8 Amendments of Eva JOLY related to 2016/0339(CNS)
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Directive (EU) 2016/1164 provides for a framework to tackle hybrid mismatch arrangements, which does not comprehensively and systematically eliminate hybrid mismatches and has its scope limited to the European Union.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is necessary to establish rules that neutralise hybrid mismatches in a comprehensive manner. Considering that Directive (EU) 2016/1164 only covers hybrid mismatch arrangements that arise in the interaction between the corporate tax systems of Member States, the ECOFIN Council issued a statement on 20 June 2016 requesting the Commission to put forward by October 2016 a proposal on hybrid mismatches involving third countries in order to provide for rules consistent with and no less effective than the rules recommended by the OECD BEPS report on Action 2, with a view to reaching an agreement by the end of 2016.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Rules on hybrid mismatches should address mismatch situations which are the result of conflicting tax rules of two (or more) jurisdictions. However, those rules should not affect the general features of the tax system of a jurisdiction.
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9 a) Permanent establishment mismatches occur where differences in the rules for allocating income and expenditure between different parts of the same entity in the permanent establishment jurisdiction and those in the residence jurisdiction give rise to a mismatch in tax outcomes, including cases where a mismatch outcome arises due to the fact that a permanent establishment is disregarded as a result of the application of the laws of the branch jurisdiction. Those mismatch outcomes could lead to non-taxation without inclusion, a double deduction or a deduction without inclusion, and should therefore be eliminated. In the case of disregarded permanent establishments, the Member State in which the taxpayer is resident should include the income that would otherwise be attributed to the permanent establishment.
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) The objective of this Directive is to improve the resilience of the internal market as a whole against hybrid mismatch arrangements. This cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually, given that national corporate tax systems are disparate and that independent action by Member States would only replicate the existing fragmentation of the internal market in direct taxation. It would thus allow inefficiencies and distortions to persist in the interaction of distinct national measures. This would thus result in a lack of coordination. That objective can rather, due to the cross-border nature of hybrid mismatch arrangements and the need to adopt solutions that function for the internal market as a whole, be better achieved at Union level. The Union mayshould therefore adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, including moving from a separate entity approach to a unitary approach regarding the taxation of multinational enterprises. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. By setting the required level of protection for the internal market, this Directive only aims to achieve the essential degree of coordination within the Union that is necessary to achieve its objectives.
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) The Commission should evaluate the implementation of this Directive fourthree years after its entry into force and report to the Council thereon. Member States should communicate to the Commission all information necessary for this evaluation,
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c a (new)
Directive (EU) 2016/1164
Article 2 – point 11 a (new)
Article 2 – point 11 a (new)
(ca) the following point is added: ‘(11a) ‘payer jurisdiction’ means the jurisdiction where a hybrid entity or a permanent establishment is established or where a payment is treated as made;’
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive (EU) 2016/1164
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
To the extent that a hybrid mismatch between Member States results in a deduction without inclusion, the Mdeduction shall be denied in the member State ofthat is the payer shall deny the deduction of such payment. jurisdiction of such payment. Where the deduction is not denied in the payer jurisdiction, the Member State concerned shall require the tax payer to include the amount of the payment that would otherwise give rise to a mismatch in the income in the payee jurisdiction.