La position allemande de refus de transparence des grandes multinationales – S.Giegold) – On avance ce 24 octobre sur le CBCR européen ? – Une vidéo en 8 langues dont le français sur le CBCR – Débat fiscal entre principaux candidats européens – Le plan fiscal en 10 points des Verts européens – Reporting pays par pays (CBCR) : dans le débat des élections européennes – 9/10 des multinationales y échapperont ! – vote au Parlement ce 4 juillet et rejet des amendements sociaux-démocrates – le vote du 12 juin en Commission affaiblit encore le texte – 6 raisons pour voter le CBCR – vote au Parlement européen reporté au 12 juin – l’offensive « contre » du MEDEF – le nouveau rapport d’Oxfam sur 20 grandes banques européennes – au niveau européen – Tout savoir avec Alex Cobbham (TJN) ce 6 décembre 2016 – pour l’Europe, des décisions à prendre à l’unanimité du Conseil ? – la loi Sapin II en France – ce qu’il devrait être (R.Murphy) – aux USA – interview de Pascal St Amans (OCDE) – 39 pays y adhèrent suivant les normes de l’OCDE – plus de 1500 sociétés y seront obligées par l’Union européenne – la réaction des ONG et la lettre au Président Juncker – la « fuite » sur la position de la Commission –

La position allemande de refus de la transparence des grandes multinationales …


Ce 24 octobre une possibilité d’avancer sur le PCBCR … ?


Une vidéo en 8 langues dont le français sur le



Spitzenkandidaten debates and tax – updated 10

May 2019


1. Brussels debate 15 May 2019


Nico CUÉ, European Left (EL)

Ska KELLER, European Green Party (EGP)

Jan ZAHRADIL, Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE)

Margrethe VESTAGER, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)

Manfred WEBER, European People’s Party (EPP)

Frans TIMMERMANS, Party of European Socialists (PES)


Environmental taxes

Timmermans: Why are we not taxing kerosene of airplanes? Why are we not introducing a CO2 tax for all companies? Use revenues to bring back to the people eg for sustainable housing

Cue: we’re not currently taxing polluters, the big companies. instead we’re taxing citizens like Macron did in France. That is unacceptable. Tax evasion is at about 800bi (? interpreter had a pause here)


Corporate taxes / tax havens / digital taxes

Great intro by the moderators, stating that citizens are paying taxes and many digital giants are not – a symbol of unfairness and injustice!. Question to the candidates: which countries in the EU are tax havens and how will you change their behaviour?

Vestager: Some corps pay 0.01%, like Apple. Many MS are changing taxation in Ireland, Netherlands, Malta, Cyprus because change is coming. We need digital taxation and we need to put a floor on the corporate taxation otherwise there will just be a race to the bottom. Companies need to contribute to societies where they do a good business! We need tax fairness.

Ska Keller: big companies are running away from their responsibilities, costing us money to fund public services, we need tax justice. Tax for digital big companies, minimum tax rate for companies, transparency for every company. We tried to establish rules for transparency on tax but the liberals and conservatives voted for exemptions to this transparency!

Timmermans: it was about time that Netherlands changed its tax system. Agree with Vestager that we need a minimum tax rate of 18%, for a fair playing field. Economy has changed fundamentally. Some companies have found a way to get away from paying taxes. Thinks he can convince all MS (incl Netherlands) of the need to stop tax competition (he didnt say it in these exact words)

Zahradil: EU should not tax, it’s not a state. There shouldnt be pan-European taxes. But tax evasion should be stopped. We already have good rules for this (exchange of info for tax authorities). Vestager did a good job on level playing field

Cue: In Europe we have whole areas where all public services have been done away with. Harmonising taxation at European level and get rid of tax dumping. There were plans but they havent been materialised, we need hard action on tax fraud. Importance of whistleblowers, they need to be protected.

Manfred Weber: Wants to use digital taxes differently? Agrees that we should change in some tax fields from unanimous voting to qualified majority. Believes in tax competition, but not on digital tax, there we need a common European rule.

2. Maastricht debate 29 April 2019

Bas Eickhout – Greens

Frans Timmermans – Socialists

Violeta Tomić – European Left

Guy Verhofstadt – ALDE/En Marche

Jan Zahradil – Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe


Digital tax

Violeta (Left): digital giants need to pay taxes where they operate. Abolish tax havens in the EU and make fair taxation.

Bas (Greens): are competing against each other to offer low taxes for companies. We need tax to be EU competence so we can tax digital companies

Timmermans (Socialists): tax big tech companies. Tax them where they make their profits. Member States have been very reluctant on taxation. Member States are „completely obsessed with taxation“, but it’s clear they can’t control these big tech companies alone. They’re arm-twisted to grant them tax-free access to their economy, only Europe can stop that. Member States need to give the EU power to change this.

Verhofstadt (ALDE): very briefly agrees with the digital tax proposals others mentioned then changes the subject.

Zahradil: absolutely no input on this. Taxation should not be a matter for the EU whatsoever. Big tech companies should be taxed, but at national level.


Minimum corporate tax rate

Timmermans: wants minimum corporate tax rate 18% across the EU. Violeta and Bas raise their hands in agreement. Verhofstadt says he has an alternative proposal but doesn’t get to explain it.


Environmental taxes

Zahradil criticised the French tax introduced by Macron, said it was a „small tax on fuel“, that was done in an unsustainable way and that’s why it was opposed by society. Argues it was endangering the economy. The context was his arguments against going green too fast.

Timmermans: Macron got protests because he first lowered the taxes for the rich and then increased those for people in low income.

Verhofstadt: thinks the French fuel tax may have gone „too fast“ and that Macron recognises that. What Verhofstadt wants at EU level is a carbon tax that raises resources towards EU budget, for investments in sustainable programmes eg battery industry and public transport

Bas: vague. We need to make sure polluters pay.



Timmermans: we need fair taxation systems

3. Florence debate 3 May 2019

Ska Keller – Greens

Frans Timmermans – Socialists

Guy Verhofstadt – ALDE/En Marche

Manfred Weber – EPP


Economic and financial policy

Timmermans and Ska Keller: end tax havens and tax evasion

« This is a disaster » – Ska Keller called out Germany’s Finance Minister for blocking the EU pCBCR proposal.


Environmental taxes

Ska Keller (Greens): Yes to carbon-based border adjustment taxes, but not as part of trade deals (as would punish the countries in the agreement). Wants carbon price per ton that is then redistributed across all society. Models already exist e.g. Switzerland. EU level but national level also (MS can go ahead and do that on their own)

Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE): carbon taxes yes, resources then used to fund EU budget instead of national contributions. When asked more specifically about ‚border adjustment taxes on polluting goods (in the countries where they were produced)‘: he said yes as part of trade deals (though he believes this is already done by Malmstrom)

Manfred Weber (EPP) avoided answering directly the question on carbon taxes

Ska and Manfred: Gilets Jaunes showed that climate taxes must consider the social dimension.

Timmermans (S&D): the transition is going to be painful but we need to make it. But must be socially sustainable, unlike in France. « those who can bear the brunt, bear the brunt ». Big tech must pay taxes. Calls for carbon tax at the European level, dedicated for transition of the economy in a sustainable way (e.g. sustainable housing).


4. ARD debate in Germany 7 May 2019

(didn’t watch it, just copy-pasted Politico summary)



Timmermans said he wants a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, Weber said he doesn’t. Both vowed to make flying more expensive — via the aforementioned tax in Timmermans’ case, versus by ending the tax privilege for jet fuel for Weber.  


Tax justice:  10-point plan for European tax justice

Link, to spread this information on twitter/facebook:

The Greens/EFA group have launched a 10-point plan for tax justice in the European Union, which will form part of its core demands for the coming legislative period in the European Parliament. The Greens/EFA Group has already been at the forefront of driving demands to combat excessive tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering in Europe.

Greens/EFA ten point plan for tax justice:

Sven Giegold, member of the Greens/EFA Group in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and in the Special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance, commented:

« We need to become serious in fighting tax dumping and money laundering. The next EU Commission must also put tax justice in the European Union at the top of its agenda. It is unacceptable for EU member states to lose billions every year from tax avoidance and money laundering.

  1. Eradicate the dirty money that funds criminality in Europe
  2. Adopt an EU-wide action plan to tax the super-rich
  3. End golden visas and the purchasable citizenship:
  4. Regulate tax advisers
  5. Crystal clear transparency on how much tax companies pay and where:
  6. Make large companies pay their fair share
  7. Sanction the tax cheats
  8. Modernise the tax system for the fair taxation of the digital economy
  9. Prioritise sustainable tax policy to tackle the climate emergency
  10. The end of unanimity decision making on tax matters

Study „Competing for the Rich – Tax exemptions and special schemes for the rich“:


Hi everyone,

In case you haven’t seen, public CBCR got a special mention last night at the Spitzenkandidaten debate which took place in Florence, moderated by the FInancial Times. Ska Keller, one of the candidates for the Greens, called out the German SPD minister for blocking pCBCR in the Council 😉

You can watch it here, around minute 44:

I also tweeted it here:


Parlement européen 4 juillet : Rejet de l’amendement socio-démocrate visant à limiter les possibilités d’exemption de CBCR, ceci limite fortement la portée de la mesure … « loophole », en français : « entourloupe » possible et certaine  : neuf entreprises multinationales sur dix échapperont à la transparence !

some comments:


EU rules tackle multinationals’ tax dodges – JULY 4, 201711:27PM


The European Parliament has passed a directive requiring big multinationals to report tax and financial data separately in all countries where they operate in a bid to tackle tax avoidance and profit shifting to countries with lower taxes.

The new rules are part of a wider overhaul of tax regulation spurred by the so-called Panama Papers and other revelations of widespread tax avoidance by companies and wealthy individuals.

They do, however, still need approval from the EU member states in coming months, and would then have to be enacted into national law in each country within a year.

EU countries lose between 50 and 70 billion euros in revenues every year because of tax avoidance, the vice president of the European Commission, Valdis Dombrovskis, told lawmakers.

The new measure would require firms with activities in the EU and an annual turnover of at least 750 million euros ($A1.15 billion) to disclose data such as profits, revenues, taxes paid and number of employees for each country where they operate.

Currently, multinationals disclose their operations in one consolidated report.

Tax-dodging schemes often hinge on the transfer of taxable profits from the higher-tax states where they are made to countries with lower taxation or none at all.

Tax-saving schemes used by Apple, Amazon, Google, Starbucks and other companies have raised public pressure for EU-wide rules to close these loopholes.

The original legislative proposal made by the European Commission required country-by-country disclosures only for operations in EU states and in tax havens, although there is no common EU list of such jurisdictions.

The European Parliament changed the proposed rules to extend the reporting requirement to all countries where firms operate.

To protect Europe’s competitiveness, the conservative and liberal groups in the EU legislature successfully pushed for companies to be allowed to apply for limited-period exemptions from disclosing information that is commercially sensitive.

But the bill does not specify what would be considered sensitive. The anti-corruption group Transparency International called the exemption a « massive loophole » that could undermine the new legislation, and another campaign group, Oxfam, said lawmakers were « bowing to big business ».

German conservative legislator Markus Ferber said the clause was necessary to prevent companies « handing away business secrets to the competition on a silver platter ».


The corporate get out clause remains and the S&D amendments to time-limit the corporate get out clause and eventually require retroactive publication of CBCR information did not pass the Plenary. There is now a clear risk that this loophole will be abused by multinationals in order to avoid having to report on some of their operations in certain countries.


Ce 4 juillet à Strasbourg, les eurodéputés se réveilleront-ils ? :

Please support the action by tweeting. You can even use those beautiful pictures here

Tax Transparency Tug of War: whose side are MEPs on?

Sample tweets below:
Tax tug of war! Will MEPs vote for the interests of big corporations or citizens in today’s public #CBCR vote #TaxTransparency ?
.@MEP please chose the side of citizens in the tax tug of war. Vote for worldwide public #CBCR #TaxTransparency
.@MEP please chose side of citizens in the tax tug of war. Vote for amendment to limit corporate ‘get out clause’! Public #CBCR

The debate is very lively and MEPs disagree strongly over worldwide disaggregation and the get out clause – All MEPs are going to join for the voting time around midday so be ready to react J. You can follow the debate here

Le vote au parlement européen ce 4 juillet sur les propositions des Commissions – à suivre en direct (voir plus bas) – vote entre 12 et 14h !

( 3the July) – As you know, tomorrow there will be a debate and a vote in the Plenary on public country by country reporting. MEPs. As you know, MEPs will be voting on the changes to the European Commission’s proposal, including an S&D amendment to limit the ‘corporate get out clause’.

The ‘corporate get out clause’ was introduced in Committee stage during the ECON/JURI vote on 12 June, and provides companies with the possibility to not report on certain activities in countries when they have concerns about commercial sensitiveness.
The S&D is aiming to introduce amendments in Plenary to the ‘corporate get out clause’ in order to introduce a time-limit & the requirement to publish the information retroactively…
The EPP group has also introduced a watered down version of this amendment, with no time limit and which will require firms to retroactively publish CBCR information (but in the form of a weighted average, not on a year-by-year basis) – almost meaningless and not an ambitious outcome if ultimately adopted…
You will be able to follow the debate and vote live here the debate will start at approximately 10 o’clock. The vote will be between 12.00 and 14.00 o’clock tomorrow afternoon.
You can find the amendments that will be voted on here. If you wish to follow the outcome of the vote live, you can find the voting list here. But of course, we will also be sending you an e-mail with more information following the outcome of the vote.

La proposition d’amendement du CBCR en discussion entre le Conseil et le Parlement (22 juin 2017) :


Le vote de ce 12 juin a eu lieu en Commissions JURI/ECON, il n’est pas satisfaisant.

*La Libre Belgique : ici   –  CBCR 14 juin 17 et savoir qui et comment il a voté :

*Euractiv : ici –

Des latitudes (un recours éventuel à un besoin de confidentialité) sont laissées aux multinationales pour ne pas devoir publier de CBCR. Les groupes ALDE (libéraux) et PPE (conservateuts) sont les responsables de cet affaiblissement du rapport Bayet-Regnier. Reste à voir ce qui se passera au Parlement européen … auquel ces amendements encore flous seront soumis ! Il n’est pas trop tard pour réagir … la transparence , c’est juste bon pour les salariés et les retraités !

( Eurodad Brussels, June 12 2017. This evening [Monday June 12], two committees of the European Parliament voted on new tax transparency requirements for multinational corporations. While the outcome would strengthen the text proposed by the European Commission, a proposal by the Liberals and Conservatives introduced a dangerous loophole. The issue will now be sent to the plenary of the European Parliament for a final decision.

« Until now, the European Parliament has been in favour of letting the public know what multinational corporations pay in taxes and where they do business,” said Tove Maria Ryding, Tax Coordinator at Eurodad, the European Network on Debt and Development. “But tonight, at the expense of the rest of society, the Liberals and Conservatives decided to protect large multinational tax cheats by introducing a loophole, through which they can continue dodging taxes.

“Public country by country reporting would be an important step towards ensuring that multinational corporations pay their share of taxes – both in Europe and in the world’s poorest countries. Failing to stop large-scale corporate tax dodging doesn’t only mean that we lose funding for public services around the world. It also disadvantages all the small and medium enterprises, which struggle to compete with large multinational corporations that are not paying taxes,” said Ryding.

“We call on the European parliamentarians to fix the loophole in this important piece of legislation, when the issue comes to a vote in the plenary.”

Thanks to the Liberals (ALDE group) and Conservatives (EPP) a very problematic loophole was introduced, which allows multinational corporations to leave out countries from their CBCR reports if they state concerns about corporate confidentiality. The details are to be determined, but it’s clear that there’s a strong risk this can be abused to leave out tax havens from the report.

– Caveat: They failed to get the 2/3 majority required to start the negotiations with the Member States and Commission. Instead, this will be sent to the European Parliament plenary for final adoption (we don’t know the date for that vote yet). It’s going to be very difficult to get this turned around in plenary, but still – it’s important to note that this is not finally adopted yet.
  1. Background: The European Commission first proposed new requirements for large multinationals with operations in the EU last year, which would introduce an obligation on large firms to publish an annual report disclosing the profits and taxes that they pay in each EU country on a country by country basis. The European Commission’s proposal only requires corporations to report on their EU operations and on their operations in countries included on a yet-to-be agreed EU list of tax haven jurisdictions, which means that multinational corporations would still be able to hide their profits in countries not included in the reporting requirements.
  2. While MEPs voted today to require multinationals to disclose this information for all countries in which they have operations worldwide, they also introduced a new exemption mechanism for corporations that provides them with the possibility to ask for exceptions to the disclosure of certain detailed information in countries outside the European Union when there are concerns about commercial confidentiality. These complicated new exemptions could potentially be exploited by multinational corporations looking to keep profits hidden in tax havens. The result is that citizens, journalists, civil society organisations and parliamentarians may not be able to get the necessary information that they need to identify multinational corporations dodging taxes.
  3. The European Union has already introduced a system of public country by country reporting for the banking sector, and EU banks are already required to disclose key data for all of their operations worldwide. This system is already working well and there currently is no exemption mechanism in place that provides banks with the possibility to exclude information on certain countries.
  4. [National hook (if you have one)]
  5. The European Parliament also proposed that the data should be published in an open data format and collected in a centralised register, which would make it possible for citizens to easily access and use the data. [NB! After the vote, we will confirm that this was agreed]
  6. In the coming months, it will be crucial to ensure that the European Parliament’s text is not weakened even further by the EU Member States. The European Parliament, the Member States and the Commission will eventually have to discuss their proposed changes to the directive and come to an agreement. EU Member States have not yet reached a final position.
  7. In the upcoming negotiations, it will also be important to get clarity on what the new exemption entails, and we call on the EU Member States and Parliament to ensure that the new mechanism cannot be misused to multinational corporations trying to hide their profits in tax havens.


Dans le cadre des services publics européens (EPSU), pourquoi il faut voter le CBCR :


This morning’s CBCR vote in the European Parliament has been postponed – probably until 12 June.

Please, let’s take this opportunity to push even harder for an ambitious outcome. We’re are still at risk of not having the necessary votes to carry through the key paragraphs, so anything you can do to influence right-wing MEPs (the political groups called ALDE and EPP) from your country would be warmly appreciated!
You can still tweet the most relevant MEPs here:
And if you want the full list of MEPs that will be voting, you can check out the member-lists of the JURI and ECON committees (the vote will take place in two committees):
– JURI – the members can be found here:
– ECON – the members can be found here:
The issues to push for are still:
– Making sure that the CBCR proposal is really « country by country », i.e. that multinational corporations will have to report on their activities in all countries (not just EU countries and blacklisted countries)
– Making sure that as many corporations as possible get covered by the proposal. In particular, we want to avoid that only corporations with a turnover of minimum 750 million Euros get covered (instead, we’d like the limit to be at 40 million Euros).
Next week, we should have a voting list that shows exactly what they will be voting on. We’ll send you more information as soon as we have it.
Best wishes,
Tove Maria Ryding
Policy and Advocacy Manager, Tax Justice
Phone +32 491 208 790
Skype: eurodad-tove

Eurodad, European Network on Debt and Development

Rue d’Edimbourg 18-26

Brussels 1050



FISCALITÉ: les entreprises françaises vent debout contre la transparence fiscale pays par pays – Bulletin Europe du 22 04 2017

Bruxelles, 21/04/2017 (Agence Europe) – Le Mouvement des entreprises de France (MEDEF) s’inquiète grandement de la proposition de la Commission visant à instaurer des déclarations publiques pays par pays (‘reporting’). Mais il renonce à se contenter d’entonner le refrain déjà connu du risque pour la compétitivité. Le MEDEF a donc décidé de présenter aux députés européens des exemples concrets pour qu’ils prennent la mesure du risque que les entreprises courent.

Dans un document transmis aux députés, vu par EUROPE, le MEDEF met avant tout en avant la concurrence faussée à laquelle les entreprises concernées par le ‘reporting‘ feront face : – d’abord, en raison des groupes étrangers qui auront accès à des informations sensibles ; – ensuite, un ‘reporting‘ montrant une augmentation soudaine des employés dans un territoire donné, ou « des coûts déclarés dans un pays où il n’y avait auparavant pas d’activités, amèneraient la concurrence à deviner une potentielle pénétration du marché européen, bien avant une annonce officielle », écrit le MEDEF.

Un autre exemple évoqué par le MEDEF est le cas dans lequel un groupe n’a qu’une entité dans un pays : en regardant le chiffre d’affaires, « les concurrents auront une vision plus claire des prix et, donc, de la marge réalisée ». La même difficulté émerge si un groupe n’a qu’un client dans ce pays. « Le reporting mènerait ce client à renégocier un prix plus bas », puisqu’il connaitra la marge de son fournisseur, écrit encore le MEDEF.

Les entreprises françaises utilisent ensuite un argument qui fait mouche auprès des décideurs européens : la perte de compétitivité vis-à-vis des partenaires économiques principaux de l’UE. Elles soulignent que le Congrès américain a déjà émis des réserves vis-à-vis du ‘reporting‘.

Enfin, le MEDEF met en avant l’érosion de l’assiette fiscale des entreprises concernées hors de l’UE. « Comme les entreprises seront détaillées (pays par pays, NDLR), pour les entreprises basées dans l’UE, et sur une base agrégée, pour les entreprises hors de l’UE, tous les pays tiers vont rediriger leurs investissements et activités dans l’UE en utilisant des compagnies de holding basées hors de l’UE et vont réduire leurs investissements dans l’UE au minimum requis pour gérer leurs entreprises locales », écrit le MEDEF.

Le MEDEF conclut son document par quatre exemples de situations concrètes où la publicité des informations du ‘reporting‘ leur serait nuisible.

L’organisation patronale aura l’occasion de s’exprimer face aux eurodéputés ce lundi 24 avril. Elle a invité les députés à échanger de façon informelle sur le ‘reporting‘ avec les entreprises Danone, Renault et L’Oréal.

Le rapporteur fictif du groupe PPE, le Polonais Dariusz Rosati, organise, quant à lui, mercredi 26 avril, une conférence avec le cabinet d’audit PwC (dont les données ont été volées et rendues publiques dans le cadre du Luxleaks) sur les effets de la publicité des informations du ‘reporting‘.

Selon plusieurs sources, le groupe ADLE du Parlement européen aurait quant à lui refusé qu’Oxfam vienne présenter son rapport sur les banques européennes et les bénéfices qu’elles réalisent dans des ‘paradis fiscaux’, rapport compilé grâce au ‘reporting‘ public qui existe déjà pour les banques.

L’accès des entreprises aux groupes politiques du PE « pose des inquiétudes » nous a expliqué Aurore Chardonnet d’Oxfam, qui dit vouloir « les mêmes opportunités » d’échanger sur le ‘reporting‘ public. (Élodie Lamer)


L’usage des paradis fiscaux par 20 grandes banques européennes : un nouveau rapport d’Oxfam France

Avec Pascal St Amans (OCDE) :[l-actu-du-jour]-20170327

Paradis fiscaux : les banques de l’UE en abusent

La Cayman National Bank à George Town, dans les îles Caïmans, un paradis fiscal utilisé par les grandes banques européennes.
La Cayman National Bank à George Town, dans les îles Caïmans, un paradis fiscal utilisé par les grandes banques européennes. © GARY HERSHORN / REUTERS / REUTERS

Les vingt plus grandes banques européennes « déclarent 26 % de leurs bénéfices dans les paradis fiscaux, soit 25 milliards d’euros en 2015, mais seulement 12 % de leur chiffre d’affaires et 7 % de leurs employés », un « décalage flagrant », remarque l’ONG britannique Oxfam, qui publie une étude avec le réseau Fair Finance Guide International. Ces mêmes établissements déclarent même « au global 628 millions d’euros [de bénéfices] dans des paradis fiscaux où elles n’ont pourtant aucun employé ». Cette « utilisation abusive des paradis fiscaux » peut permettre aux banques de « délocaliser artificiellement leurs bénéfices pour réduire leur contribution fiscale, faciliter l’évasion fiscale de leurs clients ou contourner leurs obligations réglementaires », souligne Oxfam. L’ONG classe parmi les paradis fiscaux les Etats figurant dans les principales listes en la matière, dont celles de l’OCDE et du Fonds monétaire international. Elle y ajoute d’autres pays selon des critères propres comme un taux d’imposition effectif faible.

Les auteurs de l’étude s’appuient sur des données « pays par pays » dont la publication a été rendue obligatoire pour les banques par l’Union européenne à des fins de transparence.
Ces résultats, « qui dépassent parfois l’entendement, montrent l’étendue du problème et l’impunité totale qui entoure les pratiques des plus grandes banques européennes dans les paradis fiscaux », commente Manon Aubry, co-auteure du rapport. Le Luxembourg, l’Irlande et Hongkong font partie des paradis fiscaux privilégiés par les établissements étudiés. En Irlande, cinq banques – la britannique RBS, la française Société générale, l’italienne UniCredit et les espagnoles Santander et BBVA – « ont même obtenu une rentabilité supérieure à 100 % et dégagent plus de bénéfices qu’elles ne font de chiffre d’affaires », souligne Oxfam. Selon cette étude, le taux d’imposition des banques étudiées s’élève en moyenne à 6 % et descend à 2 % pour certaines banques, « bien en deçà du taux normalement en vigueur de 12,5 %, déjà le plus faible de l’Union européenne ». Les cinq plus grandes banques françaises – BNP Paribas, BPCE, Crédit agricole, Crédit mutuel-CIC et Société générale – « ont déclaré 5,5 milliards d’euros de bénéfices dans les paradis fiscaux ». Quatre d’entre elles sont notamment présentes aux îles Caïmans, où elles ont réalisé « 174 millions d’euros de bénéfices bien qu’elles n’y emploient personne ». (Le Monde 27 mars)


(L’Echo 27 mars) « Une étude d’Oxfam révèle les pratiques des banques de l’Union européenne. Un quart de leurs bénéfices partirait vers les paradis fis caux. Le Luxembourg et l’Irlande res tent de loin, selon l’ONG, les paradis fiscaux les plus populaires. L’ONG britannique Oxfam (via sa branche française) a tenté d’ana lyser la façon dont les banques utilisent les paradis fis caux. Il ressort de l’étude que les vingt plus grandes banques euro péennes déclarent un quart de leurs bénéfices dans des para dis fiscaux, avec une pré férence pour le Luxembourg, Hong-Kong et l’Irlande.

Ces banques déclarent, selon Oxfam: • 26% de leurs bénéfices dans les paradis fiscaux , soit 25 milliards d’euros en 2015, • mais seulement 12% de leur chiffre d’affaires • et 7% de leurs employés Cela constitue un « décalage flagrant », remarque l’ONG, qui pu- blie cette étude avec le réseau Fair Finance Guide Interna tio nal . Ces mêmes établis sements déclarent même « au global 628 millions d’euros (de bénéfices) dans des para – dis fiscaux où elles n’ont pourtant aucun em ployé ». • Quel est l’intérêt du système? Cette « utilisation abusive des paradis fiscaux » peut permettre aux banques de « déloca liser artificiellement leurs bénéfices pour réduire leur contribution fiscale, faciliter l’éva sion fiscale de leurs clients ou contourner leurs obligations en matière d’impôts » (Sophie Leroy – L’Echo)


#Taxtransparency shines spotlight on dodgy tax practices shows @Oxfam.EU should adopt public #CBCR for all big Cies

· New @Oxfam report shows value for more #taxtransparency. @Europarl_EN should adopt public #CBCR for all big Cies

· New transparency rules show banks stash billions in tax havens. Time to know for all multinationals. Sign the petition

Les filiales placées dans les paradis fiscaux sont deux fois plus profitables que celles placées hors paradis fiscaux ( sur 100 € d’activités, 42 € de bénéfices dans les paradis fiscaux pour 19 ailleurs ) … les employés y sont 4 fois plus productifs … En 2015, ces banques ont enregistré 628 millions € de bénéfices avec 0 employé. La banque BNP Paribas a fait 134 millions de bénéfices (sans verser d’impôts) aux Iles Caïmans, mais elle n’y a aucun employé …

Europe’s biggest banks register €25 billion profit in tax havens

Europe’s 20 biggest banks are registering over a quarter of their profits in tax havens – well out of proportion to the level of real economic activity that occurs there, according to a new report by Oxfam and the Fair Finance Guide International today.

The report, ‘Opening the Vaults,’ suggests the discrepancy may have arisen because some banks are using tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of tax, to facilitate tax dodging for their clients, or to circumvent regulations and legal requirements.

The research was made possible by new EU transparency rules that require European banks to publish information on the profits they make and the tax they pay in every country they operate. The report finds:

· Tax havens account for 26 percent of the profits made by the 20 biggest European banks – an estimated €25 billion – but only 12 percent of banks’ turnover and 7 percent of the banks’ employees.

· Subsidiaries in tax havens are on average twice as lucrative for banks as those elsewhere. For every €100 of activity, banks make €42 of profit in tax havens compared to a global average of €19.

· Bank employees in tax havens appear to be 4 times more productive than the average bank employee – generating an average profit of €171,000 per year compared to just €45,000 a year for an average employee.

· In 2015 European banks posted at least €628 million in profits in tax havens where they employ nobody. For example, the French bank BNP Paribas made €134 million tax free profit in the Cayman Islands despite having no staff based there.

· Some banks are reporting profits in tax havens while reporting losses elsewhere. For example, Germany’s Deutsche Bank registered low profits or losses in many major markets in 2015 while booking almost €2 billion in profits in tax havens.

· Luxembourg and Ireland are the most favored tax havens, accounting for 29 percent of the profits banks posted in tax havens in 2015. The 20 biggest banks posted €4.9 billion of profits in the tiny tax haven of Luxembourg in 2015 – more than they did in the UK, Sweden and Germany combined.

· Banks often pay little or no tax on the profits they post in tax havens. European banks paid no tax on €383 million of profit they posted in seven tax havens in 2015. In Ireland, European banks paid an effective tax rate of no more than 6 percent – half the statutory rate – with three banks (Barclays, RBS and Crédit Agricole) paying no more than 2 percent.

Manon Aubry, Oxfam’s Senior Tax Justice Advocacy Officer said: “New EU transparency rules give us a glimpse into the tax affairs of Europe’s biggest banks and it’s not a pretty sight. Governments must change the rules to prevent banks and other big businesses using tax havens to dodge taxes or help their clients dodge taxes.”

“All companies and individuals have a responsibly to pay their fair share of tax. Tax dodging deprives countries throughout Europe and the developing world of the money they need to pay for doctors, teachers and care workers,” said Aubry.

Many countries are being cheated out of the money needed to tackle poverty and inequality by corporate tax dodgers, with poor countries being hit the hardest. Tax dodging by multinational companies costs poor countries over €90 billion every year. This is enough money to provide an education for the 124 million children who aren’t in school and fund healthcare interventions that could prevent the deaths of at least six million children.

Transparency measures, such as the EU rules on public country-by-country reporting, are vital tools in the global fight against tax dodging. However, a new European Commission proposal designed to extend public reporting beyond the banking sector is flawed. The proposal is limited to companies with a turnover of €750 million or more, a measure that would exclude up to 90 percent of multinationals, and does not require companies to report on their activities in all the countries they operate – including developing countries.

“The EU’s transparency rules are starting to open up the often murky world of corporate taxation to public scrutiny. These rules must now be extended to ensure all large corporations provide financial reports for every country where they operate. This will make it easier for all countries – including the poorest – to establish if companies are paying their fair share of tax or not,” said Aubry.

Notes to editors

The report, ‘Opening the vaults: the use of tax havens by Europe’s biggest banks,’ a breakdown of bank data, and a methodology document is available here [INCLUDE BOX LINK]. The complete data on which Oxfam based its calculations is also available.

The 20 European banks assessed by Oxfam include: HSBC, Barclays, RBS, Lloyds and Standard Charter (UK); BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Société Générale, BPCE, and Crédit Mutuel-CIC headquartered (France); Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank AG, and IPEX (Germany); ING Group and Rabobank (Netherlands); UniCredit and Intesa Sanpaolo (Italy), Santander and BBVA (Spain); and Nordea (Sweden).

All banks were asked to comment on the findings of the report before publication – their responses are outlined in the report.

Oxfam is an international confederation of 19 non-governmental organizations working with partners in over 90 countries to end the injustices that cause poverty.

Fair Finance Guide International is an international civil society network, initiated by Oxfam that seeks to strengthen the commitment of banks and other financial institutions to social, environmental and human rights standards.

Aurore Chardonnet | EU Policy Advisor | Inequality and Taxation
Oxfam EU Advocacy Office | Challenging EU policies to make them work for people in poverty

Visit our web page


Au niveau européen, le point par Aurore Chardonnet (Oxfam – France) :

Hello CBCR lovers,
Today Oxfam tried its best to make clear that we needed a directive on public CBCR to be adopted with no further delay and met with ME P. Beres (FR MEP – ECON coordinator for S&D and involved in the JURI ECON discussion). We delivered the petition to end tax havens and get more tax transparency. I made clear today that now the Council was about to reach a general approach while the EP still did not have a draft report and that they needed to move fast. However she really made it clear she wanted ECON to be involved, together with JURI.

For the encounter see here 🙂
And you can retweet too 🙂 or EN version

Also, just to let you know that MEP Buzek (Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs) recommended shared competence between ECON and JURI (art 55) and this might be adopted soon (in the next 15 days). I do not think much can be done now. It is a pity – but MEP Beres told me she spent time securing the fact that the French Finance Minister who she knows well will never change the legal base (unanimity required) from accounting to tax. This might be positive consequence in the end because what we need is a legal base which is not on tax.

If really the legal base is to remain the same in Council, we really need the EP to just move faster – Also it means both JURI and ECON would be associated on an equal level so JURI will not be out.
Let’s also hope S&D will not lose rapporteurship in one or the other committee.

Aurore Chardonnet | EU Policy Advisor | Inequality and Taxation
Oxfam EU Advocacy Office | Challenging EU policies to make them work for people in poverty


Tout savoir et discuter sur le CBCR avec Alex Cobbham – un briefing ce 6 décembre 2016 – s’inscrire ici :


Le Conseil de l’UE porte un coup douloureux au projet de transparence fiscale – le combat d’arrière-garde du service juridique du Conseil …

MIS EN LIGNE LE 15/11/2016 À 11:33 – Le Soir


Le reporting public pays par pays est dans les limbes. Les pays européens ont désormais de quoi lui asséner le coup de grâce.

Qui veut la peau du reporting public pays par pays ? Cette proposition visant à obliger les entreprises à publier chaque année certains chiffres (chiffre d’affaires, bénéfices, impôts payés, nombre d’employés) semble, depuis le début, vouée à un destin difficile.

La question avait été évoquée en 2014 au lendemain du scandale LuxLeaks. Mais la Commission avait traîné des pieds pendant un an et demi avant de consentir à présenter une proposition en avril dernier, vu qu’elle n’avait trouvé aucun effet négatif sur la compétitivité des entreprises européennes.

Le service juridique du Conseil de l’UE (cénacle des Etats membres) vient désormais de donner un argument de poids à tous les détracteurs de la mesure : ce dossier est une question fiscale qui devrait être traitée à l’unanimité avec, pour seule contribution du Parlement européen, un avis non contraignant, a-t-il conclu lundi dans un avis juridique que Le Soir a pu consulter.

La Commission prévoyait que ce dossier soit décidé à la majorité qualifiée des pays européens sur pied d’égalité avec le Parlement. Un précédent que certains pays dénonçaient puisque les questions fiscales, toujours très sensibles, sont traitées à l’unanimité des Etats après une simple consultation des eurodéputés.

L’argument du service juridique du Conseil est le suivant : la Commission ne démontre pas que les multinationales constitueraient une menace aux intérêts du public justifiant que ces données fiscales soient accessibles à ce même public et permettant le recours à une base juridique liée au droit des sociétés. Les juristes du Conseil considèrent également que l’obligation de publier ces données doit être considérée comme une disposition fiscale.

Réunion mouvementée jeudi

Les pays opposés au reporting public (Luxembourg, Irlande, Chypre, Malte, Allemagne, Pologne, Autriche et Belgique dans une certaine mesure), dont certains avaient réclamé cette contribution du service juridique, ont eu la victoire modeste, lundi. Si la proposition devait in fine être décidée à l’unanimité, ce « serait difficile », disent plusieurs délégations. Voire la fin de l’histoire, concède une autre source.

Du côté des pays qui soutiennent le texte, comme la France, on fulmine. Les délégations qui ont demandé l’avis juridique « ne l’ont pas fait pour des raisons juridiques, mais politiques », critique-t-on au Conseil.

Mais le Parlement européen, qui voulait un reporting plus ambitieux que celui auquel s’est résolue la Commission, ne compte pas se laisser faire. « Il faut l’unanimité des Etats membres pour changer la base juridique de la proposition », nous explique l’eurodéputée autrichienne Evelyn Regner, à la tête des négociations pour le Parlement. « L’avis ne tient pas debout »,poursuit l’eurodéputé français Pascal Durant, qui se dit prêt à aller le contester devant la Cour de Justice de l’UE. Pour Elena Gaita, de l’ONG Transparency International, les pays européens essaient juste « de bloquer la voix du Parlement en utilisant des excuses juridiques sournoises ».

La Commission européenne, quant à elle, ne se remet pas en question. Il appartient désormais à la présidence en exercice du Conseil de définir comment aller de l’avant. Elle prendra la température ce jeudi, lors d’une réunion des experts du Conseil qui s’annonce mouvementée.


Un reporting public CBCR en France


Ce qu’un CBCR devrait comprendre pour remplir ses objectifs (R.Murphy) 

What country-by-country reporting data should look like


Et aux USA ? Il faudrait aussi un CBCR public avec un seuil de 45 millions $ de chiffre d’affaires et non de 850 comme le projette le fisc américain, réclament les ONG et quatre sénateurs dont Bernie Sanders !


8 juin 2016 : Pascal St Amans justifie le caractère non public du CBCR

in the context of the French debate on public CBCR here is an ITW of Pascal Saint Amans from the OECD.

– disclosing the data put the whole agreement on CBCR (Action 13 OECD) at risk. If EU companies publish their data, then third countries administration will have no interest in sharing their data. Power seats where multinationals are headquartered,
– let’s implement CBCR and when it will work well, then we can think of disclosing the data
– to analyse the data you need to be an expert
– publicity could undermine a company when there is an acquisition (easier to evaluate)
– the OECD will publish a tax havens list in July


12 May 2016
Twitter YouTube
 communiqué de l’OCDE – 39 signataires du protocole Action 13 du BEPS/concernant les CBCR

12/05/2016 – As part of continuing efforts to boost transparency by multinational enterprises (MNEs), Canada, Iceland, India, Israel, New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China signed today the Multilateral Competent Authority agreement for the automatic exchange of Country-by-Country reports (“CbC MCAA”), bringing the total number of signatories to 39 countries. The signing ceremony took place in Beijing, China.

The CbC MCAA allows all signatories to bilaterally and automatically exchange Country-by-Country Reports with each other, as contemplated by Action 13 of the BEPS Action Plan. It will help ensure that tax administrations obtain a complete understanding of how MNEs structure their operations, while also ensuring that the confidentiality of such information is safeguarded.

The OECD/G20 BEPS Project set out 15 key actions to reform the international tax framework and ensure that profits are reported where economic activities are carried out and value created. BEPS is of major significance for developing countries due to their heavy reliance on corporate income tax, particularly from MNEs.


La Commission a manqué encore une fois l’occasion de mettre fin réellement aux paradis fiscaux, déclarent les ONG.

Des photos de la manif d’Oxfam Solidarité Belgique :!collection452&k=e149f0223e

Reacting to today’s proposal from the European Commission on so-called public country-by-country reporting (CBCR), Jan Willem Goudriaan, General Secretary of EPSU said:

‘Despite the unprecedented scale of the Panama Papers revelations, the Commission has come forward with a proposal that falls short of much-needed transparency. This is not public country-by-country reporting: companies will only have to make data available about their tax and profits in EU countries and some tax havens on a common ‘blacklist’ whose criteria remain vague. Many known tax havens, like Switzerland and Delaware, will simply not be covered.


Responding to the European Commission’s proposal for country by country reporting for mulitnationals, Owen Espley, Tax Campaigner at War on Want said:

“The European Commission’s proposal is a smokescreen that will not stop multinationals dodging their taxes. Between 85-90% of the world’s multinationals will not have to report under the proposal and of the remainder that do, they won’t have to report in every country.  The Commission offers no assurance that notorious tax havens such as British Virgin Islands, Switzerland, or  Delaware in the US will be covered.

“The Commission has once more taken the side of tax dodging multinationals against the European public. The proposal is a recipe for more austerity, cuts to public services and tax competition, and leaves no seat at the table for southern countries, for whom genuine country-by-country reporting could help to collect taxes to fund essential public services.

“The European Commission’s proposal is a kick in the teeth to the hundreds of thousands of Europeans who have been demanding the EU take action to tackle tax dodging.”


Notes to Editors

Contact Ross Hemingway 07983 550 728 to arrange interviews.

  • Over 270,000 signatures have been collected on petitions calling for public country by country reporting. See
  • On 26 April 2016, the court case against LuxLeaks whistleblower Antoine Deltour will begin in Luxembourg. Later on, a similar case will begin against Edouard Perrin – a French journalist who covered the story. Both these men could face up to 5 years in prison, despite the fact that all they’ve done is to show the public that multinational corporations are dodging taxes.
  • Corporate tax dodging cost Zambia $3 million billion a year…


The European Commission has missed yet another chance to effectively end tax havens, campaigners say. Today’s proposal on tax transparency limits public country-by-country reporting to the EU and an arbitrary list of tax havens. This makes it impossible to effectively combat tax havens which have been at the center of scandals like the Panama Papers, LuxLeaks or OffshoreLeaks. Also, the EU executive’s proposal will only apply to a very small number of companies.

Oxfam’s EU tax policy advisor, Aurore Chardonnet, said: “The European Commission finally recognizes tax transparency as a powerful tool to fight tax avoidance. But today’s proposal is not country-by-country reporting, which is what’s needed. It appears the European Commission is more interested in saving face after the Panama Papers, instead of actually fixing the broken tax system.

“The Commission’s proposal only requires reports for EU member states and countries on what is likely to be an arbitrary list of tax havens. The Commission criteria to list tax havens are already absolutely vague, and we also expect EU member states to delay or oppose the process of compiling an official EU list. A much simpler solution would be big companies disclosing basic information for all countries they operate in.”

Financial Transparency Coalition’s Lead EU Advocate, Koen Roovers said: “Sadly, it took yet another massive leak to bring the collective world’s attention to the harm of financial secrecy and tax abuse. The European Commission has an opportunity to lead the way on corporate transparency, so it’s disappointing that their proposal fails to include global public country-by-country reporting for companies doing business in the EU. Instead they settled for a half-hearted hybrid that would keep most of the world in the dark.”

ActionAid’s EU tax advocacy officer, Kasia Szeniawska said: « The European Commission’s proposal, presented today, falls far short of what is needed to lift the veil of opacity that shrouds corporate tax deals. It is this opacity which enables multinational companies, to avoid tax in some of the world’s poorest countries as well as in the EU itself.

« The proposal lets off the hook the vast majority of multinational companies by setting a very high threshold for companies covered by the requirement. Also, the Commission misses the whole point of public country-by-country reporting when it suggests limiting the reporting to EU countries and a yet-to-be-agreed list of tax havens, which is likely to be selective and highly politicised. The result is that citizens, journalists and campaign groups won’t get the information they need to scrutinise multinationals’ global tax affairs, and there’s no assurance that the world’s poorest countries will get the information either.

« The European Parliament and the EU Member States should strengthen the proposal by ensuring that it covers all large multinationals, not only the biggest ones, and that it requires them to publish their tax information for all countries where they are present. The Panama Papers show that another half–hearted attempt to tackle tax avoidance simply isn’t good enough.”

Tove Ryding Tax Justice Coordinator at the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad) said: « As long as the proposal doesn’t cover all countries, multinational corporations will still have plenty of opportunities to hide their profits. So instead of solving the problem, this proposal would be moving the problem from one country to another, with multinationals still able to avoid taxes. We urge the European Member States and the Parliament to reject it and replace it with a meaningful proposal that delivers genuine public country by country reporting. »

Alvin Mosioma, Executive Director, Tax Justice Network – Africa: « It’s unfortunate that the European Commission failed to deliver full country-by-country reporting that could actually be of use outside of Europe, » said Alvin Mosioma, Executive Director of the Tax Justice Network – Africa. « This means multinationals will still be able to exploit the secrecy afforded to them in other regions, as they still won’t need to disclose data on countries across the African continent, throughout Asia, and the Americas. »

L’UE face à l’opacité fiscale des multinationales

Drapeaux européens se reflétant à l'entrée du Berlaymont, le bâtiment de la Commission européenne à Bruxelles.
Drapeaux européens se reflétant à l’entrée du Berlaymont, le bâtiment de la Commission européenne à Bruxelles. AFP / GEORGES GOBET

La Commission européenne présente mardi à Strasbourg de nouvelles mesures pour lutter contre l’opacité fiscale des multinationales au moment où le mégascandale des « Panama papers » accentue la pression sur tous les grands pays pour combattre ce fléau. La présentation au Parlement européen de ce plan élaboré par le commissaire européen chargé de la fiscalité, le Français Pierre Moscovici, et son collègue chargé de la stabilité financière, le Britannique Jonathan Hill, était prévue de longue date et survient après une consultation publique et une étude d’impact. Mais elle tombe à point nommé après l’onde de choc mondiale provoquée par les révélations du Consortium international des journalistes d’investigation (ICIJ) d’un système d’évasion fiscale à grande échelle. Concrètement, la Commission doit présenter une nouvelle directive prévoyant de rendre publiques – « pays par pays » au sein de l’Union européenne (UE) – les données comptables et fiscales des multinationales, soit leur chiffre d’affaires, leurs bénéfices, ainsi que l’assiette fiscale et les impôts payés dans les différents Etats membres. « Dès lors qu’elles ont une filiale dans l’UE et un chiffre d’affaires d’au moins 750 millions d’euros, les entreprises, quelle que soit leur nationalité – européenne, mais aussi américaine, australienne, chinoise, etc. – auront l’obligation de publier ces éléments », a précisé M. Moscovici lundi dans le quotidien Le Parisien. « Pour celles qui n’ont pas de filiale dans l’UE, nous demanderons les mêmes informations mais pour leur activité globale dans le monde entier en exigeant plus de détails pour leurs activités dans les pays qui seraient sur la liste des paradis fiscaux », a ajouté l’ex-ministre des finances français.

Toutefois, cette proposition ne va pas assez loin pour nombre d’organisations non gouvernementales qui réclament davantage de transparence. Ainsi l’ONG One déplore que seules les grandes entreprises (dont le chiffre d’affaires est supérieur à 750 millions d’euros) soient concernées par cette obligation de publier des informations de base. Autre faiblesse pointée du doigt par One : le maintien dans l’ombre des activités situées ailleurs que dans l’Union européenne, puisque la publication par pays se limite à ce bloc. « Sans ces informations, il sera impossible d’en savoir plus sur les activités des multinationales dans un grand nombre de paradis fiscaux et d’avoir des indications sur de possibles mécanismes d’évasion fiscale », regrettait récemment l’ONG. Les mesures présentées mardi s’inscrivent dans une croisade beaucoup plus vaste qu’a lancée l’exécutif européen contre la fraude fiscale, après le scandale LuxLeaks en novembre 2014, qui avait profondément terni l’entrée en fonction de Jean-Claude Juncker à la présidence de la Commission européenne. Mardi, la Commission doit également « proposer d’établir dans les six mois une liste noire européenne des paradis fiscaux ».


A Mr Jean-Claude Juncker

Président de la Commission européenne

Rue de la Loi, 200

1049 Bruxelles

Bruxelles, le  5 avril 2016




Cher Monsieur le président Juncker,

Nous, – organisations de la société civile et syndicats dont les noms suivent ci-joints – vous écrivons pour vous exprimer notre préoccupation à propos de la proposition prochaine de la Commission concernant les informations fiscales à fournir par les sociétés multinationales. Nous vous pressons de prendre vos distances avec  le texte provisoire qui a pu circuler dans les médias récemment et de vous prononcer en faveur d’un réel bilan comptable (reporting) pays par pays (CBCR) à rendre public. C’est seulement de cette manière que la proposition pourra fournir une réelle transparence sur les bénéfices et impôts payés par les multinationales.

La proposition provisoire, publiée par les médias le 21 mars, contient plusieurs éléments préoccupants. D’abord, l’obligation pour les multinationales d’établir leur rapport pays par pays seulement pour les pays de l’Union européenne. Les données des pays extérieurs à l’Union seraient quant à elles, fournies sous forme de données additionnées (aggregate), ce qui rendrait leur usage impropre aux objectifs de transparence recherchés.

Un rapport pays par pays rendu public, devrait fournir les informations fondamentales sur les activités des sociétés multinationales, en y incluant les impôts payés sur les bénéfices réalisés dans les pays où elle opère. Avec la publication de données ne concernant que les pays de l’UE, la proposition divulguée dans la presse, permettrait en fait aux multinationales de continuer à déplacer leurs bénéfices hors Union européenne et tiendrait ainsi toujours les citoyens dans l’obscurité (sur un recours éventuel aux paradis fiscaux). Tout ceci serait également sans utilité pour les pays en développement puisqu’ils n’obtiendraient aucune information spécifique concernant leurs pays. Non seulement ceci minerait les tentatives de ces pays de lever des recettes fiscales adéquates mais ce serait également contraire à l’engagement de l’Union européenne en faveur d’une politique de développement cohérente.

Deuxièmement, fixer le seuil obligatoire de ces déclarations publiques (PCBCR) à 750 millions € de chiffre d’affaires annuel consolidé, exclurait 85 à 90% des multinationales de cette obligation, selon une estimation de l’OCDE. La proposition de CBCR, adoptée par le Parlement européen à Strasbourg dans le cadre de la Directive sur les droits des actionnaires, en conformité avec la définition propre à l’UE des « grandes entreprises », couvre toutes les grandes sociétés répondant à deux critères sur trois ; elle y inclut un seuil de 40 millions € de chiffre d’affaires. Un seuil moins élevé devrait  correspondre à plus de sociétés, fournir davantage de données sur les activités des multinationales et assurer ainsi une meilleure concurrence.

Troisièmement, les éléments fournis devraient donnent une image claire du lieu où les bénéfices sont créés et des paiements d’impôts qui y correspondent. Le projet de proposition actuel omet trop de nombreux éléments importants, comme les actifs, les ventes et une liste complète des filiales – contrairement au modèle mis au point par l’OCDE dans le point 13 de son plan d’action BEPS et dans la directive sur les droits des actionnaires (SRD) du Parlement européen.

Sous votre direction, la Commission européenne a de manière répétée déclaré son soutien à la transparence ainsi que son engagement pour la lutte contre l’évasion fiscale. Alors que des scandales fiscaux de sociétés continuent à être mis à jour, il est essentiel que la Commission saisisse cette occasion pour restaurer la confiance du public dans nos systèmes fiscaux et prennent des initiatives concrètes pour combattre les inégalités extrêmes et la pauvreté, ici et dans les pays en développement.

Nous vous pressons dès lors de faire en sorte que la proposition finale de CBCR de la Commission européenne qui sera présentée en avril, prenne en compte les questions soulevées plus haut et qu’elle soit dès lors un instrument efficace de transparence extrêmement nécessaire dans la lutte contre l’évasion fiscale des sociétés et la corruption. (voir signatures plus bas en fin du texte anglais)


Jean-Claude Juncker President of the European Commission

200, Rue de la Loi 1049 Brussels – Brussels, 5 April, 2016

Commission proposal on disclosure of income tax information by certain multinational corporations

Dear President Juncker,

We, the undersigned civil society organisations and trade unions, are writing to you to express our concern regarding the European Commission’s upcoming proposal on disclosure of income tax information by multinational corporations. We urge you to move from the intra-EU reporting that the leaked draft would deliver to actual public country-by-country reporting. Only by doing so will the proposal deliver real transparency on profits made and taxes paid by multinationals.
The draft proposal published in the media on 21 March contains several worrying elements.

Firstly, the obligation for multinationals to report on a country-by-country basis only inside the EU, while publishing aggregated data from all third countries, would make this proposal unfit for purpose.
Public country-by-country reporting should provide the public with key information on the activities of multinationals, including the taxes paid on profits made in each country in which they operate. By only publishing country-by-country data from EU countries, the proposal as leaked would effectively allow multinationals to continue shifting their profits out of the EU while still keeping citizens in the dark. It would also make the measure useless for developing countries as they would not be able to get any country-specific information. Not only does this undermine any chances of collecting adequate public revenues, it would also be contrary to the EU’s commitment to policy coherence for development.

Secondly, setting the threshold for companies covered by the reporting requirement at €750 million in annual consolidated turnover would, according to the OECD’s estimates, exclude 85-90 per cent of multinationals from the reporting requirement. The proposal on public country-by-country reporting put forward by the European Parliament in the Shareholders’ Rights Directive, in accordance with the EU’s own existing definition of “large undertakings”, covers all large companies that meet two out of three criteria, including a threshold of €40 million in turnover. A lower threshold would cover more companies, providing more data on the activities of multinationals and ensuring a more level playing field.

Thirdly, the disclosure elements should give a clear picture of whether taxes are paid where the profits are generated. The Commission’s current proposal leaves out many important elements – such as assets, sales and a full list of subsidiaries – contrary to the templates developed by the OECD under BEPS Action 13 and the European Parliament in the Shareholders’ Rights Directive.
Under your leadership, the European Commission has repeatedly stated its support for transparency as well as its commitment to the fight against tax avoidance. As corporate tax scandals continue to unfold, it is crucial that the Commission seizes this opportunity to restore public trust in our tax systems and to take concrete steps to fight extreme inequality and poverty both at home and in developing countries.

We therefore urge you to make sure the final proposal on public country-by-country reporting that the European Commission will present in April takes the above mentioned issues into account in order for it to be an effective tool that delivers the transparency urgently needed in the fight against corporate tax avoidance and corruption.
Yours sincerely,
ActionAid APIT Portugal Attac Austria Attac France Attac Ireland CCFD-Terre Solidaire Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) Centre national de coopération au développement, CNCD-11.11.11 11.11.11 – Koepel van de Vlaamse Noord Zuidbeweging Change Partnership Christian Aid Ireland Collectif Roosevelt Debt and Development Coalition Ireland Diakonia Ekvilib Institute European Trade Union Confederation European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad) European Public Service Union Fair Tax Mark Financial Transparency Coalition Forum Syd French Platform on Tax Havens Global Policy Forum Glopolis IGO Justice et Paix Kairos Europe Kepa Koordinierungsstelle der Österreichischen Bischofskonferenz für internationale Entwicklung und Mission Methodist Tax Justice Network UK Netzwerk Steuergerechtigkeit Observatoire Citoyen pour la Transparence Financière Internationale Oxfam International Réseau Foi et Justice Afrique Europe SHERPA Tax Research UK Tax Justice Network Tax Justice Network – Norway Tax Reconciliations Transparency International EU -Transparency International France War on Want Za Zemiata – Friends of the Earth Bulgaria – Logos des signataires


La position d’Eurodad :


Alors que le commissaire P. Moscovici souhaite un CBCR public, une fuite de « Politico »  (21 mars), reprise par le FT, révèle que la Commission ne demandera pas de publier les comptes de filiales hors UE et donc éventuellement situées dans des paradis fiscaux : inacceptable pour S. Giegold (Verts européens)

1. Leaked public #CBCR proposal by @EU_Commission: with disclosure limited to #EU, #MNCs profit shifting remains hidden…

2. Why does @EU_Commission dispense with full disclosure not only of #MNCs with headquarter in #EU, but of all operating in EU via subs?

3. #Australia #China require such direct reporting by subsidiaries of #MNCs already for non-public @OECD #CBCR, and #USA did similar via #FATCA

4. @EU_Commission #CBCR proposal lumps tax havens and developing countries together = no value to latter. Policy coherence 4 development? #PCDI

Leak: Commission to impose country-by-country tax reporting on companies –  — By Quentin Ariès – 3/21/16, 7:44 PM CET

The European Commission is likely to push multinational companies operating in the European Union to disclose all their tax information country-by-country if they have a revenue of over €750 million annually.

In a proposal leaked to POLITICO, the Commission is pushing this disclosure as one of the main changes to the so-called Accounting and Transparency Directives of 2013 for companies established in the EU.

The draft directive will require companies to publish on their website “understandable” tax information over the past five years. Companies will also have to disclose a brief description of their activities, the number of employees, their annual revenue, and the amount of profit and loss before tax.

The draft directive also puts forward a proposal for EU companies to publish their tax information in countries outside the Union where they operate. However, it does not make it mandatory for companies to break down this information country-by-country.

“It is unacceptable that payments to tax havens outside of the EU shall remain in darkness,” said Sven Giegold, an MEP from the Green group.

But Commission sources said it was not legally possible for it to impose such a reporting requirement on companies operating in countries outside the EU.

Earlier this month, the Council of finance ministers also discussed a proposal the Commission made in January for an automatic exchange of information among national tax administrations in order to trace tax evasion.

The final version of the Commission’s directive is planned to be published on April 12.
To view online:

To update your POLITICO Pro notification preferences, visit


Un article du Financial Times, sur la même « fuite » :

March 21, 2016 7:49 pm

The biggest companies in Europe will be forced to disclose more clearly the taxes they pay and profits they make in individual countries in an effort to make it harder for them to conceal untaxed cash piles.

A copy of plans from the European Commission, seen by the Financial Times, would require multinationals with annual turnover exceeding €750m to publish the information each year on their websites. The rules would hit EU- headquartered companies as well as other corporations with subsidiaries in Europe. Around 6,000 companies in total would be affected, some 2,000 of which are EU-based.

But in a significant disappointment for tax-justice campaigners, the scope of the disclosure rules will be limited to activities within Europe, leaving a lack of transparency on profit shifting to non-EU tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

The introduction of country-by-country reporting rules has been a longstanding request of tax campaigners and members of the European Parliament, who argue it is the only effective means to shed light on the labyrinthine schemes used by some companies to reduce their tax bills. The European Commission estimates that such “aggressive tax planning” costs national treasuries between €50bn and €70bn per year.

It is also responding to public outrage over the disclosure in 2014 of a cache of Luxembourg tax documents, which showed that up to 340 multinational companies, ranging from Ikea to Pepsi, funnelled profits through the Grand Duchy to lower their tax bills in some instances to as little as 1 per cent.

While George Osborne, UK chancellor of the exchequer, earlier this year lent his support to the introduction of such rules, the idea has raised hackles in some other EU nations amid concern about its impact on companies’ competitiveness. Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s finance minister, said earlier this month that sharing of country-by-country data between national tax authorities should not lead to information being made public.

Employers’ groups have also warned that transparency requirements could put EU companies at a disadvantage to rivals based in other parts of the world.

Key parts of the proposals seen by the FT, however, fall far short of what tax-justice campaigners say would be needed to blow the cover off sophisticated avoidance strategies.

In some respects, the proposals even go less far than existing country-by-country reporting rules that the EU introduced for banks in 2015.

Crucially, data on activities outside the EU would not have to be broken down country by country. Instead, firms could aggregate data on, for example, profits made in all non-EU countries into one lump sum. The same applies for taxes and other information to be disclosed.

Sven Giegold, a German member of the European Parliament’s Green group, said that this limitation meant that “tax havens outside of the EU would remain in darkness”.

“This is not the country-by-country reporting the European Parliament demanded. The commission has to revise its final proposal,” he said.

But commission officials defended their approach, saying that pushing the plans any further would have led the EU into a legal minefield. A specific concern was to prevent discrimination against EU companies vis-à-vis their global competitors.

Tax havens outside the EU will remain in darkness

Also at issue is the €750m threshold, which means that only 10-15 per cent of multinationals will be captured by the rules, according to EU data. This sample would, nevertheless, account for more than 90 per cent of corporate revenues in Europe.

According to the text of the plans, companies would be required to disclose country-by-country data on number of employees, net turnover, amount of profit or loss before tax, as well as on the amount of income tax accrued and paid.

Tove Maria Ryding, tax justice co-ordinator at the European Network on Debt and Development, said a proposal that required multinational corporations to report only on what they do in the EU “would be meaningless.”

“It would also be very problematic if the European Commission decides it should only apply to companies with minimum turnover of €750m per year. This would mean that 85 to 90 per cent of the world’s multinational corporations would not have to report anything at all.”



Les ministres des finances européens s’accordent sur un échange entre administrations publiques  et donc limité

la réaction des ONG synthétisée par Eurodad :

et Bercy accepterait des échanges d’information rendues publiques[actualites]-20160222