Activities of Barbara KAPPEL related to 2016/0011(CNS)
Plenary speeches (2)
Rules against certain tax avoidance practices (A8-0189/2016 - Hugues Bayet) DE
Rules against certain tax avoidance practices (debate) DE
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the proposal for a Council directive laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market PDF (880 KB) DOC (492 KB)
Amendments (12)
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 2 a (new)
(2a) An assessment of the results of the enforcement measures will be necessary, and will be presented to the European Parliament, in order to guarantee that companies in Member States have not become less competitive in third countries since those measures were adopted.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) It is necessary to lay down rules in order to strengthen the average level of protection against aggressive tax planning in the internal market. As these rules would have to fit in 28 separate corporate tax systems, they should be limited to general provisions and Member States should enforce them, as they are better placed to shape the specific elements of those rules in a way that best fits their corporate tax systems. This objective could be achieved by creating a minimum level of protection for national corporate tax systems across the Union. It is therefore necessary to coordinate the responses of Member States in implementing the outputs of the 15 Action Items against base erosion and profit shifting with the aim to improve the effectiveness of the internal market as a whole in tackling tax avoidance practices. It is therefore necessary to set a common minimum level of protection for the internal market in specific fields. It is important to ensure, however, that the measures put in place do not exceed what is required in order to achieve their primary purpose, namely to combat aggressive tax planning, as this could also have an undesirable impact on companies which do not employ aggressive tax planning.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) With particular reference to the restrictions on interest deductibility (the interest cap), Member States should consider whether a transitional period is necessary with a view to giving taxable entities a reasonable amount of time to adjust their financing structures.
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 b (new)
Recital 5 b (new)
(5b) Provision should be made for the exemption of infrastructure providers, leasing companies and real estate companies.
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) General anti-abuse rules (GAARs) feature in tax systems to tackle abusive tax practices that have not yet been dealt with through specifically targeted provisions. GAARs have therefore a function aimed to fill in gaps, which should not affect the applicability of specific anti-abuse rules. Within the Union, the application of GAARs should be limited to arrangements that are ‘wholly artificial’ (non-genuine); otherwise, the taxpayer should have the right to choose the most tax efficient structure for its commercial affairs. It is furthermore important to ensure that the GAARs apply in domestic situations, within the Union and vis-à-vis third countries in a uniform manner, so that their scope and results of application in domestic and cross-border situations do not differ. In particular, Member States must apply the GAARs in a uniform manner in order to prevent potential legal uncertainty in the commercial sector.
Amendment 100 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Considering that a key objective of this Directive is to improve the resilience of the internal market as a whole against cross-border tax avoidance practices, this cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually. National corporate tax systems are disparate and independent action by Member States would only replicate the existing fragmentation of the internal market in direct taxation. It would thus allow inefficiencies and distortions to persist in the interaction of distinct national measures. The result would be lack of coordination. Rather, by reason of the fact that much inefficiency in the internal market primarily gives rise to problems of a cross-border nature, remedial measures should be adopted at Union level. It is therefore critical to adopt solutions that function for the internal market as a whole and this can be better achieved at Union level. Thus, 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 that objective. By setting a minimum level of protection for the internal market, this Directive only aims to achieve the essential minimum degree of coordination within the Union for the purpose of materialising its objectives. In this respect, Member States should take particular care to ensure that existing national measures are propery adjusted in order to prevent possible inconsistencies in the application of this Directive.
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 - paragraph 2
Article 4 - paragraph 2
2. Exceeding borrowing costs shall only be deductible on up to 30 percent of taxpayers’ income before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) or up to a maximum amount of EUR 13 000 000, whichever is more, in the tax year in which they are accrued. The EBITDA shall be calculated by adding back to taxable income the tax-adjusted amounts for net interest expenses and other costs equivalent to interest as well as the tax-adjusted amounts for depreciation and amortisation. The restriction on deductibility shall apply solely to interest earned by partners and by lenders belonging to the corporate group of the taxpayer.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
By derogation from paragraph 2, the taxpayer may be given the right to fully deduct exceeding borrowing costs if the taxpayer can demonstrate that the ratio of its equity over its total assets is equal to or higher than the equivalent ratio of the group. Provision shall be made in all Member States for a group test to be conducted. On the basis of the outcome of that test, the taxpayer may deduct all interest costs if it can prove that its debt is not higher than the debt of the entire group.
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. The EBITDA of a tax year which is not fully absorbed by the borrowing costs incurred by the taxpayer in that or previous tax years mashall automatically be carried forward for future tax years.
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
-a) these provisions only apply where the exit state will lose its taxing right.
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 a (new)
A specific ban on charging interest, from which the Member States may not deviate, needs to be set up as deferment of collection must be without interest being charged.
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6 a (new)
Article 6a Provision shall be made for the exemption of infrastructure providers, leasing companies and real estate companies.