyat, amely megfelelő és szilárd környezetet biztosít a befektetéseknek és beruházásoknak, amelyek pedig munkahelyeket teremtenek az állampolgárok számára. Európa versenyképessége is javul, ha a tagállamok versenyképesebbé válnak. Újra és újra emlékeztetni kell a baloldalt: az adópolitika tagállami hatáskör. A tagállami szuverenitást firtató és a megosztó hatásköri viták helyett javaslom, hogy az erőfeszítéseit a baloldal is az Unió egységét, a versenyképesség növelését és a tagállamok gazdasági helyreállítását segítő kezdeményezésekre fordítsa.

Letzte Aktualisierung: 10. Februar 2022Rechtlicher Hinweis - Datenschutzbestimmungen