37 Amendments of Mojca KLEVA KEKUŠ related to 2013/0000(INI)
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas an estimated and scandalous EUR 1 trillion is lost to tax fraud and tax avoidance every year in the EU, representing an approximate cost of EUR 2000 for every European citizen each year;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas state aid should be better aligned with the targets set by the Lisbon European Council of March 2000, while at the same time complementseek balance with the objectives of other EU policies, in particular the Cohesion Policy;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas this loss represents an alarming loss of public revenue, a danger for the safeguarding of the EU social model based on quality public services, a threat to proper functioning of the Single Market and a dent to the efficiency and fairness of tax systems within the EU;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes the view that the implementation of both the Cohesion Policy and the rules on State support schemes to reinforce local and regional investments are of key importance for promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion, regional and local development, industrialhelping to reduce regional imbalances and stimulating business competitiveness, as well as fostering growth and job creation; is, however, concerned about whether the State aid rules are coherent with the implementation of the European Structural and Investment Funds; in this regard, urges the Commission to ensure that SAM will be consistent with the proposed changes in the General Regulation on the Structural Funds and to prevent areas belonging to the same category and experiencing similar economic difficulties from being treated unequally;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights that the State aid rules, as well as the Cohesion Policy objectives, should lead to improving the situation of the less-developed regions and thus achieving harmonious and balanced development of the EU, and that the SAM process must reflect the objectives of cohesion throughout the EU; in this regard, insist on establishing real synergies between the two policies to eliminate any disturbing discrepancies and ensure maximum consistency of the two policies during the implementation; believes that the modernisation of competition rules must be based on understanding the impact of these rules at sub-national level;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the scale of tax fraud and tax avoidance undermines citizens' trust and confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of tax collection and fiscal system as a whole;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the lack of coordination of tax policies in the EU leads to significant cost and administrative burden for citizens and businesses operating cross- border within the EU and may result in unintended non-taxation or lead to tax fraud and tax avoidance;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas countries under assistance programmes have in the last years, after stepping up tax collection and eliminating privileges in line with Troika proposals, seen many of their larger companies leave in order to benefit from tax privileges offered by other countries; whereas in the case of Greece the Commission has calculated that as much as €60 billion have escaped from Greece to Swiss banks since the beginning of 2012;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the Commission’s aim in the SAM process to make the principles clearer, more straightforward and easier; takes the view that these principles should be both well coordinated with other EU policies and sufficiently clear, predictable and flexible to meet the needs of certain Member States and their regions facing a time of crisis and severe economic hardship; reiterates its recognition of theconsiders that given the current economic and social crisis, public investment is essential as part of an overall strategy for growth and employment; in this regard, reiterates the important role played by State aid in addressing the crisis; expresses its concern that the proposal, as published for consultation, is not sufficiently evidence- based and will go against the objective of simplification; asks the Commission to specify in the future regional State aid guidelines that the aid intensities laid down in these guidelines do not apply for public subsidies granted by Member States using ESF and ERDF resources which meet the compatibility requirements of the Services of General Economic Interest Decision or the Framework;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas the job cuts in majority of Member States' national tax authorities through austerity measures over the past years greatly jeopardise the implementation of the Commission's Action Plan;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas European finance ministers in February 2013 at the G20 meeting in Moscow vowed to take the necessary action in tackling tax avoidance and confirmed that solely national measures will not deliver desired effects;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that the geographical zoning of the new Guidelines on Regional State Aid 2014-2020 (RSAG) should not be reduced, and that decreasing the aid intensity should be reconsidered, taking into account the political, economic and social situation in the Member States; points out that, in the global context, the EU economy could be placed at a disadvantage relative to third countries benefitting from looserwith less stringent employment schemes or lower cost structures;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Suggests that in its zoning criteria, the Commission takes into account the natural, geographic or demographic handicaps faced by certain regions, including rural, mountain and island areas; points out that the zoning requirements are not always appropriate for all areas, in terms of the minimum size and extent of the zones, and that these areas can in particular often not meet population requirements asked for; calls therefore for these requirements to be relaxed either by setting more adequate population ceilings, or by applying these two criteria more flexibly;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out to theInsists that the new RSAG should not have a restrictive impact of new rules on investment and growth of regions as they move from the less developed to the more developed category; is aware that certain regions eligible for State aid under the current system willrisk not meeting the zoning criteria of the RSAG in the future period; believes that these regions should havebe eligible for a special "safety net" regime, similar to that for transition regions under the Cohesion Policy, allowing them to cope with their new situationrespond to their new situation; in this regard, finds it essential that all regions which were considered as “a” regions in 2007-2013 period are treated as pre- defined “c” regions in 2014-2020;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative to establish a ‘Platform for Tax Good Governance’; calls on the Commission to consult and involve in the workings of the Platform also the national tax workforce, social partners and trade unions; calls on the Commission to submit on a yearly basis to the Council and the European Parliament a report about the work and achievements of the Platform;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that the EU should lead the discussions and shoul in the OECD, the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, the G20 and G8 on the fight against tax fraud, tax avoidance and tax havens; stresses that the EU should persuade and assist non- EU countries in subscribing to the EU principles of transparency, exchange of information and abolition of harmful tax measures;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the particular situation of regions, which are adjacent to less developed regions, is carefully addressed so as to prevent creation of isolated regions practically without State aid bordering two "a" regions;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that the application of State aid rules within Cohesion Policy programmes could be better achieved by focussing on large-scale aiconcentrating aid where really needed, simplifying rules, increasing the de minimis ceiling, and extending the horizontal categories in the Enabling Regulation and the scope of the block exemption rules in the General Block Exemption Regulation ;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on Member States to commit to an ambitious but realistic target of halving the tax gap by 2020, since this would gradually generate new tax revenue without raising tax rates; insists that Member States engage in serious negotiations and bring to a closure all open legislative proposals regarding issues of tax fraud, tax avoidance and tax havens;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes the view that application of the State aid rules within the Cohesion policy programmes in infrastructure projects exploited for economic activities, namely after the above-mentioned ruling of the Court of Justice in joint cases Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle v Commission, may lead to a greater administrative burden being imposed onin regards to the ruling of the Court of Justice in joint cases Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle v Commission, it is important to guarantee a correct application of the State aid rules within the Cohesion policy programmes in infrastructure projects used for economic activities, so as to ensure that local and regional authorities and/or their public entities are not faced with any additional administrative burden; stresses that the implementation of these projects mayshould not be jeopardised by the demanding financial management rules, including the de -commitment rules pertaining to the Cohesion Policy and the complaint practice in the State aid procedure;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that the Member States and regions should coordinate their activities with the Commission better, in terms of the quality and timeliness the information they are to submit and the notifications they are to prepare; calls on the Member States to ensure the proper application of the State aid ex-ante conditionality under Cohesion Policy, and to provide better compliance with State aid rules at national level;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that certain, newly proposed rules in the draft RSAG for 2014-2020 – such as counterfactual scenarios, clear evidence that the aid has an impact on the investment choice, or the condition that work on the project must not start before a decision to award aid is taken by public authorities – which the Commission would like to imposeapply in the coming period – both on companies applying for incentives and on the Member States and their sub- national government structures – go againstshould go hand in hand with the principle of simplification and ‘debureaucratisation’ as promoted in the Cohesion Policy and other EU and national policies; reiterates that such rules may mean that certain projects will be excluded from investment aid;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12 . Urges Member States to allocate adequate financial and human resources to their national tax administrations and tax audit staff as well as resources for the training of the tax administration staff focusing on cross-border cooperation on tax fraud and avoidance;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is of the opinion that excluding large enterprises companies from State aid rules in areas covered by Article 107(3)(c) TFEU is not justified given their contribution to employment, the supply- chains that they create with SMEs, their common involvement in research and development, and the role they play in the economic crisis; takes the view that the presence of large undertakings is often key to the success of SMEs that benefit from clusters led by large companies and from their sub- contracting activities; underlines that such a decision may lead to job losses and reduced economic activity in the regions and to the relocation of companies to other regions either within and outside the EU;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that the eligibility of large enterprises for State aid incentives should be determined not on the basis of the size of the enterprise or the sector in which it operates but on the basis of the number of jobs that could be created and saved under the incentive, the quality of these jobs orand the sustainability of the project; additionally, advocates that to eliminate the risk of relocation and guarantee that productive investment enhancing job and growth creation comes out of given State aid, the Commission should amend a safeguard clause which would oblige large enterprises to maintain investment and jobs created in the area where the aid was awarded for a period of 10 years, or 5 years in the case of SMEs; believes that in case of early relocation, the enterprise should be obliged to reimburse given aid; stresses that, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, decisions to determine which particular projects have the highest potential to achieve the objectives of EU policies should be left to the Member States, the regions concerned and local governments; within the European framework;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Calls on the Commission to raise the current threshold for the definition of small and medium enterprises (SMEs); asks, accordingly, the Commission to create, as it has already agreed for the agri-food industry, a new category of mid- sized enterprises, employing between 250 and 750 workers and with a turnover of under EUR 200 million, located between SMEs and large enterprises, in order to promote the development of our SMEs;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on Member States tothe Commission and Member States to take action and suspend or revoke the banking licenses of financial institutions if they actively assist in tax fraud by offering products or services to customers enabling them to evade taxes or refuse to cooperate with tax authorities;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Encourages the Commission to introduce proposals for a harmonised tackling of tax fraud under criminal law, in particular as regards crossborder and mutual investigations; believes that explicit mention of tax crimes as predicate offences to money laundering should be included in the review of the Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive; alerts the Commission to enhance its cooperation with other EU law enforcement bodies, in particular with authorities responsible for anti-money laundering, justice and social security;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses the importance of implementing new strategies and making better use of existing EU structures for improved combating of VAT fraud; urges, therefore, the Member States to swiftly adopt the Commission's proposal for a Quick Reaction Mechanism against VAT fraud;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Encourages the Member States to continue and upgrade, under Fiscalis programme, the simultaneous controls to find and fight cross-border tax fraud as well as facilitate presence of foreign officials in the offices of tax administrations and during administrative enquiries; highlights the importance of regular knowledge-exchange between tax administrations when dealing with aggressive tax planning schemes used by multinational companies;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Urges Member States to swiftly implement the Commission’s proposal for the introduction of a General Anti-Abuse Rule to counteract aggressive tax planning practices, and include a clause in their Double Taxation Conventions to prevent occurrences of double non-taxation; encourages Member States to ignore any tax benefits arising from artificial arrangements or those lacking commercial substance; suggests work to be started on the standard set of rules for EU Member States to prevent double taxation;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Encourages the Commission and Member States to establish efficient revenue-collecting mechanisms that minimise the distance between taxpayers and tax authorities and maximise the use of modern technology; calls on the Commission to tackle complexities of taxing electronic commerce by developing appropriate EU standards;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)
Paragraph 26 b (new)
26b. Encourages Member States to notify and make public tax rulings by national authorities for companies operating cross- border;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Proposes that a tax haven be defined as a jurisdiction which has not effectively implemented the international standards for transparency and exchange of information as established by the Global Forum, or which operates tax measures that breach the principles and criteria of the Code of Conduct; In this regard, a jurisdiction is considered to be tax haven if: (i) advantages are accorded only to non- residents or in respect of transactions carried out with non-residents, or (ii) advantages are ring-fenced from the domestic market, so they do not affect the national tax base, or (iii) advantages are granted even without any real economic activity and substantial economic presence within the jurisdiction offering such tax advantages, or (iv) the rules for profit determination in respect of activities within a multinational group of companies departs from internationally accepted principles, notably the rules agreed upon within the OECD, or (v) the tax measures lack transparency, including where legal provisions are relaxed at administrative level in a non- transparent way, or (vi) the jurisdiction imposes no or only nominal taxes, or (vii) there are laws or administrative practices that prevent the effective exchange of information for tax purposes with other governments on taxpayers benefiting from the no or nominal taxation, or (viii) the jurisdiction creates non- transparent and secretive structures that render the formation and working of company registries and registers of trusts and foundations to be incomplete and non-transparent.
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Urges the Commission to compile and create a European blacklist of tax havens until 31st December 2014; calls on Member States to suspend or terminate existing Double Tax Conventions with jurisdictions that are on the blacklist, and to initiate Double Tax Conventions with jurisdictions that cease to be tax havens;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Calls on the Commission to compile a list of sanctions for jurisdictions listed on European blacklist for tax havens, among which should be prohibition of access to EU public procurement of goods and services by companies based in identified jurisdictions and refusal to grant state aid where such applications are made;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Encourages Member States to offer cooperation and assistance to developing third countries which are not tax havens, helping them to effectively tackle tax fraud and tax avoidance; in particular through capacity building measures; supports the Commission’s call that to this end the Member States should second tax experts to such countries for a limited period of time;