2018/0072(CNS) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. Th~~e Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Directive five years after its entry into for~~ree years after...[the date of entry into force of this Directive], the Commission shall conduct an assessment of the application of this Directive and present a report to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals for its review. The report shall assess, in particular, the implementation of the significant digital presence rules in different Member States, the number and type of companies covered by the definition of significant digital presence, a~~nd report to the Council thereon~~s well as the appropriateness of the criteria set out in Article 4 and whether or not absolute figures should be complemented by percentages.

Amendment 101 #

Marco VALLI

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Directive ~~fiv~~three years after its entry into force and report to the Council thereon. It shall in particular examine the effectiveness of this Directive in ensuring a level playing field and fair competition between digital and traditional businesses, its impact on tax revenues in Member States and in developing countries as well as its impact on SMEs.

Amendment 102 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Directive five years after its entry into force and report to the ~~Council thereon~~European Parliament and the Council thereon. Particular emphasis shall be placed on the effectiveness of tax collection across Member States and the impact of this Directive on companies and especially SMEs.

Amendment 103 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Directive ~~fiv~~three years after its entry into force and report to the European Parliament and the Council thereon.

Amendment 104 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 a (new)

Article 6a Exercise of the delegation 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 4 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Directive. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 4 may be revoked at any time by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 4 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by the Council within a period of [two months] of notification of that act to the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the Council has informed the Commission that it will not object. That period shall be extended by [two months] at the initiative of the Council.

Amendment 105 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 a (new)

Article 6a Sunset clause on Council Directive 2018/XX/EU on the Digital Service Tax With the implementation of this directive the Council directive on the common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services1a shall expire. _________________ 1a OJ.../Not yet published in the Official Journal

Amendment 106 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 b (new)

Article 6b Informing the European Parliament The European Parliament shall be informed of the adoption of delegated acts by the Commission, of any objection formulated to them, and of the revocation of that delegation of powers by the Council.

Amendment 107 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 b (new)

Article 6b Additional measure The concept of permanent establishment including a digital significant presence shall be included in the Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base.

Amendment 108 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 c (new)

Article 6c Mandate to the European Commission to negotiate tax treaties with third countries Member States shall provide a delegation of powers to the Commission to negotiate on their behalf the revision or adoption of tax treaties with third countries in accordance with the rules set out in this Directive, in particular as regards to the inclusion of the definition of a significant digital presence for tax purposes.

Amendment 109 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 d (new)

Article 6d Minimum EU effective tax rate Three years after the date of implementation of this Directive, the Commission shall present a proposal in view of harmonising corporate taxation at EU level by establishing a mandatory minimum effective corporate tax rate of at least 20%, whilst no upper limit shall be set.

Amendment 110 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. The DigiTax Committee shall consist of representatives of the Member States, the European Parliament and of the Commission. The chair of the Committee shall be a representative of the Commission. Secretarial services for the Committee shall be provided by the Commission. Trade Union representatives from national tax administrations shall be allowed to attend as observers.

Amendment 111 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. The DigiTax Committee shall consist of representatives of the Member States and of the Commission. The chair of the Committee shall be a representative of the Commission. Secretarial services for the Committee shall be provided by the Commission. The European Parliament shall be represented with an observer.

Amendment 112 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. The DigiTax Committee shall consist of representatives of the Member States and of the Commission and an observer of the European Parliament. The chair of the Committee shall be a representative of the Commission. Secretarial services for the Committee shall be provided by the Commission.

Amendment 113 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. The DigiTax Committee shall consist of representatives of the Member States, Parliament and of the Commission. The chair of the Committee shall be a representative of the Commission. Secretarial services for the Committee shall be provided by the Commission.

Amendment 114 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4

4. The DigiTax Committee shall examine questions on the application of this Directive, as raised by the chair of the Committee, whether on the chair's own initiative or at the request of the representative of a Member State, at the request of representative of the European Parliament or at the request of Trade Union representatives from national tax administrations, and shall inform the Commission of its conclusions.

Amendment 115 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4

4. The DigiTax Committee shall examine questions on the application of this Directive, as raised by the chair of the Committee, whether on the chair's own initiative or at the request of the representative of a Member State, and shall inform the European Parliament and the Commission of its conclusions.

Amendment 116 #

The DigiTax Committee shall draw up an annual report on its activities and findings and shall share this report with Parliament, Council and Commission.

Amendment 117 #

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Ramón JÁUREGUI ATONDO

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. The DigiTax Committee shall publish the agendas and minutes of its meetings, as well as all relevant documents.

Amendment 118 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1

The data that may be collected from the users for the purposes of applying this Directive shall be limited to data indicating the Member State in which the users are located, without allowing for identification of the user. Without prejudice of paragraph 1, any processing of personal data under this Directive shall comply with the provisions laid down on Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Amendment 119 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1

The data that may be collected from the users for the purposes of applying this Directive shall be limited to data indicating the Member State in which the users are located, without allowing for identification of the user. Any processing of personal data carried out for the purposes of applying this Directive shall fully comply with Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Amendment 120 #

Markus FERBER

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 a (new)

Article 9a Link with Digital Services Tax on Revenues Once the provisions laid down in this directive become applicable, the provisions laid down in Directive [please insert: Directive on the common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services] shall automatically cease to apply.

Amendment 15 #

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Approve~~Rejects the Commission proposal ~~as amended~~;

Amendment 16 #

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that the Commission proposal for establishing a significant digital presence is not in line with the much broader definition laid down in the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) and that definitions codified in EU law need to be consistent.

Amendment 17 #

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Recalls that the OECD’s digital economy group has concluded after a two-year period of studying the topic that it was impossible to ring-fence the “digital economy” considering that digitalisation has permeated nearly all industries and sectors: “[b]ecause the digital economy is increasingly becoming the economy itself, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to ring-fence the digital economy from the rest of the economy for tax purposes.” (OECD 2015; p.11) Ring-fencing would require strong political value judgements about the legitimacy of certain business models and might open the door for increased state interventionism in Europe’s economies. It would also stand in conflict with the Treaty of Lisbon, stating that the Union “shall promote scientific and technological advance.” (Article 3).

Amendment 18 #

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Recalls that the Commission proposal contradicts the current OECD principle which states that taxation should occur where value is created, adding the complexity of whether a user’s consumption of a service is creating value. Since the concept of permanent establishment is governed by double taxation treaties in international law and therefore binding, not expandable, it is doubtful whether the Commission proposal is legally justified.

Amendment 19 #

Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Recalls that work is currently ongoing at the OECD to find a solution to the question of defining a "digital presence" that is in line with OECD principles and international law and can be agreed to by the G20.Supports a global solution awaiting the OECD proposal. Requests that the Commission present a proposal to Parliament based on the OECD's proposal for a global solution.

Amendment 20 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1

(1) Rapid transformation of the global economy as a result of digitalisation is putting new pressures on corporate tax systems both at Union level and internationally, and calling into question the ability to establish where digital companies should pay their taxes and how much they should pay. Although the need to adapt corporate tax rules to the digital economy is recognised at international level by bodies such as the G20, reaching an agreement at global level is likely to be challenging and not taking place in a near future.

Amendment 21 #

(1) Rapid transformation of the global economy as a result of digitalisation is putting new pressures on corporate tax systems both at Union level and internationally, and calling into question the ability to establish where digital companies should pay their taxes and how much they should pay. Although the need to adapt corporate tax rules to the digitalisation of the economy is recognised at international level by bodies such as the G20, reaching an agreement at global level is likely to be challenging.

Amendment 22 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) Too often, multinational companies that heavily rely upon digital activities make arrangements to transfer their profits to tax havens or to countries with a lower corporate tax rate, which allows them to pay less or no taxes. The concept of digital significant presence will provide a precise and binding definition of the criteria according to which a multinational company is deemed to have a permanent establishment in a given country. This will force digital companies to pay their taxes where their real economic activity occurs.

Amendment 23 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) Notwithstanding the difficulties of reaching a global agreement, such an agreement should still be pursued with great effort. As called for in the European Parliament’s inquiry committee into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (PANA) and in its special committee on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (TAXE2), an empowered UN tax body should be installed to serve as the forum for debates and discussions on said agreement and other matters related to the international tax system.

Amendment 24 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) In the digital age, now that data has become the new economic resource, as opposed to labour and traditional resources in the past, a new approach needs to be developed in order to have a fair and sustainable system of digital taxation.

Amendment 25 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 b (new)

(1b) Digitalisation affects the whole economy with many firms using multi- channel models; thus, instead of creating special regimes for digital businesses, international tax rules should be reformed, based on a principal of neutrality between different business models, both digital and non-digital, and regardless of the extent or form of digitalisation, including multi-channel models, recognising the economic reality businesses operate in today.

Amendment 26 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 c (new)

(1c) In particular, this means reforming the definition of a permanent establishment to be more in line with the concept of a permanent establishment as defined in the 2011 UN model tax convention.

Amendment 27 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

(2) The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action 1 report on "Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy" released by the OECD in October 2015 set out various different approaches for taxing the digital economy which were further examined in the OECD "Tax challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Interim Report 2018". As the digital transformation of the economy accelerates there is a growing need to find solutions to ensure a fair and effective taxation of digital companies. However, to date the OECD work on taxing the digital economy has not delivered sufficient progress, which illustrates the need for the Union to advance on this matter at Union level. This Directive should also serve as a basis for further work at the international level. In the absence of a common Union approach, Member States will adopt unilateral solutions, which will lead to regulatory uncertainty and will be difficult for companies which operate cross-border and for tax authorities.

Amendment 28 #

Jonás FERNÁNDEZ, Ramón JÁUREGUI ATONDO

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

(2) The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action 1 report on "Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy" released by the OECD in October 2015 set out various different approaches for taxing the digital economy which were further examined in the OECD "Tax challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Interim Report 2018". As the digital transformation of the economy accelerates there is a growing and urgent need to find solutions to ensure a fair and effective taxation of digital companies. The European Union should not wait for the results of the OECD works to tackle this issue, as progress at international level to reach a consensus can be considered too slow. The Union should set the trend by already now adapting its corporate taxation system to the digital economy and then advocate for such measures to be adopted also at a global level.

Amendment 29 #

Ashley FOX

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

(2) The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action 1 report on "Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy" released by the OECD in October 2015 set out various different approaches for taxing the digital economy which were further examined in the OECD "Tax challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Interim Report 2018". As the digital transformation of the economy accelerates there is a growing need to find solutions to ensure a fair and effective taxation of digital companies. However, to date the OECD work on taxing the digital economy has not delivered sufficient progress, which illustrates the need for the Union to advance on this matter at Union level. This Directive should also serve as a basis for further work at the international level. However, notes that Member States should not be prevented from adopting unilateral solutions.

Amendment 30 #

Alfred SANT

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

(2) The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action 1 report on "Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy" released by the OECD in October 2015 set out various different approaches for taxing the digital economy which were further examined in the OECD "Tax challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Interim Report 2018". As the digital transformation of the economy accelerates there is a growing need to find solutions to ensure a fair and effective taxation of digital companies. There is indeed a common interest in maintaining a coherent yet relevant set of international rules. Therefore, the EU shall continue to work towards a consensus-based solution in the BEPS Inclusive Framework.

Amendment 31 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 a (new)

(2a) The global nature of the digital economy, reflects the importance of finding an international solution and common tax rules to the taxation of the digital economy, and justifies the Commission's efforts within international fora, namely with the OECD, to reach such an agreement.

Amendment 32 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 a (new)

(2a) Progress on the OECD level has been slow and results have been disappointing. Instead of at the OECD, discussions and debates on international tax matters should thus take place at UN level at an empowered UN tax body, ensuring the participation of all countries.

Amendment 33 #

Alain LAMASSOURE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4

(4) The European Council Conclusions of 19 October 2017 underlined the need for an effective and fair taxation system fit for the digital era and looked forward to appropriate Commission proposals by early 2018.15 The ECOFIN Council Conclusions of 5 December 2017 underlined that a globally accepted definition of permanent establishment and the related transfer pricing and profit attribution rules should also remain pivotal when addressing the challenges of taxation of profits of the digital economy" and encourages "close cooperation between the EU, the OECD and other international partners in responding to the challenges of taxation of profits of the digital economy.16 In this regard, Member States should be required to include rules in their national corporate income tax systems in order to exercise their taxing rights. Therefore, the various applicable corporate taxes in the Member States should be clarified. These rules should extend the definition of a permanent establishment and establish a taxable nexus for a significant digital presence in their respective jurisdictions. In addition, general principles for allocating taxable profits to such a digital presence should be laid down. In principle, those rules should apply to all corporate taxpayers irrespective of their size and of where they are tax resident, whether in the Union or elsewhere. Furthermore, the common rules set out in this Directive call for a broader harmonisation of the corporate tax base in the Union for all corporations. This is why this Directive should not hamper or delay works on the Proposal for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. _________________ 15 European Council meeting (19 October 2017) – Conclusions (doc. EUCO 14/17). 16 Council conclusions (5 December 2017) – Responding to the challenges of taxation of profits of the digital economy (FISC 346 ECOFIN 1092).

Amendment 34 #

Alain LAMASSOURE

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) However, the rules should not apply to entities that are tax resident in a non-Union jurisdiction with which the Member State of the significant digital presence has a Double Tax Convention in force, unless the Convention includes provisions on a significant digital presence which creates similar rights and obligations in relation to the non-Union jurisdiction as are created by this Directive. This is to avoid any conflict with Double Tax Conventions with non-Union jurisdictions, given that non-Union jurisdictions are not generally bound by Union law. Nevertheless, for the provisions contained in this text to be fully effective, Member States are urged to adapt, where needed, their Double Tax Conventions currently in force in order to include provisions on a significant digital presence creating similar rights and obligations in relation to the non-Union jurisdiction as are created by this Directive. The European Commission shall provide Member States with all needed support in this regard.

Amendment 35 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) However, the rules should not apply to entities that are tax resident in a non-Union jurisdiction with which the Member State of the significant digital presence has a Double Tax Convention in force, unless the Convention includes provisions on a significant digital presence which creates similar rights and obligations in relation to the non-Union jurisdiction as are created by this Directive. This is to avoid any conflict with Double Tax Conventions with non-Union jurisdictions, given that non-Union jurisdictions are not generally bound by Union law. However, Member States are strongly encouraged to mandate the Commission to negotiate on their behalf a modification of these Double Tax Conventions, in order to uniformly adapt the definition of permanent establishment and the creation of a taxable nexus for a significant digital presence.

Amendment 36 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) In order to provide for a robust definition of a taxable nexus of a digital business in a Member State it is necessary that such a definition is based on the revenues from the supply of digital services, the number of users or the number of business contracts for digital services. The applicable thresholds should reflect the significance of the digital presence for different types of business models and accommodate the different degrees of contribution to the process of value creation. Furthermore, they should ensure a compatible treatment in different Member States, irrespective of their size, and leave out trivial cases. ~~The sale of goods or services which is facilitated by using the internet or an electronic network should not be regarded as a digital service within the meaning of this Directive.~~

Amendment 37 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) In order to provide for a robust definition of a taxable nexus of a digital business in a Member State it is necessary that such a definition is based on the revenues generated from the supply of digital services, the number of users or the number of business contracts for digital services. The applicable thresholds should reflect the significance of the digital presence for different types of business models and accommodate the different degrees of contribution to the process of value creation. Furthermore, they should ensure a compatible treatment in different Member States, irrespective of their size, and leave out trivial cases. ~~The sale of goods or services which is facilitated by using the internet or an electronic network should not be regarded as a digital service within the meaning of this Directive~~In its review, the Commission should assess the appropriateness of the criteria set out in this Directive, in particular with regards to the pursuit of the latter objectives, and whether absolute figures should be complemented by relative numbers (in percentages).

Amendment 38 #

Marco VALLI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) To enable an enterprise's significant digital presence to be taxed in another jurisdiction in accordance with the domestic law of that jurisdiction, it is necessary to establish the principles of attributing profits to that significant digital presence. The rules should be built on the current principles for profit attribution and be based on a f~~unctional analysis of the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed by a significant digital presence in performing its economically significant activities through a digital interface~~ormulary apportionment based on four equally weighted factors, namely labour, assets, sales by destination, and collection and use of personal data of online platforms and services users. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that a significant part of the value of a digital business is created where the users are based and where the data related to the users is collected and processed as well as to where the digital services are provided. Since economically significant activities performed by a significant digital presence contribute in a unique manner to value creation in digital business models, the ~~profit split method~~formula for apportionment should normally be used for arriving at a fair allocation of profits to the significant digital presence. However, this should not prevent a taxpayer from using an alternative method in line with internationally accepted principles if the taxpayer can prove that, based on the outcome of the functional analysis, an alternative method in line with internationally accepted principles is more appropriate. It is also essential that the profit splitting factors bear a strong correlation with the creation of value.

Amendment 39 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) To enable an enterprise's significant digital presence to be taxed in another jurisdiction in accordance with the domestic law of that jurisdiction, it is necessary to establish the principles of attributing profits to that significant digital presence. The rules should be built on the current principles for profit attribution and be based on a functional analysis of the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed by a significant digital presence in performing its economically significant activities through a digital interface. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that a significant part of the value of a digital business is created where the users are based and where the data related to the users is collected and processed as well as to where the digital services are provided. Since economically significant activities performed by a significant digital presence contribute in a unique manner to value creation in digital business models, the profit split method should normally be used for arriving at a fair allocation of profits to the significant digital presence. However, this should not prevent a taxpayer from using an alternative method in line with internationally accepted principles if the taxpayer can prove that, based on the outcome of the functional analysis, an alternative method in line with internationally accepted principles is more appropriate. It is also essential that the profit splitting factors bear a strong correlation with the creation of value.

Amendment 40 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) To enable an enterprise's significant digital presence to be taxed in another jurisdiction in accordance with the domestic law of that jurisdiction, it is necessary to establish the principles of attributing profits to that significant digital presence. The rules should be built on the current principles for profit attribution and be based on a functional analysis of the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed by a significant digital presence in performing its economically significant activities through a digital interface. Information from the country-by-country reports and master files of companies should be used in addition to the functional analysis. The functional analysis should in any case be based on where economic activity takes place in reality as opposed to where it is contractually located. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that a significant part of the value of a digital business is created where the users are based and where the data related to the users is collected and processed as well as to where the digital services are provided. Since economically significant activities performed by a significant digital presence contribute in a unique manner to value creation in digital business models, the profit split method should ~~normally~~ be used for arriving at a fair allocation of profits to the significant digital presence. However, this should not prevent a taxpayer from using an alternative method in line with internationally accepted principles if the taxpayer can prove that, based on the outcome of the functional analysis, an alternative method in line with internationally accepted principles is more appropriate. It is also essential that the profit splitting factors bear a strong correlation with the creation of value.

Amendment 41 #

Petr JEŽEK, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)

(7a) A harmonised definition of a permanent establishment, including a significant digital presence will allow Member States to better collect taxes arising from the digital sector. To fully deliver, such harmonisation should come along with an increased coordination of corporate income tax rates at European level. To ensure a sufficient and fair level of the digital sector, a minimum effective corporate tax rate of 18% should be adopted by all Member States.

Amendment 42 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) A key objective of this Directive is to improve the resilience of the internal market as a whole in order to address the challenges of taxation of the digitalised economy, while respecting the principle of tax neutrality but also the free movement of services in the European Single Market. This objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually because digital businesses are able to operate cross-border without having any physical presence in a jurisdiction and rules are therefore needed to ensure that they pay taxes in the jurisdictions where they make profits. Given this cross-border dimension an initiative at Union level adds value in comparison with what a multitude of national measures could attain. A common initiative across the internal market is required to ensure a harmonised application of the rules on a significant digital presence within the Union. Unilateral and divergent approaches by each Member State could be ineffective and fragment the Single Market by creating national policy clashes, distortions and tax obstacles for businesses in the Union. Since the objectives of this Directive can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. This directive does not imply a harmonisation of corporate tax rates in the EU and, therefore, it does not restrict Member States' capability set the corporate tax rates applicable to digital services' revenues on their own territory.

Amendment 43 #

Miguel VIEGAS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) A key objective of this Directive is to improve the resilience of the internal market as a whole in order to address the challenges of taxation of the digitalised economy. This objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually because digital businesses are able to operate cross-border without having any physical presence in a jurisdiction and rules are therefore needed to ensure that they pay taxes in the jurisdictions where they make profits. Given this cross-border dimension an initiative at Union level adds value in comparison with what a multitude of national measures could attain. A common initiative across the internal market is required to ensure a harmonised application of the rules on a significant digital presence within the Union. Unilateral and divergent approaches by each Member State could be ineffective and fragment the Single Market by creating national policy clashes, distortions and tax obstacles for businesses in the Union. Since the objectives of this Directive can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

Amendment 44 #

Alfred SANT

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) A key objective of this Directive is to improve the resilience of the internal market as a whole in order to address the challenges of taxation of the digitalised economy. This objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually because digital businesses are able to operate cross-border without having any physical presence in a jurisdiction and rules are therefore needed to ensure that they pay taxes in the jurisdictions where they make profits. Given this cross-border dimension an initiative at Union level adds value in comparison with what a multitude of national measures could attain. A common initiative across the internal market is required to ensure a harmonised application of the rules on a significant digital presence within the Union. Unilateral and divergent approaches by each Member State could be ineffective and fragment the Single Market by creating national policy clashes, distortions and tax obstacles for businesses in the Union. Specific attention should be given to ensure that the approach is not risking to favour an EU solution skewed against smaller markets. Since the objectives of this Directive can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

Amendment 45 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) A key objective of this Directive is to improve the resilience of the internal market as a whole in order to address the challenges of taxation of the digitalised economy. This objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually because digital businesses are able to operate cross-border without having any or having only a small physical presence in a jurisdiction and rules are therefore needed to ensure that they pay taxes in the jurisdictions where they make profits. Given this cross- border dimension an initiative at Union level adds value in comparison with what a multitude of national measures could attain. A common initiative across the internal market is required to ensure a harmonised application of the rules on a significant digital presence within the Union. Unilateral and divergent approaches by each Member State could be ineffective and fragment the Single Market by creating national policy clashes, distortions and tax obstacles for businesses in the Union. Since the objectives of this Directive can be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

Amendment 46 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)

(8a) If this proposal does not result in an agreement and therefore fails to eliminate distortions of competition and tax obstacles for businesses in the Union, the European Commission should issue a new proposal based on Article 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whereby the European Parliament and the Council act in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure to issue the necessary directives.

Amendment 47 #

Petr JEŽEK, Nils TORVALDS

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)

(8a) With the view of increasing the resilience of the Union’s tax system further, the application of the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 114 TFEU) for legislation related to corporate income taxation should be considered.

Amendment 48 #

Ashley FOX

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)

(8a) The concept of a significant digital presence and the solutions presented in this Directive should not become part of a Council Directive on a Common consolidated corporate tax base.

Amendment 49 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) It is necessary that any processing of personal data carried out in the context of this Directive, should be conducted in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council17 , including obligations to provide appropriate technical and organisational measures to comply with the obligations imposed by that Regulation, in particular those relating to the lawfulness of the processing, the security of the processing activities, the provision of information and the rights of data subjects, data protection by design and by default. Whenever possible, personal data should be rendered anonymous. The data that may be collected from the users for the purposes of applying this Directive should be strictly limited to data indicating the Member State in which the users are located, without allowing for identification of the user. _________________ 17 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p.1).

Amendment 50 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) It is necessary that any processing of personal data carried out in the context of this Directive, should be conducted in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council17 , including obligations to provide appropriate technical and organisational measures to comply with the obligations imposed by that Regulation, in particular those relating to the lawfulness of the processing, the security of the processing activities, the provision of information and the rights of data subjects, data protection by design and by default, with due regard to the principles of necessity and proportionality. Whenever possible, personal data should be rendered anonymous. _________________ 17 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p.1).

Amendment 51 #