52 Amendments of Roberts ZĪLE related to 2018/2121(INI)
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that current international and national tax rules were mostly conceived in the early 20th century; asserts that the existing tax rules are often unable to keep up with the increasing speed of the economy; notes that there is an urgent need for reform of the rules, so that international, EU and national tax systems are fit for the new economic, social and technologic challenges of the 21st century; notes the broad understanding that current tax systems are not equipped to keep up with these developments and ensure that all market participants pay fair taxes;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Council and Member States to prioritise projects, notably with the support of the Fiscalis programme, aimed at quantifying the magnitude of tax avoidance in order to better address the current tax gap;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses theat in some cases similarity between corporate tax payers and high-net-worth individuals in the use of corporate structures and similar structures such as trusts and offshore locations for the purpose of ATP; recalls the role of intermediaries in setting up such schemes;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Takes note ofIs opposed to the statement made by the French Finance Minister at the TAX3 meeting of 23 October 2018 regarding the need to discuss the concept of minimum taxation; welcomnotes the readiness by France to include the debate on minimum taxation as one of the priorities of its G7 Presidency in 2019; recalls, however, that taxation falls within the competence of the Member States;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Calls on the Commission to issue a proposal aimed at repealing patent boxes, and notes the calls on Member States to favour non- harmful and, if appropriate, direct support for R&D; reiterates, in the meantime, its call to ensure that current patent boxes establish a genuine link to economic activity, such as expenditure tests, and that they do not distort competition; welcomes the improved definition of R&D costs in the common corporate tax base (CCTB) proposal;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. WelcomNotes the re-launch of the CCCTB project in a two-step approach, with the Commission’s adoption of interconnected proposals on CCTB and CCCTB; calls on the Council to swiftly adopt them, taking into consideration Parliament’s opinion that already includes the concept of virtual permanent establishment that would close the remaining loopholes allowing tax avoidance to take place and level the playing field in light of digitalisation;
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Welcomes the digital tax package adopted by the Commission on 21 March 2018; calls on the Council to swiftly adopttudy and improve these proposals, taking into account Parliament’s opinion on them;
Amendment 363 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Reminds Member States of their obligation under the Treaty32 to cooperate loyally, sincerely and expeditiously with due regard for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; calls, therefore, in the light of cross-border cases, most notably the so-called Cum-Ex files, for the nomination of Single Points of Contact (SPoC) by all Member States’ national tax authorities, in line with the SPoC-system of the Joint International Taskforce on Shared Intelligence and Collaboration (JITSIC) in the framework of the OECD33 , to facilitate and enhance cooperation in combating tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning; calls further on the Commission to facilitate and coordinate cooperation between Member States’ SPoCs; _________________ 32 Article 4(3) TEU. Article 4(3) TEU. 33 http://www.oecd.org/tax/forum-on-tax- administration/jitsic/
Amendment 401 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Stresses that the proposal for public CBCR was submitted to the co-legislators just after the Panama papers scandal on 12 April 2016, and that Parliament adopted its position on it on 4 July 2017; recalls that the latter called for an enlargement of the scope of reporting and protection of commercially sensitive information; deplornotes the lack of progress and cooperation from the Council since 2016; urges for progress to be made in the Council so that it enters into negotiations with Parliament;
Amendment 427 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Is concerned by the magnitude of tax unpaid for all Member States over long periods39 ; recalls that the aim of the recovery of unlawful aid is to restore the position to the status quo, and that calculating the exact amount of aid to be repaid is part of the implementation obligation incumbent on the national authorities; calls on the Commission to assess possiviable countermeasures, including fines, to help prevent Member States from offering selective favourable tax treatment which constitutes State aid which is non- compliant with EU rules; _________________ 39 As in the case of decision of 30 August 2016 (SA.38373) on State aid implemented by Ireland to Apple. The tax rulings in question were issued by Ireland on 29 January 1991 and 23 May 2007.
Amendment 497 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Stresses that VAT is an important revenue sourcsource of tax revenue for national budgets; notes that in 2016, VAT revenues in the EU28 Member States amounted to EUR 1 044 billion, which corresponds to 18 % of all tax revenues in the Member States; takes note of the fact that the 2017 annual EU budget amounted EUR 157 billion;
Amendment 500 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Regrets, however, that every year, large amounts of the expected VAT revenue are lost because of frauNotes that VAT collection in Member States needs to be improved; highlights that according to the Commission’s statistics, the VAT gap in 2016 amounted to EUR 147 billion, which represents more than 12 % of the total expected VAT revenue,43 although the situation is much worse in a number of Member States where the gap is close to or even above 20 % ; regrets that every year, large amounts of the expected VAT revenue are lost because of fraud; notes that the Commission estimates that around EUR 50 billion – or EUR 100 per EU citizen each year – is lost to cross-border VAT fraud44 ; _________________ 43 Study and Reports on the VAT Gap in the EU-28 Member States: 2018 Final Report / TAXUD/2015/CC/131. 44 See Commission press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17- 3443_en.htm
Amendment 526 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Welcomes in particular the progress made by the Council towards the definitive VAT regime by adopting the Quick Fixes47 on 4 October 2018; expresses its concern, however, that no safeguards in relation to its fraud-sensitive aspects were adopted along the lines of Parliament’s position48 on the Certified Taxable Person (CTP) proposal49 , as expressed in its opinion of 3 October 201850 ; profoundly regretnotes that the Council postponed the decision on introduction of CTP status until the adoption of the definitive VAT regime; _________________ 47 Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards harmonising and simplifying certain rules in the value added tax system and introducing the definitive system for the taxation of trade between the Member States (COM(2017)0569). 48 European Parliament legislative resolution of 3 October 2018 on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards harmonising and simplifying certain rules in the value added tax system and introducing the definitive system for the taxation of trade between Member States, texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0366. 49 Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as certain value added tax obligations for supplies of services and distance sales of goods (COM(2016)0757). 50 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0367.
Amendment 527 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69 a (new)
Paragraph 69 a (new)
69a. Is of the view that the granting of certified taxable person (CTP) status to businesses considered reliable taxpayers remains problematic as the criteria for granting the status are vague and thus may result in different approaches taken by the Member States; remains concerned about the potential difficulties for medium enterprises to obtain the CTP status which in turn could in effect result in only the biggest companies being considered reliable taxpayers;
Amendment 530 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69 b (new)
Paragraph 69 b (new)
69b. Stresses the problems that could arise from two parallel systems of accounting for VAT depending on whether the buyer has obtained a CTP status or not;
Amendment 584 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
Paragraph 81
81. Emphasises that natural persons do not generally exercise their freedom of movement for the purposes of tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning; underlines, however, that some natural persons can have a tax base large enough to span several tax jurisdictions;
Amendment 613 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 85
Paragraph 85
85. ObservesIs concerned that a majority of Member States have adopted citizenship by investment (CBI) or residency by investment (RBI) schemes57 , generally known as golden visa or investor programmes, by which citizenship or residence is granted to non-EU citizens in exchange for financial investment; observes that these programmes do not necessarily require applicants to spend little or no time on the territory in which the investment is made; _________________ 57 18 Member States have some form of RBI scheme in place, including four Member States that operate CBI schemes in addition to RBI schemes: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, Romania. 10 Member States have no such schemes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. Source: study entitled ‘Citizenship by investment (CBI) and residency by investment (RBI) schemes in the EU‘, EPRS, October 2018, PE: 627.128; ISBN: 978-92-846-3375-3.
Amendment 621 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 86
Paragraph 86
86. Observes that at least 5 000 non-EU citizens have obtained EU citizenship through citizenship by investment schemes58 ; _________________ 58stresses that the potential financial benefits of these schemes are not reaped by the society as a whole and those benefits only occur in the Member States running the schemes, whereas the potential risks are shared by the Union as a whole; _________________ 58 See the above-mentioned study. See the above-mentioned study.
Amendment 628 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 87
Paragraph 87
87. Stresses that CBI and RBI schemes carry significant risks, including apotential security risks, devaluation of EU citizenship and the potential for corruption, money laundering and tax evasion; reiterates its concern that citizenship or residence could be granted through these schemes without proper or indeed any customer due diligence (CDD) having been carried out, leading to possibility whereby third country nationals which pose security risk or are of questionable reputation obtain a residence permit or EU citizenship; notes that several formal investigations into corruption and money laundering have been launched at national and EU level directly related to CBI and RBI schemes; underlines that, at the same time, the net economic benefits as well as sustainability and viability of the investments provided through these schemes aremain uncertain highly questionable; notes that some of these schemes have contributed to distortions in the local housing market;
Amendment 639 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 88
Paragraph 88
88. Notes that these programmes regularly involve tax privileges or, special tax regimes for the beneficiaror other privileges for the beneficiaries and in some cases their families; is concerned that these privileges could hamper the objective of making all citizens contribute fairly to the tax system and the society;
Amendment 648 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89
Paragraph 89
89. Worries that there is very little transparency in relation to the number and origin of applicants, the numbers of individuals granted citizenship or residency by these schemes and the amount invested through these schemes or the origin and legality of the funding; appreciates the fact that some Member States make explicit the name and nationalities of the individuals who are granted citizenship or residency under these schemes;
Amendment 664 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 91
Paragraph 91
91. Concludes that the potential, yet questionable economic benefits of CBI and RBI schemes do not offset the serious money laundering and tax evasion and potential security risks they present; calls on Member States to phase out all existing CBI or RBI schemes as soon as possible; stresses that, in the meantime, Member States should properly ensure that enhanced CDD on applicants for citizenship or residence through these schemes is duly carried out, as required by AMLD5; calls on the Commission to monitor rigorously and continuously the proper implementation and application of CDD within the framework of CBI and RBI schemes until they are repealed in each Member State;
Amendment 670 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
92. Calls on Member States to prevent conflicts of interest linked to CBI and RBI schemes, which mightare likely to arise when private firms which assisted the government in the design, management and promotion of these schemes, also advised and supported individuals by screening them for suitability and filing their applications for citizenship or residence;
Amendment 682 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
93. Urges the Commission to finalise its study on CBI and RBI schemes in the Union; urges the Commission to examine whether, and, if so, which of these schemes posed a threat to EU legislation and security of the Member States;
Amendment 691 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 96
Paragraph 96
96. Recalls that free ports are warehouses in free zones, which were – originally – intended as spaces to store merchandise in transit; deplores the fact that in some cases they have since become popular for the storage of substitute assets, including art, precious stones, antiques, gold and wine collections – often on a permanent basis;60 _________________ 60 EPRS study entitled ‘Money Laundering and tax evasion risks in free ports‘, October 2018, PE: 627.114; ISBN: 978-92- 846-3333-3.
Amendment 693 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97
Paragraph 97
97. Notes that, apart from secure storage, the motivations for the use of free ports often include a high degree of secrecy and the deferral of import duties and indirect taxes such as VAT or user tax;
Amendment 734 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 107 a (new)
Paragraph 107 a (new)
107 a. Deplores those financial institutions and the related banking models which have actively facilitated, or prevented putting a stop to, systemic money laundering;
Amendment 766 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113
Paragraph 113
113. Notes that during the mandate of the TAX3 Committee alone, three2018 alone, a number of deplorable cases of money laundering through EU banks have been disclosed:revealed. Among others, in a settlement with the Netherlands’ Public Prosecution Service68 ING Bank N.V. recently admitted serious shortcomings in the application of AML/CTF provisions and agreed to pay EUR 775 million in a settlement with the Netherlands’ Public Prosecution Service68 ; ABLV Bank in Latvia went into voluntary liquidation after, failing to prevent accounts held by ING clients in the Netherlands from being used for criminal activities, including money laundering, for many years; the United States Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) decided to propose a ban on ABLV from having a correspondence account in the United States due to money laundering concerns69 , and. ABLV Bank went into voluntary liquidation following determinations of 23 February 2018 by the ECB that the bank and its subsidiary ABLV Luxembourg were failing or likely to fail70a; Danske Bank admitted, after an investigation into 15 000 customers and around 9.5 million transactions linked to its Estonian branch had taken place, that major deficiencies in the bank’s governance and control systems had made it possible to use its Estonian branch for suspicious transactions70 ; stresses, however, that the above financial institutions are just one part of the chain in the wider money-laundering schemes and should thus be seen in this context, as opposed to being viewed as the main culprits; further notes that the laundered money likely moved to and through other financial institutions within the EU; _________________ 68 Netherlands’ Public Prosecution Service, September 4 2018: https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten /@103952/ing-pays-775-million/ 69 European Parliament, Directorate- General for Internal Policies, Economic Governance Support Unit, in-depth analysis entitled ‘Money laundering - Recent cases from a EU banking supervisory perspective’, April 2018, PE 614.496. 70 Bruun & Hjejle: Report on the Non- Resident Portfolio at Danske Bank’s Estonian Branch, Copenhagen, 19 September 2018. 70a https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.e u/press/pr/date/2018/html/ssm.pr180224.e n.
Amendment 768 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113 a (new)
Paragraph 113 a (new)
113 a. Stresses that ML is a wider issue that cannot be pinpointed to just a few financial institutions in a given year; Regrets that more revelations of ML involving financial institutions in the EU may emerge;
Amendment 769 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113 b (new)
Paragraph 113 b (new)
Amendment 773 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 114 a (new)
Paragraph 114 a (new)
114 a. Notes that in the case of ING Bank N.V. its clients in the Netherlands were able to use their bank accounts to launder hundreds of millions of euros, without bank having put in place adequate AML and KYC procedures.
Amendment 802 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 119
Paragraph 119
119. Calls for increased scrutiny and supervision of non-resident deposit portfolios and the share within them originating from countinuous supervision ofries that potentially pose a security risk, the number of transactions in a given period as well as the members of management boards and shareholders of credit institutions and investment firms in the EU, and stresses in particular the difficulty of revoking banking licences or equivalent specific authorisations;
Amendment 804 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 120
Paragraph 120
120. Supports the work undertaken by the Joint Working Group comprising representatives of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers and its Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, the ECB, the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the Chair of the ESAs Joint Committee Anti-money Laundering Sub-committee, with a view to detecting current shortcomings and proposing measures to enable effective coordinperation and exchange of information among supervisory and enforcement agencies;
Amendment 815 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124
Paragraph 124
124. Stresses that ESAs, and in particular the EBA, should be provided with sufficient financial and administrative resource capacity to carry out their oversight functions and improve AML supervision; notes, however, the continued and increased importance the national supervisors;
Amendment 820 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 a (new)
Paragraph 124 a (new)
124 a. Stresses that prudential and anti- money laundering supervision cannot be treated as separate;
Amendment 821 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 b (new)
Paragraph 124 b (new)
124 b. Highlights that in order to fight effectively against money laundering activities, increased and productive cooperation between national supervisors and the Member States’ financial intelligence units (FIUs) is key;
Amendment 826 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5.2
Subheading 5.2
Cooperation betweenand role of financial intelligence units (FIUs)
Amendment 845 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 127 a (new)
Paragraph 127 a (new)
127 a. Stresses that in order to help fight effectively against money laundering activities, adequate financial and administrative capacity of the Member States’ FIUs is of vital importance;
Amendment 856 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129
Paragraph 129
129. Encourages the competent authorities and FIUs to engage with financial institutions and other obliged entities to enhance suspicious activity reporting, ensuring and reduce defensive reporting, thus helping to ensure that FIUs receive more useful, focused and complete information to properly perform their duties, while at the same time ensuring compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation;
Amendment 862 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129 a (new)
Paragraph 129 a (new)
129 a. Notes that while some Member States are members of FATF, others are members of MONEYVAL which may lead to double standards; considers that all EU Member States should be members of FATF;
Amendment 885 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 134
Paragraph 134
134. Calls for a more stringcoherent and precise definition of beneficial ownership to ensure that all natural persons who ultimately own or control a legal entity are identified;
Amendment 939 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 146
Paragraph 146
146. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensureNotes that the EU cannot speaks with one voice at the FATF as not all the Member States are members of FATF; calls on the Commission to include European Parliament staff as observers in the Commission delegation to the FATF;
Amendment 1022 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158
Paragraph 158
158. Reiterates its call for the EU to have a leading role in the global fight against tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and money laundering, in particular through Commission initiatives in all related international forums; regrets that in fight against money laundering, the EU has so far not set the best example;
Amendment 1118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 174
Paragraph 174
174. Calls on the CommissionMember States´ tax authorities to collect and release the number of tax disputes submitted and resolved, sorted by type of dispute per year and by countries involved, so as to monitor the mechanism and ensure that it is efficient and effective;
Amendment 1129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177
Paragraph 177
177. Welcomes the broad definition of both ‘intermediary’ and ‘reportable cross- border arrangement’ in the recently adopted DAC683 ; _________________ 83regrets that a number of details are still unclear; _________________ 83 OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1. OJ L 139, 5.6.2018, p. 1.
Amendment 1144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 178
Paragraph 178
178. Draws attention to the risks of conflicts of interest stemming from the provision of legal advice, tax advice and auditing services within the same accountancy firm; stresses, therefore,acknowledges the measure that have already been taken to help remedy this; stresses the importance of transparent indication of what services are provided to a particular client and clear separation between these services;
Amendment 1165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 180
Paragraph 180
180. Believes that the protection of whistle-blowers is of major importance to ensure that unlawful activities and abuse of law are prevented or do not prosper; stresses that whistle-blowers are often a crucial source for investigative journalism and should therefore be protected against any form of harassment and retaliation; notes the importance of internal reporting channels; believes that it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of investigative journalism’s sources, including whistle- blowers, if the role of investigative journalism as a watchdog in democratic society is to be safeguarded;
Amendment 1186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 184
Paragraph 184
184. Acknowledges the difficulties faced by journalists when investigating or reporting on cases of money laundering, tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning; worries that investigative journalists are often subject to physical threats and intimidation;
Amendment 1203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188
Paragraph 188
188. Deplores the fact that investigative journalists are often victims of abusive lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate and silence them by burdening them with the costs of legal defence until they are forced to abandon their coriticism or oppositionginally stated claims; recalls that these abusive lawsuits constitute a threat to fundamental democratic rights, such as to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom to disseminate and receive information; calls on the Member States to put in place mechanisms to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP); considers that these mechanisms should take duly into consideration the right to a good name and reputation; calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of taking legislative action in this area;
Amendment 1218 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 192
Paragraph 192
192. Notes that, despite requests to the Council, no relevant documents have been made available to the TAX3 Committee; calls into question, therefore, the political will ofon the Council to enhance transparency and cooperation in the fight against money laundering, tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning or to comply with the TEU and the principle of sincere cooperation;
Amendment 1226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 196
Paragraph 196
196. Stresses that the above-mentioned Ombudsman recommendations also apply to the CoC Group, which should provide the necessary information, relating in particular to harmful tax practices of Member States and the EU listing process;
Amendment 1266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 205
Paragraph 205
205. WelcomNotes the Commission’s intention to propose qualified majority voting for specific and pressing tax policy issues where vital legislative files and initiatives aimed at combating tax fraud, tax evasion, aggressive tax planning or financial crimes have been blocked in the Council to the detriment of Member States;