12 Amendments of Matt CARTHY related to 2016/0339(CNS)
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) It is imperative to stop tax avoidance by multinational corporations, restore trust in the fairness of tax systems and allow governments to effectively exercise their tax sovereignty. Therefore, the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) has issued concrete action recommendations in the context of the initiative against Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS).
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is necessary to establish rules that neutralise hybrid mismatches and branch mismatches in a comprehensive manner. Considering that Directive (EU) 2016/1164 only covers hybrid mismatch arrangements that arise in the interaction between the corporate tax systems of Member States, the ECOFIN Council issued a statement on 20 June 2016 requesting the Commission to put forward by October 2016 a proposal on hybrid mismatches involving third countries in order to provide for rules consistent with and no less effective than the rules recommended by the OECD BEPS report on Action 2, with a view to reaching an agreement by the end of 2016.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Considering that[, amongst others, it is stated in Recital (13) of Directive (EU) 2016/1164 that] it is critical that further work is undertaken on other hybrid mismatches such as those involving permanent establishments, including disregarded permanent establishments, it is essential that hybrid permanent establishment mismatches are addressed in that Directive as well. In addressing such mismatches regard should be had to the recommended rules included in the OECD’s Public Discussion Draft of 22 August 2016 concerning BEPS Action 2 - Branch Mismatch Structures.
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order to provide for a comprehensive framework consistent with to OECD BEPS report on hybrid mismatch arrangements it is essential that Directive (EU) 2016/1164 would also include rules on hybrid transfers, imported mismatches and dual resident mismatches, in order to prevent taxpayers from exploiting remaining loopholes. Those rules should be standardised and coordinated to the maximum extent possible between Member States. Member States should consider the introduction of sanctions against taxpayers that exploit hybrid mismatches.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Rules on hybrid mismatches should address mismatch situations which are the result of conflicting tax rules of two (or more) jurisdictionspply automatically whenever a payment comes across the border having been deducted at the paying end, without having to prove a tax avoidance motive. However, those rules should not affect the general features of the tax system of a jurisdiction.
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to provide for a sufficiently comprehensive definition ofThe concept and threshold for control in ‘associated enterprises’ are open to abuse and not useful for the purposes of the rules on hybrid mismatches, that definition should also comprise an entity that is part of the same consolidated group for accounting purposes, an enterprise in which the taxpayer has a significant influence in the management and reversely, an enterprise that has a significant influence in the management of the taxpayer.
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c
Directive (EU) 2016/1164
Article 2 – point 11
Article 2 – point 11
(11) ‘structured arrangement’ means an arrangement involving a hybrid mismatch where the mismatch is priced into the terms of the arrangement or an arrangement that has been designed to produce a hybrid mismatch outcome, unless the taxpayer or an associated enterprise could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the hybrid mismatch and did not share in the value of the tax benefit resulting from the hybrid mismatch.covers any payers that have entered into transaction forms with the expectation of some amount of economic benefit from inappropriate payee tax effects; in any case where the payer’s tax authority becomes aware of a payee having used a D/NI arrangement, the burden of proof that there is no structured arrangement must be on the payer;
Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2016/1164
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
To the extent that a hybrid mismatch involving a third country results in a double deduction of the same payment, expenses or losses, the Member State concerned shall deny the deduction of such payment, expenses or losses, unless the third country has already done so. The burden of proof of demonstrating that a deduction has been denied by the third country shall be on the taxpayer.
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive (EU) 2016/1164
Article 9a – paragraph 1
Article 9a – paragraph 1
To the extent that a payment, expenses or losses of a taxpayer who is resident for tax purposes in both a Member State and a third country, in accordance with the laws of that Member State and that third country, are deductible from the taxable base in both jurisdictions and that payment, those expenses or losses can be set-off in the Member State of the taxpayer against taxable income that is not included in the third country, the Member State of the taxpayer shall deny the deduction of the payment, expenses or losses, unless the third country has already done so. This covers situations where a taxpayer is ‘stateless’ for tax purposes. The burden of proof of demonstrating that the third country has denied the deduction of the payment, expense or loss shall be on the taxpayer.