5 Amendments of Thierry CORNILLET related to 2016/0337(CNS)
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) One of the main shortcomings of the current international tax rules is that the taxing right of a jurisdiction only arises when the business has a physical presence in that jurisdiction. It is necessary to redefine the concept of a permanent establishment situated in the Union and belonging to a taxpayer who is resident for tax purposes within the Union to also include a digital presence, without hampering the potential of the digital sector. The aim would be to ensure that all concerned taxpayers share a common understanding and to exclude the possibility of a mismatch due to divergent definitions. On the contrary, it should not be seen as essential to have a common definition of permanent establishments situated in a third country, or in the Union but belonging to a taxpayer who is resident for tax purposes in a third country. This dimension should better be left to bilateral tax treaties and national law due to its complicated interaction with international agreements.
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Since consolidation is only part of the second phase of the new approach to CCCTB, there will be a need for effective dispute resolution mechanisms. Furthermore, taking into account the fact that not all companies will be within the mandatory scope of the upcoming CCCTB, it can be expected that even after the implementation of this directive, a number of double taxation disputes will continue to arise, for which the mechanisms laid down by the Council Directive on Double Taxation Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the EU shall apply.
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
3. A company that meets the conditions of points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1, but does not meet the conditions of points (c) or (d) of that paragraph, may opt, including for its permanent establishments situated in other Member States, to apply the rules of this Directive for a period of five tax years. That period shall automatically be extended for successive terms of five tax years, unless there is a notice of termination as referred to in Article 65(3). The conditions under points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 shall be met each time the extension takes place. The commission should develop a tool that mitigates the administrative burden and costs for SMEs that voluntary opt-in the new system.
Amendment 226 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 30 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point 30 a (new)
(30a) ‘Secrecy or low tax jurisdictions’ shall mean any jurisdiction which, from 31 December 2016, meets any of the following criteria: (a) appears on the Council of the European Union’s list of non-cooperative jurisdictions; (b) maintains no register of the ultimate beneficial owners of corporations, trusts and equivalent legal structures at least compliant with the minimum standard defined in Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (c) levies a statutory corporate tax rate of less than 60% of the weighted average corporate tax in the Union;
Amendment 392 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 66 a (new)
Article 66 a (new)
Article 66a Mandatory exchange of information on tax matters In order for tax authorities to assess tax due properly and to ensure the proper implementation of this Directive, the exchange of information on tax matters shall be automatic and mandatory, as laid down by Council directive 2011/16/EU. Member States shall allocate adequate staff, expertise and budget resources to their national tax administrations as well as resources for the training of tax administration staff focusing on cross- border tax cooperation and on the automatic exchange of information in order to ensure full implementation of this Directive.