Activities of Jonás FERNÁNDEZ related to 2021/2010(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Digital taxation: OECD negotiations, tax residency of digital companies and a possible European Digital Tax (debate)
Amendments (11)
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary cooperation of 16 December 2020 (IIA) refers to a legally binding commitment towards the introduction of an EU digital levy as an own resource by 1 January 2023;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the current international tax rules date back to the early 20th century, and that taxing rights are mainly based on the physical presence of companies; points out that digitalised companies as well as companies relying heavily on intangible assets can engage in significant business activities in a jurisdiction without physical presence there, and therefore taxes paid in one jurisdiction no longer reflect the value and profits created there; regrets that the traditional concept of permanent establishment fails to cover the new aspects of digital businesses, and underlines the need to define, which can lead to Base Erosion and Profit Shifting; in that context, calls for new and fairer allocation of taxing rights for large multinationals and the revision of the traditional concept of permanent establishment, and recalls the Parliament’s position on the C(C)CTB to create a virtual permanent establishment; stresses that users of online platforms and consumers of digital services cannot be shifted outside a jurisdiction in the same way as capital and labour, and should therefore be the basis for taken into account when definition ofng a new tax nexus in order to provideing an effective remedy against aggressive tax planning;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WCalls for an international agreement aiming for a fair and effective tax system; welcomes the efforts in the G20/OECD IF to reach a global consensus on a multilateral reform of the international tax system to address the challenges of the digitalised economy; acknowledges the progress of discussions on the proposals at technical level, despite the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and calls for a swift agreement by mid-2021; highlights the value of the G20/OECD IF for guaranteeing multilateral solutions and finding support at the global and EU level;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the fact that the two pillar approach suggested in the G20/OECD IF does not ring fence the digitalised economy but seeks a comprehensive solution to the new challenges of the digital economy; acknowledges that both pillars are complementary, and highlights that Pillar II aims at addressing remaining BEPS challenges notably by ensuring that large multinationals, including digitalised ones, pay a minimum level of tax regardless of where they are located; reminds that an effective Pillar II can be introduced without the participation of all states as participating countries will still be granted the right to tax profits of companies registered elsewhere in low-taxation countries; however supports a holistic solution in which oneboth pillar is not adopted without the other; s are adopted by mid-2021; recommends that any minimum effective rate should be set at a fair and sufficient level to discourage profit shifting of large multinationals, including highly digitalised ones, and prevent damaging tax competition; therefore suggests a minimum effective rate of 18 %, noting that the current EU average of statutory corporate income tax rates is 21.71 % and that some policy challenges, such as climate change, will necessitate space and tools for fiscal policy; 1P.110, Tax policies in the European Union 2020 survey, DG Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 f (new)
Paragraph 7 f (new)
7 f. Recommends that policy options defended by Member States in the negotiations should reduce complexity, therefore supports simplified administrative processes for MNEs subject to the new taxing rights, also in view of lightening the burden of implementation for Member States, taking into account Member States not involved in tax arrangements distorting competition such as so-called 'sweetheart deals'; believes that a more complete overhaul of the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP) would be appropriate; is concerned that maintaining the ALP in the reform’s context could add opportunities to circumvent the newly agreed rules;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 g (new)
Paragraph 7 g (new)
7 g. Highlights that the implementation of an efficient and comprehensive international reform will be eased by the access to country-by-country reporting information; notes that, to date, many countries do not have access to such information; welcomes the recent efforts of the Council Presidency on the Proposal for public country-by-country reporting;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission and the Council to intensify the dialogue with the new US administration on digital tax policy with the aim of finding a common approach in the framework of the G20/OECD IF negotiations before June 2021; calls on the CouncilMember States to oppose the ‘safe harbour’ clause, proposed by the US administration, which risks undermining the reform efforts; calls on the Commission to pursue with an EU own proposal on addressing the challenges of a digitalised economy should a ‘safe harbour’ clause be included in the reform’s first Pillar; recalls in that regard the Commission’s long term proposal for a Significant Digital Presence;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Insists therefore that, regardless of the progress of the negotiations at the G20/OECD IF, the EU should stand ready to roll out its own solutions for taxing the digitalised economy by the end of 2021; calls on the Commission to present proposals by June 2021, while anticipating their compatibility with the reform by the G20/OECD IF to be agreed on; stresses the need to create a level playing field for providers of traditional services and automated digitalised services and consumer facing businesses in the EU by ensuring that the latter are taxed at an adequatewhere they make profits and at a fair rate; invites the Commission to consider in particular introducing a temporary European Digital Services Tax as a necessary first step; calls for the EU to implement the future outcome of the international negotiations in a harmonised way and invites the Commission to issue any relevant Proposal to that effect;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Regrets that the Council did not agree on any of the Commission’s related proposals, i.e. the digital services tax, the significant digital presence or the CCTB and CCCTB; calls on the Member States to reconsider their position on these proposals or to integrate them into a potential future implementation of Pillar I, and to consider all options provided for by the Treaties if no unanimous agreement can be reached;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. NotWelcomes the Commission inception impact assessment on a Digital Levy of 14 January 2021; notes that digitalisation can increase productivity and consumer welfare, but it is also of paramount importance to ensure that digital multinationals contribute their fair share to society, taking into account that the average annual revenue growth of top digital firms is 14 % compared to between 0.2 % and 3 % for other multinationals; calls on the Commission to carefully assess how the scope, definition and segmentation of digital activities, transactions, services or companies will be in line with international efforts to find a global solution;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Notes that the Commission intends to assess three baseline scenarios and is of the opinion that: (a) A corporate income tax (CIT) top-up to be applied to all companies conducting certain digital activities in the EU is an interesting option worth exploring as it would remain compatible with the ongoing international negotiations, would respect the various bilateral tax agreements and would allow CIT to take into account the significant higher profit margins of large digitalised multinationals; (b) A solution aiming at taxing profits rather than revenues would limit trade tensions, work towards a level playing field and have less negative impact on investments;notes however that, in the absence of an internationally agreed solution, taxing revenues remains an approach ensuring a minimum fair tax contribution is made; (c) A tax on digital transactions conducted business-to-business in the EU risk shifting the burden of the tax payment from large digitalised businesses to smaller companies relying on those services, therefore missing the initial objective making those firms pay a fair share of taxes;