48 Amendments of Manon AUBRY related to 2021/2074(INI)
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas although tax policy largely remains a Member State responsibility, the single market requires a minimum degree of coordination in setting tax policy1 ,especially concerning the fight against tax evasion; _________________ 1 As laid down in Articles 110-118 TFEU.
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas tax policy fragmentation may creates various obstacles for companies and citizens in the single market, including legal uncertainty, red tape, the risk of room for tax arbitrage and so risks such as double non-taxation and difficulties claiming tax refunds; whereas these obstacles discour; whereas it can also create various obstacles for SME wanting to engage in cross-border economic activity and citizens in the single market; whereas policy fragmentation also creates risks for tax authorities such as double non-taxation and arbitrage possibilities (such as tax planning), including legal uncertainty and red tape;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas within the EU’s social market economy, adequate tax levels and simple and clear tax laws should not distort economic actors’ decision-making; whereas sound taxsound tax policies should collect tax revenue to finance public policies and should support the creation of jobs and economic growth and improve the competitiveness of the EU and its Member Statesbe design in a progressive fashion, in order to fulfil their redistributive role;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas tax competition in Europe appears to have influenced the decline in CIT rates that has brought the average European CIT rate below the average rate in OECD countries1a;whereas according to the Commission’s Annual Report on Taxation 2021, an estimated EUR 36-37 billion of corporate income tax (CIT) revenue are lost per year due to tax avoidance in the EU; _________________ 1aIMF report, Taxing Multinationals in Europe, 2021: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Depa rtmental-Papers-Policy- Papers/Issues/2021/05/25/Taxing- Multinationals-in-Europe-50129
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas independent research2a suggests EU member states collectively lose most corporate tax revenues to other EU member states than third countries; underlines that the main cause for this loss of revenues is the lack of legislative action against intra-EU aggressive tax practices and harmful tax competition; _________________ 2aThomas Tørsløv, Ludvig Wier and Gabriel Zucman, The Missing Profits of Nations, Working Paper, April 2020, available from https://missingprofits.world/
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the overall level of taxation differs considerably between Member States, as demonstrated by the fact that the tax-to-GDP ratio varied between 22.1 % in Ireland and 46.1 % in Denmark in 20192 ; whereas on aggregate, the tax burden in the EU (40.1 %) is high even when compared to other advanced economies (the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average was 34.3 % in 2018); _________________ 2Commission Annual Report on Taxation 2021, p. 24.
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas regressive changes in the taxation of labour, corporations, consumption and wealth, observable in recent decades across the Member States, have resulted in a weakening of the redistributive power of tax systems and contributed to the trend in rising income inequality; whereas this structural change in taxation has shifted the tax burden towards low-income groups;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that Member States are free to decide on their own economic policies and in particular their own tax policies; recalls, however, that Member States must exercise this competencethe last decades have been marked by unfair competition and, consistequently with Union law, by a decreasing trend of corporate tax rates leading to a race to the bottom; stresses the urgent need for coordination in tax policy by Member States;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Highlights the non-binding nature of the Code of Conduct and that the report of 21 July 2021 on reforming the EU policy on harmful tax practices (including the reform of the Code of Conduct Group) asked for it to become binding; deplores the fact that Member States could maintain a harmful regime without facing any repercussions, highlighting in this regard that EU blacklisted countries are responsible for less than 2 percent of global tax losses, while in comparison, EU member states are responsible for 36 percent3a; _________________ 3aThe State of Tax Justice 2020 - Tax Justice Network
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Stresses that the design of taxation policies should take into account how it impacts in different social groups, especially for low-income earners and woman; Reiterates, in this context, the points from European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2019 on gender equality and taxation policies in the EU; Calls on the Member States not to reduce the progressive nature of their personal income tax systems, for example by attempting to simplify personal income taxation;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Notes the current decision making process in the Council has proved inefficient in responding to the legislative needs to foster coordination among Member States and fight harmful tax practices; call for all possibilities offered by the TFEU to be explored; recalls that the procedure laid down in Article 116 TFEU can be applied when harmful tax practices are distorting the condition of competition in the internal market and that this Treaty provision does not alter the distribution of competences between the Union and the Member States;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1 d. Highlights that some bilateral tax treaties established between EU countries and developing countries have harmful effects on the latter, including by raising the levels of poverty; Notes that this is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation predicted in the TFEU;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1 e. Underlines that unfair and regressive taxes such as VAT show an upward trend in the European Union and represent 7,1% of GDP, whereas fairer taxes such as corporate taxes are decreasing and represent only 2,8% of GDP; stresses that this trend does not go in the right direction as the gap between those figures was one percentage point lower in 2006;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 f (new)
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1 f. Regrets that the Commission seems to put more efforts on monitoring and reducing public spending included in the Member States’ recovery plans than on setting up sufficient own resources to finance the recovery plan;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that differences in national tax regimes present obstacles to SMEs trying to operate across borders; stresses that compared to multinational enterprises, SMEs have fewer resources to spend on tax compliance and tax optimisation; points out that the share of expenditure used for tax compliance purposes is higher for SMEs than forplanning and are therefore jeopardized by national measures aimed at attracting multinational enterprises’ profits;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that tax base harmonisation such as the common corporate tax base or the ‘Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation’ could reduce the cost of tax compliance for SMEs that operate in more than one Member State, while also contributing to design a fairer taxation system in the EU;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that many Member States as well as the EU have introduced dedicated regimes favouring SMEs such as special VAT rules in order to offset the higher effective tax rates and higher tax compliance costs for SMEs; stresses that such special treatment, while generally positive, could risk introducing further distortions, further possibilities of tax dodging and further increasing the overall complexity of the system;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the EU has developed coordination mechanisms such as peer review procedures within the Code of Conduct Group and country-specific recommendations in the context of the European Semester; points out that the Commission has recommended to six Member Stateregrets however the criteria used to assess Member States is weaker than the one used regarding third- country jurisdictions in the EU listing process; points out that the Commission has recommended to Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands that they curb aggressive tax planning as part of the 2020 country- specific recommendations;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights that the ideal level for tax policy coordination is on the international stage through the G20/OECD; stresses nevertheless that developing countries should be fully included in the negotiation process; notes that EU tax proposals based on international agreements have historically been more likely to be adopted by the Council; stresses, however, that neither OECD nor G20 have legislative authority, in this sense, calls on the Commission to make progresses by transposing the last results from the negotiations to EU law, and to be more ambitious by implementing a 25% minimum corporate tax rate;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Highlights the crucial role of cooperation among national tax administrations to coordinate better collection of revenue and fighting abusive tax practices; Reiterates, in this line, the recommendations from European Parliament resolution of 16 September 2021 on the implementation of the EU requirements for exchange of tax information: progress, lessons learnt and obstacles to overcome; more specifically: enlarging the scope of DAC framework to add items of income or non-financial assets, stressing the limited quality of the information exchanged, calling for stronger enforcement procedures at Member State level and an assessment of the effectiveness of their monitoring schemes;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Deeply regrets the fact that almost all Member States – with the exception of Finland and Sweden – have refused to grant Parliament access to the relevant data to assess the implementation of DAC provisions; deplores the fact that the Commission did not grant Parliament access to the relevant data in its possession; notes that this refusal is not consistent with calls for greater transparency and cooperation in tax matters;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7 c. Welcomes the latest advances on the pCBCR, stressing the importance of transparent and standardized data on corporates' activity, allowing for better scrutiny; regrets, however, that, in order to reach a compromise, the Council restricted the obligation for companies to publicly report information only for their operations in EU member states and the countries listed in the EU’s list of non- cooperative jurisdictions, ruling out third countries that in facto behave as tax havens but are not yet listed; included in the text a “corporate-get-out-clause” allowing a reporting exemption for “commercially sensitive information”; and that is only to be applied to companies with an annual consolidated turnover above EUR 750 million, which excludes 85 - 90 per cent of multinationals;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7 d. Welcomes the Task Force on Tax Planning Practices in 2013 to follow up on public allegations of favourable tax treatment of certain companies (in particular in the form of tax rulings);
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that digitalisation and a heavy reliance on intangible assets that pose challenges to the current tax system warrant a high degree of policy coordination; deplores the fact that some Member States have pressed ahead with the introduction of national digital taxes despite ongoing negotiations at EU and OECD levels; stresses that these national measures should be phased out following the implementation of an effective international solution; notes that Digital businesses models in the EU face a lower effective average tax burden than traditional business models, a cross-border digital business model is subject to an effective average tax rate of only 9.5%, which represents a significant difference when compared to a rate of 23.2% of a cross- border traditional business4a; _________________ 4a ZEW et al. (2017) referenced in Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Directive laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence and Proposal for a Council Directive on the common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services {COM(2018) 147 final} - {COM(2018) 148 final} - {SWD(2018) 82 final
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Recognizes the importance of the ongoing negotiations at G20 and OECD level; stresses, nevertheless, the progressive weakening of the initial intentions and the long-time taken; sees initiatives of national digital taxes introduced by some Member States as a legitimate interim solution to tax the digital economy, facilitating the collection of revenue;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. Shows concern that the proposal on an EU-wide digital levy as a new own resource to help finance the NGEU will be withdrawn as a result of the international negotiations, possibly resulting in an extra future budgetary burden on the Member States;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. DeploresRecognizes as a problem the debt equity bias in corporate taxation that allows for generous tax deductions on interest payments, while equity financing costs cannot be deducted in a similar manner; highlights the structural disadvantage facing companies that rely on equity financing, which are often young and small companies with poor access to creditcreating room for harmful tax practices from multinationals via intra-group operations; Calls for the Commission to take a more complete impact assessment on the DEBRA initiative, specifically showing estimates of tax revenue losses, comparing the scenario of limiting interest deduction or implementing an Allowance for Corporate Equity (ACE);
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Notes that a massive adherence by SME to capital markets is not a reality in the European Union and the banking sector remains the most common source of financing; notes that banking sector is easier to regulate and to align with other EU goals, such as the EU taxonomy; looks cautiously to how Capital Markets Union will be regulated; calls for further regulation of the banking system, especially on the links with the shadow banking;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Takes note that in the latest Survey on the Access to Finance of Enterprises in the euro area by the European Central Bank, published in November 2020, points out that euro area SMEs reported that “difficulty in finding customers was the dominant concern for their business activity, while access to finance was considered to be among the least important obstacles”;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that debt equity bias varies considerably between the Member States; welcomes the factnotes that some Member States have introduced allowances for corporate equity to address this issue; stresses that a common European approach would be preferable in order to avoid distortions in the single market;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Welcomes the implementation of Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) in 2016, and more specifically article 4, which contemplates a rule for limiting interest deduction; Calls on the Commission to design DEBRA in the same direction;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. Regrets that the original Commission’s proposal for an EU-wide Financial Transactions Tax (FTT) was not approved in the Council and that only ten Member States are undergoing negotiations by enhanced cooperation; Stresses the relevance of this measure as it would generate tax revenue curb speculative transactions and foster financial stability; Stresses that, in order to be efficient in its goals, this proposal should have the broadest scope possible, covering derivatives, the “repo” market, “market making” activities, intra-group transactions, the OTC market, pension funds and government bonds;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) is often a decisive factor for corporations making investment decisionused to engage in unfair competition practices; notes that there is considerable variation in the EMTR across Member States; invites the Commission to look into whether some Member States are distorting competition by artificially lowering their EMTR, e.g. through accelerated depreciation schedules or adjusting the tax deductibility of certain items;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Highlights that tax incentives for private research and development (e.g. via tax credits, enhanced allowances or adjStresses that certain types of tax incentives such as patent box / intellectual property box regimes do little to increase research and development spending, may actually distort the single market and be usted depreciation schedules) can help to lift an economy’s overall spending towards research and development, which often comes with positive externalities; is concerned, however, that certain types of tax incentives such as pas a profit-shifting instrument, leading to significant revenue losses; Notes that the Italian government has recently repealed the country’s Patent bBox / intellectual property box regimes do little to increase regime due to its inefficiency in stimulating innovation; stressearch and development spending and may actually distort the single markets that other Member-States should follow this example;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Stresses that research conducted by the European Trade Union Institute5a shows that a general trend for the last years was that an increasing share of net profits was not translated into new private investment projects but rather being distributed as dividends; Calls for Member States to consider adopting new revenue measures such as raising progressive taxes on more affluent individuals and those relatively less affected by the crisis such as suggested by IMF5b;this could include increasing tax rates on higher income brackets, high-end property, capital gains, wealth or high- end luxury goods; _________________ 5aMatthieu Méaulle: Chapter 3 - Profit, investment and inequality: a preliminary view in https://www.etui.org/fr/publications/livres/ the-future-of-europe 5b IMF October 2020 World Economic Outlook - A Long and Difficult Ascent
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15 b. Reminds that the Commission stated in a communication published on 27th May 2021 that : "Companies that draw huge benefits from the EU single market and will survive the crisis, also thanks to direct and indirect EU and national support, could contribute to rebuilding it in the recovery phase. This could include an own resource based on operations of enterprises which, depending on its design, could yield around EUR 10 billion annually"6a;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15 c. Highlights that other solutions should be implemented to avoid tax dodging of multinational companies in all sectors; calls on States to introduce and collect the tax deficit of multinationals: the difference between what a corporation pays in taxes globally and what this corporation would have to pay if all its profits were subject to a minimum tax rate in each of the countries where it operates; Underlines that such solution could encourage other States to follow the move and progressively lead to a global solution;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 d (new)
Paragraph 15 d (new)
15 d. Recalls that budgetary cuts in tax administrations harm States’ capacity to fight against tax dodging and have a negative impact on their tax revenues;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 e (new)
Paragraph 15 e (new)
15 e. Stresses that corporate tax avoidance is possible due to free movements of capital, allowing companies to reallocate their gains and increasing the room for double non-taxation; welcomes that measures are being taken to prevent these practices when it comes to third countries, but regrets their scope doesn’t apply to the European Single Market;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 f (new)
Paragraph 15 f (new)
15 f. Highlights that Member States can take legitimate countermeasures to protect their tax bases, such as the non- deductibility or limited deductibility of costs (interests, royalties and services payments), withholding measures, the limitation of participation exemptions and special documentation requirements; Notes that ATAD represents a step forward but stresses that it stills encompasses loopholes that could be explored for harmful tax practices; Calls on the Commission to further develop legislation in the same direction;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 g (new)
Paragraph 15 g (new)
15 g. Calls the Commission to follow-up the intention mentioned in the communication Business Taxation for the 21st Century of going further on the fight against abusive use of shell companies; calls for the definition of substance requirements to assess legal entities and to further banning them if those requirements aren’t met;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 h (new)
Paragraph 15 h (new)
15 h. Welcomes the recommendation of Corporate Europe Observatory to fight corporate lobbying in tax policy decision process by implementing measures such as not allowing big accounting companies to receive public contracts for tax-related studies and impact assessments, ending privileged access, and implementing tougher rules regarding the revolving door between tax intermediaries and the European institutions, including on secondments and internships;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 i (new)
Paragraph 15 i (new)
15 i. Calls on Member States to study better options for environmental taxes and calls on the Commission to issued guidelines on how to design them; Stresses this measures should be accompanied by regulatory requirements and public investment to assure green alternatives;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 j (new)
Paragraph 15 j (new)
15 j. Welcomes that the revision of the Energy Tax Directive focus on setting higher minimum taxes for fossil fuels at national level;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 k (new)
Paragraph 15 k (new)
15 k. Calls on the Commission to study the possibility of creating an allowance for tax deductibility for companies according to the same logic as taxonomy; Highlights that the European Union should consider progressive environmental taxes, based on the carbon consumption, as serious options for a fair and effective environmental taxation;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 l (new)
Paragraph 15 l (new)
15 l. Highlights that the current global tax system is outdated, and the arm’s length principle applied to transfer prices no longer fits the globalized reality; Supports the implementation of an apportioned formula to define tax rights among jurisdictions for cross-border economic activity; Calls on the Commission to continue the proposal for a for a common (consolidated) corporate tax base (C(C)CTB)); Looks forward for more details on the design of ‘BEFIT - Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation’;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Takes note ofWelcomes the Commission’s ongoing work on an EU taxation scoreboard and calls on the Commission to inform Parliament about its political intentions and the possible financial implications of this system; Stresses that the criteria used to assess the MS should be: the existing criteria used by the code of conduct group on business taxation; the criteria used to list third country jurisdictions as part of the EU list of non- cooperative jurisdictions; the past and ongoing infringement procedures launched against Member States for lack of conformity or lack of implementation of European legislation on tax and money laundering matters; the inclusion of economic criteria, in particular to consider whether FDI and passive income are disproportionate compared to the country GDP;