[ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas it results in financial losses to EU Member States, which is a problem especially for the recovery from the sanitary, social and economic crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, for the financing of the green transition and which moves the tax burden to lower households;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

C b. whereas independent research 24 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;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)

C c. whereas aggressive tax planning within the union is the most significant source of corporate tax base erosion and corporate tax avoidance impacting EU Member States 25

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes the variety of EU instruments adopted to address HTP inside the Union, which include ATAD I and II, the Interest and Royalties Directive, the Parent Subsidiary Directive, the Directive on Administrative Cooperation in the Field of Taxation, and, in particular, DAC 3, 4 and 6 (on tax rulings, country-by-country reporting and mandatory disclosure rules for intermediaries), the various Commission recommendations to the Council, the CoC, and the Council recommendations in the framework of the European Semester dealing with aggressive tax planning; however, notes that profit shifting and aggressive tax planning have continued to take place within the EU;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
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 weak 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;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the fact 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; but deplores the fact that the first announced rate of 21% for a minimum tax rate was recently changed to 15%, which could signal a less ambitious global compromise. Calls on the EU to advocate for a global minimum effective tax rate of at least 25%, in order for it to have a meaningful role in the fight against profit shifting;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. 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;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls for the current scope of the CoC to be progressively updated in order to look into the general characteristics of a tax system to determine whether they have harmful effects. It calls for the inclusion of economic criteria in the assessment of harmful tax regimes, in particular to consider whether FDI and passive income are disproportionate compared to the country GDP. Highlights a general tendency of some sectors, such as real estate investments, to be more prone to potentially harmful tax exemptions;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
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; calls further for this implementation to be monitored and evaluated. Calls on the Commission to follow-up the recently announced new legislative initiative to neutralise the misuse of shell entities for tax purpose. Recalls the importance of a full country-by-country reporting information in order to monitor the substance requirements;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Commission to produce guidelines on how to design tax incentives ~~with fewer risks of distorting the Single Market~~socially, economically and environmentally beneficial;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
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 ; calls on the Commission to ~~already assess~~follow- up the recently announced 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.

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. CStresses that the definition of harmful tax practices should be extended in order to include territorial tax regimes that facilitate double non-taxation, unilateral transfer pricing adjustments and similar rules that result in a deduction without a corresponding inclusion, along with all aggressive tax rules that facilitate tax avoidance and other no-tax or low-tax regimes that inherently attract profit shifting. In this last point, calls specifically calls on the Commission to evaluate the effectiveness of patent boxes and other intellectual property (IP) regimes under the new nexus approach defined by Action 5 of the BEPS Action Plan on HTP, and to consider banning them;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Calls for the review of the Transparency Criteria, in particular to finalise the inclusion of point 1.4 global exchange of beneficial ownership; urges in particular a clear assessment of the United States regarding the transparency criteria;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12 b. 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;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
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-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

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Highlights the non-binding nature of the CoC; 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, in comparison, EU member states are responsible for 36 percent34;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
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 fully included in the process of designing and adopting new policies and criteria to combat HTP;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Calls for the same criteria of the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions to be use to assess Member States and third countries and to give the same visibility on the assessment of both; highlights that research has suggested that five EU Member States – Cyprus, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands – would be considered tax havens if subjected to the EU listing process. Calls further to consider designing mechanisms to better include the voices of non-EU countries in this process, for example by creating a working group or a consultative body that brings together non-EU countries, civil society and experts;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Considers the reform of the criteria of the CoC to be a matter of urgency and that it should assess all regimes proposing a tax rate below the future internationally agreed minimum effective tax rate in the framework of Pillar II of the Inclusive Framework as being potentially harmful~~, unless the revenues qualifying for a deduction or a reduced tax rate comply with robust and progressive economic substance requirements~~; in this sense, calls for the inclusion of 0 or low level taxations as standalone criteria; asks to include economic analysis to assess harmful tax regimes, and in particular whether FDI and passive income are disproportionate compared to the country GDP; underlines in this regard that the European Commission has collected those indicators for MSs and assessed that economic evidence suggests that 5 MSs’s tax rules are used by companies that engage in aggressive tax planning;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Calls on the CoC to equally assess all countries and jurisdictions in scope independently of their geopolitical and economic power; deplores the lack of consistency and unequal treatment of certain countries in the EU blacklisting procedure; observes the unequal playing field between countries adhering to the OECD Common Reporting Standard and US FATCA; calls on the CoC to stringently assess the United States;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Urges an enlargement of the scope of the CoC, notably by including preferential personal income or capital tax regimes, or personal income and wealth tax regimes that could lead to ~~significant Single Market distortions~~loss of public revenue;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Invites the Commission and Member States to consider a ‘Framework on Aggressive Tax Arrangements and Low-rates’ (FATAL) along the following line and that would replace the current CoC: A.Without prejudice to the respective spheres of competence of the Member States and the Community, this framework, concerns those measures which affect, or may affect, in a significant way the location of business activity in the Community and the relocation of high net worth or high level of income (individual taxation regimes). Business activity in this respect also includes all activities carried out within a group of companies. The tax measures covered by the framework include both laws or regulations and administrative practices. B.Within the scope specified in paragraph A, tax measures which provide for a significantly lower effective level of taxation, including zero taxation, than those levels which generally apply in the Member State in question or below any minimum effective level of tax agreed at the Inclusive Framework on BEPS or in international forum where the EU is represented, are to be regarded as potentially harmful and therefore covered by this code (Gateway criterion). Such a level of taxation may operate by virtue of the nominal tax rate, and/or the tax base or any other relevant factor determining the effective tax rate. When assessing whether such measures are harmful, account should be taken of, inter alia: 1. whether advantages are accorded only to non-residents or in respect of transactions carried out with non- residents, or 2. whether advantages are ring-fenced from the domestic market, so they do not affect the national tax base, or 3. whether advantages are granted even without any real economic activity and substantial economic presence within the Member State offering such tax advantages, as defined by the European Commission and based on a proportionate substance requirement evolving progressively as reported income increases within the Member State concerned.Particular attention will be given to Intellectual Property regimes in this regard; 4. whether the rules for profit determination in respect of activities within a multinational group of companies departs from internationally accepted principles, notably the rules agreed upon within the OECD, or 5. whether the tax measures lack transparency, including where legal provisions are relaxed at administrative level in a non-transparent way. C.Within the scope specified in paragraph A, preferential personal tax regimes resulting in significantly lower effective level of taxation, including zero taxation, than those levels which generally apply in the Member State in question are to be regarded as potentially harmful and therefore covered by this code.Similarly general personal income and wealth tax regimes that would lead to great Single Market distortion may be covered by the scope and assessed. Standstill and Rollback Standstill D.Member States commit themselves not to introduce new tax measures which are harmful within the meaning of this framework.Member States will therefore respect the principles underlying the framework when determining future policy and will have due regard for the review process referred to in paragraphs E to I in assessing whether any new tax measure is harmful. Rollback E.Member States commit themselves to re-examining their existing laws and established practices, having regard to the principles underlying the framework and to the review process outlined in paragraphs E to I.Member States will amend such laws and practices as necessary with a view to eliminating any harmful measures as soon as possible taking into account the Council's and Commission’s discussions following the review process. Review process Provision of relevant information F.In accordance with the principles of transparency and openness Member States will inform each other and the Commission of existing and proposed tax measures which may fall within the scope of the framework.In particular, Member States are called upon to provide at the request of another Member State information on any tax measure which appears to fall within the scope of the framework.Where envisaged tax measures need parliamentary approval, such information need not be given until after their announcement to Parliament.The regimes that will be evaluated in the scope of the framework should be notified for information to the European Parliament. Assessment of harmful measures G.Any Member State may request the opportunity to discuss and comment on a tax measure of another Member State that may fall within the scope of the framework.This will permit an assessment to be made of whether the tax measures in question are harmful, in the light of the effects that they may have within the Community.That assessment will take into account all the factors identified in paragraph B and C. H.The Council also emphasizes the need to evaluate carefully in that assessment the effects that the tax measures have on other Member States, inter alia in the light of how the activities concerned are effectively taxed throughout the Community. Insofar as the tax measures are used to support the economic development of particular regions, an assessment will be made of whether the measures are in proportion to, and targeted at, the aims sought.In assessing this, particular attention will be paid to special features and constraints in the case of the outermost regions and small islands, without undermining the integrity and coherence of the Community legal order, including the internal market and common policies.Such assessment would consider the progressive minimum substantial economic presence requirements as defined in paragraph B. Procedure I.A group will be set up jointly by the Council and the Commission to assess the tax measures that may fall within the scope of this framework and to oversee the provision of information on those measures.The Council invites each Member State and the Commission to appoint a high-level representative and a deputy to this group, which will be chaired by a representative of a Member State.The group, which will meet regularly, will select and review the tax measures for assessment in accordance with the provisions laid down in paragraphs E to G.The group will report regularly on the measures assessed.These reports will be forwarded to the Council for deliberation and, if the Council so decides, published.The documents should be communicated to the Parliament upon request and disclosed once the evaluation process is over. Enforcement J.Member States are entitled to implement counter measures that would reduce tax avoidance incentives should a Member State refrain to roll back a regime that had been assessed as harmful in the context of this framework within 2 years, and in particular: a) Non-deductibility of costs; b) Withholding tax measures; c) Limitation of participation exemption; d) Special documentation requirements, especially regarding transfer pricing; Geographical extension K.The Council considers it advisable that principles aimed at abolishing harmful tax measures should be adopted on as broad a geographical basis as possible.To this end, Member States commit themselves to promoting their adoption in third countries;they also commit themselves to promoting their adoption in territories to which the Treaty does not apply. In this context, the Council and the Commission should rely on criteria on tax transparency, fair taxation and implementation of anti-BEPS measures to establish an EU List of non cooperative jurisdictions.The Fair taxation criteria should be based on factors identified in paragraph B and C of this framework. L.Member States with dependent or associated territories or which have special responsibilities or taxation prerogatives in respect of other territories commit themselves, within the framework of their constitutional arrangements, to ensuring that these principles are applied in those territories.In this connection, those Member States will take stock of the situation in the form of reports to the group referred to in paragraph H, which will assess them under the review procedure described above. Monitoring and revision M. In order to ensure the even and effective implementation of the framework, the Council invites the Commission to report to it annually on the implementation thereof and on the application of fiscal State aid. The report should be made publically available. The Council and the Member States will review the provisions of the framework two years after its adoption.

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Requires that the CoC Group appear at least once a year before Parliament;~~ Calls on the CoC to invite Members of Parliament to become permanent observers in CoC discussions, with speaking possibilities at meetings and consultation status on documents and processes; underlines that Parliament should have the power of codecision on governance and criteria of the blacklisting process and that its role in relation to the Code of Conduct Group should be formalised; calls of the CoC Group to move to live stream meetings publicly; where parts of the meeting may require confidentiality, the members could request that specific parts of the meeting be closed, on a case by case basis and subject to majority decision-making by the members in each case;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Welcomes the publication of the biannual reports of the CoC Group to the Council, as well as any other considered relevant documents; believes that a dedicated online tool should be created, such as an archive of all documents and minutes in a consistent and user-friendly way, to avoid relying only on Council conclusions to retrieve essential information about tax policy at EU level;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

José GUSMÃO, Manon AUBRY

19 a. Welcomes the publication of the composition and contacts of the CoC Group in order to improve the transparency of its work; calls on the CoC to disclose attendees to, the topics of discussion and the conclusions adopted in its meetings; calls for full transparency of the methodology used for assessing third- country regimes in the EU listing process; invites the CoC to systematically release a comprehensive summary of its interactions with third countries, the subject matters discussed and the commitments made by third countries during the assessment process; calls on both the Council and the Commission to publish their preparatory notes, technical assessments and minutes;

2021/06/02
Committee: ECON

Activities of José GUSMÃO related to 2020/2258(INI)

Plenary speeches (1)

Shadow reports (1)

Amendments (25)

ParlTrack - 2011-2024