20 Amendments of Isabel BENJUMEA BENJUMEA related to 2020/2258(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas harmful tax practices (HTP) refer to measures put in place by States to compete with other States via preferential tax regimes or tax incentives which are isolated from the domestic economy, or tax advantages granted even in the absence of any real economic activity in their territory;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas practices which are confiscatory in nature, preventing the growth of private initiative and the enrichment of citizens through state tax abuses, are also forms of HTP;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas anti-tax avoidance policies have led to a decline in preferential regimes all around the world, particularly in the Union; whereas new forms of HTP have emerged, notably through the transformation of preferential regimes into aggressive general regimes;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas aggressive tax planning means the deliberate exploitation of loopholes and mismatches within and between national tax systems to artificially reduce the tax contribution of companies, particularly multinational corporations, to national tax system; whereas aggressive tax planning can also occur on the part of the state through double taxation or the creation of confiscatory tax regimes for citizens and businesses;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas high tax levels directly affect the economic activity of businesses and citizens, particularly jobs and wages; whereas consideration should therefore be given to the damage this can cause to state revenue and the economic sustainability and viability of our welfare state and social policies;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas it is the Member States which are competent in the field of taxation, promoting free competition which enriches the EU economy, as well as the sovereignty of the Member States and the freedom of citizens and businesses to invest; whereas any attempt to standardise the Member States' tax regimes undermines the raison d’être of the Union and the free market;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the CoC Group was efficient in deterring preferential tax regimes; whereas it has nonetheless failed to prevent aggressive tax competition between Member States; whereas the CoC Group remains of purely intergovernmental nature;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the internal and external dimension of the work conducted by the CoC Group on HTP; notes that the external dimension of HTP is mainly dealt with by the CoC Group with the application of the ‘Fair Taxation’ criterion; deplores the lack of coherence between the criteria on HTP applied to Member States and the tougher criteria, in particular on economic substance, applied to third-country jurisdictions in the listing process;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WelcomNotes the proposed Pillar II reform of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (Inclusive Framework), which aims to address remaining BEPS challenges and to set out rules giving jurisdictions a right to tax back where other jurisdictions have not exercised their primary taxing rights or the payment is otherwise subject to low levels of effective taxation, to combat harmful tax practices and impose an effective tax rate28combat harmful tax practices and impose an effective tax rate28 which constitutes a strong incentive for countries without affecting global competitiveness; _________________ 28 OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Report on Pillar One Blueprint: Inclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2020, p. 12. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/tax- challenges-arising-from-digitalisation- report-on-pillar-two-blueprint.pdf
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the factNotes that the proposal put forward by the US Administration for ‘The Made in America Tax Plan’ could facilitate a deal on Pillar II by mid-2021, which would act as an incentive for countries without undermining tax competition;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the adoption of a definition of ‘minimum level of economic substance’, preferably based on a formulaic approach, and which would evolve progressively as reported income increases, which could be used to assess whether a tax regime is potentially harmful; highlights the economic substance requirement already included in the EU list’s ‘Fair Taxation’ criterion; raises the possibility, following the same line of argument, of assessing and defining an appropriate maximum level of taxation above which would be considered confiscatory taxation that harms private initiative and, therefore, public revenue;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls for a comparative evaluation to be carried out between EU Member States and between regions with fiscal powers in order to assess the levels of collection, taking into account the tax burden in each of those territories;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to produce guidelines on how to design tax incentives with fewer risks of distorting the Single Market, in order to promote business and job creation;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that the Commission recognises that a future minimum global taxation standard would have to be integrated into the EU actions on fair tax competition, and that if no consensus is found at global level on such a standard, it should nonetheless be included in the CoC29; cCalls on the Commission to already assess the legislative proposals that will be necessary to implement Pillar II at Union level, including a revision of ATAD and of the Interest and Royalties Directive, and the reform of the CoC and of the criteria in the EU listing of non-cooperative jurisdictions; _________________ 29 COM(2020)0313.
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Insists that the future implementation of new EU tools against HTP should prioritise the recourse to legislative instruments and explore the provisions of the TFEU allowing decision- making to be facilitated, such as qualified majority votingwhile always respecting the tax competences of the Member States;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the fact that the CoC has assessed 480 regimes since its creation, deeming around 13030 harmful31; recognises the positive effect of the Union’s work on HTP, which has led to a quasi-the disappearance of preferential tax regimes within the Union; _________________ 30Exchange of views of the Subcommittee on Tax Matters (FISC) with Lyudmila Petkova, Chair of the Code of Conduct Group, held on 19 April 2021. 31 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/docu ment/ST-9639-2018-REV-4/en/pdf
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for a revision of the criteria, the governance and the scope of the CoC through a legally binding instrument that should replace the current intergovernmental arrangements and allow for a transition to qualified majority voting; requires that Parliament be included in the process of designing and adopting new policies and criteria to combat HTP;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17